Sitting of 4 December 2003

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

    Students
    John Barrett: How many Scottish-domiciled students have enrolled at (a) English and (b) Welsh universities since September 1999 [141756]
    The Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education (Alan Johnson): The latest information available for 2001–02 shows that there were 26,456 Scottish—domiciled student enrolments at English higher education institutions and 672 at Welsh HEIs. In 1999, there were 24,305 such students at English HEIs and 518 at Welsh HEIs.
    John Barrett: Will not Scottish students have to pay up to £3,000 in up-front fees while their English colleagues will be able to defer those fees until after graduation? Will not the introduction of those fees increase the barriers to widening access to university education in England, whereas those barriers have been reduced in Scotland, with more than 53 per cent. of 18-year-olds now accessing university?
    Alan Johnson: Under devolution, the Scottish Executive rightly decide what happens in Scotland. It is important to realise that the figures have remained constant since not just 1999 but 1997. There has been no reduction in the number of Scottish students looking to study in England since the introduction of fees. Indeed, in Scotland, Scottish students pay £2,000 into the graduate endowment scheme; that situation will continue unless it is changed by the Scottish Executive.
    Mr. Huw Edwards: Does my right hon. Friend agree that more Scottish students would be attracted to study in Wales if the Welsh Assembly could implement its Labour party manifesto policy of six months ago not to have top-up fees? Has my right hon. Friend discussed that with Jane Davidson, the Welsh Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning? If the
    630
    Welsh Assembly can avoid top-up fees, will the Government consider applying that policy in England, too?
    Alan Johnson: As supporters of devolution, we keep in constant touch with my opposite number in the Welsh Assembly, Jane Davidson, and with the Scottish Executive. The maintenance grant that is to be introduced next year will apply to Wales as well as England. I understand that the Welsh Assembly has ruled out introducing variable fees until 2007, when it will reconsider the issue through the Rees commission. That is entirely appropriate. Until then, Welsh students will continue to pay the £1,125 up-front fee.
    Adam Price: If I understood the Minister's response correctly, it will be up to the devolved Administrations to decide whether they want to offer those of their students who are studying in England the option of deferment by providing them with a loan. Will they have to find that money from within their existing budgets, or will additional moneys be made available to enable them to offer that option?
    Alan Johnson: They would have to find it from within their existing budgets. The other important point to mention is that the Bill that is to be introduced fully devolves the issue of student support to the Welsh Assembly. We are happy to do that in the spirit of devolution, but I understand that Plaid Cymru opposes it.

    Tuition Fees
    Mr. David Chaytor: What assessment he has made of the differences between flat-rate and variable university tuition fees, with particular reference to the equity of each. [141757]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Charles Clarke): Our assessment is that a flat-rate fees system would be more unfair than a variable fees system. It would force every university to charge the same amount across the board, irrespective of the demand, nature or quality of the course, or the potential rate of return for the student, thus removing the flexibility to target foundation degrees or degrees in subjects such as physics or other sciences. It would lead to course closures, institutions having no flexibility in deciding what to do, and lower quality. It would mean that we would be unable to influence access through the regulator, as we propose. Finally, it would lead to redistribution from poorer to more affluent students.
    Mr. Chaytor: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is not it the case that the majority of students in the United Kingdom have always been eligible for variable fees because most of them are not full-time undergraduates? If he were vice-chancellor of a smaller, post-1992 university, at what amount would he be inclined to set the fee?
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend's first point is correct. The undergraduate fee is unique when compared with other fees, because of the current regulation. If I were in

    631
    the enviable circumstance that my hon. Friend described, I would set a range of fees for different courses in the university of which I was vice-chancellor, taking account of the demand, the nature of the course and the sort of encouragement that I wished to offer to get students for specific subjects. I would not set a fee for the whole university but would consider each course separately.
    Mr. Tim Yeo: Yesterday, the Secretary of State claimed that a university that charged a zero fee would encourage students to study there, thus admitting that universities that charge a full fee would discourage students from studying there. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has shown that fees at the level that the Government propose would raise only a fraction of the money that they need to implement their policy. How high does he expect the fee to rise—to £4,000 or £5,000 a year? Whatever the level, is not it true that the Government's policy means that access to university will be on the basis of ability to pay, not academic merit?
    Mr. Clarke: First, although I have not had an opportunity to consider in detail the Institute for Fiscal Studies report, which the Evening Standard commissioned, I have been briefed on it and it is based on a set of tendentious assumptions both about the fees to be charged and the Government's policies. Secondly, we have been clear that, until at least the end of the next Parliament, there will be a maximum cap on all fees of £3,000 in real terms. The talk of £4,000 or £5,000 is not relevant. I have never hidden the fact that the fee will be a factor in a student's choice of course—that is obvious. However, it is only one among a range of factors, which include the rate of return from specific courses, the academic tradition and whether students want to study away from home
    Jeff Ennis: Recent research commissioned by the Secretary of State's Department shows that under the existing system, students from poorer backgrounds are leaving university with debts of almost £10,000, whereas other students leave with debts of £7,000 or just under. Given that, will my right hon. Friend explain how setting a differential fee will not encourage more working class children to choose the cheapest course closest to home?
    Mr. Clarke: There are several different answers to that question. First, as my hon. Friend appreciates, a series of measures is in place to provide resources for students from poorer backgrounds to go to university. The fee remission, the grant and bursaries from different universities are examples. Secondly, it is important to have a system of repayment that is based on the tax system, rather than a different sort of loan, and a zero real rate of interest, thereby taking account of an individual graduate's earnings. Another sort of loan would not do that. Both points are significant reassurances to people who intend to go to university.
    Mr. Phil Willis: Does the Secretary of State agree that whether resources for universities derive from differential fees, flat-rate fees or progressive income tax, the Chancellor will have to make an estimate of the amount of money that he will loan to universities in 2005–06? In the
    632
    previous Session, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) asked the Government what the gap was. The Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education spoke at a meeting that I recently attended and said that it was £1 billion. Will the Secretary of State clearly define the gap that differential fees, flat-rate fees or any other mechanism are trying to plug?
    Mr. Clarke: There are two points. First, there is not a gap; the question is how much money would be raised. Estimates vary between £1.2 billion, £1 billion and £1.5 billion, depending entirely on the fees that are charged. I shall not make an estimate for the simple reason that we do not know the sort of fees that different universities will charge for different courses. It would be ludicrous to try to pretend that we did.
    The second point is much more important, and I think that it is to what the hon. Gentleman was referring. I have made it clear, and I take the opportunity to do so again today, that we see the fee income that will be generated, however much it may be, as being additional to the commitment made by the state in the comprehensive spending review. That amount went up significantly in the last CSR, and I expect it to increase in the next one. In other words, we are talking about the fees representing extra money to universities, rather than a replacement for money from the taxpayer.
    Mr. Shaun Woodward: Will the Secretary of State tell the House what impact he expects his proposals to have on my constituents, whether they will lead to greater aspirations being realised for students from poorer income families and, specifically, whether there is a case for the Government looking at the threshold level being indexed to average earnings in the country?
    Mr. Clarke: My assessment is that our proposals will make it more, rather than less, likely that young people in my hon. Friend's constituency will see university as a real possibility. That is the example in other countries that have established such a system, such as Australia. The example of the Cambridge bursary scheme announced last week, which would provide £4,000 on top of the £1,125 fee remission and the £1,000 grant to allow students from poorer families to go to Cambridge, is a major new development even before our proposals have been introduced, but it was influenced by them, and it proves that our system will generate precisely the kind of ambition in my hon. Friend's constituency that I know he wants to promote.

    Grammar School Ballots
    Mr. Jonathan Djanogly: What recent estimate he has made of the cost of a grammar school ballot. [141758]
    The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband): The cost of a ballot will depend on the particular circumstances in the area in which it takes place.
    Mr. Djanogly: At a time when the Government are supposedly supporting diversity in the types of school on offer and in the specialisations that schools can

    633
    provide, why are they still fixated on attacking grammar schools and wasting time and money through their failing ballot system?
    Mr. Miliband: It is Conservative Front and Back Benchers who are fixated on the 4.5 per cent. of schools in the country that are grammar schools. We are fixated on raising standards in all schools.
    Dr. Phyllis Starkey: When the Minister is considering ballots for grammar schools, will he look again at the experience of Milton Keynes in the 1990s, when the Tory-controlled Buckinghamshire county council forced us to go through three successive ballots to try to persuade people to vote for grammar schools, which I am happy to say they did not? Does not that demonstrate the Tory party's continuing obsession with trying to concentrate resources on a small number of children instead of using them across the piece to bring up educational achievement, particularly for low achievers?
    Mr. Miliband: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Government are committed to ensuring that there is no extension of the 11-plus. Final decisions on school organisation, including grammar schools, are a matter for local people.
    Bob Spink: Could we have ballots for new grammar schools?
    Mr. Miliband: The hon. Gentleman was here in 1998 when the House debated the School Standards and Framework Bill, which specifically excluded debate on new grammar schools. [Interruption.] I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon: I am told that he was not here. But some of my hon. Friends were, and the House made it absolutely clear that we want no extension of selection at age 11. If the hon. Gentleman's party wants to make that the battleground for the next general election, it is very welcome to do so.

    Apprentice Footballers
    Joan Walley: What changes he plans to make in training provision for apprentice footballers. [141759]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Ivan Lewis): Skills Active, the sector skills council for active leisure and learning, and the Learning and Skills Council are developing a modern apprenticeship framework in sporting excellence, which includes football. It is focused on aspiring professional athletes; it will cover their needs as sporting professionals, support their long-term career needs once their sporting career ends and offer a safety net for those athletes who are unsuccessful.
    Ms Walley: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Much as we would like every trainee footballer to become a Stanley Matthews, David Beckham or Wayne Rooney, something like 85 per cent. of trainee footballers fall out of the game over three to four years. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that he will meet again with the Professional Footballers Association to
    634
    make sure that the two-year apprenticeship scheme proposed by the Learning and Skills Council will meet all the academic needs of footballers? We need to make sure that those who do not make it are able to pursue education and training for other careers, which may not be in football or even in sport.
    Mr. Lewis: As a Manchester City supporter, I do not want young people to aspire to be David Beckham, but I am aware of the concerns expressed by some in football at the proposed changes and the timetable for implementation. Earlier this week, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) and I met representatives of the Professional Footballers Association and the chief executive of SkillsActive. I have asked them to convene a further meeting with representatives of football, including the premier league, to discuss the best way forward. It is essential that every effort he made to ensure that the new modern apprenticeship properly meets the needs of young people embarking on a career in the professional game. This issue is of equal importance to big clubs such as Manchester City and to smaller clubs such as Port Vale and Norwich City.
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Bearing in mind the considerable wealth that some of these young footballers could earn in later life, should they not pay top-up fees?
    Mr. Lewis: The main thing about the ability of young people to enter football as a career is the fact that they pay no up-front fees at all.

    School Funding (Norfolk)
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: When he will next meet Norfolk local education authority to discuss school budgets. [141760]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills(Mr. Stephen Twigg): My right hon. Friend has no plans to meet Norfolk local education authority to discuss school funding. Measures to restore stability and certainty to school funding were announced on 29 October and will provide a guaranteed minimum increase in every school's per pupil funding, additional resources at LEA level, which can be targeted at schools with additional pressures, and a package of transitional support, including grant of £5.3 million for Norfolk LEA that can be targeted at those schools facing the greatest difficulty in bringing their budgets back into balance.
    Mr. Bellingham: Is the Minister aware that the Secretary of State was assuring Norfolk schools this time last year that all of them would have a reasonable increase in their budget in line with inflation? As he is well aware, events turned out differently, and many schools in my constituency suffered their worst budget in living memory. Beacon schools such as St. Edmundsbury, Reffley and Fairstead had cuts of up to

    635
    £100,000 and had either to raid their capital reserve or to get rid of staff. The Secretary of State is saying exactly what he said last year. Can we trust him?
    Mr. Twigg: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding us of the events of the past year. We have tried to learn lessons from those events. I should like to quote Alec Byrne, a Conservative member of Norfolk county council and cabinet member for education, who said:
    "The better the overall funding level for Norfolk, the fewer problems there will be in schools. We have been working hard to persuade the Government that Norfolk needs a better overall settlement, and that is what we appear to have achieved."
    Mr. Tim Collins: If the Secretary of State should change his view about meeting Norfolk LEA, will he and the Minister address themselves not only to the overall level of budgets but to the fairness of allocation, especially to rural areas? My hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) has received a letter in the past week from the head teacher of Sheringham high school in Norfolk saying that it will have to sack two and a half teachers next year because of the new funding settlement. In my constituency, as in many other rural constituencies represented by hon. Members on both sides of the House, schools, such as Settlebeck school, are for the first time ever having to go cap in hand to parents to ask for money for school books. When will the Government be fair in allocating resources to rural areas?
    Mr. Twigg: We seek to be fair to all areas, including rural areas. If representatives from Norfolk LEA request a meeting with my right hon. Friend, he will be more than happy to meet them. I am astonished at the hon. Gentleman's comments, given the situation in his area. In Cumbria, per pupil spending on education has increased since 1997 by £960.
    Michael Fabricant: What about Norfolk?
    Mr. Twigg: The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) referred to Cumbria in his question. I am happy to talk about Norfolk, and to remind the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) of the positive response from the Conservative council there. I only wish that we had the same honest response from Conservative Members in this House.
    Mr. Richard Bacon: May I just say that Alec Byrne is a very sound man? Last week, I sat on a platform with him talking about the council tax—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could put question 6.

    Schools (Private Finance Initiative)
    Mr. Richard Bacon: If he will make a statement about the use of the private finance initiative in the redevelopment of schools. [141761]
    The Minister for Children (Margaret Hodge): The use of the private finance initiative in schools has been a popular and successful programme. It has been popular in that more than 100 of the 150 local education authorities in England have applied to take part, and it has been successful in that we have progressed from one contract covering one school in 1997 to 64 contracts covering 600 schools today. Services have started under 39 of those contracts, and they represent a private sector capital investment of more than £1.7 billion.
    Mr. Bacon: The Secretary of State has talked about a transfer system for capital allocation grants for schools. Hobart high school in south Norfolk, a very fine school, which the Secretary of State and I visited together to look at the classroom of the future, would willingly forgo its capital grant allocation for several years if it could get a relatively small sum to finish off the work going on under the private finance initiative so that it could properly meet all its students' needs. Do Ministers agree that there is room for more flexibility in the way capital allocation occurs in the period after a PFI contract has been let? The Secretary of State suggested that he would look at that matter. Will Ministers keep it under review, especially as the sums involved may be quite small? That could make all the difference to the schools involved.
    Margaret Hodge: The PFI contract for Norfolk has been particularly complex but innovative, because we have been trying to provide capital infrastructure and services in a wide range of rural schools. I think that it is the first project of that kind, and there have, to that extent, been problems with it. However, on what the hon. Gentleman asks for in relation to Hobart high school, we are looking at the situation there, and I agree entirely that we need to be flexible in how we administer that PFI contract to ensure that we get value and spread the benefits to as many schools as we can in Norfolk.
    James Purnell: Will the Minister congratulate Tameside council and Alder high school on their new building, which has been built on budget and on time and has transformed applications to that school? It was significantly under-subscribed and now it is significantly over-subscribed. Given that record of achievement, will she look seriously at Tameside's bid for a wide range of investment in six or seven new schools in the constituency?
    Margaret Hodge: I congratulate Tameside council. Indeed, I congratulate all the councils that are engaged in the PFI programme. Without it, we would not have been able to achieve the level of capital investment in our schools that we have. We inherited a legacy of £750 million being invested in schools. By 2005–06, the figure will be over £5 billion. That is partly due to the PFI element. Of course, we will consider the bid from Tameside, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will recognise that that bid has to be considered alongside many other bids by people anxious to participate in the programme.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: I represent a constituency with several PFI schools. There is satisfaction that schools have been built on budget and

    637
    on time, but there is growing alarm among head teachers at the amount of time that they have to devote to negotiating the minutiae of things such as telephone charges and who is responsible for erecting shelves in school libraries. However, can the Minister clarify one point in particular? When there is a dispute between a school and a PFI landlord about the priority to be given to the safety of children over such things as gates, who is responsible—the landlord or the school?
    Margaret Hodge: I will look in detail at issues that the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise with me. Clearly, the safety of children must be paramount, and that should be built into the terms of the contract as they are specified. If there is a problem with a particular contract in his constituency, he should draw it to our attention. We will certainly examine it.
    Clearly, the skills of negotiating contracts are new for head teachers and others engaged in PFIs, but I hear from many head teachers that they feel relieved at not having to get involved in the day-to-day running of things such as changing light bulbs or making sure that clocks are synchronised in classrooms. That enables them to focus much more of their time on what they are there for, which is raising standards in the classroom.

    Student Bursaries
    Ross Cranston: What plans he has for university student bursaries; and if he will make a statement. [141763]
    Dr. Brian Iddon: What plans he has to provide university student bursaries; and if he will make a statement. [141767]
    The Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education(Alan Johnson): We have made it clear that universities will need to offer bursaries and other forms of financial support in their access agreement if they want to charge a fee above the standard level. We are considering and discussing the precise contents of access agreements and the duties of the office for fair access and will make a statement in due course.
    Ross Cranston: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. While I fully support the policy on fees, one aspect of its fairness is the availability of bursaries. Not all universities have the same kitty as the university of Cambridge. What about universities such as my local university, the university of Wolverhampton? What expectations does he have of such universities, and what has been their response so far to the idea of providing bursaries?
    Alan Johnson: I have written to the university of Wolverhampton, and copied my letter to local MPs, because the university made a mistake in its calculations, which it has accepted, in relation to the money that may be available. I know that many local MPs were influenced by that miscalculation. Like many modern universities, it is determined to ensure that it gives bursaries. Its understandable and genuine concern is that because it has a higher level of non-traditional students—to use the jargon—it may be forced to put more of its extra income into widening participation,
    638
    and in a sense be penalised for succeeding in widening participation in the past. We are seeking to deal with that important concern in discussions with the university sector.
    Dr. Iddon: The transparency review process showed that all universities are short of money to support their teaching infrastructure, including staff salaries. Is it reasonable to expect all those universities to recycle some of the fees money into bursaries? Would it not be better if the Government supported poorer students by increased maintenance grants? Will my right hon. Friend explain the expression "above the standard fee"?
    Alan Johnson: Universities need money to invest in their infrastructure and the pay of people who work for them—I am talking about all staff, not just academics, whose pay has fallen behind—and they tell us that they will also earmark a proportion of the extra money for bursaries. Whether universities should be forced to put a certain amount of money to one side is a controversial point that we are in discussions about.
    The definition of the standard fee is the current £1,125. When it comes to universities being able to charge more than that, under our proposals there is, for the first time, a financial imperative for them to reach sensible access agreements to ensure that they are paying more than just lip service to widening participation—as I am assured that almost all of them are, so that should not create an insuperable problem.
    Mr. Tim Boswell: Do Ministers appreciate that while they temporise in taking decisions and submitting them for the judgment of the House, universities have to get on with the job of issuing prospectuses, including those for students who will commence their studies in 2006, at a time when the details of the tuition fee structure, the bursaries available—state or private—and the access agreements are completely unclear to them?
    Alan Johnson: Let me try to make matters clear. The new arrangements will not be introduced until after the next general election—after 2006. The hon. Gentleman is quite right. We need to ensure that we have the Bill in place and that it receives Royal Assent in time for the cohort of students who are looking to take up their places in 2006–07 to be aware of the fees and the access agreements, and we are working to that time scale.
    Chris Grayling: Bursaries help poorer students, but Ministers seem to be totally unaware of the impact that their proposals will have on lower-paid graduates, particularly those in key jobs. Is the Minister aware that, under his plans, 10 years after starting work an NHS radiographer will be paying £1,500 a year in debt repayments—almost 7 per cent. of take-home pay—and still have debts of more than £10,000 outstanding? How will that help to tackle the acute shortage of young people who are willing to go into key roles such as that?
    Alan Johnson: Let me make it quite clear that currently the average debt, as recorded by the student income and expenditure survey, which was published last week, is £8,666. We estimate that the figure is likely

    639
    to increase to around £15,000, but for poorer students there is fee remission and the introduction of a maintenance grant, and there is a much more beneficial system of repayment. The main issue is how to get more money into our universities. The hon. Gentleman, whom I welcome to his post, has to explain how a serious, mainstream political party can suggest that the answer to this problem is to take away the £900 million that universities currently have and do away at a stroke with 100,000 places. I rather like the hon. Gentleman—we are going to get on famously. He said that the problem for students—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I listened to what the hon. Gentleman had to say—the Minister does not need to tell the House.
    Mr. Eric Joyce: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we are to create much wider access to the leadership of our national institutions and leading companies, we must first open up access to our elite universities? Bursaries will do exactly that.
    Alan Johnson: That is absolutely right. We need to get youngsters from all backgrounds to acquire two decent A-levels, because where that happens, nine out of 10 go on to higher education, but there is an 8 per cent. gap between those who apply to Russell group universities, for instance, and to other types of university. That is why the Russell group published yesterday a very welcome document on its intention to provide bursaries post-2006 to help tackle this problem. My hon. Friend is right: for the first time, we have an opportunity to close the obscene social class gap that has dogged our higher education sector for the past 50 years.
    Mr. Jim Cousins: On bursaries created out of fee income, will universities be free to have their own tests of income, in order to decide who gets them and who does not, or do the Government intend to impose a standard test of income across all bursary schemes?
    Alan Johnson: No, we do not intend to apply a standard test of income. We intend to look at how universities are helping to widen participation, and to help students from poorer backgrounds. That could take the form of outreach activity in primary schools, which has had a marked effect, and raising the aspiration of 14-year-olds to go to university. It could also take the form of providing extra pastoral care, student support through extra grants, and so on. The access regulator's directions will be published when the House considers the legislation. We need to be clear that a proper arrangement is in place to help such students, and it forms a major element of our proposals.

    Post-16 Education
    Sir Nicholas Winterton: What assessment he has made of the availability of practical training courses in the post-16 education system. [141764]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Ivan Lewis): Every local learning and skills council has been asked to undertake a strategic area review of its post-16 provision. These reviews will identify changes required to ensure that young people and adult learners in every community have access to a choice of high quality provision that supports their progression and attainment. Such provision will include quality vocational education. Some 230,000 young people are currently undertaking modern apprenticeships in this country—the highest ever number. In our skills strategy, we announced our intention to introduce a new entitlement to a free first level 2 qualification for all adults.
    Sir Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but does he agree that our country and society, including industry and commerce, are in dire need of more young people with practical experience, qualifications and expertise? The question of whether young students go on to further or higher education should be based on their needs, merits and qualifications, and not on an arbitrary target of entry to university, or to any other higher education institution.
    Mr. Lewis: This Government are committed to ensuring that we have high quality, high status vocational education, and that we do not divide young people into sheep and goats, as the Conservatives seek to do. I should point out that a significant proportion of the 50 per cent. of young people who will go into higher education will do so via vocational education. If we repeat the mistakes of history and say that the choice is between either vocational education or higher education, and that we regard vocational education as second rate, we will again fail to deliver the high quality, high status vocational education that we need.
    Mr. George Stevenson: Is my hon. Friend aware that in areas such as Stoke-on-Trent, which is going through the most profound economic and social changes, we continue to be blighted by a skills gap? It is amazing that while those changes are taking place there is still a lack of the necessary skills. Is he satisfied that the balance between education and skills that our learning and skills councils are operating is correct?
    Mr. Lewis: The challenge in closing the skills gap is to ensure that far more young people stay on in some form of education or training, and make progress post-16, while giving the adults who are already in the labour market, or who are still on the edge of it, the opportunity to up their skills. School standards, Sure Start and a new approach to education between 14 and 19, combined with a coherent adult skills strategy that enables millions of adults who are already in the workplace to upskill, is the most effective long-term way to narrow the skills gap that continues to undermine this country's productivity.
    Mr. Mark Simmonds: Globalisation demands the raising of post-16 and adult education skills and standards, but the recent Ofsted and adult learning inspectorate reports were highly critical of existing provision. In addition, the Learning

    641
    and Skills Council figures demonstrate that the three-year funding allocation will not even provide sufficient money for the Government's core priorities of education and basic skills for 16 to 18-year-olds. What does the Minister intend to do to reverse that situation, and will he assure the House that the anticipated and feared funding shortfall—equivalent to losing 10,000 full-time students, or up to 70,000 part-time students—will not materialise?
    Mr. Lewis: I welcome the hon. Gentleman both to the House and to the Front Bench, but it does not seem to me that, in the context of a debate about education, a party that advocates 20 per cent. cuts in education spending can say that there are inadequate resources to deliver the education reforms that we need. It is true that we need to improve the quality of work-based learning: 60 per cent. of work-based training courses were not adequate, but in 12 months that proportion went down to 46 per cent., and the work that the Learning and Skills Council and the inspectors are doing to raise standards is beginning to come through and improve the quality of provision. We are not complacent or smug, but the fact that the largest ever number of young people—230,000—are undertaking modern apprenticeships demonstrates that we are beginning to change attitudes to the importance of practical training.

    University Funding
    Mr. George Foulkes: What alternative proposals for closing the funding gap in university expenditure to those contained in the White Paper on higher education he has assessed. [141765]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Charles Clarke): The four principal alternative options for student finance and university funding are an increase in flat-rate fees, a graduate tax, an increase in general taxation, and real rates of interest on student loans. We have placed in the Library and supplied to the Select Committee information and analysis on each of those. Our conclusion is that variable deferred fees are the best option for securing the investment that our universities need, while giving them the freedom to respond to student demand, and providing for fair repayments for graduates.
    Mr. Foulkes: Does the Secretary of State agree that in order to get the extra money into universities, the principal alternative to the Government proposal is an increase in general taxation on the public, 83 per cent. Of whom did not go to university? Many of them—people such as waiters and chefs—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about cleaners?"]—and cleaners, too, earn a great deal less than £15,000 a year. Is the system that the Government are proposing not by far the fairest, as well as being very similar to the system already agreed by the Liberals for Scotland?
    Mr. Clarke: I wholly agree with the implication of my right hon. Friend's question. I add to his attack on that particular solution the point that, in respect of income from either general or graduate taxation, any Secretary of State has to face choices in priorities between
    642
    university education and, for example, under-fives or primary education. There will always be pressure, which I personally welcome, to invest in the younger ages where we can make the greatest impact on reducing educational deprivation.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: In examining the options for plugging the funding gap, has the Secretary of State thought of making variable top-up and tuition fees retrospective to the 1960s and 70s, when he and his Cabinet colleagues went to university, paid absolutely nothing for it and even received grants? Does he not understand the anger of parents in this country who look at him and his mates and wonder why people who received their university education for nothing are so keen and hungry to clobber today's children?
    Mr. Clarke: I know that the modern Conservative party has made a study of retrospection, as indeed it should. I also know that the modern Conservative position is retrospection—to go back to the elitist education of the 1960s. I believe that the country needs to look forward to the future rather than backwards, which means creating a university system that truly creates a competitive economy and strong society for the future.
    Paul Farrelly: Before my right hon. Friend publishes the higher education Bill in January, will he undertake not just to knock down the alternatives but to engage in an open discussion about alternatives from first principles, starting with his own estimates—not some vice-chancellor's estimates—of university funding?
    Mr. Clarke: Yes, I will. As my hon. Friend will know, we have already had many discussions—directly and with others—on precisely those matters and from first principles. I have found all the discussions exciting and illuminating, though I am not sure whether he felt the same about my responses. I agree that a proper discussion of these issues, based on proper assessments, is right. I will say, however, as an important qualification, that many assumptions depend on what modelling is used for different sources of income for fees and so forth. That is not a particularly productive area of debate. The productive area is to examine the real alternatives from first principles, precisely as he suggests, in a direct and frank manner. We will do precisely that.
    Alistair Burt: British universities look with some envy on the endowment income that universities abroad, particularly in the United States, receive. What long-term attention is he paying to finding imaginative incentives at this stage in order to help British universities to begin the process of building up their endowment income? At some stage in the future, it must play a larger part in funding than it does now.
    Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is entirely correct. We do need to build the tradition that exists in some other countries. To that end, we have set up a working party—led by the vice-chancellor of Bristol university, Eric Thomas, and including a range of individuals with

    643
    substantial experience of how other countries have operated in that respect—to establish what sort of encouragement we should provide. It will consider whether we should make any changes in our taxation regime. Off hand, I cannot recall the precise timetable of the report, but we are close to being able to do so. I have just been advised by my colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), that the detailed report on encouraging endowments should be published in April. Such endowments are important for universities' independence, as well as their funding.

    Microsoft
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: When he will conclude a new software licence agreement for schools with Microsoft. [141766]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Charles Clarke): I am pleased to announce that the British Educational Communications and Technology Agency and Microsoft have today signed a memorandum of understanding that, when implemented, will reduce the cost of Microsoft products to schools in England by as much as £46 million over the next three years. The new arrangements will come into effect from 1 January 2004. I believe that such an agreement demonstrates the advantages of co-ordinated procurement for schools across the country in respect of several different products, and I want to pay personal tribute to my hon. Friend for his campaigning on that matter over a considerable period.
    Mr. Blizzard: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer and his kind words. I also thank him for the close interest that he has taken in this matter. This is really good news for schools. It was wrong that schools, which now have so many more computers because of the Government funding that enabled them to buy them, had to pay so much in licence fees to Microsoft. It was wrong that schools paid a higher rate than universities. I thank my right hon. Friend again for his fine announcement.
    Mr. Clarke: I thank my hon. Friend and I express my appreciation to both Microsoft, which worked well with us to try to find an agreement, and BECTA, which is negotiating effectively. As there are 25,000 schools in England but only a small number of suppliers, there is a powerful case in market terms for a more co-ordinated policy for the procurement of a number of different products. The case is strong both in terms of value for money for schools and in releasing more resources.

    Top-up Fees
    Sir Sydney Chapman: What estimate he has made of the total level of debt of students following the introduction of top-up fees. [141769]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Charles Clarke): The level of student loan after the introduction of variable fees will depend on a number of factors: the level of fee charged by the student's higher education institution; how much loan they take out to
    644
    cover the cost of that fee; how much maintenance loan they choose to take out; and the level of any bursary made available by the university. Those will all be decisions for higher education institutions and individual students.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Surely, the Secretary of State has made an estimate of what the increase in student debt will be. Is not it true to say that it will probably double, and that that is most likely to lead to a graduate brain drain, whereby people go abroad to avoid having to pay considerable debts? Has he made any assessment of that?
    Mr. Clarke: I certainly do not accept the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question. On the first part, one can make a series of assessments based on different positions, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly). Such assessments can be produced. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education said earlier, our current estimate is just under £9,000 of debt, and it will go up under our proposals—of that there is no doubt—but not to the level indicated in some of the reports. As I said earlier, what is really important is to discuss the fundamentals of the scheme and to understand how it will impact.

  The Solicitor-General was asked—
  SOLICITOR-GENERAL

    Crown Prosecution Service
    Mr. David Kidney: What recent steps the Crown Prosecution Service has taken to improve the recruitment and retention of staff, with particular reference to prosecutors. [141776]
    The Solicitor-General (Ms Harriet Harman): The Crown Prosecution Service has taken a number of steps to improve recruitment and retention of staff, particularly lawyers, which has resulted in a 26 per cent. increase in the number of lawyers in the CPS since 2001.
    Mr. Kidney: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer. Will she accept my sincere tribute to her personally for her hard work and the committed attempts that she has made to raise working-life standards in the CPS? I especially draw attention to her commitment to the training of non-legal staff so that they can obtain qualifications that enable them to aspire to go on to become prosecutors. Is not that the best way to improve working conditions in the CPS and to aid recruitment and retention?
    The Solicitor-General: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind comments and I will pass them on to those in the CPS who have worked on the CPS law scholarship programme. We want to ensure that administrative and clerical employees in the CPS have the prospect of becoming lawyers if they have the interest, potential and capacity to do so. That is what the CPS law scholarship scheme will do. We originally planned to have 213 CPS law scholars; this year—the first year of the scheme—we

    645
    have 231. That is good not only for the CPS but for the legal profession, as it will reform the profession from the bottom up.
    Bob Spink: What progress has been made on improving the co-ordination between the Crown Prosecution Service and the police. [141777]
    The Solicitor-General: Proper co-ordination between the police and the CPS is vital at all levels. At ministerial level, the Attorney-General and I work with our ministerial colleagues in the Home Office. In Essex, the chief crown prosecutor, John Bell, and the chief constable work together as part of the local criminal justice board. The police and the CPS work together on the front line as a prosecution team in Essex.
    Bob Spink: The right hon. and learned Lady is having a very good morning, as I, too, shall congratulate her on her answer. I thank her for her answer and congratulate the Government on their initiative. The CPS in Essex is running the only whole-county pilot and has shown how valuable such a scheme can be. Will she join me in congratulating Essex CPS, and will she roll out the pilot scheme across the whole country so that other areas can benefit from it.
    The Solicitor-General: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his congratulations, which are justly deserved by the prosecution team in Essex. The team warmly welcomes his interest in its work. I know that he has been to Southend and Chelmsford and paid close attention to that work. It is important that everyone works together in the criminal justice system. The police, the CPS and the courts all have their separate roles, and each is independent, but they must all work together.
    As hon. Members are being so nice to me, I am getting worried that people might think this is turning into something of a resignation session, so may I invite the next questioner to launch an attack on me?
    Mr. Bill Olner: I will not take up my right hon. and learned Friend's request to launch an attack on her.
    The new justice centre being built in my constituency will house the police, the CPS, and the probation and victim support services. That is the way things should be in the future. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will come and have a look at the centre. What input is her Department having into that exciting new scheme?
    The Solicitor-General: As my hon. Friend knows, we very much support the new all-in-one justice centre in Nuneaton, and the CPS is very much part of it. I visited the centre at the very outset, but I should like to keep up with progress there. It is important that people do not have to go from pillar to post, as it is sometimes quite difficult for them—and especially for victims and witnesses—to find their way around the system. If we want to deter people from committing offences, and to know that the justice system is working properly, that is the way to do it.
    Mr. David Heath: Is the CPS working with the police to develop clear guidelines on prejudicial publicity, given the impact that it might have on failed prosecutions or the fairness of trials? That applies particularly to the police, and perhaps to members of the Home Office ministerial team. Why does the Attorney-General intervene so rarely in matters of prejudicial publicity? When is he going to do a better job in that respect?
    The Solicitor-General: When complaints are made that reports or comments might prejudice a fair trial, the Attorney-General always acts on them. He always investigates such complaints, and the hon. Gentleman can rest assured that he always makes the right decision about what to do. In each case, a balance has to be struck between the need for free speech, an open press and a right to know, and the need to ensure that defendants can have a fair trial. That is the ring that the Attorney-General holds. If the hon. Gentleman has concerns about how the Attorney-General has acted in any individual case, perhaps he will let me know.
    Julie Morgan: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that CPS staff are based in Cardiff's Rumney police station? Does she agree that that means that there is a much better chance that charging standards are got right, especially in cases of assault?
    The Solicitor-General: I agree with my hon. Friend that it certainly does. In the past, the problem has been that the police have investigated a matter and charged someone, after which the case has been sent to the CPS. A CPS lawyer has then looked at the case and reviewed it, and decided either to change or downgrade the charge, or to drop the case altogether. That process built disappointment into the system for people who thought that their case was going ahead, only to discover that there was not sufficient evidence. The work that my hon. Friend has described means that CPS staff are able to advise the police right at the start of the process, and will ultimately bring the charges themselves. Right from the outset, therefore, the system will be fairer—for both defendants and victims, because a case will either be going to trial in court, or not.
    Mr. Dominic Grieve: I was going to say that I intended to treat the right hon. and learned Lady far more gently than has been the case with the Home Secretary and his spin doctors over the past 24 hours, but in view of her earlier anxieties about what might happen to her career if she is not treated more harshly, that might not be the right thing to say.
    I return to the important question about the Home Secretary and his expressions of view when arrests take place. It is not merely a question of whether that might be a contempt of court, or prejudicial to a fair trial. The problem is that it could lead to the embarrassing possibility that it is suggested in court that a fair trial

    647
    might be prejudiced. Does the Solicitor-General agree that every Minister, and the Home Secretary in particular, ought to have that very much in mind before they express any view on a matter that is subject to police investigation?
    The Solicitor-General: Everyone—that includes absolutely everyone—must have in mind the issue of whether it will be possible for somebody to get a fair trial. That is the case. The role of the Attorney-General is to ensure that that happens and to enforce the law of contempt if a fair trial is not possible because it has been prejudiced.

    Street Crime Initiative (North-East Derbyshire)
    Mr. Harry Barnes: If she will make a statement on the impact of the Crown Prosecution Service's role in the street crime initiative in North-East Derbyshire. [141778]
    The Solicitor-General: The impact of the street crime initiative has been to cut street crime and to bring more street crime cases to court. It has also had a good effect
    648
    in the police and the CPS working even more closely together and in the CPS doing more to help victims of crime make statements and give evidence in court.
    Mr. Barnes: I welcome that response, but the question was about the street crime initiative in North-East Derbyshire. My understanding is that although it is working well within the larger conurbations, there are problems in areas such as mine. There may be a link through the displacement of crime from the neighbouring conurbation of Sheffield, which may be affecting us, and social problems arising from the decline of the manufacturing industries.
    The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Street crime is obviously not just a problem in the big cities—the so-called street crime hotspots—it is of concern in all areas, including North-East Derbyshire. It is important for the police, the crown prosecutors, the local council and community groups to work with him as the Member of Parliament for the area to ensure that everyone is doing what they can to tackle street crime. Sometimes it might be categorised as minor crime, but it can make people fearful and it is important to bear down on it.

Business of the House
12.31 pm
Mr. Oliver Heald: Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Peter Hain): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 8 DECEMBER—Remaining stages of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill.
TUESDAY 9 DECEMBER—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, followed by a debate on fisheries on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
WEDNESDAY 10 DECEMBER—A debate on European Affairs on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
THURSDAY 11 DECEMBER—Estimates [1st Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on child care for working parents, followed by a debate on people, pensions and post offices. Details will be given in the Official Report.
At 6 pm the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
The provisional business for the following week will be:
MONDAY 15 DECEMBER—Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund Bill, followed by Second Reading on the Child Trust Fund Bill.
TUESDAY 16 DECEMBER—Remaining stages of the European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill.
WEDNESDAY 17 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill.
THURSDAY 18 DECEMBER—Motion On the Christmas recess Adjournment.
The House may wish to be reminded that we will rise for the Christmas recess at the end of business on Thursday 18 December and return on Monday 5 January.
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall next week will be:
THURSDAY 11 DECEMBER—Debate on accelerating the United Kingdom response to the HIV/AIDS epidemic.
Details of the business announced today are now available on my office website: www.commonsleader.gov.uk, which goes online today. For the convenience of Members and following representations I have today placed a complete list of all the Bills and draft Bills that have been introduced or announced for this Session in the Library. As has always been the case, other measures will be brought forward as the Session progresses.
[The list of estimates to be agreed are as follows: vote on account for House of Commons 2004–05 (HC17), vote on account for National Audit Office 2004–05 (HC18), vote on account for Electoral Commission 2004–05 (HC19), vote on account 2004–05 (HC16), winter supplementary estimates and new estimates 2003–04 (HC15).
650
All stages of the Consolidated Fund Bill will also be considered in due course.]
Mr. Heald: We will study that list with great interest. Has the Leader of the House had the opportunity to read the Audit Commission report into why increases in council tax average 13 per cent.? Despite Ministers' attempts to deflect criticisms of the increases, which pushed band D rates in some places over £1,000 for the first time, the report concludes that town halls that received bigger Government increases had smaller council tax rises and those with smaller grant increases had higher council tax rises. It also states that Government grant—[Interruption]—hon. Members should listen to this—was
"the single biggest determinant factor in this year's increases."
The report highlights the geographical shift in resources that the Government have deliberately imposed. Since the report clearly demonstrates that everything that we have been saying about the Deputy Prime Minister's manipulation of council tax is true, may we have a debate in Government time on that vital report?
On Monday and Tuesday, the. House will debate the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. It is a matter of great concern that such a large number of amendments have been tabled by the Government to introduce a fixed tariff payment system for planning gains, despite the fact that the Government are currently consulting on that very issue and that the consultation does not end until 8 January. Yet we are supposed to debate the Bill and table amendments by this evening.[Interruption.] Apart from the discourtesy, about which the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is not too worried, surely such a consultation should run its course before the crucial decisions are reached. It reminds me of something: the big conversation, where, as we know, not much listening is involved at all.
On the Hutton inquiry, does the Leader of the House expect the report to be published in the week commencing 12 January? Will he say a little more than he did on 16 October—either now, or next week—about the Government's intentions? Does he expect the report to be received by the Government and those who have taken part in the inquiry at the same time? Does he agree that Opposition parties should receive the report at the same time, and will he make representations to that effect? How much time does he expect to elapse between receipt of the report and the Prime Minister making a statement in the House? Can he confirm whether there will be sufficient time for hon. Members on both sides of the House to consider the report—at least a week—before a full debate and whet her the Prime Minister will lead for the Government in the debate as well as the statement?
Finally, on a different matter of which I have given the Leader of the House notice, hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned about the airports capacity White Paper. Obviously, we know that there will be a statement about it before Christmas, but will he tell us what the date of the statement will be?
Mr. Hain: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has been advising the House authorities, but the annunciator was saying that business questions were to start at 12.30 am.
On the council tax, the truth is that we inherited a policy from the Conservative party on council tax arrangements, and we have been making it fairer. Is it

651
not significant that the biggest increase is, I think, in a Conservative flagship council, Wandsworth, which has had a 57 per cent. increase? The truth is that, as the Audit Commission made perfectly clear, we need to get the balance right in ensuring that council tax payments are fair and that the Government contribution is delivered to local authorities and then passported on to local services in a way that results in fair contributions by local residents, rather than unfair ones, and eliminates any inefficiency in the distribution system.
The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, as the hon. Gentleman understands, is designed to speed up the planning process and free up opportunities for enterprise and business to regenerate local communities, especially in deprived areas, which will, in addition, increase flexibility in the economy and help to boost prosperity.
On the big conversation—[Interruption.] Conservative Members scoff, but I was with the Prime Minister in south Wales, where we launched the big conservation on Friday last week. Contrary to the Conservative Front-Bench team's stance as an attack machine, with a series of dodgy policies that have not been thought through—we shall come back to that—we believe that the big challenges, whether we are dealing with local crime and antisocial behaviour, which we were discussing in Newport on Friday, or with the big challenges for decades ahead, are best resolved by getting the whole public into a conversation about how Britain should confront them and how people feel the future should go.
On the Hutton inquiry, I made clear in the statement that I made on 16 October what the procedure would be. The Government commissioned the Hutton report and set up the inquiry, and we will ensure that Parliament has a proper opportunity to debate the outcome, as I said on 16 October. The Cabinet will consider it in the appropriate fashion and the Prime Minister will, of course, want to be accountable to the House, as I also made clear on 16 October.
The airports issue is important, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising it and for giving me advance notice. I can help him only by confirming that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will make a statement as soon as he can to bring the White Paper forward. He will report on it to the House in the proper way, and the House will have an opportunity to consider it.
Mr. Paul Tyler: My colleagues and I strongly endorse the request for an urgent statement on council tax, not least so that the situation can be made more clear and transparent for local authorities led by all three parties. Does he share my surprise that the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) did not apologise this afternoon? After all, after the poll tax fiasco, it was his party that introduced the system, with its inherent and fundamental flaws, to which the Audit Commission has drawn our attention. However, it is not sufficient for the Leader of the House to pretend that, after six and a half years, everything can be blamed on the previous Government. Will he give an undertaking that we will have no more incomprehensible gobbledegook explanations from the Deputy Prime Minister, but a simple word of apology to the House and to local authorities, which have been led astray on that matter?
652
Will the Leader of the House also confirm the official hints in recent days that comparisons are now being made with completely different systems of local taxation—not least the local income tax that we have suggested, which would add only 4p in the pound to the normal rate of taxation and enable us to scrap the whole council tax system—and acknowledge, given his radical past, that the council tax is regressive and unfair and that a local income tax would be progressive and much fairer?
Mr. Hain: Here we have it: the Liberal Democrats propose an extra 4p in the pound for every taxpayer through their expensive local income tax policy. We now have that on the record, although I note that at recent Liberal Democrat press conference, the back of the press release—it was not supposed to be released but was inadvertently photocopied—referred to a 6p increase, so it could be even higher.
Mr. Tyler: Where is it?
Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps Mr. Tyler should listen to the Leader of the House. He put the questions to the Leader of the House, and I expect him to listen.
Mr. Hain: An income tax rise of 4p in the pound from the Liberal Democrats is high enough for me, and would be high enough for the average council tax payer and resident. We know that the Liberal Democrats are a high-tax party. They want to load tax on hard-working and low-income families, but Labour is committed to a much fairer system of local government finance. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to remind us that the leader of the Conservative party was responsible for the poll tax, which was one of the most unfair, regressive and punitive taxes in the history of this country.
The level of council tax payments is a concern, and the hon. Gentleman was right to draw the House's attention to it. That is why we are reviewing the matter and why we have already made changes that bring the current system into line with many of the recommendations of the Audit Commission report. We will study that report further and with care before we introduce any other changes that are necessary.
Mr. John Lyons: My right hon. Friend will recognise the success of the national minimum wage, but 700,000 young people aged 16 or 17 are working in the British economy without protection. Can he find time for a debate on that issue?
Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend has an opportunity to secure a debate by applying in the normal fashion, but I understand the concerns that he identified. We are, of course, very proud of the fact that we introduced the minimum wage, which benefits millions of low-paid workers, against the fierce opposition of the Conservative party, which, in the words of its leader, said that it would cost 2 million jobs. Since its introduction, an extra 1.6 million jobs have been created, which gives the lie to that accusation. I shall certainly consider the points that my hon. Friend made about young workers, and I continue to advise him to take every opportunity to raise them on the Floor of the House.
Mr. George Osborne: Can we have a debate on the way in which the Crown Prosecution Service treats mothers who are accused of killing their very young children? Sally Clark was my constituent and the victim of a gross miscarriage of justice. Another

653
case is before the Court of Appeal today and, without in any way wishing to prejudge the court's decision, surely it is time to examine how the Crown Prosecution Service deals with such cases. Given the uncertainty of medical evidence and the little use of a long prison sentence in such cases, the matter is of enormous concern to many people.
Mr. Hain: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, especially as the issue has affected his constituent. I know of the interest in such cases and the particularly strong arguments that his constituents put. I am sure that the authorities and the relevant Minister will note his points.
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Will my right hon. Friend consider finding time for a debate on the future of direct links between the west coast main line and Europe? We are the poor relations and such links would certainly help jobs in the north-west and everyone who uses that line.
Mr. Hain: I am sure that the Secretary of State for Transport will want to consider those points carefully. My hon. Friend's constituency is affected and we want there to be a massive opportunity for extra investment and prosperity in the north-west of England. It is therefore important that the line through to the export market that accounts for nearly two thirds of all exports from the north-west of England operates as efficiently as possible.
Sir Patrick Cormack: May I return to the airports White Paper? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Members on both sides of the House are anxious to see what is in it? Can he confirm that it will be published before Christmas and indicate whether that is likely to mean next week or the week after?
Mr. Hain: I understand the anxieties that are felt, and I am glad to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that the intention is to publish the report as early as possible. The intention is certainly to do so before Christmas but, in any event, it will be done as early as possible. It is important that such a crucial decision, which will affect many constituents of Members on both sides of the House, is taken and delivered and reported to the House in the proper fashion.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Is the Leader of the House aware that more than 200 MPs from all parties in the House have called for a review of the sitting hours? Indeed, when they were introduced, we were promised a review. Tuesdays and Wednesdays have become a nightmare as we condense everything into just a few hours, and I know, through talking to Ministers and Whips, that there is real difficulty in getting people to serve on Committees.
May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the plight of the permanent staff, many of whom are anxious about their jobs and futures? Because of the uncertainty, casuals are now being employed and that
654
surely brings with it a security problem for the House. Can we have a review of the hours, as we were promised? Let us debate the matter here.
Mr. Hain: I know my hon. Friend's very strong views on this subject. I think that I am right in saying that she did not vote for the change in the hours. She has stuck consistently to her opposition to the change.
As my hon. Friend and the whole House know, we are committed to reviewing the new sitting hours by the end of the Parliament. She also knows that I am seeking to address a number of the difficulties that have been brought to my attention about individual issues associated with the change. However, I do not think that it is right immediately to override the original decision, which was to have the changed hours in place for the rest of the Parliament and to review the matter before the end of the Parliament. I do not think that we should act prematurely.
In respect of the staff, I am concerned about the reports and rumours that I have heard and I have discussed the matter with the authorities. I shall be very happy to receive additional representations from my hon. Friend.
As I have said before, there are strong feelings both for and against the changed hours. It is important that everybody who has strong feelings has the opportunity to represent them to me and suggest the exact changes that they want. Very few people have told me that they want to revert to exactly the old standard pattern of hours. Some have said that they want to sit longer on Tuesdays and others say that Committees should sit later in the morning. All those issues may be weighed up in good time.
Mr. Mark Field: I am sorry to have to return to the Audit Commission report but it confirms what many Conservative Members have said for some time: there was gerrymandering of the entire system last year against councils in London. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate on that because London councils—Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat—feel strongly that they have been deprived of vital funds? We need an urgent debate on the serious allegations made in the Audit Commission report that was published today.
Mr. Hain: The truth is that all local authorities received an increase from the Government that was higher than inflation. That compares with the situation prior to 1997 under the Conservative Government when there were consistent cuts in funding from central Government to local authorities. The hon. Gentleman will find that six London authorities received grant increases of 8 per cent. or more. That is an example of the way in which the Government have provided generous funding for local services through local councils.
Mr. David Clelland: Those of us from the north-east would welcome a debate on council tax to destroy the myth that we have somehow been the beneficiaries of the changes that have been made. Is my right hon. Friend aware that Lloyds TSB has announced the closure of its call centre in my constituency and the centre's transfer to the Indian sub-continent with the loss of almost 1,000 jobs? May we have an early debate

655
on the implications of that for the British employment market, private financial information and data protection, and about what the Government might do about that serious threat to British jobs?
Mr. Hain: I well understand my hon. Friend's concern about any job losses in his constituency and I know that there will be an opportunity to consider the matter in a debate in Westminster Hall next Wednesday. We obviously should fight locally, as local Members, against any job losses but we are subject to a whirlwind of global pressures in which the outsourcing of some call centre jobs is continuing. Interestingly, higher value added call centre jobs tend to stay in this country.
Mr. Eric Forth: Oh, that is all right then.
Mr. Hain: No, it is not all right. I want to see all jobs preserved, but I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that we cannot simply withstand competitive global pressures on our private enterprises, including call centre companies. He will understand that, and we are trying to combat the system as best we can.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) knows, the Government have put good procedures in place to help people into jobs, and unemployment has continued to fall in pretty much every parliamentary constituency since we came to power.
Hywel Williams: May we have a debate on the restrictive shellfish licensing scheme that is due to come into force in the new year, which will destroy half the jobs in the traditional shellfish fishery in my constituency on the Llyn peninsula? That is at least one good reason for the debate that I can discern. While the Leader of the House is considering that, will he have a word with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which clearly does not share my urgency or that of my constituents on the issue? I wrote to the Department on 9 October about the scheme that is coming in the new year but I have yet to receive any acknowledgement of that.
Mr. Hain: If the hon. Gentleman is right about the beginning of his correspondence in October—I am sure that he is—the relevant Minister will want to find out why he has not received a reply. The hon. Gentleman will know that there is a debate on fisheries next Tuesday and I hope that he will catch Mr. Speaker's eye to raise the points that he wants to make on behalf of his constituents.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: My right hon. Friend and I want an elected second Chamber but, shamefully, it seems that we are to be saddled with a wholly appointed second Chamber. Will the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform be reconstituted in the current Session with, if necessary, a new membership and revised terms of reference?
Mr. Hain: That is a matter for the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs. My hon. Friend is right that
656
I voted with him and others for an elected second Chamber but our position was defeated. [Interruption.] Conservative Members suggest that I was wrong. That may or may not be the case but the proposal was defeated by the Commons in any event, so there is no agreement on an elected second Chamber.
While we are on the subject. may I sweep away a lot of the breathtaking hypocrisy on the matter? I noticed that earlier this week in the House of Lords, Conservative Lords defeated a Liberal Democrat motion that called for an elected second Chamber. We now know where the Conservative party stands on the matter, despite the position that has been shouted from the Conservative Benches. We shall see whether we can have an honest debate about who wishes to preserve the 92 hereditary peers in the House of Lords. All progressive people think that we should have a second Chamber that is more representative of opinion throughout the country than accidents of birth.
Mr. Robert Key: May I endorse the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) for a debate on the role of expert medical witnesses in criminal trials? Following the acquittal of Trupti Patel, the case of my former constituent, Sally Clark and the predicament of my constituent Angela Cannings, I note that nothing has been heard of the review committee that the Attorney-General established six months ago to look into the issue. It is a matter of urgency to know what is now in the mind of the Government when they consider the cases that I mentioned.
Mr. Hain: I well understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns, especially on behalf of his constituents. I would feel the same if my constituents had been similarly affected, so I shall ensure that the relevant Minister is aware of his urgency and his constituents' feelings.
Mrs. Jackie Lawrence: Does my right hon. Friend share my disappointment that it appears that Russia is refusing to ratify the Kyoto protocol and that the United States, which is one of the richest countries in the world, has failed to set an example? Will he grant us a debate in the House on the Kyoto protocol so that we may reaffirm its importance to everyone in the world? It is not a question of economic growth, as is often said, but of environmental survival.
Mr. Hain: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will be in Milan at the climate change conference next week precisely to spur on the world to take its responsibilities seriously, implement Kyoto—the Government have signed up to it—and reduce the impact of climate change throughout the world. I am not sure that the Russian Government have made their position on Kyoto as clear as my hon. Friend implied. We hope that Russia will ratify the protocol and allow it to come into force so that the world may begin to confront the horrendous challenge of environmental devastation and climate change.
Dr. Andrew Murrison: Will the Leader of the House convey to the Pentagon the alarm

657
felt by many at reports that it is planning to recruit paramilitaries from political organisations? Will he seek assurances that such a thing will not happen in southeast Iraq, where it is felt that it is important that the police and security forces may act impartially and not as the servants of specific political organisations?
Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Given his expertise on the situation in Iraq, to which the Prime Minister referred yesterday, I know that the Defence Secretary will want to take his points seriously.
John Cryer: There were two questions earlier about the Audit Commission report that was produced today. The commission also pointed out the fundamental unfairness of our system of council taxation, which is not related to people's ability to pay and was introduced when the official Opposition were in government. May we have a debate on that so that we can consider the system of council taxation and point to councils such as mine that fritter away thousands of pounds on pet projects and put up their council tax by an enormous amount yet refuse to examine new powers that would allow them to introduce lower council taxation for groups such as pensioners on fixed incomes?
Mr. Hain: Obviously, I am concerned about my hon. Friend's comments about the performance of his local authority. The House will want to look into that carefully. We have sought to develop and progress a much fairer system for local revenue raising—that is why the Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire is conducting a review that takes account of all the points that the Audit Commission made. It is important to read its report carefully, because it gives a much more rounded and balanced account of the situation than some of the more lurid headlines and political statements might suggest.
Mr. Eric Forth: Can the Leader of the House tell us when we will hear a report back to the House on the so-called big conversation? Will we be told how many of those events have been attended by the Leader of the House and by the Prime Minister, or how many of the 60 million people in this country attended them, and how many are Labour party members? We need to know those things. Most importantly, will we be told how many Government policies have changed as a result of the so-call big conversation?
Mr. Hain: The right hon. Gentleman is expert at talking to himself in the middle of the night in this Chamber, so I guess that he will have no interest in the big conversation that is taking place with the public out there. I shall be happy, however, to continue to answer questions on it from him or from any other Member, because the truth is that we are doing something that no Government have ever done: we are carrying out a big consultation exercise about the challenges that face this country. Perhaps he does not think that the public ought to be involved in the hard choices that need to be made—for example, about an ageing society and the challenges that we face in funding our public services as an ever-increasing proportion of people are in retirement. A big conversation is required to give people an opportunity to express their own views on such matters.
658
The right hon. Gentleman asks how many events I have taken part in. The Prime Minister has so far been involved in a whole range of events, starting in Bristol and Newport last Friday and continuing with others since. I was with him at the Newport event, and I intend to take part in another one early next week—
Mr. Forth: Another one!
Mr. Hain: The right hon. Gentleman asked me how many times I have taken part, and I am telling him. I also have my duties as Leader of the House, which I am discharging faithfully in answering his question at boring length. I shall take part in future events, as will other Ministers, because we want to involve the public in a big exercise to determine the future of this country. Neither the right hon. Gentleman nor other. Conservative Members are interested in facing up to challenges such as the crisis in higher education and the problem of an ageing society. They would deal with those big issues in their traditional elitist fashion; we are doing it by involving the public, because that is what we believe in.
Hugh Bayley: Did the Leader of the House notice that this week Lloyds TSB and Norwich Union announced their intention to transfer large numbers of call centre and back-office jobs from this country to India? Can we have a debate about the globalisation of the telecomms industry, so that we can not only assess the risks that that poses to jobs in Britain and discuss how they can be minimised, but consider the benefits that the globalisation of communications provides to British companies, particularly in the financial services sector? If financial services were fully liberalised across Europe, British financial services companies, which are leaders in the field, would gain more work from others in Europe and thereby retain jobs in this country.
Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend makes some telling points. Obviously, he can apply for a debate; I am sure that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will also want to consider that opportunity. Evidence from the Call Centre Association suggest that companies that outsource part of their work create a big return for this country, in that the surpluses that they obtain enable them to expand services, create more jobs and contribute to our prosperity. It is painful and difficult when such churning takes place, with some jobs displaced and replaced by other, often value-added jobs, but it is not as straightforward as saying that we have lost jobs to another country—the return that comes back is important, too.
Mr. Edward Davey: May I continue the main theme of today's business questions and join my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) in imploring the Leader of the House for an urgent debate, before the recess, on the Audit Commission's report on council tax rises? That independent report confirms not only that the blame for high council tax rises lies with Labour Ministers, but that the unfair Tory council lax system is fundamentally flawed. Given that councils are currently having to set council tax levels for next year, and that we now know that for more than three quarters of councils the rise in non-education grant is a real-terms cut, is it not urgent

659
that we have that debate in order to learn from the Audit Commission report and help councils around the country?
Mr. Hain: How can a central Government-provided increase that is way above the level of inflation be a real-terms cut? This is Mickey Mouse Liberal economics. We heard the Liberal Democrat spokesman talk about Mickey Mouse income tax policies in the form of a 4p increase in the basic rate of income tax. All taxpayers should understand that the Liberal Democrat party is now a high-tax party flying the flag of higher income taxes. I should like to know what is the Conservative party's policy, too, because they are hiding behind an attack machine instead of putting forward coherent policies.
Paul Flynn: When can we discuss the great puzzle whereby the Government's 40 per cent. increase in spending on the health service has led to an increase in activity—operations and so on—of a mere 5 per cent.? Is one possible explanation the fact that the bill for drugs in the health service has increased by 50 per cent. in the past three years without any corresponding increase in the effectiveness of those drugs? Can we have a conversation about the fact that the big pharmaceutical companies are probably ripping off patients and taxpayers?
Mr. Hain: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is asking for another conversation or for a debate, but I am sure that the Secretary of State for Health will want to study his comments carefully. My hon. Friend may have seen his excellent article in The Daily Telegraph earlier this week, in which he comprehensively rebutted the charge that is being made by the Conservatives—although not, I am sure, by my hon. Friend—that all the public investment is not producing better results. The truth is that the record investment that is going into our health service means that waiting times for elective surgery are coming down increasingly fast, delivering people from the pain that they suffered, year after year, under the Conservatives. We will continue to put that money in and make reforms to ensure that we deliver a first-class service that is free to patients and to those in pain—a Labour-originated and Labour-modernised national health service.
Sir George Young: The Leader of the House confirmed that, for reasons about which we can only speculate, we will not have a Second Reading debate on the Bill on top-up fees before Christmas. It follows that there must be a vacant day in the business of the House. Why, therefore, is the Leader of the House so resistant to calls from Members on both sides of the House for a debate on the Audit Commission report, which concerns a matter that affects all our constituents and makes recommendations to the Government on short-term changes? Consultations on next year's rate support grant statement are under way. The Leader of the House said a moment ago that he wants to find out about the Opposition's policy: such a debate would give him that opportunity.
Mr. Hain: There is no vacant day. There are two Second Reading slots before Christmas, one of which, as
660
I announced, will be filled by the debate on the Child Trust Fund Bill—a very important measure that will bring a minimum of £250 and up to £500 of assets to children born in this country. It is important that the Bill goes through quickly and gets early Royal Assent so that its provisions can be implemented as speedily as possible.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman agrees that the other Bill to get its Second Reading concerns an urgent matter—although some of the comments by Conservative Members, including his leader, make that rather doubtful. It will toughen up our asylum laws even further by tackling the loopholes that are being exploited by people traffickers, illegal migrants, and the criminal gangs who are sometimes behind them.
We are introducing those two urgent Bills before Christmas. The higher education funding Bill will be introduced in due course, when we are ready to do so.
Huw Irranca-Davies: My right hon. Friend knows that lifting Crown immunity from prosecution is notoriously complex and requires cross-departmental authority. I have received reassurances in the past six months that the Government are minded to tackle that important issue. It is especially important for the Wynne family in my constituency who regard Crown immunity from prosecution as a smokescreen that covers up deficiencies in health and safety and management at the Royal Mint in Llantrisant. If that proposal does not appear in the measures that are in the Library to which my right hon. Friend referred, what assurances will he give that the Government will move rapidly to ensure that Crown immunity from prosecution is no longer used to hide deficiencies in health and safety that can lead to fatalities in Crown estate properties?
Mr. Hain: I understand that the matter involves one of my hon. Friend's constituents, so it is therefore proper for him to draw it to the House's attention and seek a way in which to address it. The relevant Ministers and I will study his points carefully. Draft legislation is due to be introduced and discussed in the House and, during that pre-legislative scrutiny, he will have the opportunity to ascertain whether the plight and problem that he identified can be tackled in a better way than through the Government's proposals.
Mr. John Redwood: Now that the Government no longer have a friend to ring, they ask the audience to solve the nation's problems. May we have an early statement about the Government's side of the big conversation? How much money does the Leader of the House believe that the Labour party will make out of the electronic messaging? Could it be a case of rip-off communications from a rip-off Government?
Mr. Hain: No.
Mr. Clive Betts: May I echo the calls for an early debate on the Audit Commission report? I hope that we could organise it so that we get away from the narrow party political point scoring of Conservative Members and consider the fundamental flaw in local government finance and indeed, in local democracy. For every £4 local government spends, it raises only £1. A properly agreed 1 per cent. increase in a council's expenditure can lead to a 4 per cent. rise in

661
council tax. That is obviously a fundamental flaw in the system. May we have an early opportunity to consider the problem and, I hope, find redress?
Mr. Hain: I understand my hon. Friend's point about gearing in local government finance. He was a distinguished local government leader in Sheffield and knows a lot about such matters. The Deputy Prime Minister will want to listen carefully to his points and ascertain whether they should be tackled through a debate or in some other way. The Audit Commission report is an important document and the Government's review will be reported to the House. There will be a proper opportunity to discuss it then.
Mr. Michael Jack: The Leader of the House has confirmed that the House's opinion of top-up fees will not be asked. In the light of the Prime Minister's desire to listen and the fact that 150 Labour Members of Parliament disagree with the policy, as do Her Majesty's Opposition as well as the Liberal Democrats and members of other parties, what steps will the right hon. Gentleman take to ensure adequate time—a minimum of two days—for a full debate on Second Reading of the higher education Bill? During the Christmas recess, will he give consideration to ensuring that an appropriate time for debate is provided so that all voices are heard on the matter?
Mr. Hain: The Secretary of State for Education and Skills reported on the matter to the House only yesterday in a full debate. The right hon. Gentleman can press Conservative Front-Bench Members to hold an Opposition day debate on the subject. There will be a full debate on Second Reading, as is normal. However, we have set out our proposals to deal with the long-term problem of the deficits in higher education despite record investment. What are the Conservative proposals? The Liberal Democrats simply want to increase taxes, but they want to do that for everything. Conservative Front-Bench Members want a quarter of a million fewer students in our universities. What will that do for the prospects of the best knowledge-based economy in the world, which is the Government's objective? How will we achieve wider access and social justice for students, including some from my constituency, who are on low incomes? We are grappling with those issues and making proposals. The right hon. Gentleman should persuade Conservative Front-Bench Members to engage genuinely in a debate about serious policy instead of indulging in opportunistic sloganising and hypocrisy.
Julie Morgan: In general, I support the change of hours in the House. However, what impact have the new hours had on the catering service?
Mr. Hain: It is interesting to consider what has happened since the new hours were introduced. As I reported last week, according to the House authorities, catering income has increased by 16 per cent. when compared with the same period last year. The issue about catering services is getting mixed up with that about the hours, but it is proper to deal with the huge subsidy for catering in the House and the Catering Committee is trying to do that. My hon. Friend's view is different from that of my hon. Friend the Member for
662
Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) who opposes the change in hours. I have to weigh up the interplay of forces and divisions when deciding how to progress.
Mr. Adrian Flook: The south-west is bottom of the league in the amount of support grant that it receives per head, despite the fact that it is one of the most generous regions in contributing to the Treasury's coffers. Surely, to quote the Leader of the House, "That is not fair". May we have a debate on the way in which the rate support grant has become nothing more than the Treasury's stealth tax-raising powers?
Mr. Hain: That is a ridiculous statement. Like all of us, the hon. Gentleman is worried about council tax levels, which the Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire is considering in his review. He will take the Audit Commission report into account. I should be interested to hear practical suggestions from Conservative Members. Do they want to raise extra taxes so that central Government provide more finance for local authorities, as the Liberal Democrats propose? Have they other alternatives? We are committed to high quality public services and that is why increases in local authority funding have been real-terms increases year after year, compared with real-terms cuts under the Conservatives.
Mr. Harry Barnes: If we had a debate on the Audit Commission report on council tax, it would give some of us an opportunity to point out that the major gerrymandering and fiddling in council tax measures arise from the Local Government Finance Act 1988, which introduced the poll tax that was transformed into the council tax. May we have a full day's debate on the current local government finance settlement? The Audit Commission report could be raised during such a discussion. A full day's debate, which was not chopped by statements, would give a good number of hon. Members a reasonable opportunity to contribute to the deliberations.
Mr. David Cameron rose—
Mr. Hain: I am grateful for the chance to reply to my hon. Friend. [Interruption.] I think that the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) said that I might give better answers before I was asked the questions.
I say to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) that since 1997, there has been a real-terms increase in grant to local government of 25 per cent. compared with a real-terms cut of 7 per cent. during the last four years of Conservative government. The idea that we have not generously given extra support to local authorities is not true. However, my hon. Friend makes good points about the previous Government's rigging of the local government settlements. I remember when I was an unsuccessful Labour candidate for Putney in Wandsworth, the Thatcherite Government dished out lots of money from central funds to keep rates, the poll tax and the council tax low in Conservative-controlled Wandsworth. We are seeking to introduce a much fairer system.
Mr. Cameron: Given the Prime Minister's occasional tendency to say one thing and mean something ever so

663
slightly different, may we have a clear statement about whether the Bill that deals with top-up fees is an issue of confidence for the Government? Are they saying that if the Bill were lost on Second Reading, the Prime Minister would resign?
Mr. Hain: The Prime Minister made it crystal clear yesterday that this is an important matter for the country and, therefore, for the Government, for him and for the House. We seek to tackle the funding gap that will arise in universities. The Conservative party, including the hon. Gentleman, is signally failing to acknowledge that gap because it does not care about the future of universities; they left them in a near-bankrupt situation. We seek to address that gap, widen access, increase social justice and enable more low-income students to go to universities. so that we can become the kind of economy that depends on high knowledge and high skills, and compete more effectively in the world. That is our objective: what is the hon. Gentleman's policy?
Richard Younger-Ross: I hope that when the Leader of the House has his big conversation he listens more than he is listening to the House today. He has heard argument from all quarters for a debate on council tax. and he is not listening. I hope that he will reconsider and that there will, at least, be a debate on that important issue in the new year.
In the meantime, I urge the right hon. Gentleman to ask the Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire to come to the House to make a statement on the Audit Commission's report. He went to Devon county council, spoke to councillors, business men, pensioners and residents and told them that the council tax rise was all the county's fault. He came to the House and told Members from Devon and the southwest that it was down to the county council to decide the council tax rise. The Audit Commission's report clearly states that that is not the case. When will the Minister come to the House and put the record straight?
Mr. Hain: Obviously the Minister will want to listen carefully to the hon. Gentleman's point. Turning to his party's policy on this matter, which needs to be clarified, I can tell the House that a briefing note entitled, "Lines and ideas for Monday's press conference", discusses increases in local income tax as high as 6p and says:
"However, we don't want to be drawn extensively into this!"
We should be told exactly what the Liberal Democrat policy is: sky-high income taxes instead of fair taxes and fair local provision.
Alistair Burt: I thank the Leader of the House for twice referring to my colleagues on the shadow Front Bench as an attack machine. We have been after that endorsement for quite some time, and it would be churlish not to acknowledge his contribution to our reaching our first objective.
664
May we have an urgent debate on rural public transport? Already this week my constituents have suffered a number of strategic bus route cuts and face the threat of parents being asked to pay for their children to be taken to school. Whatever solutions to the problem of rural public transport the Government are producing, they are certainly not working, and if the right hon. Gentleman wants a conversation with my constituents on that, they are ready to have one with him.
Mr. Hain: The press reports on the draft school transport Bill were completely misfounded and erroneous. The Secretary of State for Education and Skills wants to set up a series of pilot schemes that enable local authorities better to provide local school transport for a range of pupils, to reduce peak-hour traffic congestion, to improve pupil safety and to deal with other situations that Church schools, for example, are concerned about. The hon. Gentleman will have a chance to contribute to that discussion when it is subject to pre-legislative scrutiny, as it is intended to be next year, and I hope that he will do so.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider the detail of the situation that we are trying to tackle, which is a series of anomalies in which local authorities are not able to provide a flexible range of bus services, as we believe they should, to help pupils to get to school more safely, to take them out of the cars in which their parents tend to bring them, to put them on buses and so to relieve traffic congestion.
Mr. John Wilkinson: In view of the call by the German Chancellor and the French Defence Minister for the resumption of European arms sales to the People's Republic of China, which have been embargoed since the Tiananmen square massacre, and rightly so in view of the continued repression in Tibet, human rights abuses in the People's Republic and sabre rattling against Taiwan, can the Foreign Secretary come to the House next week and make a statement that the Government will, at the European Foreign Ministers Council, veto any such suggestion, because if it were acceded to this request would lead to the European Union becoming a friend of the great dictators?
Mr. Hain: The Foreign Secretary will, of course, address the House next week, and he holds himself accountable to the House at every opportunity. On the question of arms sales to China or any other country, I point out to the House that after all the shenanigans and scandals of the last Conservative Government on this matter, we were responsible for introducing a strict code of practice that regulates arms exports and makes sure that they cannot be used for internal oppression or external aggression. In addition, and this is directly relevant to the hon. Gentleman's question, we were responsible for ensuring that much the same code of conduct was adopted by the EU, so we can proudly hold our heads high, knowing that we put defence trade on a much more equitable basis that respects human rights, rather than selling any arms to any country that wants to buy them, as tended to be the practice under the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported.

Points of Order
1.25 pm
Mr. Paul Tylerrose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me deal with a reply to a point of order that was made yesterday.
Yesterday, at column 520 of Hansard, the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) made a point of order about remarks made, on an intervention, by the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes). I undertook to check Hansard and come back to the House if it seemed necessary to do so.
It seems clear that the hon. Member for Ilford, South gave an incorrect year for the quotation which he read to the House. It would have been helpful, to me and to the House, if as a matter of courtesy he had acknowledged the mistake as soon as it was pointed out.
More importantly, I understand that the hon. Gentleman subsequently approached the Officials Box to talk to the civil servants there. I want to make it clear, as my predecessors have done, that the Box is provided solely for officials of Government Departments supporting Ministers in questions or debates. Civil servants using the Box must not take advantage of their position in the Chamber to brief Back Benchers, and Members should not give them any encouragement to break this rule.
Let me add this: the admittance of civil servants into the Box is by my permission. I shall not hesitate to rescind the privilege of any official to attend this Chamber in the Box if I believe that any of the rules that I have just set out have not been followed.
Mike Gapesrose—
Mr. Tyler: On a separate point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I shall call the hon. Member for Ilford, South first.
Mike Gapes: I apologise to you and to the House, Mr. Speaker? Yesterday, I had a quote that was entirely accurate except that, through a typographical error, it said 1998, not 1988. My intervention was made on the basis of that error, for which I apologise. I tried to check the exact date when I heard the Secretary of State's intervention. At that point, I was not clear about whether it was 1988 or 1998, which is why, in error, I approached the Box. I apologise again to you for that error, Mr. Speaker. Certainly it was not my intention to mislead the House, and I apologise to the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) if I, while accurately quoting what he said under a Conservative Government, gave the impression that he had said it under a Labour Government.
Mr. Speaker: I accept the hon. Gentleman's statement, and the matter is now ended.
Mr. Tyler: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On a separate matter, I want to apologise to you and the House. Quite uncharacteristically, I hope, I protested volubly a few minutes ago, when the Leader of the
666
House, no doubt entirely inadvertently, misled the House as to the nature of my party's policy on local income tax. He suggested that there was a paper saying that the Institute for Fiscal Studies had said that the tax would be in the region of 6p in the pound; it is in fact less than 4p in the pound. I am glad to have this opportunity to clarify the matter.
Mr. Speaker: I will not be drawn into that matter.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In today's Order Paper there is notice of a written ministerial statement on employers' liability compulsory insurance by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. A year ago, the Chancellor announced an inquiry into the crisis facing many thousands of businesses as a result of the acute increase in public and employers' liability insurance premiums. Surely, on the day that such an important report emerges, there should be an oral statement.
As it is, we get a written statement sneaked out into the Library at 11.58 am, so Members who were sitting through questions from 11.30 am would not have had a chance to see that important report had they stayed in the Chamber. They may have wanted to comment on the report or make inquiries of Ministers during today's debate. Surely if Ministers are to make written statements, they should put them in the Library at the earliest possible stage.
Mr. Speaker: I understand that the statement was received by the Library at 11.58 am. I look to Ministers to ensure that written statements are delivered to the Library promptly.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance on a matter that has arisen this morning, otherwise I would have given you prior notice. At 11 o'clock, the Standards and Privileges Committee published its first report of the 2003–04 Session. I am concerned about the serious allegations made in a newspaper that a Member of this House may have behaved treasonably. In the report, Sir Philip Mawer writes:
"It must be a shared concern of the Committee and of any Commissioner that a Member should not be able to block the investigation of a complaint under the processes approved by the House simply by threatening, or starting, a libel action.… If there appears to be any delay by Mr Galloway in pursuing legal proceedings, I shall seek further direction from the Committee."
Is there anything you can do, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that the work of Officers of the House are not obstructed?
Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for the Commissioner and the Committee.
Mr. Andrew Turner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On 22 and 29 October in Prime Minister's Question Time, the Prime Minister said that certain information was given to him and to the Taisoeach by General de Chastelain. I tabled three questions about the Prime Minister's statements to try to elicit further information, and when the Prime Minister replied on 6 November he referred straight

667
back to his statement on 29 October. Can you render any assistance in obtaining proper answers from the Prime Minister and other Ministers to parliamentary questions?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should seek advice from the Table Office. The quality of answers given by Ministers is not a matter for me.

BILL PRESENTED
  ARMED FORCES (PENSIONS AND COMPENSATION)
  Mr. Secretary Hoon, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Straw, Mr. Secretary Blunkett, Mr. Secretary Smith, Mr. Adam Ingram and Mr. David Lammy, presented a Bill to make new provision for establishing pension and compensation schemes for the armed or reserve forces; to amend the Pensions Appeal Tribunals Act 1943; to provide for the transfer of the property, rights and liabilities of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation to a registered charity; and for connected purposes:And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Monday 8 December, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 10].
Orders of the Day

  Debate on the Address
  [SIXTH DAY]
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [26 November],
  That an humble Address be presented to her Majesty, as follows:
  Most Gracious Sovereign,
  We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament— [Mr. McFall].
  Question again proposed.

  The Economy
  Mr. Speaker: I inform the House that I have selected for debate the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. Standing Order No. 33 provides that on the last day of the debate on the motion for an address to Her Majesty the House may also vote on a second amendment selected by the Speaker. I have selected the amendment in the name of the leader of the Liberal Democrat party for that purpose. The vote on that amendment will take place at the end of the debate after the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition has been disposed of.
  1.32 pm
  Mr. Oliver Letwin: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Address, at end add—
  `But regret that the Gracious Speech contains no measures to provide fundamental reform of public services or to reduce the level of waste in government; condemn the absence of proposals to restore the incentive to save, which has been eroded by the vast growth in means testing; deplore the absence of sufficient measures to avert the pensions crisis; further regret that the Gracious Speech makes no reference to the need to establish a more transparent and coherent fiscal structure; further condemn the absence of measures to fulfil the Government's pledge to improve the competitiveness of the British economy and the rate of productivity growth; note that rail delays have doubled and traffic congestion has increased under this Government, and that there are no measures in the Gracious Speech adequately to address the Government's failure to tackle these problems, which are damaging competitiveness and leading to reduced choice for the travelling public; further condemn the failure of a draft Bill to indicate what the powers of any regional assembly would be, even though proposals for local government reorganisation have been published; and believe that the Government's proposals to restrict the right to buy will frustrate the legitimate aspirations of tenants to own their homes.'.
  Within the general sphere of economic affairs, there are six Bills and two draft Bills. Before discussing them, I draw attention for almost the last time to the investment banking interests listed under my name in the Register of Members' Interests. I stand before the House a poorer but happier man.
  I am glad to be able to tell hon. Members that we start with broadly positive attitudes to each of the six Bills. We are enthusiastic about the central innovation contained in the Companies Audit and Investigations and Community Enterprise Bill. The voluntary sector is

  669
  the first sector: a foundation of everything we value in human society. Both the state and the market are essentially co-operative ventures; neither could be sustained without an active sense of the common good. We unreservedly welcome the evolution of new forms of association, which foster the social entrepreneurs who can transform whole neighbourhoods.
  I also welcome the Bill on civil partnerships. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition said, it addresses real grievances. I am personally delighted that there will be a free vote, on this side of the House at least. I shall vote in favour of the Bill.
  As far as the provisions and proposals on baby bonds, disabilities and employment relations are concerned, we will enter into constructive dialogue with the Government in Committee, although I should say that we do not regard child trust funds as an adequate substitute for a proper lifetime savings account, and we shall watch closely for any unnecessary regulatory burdens on small and medium-sized business emerging from disability and employment legislation.
  The energy Bill raises significant technical, accounting and environmental issues that we shall want to scrutinise. We share the aims, although we are not wholly convinced about the methods, of the pensions Bill. The fact that this Bill is now being introduced by the Government is, as my right hon. Friend Lord Forsyth has said in the other place, faintly reminiscent of the arsonist appearing with the fire extinguisher. We have to be careful that the arsonist does not light another fire. My hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, who is an acknowledged guru, will have more to say about the need for some imaginative and lateral thinking in this area. The requirement for full funding of company pension schemes before wind-up is in itself admirable. However, I am sure that the Chancellor will share our desire to avoid a situation in which this becomes a cause of reduction in the number of company schemes. These, too, are issues we shall need to discuss in Committee.
  I suppose that I should congratulate the Chancellor on keeping the draft Bill for a euro referendum just that: a draft. For our part, we would have preferred to see the officials doing something more useful with their time, but I suppose that if it gives the Prime Minister an executive toy to play with on his desk, that may be a small price to pay for avoiding any misguided attempt by the Government to do anything about the euro.
  Whatever the merits of these Bills, the truth is that the solution to the Government's ills and to the principal problems of the country is not more legislation; it is better administration. I give the Chancellor full credit for the vast energy that he has displayed in his unremitting, passionate and sincere attempt to improve the administration of public services through a panoply of five-year plans, 10-year plans, targets, initiatives, public service agreements, centralised funding, performance monitoring, comprehensive spending reviews, terms and conditions, audits and best value regimes.
  It all began with the noblest and most proper sentiments. In 1998, the Chancellor told The Sun that
  "we must ruthlessly ensure we get value for money…we are determined you get value for every penny we spend".
  670
  Alas, the dreams have turned to ashes. Today, the same newspaper contains evidence that the Chancellor's best value has meant no value. Comprehensive spending has meant comprehensive waste. We all remember Picketts Lock, the dome, and the Scottish Parliament building. We also remember the Passport and Records Agency fiasco, the armed forces asset management project and the renegotiation of a failed plan to link magistrates courts. [Interruption.] There is more. Members should contain themselves.
  Mr. John McFall: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Letwin: I would be delighted to give way. Will the hon. Gentleman explain whether the Select Committee on the Treasury, which he chairs, approves of the massive waste by the Government?
  Mr. McFall: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned newspapers. I note that yesterday he said that he would not talk about the financial services industry. He knows that members of the Select Committee and I are concerned about these issues. I would like a commitment that he will do an instant U-turn and tell the House that he will talk about financial services. I would like to know whether he will continue to talk about his target of 35 per cent. public spending for gross domestic product. Will he continue to talk on those issues?
  Mr. Letwin: As a matter of fact, there are such experts on the Opposition Front Bench on that subject that I do not intend to speak about it. The hon. Gentleman may be aware that last night I deprived him of the fun that he was intending to have on that subject.
  According to IT specialists—the hon. Gentleman ought to attend to this—£1.5 billion of spending on IT contracts has been wasted. Perhaps his Committee will look into that, because it has not been a very good record for a Chancellor who promised value for money.
  It is not just a matter of projects that have gone wrong. There is also the question of squandering money on an ever-expanding bureaucracy. Why have the Prime Minister's office costs gone up by over £6 million since 1997? Why do Health Ministers' offices cost 70 per cent. more since 1997? Why has the Cabinet Office declared an increase in taxi fares of 1,000 per cent? I do not like paying the congestion charge either, but is not that taking it a bit far? Why have 1,422 staff been added to the payroll of the Department of Trade and Industry, when the Chancellor himself agrees that 500 of them are redundant?
  Mr. George Foulkes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Letwin: I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps he can explain why more than 1,400 staff have been added to the Department of Trade and Industry payroll.
  Mr. Foulkes: I am here to ask questions, not answer them. I want the right hon. Gentleman to answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for

  671
  Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) that he avoided answering. The shadow Chancellor wrote in the Financial Times on—I had better get the date right—17 May 2001:
  "We would like to head downwards to 35 per cent of GDP. It is 190 per cent realistic to cut spending growth this way."
  Does the right hon. Gentleman still adhere to that—yes or no?
  Mr. Letwin: If that was the question, I apologise for not having understood in the least what the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) was trying to say. We are absolutely clear that we would like to reduce the burden of public expenditure and the level of tax compared with GDP, because we believe that a low-tax economy is a prosperous economy. We will stick with that.
  Mr. Foulkes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Letwin: No. I have answered the right hon. Gentleman's question.
  Why have the Government spent £882,351 renaming Government Departments and providing them with new logos? Why did the Ministry of Defence spend £8 million in 2002 on newspapers and magazines?
  David Wright: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Letwin: I will in a moment.
  Why did the NHS spend nearly £900,000 on the production and distribution of a magazine that was issued 10 times in a year but managed to sell only 22 copies of each edition? Why was NHS money in Wolverhampton spent on "empathy bellies", so that young men could feel what it was like to be pregnant? Why has the Department for Education and Skills spent over £650 million on truancy and unruly behaviour initiatives since 1997, yet seen truancy increase by 17 per cent?
  The truth is that, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) so brilliantly exposed last Wednesday, the Chancellor has transformed the principle of open government into the principle of the open wallet.
  Mr. Foulkes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Letwin: I will not.
  I regret to say that the Chancellor has lost control over the element of public expenditure that is in principle most controllable: the cost of the Government's administration of itself.
  David Wright: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is very generous in these matters. Dozens of people across the country will be interested in what he is saying. Does he consider the new deal for young people a bureaucratic waste of money?
  Mr. Letwin: The view that Conservative Members take is that there is more to be gained by floating pensioners off the ghastly array of means-tested benefits
  672
  that the Chancellor has proposed by raising the basic state pension in line with earnings, than by continuing with a new deal project that has been shown to be an expensive failure.
  Several hon. Membersrose—
  Mr. Letwin: I will continue, if hon. Members will forgive me.
  In many ways, the House should sympathise with the Chancellor's plight, because he is now beginning to experience the truth of the proposition put forward by his own chief economic adviser and his own permanent secretary:
  "It is easier to reduce revenue and increase expenditure than to do the reverse. So when things go wrong with the public finances it is difficult to put them right, particularly since it can take a long time even to recognise the problem".
  In the Supply estimates of March 1997, the Conservative Government asked Parliament to approve total spending on Government running costs in the succeeding year of £14.8 billion. In his first supplementary estimates, the Chancellor raised that figure by a modest £7 million—so far, so good.
  By November 1997, the Chancellor was already adding £89 million—not quite so good. In February 1998, he added a further £175 million—a total rise across the first year of the Labour Government of some £270 million—not particularly good at all. However, it was very moderate compared with what we have seen since.
  In March 2001, the Chancellor raised the cost limit on central Government administrative expenditure to £16.7 billion, an increase of 19 per cent. on the previous March, and then asked Parliament to approve an additional £763 million by the end of the year that he had not thought of at the beginning of the year. By today's standards, that was still very modest. In March this year, the Supply estimates allowed for £20.6 billion of Government administrative expenses and the additions— [Interruption.] The Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who is meant to be controlling these things, is yawning because he has been utterly asleep on the job. The additions in the two rounds of supplementary estimates are now running at something like £1.4 billion each year.
  Geraint Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Letwin: I always welcome interventions from the hon. Gentleman. I will certainly give way. Would he like to explain why the Government added £1.4 billion to the supplementary estimates?
  Geraint Davies: Is it not the case that the share of GDP spent by the Conservative Government in 1995–96—the figures are from the Library—was 42.5 per cent. and now it is only 39.7 per cent? The share of tax plus borrowing, borrowing being deferred tax, has also dropped by two points. Therefore, is it not the case that, if the right hon. Gentleman wanted to reduce public expenditure to 35 per cent. of GDP by slashing public services, he would be completely incompetent at it?
  Mr. Letwin: I thought that I would be pleased to take the hon. Gentleman's intervention. I wonder whether he

  673
  realises that if the Government had not added so much to central Government expenditure, in particular if they had not added £1.4 billion to their own costs in the middle of the year, the proportion of tax to GDP would be lower than it is at present. That is the point with which he must wrestle.
  To put that in a context that the Chancellor will be familiar with, he is adding the cost of four domes to the administrative overhead of government each year on purpose, and the cost of another two domes each year by mistake.
  Mr. Martin O'Neill: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Letwin: I will not take any more interventions for the moment. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I want to make progress.
  I expect that, in a few minutes, the Chancellor will come to the Dispatch Box and tell the House that he has recognised the problem and now recognises the need to reduce the cost of bureaucracy, but I fear that he will find it a more difficult and a slower process than he anticipates, because he has created great engines of growth within the bureaucracy. With new regulations on business alone running at nearly 15 per working day, not to mention the array of targets, plans and initiatives, the dynamic of senior civil servants building careers out of increasing pyramids of subordinates to administer increasing pyramids of regulation is well entrenched. Once the wallet has been opened, closing it takes very considerable political will and very considerable ingenuity. I have no doubt that the Chancellor has the ingenuity. We shall see whether he has the will.
  If the only effect of that open-wallet policy were to establish a bizarre combination of a culture of control and a culture of waste, it would be sad for the hard-pressed taxpayer but it might just be bearable. Unfortunately, the squandering of taxpayers' money is just a by-product of the Chancellor's largesse. The real tragedy lies in the fact that huge sums of money spent on public services, which are not being wasted, are nevertheless being systematically mis-spent.
  This year, the Government are spending over £50 million of taxpayers' money every hour of every day. By 2005 under Labour, people will be working for the taxman until 9 June each year. Taxes have been increased 60 times since 1997 but, because the Chancellor has made the public services dance to the tune of bureaucracy, because the public services have huge structural deficiencies, and because the Chancellor has failed to provide real reform, the public services are failing to deliver. Since 1997, current Government spending has increased by close to 50 per cent. but public sector output has increased by only 15 per cent.
  Mr. Steve Webb: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned structural deficiencies and talked about his policy of linking the pension to earnings. He is a very intelligent man and good with numbers. He will appreciate that the main way he will pay for his earnings-link policy will be by abolishing the new deal. That costs £600 million, £600 million, £600 million and £600 million in successive years, but his earnings-link
  674
  policy will get more and more expensive each year. How will he fund a rising spending commitment with a flat-rate cut?
  Mr. Letwin: Unlike some of the questions from Labour Members, that is a perfectly sensible question and there is a perfectly sensible answer to it. The other half of the cost of our policy in the first Parliament will be met, paradoxically and ironically, by the reduction in means-tested benefits that will be achieved by floating pensioners off means-tested benefits. The second and subsequent Parliaments do indeed require further funding. Part of that funding will also come from floating more and more pensioners off more and more means-tested benefits, giving them dignity and an incentive to save in retirement. We will come forward with detailed proposals about how, in those second and subsequent Parliaments, the remainder of those costs will be met well in time for the election. We can have an interesting debate with the hon. Gentleman. It would be nice if I thought that we could also have an interesting debate with the Labour party, which seems determined to make more and more pensioners dependent and to give fewer and fewer people an incentive to save. It is a tragedy for this country.
  Mr. John Redwood: Given that the Chancellor taxed telephone companies and they crashed, and that he then taxed pension funds and they were driven to near bankruptcy, as a fellow home owner does my right hon. Friend fear that the Chancellor is now going to tax housing to the point where that is destroyed, too?
  Mr. Letwin: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right in his suspicion that this is a Chancellor whose ingenuity in designing 60 additional taxes knows no bounds. There may be no limit to the number of things that he will in due course tax. However, I hope that we will see in the pre-Budget report and in the Budget that follows that even this Chancellor desists from what were mooted as plans to tax primary residences. That would be the death knell of this Government.
  In the NHS, where the Chancellor has said that
  "the consumer is not sovereign,"
  there are more administrators than beds. There are still nearly I million people on waiting lists and 24,000 more administrators not looking after them. As a consequence, although the Government's latest figures show—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) should attend to his colleagues who mentioned this matter previously. Although the Government's figures show that NHS expenditure has risen by 37 per cent. in real terms, output has increased by just 5 per cent.
  I hesitate to intrude on the private grief of the relationship between the Chancellor and the Prime Minister, but the Chancellor will be aware that the Prime Minister describes the input-output measure of productivity as "bizarre". The Prime Minister continues that it
  "takes no account of improvements in waiting times."
  However, a moment's pause for reflection will explain why the Chancellor, with his ruthless intellectual integrity, has not used the Prime Minister's argument.

  675
  Assuming that demand from patients has not diminished, which it has not, how can waiting times in the NHS have decreased significantly across the years without the number of operations in the NHS increasing significantly across the same years? How can patients be got off the waiting list without being given operations? The only plausible explanations are that patients have been spending their life savings seeking faster operations in the private sector, or that waiting lists have somehow been manipulated, or both. In short, what is bizarre is not the productivity measure, but the admissions implicit in the Prime Minister's argument.
  The Prime Minister's argument, however, suffers from another, simpler deficiency: waiting times have not been coming down. According to the Government's latest figures, the average waiting time for NHS operations has gone up from 91 to 99 days. On the Prime Minister's logic, taking account of waiting times, we can presumably say that NHS output has increased by less than 5 per cent. after 37 per cent. more funding has been put into the system.
  I fear that other measures of performance in the public sector also give grounds for serious concern. Despite the fact that we have more police, more than 50 per cent. of police officers on a shift are delayed in the station and a crime is committed every five seconds. One in three children leave primary school unable to read, write and count properly. It is true that there are times when the Chancellor seems almost ready to acknowledge that central control can have adverse effects on overall efficiency, but he goes on to assert that central control is nevertheless needed to ensure consistent standards. That argument does not match the facts. The quality of local schools, hospitals and police forces varies widely from one area to the next. Hospital mortality figures show that patients are twice as likely to die in the worst-performing hospital in England as they are in the best.
  Mr. Tom Harris: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Letwin: It is very unlikely.
  In the 10 best local education authorities in the country, 60 per cent. of pupils obtain five good GCSE passes, whereas in the worst 10 half as many do. It was never meant to be like that. The Prime Minister knows that. He understands that public services desperately need real reform.
  Mr. Harris: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Letwin: As the hon. Gentleman is so insistent I feel some pity for him. I hope that he can make a constructive contribution—if he does, it will be the first time in my experience.
  Mr. Harris: I am grateful for the graciousness with which the right hon. Gentleman has given way. In the spirit of helpfulness, it would be extremely useful if I were able to respond to inquiries from my constituents, who might wonder how much a pensioner would have to take to the private health service along with the voucher that a future Conservative Government would
  676
  give. For example, if a pensioner in my constituency wanted a hip replacement operation, how much of her own money would she have to take to the private health service under the voucher scheme proposed by the Conservatives?
  Mr. Letwin: Blow me down—the hon. Gentleman has made a constructive contribution to the debate. He has asked a perfectly reasonable question. The problem that pensioners face today is that they cannot choose a hospital within the NHS. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I will come on to answer the hon. Gentleman's question directly. The problem that the pensioner faces in the NHS as run by the Chancellor and his acolytes, is that he or she is not able to choose a hospital, That pensioner is not sovereign; the bureaucrats are.
  Under our passport, that pensioner will be able to choose which NHS hospital to go to and the amount that he or she will pay for going there will be zero. The pensioner will receive treatment at NHS hospitals that is free at the point of care, as at present. Today, that pensioner may be spending his or her life savings on having an operation in the private sector, and when doing so the amount that he or she will receive from the taxpayer is zero. Under our proposals, that pensioner will get a subvention from the taxpayer broadly equal to the marginal costs that would otherwise be encountered in the NHS. That is a rational policy that the Government, under the Prime Minister, would adopt were it not for the fact that the Chancellor will not let them.
  Many in the House will remember the Prime Minister telling The Big Issue in 1997 that
  "the days when government shovelled out more money are just not going to happen any more",
  or the new year message in 2002 when the Prime Minister said that
  "we must be bold on reform, opening up public services to greater diversity of supply"—
  I know that Labour Members do not like listening to the Prime Minister, but bear with him for a moment—
  "consumer choice and flexibility of working, ending the 'one size fits all' idea of the past."
  Those are not my words; they are the Prime Minister's. Members might also remember the Prime Minister telling The Times two months ago:
  "It is a special responsibility to stake out the centre ground of British politics"—
  the ground that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart wants to avoid. The Prime Minister talked about
  "how to combine investment in our public services with genuine reform so that they become personalised services built around the individual."
  Unfortunately, although the Prime Minister understands the need for real reform, he has not been able to convince the Chancellor. The result is a tragedy of wasted opportunity, epitomised by the foundation hospitals fiasco. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Health genuinely wanted hospitals to be set free from controls from the centre and the bureaucracy of star ratings, targets and inspections, but the Chancellor refused to relax the Treasury grip. Not only are many of the controls maintained, but new controls and costs are added.

  677
  The Chancellor has made a colossal structural mistake. His recent utterances about reform serve only the purpose of masking that mistake; they do not remedy it. In the Queen's Speech, there should have been bold moves to turn the public services round so that they become responsive to their users rather than the bureaucracy—the very point I was making earlier. However, to do that—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker(Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) must know to behave better than that.
  Mr. Letwin: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but to avoid any embarrassment on the part of the hon. Gentleman, I will give way to him.
  Mr. Barry Gardiner: The right hon. Gentleman was gracious enough to say that the my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) asked a sensible question. What he failed to do was provide the answer. The question was: how much money would the pensioner have to contribute? The right hon. Gentleman said what the subvention would be, but he did not say how much the pensioner would have to contribute. Will he cast his mind back and inform the House what his policy is?
  Mr. Letwin: I know from previous debates that the hon. Gentleman is intelligent, so I assume that he is merely being purposefully obtuse. My argument was perfectly clear. Currently, pensioners have a choice. They can receive free treatment in the NHS, or they can pay a large sum to receive treatment in the private sector. Under our proposals, pensioners will be able to receive free treatment in the NHS at no additional cost—zero cost. If pensioners wish, however, they will be able to receive treatment in the private sector at less cost to them than at present. The upshot is that, one way, pensioners do not gain or lose financially, and the other way, they gain financially. The point of the system is to create competition, contestability and efficiency. The Government are so signally failing to produce those things that they are managing to put 37 per cent. extra into the system to get 5 per cent. extra out. That is the characteristic of the colossal structural mistake that the Chancellor has made. As I have said, his recent utterances serve only the purpose of masking that mistake.
  There should have been bold moves to turn the public services round, but to do that the Chancellor would have to admit that the consumer has to be king, and he will not do that. In this Queen's Speech, there should have been effective proposals to rein in the tendency of Whitehall to regulate, plan and control, and to put a brake on the engine that drives the expansion of the burgeoning bureaucracy. However, to do that the Chancellor would have to admit that the culture of the open wallet and of total control have established themselves in Whitehall under this Government, and he will not do that.
  The Queen's Speech should have begun with an acknowledgment that the Government have taxed, spent, wasted and failed. It should have acknowledged that a fundamental change of direction is needed, but it
  678
  is utterly unimaginable that the Chancellor would admit to any such thing, and without repentance there is no redemption. The challenge for the Government is to combine prosperity with real and fundamental reform of the public services, to offer value for money, to make public services accountable and attuned to local needs and to offer people real choice over their hospitals and schools and the kind of policing that they want. For six years the Prime Minister has promised such things, but he has been constrained by his Chancellor. The people of Britain should not have to wait for a general election in order to overcome those constraints and fulfil those ambitions, but I fear that that is exactly what they will have to do.
  2 pm
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): In welcoming the shadow Chancellor to his new post in this Queen's Speech debate, I should point out that he has made three astonishing admissions already. First, he has admitted that he would abolish the new deal because he considers it an expensive failure, a point to which I shall return. Secondly, he has admitted that he would reduce public spending to 35 per cent. of national income. That is an £80 billion cut in public expenditure, which would be the equivalent of wiping out most of the health service. Thirdly, he has admitted that under his proposals, the pensioner who has an operation in the private sector would have to pay several thousand pounds. [Interruption.] If I may, I shall give the right hon. Gentleman the figures. The cost would be £5,000 for a hip joint operation, £7,000 for a knee joint operation and £9,000 for a heart bypass. That is health care based on ability to pay, rather than on need.
  Mr. Jonathan Djanogly: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brown: In a minute.
  I turn to the most remarkable aspect of this afternoon's debate. This is the debate on the economy—and industry. The right hon. Gentleman is not just the new shadow Chancellor; he also has the title of shadow Secretary of State for Economic Affairs. Yet not one mention has been made of the fact that we have had the lowest inflation rates for 40 years. the lowest interest rates for 40 years, the longest period of economic growth for 50 years, and more people in employment than at any time in our history. All this has happened under a Labour Government.
  The right hon. Gentleman fails to mention the economy because if we were to compare our record with his, he would have to admit that while he was an economic adviser in No. 10, under a Conservative Government interest rates went to 15 per cent., inflation rose to 10 per cent., 2 million jobs were lost, 1.5 million people had negative equity as a result of their policies, and taxes had to be raised 22 times simply to pay for their additional borrowing of £80 billion, contrary to every promise that they made during the 1992 general election. Perhaps most significant of all, if he talked about taxation he would have to admit to his one claim to fame: he claims to be one of the authors—indeed, one of the inspirers—of the poll tax. When we have these

  679
  debates on taxation, perhaps he will explain to us why he said that the poll tax had to be abandoned not because it was wrong or unfair, but because it was
  "grotesquely mis-implemented because it should have been phased in over a long period of time."
  That is the qualification that the right hon. Gentleman brings when he speaks on financial and tax issues.
  Mr. Andrew Turner: Now will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brown: I am very happy to give way. And perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain how he will tell his constituents of the effect that an £80 billion cut in public expenditure would have on his hospitals and schools, and how many doctors, nurses and teachers would lose their jobs.
  Mr. Turner: If that were our policy, we would of course have to explain it. The Chancellor needs to explain why the people in my constituency, for example, who live in modest bungalows and terraced houses are paying for private operations that they cannot get on the NHS, at the prices that he quoted and above, and why the number of such people has multiplied threefold since his party came to power.
  Mr. Brown: I know precisely why there would not be more operations in the national health service if the hon. Gentleman's party were to implement a policy of cutting public expenditure. He says that if it were his party's policy to reduce public spending to 35 per cent. he might defend it, but what is its policy? The shadow Chancellor said in an interview:
  "There has to be a third guiding rule which has to do, over time, with reducing rather than increasing the tax take, or … not allowing it to climb".
  When he was shadow Chief Secretary, he said:
  "We would like to head downwards to 35 per cent of GDP. It is 190 per cent realistic to cut spending growth this way."
  And in case anybody thinks that the right hon. Gentleman has been misinterpreted, and that this matter should not form part of a debate on Conservative and Labour policies, I should point out that he had to write to the Financial Times after that interview, saying:
  "The story as written in the Financial Times is a perfectly accurate representation of comments made by me to the FT."
  In other words,his policy is to reduce public expenditure to 35 per cent. of GDP, which constitutes an £80 billion cut. I am now very happy to give way, as I said I would, to the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly).
  Mr. Djanogly: I thank the Chancellor for giving way. He mentions the low interest rate economy, but fails to mention that it has resulted in business not investing in the way he said it would. He also fails to mention that 300,000 jobs in manufacturing have gone. Perhaps he would care to explain the implications of his policies in that regard.
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman attempts to talk down the British economy, but in the past few years it is the only economy that has avoided recession. America,
  680
  Japan, Germany and France have been in recession, but Britain has continued to grow. Business investment has of course been affected in every part of the world, but in the United Kingdom such investment, as a share of national income, has risen under a Labour Government, partly as a result of our cuts in corporation tax and our changes in investment allowances.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Redwood: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brown: I should be happy to give way to the right hon. Gentleman, who does speak on trade and industry matters, unlike the shadow Secretary of State for Economic Affairs. Perhaps he will explain what good it would do the national health service and other parts of our public services if we were to cut public expenditure to 35 per cent. of GDP.
  Mr. Redwood: There is no intention to cut public spending. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm what Labour Back Benchers have been saying, which is that under his regime, there is a small reduction in the proportion of GDP going towards public spending? Does that show that he has been cutting public spending, or that the economy has been growing?
  Mr. Brown: We were right to spend on the national health service; we were right to spend on education; we were right to spend on, and invest in, the transport infrastructure; and we were right to spend on more policing. It is therefore right that public expenditure as a share of national income has risen since 1997, and it is right that we invest in these vital services.
  Mr. Stephen Dorrell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brown: I shall give way in a minute to the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), who is someone who says that he wishes to invest in the national health service. The question, however, that Conservative Members must answer is whether they are going to enter the next election promising that they will cut public expenditure to 35 per cent. of GDP—an £80 billion cut in public expenditure. They would then have to explain in every constituency in this country how many hospitals and schools would be affected, and how many teachers and nurses would be made redundant. I now give way to the former Health Secretary, who will perhaps defend the national health service from the Conservative Benches.
  Mr. Dorrell: I am grateful to the Chancellor for giving way. He lists a number of things that he thinks he was right to have done. When he first announced his planned borrowing for the current financial year in the 2001 Budget, he said that he planned to borrow £10 billion. The City now believes that he will actually need to borrow £40 billion. Is that change in his plans right, or did it happen by accident?
  Mr. Brown: It is right for Governments to borrow at a time of a world downturn. The right hon. Gentleman

  681
  will know that the American deficit is in the order of 6 per cent., and that the German and French deficits are in the order of 4 per cent. [Interruption.] The American deficit is approximately 5 to 6 per cent. —far higher than ours will be or could be.
  So that the right hon. Gentleman is in no doubt, let me point out that spending on the war in Afghanistan and on the war on terror—both international and domestic—is approaching £2 billion so far. That was the
  right thing to do, even though that expenditure was incurred after the 2001 Budget. The House will also know that I set aside £3 billion to fund the cost of military operations in Iraq. I have made clear my resolve to ensure that our armed forces and security services are properly supported for whatever lies ahead. In addition, we have spent £250 million on reconstruction in Iraq, with a further £300 million having been committed. The total spent and committed so far for the war on terror and our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan is about £5.5 billion. I shall publish further updates on those figures, and further information, next week in the pre-Budget report—and I will be able to tell the House not only that we meet our fiscal rules, but that we will never get the economy into the situation that prevailed when the right hon. Gentleman was in the Cabinet, when public borrowing rose to £80 billion.
  Sir Peter Tapsell: On the subject of public borrowing, does the Chancellor accept that if he had not sold our gold reserves at $260 an ounce before the price went up to $400, he would have rather less to borrow?
  Mr. Brown: I do not accept that at all. The problem was that the reserves should have been rebalanced years before we were in government. It should have been done under the Conservative Government. because to have properly balanced reserves—particularly, if I may say so, given the rise of the euro in recent months—is to the advantage of the British Exchequer and the British economy.
  Mr. Djanogly rose—
  Kevin Brennan rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We can have only one hon. Member on his feet at a time—and when that is me, all other hon. Members must resume their seats.
  Mr. Brown: There is never a debate when the Conservatives' enthusiasm for their European position does not shine through.
  Richard Ottaway rose—
  Mr. Brown: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but then I will have to make some progress, because we need to talk about the economy, especially as the shadow Chancellor failed to do so.
  Richard Ottaway: May I turn the Chancellor's mind to the subject of productivity? He will know that in the five years to 1997, productivity was running at more than 2.5 per cent., whereas in the five years since 1997, it has been running at 1.5 per cent., in stark contrast to
  682
  productivity in the United States, which is 3 per cent. Is that a result of the growth of the public sector or the growth in bureaucracy and red tape for business?
  Mr. Brown: Productivity is rising above 2 per cent., and manufacturing productivity is in the order of 5 per cent. The only years in which productivity fell were under the Conservative Government—1980 and 1989—and the only years in which manufacturing productivity fell were 1980, 1995 and 1996. Our record on productivity is far better than the record of a Conservative Government who, at the same time as failing to raise productivity dramatically, lost the British economy millions of jobs. We are creating jobs.
  Mr. McFall: Will the Chancellor give way?
  Mr. Brown: I shall give way to the Chairman of the Treasury Select Committee, because I believe we can have a debate about the economy.
  Mr. McFall: May I remind my right hon. Friend that he was imprecise with regard to the comments made by the shadow Chancellor, who is on record as saying that he was one of the 20 people who created the poll tax? May I have a message from the Chancellor about what I can tell my pensioners when I meet them as I walk down Dumbarton high street on a Saturday, about what the future would be like for them if public spending were 35 per cent. of GDP?
  Mr. Brown: I was coming to the debate on the public services, and I think that people will realise that with that policy, it would be impossible to have 80,000 more nurses and 25,000 more doctors, or 90,000 more classroom assistants and 25,000 more teachers, or to build 120 hospital developments, repair 20,000 schools and double the amount of national health service equipment with the most advanced technology. Hon. Members would have to explain to their constituents that instead of hospitals being opened, hospitals would have to be closed, and that instead of nurses being hired, nurses would have to be sacked.
  Mr. Djanogly rose—
  Mr. Brown: It is time to make progress in what I have to say about the Government's policies, and how they compare with Opposition policies.
  Mr. David Laws: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brown: I shall not give way any more now.
  There are 200,000 more jobs in the United Kingdom than there were a year ago. In the most recent quarter alone nearly 50,000 new jobs have been created. There are now almost 1.7 million more people in work since 1997, and since the beginning of 2001, 3 million jobs have been lost in America, 1.5 million in Japan and 1.5 million in Germany. It is to the credit of this Government's policies that half a million jobs have been created, not lost, in Britain during that period.

  683
  The shadow Chancellor should take an interest in this matter, because in his constituency the unemployment rate is 0.8 per cent. as a result of a Labour Government.
  Mr. Laws rose—
  Mr. Brown: I am not giving way at the moment.
  The new Conservative leader, and now the shadow Chancellor too, have said that the new deal is an expensive failure. They have said that they would abolish it immediately. They would abolish the new deal for the under-25s, for the long-term unemployed and for lone parents; the only new deal that they would retain is the new deal for the over-50s—perhaps because they may have to use it themselves after the next election.
  Mr. Laws: Will the Chancellor give way?
  Mr. Brown: I shall give way in a minute, but not now; I am making progress on the new deal.
  The new deal has proved— [Interruption.] I know that there are Conservative Members who know that the new deal has worked in their constituencies, that it gives people a better chance of getting jobs, and that the new deal for single parents saves the Government money rather than costing money, because it helps more people get to work.
  The Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, who is a Conservative, has praised the new deal for young people—so why are the Conservatives so determined to abolish the new deal? Why are the ideology and dogma of the Conservative party now so extreme that their policy at the next election will be to abolish the new deal? May I suggest that they have learned nothing and forgotten nothing from the experience of the early 1990s, when at the very moment when unemployment was rising, the former shadow Chancellor, who is now the leader of the Conservative party, and was then the Employment Secretary, abolished the enterprise allowance scheme, the jobstart scheme, the jobshare programme and the employment rehabilitation service for disabled people? At every point when there is a choice to make, Conservatives are prepared to see people unemployed rather than help them get work. That is a major dividing line between our parties now, as we move towards an election.
  Angela Eagle: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the success of the new deal, which has virtually wiped out youth unemployment in my constituency. Has he any idea of what I can tell my constituents when they hear the shadow Chancellor refer to it as an expensive waste of time, even though in Wallasey it is giving new hope and opportunities to many of my constituents?
  Mr. Brown: Even if only a few people in our constituencies had got jobs as a result of the new deal, it would still have been worth while, because it is a social investment as well as an economic investment—but the fact is that 2 million people are in or have been through the new deal, hundreds of thousands have got jobs as a
  684
  result, and the new deal has done better in the regions where the highest unemployment had been the greatest cause of social problems.
  I cannot understand how a Conservative party leader can say that he is moving his party to the centre while repeating exactly the mistakes of the past, when the Conservatives made people unemployed and pulled away any help for them when they became redundant.
  Mr. Laws rose—
  Mr. Brown: I shall give way to the deputy Liberal economic affairs spokesman now.
  Mr. Laws: I am grateful to the Chancellor for giving way so graciously.
  On the key issue of public service reform, the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that there has been much speculation about whether there are divisions between the Prime Minister and himself on top-up tuition fees. So that we can be in no doubt, will he tell us specifically whether he supports variable top-up fees?
  Mr. Brown: Yes, and if the hon. Gentleman would read my speeches and do his research, he would know that that is exactly the position. The difficulty, however, is that the Conservative proposition would mean not only that there would be no opportunities for unemployed people, because there would be no new deal, but that if the Conservatives took up the policy that they propose on tuition fees, 100,000 students who are already at university would not be there, and in total 250,000 students would be denied university places. How can the Conservative party claim to be a party of the centre, when it is pursuing extreme policies that would deny opportunities to thousands of people in constituencies throughout the country?
  The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) is supposed to be doing a study of the costings of Liberal party policy, so he may find it interesting to note that even after his proposed tax rise, there would still be a £14 billion gap in his spending plans. Perhaps he should listen to the cautionary words of the former Liberal Treasury spokesman, who said that it was not possible to make any more spending commitments because the commitments that the party had already made had virtually burst the bank. In every part of the country, the Liberals will be exposed for what they are—people who make promises that everybody knows they can never deliver. Now, if I give way to the hon. Member for Huntingdon, who has been waiting to enter the debate for some time, perhaps he can tell me precisely what the Conservative economic policy is.
  Mr. Djanogly: The Chancellor has spent some time explaining how so many jobs have been created through his various policies. What he has failed to say that is business is not creating the jobs, because people are being sacked here and jobs are being created in India. The public sector, the Chancellor and his Government are creating the jobs. If people were digging roads in the public sector in the 1930s, they are now sitting in town halls and Whitehall. How is the Chancellor going to help business to create jobs?
  Mr. Brown: I would say that the hon. Gentleman is ranting about the matter. In the last six and a half years,

  685
  1.7 million jobs have been created in the economy. No other economy has such a record. Conservative Members are trying to suggest that every one of those 1.7 million jobs is somehow pen-pushing in the public sector. However, the vast majority of those jobs are in the private sector and the vast majority of jobs in the public sector are the thousands of nurses, teachers, classroom assistants, policemen and women—and it is about time the Opposition recognised that if this country is to have a health service that it can be proud of, they will have to vote for the extra moneys necessary to invest in it. That is why the 1p rise in national insurance should be supported.
  I was demonstrating that the Conservative party is pledged to abolish the new deal, while we wish to expand it, build on it and employ training pilots so that people can get the skills that they need. The Lambert report is published this morning, and help for university spin-off companies will be available so that new jobs in high-technology industries can be created. We shall reform the Employment Service so that it can do a better job of helping people who are hard to employ. None of that would be possible if we denied the Employment Service and the new deal the necessary moneys to help people get back to work and get the requisite skills, which is supposed to be the Conservative policy.
  Another Government policy is investing in the public services, and I have to tell Conservative Members that if we were to reduce public spending to 35 per cent. of gross domestic product, we would have to make many people in public services redundant. Furthermore, there is no doubt that over the past few years, what has kept the British economy moving is the symmetrical inflation target and the monetary policy pursued by the Bank of England. The credibility that has emerged from the Bank of England's work has led interest rates to be actively pushed down to the point at which it was necessary to keep the world economy and the British economy moving forward. It was also necessary to have fiscal policy to support monetary policy during that period. That is why a programme of cuts in public expenditure would have been the wrong thing for the British economy.
  Conservative Members do not want to engage in the issue of what is the right economic policy, and particularly the right macro-economic policy, for Britain. It is good that this country did not have to suffer from their policies over recent years. They refused to make the Bank of England independent. They never supported our symmetrical inflation target until it was too late. They refused to provide the fiscal boost that was appropriate for the economy and they would have abolished the new deal. Pursuing Conservative policies over recent years would doubtless have led to a repetition of the same boom-bust, stop-go policies of the past. Conservative policies would have put Britain into recession.
  Helen Jones: As well as noting the dismissive attitude of Conservative Members to our position on public sector workers—they seem to dismiss them as not having real jobs—has my right hon. Friend made an estimate of the effect on the wider
  686
  economy of making public sector employees redundant? Public sector workers would no longer pay taxes or contribute through buying goods and services.
  Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is right that public servants make a contribution not just to public services, but to the economy as a whole. She is also absolutely right that Conservative policy is to devalue the work of public servants. I see that the shadow Chief Secretary has just joined the debate. Let me quote what he said in an article in The Sunday Times on 10 March 2002:
  "The whole mentality in the public sector is to do as little as you can".
  I would be happy to give way if the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) would like to correct his statement. However, it seems to me that when we reach the next general election and we are explaining policies on the public services, if the hon. Gentleman makes such accusations against good public servants, including nurses, doctors, teachers and classroom assistants, and tells them that their mentality is to do as little as they can, we shall genuinely know the feelings of the Conservative party towards the public services of this country.
  The shadow Chancellor was good enough to admit that his policy was to provide vouchers to help people move into private health care services, but he refused to tell us how much money people would have to put up to enable them to receive the benefits of such treatment. I have here a pamphlet written several years ago by the shadow Chancellor and the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). It is a manifesto not just for vouchers in the NHS, but for charges all round within the NHS. It is a manifesto for private health insurance to be taken up, perhaps compulsorily, by many people, and for breaking up the NHS as we know it. I believe that the whole country will be looking to the shadow Chancellor as he formulates his plans for the future to see whether the Conservative party policy is not just for vouchers, but for charges, cuts, privatisation and the break-up of the NHS. That is undoubtedly the aim of the Conservative party.
  Sir Brian Mawhinney rose—
  Mr. Brown: I am sorry, but I have already given way many times.
  The Queen's Speech debate has already revealed much about the modern Conservative party. The Conservatives want to abolish the new deal, to cut public expenditure to 35 per cent. of national income—an £80 billion cut in public services—and to force a voucher system on the NHS, which would mean that health care would for many people be based on ability to pay rather than on need.
  Mr. Letwin: Wrong again.
  Mr. Brown: I gladly give way to the shadow Chancellor so that he can explain his plans.
  Mr. Letwin: I am delighted that the Chancellor has given way. I tried to explain it earlier, but perhaps he was attending to his notes. It would be helpful if the Chancellor focused on one issue. Under our scheme

  687
  every patient who seeks a hospital place in the NHS will receive that place free—as at present—but they will have choice. The Chancellor hopes to deny them that choice and he wants to prevent the Prime Minister from providing it. Will the Chancellor explain why he is so opposed to the choices of patients?
  Mr. Brown: There is, and should be, choice for patients. Patient choice is being extended. However, the right hon. Gentleman's proposals—we welcome any debates on the subject in the House, because they will expose the Conservative party—would remove funds from the NHS and run down capacity that should be built up in the NHS. It achieves that in two ways. There is a deadweight cost for subsidising private health insurance through tax relief, which is at least £1 billion, and there is the additional cost of the vouchers themselves. Those deadweight costs, which apply before anyone who does not use private care benefits, amount to another £1 billion. How can the Conservatives say that the health service is safe in their hands when their fundamental proposal is to take several billion pounds out of the NHS and put it into private care? They do not want to build up capacity in the NHS even though we know that the average cost per operation in the NHS is only half that in the private sector. It is therefore more cost-effective to invest in the NHS.
  Mr. Letwin rose—
  Mr. Brown: I happily give way so that the right hon. Gentleman can explain the full contents of his pamphlet for the privatisation of the health service.
  Mr. Letwin: I was hoping that the Chancellor would tell us—it would help enormously in respect of the debate that he mentioned—whether he accepts that there is some sort of problem on some scale or other about putting 37 per cent. more into something and getting only 5 per cent. out. If there were a problem of that sort, could it be a reason for engaging in some sort of fundamental reform?
  Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, but let me read out what has happened in the NHS over recent years. When we came to power, 11.5 million outpatients were treated, by comparison with 13 million now. In elective surgery, 4.4 million patients compares with 5.3 million now. The 11.6 million consultant episodes then contrasts with 12.8 million now. Ambulance services dealt with 3.5 million people when we came to power, as opposed to 4.9 million now. There were 473,000 magnetic resonance imaging scans, but 786,000 now. With ultra-sound scans, 4.8 million compares with 6.6 million. The 166,000 cataract operations have become—[Interruption.] Conservative Members do not like it, but it is the truth about what is happening in the NHS. Prescriptions of statin have increased from 4 million to 19 million. If the right hon. Gentleman is trying to suggest that that is not an improvement both in the capacity and the productivity
  688
  of the national health service, he is making a terrible mistake and is indicting nurses, doctors and good public servants for what they do.
  Mr. Letwin rose—
  Mr. Brown: I am happy to give way, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will now explain his proposals for privatisation of the health service.
  Mr. Letwin: I am grateful to the Chancellor for giving way again. Of course I understand the therapeutic effects of reading out lists of that kind for his hon. Friends, but I beg him to enter serious debate about a matter that he says is serious, and we agree with him. Is there not a problem about putting that amount of money in and getting so little out? What is his proposal for curing that problem, if not to introduce choice, competition and contestability? He is in favour of those principles in the rest of the economy and society, so why does he think that they will not produce results in the national health service?
  Mr. Brown: Let us talk about productivity between the different sectors. The cost of cataract removal under BUPA is £2,275; the NHS cost is £1,000. A hip replacement costs £8,000 under BUPA, but £4,500 under the NHS. The BUPA cost for a knee replacement is £9,650; the NHS cost is £4,800. A heart bypass costs £13,050 under BUPA; the NHS cost is £6,000. Let the right hon. Gentleman tell me which is more productive. Furthermore, administrative costs in BUPA and the private sector are three times the percentage of income compared with the NHS.
  Perhaps the shadow Chancellor can explain another avenue that is being tentatively explored by the Conservatives: charging. In principle, that could be extended to the point of universality. Can he explain that?
  Hon. Members: Answer.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Has the Chancellor finished his speech?
  Mr. Brown: Mr. Deputy Speaker, we know where the Conservatives stand. They would abolish the new deal, cut public spending to 35 per cent., privatise much of the national health service and introduce a system of vouchers and private health insurance that would deprive the NHS of billions. That is the vision of Britain that the Conservative party offers the country. That is why people want a Labour vision of stability, employment, growth, investment in public services and a commitment to a national health service free at the point of need. I commend our position to the House.
  2.32 pm
  Dr. Vincent Cable: We have not heard much debate on the Queen's Speech, but there have been extensive exchanges about the achievements and failures of the British economy and its management. I am happy to join that debate, but in any intelligent discussion of British economic performance we must

  689
  recognise from the outset that there have been achievements as well as failures and I acknowledge some of those achievements.
  We have had steady growth. There has been low inflation—as there has been in the rest of the industrial world—falling unemployment and rising employment, and a framework has been established for stable monetary policy. All those things are positive. However, just as it is dangerous to ignore the achievements, it is also dangerous to exaggerate them. The following comments were made in the recent past about the performance of the British economy:
  "the British economy is stronger than at any time since the war." — [Official Report, 15 March 1988; Vol. 129, c. 993.]
  "In Britain today we have more people in work than ever before in our history; they are better motivated than ever before, and their living standards have improved beyond recognition." —[Official Report, 14 March 1989; Vol. 149, c. 294.]
  Those comments were made not by the present Chancellor, but by Mr. Nigel Lawson shortly before he presided over the collapse of the 1980s boom. Like the present Chancellor, Nigel Lawson was an intelligent and eloquent man, but he is now generally regarded as a failure because he ignored the build-up of consumer credit and the asset bubble in the housing market that subsequently burst—conditions that are almost identical to those that currently prevail.
  Kevin Brennan: Before the hon. Gentleman goes on with his impression of Private Frazer from "Dad's Army" and tells us that we are all doomed, will he say whether he recognises that one of the Government's great economic achievements is the national minimum wage? Does he support that?
  Dr. Cable: I was the Liberal Democrat spokesman for trade and industry when the national minimum wage legislation went through. I supported it then and have done so constantly; indeed, I have argued that the minimum wage for younger workers was deficient—
  Mr. Gardiner: You were in the Labour party then.
  Dr. Cable: I was not in the Labour party. I was the Liberal Democrat spokesman and I supported the national minimum wage and I continue to do so.
  A feature of Nigel Lawson's period as Chancellor was that—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I point out to the hon. Gentleman that it is usual to refer to a Member of the other place as the noble Lord rather than his former name?
  Dr. Cable: When the noble Lord was a Member of this place he made one significant achievement: he progressed reform of the tax system and greatly simplified it—something that the present Chancellor has done much to reverse. Indeed, I sense that in many ways the Chancellor's management style at the micro level bears a strong resemblance to the management style being practised at Stamford Bridge under its present manager, Signor Ranieri, who is affectionately referred to as "Tinkerman". The problem with tinkering, whether with economic policy or football, is that it
  690
  works well at satisfactory periods, but when problems arise all the distortions and waste associated with tinkering come to light.
  Before I discuss the Government's record I want to say a few words to the Conservative spokesman. A week ago, the right hon. Gentleman gave an interview to a newspaper about his ambitions for his new office. In his characteristically charming way, he said:
  "I am extremely determined not to turn into a creep".
  I am sure that there is no danger of that. I think he was trying to make the point that he wanted to establish a track record for honesty and openness, so will he comment on a statement published by the Financial Times on Monday, following the interview that the Conservative leader gave about economic policy on "Breakfast with Frost"? The press statement said:
  "Michael Howard has insisted that there is no conflict between improving public services and cutting taxes, and claimed that the Conservatives' reform plans have received the blessing of the Financial Times…The Financial Times has not given such an endorsement. None of the Tories' plans identified significant net savings that would allow for tax cuts".
  Given the shadow Chancellor's comments on his tax policy today, I hope that he will quickly either apologise to the Financial Times or give us some serious clarification of that statement.
  I now turn to the Government's record. I want to address two central weaknesses: the first relates to the Budget and the second to imbalances in the private household sector.
  Next week, we shall hear the pre-Budget report and there will be an opportunity for detailed comment. The Liberal Democrats supported the increased resources that the Government have put into public services, especially the NHS, and we supported the tax measures that were necessary to deliver them. We continue to support those measures. We acknowledge that in many cases there has not been an output—the awful word that is applied to the public services—and that the money has often gone into raising wages and salaries for public service employees in health and education. Of course that is right, because it is necessary to attract and retain staff.
  Mr. Gardiner: On output, given that the number of scans is increasing and that there has been an increase in the number of early interventions made on patients, does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is not correct to measure output simply in terms of the operations that then need to be done? In fact, an operation is not needed if an early intervention has cured the patient. That is a shift in balance, so to use that measure of output is flawed.
  Dr. Cable: That rather technical point would best be pursued on another occasion. To the extent to which I followed it, however, it seemed eminently sensible.
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: It would be churlish not to recognise that the Government have put more money into the health service in recent years than most hon. Members can remember. Funding has risen by 10 per cent. over the past four years and has produced an increase of 1.25 per cent. in finished consultant episodes, the technical benchmark. I was Minister of State in the Department of Health in the early 1990s. We increased

  691
  the health budget by between 5 per cent. and 6 per cent. a year, roughly half what we have experienced under this Government, but finished consultant episodes rose by about 5 per cent. a year. In other words, productivity was about eight times what it is now. Will the hon. Gentleman explain why he thinks productivity has fallen so dramatically, even though funding has risen so significantly?
  Dr. Cable: The simple answer is that there are too few staff. One of the more shocking statistics to emerge over the past few days is that, in the past financial year, the Government spent £1.2 billion on health service agency fees, with a premium of 20 per cent. However, the question that the right hon. Gentleman must answer is why that shortage existed in the first place. To their credit, although the Government have spent £5 billion on health service agency fees, they inherited a depleted staff. That is the benchmark against which we must operate.
  The key point is that a great deal of public expenditure is misdirected. The example that emerged this morning was that the NHS is paying hundreds of millions of pounds in excessive charges to drug companies as a result of lax procurement policies. Precisely the same problem exists in the Ministry of Defence. We learned last week that the Government are paying hundreds of millions of pounds in excessive commercial rents for property because senior civil servants refuse to accept redeployment to provincial cities, where they would be able to work much more cheaply and efficiently.
  The Queen's Speech contained a perfect example of proposed legislation—the Bill on identity cards—that will result in an enormous waste of public resources. I do not want to rehearse all the civil liberties arguments, but a sophisticated ID card system will require expenditure in the order of £3 billion.
  Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman is in danger of getting carried away with his own oratory, but it is easy for him to nitpick the proposals put forward by the Government, and even by the Tories. Is not it about time that he spelled out the proposals of the Liberal Democrat party? They deserve some scrutiny, as the money—let alone the compulsory cod liver oil—that his party proposes to give away to pensioners and students amounts to a £14 billion black hole. Is not it about time that he spelled out his party's policies, so that they can be subject to some real scrutiny?
  Dr. Cable: I think that I am picking rather bigger creatures than nits. I would be happy to have a debate on the relative merits of higher or lower top-rate marginal tax, or of council tax as opposed to local income tax. Those are interesting matters, but it would help if Labour Members got away from the utterly puerile line of argument that we have heard in recent weeks from the Prime Minister. The imaginary figures that he has plucked out of the air are on the same intellectual level as the claims by the leader of the Tory party that the Prime Minister is, somehow or other, a leading light in the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. That level of political debate drags down the reputation of all hon. Members. We need to have a proper and serious debate about economic policy.
  692
  I was introducing the matter of the very large costs associated with ID cards. Those costs are not simply financial. All hon. Members have dealt with the immigration and nationality directorate, and know that the Home Office is probably the most incompetent of all Government Departments. Implementing the ID card scheme will require a most sophisticated programme, and the Home Office will have to handle the matter. It has already failed in the delivery of IT systems that are less sophisticated than what will be required for the ID card scheme.
  Especially perverse is the introduction of a programme that is very costly and sophisticated at precisely the same time that the NHS is embarking on what it calls the biggest IT project on the planet. The Treasury should have been a little more observant, perhaps. The two projects will compete for the same systems engineers, and make the same demands on a vastly overstretched IT supply industry. Costs will be massively inflated as a result: the capacity is not there, and there is a total absence of anything remotely like planning.
  I know that the word "planning" may be regarded as dangerously left-wing in No. 10 Downing street, but it is required in the public sector. A great deal of money is being wasted in its absence.
  To respond directly to the right hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), I can tell him that my party is concerned with specific ways in which Government expenditure can be cut to finance priority public spending. The leader of my party said at our summer conference that we shall find £5 billion in cuts, and I am happy to endorse that.
  In case we are accused of being imprecise, I shall give a concrete example of that. For three or four years, I have shadowed the Department of Trade and Industry. That Department employs large numbers of civil servants, who spend large amounts of money. Increasingly, I came to share the view of most of the Department's clients that it is little more than a regulation factory. As a sideline, it runs various industrial assistance schemes whose benefits are entirely swallowed in overheads. Large areas of its functions could be dispensed with, with no great loss to the public or diminution in public service.
  Mr. Letwin indicated assent.
  Dr. Cable: I see that the Conservative spokesman is nodding. I should be interested to hear whether he supports my proposal to abolish the Department of Trade and Industry.
  Geraint Davies: Is the hon. Gentleman serious when he suggests that improving productivity in the NHS through investment in IT should be delayed for a few years because there are not enough consultants? Is that Liberal Democrat policy, given that we have heard today that US productivity is at its highest for 20 years because of the dividends accruing from investment in IT? What sort of proposal is that?
  Dr. Cable: I was saying exactly the opposite. It is, of course, absolutely necessary that the NHS has an efficient IT system. That system must be successful, or the NHS will not function in the future. We fully

  693
  support that. I was asking why we should not scrap the ID card proposal, and all the IT nonsense associated with it.
  Geraint Davies: I was talking about the health service.
  Dr. Cable: I am not sure that we can detain the House while one hon. Member catches up.
  I revert to the other major problem, which is that there are imbalances in the economy. Those imbalances were obvious in the 1980s, and are now reappearing. The Chancellor's great claim—which has been vindicated so far, and for which he deserves credit—is that the old economy of boom and bust has gone. However, it has reappeared in a new form. There is a massive boom in credit and debt expansion, and in the housing market.
  So far, that boom has proved to be sustainable, but the indicators are extremely worrying. That is not my judgment alone. The Governor of the Bank of England gave a warning six weeks ago, which he then partially retracted, and the Treasury's Mr. Ed Balls has also warned of the dangers that exist. The debt-to-personal-income ratio is three times what it was 20 years ago and, even with extremely low interest rates, the debt service ratio for households is now over 12 per cent., compared with 9 per cent. when the Government took office. House prices in relation to incomes are way beyond equilibrium levels, and will therefore fall. That is not my judgment, which is not important; it is the technical judgment of the Monetary Policy Committee.
  A very dangerously unstable position has developed, based on excessive and irresponsible lending by the banking system.
  Something is seriously wrong when a reputable bank, like the Royal Bank of Scotland, can send out a gold card with a £10,000 credit limit to a dog called Monty. The irony of the situation is that if Monty had wanted to invest £10,000 for his old age in the kennels, he would have had to bring in a financial adviser who would have spent an hour checking that the product was not being mis-sold. There is absolutely no restraint on excessive credit expansion. Indeed, in supermarkets like Homebase many of us are pursued by people with clipboards asking, "Will you take £5,000 worth of credit from our credit card company?" Is this a sensible, sustainable way to maintain the economy? Both sides would probably answer, "There is not a great deal we can do about it because we have a market economy".
  Rightly, we have a liberalised credit market and of course one cannot order banks and credit companies to do this or that. Nevertheless, surely the Chancellor should acknowledge publicly that there is a serious problem. He could start to take various steps. He should be talking to the Bank of England and the Financial Services Authority about whether it is possible, as already happens at an international level with the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, to define what is sustainable private debt, to set out some objectives for the banks in terms of prudent loan-to-value ratios or income multiples and to name and shame banks that go beyond that level.
  The Government should be taking further measures. I cannot understand, and I suspect some Labour Members cannot either, why there is no consumer credit
  694
  legislation in the Queen's Speech. It was in the Labour party manifesto. It has been promised for years to the Consumers Association and to the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) and other Labour Members have done admirable work establishing the severity of the debt problem among low-income families. We were promised legislation to deal with loan sharking and comparable behaviour, but it is not there. Nothing has happened.
  Mr. O'Neill: I think that the in some ways perhaps justifiably maligned Department of Trade and Industry is bringing out a White Paper on the subject next week. I imagine that that would he the precursor for legislation later, either in this Session or the next.
  Dr. Cable: I sincerely hope that that is correct. The Department told me two years ago that it was bringing out a White Paper. It is taking a long time to write, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman is right and that this rectifies the problem.
  I remember three years ago debating with Treasury Ministers about the situation in the banking system. The Chancellor of the Exchequer produced an excellent report under a Mr. Cruickshank. Among other things it highlighted the fact that in the banking system there is a network monopoly, from which considerable excess charges have been earned and eventually passed on to households and business customers. There is a similar monopoly arrangement within the credit card system. The Government promised that they would introduce a pay-com system to deal with the problem. Nothing has happened. There is no legislation and nothing about it in the Queen's Speech. Where is it? Is the Chancellor afraid of the banks? Is he afraid to tackle them?
  In conclusion, I shall cover other items in the Queen's Speech. Like the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), I welcome the community enterprises Bill. As I understand it, it is designed to take forward the concept of mutuality and mutual ownership. Over the past two years there have been excellent private Member's Bills on the subject and I hope that this will take the matter further. Given that the Government have talked so much about new forms of ownership and mutuality, why are we still so underdeveloped, in relation even to bastions of shareholder capitalism like the United States, in developing credit unions? I suspect that much of that is due to the conservatism of the Treasury, but we shall see the legislation when it comes.
  Mr. John Butterfill: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that given the Government's alleged support for mutuality, it is strange that the FSA is now proposing to introduce rules for the distribution of surplus mutual funds, which would mean the end of mutuality?
  Dr. Cable: That is an extremely valuable point. Indeed, it was the Treasury's reluctance to safeguard those funds over the years that has inhibited mutuality so much. That was a helpful intervention, which I hope that Ministers have noted.
  As I understand it, we will be invited to support legislation to cement the understanding reached between the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades

  695
  Union Congress on worker consultation. That would be desirable. In future it would not be possible to fire workers over the radio. Where is the legislation on corporate killing? It, too, was promised in the Labour party manifesto. It has been openly and strongly advocated by non-political bodies, such as the Law Society. The situation is hopelessly unsatisfactory: either companies that are guilty of gross negligence are charged trivial fines or some arbitrarily chosen individual is charged with manslaughter. The law is a complete mess and wholly unsatisfactory. Why is it that the Home Office, in its obsession with asylum seekers, has overlooked a piece of legislation which all parties agree is absolutely essential to safeguard the safety of workers?
  We shall probably support the Government on the referendum Bill in relation to Europe. Why now? The reason is that the Government have made it clear that they do not intend to act on it in this Parliament. It is an important initiative. It is important to sustain some of the confidence—[Interruption.] The Chancellor has indicated that he has to leave and I accept his apologies. We need some explanation of what is happening. A few years ago the Chancellor set up a Committee on which I sit—an all-party group chaired by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman)—and we regularly interview members of the business community. They have made it clear to us that the groups of experts that they established to prepare the way for entry and to do the euro preparations are now being stood down because of uncertainty over the Government's intention in relation to monetary union. We want some reassurance from the Government that this process is not now hopelessly and terminally derailed.
  The final piece of legislation on which I wish to comment relates to tuition fees. It is the centrepiece of the Queen's Speech and has been debated at length in relation to its educational and political aspects. I should like to say a few words about the economic aspects. It has always struck me as odd that the Government keep asserting that students do not pay for their higher education. They already pay for it partly in maintenance. There is a simple idea in economics called opportunity cost. When an 18-year-old decides to go to college to study for a degree they sacrifice a full-time income. If an A-level student decides not to work as a clerk in a bank for three years, they are making a decision to sacrifice probably £50,000 worth of income over three years. In addition to the debts that they accrue from maintenance expenditure and will accrue from tuition fees, they sacrifice £50,000 worth of income. The investment of a cumulative total of about £80,000 by working-class and middle-income families is a major commitment. Most of the commitment is made on the assumption that when the student graduates they will enjoy the graduate premium—they will earn extra income. We already know, and knew even before the fee system came in, that many graduates do not have a premium; they have a negative premium. All arts students have a negative premium on their university education. Women who enter education courses have a negative premium. They make up the base of the future primary school teaching staff. The Government are talking about superimposing yet another deterrent to people entering the university system.
  Mr. Foulkes: I could argue with the hon. Gentleman about a whole range of the strange things that he has just said, but perhaps he can enlighten the House about why his colleagues—not just those in the Scottish Parliament, but members of the Scottish Executive—supported something for students in Scotland that is similar to the scheme that the Government are introducing; it is almost exactly the same in principle.
  Dr. Cable: My Scottish colleagues behind me tell me that that is not even remotely correct. Of course, I know that our colleagues in Scotland were instrumental in the getting rid of up-front fees, which the Government intended to introduce.
  In conclusion, I simply want to develop the point by saying that, of course, there is some common ground between Liberal Democrats and the Government, in recognising that universities need additional funding. Of course, they do. The Conservatives have been silent on that point.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: May I help the hon. Gentleman, since his Scottish colleagues did not seem to tell him? There are indeed back-end fees in Scotland, but they are not variable between universities.
  Dr. Cable: The Government now wish to introduce variable fees, so the hon. Gentleman's intervention is helpful.
  We take the view that there is choice: either universities can attract additional funding through user fees, or such things can be paid for through progressive taxation. That is essentially the choice that has to be made. If someone goes to, let us say, Oxbridge, gets a first-class degree, goes into commercial law and has a very large graduate premium as a result, it is right that they should pay on their marginal income over £100,000 through their lifetime earnings back to the state the benefits that they have received from their education and that they should pay more than someone who goes into a modestly paid job as a scientific researcher or a teacher, reflecting their ability to pay. That is an admirably equitable way to deal with the problem. It is both equitable and financially sensible because, of course, it raises additional resources.
  During Education and Skills questions before the debate, the Secretary of State was extremely evasive about how much money would eventually be required. We have indicated that, from our top-rate tax policy, we would allocate £2 billion to universities—a sum larger than the upper end of what the Secretary of State indicated that the Government's policies would generate. On top of that, we would find £1 billion to extend the Scottish policy of free personal care. Of the £4.5 billion that would be generated by the top-rate tax, a substantial residual would be left to help keep down local taxation.
  I repeat that policy because the Government attempt to ignore what we propose. We can argue the merits of each component. We can argue about the principles of higher taxation on high-income groups—there is an economic argument for and against—but, by trying to belittle and ridicule our policy, the Government are trying to deflect the attention of Labour Members from

  697
  what many of them regard as a very attractive alternative approach to that very difficult problem, and I finish on that note.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): I remind the House that the 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches operates from now on.
  3.3 pm
  Mr. Martin O'Neill: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am conscious of the time limitations, so I may find it difficult to accept any intervention.
  I realise that the Department of Trade and Industry's role is somewhat marginalised and that the Liberal Democrats have already suggested abolition of that Department. Energy and employment matters require some consideration—I shall come to them in a moment—but at the heart of the Government's economic strategy is the role played by the manufacturing economy. Indeed, the prerequisite of the manufacturing strategy enunciated by the Government is macro-economic stability.
  It is fair to say that the cornerstone of that stability is the performance of the Monetary Policy Committee, which has a responsibility to maintain low price inflation by adjusting interest rates. The Chancellor has sought to avoid volatility in public finances. It is also fair to say that the success in meeting those objectives has enabled us to enjoy low inflation, broad tax stability, increasing employment and, most importantly, sustained economic growth, capable of funding the much needed improvement in the quality and range of public services. That has been achieved in the United Kingdom at a time when we have seen cuts, unemployment and decreasing living standards across the industrialised world, whereas we have seen continual improvements in this country.
  There is a condition among Conservative Members that could be called the year-zero syndrome: there was no history before 1 May 1997. There may be one or two people who have a vague, hazy memory of a golden period in the 1980s. It is a wee bit like the Rip van Winkles of rock and roll who cannot quite remember the drug-sodden 1960s, when they were making money and entertaining people. Many Conservative Members think that there was somehow a golden age. I have to tell them that some of us have different memories. We have memories of 3 million people out of work. We remember when unemployment fell to about 2 million, but there were never very sizeable reductions in my constituency, where whole families were continually out of work for two decades. Unemployment in some communities was beyond any level of social sustainability. Thankfully, we have not experienced that over the past six years.
  When we hear people talk about anxieties over debt, the housing boom and the like, many of us remember the days of negative equity, household repossessions and evictions. Those of us who have been fortunate—if that is the right expression—to have been Members of Parliament for a number of years had dreadful surgery sessions on Fridays and Saturdays, when people came, invariably too late, to complain about how they had been treated by whichever provider of financial services had assisted them in getting into the plight in which they found themselves.
  698
  Opposition Members choose to complain about the problems that we have at present. Frankly, if those are what they call problems, they ain't seen nothing. The degradation of people's life chances in the 1980s and 1990s was dreadful for those concerned, but Opposition Members talk flippantly about reducing public expenditure, denying young people and the elderly unemployed access to opportunities afforded by the new deal and the chances that people have for the first time in their lives to get off the unemployment registers.
  The fact is that some on unemployment registers need not just the offer of employment, but virtually to be led out of bed in the morning. We hear about the people in advertising and banking who say, "I won't get out of my bed in the morning for £1,000 an hour as a consultant." In recent months, some of my constituents have had to be helped from their homes to get to jobs. Given the chance and the help, Sure Start and the new deal, after 18 months, 150 people were taken on by Tesco in Alloa in my constituency. They are all still in work, and they are a credit to their communities and to the people who took the chance with them.
  If Conservative Members are talking about reducing public expenditure to 35 per cent. of gross domestic product, they must stop and think of the social consequences of what they would embark upon. We now see revived communities where we used to see communities where people stood on street corners and crossed the road when we got near them because they were ashamed to tell us that they were still out of work. Those people now have a self-confidence that they never had before because they are getting the chance to find work. They also have the self-confidence of knowing that the health care that they receive is improving and that their local hospital, which was inadequate and rundown, is being refurbished. They also know that the schools that their kids go to are better than they have been in decades— probably ever.
  It is also the case that, when people get into employment, they are treated in a reasonable manner. That is one reason why I welcome the Employment Relations Bill, although it does not go as far as some of us would like on matters such as union recognition. The best way to reform employment relations legislation is incrementally, using the salami approach that the Tories applied in the opposite direction. We should improve the quality of workplace opportunities slice by slice, and the Bill contains much that can be recommended.
  I have some praise for the Conservatives, because—in their own way—they started the liberalisation of many of the markets in the UK economy, including electricity and gas. The Energy Bill will make further progress and create a UK market in electricity and gas. It will also make the introduction of renewables easier for the transmission businesses. We still need to see the fine print on transmission charges and distribution network charges. The Committee—I hope that I am not a member, given the size of the Bill—will have scope to improve the Bill. There is also scope to enhance the contribution made by renewables, and that is important.
  It is vital to make the necessary legislative provisions to assist the storage of gas and its transmission into this country, because the gas that we will depend on in the years ahead will require new pipelines and storage facilities, both offshore and onshore, regardless of our

  699
  intentions for renewables and the pros and cons of the nuclear industry. The Bill will go some way to achieving that, but it should also address the nuclear decommissioning authority. It is essential that we strip out of the economics of energy the costs involved in nuclear power. Much nonsense is talked, both by nuclear enthusiasts and by the plutonophobes, about the costs of nuclear power. If the costs are reasonable, I have no objection to an expansion of that industry, but I am not prepared to throw good money after bad.
  The Queen's Speech will create the correct balance between public and private contributions. It shows how we can operate a partnership in the United Kingdom and it will take us away from the dark days of low public expenditure, poor provision and divided societies. For that reason, I commend it to the House.
  3.13 pm
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: I declare two interests. The first is on the register, because I am the chairman of a pension fund. The second is that in recent days my wife and I have been blessed by the addition of two new granddaughters to our extended family. They will both qualify under the provisions of the Child Trust Funds Bill. As a consequence, I regard the Bill with interest and broadly support what the Government seek to do. I note that parents can add to the trust funds, and it will be interesting to see the details. However, more importantly, we should ask why such a Bill is necessary.
  I had a vague recollection of a Labour party document that I had read when I held a different position from the one that I occupy today. That document, published in 1996, said:
  "Britain needs a savings culture which will both benefit individuals and increase investment in the country as a whole."
  That is an admirable aspiration for an Opposition. The reality is that the Bill is needed, in part, because when the Government came to power the savings ratio was 10 per cent. and today it is 4.8 per cent. The Government have seriously undermined the savings culture that they aspired to achieve when they were in opposition. That is why we need such legislation.
  The second factor that contributes to the undermining of the savings culture was eloquently raised by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable). As he pointed out, Members on both sides of the House believe in the market. I believe in the market, so I am not one of those who think that Governments should intervene intrusively. I am sorry that the Chancellor is no longer in his place, because he might have remembered that, a few weeks ago, I sent him a letter sent to me by one of my constituents, which contained six half credit cards. Those cards had been sent to my constituent, unsolicited, over a period of a few months. My constituent pointed out that he earned, I think, £9,000 a year and the combined credit limit of the six cards—which he did not ask for, did not want and did not use, because he is sensible—amounted to £35,000. The hon. Member for Twickenham made the point that we have seen a dangerous escalation in debt and in personal debt. I am not an interventionist, but there may be a case for having some conversations
  700
  about whether boundaries should be drawn, for the common good. I invite the Government to give further thought to that possibility.
  I now wish to spend slightly more time on the pension protection Bill. The Labour manifesto in 1997 promised tax reform to promote savings, but in his first Budget, the Chancellor announced the abolition of the dividend tax credits payable to pension funds. That means that each and every year under this Government the Chancellor has taken £5 billion out of pension funds and put it into the coffers. Is it any wonder that those who are entitled to receive pensions feel aggrieved at their diminished prospects? I am trying to make a sensible contribution to the debate, so I shall not pretend that the tax change is the sole reason for the pension industry being in semi-crisis, but it is a significant one. For that reason, the Government should put up their hand to at least some of the responsibility and address the pension issue with less arrogance and fewer suggestions that it is all someone else's fault.
  Kevin Brennan: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: No, I will not, because we have a 10-minute limit on speeches.
  I want to examine the details of the pension Bill. The principle is almost certainly right. We need to address a serious issue on pensions. Given the contribution that the Government have made to the problem, it will be hard to sustain the view that they should make no contribution, even by way of guarantee, to underpinning a fund. It will be enlightening to hear Ministers explain why well run businesses that have a strong commitment to their pension funds should pick up not only a proportion of the cost of their own fund guarantees, but a proportion of the cost caused by the profligacy of other funds. It will be interesting to hear how the Government defend that proposal.
  As my right hon Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) said, this country is in grave danger of moving into a situation in which some people's pensions are adequate—and rightly so, because they have made a contribution over the years—and other people's pensions are inadequate. The legislation that the Government intend to introduce will be measured against the criteria of how it deals with that problem.
  The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Clark) and I have received numerous letters from constituents recently about the Triplex pension fund that operates primarily in our constituencies. It will not deliver to the people who have paid into it for most or all of their working lives. Constituents have asked me whether there will be a retrospective element to the intended legislation. I try to be honest with my constituents, so I wrote back to say that I thought it highly unlikely that the Government would introduce retrospective legislation. As a former Minister, I understand why that is, but the Secretary of State needs to understand that there is increasing anger out there. There is increasing anger among the people who are being deprived of their life savings and who are being told that everything will be all right from 2005, but that the provisions of the House are such that we cannot move any faster. That argument no longer carries weight with pensioners or those who are saving for their pensions.

  701
  I hope that the Secretary of State will take these points seriously. He is already beginning to hear from the pensioners who are rebelling about the increased taxation that they now face. I have been in this place for 25 years and I find it fascinating that pensioners are leading the charge against the 70 per cent. Increase in council tax that has occurred in the six years of this Government. Colleagues on this side and, I expect, colleagues on the other side of the House are starting to receive letters from pensioner constituents who have never rebelled about anything in their lives. However, those pensioners are saying that they simply will not pay any more.
  I think that I welcome the legislation, but I will want to read what it says. However, I say to the Secretary of State that there is a crisis now. Spinning out of the Queen's Speech debate needs to be action this day as well as action in the future.
  Kevin Brennan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that, even though there is a 10-minute limit on speeches, injury time is available to those hon. Members who wish to take interventions?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes. I hope that the whole House now understands that that is the case. If an intervention is made, the intervention does not count against the time available to the hon. Member speaking. He is given an extra minute for that intervention. He is given an extra minute for the second intervention but, after that, no further allowances are made.
  Mr. Butterfill: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you also confirm that the debate is time-limited in that it must finish at 6 o'clock? If too many colleagues take interventions of the sort described, some Members will not get to speak at all.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is right. Despite the 10-minute limit, I am afraid that the clock does not stop ticking.
  3.24 pm
  Denzil Davies: The Government rightly deserve credit—perhaps they have not been given much in the debate—for the prudent, if I may use that word, way in which they have managed the British economy over the past six and a half years. They have been able to maintain a reasonable growth rate of about 2 to 2.5 per cent. combined with low inflation and low unemployment. That compares very well with most, if not all, our major competitors.
  We should also realise that the Government have managed to attain such reasonable growth despite the relentless pressure on Britain and all the older capitalist countries of the west that now comes from global competition and free trade. To a great extent, that pressure comes from the far east—from China and, to a lesser extent, India. China has discovered capitalism, but perhaps the Chinese always knew about it. China is now using the instruments of global competition and free trade to boost the potential of its enormous economy and to put inexorable pressure on the capitalist economies of the west.
  It is the fashionable view among many of the chattering classes—especially economic editors, jet-setting bankers and business men and the international
  702
  civil servants who fly from one international convention to another—that globalisation, as it is described, is an absolute good and should never be questioned or challenged. However, the view from less exotic surroundings is not quite like that. As the House knows, in many instances globalisation disrupts and disorientates societies and causes considerable economic and social problems.
  I get the impression that western Governments now increasingly shape their economic policies mainly to try to withstand the tide of globalisation and to try to maintain their economies in the face of it. Over the past few years in Britain, we have witnessed a decline in our manufacturing industry because manufacturers must reduce their costs to compete but cannot put up their prices because of the pressure on those prices. We therefore have lower levels of investment. If one cannot make a profit, there is no money to invest. The service sector thought for years that it was immune from such problems because it was not an internationally traded sector. However, as we know, that sector is coming under similar pressure, with jobs being exported to low-cost countries.
  Germany and France have broken the growth and stability pact because they need to borrow more money, presumably to try to create growth. They are also being encouraged to dismantle their excellent systems of social welfare. Apparently they are being told—whether it is right or not—that they cannot compete in the modern world of global capitalism with the excellent social welfare structures that they have.
  The United States has thrown out the whole economics textbook for its economy. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer informed us, it has a massive public sector deficit of 5 to 6 per cent. and a corresponding balance of payments deficit. Despite its public sector deficit, it is cutting taxes, and the chairman of the Federal Reserve has announced that he will not raise interest rates above 1 per cent. whatever happens to the economy. He is absolutely terrified about what is likely to happen.
  On top of that, we must consider the devaluation of the dollar and, of course, the fact that the United States has started down the road of tariff restrictions and restrictions on imports. We know about the situation for steel and textiles and I hope that the steel restrictions will be lifted. It might give many Labour Members a warm feeling to criticise a Republican President of the United States for imposing steel tariffs but if the next President is a Democrat, his constituency—New Jersey, Michigan, parts of Indiana and Illinois, and Ohio and Pennsylvania—will demand much more protection than it has of a Republican President.
  Deep down, the British establishment is perhaps not terribly interested in British manufacturing, but that is not the case for the United States. The Americans will fight to preserve their manufacturing industry. They will certainly fight to preserve their steel industry, given its strategic importance for their defence and armaments sectors. Additionally, over the past 15 to 20 years the United States has apparently encouraged what is even by its standards massive immigration, especially from south America. Some immigration has been legal and some has been illegal. That process has kept down costs and enabled the country to compete—just about—and to meet the tide of cheaper imports. It is not really

  703
  competing because it has a massive balance of payments deficit, but at least it is trying to do so by using immigration.
  The British economy has been unable to attract the same kind of new entrants into its labour market through immigration. However, there have been new entrants into the market in the past 20 years because women who did not previously have jobs have entered it. Many earn fairly low wages and, in a way. that contributes to keeping down costs. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has introduced the tax credit system. As a rather old-fashioned Member who was in the House in the 1970s, I baulked a little at the idea of subsidising wages, but we live in a different world, so perhaps global pressures have caused that. The tax credit system effectively subsidises wages. The way in which it does so in the private sector means that private sector employers do not have to pay such high wages because the Government pay the difference, which keeps down costs in the global economy. If the pressure on wages increases, the gap will become greater unless the Government are able to maintain the difference through the credit. I do not know how long such subsidies can continue but I hope that they continue for a long time, even though pressures will be put on Government borrowing. The addition of such a pool of new entrants to the British labour market cannot continue because women usually take jobs immediately these days.
  Economic commentators and others suggest that we should reconsider immigration as a way to keep down costs, and we have also heard about that from the Home Office. I do not know the extent of the immigration that we would need to achieve that or whether sufficient people would come here from eastern European countries after they join the European Union. I do not know whether immigration could create the low cost base that Britain needs to compete or whether we could create the growth rates to pay for such immigration. We must face those issues in the light of global competition.
  Over the past two decades, globalisation has attained the status of what the ancients called the most high god—it is certainly the most high god of finance, business and economics. In the past, anyone who tried to question the divinity of that god was called nasty names and portrayed as a nihilist, an anarchist, a clapped-out Marxist or a weirdo. The high priests of the god did not show much sympathy for poorer countries that often suffered from the effects of globalisation. However, I can detect a change because it seems that western capitalist countries are beginning to suffer from the stern theology of the most high god of globalisation. As the traditional stimuli of economic growth—low interest rates, taxation. devaluation and new entrants— cease to work as stimuli, more direct action might have to be taken. I hope that we can recognise that so that we can create reasonable measures to ameliorate the damaging effects of globalisation while keeping some of its more beneficial attributes.
  3.33 pm
  Mr. Stephen Dorrell: I begin by declaring an interest as a director and shareholder of a manufacturing business.
  704
  I always enjoy listening to the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies), who always argues his case intelligently, but I did not agree with his starting point this afternoon. He has always tended to look at the downside of globalisation and consider how one may control its effects. I think that globalisation is a fact and that its effect on our economy and prospects is overwhelmingly positive and something that we should plan to accommodate rather than try to avoid.
  The hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) suggested that there is a danger of our assuming in such debates that history began in 1997, with the result that we make unrealistically stark comparisons between the records of two periods of government. He then proceeded to fall headlong into precisely the trap that he identified when he said that he had to acknowledge that the last Conservative Government had made a few faltering steps down the road of liberalising the economy. That is an interesting interpretation of history, which would not be borne out by historians.
  I agree, however, with the hon. Gentleman's proposition that these debates are interesting to their participants and those outside this place only if we stand back from the passions of party political debate. Clearly, some aspects of the Government's economic record should be welcomed, and I do so unreservedly. Most important, establishing the independence of the Bank of England and creating a regime for the effective management of monetary policy will, whatever happens between now and the day the Government leave office, stand as a great achievement of this Chancellor, and he should be given credit for that. He should be given credit, too, for restraining the growth of public expenditure in the early years of this Labour Government. Things have changed more recently, as I shall demonstrate later.
  Those two early achievements of the Government are beyond dispute. I hope that, in the same spirit, the Minister may reflect that the hon. Member for Ochil gave a rather niggardly account of the achievements of the last Conservative Government in the 1970s in liberalising an economy that was massively underperforming and creating the circumstances for which, ironically, the Chancellor now loves to claim credit. All Conservative Members enjoy his lectures about the importance of competition, contestable markets, labour market flexibility, low taxes, introducing incentives and establishing a regime for sound money. We are never quite certain whether they are addressed to his colleagues on the European Council of Ministers or to his next-door-neighbour in Downing street, but whichever it is they are very welcome. Imitation is often regarded as the sincerest form of flattery, and when I hear the Chancellor talk about the importance of a liberal economy he calls to mind the sometimes rather portentous lectures that Lord Lawson used to deliver. Sometimes, the two styles and two arguments are almost interchangeable. It is, of course, doubly ironic that the Chancellor loves delivering those lectures, given that he was a member of the party that, when in opposition, fought such changes every inch of the way throughout the 1980s and 1990s.
  Mr. O'Neill rose—
  Mr. Dorrell: I give way to the hon. Gentleman—I hope he agrees that I have given fairer recognition than he did to the achievements of the last Conservative Government in the direction of liberalisation.
  Mr. O'Neill: Perhaps I did not have enough time to develop my point. The liberalisation pursued by both Governments has placed the present Government in such a position that our economy has been that much better, stronger and healthier than, say, the French and German economies, which did not go down that road. It is to the Government's credit that they have pursued it in such a way that that advantage has been achieved and maintained.
  Mr. Dorrell: I would respond with the proposition that that liberalisation marks us out from our European comparators. That moves me neatly to my point about the dangers that we face in relation to the trends in productivity that one of my hon. Friends identified earlier.
  We all know that long-term productivity growth is one of the most fundamental economic indicators. The Chancellor acknowledges that; it is why he set up a productivity unit in the Treasury and devotes so many speeches to it. The proposition is therefore not controversial. However, the problem with the Chancellor's productivity unit is that it has not been very productive. As one of my hon. Friends said, the effect of the Chancellor's policies since 1997 has been to halve the trend in the growth rate of productivity that he inherited from the equivalent period at the end of the previous Government's tenure. The trend has turned against us at the precise moment when the American economy has experienced a new spurt in productivity growth. That is not simply a dry statistic; it reflects the results of the Government's attempts to micro-manage the economy. I agree with the comments of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) about that.
  The effects of the Chancellor's tendency to impose extra costs on the economy through regulations and to introduce huge extra resources into the public sector without demanding the extra productivity growth to which my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir Brian Mawhinney) referred are feeding through into the statistics. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) mentioned the Chancellor's tendency to oversee increases in Government overhead expenditure without corresponding productivity growth. It is one thing to commit extra inputs to the health service, education and the process of government and to desire extra activity through regulation, but not insisting on delivering it efficiently undermines productivity growth and causes long-term problems such as the factor that the Chairman of the Treasury Committee identified.
  The Chancellor's delivery of his productivity objectives has fallen way short of his rhetoric. Consequently, although he likes to contrast this country's liberal economy with economies on the continent, the gap is narrowing because, step by step, his actions make the British economy more closely resemble its European comparators at exactly the time when he is trying to persuade European countries to change their stance to make their economies resemble ours.
  706
  I want to consider a second issue, which is often perceived as separate from productivity but is closely related to it. The adverse trend in productivity in the past six years has been matched by an adverse trend in the public finances. I gave the Chancellor credit for slow growth inpublic expenditure in his early years, but Prudence has been jilted. Three years ago, when the Chancellor first looked forward to this financial year, he said that he expected to borrow £10 billion. In the City, that figure is expected to be not £10 billion but £40 billion. That misses the Chancellor's target by £30 billion because expenditure is outpacing income. That is partly because the growth of public expenditure has increased and partly because the slow-down in productivity is starting to lead to a slow-down in the growth of the British economy. The two lines are beginning to diverge. Productivity and public finances are part and parcel of the same phenomenon: if productivity grows too slowly, income starts to grow more slowly and one reaches the point when the public expenditure plans to which the Chancellor has committed himself cannot be delivered.
  My case is not that the Chancellor is about to fall off a precipice or that the Government will face an unbridgeable black hole. However, the Chancellor's irresistible urge to intervene imposes costs on the economy that undermine the achievement of his productivity objectives. That is one of the key factors that undermine the Chancellor's planning of public finances. We all know that if public finances start to get out of control, everything unravels quickly. We do not need to look into a crystal ball to work that out; we can simply look at the book.I give the Chancellor credit for starting quite well, but the performance gets worse by the day.
  3.44 pm
  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: I refer hon. Members to my interests, as listed in the register.
  It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), and although I totally disagree with the last point of analysis that he offered the House, I agree that a major underlying problem for the UK economy has been relatively low productivity, and I shall say something about that at an appropriate point in my discussion of the Government's economic policy.
  We also heard an interesting contribution from the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir Brian Mawhinney), who unfortunately has just left the Chamber. Speaking very constructively and in the best spirit of contributions from both sides of the House, he took us into the area of pensions policy and the forthcoming Bill. It is particularly good that we have my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions with us now. I know that if my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will want to say more about that than I do.
  My right hon. Friend knows that in the west midlands and other parts of the country there is a considerable problem concerning Rolls-Royce. My hon. Friend and I have been to see him, and he has been very responsive and understanding. Outstanding remains one of the points made by the right hon. Member for North-West

  707
  Cambridgeshire, who asked whether the legislation will be retrospective. Everyone who has had the wretched task of wrestling with Government policy on the subject knows how difficult that could be, but it may well be, in this case, that that has to be an aspect of the legislation if proper account is to be taken of those who have been so badly affected.
  It seems clear to me that the Government's record is one of remarkable success, and as my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies) said, sustained growth is central to that fact. We have, as he said, been successful despite not only the many deflationary pressures of globalisation but the fact that so many other countries have been in recession; and after the pits of the recession into which the last Tory Administration plunged us in 1992. Every year after that we had successive growth, which we have maintained six and a half years into a Labour Government. That is unheard of in the management of the economy since the second world war. I give the Chancellor and the Government my unqualified support and my unqualified estimation for their success.
  We can express that success in a number of ways, one of the most remarkable of which is the fact that jobs have been created for 1.7 million people. That is remarkable and it, too, requires unqualified acceptance. However, there is an underlying problem of productivity. Only if we can maintain and, indeed, increase the rate of productivity growth will we stand any chance of offsetting the negative effects of globalisation. In no way can I agree with the right hon. Member for Charnwood when he speaks of the unqualified blessing that globalisation brings. No major movement in global macro-economics can be an unqualified blessing for this economy. One has only to look at the 2,500 jobs being lost in the service industry, which we always thought was recession proof and would make up for the decreasing manufacturing sector, to realise the sorts of problems that we are facing.
  Over the next year we will be considering the introduction of foundation hospitals. In an earlier debate I made it clear to the House that I had my reservations about that. Many of us voted for the proposal because there was a promise from the Secretary of State for Health that he would review those hospitals acquiring foundation status to see how the measures worked in practice before the scheme was extended to the entire NHS. That is a welcome concession, and we intend to hold him to it. Certainly, in Committee, we will be looking to make sure that proper revision processes are built into the Bill.
  The development and implementation of the policy on foundation hospitals was reminiscent of how we have developed and implemented policy for universities. Neither policy is totally wrong: much in both of them is good. It is rather that the issues have not been properly thought out and the problems worked out ahead of time, so we have had to do that in the House, both from these Benches and across Benches. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is thoughtful on these matters. I put it to him that, if the process of policy development were properly dealt with before implementation—as he knows, that is what we
  708
  used to do successfully in the Treasury—we would have fewer problems than we have had over policies in recent weeks.
  I assure my right hon. Friend that I would never put the Government in an embarrassing position in the House. We only have to consider the prospect of the policies proposed by the Opposition to realise what is at stake. The shadow Chancellor again confirmed that the 35 per cent. GDP target for public expenditure stands. He told us that that amounts to an £80 billion cut. If we assume that each job is worth about £40,000 with all the associated costs, that means a head count reduction and a loss of about 2 million jobs from the public sector. Two million jobs is precisely what the Tories managed to lose the last time they were in office, so perhaps it is a secret plan. They seem to have forgotten—they never learn anything, and even forget the few lessons that they could learn—that enormous costs come with 2 million unemployed. There is the soaring cost of the unemployment bill. That is how we ended up with a deficit of £80 billion the year they left office. Debts had soared as a percentage and in total terms. It is greatly to the credit of the Labour Administration that we have reduced that deficit.
  I shall deal with the other aspects of Conservative policy, which were clearly confirmed today. We were told that the Tories would cancel the new deal for everyone, except perhaps the over-50s, because it has been a ridiculously expensive failure. I agree that the new deal has been expensive, but it cannot be called a failure. It dealt with and eradicated youth unemployment, and the growth in the economy underpinned that. We shall hear what more the Tories have to say about that.
  It is clear that the proposals of both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats could not command the support of the House. For that reason, whatever our reservations about how we have developed and implemented policy, there is no question of my failing to support the Government as and when necessary.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Bill was presented to the House this afternoon. I understand that Bills are not always available at the time of presentation, but I seek your guidance because that Bill is not available today, so presumably you and the House have been presented with something that is not there. Apparently, it will be available tomorrow morning when the House is not sitting.
  This complex legislation has far-reaching consequences for Her Majesty's armed forces. For that Bill to be presented today and, for some obscure reason, not to be available to right hon. and hon. Members, but to be available to the public tomorrow and to Members of the House on Monday, is a discourtesy to the House. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wonder whether you can advise me on what action I may be able to take to protect the rights of Members to have sight of legislation at the first opportunity, and certainly before the rest of the public has sight of it.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: As I understand it, there are precedents for such an occurrence. As the Second

  709
  Reading of the Bill will not take place before Christmas, there should be adequate opportunity for hon. Members to study the content of the Bill in due course.
  3.54 pm
  Mr. Alex Salmond: Thank you for calling me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was momentarily alarmed when you looked at the other side of the Chamber.
  I want to speak about the consequences, through the operation of the Barnett formula, of aspects of the legislative programme for funding in Scotland. The Barnett formula is the Schleswig-Holstein question of Scottish politics. Only three people understood it. One is mad, one is dead—and I have forgotten. Certainly, Lord Barnett has forgotten—in a radio interview I did with him some months ago, he seemed to have forgotten the precepts of his own formula.
  Contrary to what many hon. Members believe, the Barnett formula is an equalisation formula. It is designed to converge identifiable public spending per head in Scotland, Wales and England. It has not done so probably for two reasons. One is that the population estimates on which it was based were initially retrospective. Secondly, it does not work in periods of low growth in public spending. Barnett applies to public spending growth. If public spending growth is near zero, as it was in the 1990s, not just under the Conservative Government but in the first few years of this Labour Government, Barnett does not apply.
  Both those things have gone into reverse. The current part-time Secretary of State for Scotland, when he was Chief Secretary to the Treasury, amended the population co-efficients in a way detrimental both to Scotland and to Wales. Public spending is now rising quickly. Barnett is cutting in with ferocity. There is a Barnett squeeze on Scottish public spending and indeed on public spending in Wales.
  Measures within the legislative programme such as top-up fees, in the same way as the measures on foundation hospitals in the previous Session, will undoubtedly have an impact on Scottish public spending via the Barnett formula. I cite Professor Arthur Midwinter, who told the Scottish Parliament enterprise and culture committee on 2 September this year:
  "Top-up fees are not classified as public money, but as fees paid by individuals. All the money would accrue directly to the universities concerned. The result is there would be no Barnett consequentials for those fees, and there would be a funding gap between the Scottish and English universities."
  That is similar to the point made earlier in the year by two other respected Scottish economists, Margaret and Jim Cuthbert, who wrote to The Herald on 6 May:
  "Mr. Blair's proposal to introduce foundation hospitals in England potentially has adverse financial implications for Scotland, arising through the operation of the Barnett Formula."
  Legislation to be applied in England will undoubtedly have adverse consequences for Scottish public funding through the operation of the Barnett formula. It is therefore extraordinary that any Scottish MPs, never mind Scottish Labour MPs, should choose to support those measures.
  There used to be an old joke in Scottish politics. How many Scottish Labour MPs does it take to change a light bulb? The answer is none because Scottish Labour MPs
  710
  never change anything. That is no longer true. Scottish Labour MPs changed public policy south of the border on foundation hospitals a few weeks ago and potentially could do it again on the issue of top-up fees.
  After 100 years of struggle, 100 years of the Scottish Labour party introducing enlightenment, education and socialism to the dark recesses of the south of England, after 100 years of political struggle, we have come to the pinnacle of the achievement of Scottish Labour MPs, which is to impose private finance on the English health service and potentially to impose top-up fees on English students, to the detriment not just of English public services but of public services in Scotland via the Barnett formula.
  I see some worrying nods of agreement from Conservative Members. It is extraordinary that Scottish Labour MPs should vote in massive numbers for those detrimental measures, but equally extraordinary is the abstention of the sole Scottish MP in the Conservative party. That party is meant to be vigorously opposed to these measures, which will undoubtedly be detrimental to Scotland, but he has sat on his hands and refused to vote. If the Prime Minister made everyone on the Labour Back Benches a Minister and managed to mobilise the payroll vote and, by some miracle, his blandishments meant that he scraped through the top-up fees vote by one vote in the early part of next year, and if the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) had abstained on that vote, he and the Conservative party would look even more ludicrous than they do already in attempting to claim the title of shadow Secretary of State for Scotland when they have a party of one person. I hope that Conservative Members will encourage their one Scottish representative to vote both in the Scottish and the English public interest in defence of Scottish and English public services.
  Mr. Butterfill: May I say on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) that he thinks it important as a point of principle that as a Scottish Member of Parliament he should not be voting on exclusively English business?
  Mr. Salmond: Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale probably has not read the work of the economists who have pointed out to the Scottish Committees and the Scottish Parliament the implications for Scotland and the definite knock-on effects of the measures. For many years in this House I have adopted a policy of not voting on English business and I still do that when there is no financial consequence for Scotland. The recent controversy over jury trials in England is an example. As the matter ping-ponged between the House of Lords and the House of Commons, my colleagues and I nobly abstained. An abstention on such a matter, which has no consequences for Scotland, is understandable, but it is totally inexplicable to abstain on a matter that clearly has a financial consequence for Scotland.
  Kevin Brennan: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman's policy to be that Scottish Labour Members of Parliament should not vote on matters that affect England only, Conservative Members of Parliament

  711
  from Scotland should vote on matters that affect Scotland only, and he feels free to do as he pleases when he pleases?
  Mr. Salmond: Occasionally, I despair. I have carefully argued that the Bills that we are talking—about concerning top-up fees and foundation hospitals—affect Scotland. What I find incredible is not that Scottish Labour Members voted, but that they voted in favour of a measure that will reduce public expenditure in Scotland as a consequence of Barnett. I do not mind people voting on a matter that is of interest to Scotland, but I resent foundation hospitals going through with a majority of 17, with 44 Scottish Labour Members of Parliament voting to impose the measure on the English health service.
  I want to come to the solution to the conundrum that we have been left with as a result of the activities of past Conservative Governments, who imposed the poll tax on the Scottish people, and the current Labour Government, who imposed foundation hospitals on the English people using the voting fodder of Scottish Labour MPs. Let us be fair to Scotland and England. Clearly, the way to avoid the unwanted consequence of knock-on financial effects is to give the Scottish Parliament the financial power to match its policy responsibility. If the Scottish Parliament had fiscal autonomy, it would make its own decisions about matters such as foundation hospitals and top-up fees without fearing the consequences of the decisions made by the House of Commons. Policy responsibility and financial responsibility should go together. That is the first point.
  Secondly, as regards Bills that do not have a financial impact on Scotland at present, why does the House not consider extending Standing Order No. 97? As everyone is aware, that is the now little-used Standing Order by which the Speaker can certify Bills as Scottish only. For Second Reading and perhaps for Committee stage, such Bills are referred to Scottish-only Committees. It would be relatively simple to have an equivalent Standing Order relating to England to allow Bills that were genuinely English-only at that stage to be considered by the mysterious Regional Affairs Committee. That Committee sits in this House and every English Member is entitled to be a member of it—I have the current membership before me—but it has not met since this April. No doubt it could do some useful work in considering English-only legislation, if so certified under a Standing Order by the Speaker of this House. If and when the Scottish Parliament is given the powers to do the job that it is required to do for the Scottish people, all such English Bills could be so certified, and voted on by such a Committee. That is a solution that is elegant, fair to Scotland and fair to England.
  Of course, none of these problems would arise if we had independence for Scotland—and independence for England. Many people tell me that England could not manage as an independent country. I reject that. I am certain that the English people are well capable of governing themselves, and can actually do without Scottish Labour MPs being used as voting fodder by this Prime Minister, in order to impose unwanted policies on the English people.
  4.5 pm
  Mr. Tom Clarke: If the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) will forgive me, I think that he answered his own question at the end of his speech. The fact is that the Scottish people have never voted for independence, so as a Member of this United Kingdom Parliament, I hope to make the speech that I had planned to make when I sought to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The sections of the Queen's Speech that have been substantially addressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and my colleagues—on economic stability and growth; on the need to press for a fairer trade system as part of the current round of world trade negotiations; and on the achievement of the millennium development goals, including increased aid flows and effective debt relief for developing countries committed to reform—are extremely relevant. However, it would not be possible to address those matters were it not for the huge success throughout the whole of Britain of the Chancellor's economic policies: successes in employment, inflation, mortgages and growth. Because of those successes—and because the Chancellor has had the courage to deal with the issue of resources, and to say that there are times when they should relate to reform—I hope to address several matters in the short time available.
  The Chancellor has given the lead at home and abroad. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies) and my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) referred to globalisation, they seemed to recognise, as did the Chancellor, that he has approached the economy and the demands placed on him in the knowledge that this is a rapidly changing world in which the issue of globalisation is indeed extremely relevant, and must be addressed. His policies on international development—including increased aid, debt relief and his emphasis on HIV/AIDS—are extremely important in a modern and caring world. I believe passionately that the model that he has set out could be emulated not only by G7 and G8 countries, but by developing countries as well.
  As we look to the developing world, we see the influence of Britain's economic policies and of the activities of the various Government Departments. If the considerable assets that many developing countries undoubtedly possess—such as huge oil reserves, massive gas supplies, and diamonds and other mineral resources—are not used to benefit the poorest people in the poorest countries, we will have met with spectacular failure. Oil, gas and mining industries are now significant in more than 50 developing countries, but 1.5 billion people in those very countries continue to live on less than $2 a day. Twelve of the world's 25 most mineral-dependent states and six of the world's most oil-dependent states are classified by the World Bank as heavily indebted poor countries, with among the world's worst human development indicators. That calls for transparency, accountability and fairness at every level.
  That transparency must involve national Governments, including ours, international companies and those involved in commerce, and international institutions such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the United Nations. I believe that

  713
  I speak for many aid agencies and non-governmental organisations when I say that we ought to be forming that strategy now.
  It is not difficult to understand why. For example, Africa's oil boom comes at a time when foreign aid to that continent from industrialised countries is falling and being replaced by an emphasis by donor nations on trade as a means whereby African countries can escape poverty. The dominance of oil and mining in Africa's trade relationships, coupled with the decline in aid flows, means that it is vital that Africa makes the best use of oil and other natural resources.
  The international oil companies must accept their responsibilities as well, although it has to be said that I see little evidence of the self-regulation that some of them commend to us. Northern Governments such as that of the United States and the United Kingdom are beginning to acknowledge the need to address the perils of oil development, but their actions, although welcome, are not enough.
  As we address those issues, seeking to attain stability is of paramount importance. I have recently been to the Democratic Republic of Congo, and I realise that there, petroleum has become a magnet for conflict, and in some cases even civil war, imposing even more poverty where it is least welcome.
  The primary responsibility for managing mineral wealth and ensuring transparency lies with the developing countries. Oil riches should benefit the many, not the few. It cannot be right that corruption, mismanagement, environmental destruction, human rights violations and conflict should go unchallenged—although there are examples of good practice, and it is right to say so. For example, the Chad-Cameroon pipeline project is the biggest international effort to date to focus an oil development project on a poverty reduction outcome. There is great confidence that by 2004, the budget anticipated for that year will show that oil revenues in Chad have more than doubled. Botswana has, by and large, put its diamonds to good use, and has sought to address the essential elements of poverty.
  However, there is another side to that picture. It cannot be acceptable that in Angola there is so much wealth together with so much confidentiality, despite the challenge that BP, to its credit, has made. The rich north has its responsibilities too. Although we may increase our aid to developing countries, those sums are dwarfed by what we give to agricultural industries.
  Mr. Gardiner: My right hon. Friend is widely respected in the House for his knowledge of development matters. Does he agree that the Paris Club consideration of the sovereign debt of Iraq, which is deemed to amount to more than $200 billion, is vital? Does he also agree that it is important to press for the more beneficial Evian principles on debt forgiveness if that country is to pull itself out of its terrible situation? Will my right hon. Friend support the early-day motion, which calls on the other four creditor—countries France, Russia, Germany and Japan—to be more forgiving in their approach to this matter?
  Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. He will forgive me for being a little canny on early-day motions: I like to read them before I sign them. Otherwise, he made extremely valid points, and I am sure that the House will recognise them as such.
  714
  I was making the point that, although I support the Government's policies on overseas aid, it is also appropriate to examine what is happening with the common agricultural policy, and I welcome the Government's initiatives there. It is also appropriate to point out that in comparison with the figures that I supplied earlier of $300 billion on agricultural subsidies, $600 billion is being spent on defence. It is surely right to try to set our priorities on such matters.
  I believe that the British Government have given a commendable lead. The Chancellor, in particular, has led G7 and G8 talks on the debt crisis and other matters. I welcome what is happening to the common agricultural policy, which is a challenge to us all. I welcome the overhaul of the EU aid budget and our attempts to change it. I congratulate the Chancellor on his international finance facility and I wish the Government every possible success on all those matters. The Government have a record since 1997 of which we can he extremely proud.
  4.16 pm
  Mr. John Butterfill: I shall confine my remarks to the proposed pensions Bill, which may not surprise hon. Members, and I should like to declare my interest as chairman of trustees of the parliamentary contributory pension fund and chairman of trustees of the People's Dispensary for Sick Animals pension fund and as a section 226 policyholder. I shall refer to those policies later.
  I start by referring to the pensions protection fund. In principle, it is probably a good idea, which should be welcomed—but the devil will, as always, be in the detail. The proposal to have a flat rate topped up by a risk-based premium is entirely appropriate. Otherwise, there would be moral hazard and people with badly funded schemes would benefit from those with well-funded schemes. The Association of Consulting Actuaries conducted a survey and found 58 per cent. support for the proposal, but 64 per cent. of respondents said that a £15 contribution per member was too high. PricewaterhouseCoopers, however, has determined that in the light of what the Government actuary proposed, the appropriate level for funding the White Paper proposals would be £50.
  I do not believe that £50 per member is wholly disproportionate, as it amounts to about £1 per week for a member of any private pension scheme. I would have thought that anyone in such a scheme would feel that it was quite good value to have a guarantee for £1, and I hope that that is the mechanism that the Bill will produce. It will, of course. vary from fund to fund and the less-well-funded schemes might find that they needed to raise more than £1 a week per member. Will the Government tell us who will audit the schemes to decide what the premium should be? Will it be left to the scheme actuary or will independent checks be made on what the premium should be? I agree that a cap is necessary on income and that £40,000 to £60,000 is probably not unreasonable, provided that the cap is indexed in accordance with incomes rather than with the cost of living.
  We can learn some lessons from what has happened in the United States where there has been a similar fund for many years, from which the Government have drawn much inspiration. The US scheme is similar in

  715
  that it is self-financing and there is no Government guarantee, which is, I understand, our Government's position. Interestingly, there are two types of scheme in the USA: the single-employer scheme, which had a deficit of more than $3 billion by the end of 2002, and the multi-employer scheme, which had a small surplus. That may be a lesson for us. Multi-employer schemes, which the Government would need to facilitate, may be more prudentially managed than single-employer schemes, so perhaps we should look into that. We should take cognisance of the comments of Steven Kandarian, the executive director of the US scheme:
  "Who will pay for the pension promises made by companies to their workers? The only choices are the company that made the promise, other companies through a system of pension insurance, or the taxpayers.
  More than 50 per cent. of members of the National Association of Pension Funds support the proposals, but 50 per cent. also say that they will make defined-benefit schemes less attractive for employers. Almost 50 per cent. think that the Government should fund the whole thing and that there should be no levy on NAPF members. The association suggests a benefit limit rather than a salary cap, but asks how the schemes will be inflation-proofed, how the costs will be estimated and how the risks will be assessed. The NAPF has also asked how such schemes would deal with early retirement due to ill health and whether they would affect the priority orders that the Government are—rightly—proposing to introduce.
  Most people support the schemes, but it will take time for employers to introduce them and employment contracts may need to be renegotiated, so 2005 looks a little optimistic, although the Government would have then had eight years to introduce the reforms. That seems rather a long time; there has been an awful lot of consultation and it has taken an awful lot of time.
  Mr. Webb: The hon. Gentleman is making a most informative speech. Does he share my concern that the Bill needs to include detailed provisions on the questions that he has put, so that the House can properly debate those issues? It is important that we do not have a skeletal Bill with other provisions shunted through in statutory instruments that receive no real scrutiny.
  Mr. Butterfill: The hon. Gentleman is well informed on these issues and I entirely agree with him. It would be wrong if the Bill were merely an enabling measure with statutory instruments to follow. As I said earlier, the devil is in the detail.
  Other proposals in the Green Paper and the White Paper include a pensions cap of a £1.4 million lifetime limit. That is much too low. It would not even fund the 1989 Lawson cap on earnings. The actuarial profession almost universally disagrees with the calculations of the Government Actuary's Department, which came up with the figure of £1.4 million. The profession is convinced that the figure should be £1.8 million. I hope that the Government will look into that again; it is a question of how the actuaries do their maths and the GAD is in a minority of one on that figure. Again, time will be required for employers to renegotiate many employees' contracts, as they will be affected by the issue.
  716
  I also want to mention the effect on other tax matters. First, there is the knock-on question of retained benefits. It is wrong and unfair that a person taking a job at a pay rate lower than in his or her previous employment should suffer by having the previous higher contributions acting against the total that can be accumulated over a lifetime. Indeed, the lifetime limit means that we no longer need the retained benefits regime, and I hope that the Government will get rid of it, as part of this process.
  The annual limits ought to go as well. They are a nonsense anyway, as many people have fluctuating incomes. Again, the cap means that there is no need for the annual limits. The annuity purchase also ought to go. I think that the Government are beginning to be persuaded of that, subject perhaps to a minimum level. That has been proposed in private Member's Bills by me and many other hon. Members. I hope that the Government will finally see the need to change the present structure.
  If the annuity purchase requirements are eliminated, there will be a need to cater for people who will be just short of 75 years of age when the Bill comes into effect. I hope that the Government will allow an extension for them.
  I hope that reform of the legislation will also cover legacy schemes and accrued rights. I think that the Government are proposing to do something on accrued rights, but a great many different legacy schemes exist, among them SERPS, graduated pensions and S2P. The White Paper refers to guaranteed minimum pensions, and I hope that the Government will sweep them all up into one regime. The Government Actuary has told me that that can be done, and that it would take about two years to do the calculations. That would alleviate much of the burden placed at present on employers, scheme trustees and civil servants.
  The White Paper also refers to the legacy private schemes. Those schemes include the pre-70 scheme, the section 226 scheme, retirement annuity contracts, personal pensions, and schemes under the legislation passed in 1987 and 1989. They are all to be consolidated, but the difficulty is that they come under different tax regimes. The problem will be to come up with a system that is fair to the members of the various schemes and which will not cause huge disadvantages. I hope that the Government will look at that, as there is a severe danger of retrospective taxation.
  My time is now up, so I cannot deal with the blame and compensation culture. However, I shall write to Ministers about that.
  4.27 pm
  Mr. Kevin Hughes: I am grateful for this opportunity to speak in the Gracious Speech debate. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on his excellent exposé of what would happen if the Opposition were ever to return to government. The Government's legislative programme is about fairness and the future, while the Opposition's proposals are clearly about division and a return to boom and bust.
  Our programme is about facing up to the challenges of the future in a way that pursues social justice for all. It is an agenda based on the continuing economic

  717
  stability and prosperity of the country. It is about reforming public services so that they are universal and personal, building a strong civic society with less poverty and less crime, and encouraging an outward-looking nation and a diverse, more tolerant country.
  This Queen's Speech builds on our previous legislation. In the last year alone, we have passed some important new laws that give new powers to the police and local authorities to tackle antisocial behaviour. The Government have set down tougher sentences for repeat offenders and sex offenders, and streamlined court procedures. They have tackled organised crime and terrorism, devolved power to front-line staff in the NHS, and offered more choice to patients.
  I want to welcome in particular the inclusion in the Queen's Speech of legislation that will tackle domestic violence and give more support for the victims of crime, protect children with a new children's commissioner, improve housing by tackling bad landlords in poor communities, give people more pension rights and protect pension schemes, introduce a supreme court and abolish the role of Lord Chancellor, and get rid of the 92 remaining hereditary peers. If it were left to me, I would get rid of the lot.
  I welcome the proposals to introduce an identity card. It appears that the higher education Bill will be a bit of a problem for the Government. I do not have a problem with the idea of top-up fees. On balance, it is perhaps right for people to make what would be a small contribution towards their higher education. However, I take issue with the possibility of breaking a manifesto commitment. Call me old-fashioned, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I believe that the manifesto is a contract of trust with the electorate. I would not want to go back on a commitment without first, explaining why it is felt to be necessary, and secondly, being convinced that there is no other way of delivering the policy.
  The Government will also introduce an energy Bill, which will be based on the White Paper published in February this year. It is crucial for our economy and well-being that we get this right. We need a Bill that delivers security of supply by using a diverse fuel mix. However, the White Paper sets us off down the uncharted path of being a net importer of energy. We have ageing nuclear plant and no plans to replace it. I am not a great fan of the nuclear power industry, but I recognise that we would be hard pushed to keep the lights on without it. I have a sneaky feeling that the Government know that too. Why else did they pour in £650 million earlier this year to prevent it from going bust?
  We had an abundance of natural gas, but we squandered it to generate electricity, instead of using it wisely for domestic purposes only. At the rate we are using it, we will be lucky if we have any left in 15 years' time—then what? The White Paper plans for us to import energy down a huge pipeline stretching across the European continent from such politically stable countries as Uzbekistan. We have an abundance of accessible coal right under our feet. It is a reliable fuel that delivers base load electricity when and where it is needed. Across the world, particularly in the USA, Governments are investing heavily in coal because they recognise its reliability and potential. In the White Paper, our Government clearly plan for the demise of
  718
  our indigenous industry over the next 10 years. They seem to favour importing all energy from other countries.
  Today, the Hatfield colliery in my constituency faces closure, although it sits on 80 million tonnes of good quality coal and has planning permission for an integrated gasification combined cycle power plant on the site, which can generate electricity from coal without the associated toxic emissions and can capture carbon, nitrates and hydrogen. We should ask ourselves why the US Government have invested $6 billion in developing such clean coal technology, yet the UK clean coal research and development budget totals a pitiful £25 million.
  Last week, the coal investment aid scheme announced an amount of £60 million. It is only half what we expected, but I welcome it. It came just too late for Hatfield. Had it come in a seamless transition from the operating aid scheme that ended last December, I am confident that the colliery would not be facing the financial difficulties that it is this week. That is recognised and well summed-up in today's Yorkshire Post leader column, which says:
  "Had the Government taken a more strategic view of the Britain's energy needs, it is likely that Hatfield Colliery would not have been forced into administration."
  It adds:
  "The fate of Hatfield, however, is inextricably linked with that of Britain's other remaining pits. For not only does the colliery, along with the currently mothballed Thorne pit, contain about half of the established reserves of British coal; it also offers hope for the future in the shape of a new clean-coal power-station development which could go ahead if the elusive investment became available."
  The Yorkshire Post is hardly noted as a socialist paper.
  Despite what the Yorkshire Post says, we have had some help from the Government. I am grateful to them for the help that they have given to us so far, but I hope that Ministers will continue to do all that they can to help me to sustain Hatfield colliery in recognition of the available coal reserves and the possibility of developing integrated gasification combined cycle technology there.
  To maintain the stable economy and build for the future, we need a safe and secure energy supply. It is foolhardy to plan to import the best part of our energy requirements. The Government should backtrack from that route, which will make our nation a hostage to fortune. It is hardly fashionable to talk about coal having a future—windmills are more in vogue, even though they cannot produce the goods—but the truth is that coal has served us well for generations and, with that new technology, it can continue to serve us for many years to come.
  David Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that the type and level of investment about which he speaks would also secure mining jobs in the midlands and elsewhere? A major coalfield around Asfordby in north-east Leicestershire has 800 million tonnes of clean coal and is waiting for investment. There is a future for coal in the United Kingdom, although we are in the last-chance saloon and the lights are being switched off.
  Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Coal has been the fuel of the past and, with the new

  719
  technology, it can be the fuel of the future. In fact, it could have a bright new future. We as a Government and a country should seize this opportunity and get ahead of the game with the emerging hydrogen economy that is coming this way.
  4.37 pm
  Mr. Steve Webb: Earlier in the debate, reference was made to some of the Government's large-scale IT projects, and in the few moments available to me this afternoon, I want to refer to just two of them. At the start of the new parliamentary Session, I want to plead for an end to the Panglossian assurances that all is well with those IT projects and the implication that it is impertinent of us to suggest that things might be otherwise.
  First, I wish to refer to the tax credits computer system. I was not at yesterday's sitting of the Public Accounts Committee, when it heard evidence from the head of the Inland Revenue and from EDS about the state of the tax credits computer, but now that the truth is coming out, it is clear that the assurances that we were given at the time that all this was a triumph and that everything was going swimmingly were very far from accurate.
  The head of the Inland Revenue, whose position must be open to question, said that the tax credit launch had gone "spectacularly wrong"—not a phrase that we have heard Ministers use in the past six months—and that the computerised payment scheme had repeatedly crashed, forcing hundreds of thousands of people who live on the breadline to wait weeks. As all hon. Members know, hundreds of thousands of emergency payments were necessary, and there is now evidence that billions of pounds may have been overpaid, again because of problems with the system.
  One of the things that I find incredible is that we can have blundering and administrative error on that scale but we barely bat an eyelid any more; we just expect it. We assume that huge Government computer projects will be a shambles. Given that up to £2 billion has been mistakenly paid, it is astonishing that Ministers have not made emergency statements to apologise to the House for the poor state of play. Instead, we get press releases from the Paymaster General and others saying that everything is a triumph. Sometimes I think that I have slipped into a parallel universe where all is well. Behind the scenes, the truth is very different.
  Our constituents know that the truth is different. They have been messed around by the tax credits scheme from day one. Many have had to wait long periods and some have fallen into debt and lost serious amounts of money. They were told that they could claim compensation, but to do that they had to ring the very helpline that they could not get through on in the first place. We had a letter from the Paymaster General this week that said that 1,600 people, out of 5.75 million, had received compensation payments of a grand average of £30 each. If I had led a life of misery earlier this year caused by the tax credits system and I had to go through it all again for £30 compensation, I would not bother.
  The spin from the Government is that the small number of people who received compensation must prove that there was not really a problem. However, if
  720
  high enough hurdles are put in the way, people will not claim compensation. I suspect that many of us have had 1,600 complaints about the system just in our constituencies. The Government's complacency and unwillingness to be honest with hon. Members about the state of the problem are incredible. We get bland assurances that all is well, when we know from our constituency surgeries that all is not well. My plea to the Government for the coming Session is for honesty and openness when things go wrong. The new scheme is a massive undertaking. The head of the Inland Revenue even said that the system should not have been introduced as quickly as it was. We are told all the time that nothing is wrong, but that is so much at variance with the facts that we must wonder whether we live in a mature democracy and treated as mature representatives of our constituents or being patronised like children who cannot be trusted with the truth, perhaps because it is too horrible to be told.
  This year has seen not one EDS computer catastrophe, but two. The same company is responsible for the Child Support Agency computer system, which was 18 months late in arriving and is still a shambles. In the six months to the end of September, 150,000 families asked the CSA to arrange maintenance but barely 5,000 had received the money by that date. What is the point of the child support system if it is not to get maintenance through to people? If 150,000 families go in at one end and only 5,000 come out, we must surely question the efficiency of the system.
  The shifting of old cases on to the new system is to be delayed indefinitely, as far as we know, and that mess is costing real families real money. A family that does not receive maintenance loses out. For a family in work, every penny of maintenance that they do not get is a penny that they lose because the failure to receive maintenance has no effect on their tax credits. Although arrears build up and may be recovered later, they may not. We all know of cases in which the arrears run to tens of thousands of pounds that are never recovered. The Government may claim that things are getting better, but some of the money will be lost for ever to the children involved.
  Families on benefits lose the money permanently. As I understand the situation—the Minister may be able to clarify it for me—a lone parent on income support who receives maintenance can keep £10 a week of it before losing benefit. If instead of getting £10 a week for 52 weeks she gets £520 in a lump sum, because the CSA has delayed getting the maintenance, she can still keep only £10. She has therefore lost the benefit of £510 of child maintenance disregard. Does she lose that disregard permanently because of the delay? I suspect that that is what will happen.
  There is a further problem. All the families on the existing system cannot be moved over to the new system because of the computer problems. That matters because every mum on income support on the old system loses every pound that she receives in maintenance from her income support. If she moved on to the new system, she could keep £10 a week. Leaving aside the gainers and losers from the change in systems, every mum on the old system is losing £10 a week for every week of delay.
  These are not abstract problems or delays that do not really matter; they involve real money for real children, and much of it is money that will never be recovered.

  721
  When a gentleman from EDS was asked in a Select Committee yesterday to talk about how much money the company was being penalised and other things, he was about to reply but was then shut up by a civil servant because the man from EDS is not supposed to tell people such things. It is all commercially confidential. We have a shambles, but we are not allowed to ask questions about it. We do not know whether taxpayers are receiving value for money because the information is all commercially confidential.
  David Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman believe, as I do, that this case points up the utter inadequacies of the private finance initiative and public-private partnership schemes to which, I regret, my Government have been wedded for almost seven years? Is he shocked at the lack of penalty clauses built into the private arrangements with EDS and other companies?
  Mr. Webb: I share the hon. Gentleman's concerns. In fact, I think that the situation is so bad that the Treasury is now not doing new PEI on information technology projects. Yet here we are lumbered with a system that is so bad that we understand from a letter that we received from the Department for Work and Pensions that staff members at the CSA are using pocket calculators because they are more reliable than the new computer. All we get from the Minister responsible for the CSA are bland and Panglossian assertions—they are the only words that one can use—that all is well with the world, that the system is getting on and that we are gaining momentum. In fact, real families are losing real money.
  There are penalty clauses in the EDS contract and I understand that some money is being withheld but whether permanently or temporarily I cannot be told. I have asked in the House, and I have been told that I cannot be told. I cannot be trusted with such information; it is all very hush-hush.
  The House needs to know the truth about what is going on, it needs to know when things are going wrong and it needs to know about the finances. How can we, on behalf of our constituents who are suffering, hold the Government to account if we are treated like children with incomplete and inadequate information and a refusal to tell us the facts? Such situations happen over and over again and, on behalf of our constituents, I urge the Secretary of State to be honest and open with us in all circumstances so that together we can hold these companies to account and ensure that efficient systems are put in place to deliver the benefits and the maintenance that our constituents have a right to expect.
  4.47 pm
  Mr. Roger Berry: I welcome most warmly the publication yesterday of the draft Disability Discrimination Bill. I also take the opportunity to express my equally enthusiastic support for the Government's policies on jobs and public expenditure. They have brought benefits to my constituents, as they have to everyone else in the country. However, as we have had only a passing reference to the Disability Discrimination Bill, I shall devote my 10 minutes to that measure.
  722
  I congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle), and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. Both have earned the respect of many people inside and outside the House for their efforts not only on the Bill but to secure equal opportunities for disabled people. I warmly applaud them.
  The draft Bill will secure for disabled people many of the rights that were specifically excluded from the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which was introduced by the Conservatives. Eight years since the Act reached the statute book, disabled people are still seven times more likely to be unemployed than non-disabled people. It is still the case that twice as many are likely to have no qualifications and that seven out of 10 disabled people report that they cannot go about their normal day-to-day activities because they cannot access buildings or transport. It is hardly surprising—but it should be shocking—to recall that there is now evidence that one in four disabled people offered employment decline that offer because they do not have access to the transport that will get them to work and back home again. We still face such problems, eight years after the Disability Discrimination Act was introduced.
  We face the problems largely because, as is well known, the Conservative Government of the time introduced the Act only because of public outrage at the manner in which they blocked legislation in earlier years. They opposed the very principle of securing equal rights for disabled people through legislation but, because of public outrage, they were eventually forced to legislate.
  I am afraid that the Tories' hearts were not in it. They did not establish a commission to enforce legislation. They excluded education and transport vehicles from the DDA. They excluded firms employing fewer than 20 people from the Act's provisions, which meant that millions of people in employment were denied any protection under it. They also excluded private clubs and drew up a list of occupations excluded from the Act's provisions, such as the police, members of the armed forces and firefighters.
  I would appreciate the Secretary of State's comments on the exclusion of certain occupations because it has always struck me as distinctly odd. The DDA provides that genuine occupational requirements should be recognised. We are not saying that disabled people have the right to take jobs for which they do not have the necessary skills, qualifications or experience. We are saying that if a disabled person has the necessary skills, qualifications and experience and is the best person for the job or is entitled to training opportunities and promotions, he or she should not be denied that by virtue of being a disabled person under the Act. Given that such people must prove that discrimination exists to get protection under the Act, I do not understand why any occupation should be excluded because we are considering a universal principle. I have heard the Secretary of State talk about the matter outside the House, so I am sure that he will clarify the Government's view.
  Many of the problems that I outlined have already been addressed. We now have the Disability Rights Commission. The exclusion of education from disability rights legislation was put right by the Special

  723
  Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001, and the small firms exemption will disappear in October 2004. As my hon. Friends know, I wish that the exemption had not been created in the first place and believe that it should have been removed more quickly. However, small firms will not have the excuse of being able to pay no attention to legislation by October next year—praise be! Additionally, reasonable adjustments are defined in legislation. The shadow Chancellor talked about the imposition of burdens on small firms but they will be protected from unreasonable adjustments. The draft Bill will finish off most of the job of enshrining basic rights for disabled people in law.
  We need to extend the definition of disability for the purposes of anti-discrimination legislation. I warmly welcome the fact that the Government have set out their intention in the draft Bill for legislation to apply to all people with HIV, cancer and multiple sclerosis. The draft Bill contains a reference to the fact that regulations might provide for circumstances in which people with cancer would not be covered. Perhaps the Government want to protect people with cancer who are receiving substantial treatment and thus narrow down the group of people who would benefit. I hope that the Secretary of State will comment on that in his winding-up speech.
  Current legislation protects people with conditions such as HIV, cancer and MS if their condition is such that they cannot undertake day-to-day activities. However, it does not protect people who are diagnosed with such conditions if their symptoms do not mean that their physical or mental health is affected in such a way that their day-to-day activities are impaired. However, given that it is right to protect people from discrimination because they have been diagnosed with a condition that impedes their day-to-day activity, surely it is right to outlaw discrimination against people who have been diagnosed with such a condition that is not yet affecting their day-to-day activities. How can it be right that people with HIV, cancer or MS must wait until they have significant physical impairment before they are protected by the law? There should be protection from the point of diagnosis. I think that the Government are moving toward accepting that important principle in the draft Bill, but they have not quite done so.
  Clause 3 of the draft Bill provides for the extension of the DDA to cover discrimination in relation to the use of transport. I welcome that most warmly. As of today, it is still the case that if a person in a wheelchair wants to get on an accessible bus and the driver does not stop to pick them up, he is not breaking the law. It is also the case that if the bus does stop and the person in the wheelchair tries to get on, the bus driver can be abusive and push them back off again. Tragically, the Disability Rights Commission has cited examples of that type of activity. Such discrimination must be wrong, so it is welcome that the Government are taking powers through the draft Bill to address that gap in the DDA.
  I hope that while the Government are dealing with transport they will finally give us a date by which rail vehicles will be required to be accessible. I occasionally pop up in Transport questions to ask about that, but I have yet to receive an answer.
  724
  I am delighted that private clubs with more than 25 members are to be included, as they are under the race relations legislation. I am sure that that will be widely supported by political parties, because it means that we will have to ensure that we do not give less favourable treatment to disabled people, and that we make the necessary reasonable adjustments for them.
  I am also delighted that public authorities will have a duty to promote disability equality, as they do in relation to race equality under the race relations legislation.
  In conclusion, I warmly welcome the draft Bill and hope that the Government will reiterate their commitment to legislate on the proposals during this Parliament, as they promised during the run up to the last election.
  4.56 pm
  Mr. William Cash: I want to refer to a matter relating to economic management that has been causing the Chancellor of the Exchequer some concern—the primacy of European law under the proposed European constitution. Having listened to some hon. Members' speeches, that matter seems to have been somewhat overlooked. For example, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) mentioned the last Conservative Government's disastrous policies on the exchange rate mechanism, conveniently forgetting that Labour Members were entirely behind those policies. Indeed, on the basis of the Government's current commitment to economic and monetary union, they would take us back in again.
  Last month, the Chancellor expressed deep concern about the danger of the European constitution undermining the role of national Governments in economic policy making. That is a serious matter, because it has an impact not only on the debates that we will have in future if the constitution goes through, but on the effectiveness of our position in the House of Commons in representing our constituents.
  To a great extent, the Government's concerns are not being backed up by a determination to retain control over our own economy. In June, the Treasury produced a paper called, "Policy frameworks in the UK and EMU"—economic and monetary union—which states:
  "While individual tax and spending policies remain a matter for EU Member States, there is an EU framework to promote and maintain sound public finances and to aid coordination between the fiscal authorities."
  It continues:
  "The main objective for fiscal policy which Member States have agreed …is to safeguard sound government finances as a means to strengthen the conditions for price stability"—
  that, of course, is what monetary union is all about—
  "and for strong sustainable growth conducive to employment creation."
  It then mentions the excessive deficit procedure, to which I was somewhat opposed in the Maastricht treaty, and the stability and growth pact, which was introduced

  725
  in circumstances where I felt that it would have been wiser not to do so—many of us opposed it vigorously—and which has now collapsed in ignominy.
  It is worth pointing out that the same paper states:
  "As already noted, the UK and EU fiscal frameworks … even outside EMU"
  operate on the basis that
  "the UK is obliged to follow many of the requirements of the EU framework".
  We should reflect on that because although we are outside the single currency, we are not outside the framework in which the economic and monetary union policies operate. In considering the stability and growth pact and the exchange rate mechanism, which many of my distinguished colleagues, including some on the Front Bench, and I vigorously opposed, I was reminded of Shelley's famous poem, "Ozymandias":
  "Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
  Stand in the desert."
  It goes on to describe the pedestal:
  "these words appear:
  `My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
  Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!'
  Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
  Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
  The lone and level sands stretch far away."
  That is how I would summarise the policies of the European constitution in relation to our economic affairs and management.
  The draft European constitution threatens to tighten the noose of European economic management and would transform the European Community and European Union treaties into a free-standing constitution for Europe, adjudicated by what is effectively an EU supreme court. So much for the House's jurisdiction. It proposes easier censure of member states for failing to comply with EU economic policy and deficit guidelines by making such censure subject to the double majority system of qualified majority voting. It would remove the requirement of unanimity for the Council of Ministers to adopt economic measures to apply to member states. It would also confer on the Council of Ministers a mandate to lay down fresh detailed rules and definitions for the excessive deficit procedure protocol. That is all in addition to existing treaty provisions on economic policy co-ordination and so-called multilateral surveillance of member states as well as the notorious dead letter of the stability and growth pact.
  We are not considering only technicalities but jobs, public services, realistic growth and public expenditure levels. The stability and growth pact was never a workable instrument but its recent killing off by France and Germany has created a new crisis. The supposed solidarity of EMU has been exposed as a sham. France and Germany originally intended the proposals to contain the profligacy of, for example, Italy. However, by breaking the pact they have undermined the rule of law and they have done so with the disgraceful connivance of the British Government.
  726
  The United Kingdom is complicit in the destruction of the stability and growth pact. With Sweden, it opposed the redrafting of article III-8(1) of the draft European constitution on the adoption of measures for the eurozone on economic policy co-ordination and excessive deficits.
  Increasing functions are being created for the European Union. As I pointed out to the co-ordinating strategic planner of the Commission in the Select Committee on European Scrutiny the other day, creating more functions leads to more costs and more requirements to pay them. The European constitution must then be re-examined and it states that the Union has to provide the means to support the objectives. The money will come from taxation. The European constitution will have an upward effect on our tax system.
  Let me deal with asymmetric socks—[Interruption.] Indeed, perhaps I should consider asymmetric red socks. I meant "shocks". The economists have warned about that for some time and now Ireland is experiencing rampant inflation, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands are in recession and Portugal is an economic disaster zone. The internal contradictions of EMU have their own dynamics. They create not diversity but chaos and we will be affected, whether we are in or out.
  Monetary union has managed to create the worst of all possible worlds for the eurozone: regional imbalances of inflation and deflation, at first a low and now a damagingly high exchange rate, low growth, high unemployment, treaty obligations broken in every direction, bitter recriminations and a shattered illusion of moral unity. What is proposed is more of the same, whereas we need a fundamental rethink about all this, not only in the United Kingdom but in the rest of the EU.
  The Union's plans for economic management are dirigiste—their approach is almost Soviet—and they are unrealistic and unworkable in a democracy because they bear no relation to what people want. But they will have massive effects on people's daily lives, and on regulation, competitiveness, productivity, the social market economy, levels of public expenditure, hospitals, schools, public services and unemployment, as I pointed out in the economic debate about Maastricht all those years ago.
  There is also the other requirement under the charter concerning the length of the hours that people work, which will have a tremendous impact on our hospitals, as we saw the other day. There is also the right to strike, which even a Labour Government have not introduced. Even if the UK never joins the euro, our export markets will be affected by it, and our domestic economy remains subject to economic and monetary union.
  This constitution must be rejected. There must be a far-reaching, fundamental renegotiation that addresses the reality, not the false vision of the Euro-eélite. Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer agree, and if not, why not?
  5.6 pm
  Mr. Jim Cunningham: It is rather ironical that I follow the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), particularly considering what he has been

  727
  saying about Europe and the constitution. We have to remind him that if he and the last Conservative Government had not signed up to Maastricht and the single market, perhaps some of the red tape that he has been referring to would not have appeared.
  Although we have not seen the details of the pensions Bill, which my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) mentioned earlier, I certainly welcome the proposals, particularly for the setting up of a pension protection fund. Any time my hon. Friend or I asked to see the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions about the problems that we were experiencing in Coventry with the final payment schemes of companies such as Massey Ferguson and, to a certain extent, Rolls-Royce, my right hon. Friend and other Front-Bench colleagues were always prepared to see us and to meet delegations. Although it may be a little premature to say so, we seem to be going in the right direction. However, we certainly need to know more about how the fund will work and what the levies will be.
  The other issue arising from occupational pensions and final payments funds is the fact that there should be more consultation, not only on the general nature of pension funds but in the particular case of an employer proposing to change a pension fund. At the moment there is no onus on employers to consult employees about any changes to the pension fund or about pension holidays. Anybody who knows anything about industry will remember that, from time to time, employers take pension holidays, and nobody can stop them. That creates considerable problems. We must remember that the previous Conservative Government did very little about such situations. In fact, they presided over one of the biggest scandals in history—the mis-selling of pensions. I do not have to go into the details of that for my colleagues; I am sure that we are all aware of that scandal.
  Turning to fair trade and third-world debt, I am particularly glad that the Chancellor is saying that, by about 2006, Britain's share of help for the third world will rise to about £4.9 billion. That is a step in the right direction, but there has always been a concern in the west midlands about the problems that manufacturing experiences from time to time. I mentioned the Massey Ferguson pension scheme. Massey Ferguson has pulled up stumps and left Coventry. When any manufacturing jobs are lost, that has a knock-on effect on the small producers who supply the spare parts.
  We recognise that the Government are trying to do a lot for manufacturing industry, but we must keep our eye on that area, especially in the west midlands, which has been considered the economic engine of the country.
  The shadow Chancellor opened the debate with his new attack machine. I was trying to work out what we should call it. Should it be called the Pol Pot machine or the year zero machine? My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West touched on that. The Tories have created an interesting machine, but we have one of our own. I am sure my hon. Friends remember the 17 per cent. VAT on fuel under the Tories. Despite the campaigns that were waged, the Conservative Government did not listen. We had a battle in the House on a Friday morning about winter fuel payments, and I
  728
  am sure that my hon. Friends remember that. Under the Tories, there were record interest rates, negative equity, the mis-selling of pensions, record unemployment, and the Horizon project, which the Opposition do not want to talk about. When I was on the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, it conducted an investigation into the Horizon project, which cost £0.5 billion and was probably responsible for some of the problems that we now have with computer systems. The Tories spent about £30 million trying to put it right.
  Mr. Berry indicated assent.
  Mr. Cunningham: My hon. Friend also took part in that inquiry. The Opposition talk about their attacking machine, but we have one as well.
  I shall be a little more positive now, as I have said enough about the record of the Opposition in government. I shall take a measured look at our record. We have low inflation—we have probably had the lowest inflationary period in our history, despite what the Opposition say. That gives people confidence in the economy and a security that they have never had before. Anyone who has worked in industry has been subjected to the stop-go policies of Conservative Governments, when they could be threatened with redundancy. They know what that security means to the man and woman in the street. That is fundamental to people outside, and we should never lose sight of it.
  More money is being spent on the health service and on education. More importantly, there has been an increase in the number of doctors and nurses to meet the needs of the health service. Much has been done to reduce waiting lists, but it is important to note that more people are being treated than ever before. I am sure that my hon. Friends remember the days when people were put on trolleys because they could not be given hospital beds, and when there was a record number of hospital closures. It is worth while reminding ourselves of the Tory record.
  One of the most fundamental measures that the Government introduced was the minimum wage. We can all debate the level of the minimum wage, but I remember the case of a lady in Coventry who was paid £1 an hour and was not told her employment rights. We had a long battle with the job centre to get some action taken against the company involved. There was quite a bit about that in the Daily Mirror, which ran a campaign on the minimum wage.
  We should again remember the Conservative Government's record. I like to jump in and out of this subject, just to remind them. What could have been worse than the poll tax? Need I say more? I was leader of Coventry city council during the poll tax years. People complain about high council tax charges, and some of them are too high, especially in Tory councils, but I can remember when Coventry city council's rate support grant was cut and its capital budget was capped. In effect, that meant that we could not carry out school or council house repairs. Therefore, although we have been in government for about six and a half years, we still have a long way to go to deal with the injustices and inequities of the Tories' 18 years in government.

  729
  I say again that I welcome a number of measures in the Queen's Speech and a number of measures that the Chancellor has introduced in the past. I look forward to seeing the detail of the Government's pensions Bill.
  5.15 pm
  Mr. Archie Norman: I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests.
  It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham), who made an interesting speech and some important points. I was sorry that he chose to introduce, perhaps uncharacteristically, a partisan note at the end of his remarks. It is interesting to note how often Labour Members refer to the poll tax, as if that is an important point about next year's public agenda. After all, the poll tax became extinct more than a decade ago. If that is the greatest criticism that they can level at Opposition policies, it is not very much.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) said that the debate would be interesting to the outside world only if we were capable of standing back a bit from party politics, and I agree. Unfortunately, he made his remark after the Chancellor left the Chamber. The Chancellor's speech was very much the speech of a politician, of someone more interested in his interpretation of Opposition policies than in any rounded assessment of the state of the economy.
  There are fundamental issues about the performance of the economy; I think that any rounded assessment would come to that conclusion. That is not necessarily a criticism of the Chancellor or of the Government's approach. The Government set out with a big project—to increase state spending on state-delivered service—in the belief that the quality of life for British people, our infrastructure, and hence our national competitiveness would improve as a result. That is a perfectly noble purpose, but the Government staked their reputation on their ability not to spend money but to deliver outcomes proportionate to the increase in spending.
  That is the issue that my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor raised in his speech. It is not a partisan point that there are serious problems with public service productivity and public service delivery. After all, it is an issue that the Prime Minister himself has recognised. Given the major policy shift undertaken by the Government, that is the central issue that we should be debating and that the Queen's Speech should be addressing.
  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Norman: I am sorry. I am so short of time that I prefer not to, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
  The shadow Chancellor said that the solution is not more legislation, it is better administration. He is 100 per cent. right. That goes not just for public services but for the economy as a whole. Let us remember that public spending is rising to 40 per cent. of GDP. It accounts directly for about one fifth of all employment and indirectly for even more, so it is a substantial part of the total. If we fail to deliver productivity growth in the
  730
  public sector, it will be extremely difficult to improve the competitiveness of the economy overall, regardless of the state of the national infrastructure.
  It is not just a question of wastage, surplus overheads, the burgeoning number of administrators in the health service or the Department of Trade and Industry. The importance of the bureaucrats and administrators is that they speak of a set of values and a style of leadership. If in the DTI, the Department of Health or the Home Office the number of administrators is growing by the day, it is hardly surprising if people on the front line are not motivated to deliver improvement in performance and to look for ways of saving money.
  According the Office for National Statistics—these are not my statistics—from 1995 to 2003 there has been a 48 per cent. increase in public spending for a 15 per cent. increase in output. There is controversy about how we evaluate public sector output but, on any measure, we are looking at dire performance on productivity improvement compared with anything one would expect in the private sector. In the NHS alone, most measures suggest that for an increase of about 21 per cent. in spending over the last three years, we have had an increase in output of approximately 1 to 2 per cent. There may have been qualitative improvements beyond that, but there is a huge deficit in performance that would be unacceptable in any commercial environment.
  It is no defence for the Chancellor to give a great list of achievements; after spending that amount of money, there should be achievements. The question is whether those achievements are proportionate to the money that has been spent, and whether the public sector is improving the quality of delivery at the same rate as one would expect had the same amount of money been spent in any other sphere of life. According to the ONS, we have seen negative productivity growth in the public sector in the last three years. That is a serious problem for both sides of the House and for the economy as a whole.
  We are putting more and more money and employment—70,000 to 90,000 people a year—into the least productive, worst managed, most trade unionised and most sclerotic part of the economy, which spends the least on research and development of any single sector: the public sector. That is the difficulty with which we are struggling, and the Queen's Speech needs to address it.
  What is the Government's agenda when faced with this central and structural problem in their policy? The answer appears to be to produce more Soviet-style proliferation of public targets and to do nothing to address the problems of public sector management. The chairman of a well respected NHS trust told me a couple of weeks ago that the problem with the Government was that they thought not that the Soviet Union was wrong, but that it did not try hard enough. [Interruption.] Those are not my words. One might think that they are exaggerated or ridiculous, but that is what leading public servants are saying about the Government. People who work for the Government—not me—believe that that is the way the Government are working.
  The Centre for Policy Studies produced an excellent document recently called "Managing not to manage" and pointed out that the life expectancy of a chief executive of an NHS trust is now only 700 days. In other

  731
  words, we are losing talent in the service because people are so fed up with the way they are managed and by the support they receive from the Government. A MORI survey last year said that two thirds of NHS chief executives were absolutely fed up with the number of targets that they were expected to pursue and felt that that cast doubt on their interest in continuing to serve in the national health service.
  These are serious issues and the situation will get worse unless we start to support more effective management and leadership in the public service. The position of the Conservative party is not a question as to whether we should be spending more on public services. It is about how that money is spent and whether we are spending it in such a way that the delivery produces a better quality of life, better outcomes and better customer service for the people of this country.
  To reinforce this point, there are aspects of the public services that are improving, and we can point to instances of remarkable improvement, restructuring and growth in productivity. One example is Ordnance Survey, an outstanding institution—potentially a world leader—that has transformed its business over the past two or three years. The British Library is another outstanding world resource by any standards, and it is now employing new technology to good effect. The Royal Mail, led by my former colleague Allan Leighton, is restructuring at a fantastic rate; that is, of course, controversial in some quarters, but it is undoubtedly delivering big productivity gains.
  Importantly, it is not just that these institutions are unusual, but that they are led in every case by high quality private sector leadership and people who have come in from outside. The institutions compete, and individuals can make a choice outside their circles; the public have a choice in terms of library services, Ordnance Survey or the Royal Mail, and there is an incentive to perform. The public also have an incentive to make the right choice. And of course, these are institutions that are comparatively immune to the day-to-day interference of politics and politicians. Political interference and targeting represent an absolute corrosion of public services. They detract from the esteem of those who work within them, and diminish the attraction for capable men and women of achievement from outside to come in and provide the management that those services deserve.
  The things that we should look for from the Queen's Speech in the year ahead are measures to distance the partisan political process from the delivery of public services, and to provide the capacity to attract and motivate men and women—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. The hon. Gentleman's time is up.
  5.25 pm
  Mr. Piara S. Khabra: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in today's debate on economic affairs, and I hope to raise a few useful and specific points with the Treasury team. Many of the proposals covered by the debate will not capture the same headlines or create the same controversy as top-up fees or Lords reform, but the issues that we are
  732
  dealing with are fundamental to the health of the nation's economy, which in turn will affect our ability to invest in public services.
  I am pleased to see that the United Kingdom has held up well in the troubled economic waters of the past year or two. In a report last month, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development noted that
  "the UK economy continues to exhibit greater resilience than most other OECD countries"
  and that
  "inflation and unemployment are internationally low".
  Despite the concerns expressed in the report about the widening public deficit, I am sure that the Chancellor will be able to show in next week's pre-Budget report that it remains fiscally on-track.
  The Chancellor has done an excellent job in difficult circumstances—perhaps the best in this country's history, and better than any of his predecessors. My constituents have not forgotten the days of high inflation, high interest rates and unemployment, and of bankruptcies and the repossession of properties: the boom and bust period of the previous Conservative Government. Indeed, I have seen the devastating effect that that period had on my constituents.
  A CBI statement issued last month pointed out that
  "business confidence has risen in every English region and in Wales over the last six months as the global economic recovery has taken hold"
  and that employment is expected to rise in every region. Yet to ensure the durability of this recovery, it is important that we address certain dangers, and for that reason I am pleased to see proposals in the companies Bill to tackle corporate governance issues. The problems at the Dutch retailer Royal Ahold earlier this year—the chief executive resigned after it was discovered that profits had been overstated by $500 million in the past two years—show that Europe is not immune to scandals such as that affecting America's Enron.
  If we are to ensure that investors can have confidence in doing business in the UK, and with UK firms, we must strengthen our system of governance, particularly the rules on accounting standards. This country already has a great deal to offer to businesses. Indeed, in a survey published in July, the Economist Intelligence Unit ranked the United Kingdom as the fourth best country in the world in which to do business. But if we are to keep that position, we need to maintain confidence in our systems. I therefore welcome the proposed companies Bill, which will tighten the regulation of auditing, increase the powers to investigate companies, and allow the Inland Revenue to pass on any information on suspect accounts that it discovers during its investigations. That is important for the growth of the economy and for people in general, and it will lend welcome clarity to require directors to state that they have not withheld any relevant information from the auditors.
  None the less, I hope that the Government will consider going a little further in some areas. Five years ago we had the big six accountancy firms; now we have the big four, and the vast majority of the world's largest firms are audited by one of those. It is therefore imperative that their accounting be beyond reproach,

  733
  and that investors can trust the accounts presented to the public and to shareholders to be independent. I cannot help but feel that that independence is in danger of being compromised by allowing a firm auditing a client company to provide lucrative consulting and tax advice as well. That is a point for Treasury Ministers to note.
  It is too much to assume that auditing firms that receive large fees for their consulting work will not be at least a little swayed, and certainly tempted, in their less lucrative auditing roles too. Two possible solutions present themselves. One is to bar auditors from offering non-audit work. That would create a real barrier to conflict of interests, as opposed to the Chinese wall model, which seems to have been ineffective. The fact that the Government intend to require companies to publish full details of the non-audit services that they get from their auditors suggests that the potential for conflict is recognised. I feel that it would be best to remove the possibility altogether.
  Another idea would be mandatory rotation of auditors, perhaps every three years. That would encourage independence, as it would reduce the possibility of auditors and clients becoming too close. The knowledge that an auditor's work would be under scrutiny by one of its rivals every few years would surely encourage a higher standard of work, which is needed both for businesses and for the economy as a whole.
  Once any changes are put in place, we need to put trust in the new processes. It is true that some businesses have abused our trust, but excessive regulation will only stifle innovation and the necessary degree of risk taking that is part of a successful entrepreneurial culture. I am glad that the Queen's Speech offers us some clear guidelines without excessive regulation.
  I shall now touch briefly on other welcome measures on the agenda for the coming Session. I am pleased that provision is to be made for establishing community interest companies to promote social enterprises. These new entities should bring useful and desirable economic and social benefits for the United Kingdom, especially as they will be expected to produce annual reports on their efforts to meet social objectives.
  I shall now raise several other issues that are important to my constituency and me. I look forward to supporting the proposals in the pensions Bill, as my constituents have raised the issue of pensions reform with me. I have often lobbied the Chancellor on the subject, and I am sure that many of my constituents will be pleased with the plans for a pension protection fund and a pensions regulator. I also hope that the Government will continue to recognise the importance of small businesses, which are especially important in my constituency, and also vital to the economy.
  I wonder whether the Treasury has made any commitment to deal with the domicile rule, which has lost the Treasury many millions of pounds in potential revenue. I am sure that the Chancellor is also aware of the high level of consumer debt, which is potentially damaging to households and families. I hope that the Government will think about ways of discouraging the sometimes murky activities that snare people into a debt trap.
  734
  Of course, for all the proposals outlined in the Queen's Speech, the devil will be in the detail. I believe that there is much potential and I hope that the House will come together on many of the issues raised in the debate today. A healthy economy is essential to the UK not for its own sake, but for what it allows us to do. It enables us to continue investing and makes it possible to meet our social obligations to the nation. These proposals should create the healthy conditions and good practices necessary—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's time is up.
  5.35 pm
  Mr. Jonathan Djanogly: Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. As "Tail-end Charlie", I shall have to pick on only a few issues. One issue that has not been much mentioned today, but which must be debated, is the massive impact of regulation on businesses, particularly small businesses, in our country. There are 15 new regulations coming into force every day, which, according to the estimate of the British Chambers of Commerce, amounts to a cost hike of £20 billion a year on business. When I asked businesses in my constituency about that, 90 per cent. felt that the burden had increased under the Labour Government.
  The evolving picture for British manufacturing is not a pretty one. Productivity growth has halved since Labour came to power. Output was down by 4 per cent. last year—the biggest fall since 1991— and profitability has fallen to its lowest level since 1992 with 300 manufacturing jobs being lost every day. In such a dire position, we need to ask what the Government wanted to achieve. It is certainly not equality, because the divide between rich and poor is growing. Clearly, the Government believed that low interest rates would encourage investment, but while the personal debt mountain has grown to ever-higher levels, corporate investment has fallen in the last quarter to its lowest level for 20 years.
  I can only imagine that Europe must figure highly in Labour's grand plan—I have the inevitable feeling that they want to dumb down to the lowest level of the social chapter—and that the Government wish to appease the unions with a European social agenda that will lead to a less competitive and, ultimately, higher unemployment economy, which is more euro-compliant. Once comfortably in the euro, the Government will be able to blame others for setting an interest rate that destroys our own economy.
  Having said that, Labour has also encouraged our very own British regulations, such as the climate change levy, the aggregates tax and, most recently, the income tax hike in the form of national insurance, which is itself equivalent to a 3 per cent. rise in corporation tax but is wholly unrelated to such niceties as whether the company concerned makes a penny of profit. Worrying as the red tape and regulations are to business, the growing sentiment that I hear from businesses is that they feel increasingly isolated. While their employees' protections and rights are becoming ever more entrenched, who in the Government is standing up for business interests?

  735
  The tide continues to flow in this year's Queen's Speech with a new draft disability discrimination Bill and Employment Relations Bill chipping away time and again at our competitiveness. It is a Government of technocrats and target setters, not innovators and leaders. Whenever there is a problem, they say, "Let's have another Bill", but before we move on to the new Bills, including the proposed Bill to regulate auditors and facilitate the raiding of companies and their directors by the Department of Trade and Industry, what about the comprehensive companies Bill that they have promised for five years—the one that will reduce form filling, ease statutory capital requirements for companies and remove the inherent discrimination that small companies face in our corporate legislation? I ask the Government, in whose in-tray is that now languishing?
  I recently met the British Exporters Association, which said that the relevant Minister did not seem much concerned about attending meetings with foreign parties to help companies to win contracts, though that was regularly done by other European Ministers. I return to the question whether it is worth having a Department of Trade and Industry at all. The answer is, probably not, when the Secretary of State prioritises commenting on semi-nude women sitting on cars in motor shows, attacks the ability of British managers rather than supports them, and highlights the question of ageism as a sop to pensioners who are now forced to work due to Labour having smashed their pensions.
  My opinion might be different if we had a Government who cut regulation for companies and fought Treasury plans to increase corporate taxes; who stood up for British interests abroad and demanded our fair share of Iraqi contracts; who travelled the world securing inward investment and British foreign infrastructure and export deals, and who sorted out rather than pandered to the unions and their ancient work practices, as we recently saw with the Post Office strikes. Only then might I give a cheer for the Department of Trade and Industry.
  5.39 pm
  Mr. David Willetts: The Opposition believe in productivity and my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) has just said in four minutes as much as most contributors to the debate said in 10 minutes. I congratulate him. I declare my interests, which appear in the Register.
  I begin by considering the historical context of the Queen's Speech. The Government have been in office for six and a half years. In that period, they have passed 254 Acts of Parliament, which amount to 16,050 pages. The Government began with 600 targets, but they needed improvement and development so we now have a total of 890. There has been a 50 per cent. increase in spending on public services.
  So if Utopia were achieved by legislation, targets and public spending we ought to be in it today: but we are not, and the reason for the growing discontent that is expressed on the Conservative Benches is that it is manifest that we are not. Several of my right hon. and hon. Friends, including my right hon. Friends the
  736
  Members for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir Brian Mawhinney) and for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman), drew the House's attention to the problem that we are not producing enough, especially in the public sector where we need £4 of input for £1 of product. That is the kernel of the issue.
  The problem was put very well by the Public Administration Committee, which investigated targets. Its report stated:
  "we discovered that targets and results were different things."
  That will be the Government's epitaph; the discovery that targets and results are different things.
  Perhaps Ministers realise that there is a problem. That may be why we are having a big conversation—to find out what ought to be done—perhaps as a result of some loss of direction, some loss of confidence or some loss of momentum. For example, on the constitution, when the Prime Minister was in opposition he said that he supported Labour's commitment to replacing the House of Lords with an elected second Chamber. Yet now the big conversation consultation document asks what should be the role and functions of a second Chamber. It asks how today's House of Lords should be constituted.
  Six years ago, the Government knew how they were doing on transport. Their first annual report stated, "Done" in relation to the development of an integrated transport policy. However, in the big conversation, they say that more needs to be done and that they are asking the tough questions about how to fund a world-class transport infrastructure, how best to integrate transport and whether they have got their priorities right.
  The Government are losing their way. They are losing momentum and they have lost their purpose. The tragedy is that there ought to be a conversation and we know what it ought to be about. The big conversation ought to be about how we reform our public services. That is the real big conversation and I believe that it goes on among Ministers. We know what they say. We know what the Prime Minister has said. If Tony were free to put his entry on the website, this is what he would say:
  "We should be far more radical about the role of the state as regulator rather than provider, opening up healthcare, for example, to a mixed economy under the NHS umbrella…We should also stimulate new entrants to the schools market and"—
  I draw the Chancellor's attention to this point—
  "be willing to experiment with new forms of co-payment in the public sector."
  Perhaps the Chancellor would not agree.
  Someone close to the Chancellor also made a contribution to the big conversation. This is what Ed would like to put on the website,
  "We have to have the confidence to accept that there is a limit to how far you can apply market principles…you run grave risks with the ethic of public service…if you go down the road of thinking you can apply market principles to a good like health, the evidence is that you end up with inefficiency and escalating costs, two-tierism and you can do grave damage to that ethic of public service …I think the same is true of education."
  That is what Ed would put in the big conversation.
  Mr. Eric Forth: That is Balls.
  Mr. Willetts: Perhaps, but this is how Tony chips in. He says:
  "But unless we want the result to be poorer services, we need to address the balance between what the citizen pays individually or collectively."
  That is the Prime Minister's contribution to the big conversation. The Chancellor comes in and warns:
  "The very same reasoning which leads us to the case for public funding of health care on efficiency as well as equity grounds also leads us to the case for public provision of healthcare."
  That is what the Chancellor thinks. In desperation, the Prime Minister comes back with his final throw.
  "We should have the confidence to open up the debate, be honest about the challenges, lay out the real choices."
  What are the No. 10 spin doctors saying, meanwhile? A senior Government official said:
  "We think these are issues that should be discussed in private and not in the columns of newspapers."
  That would be a big conversation, and it is the one we should be having. It is the one in which Opposition Members are taking part. It is a great pity that, when the debate gets to the heart of the nature of Britain's public services, all we hear from the Government are muffled thuds and sounds emerging from Nos. 10 and 11 Downing street. That is what has gone wrong.
  Pensions provide a particular example of where the Government have failed in target setting and control. The Government set a clear target, and the Opposition—in the bipartisan spirit in which we believe—said that we were happy to endorse it. The Government target was to shift the balance of pension funding: instead of pensioners getting 60 per cent. of their income from benefits and 40 per cent. from funded savings, the proportions were to be reversed. What has happened? In practice, the trend has gone in the opposite direction. When the Government came to office, pensioners got 51 per cent. of their income in benefits, and 42 per cent. in funded pension savings. Now they get 61 per cent. in benefits, and 39 per cent. in funded pension savings. The country is heading in the wrong direction.
  I remind the Chancellor of his famous promise to the Labour party conference:
  "I want the next Labour Government to achieve what in 50 years of the welfare state has never been achieved—the end of the means test for our elderly people."
  We would love to hear him endorse those sentiments again, at the Dispatch Box. Instead, what we have is more means testing. Help the Aged believes that the pension credit is "totally over-engineered" and that it should be much simpler and fairer. It also said that it would be
  "better to boost the basic state pension to Minimum Income Guarantee level, which could still be done with modest extra costs."
  That would be the right direction—reversing the spread of means testing and rewarding people for building up their funded pension savings. However, the Government are taking us in the wrong direction, which is the opposite of the one set out by the Chancellor in opposition.
  738
  The Government are to introduce legislation to set up a pension protection fund. However, we know what pensions need protection from—the Chancellor who took £5 billion a year away from them. The Government say that they are bringing in the pension protection scheme to restore confidence in pensions. They certainly need to restore that confidence. A polling question asked:
  "How much do you trust the Government to keep its word and not let you down on your pension?"
  The responses showed that trust scored 16 per cent., while distrust scored 81 per cent.—a net score of minus 66 per cent. That shows that the Government have a problem. I hope that their legislation will do something about that.
  The trouble is that we are not clear about how the protection scheme will work, or whether it will offer any extra security, compared with existing pension schemes. It is not clear what will happen if the premiums are insufficient to bail out a large pension scheme. Of course, there is nothing in these measures for the people who have already lost their pension schemes—employees of companies such as Allied Steel and Wire. Nearly a year ago, on 17 January, 1 wrote to the Secretary of State promising that we would work on a cross-party basis to introduce straightforward, simple measures that would tackle the anomalies in the current rules on wind-ups, but our offer has been ignored. Those measures could be on the statute book by now. We do not need to wait any longer.
  The problem with the Government's approach is that it is defensive. They are building a deeper ditch around a castle. They are not offering anybody any incentive for more funded saving. That is what we in the Conservative party believe in.
  5.50 pm
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith): At least until the last speech this was a good debate. We heard from 15 Back-Bench Members. I thank the right hon. Members for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir Brian Mawhinney) and for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), the hon. Members for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill), for Stone (Mr. Cash), for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman), for Northavon (Mr. Webb) and for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) for their contributions. Unlike the Conservative Front Bench, they at least were interested in debating the economy. I thank, too, my hon. Friends the Members for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill), for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson), for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) and for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), my right hon. Friends the Members for Llanelli (Denzil Davies) and for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke), and my hon. Friends the Members for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) and for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra) for their contributions.
  The debate has ranged so widely that it is difficult to do justice in the nine remaining minutes to all the interesting arguments. I will pick out a number of points for response. First, I assure the hon. Member for Northavon, who made important points about the Child Support Agency, that a lump sum child support payment such as he described would be assigned to the time that it should have been paid and disregarded

  739
  accordingly, so that in the example that he gave the full £520 would be disregarded retrospectively across the year.
  The debate opened with the first speech of the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) as shadow Chancellor and his inaugural mauling at the hands of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment. He has the endearing characteristic of saying out loud what is in his mind, so we often get a more honest account for what passes for Conservative policy from him than we do from his colleagues. From a sedentary position a few moments ago, he committed the Conservative party to reintroducing the dividend tax credit at a cost of £5 billion— [Interruption.] He wants to resile from it now. In the limited time available I was not going to go into his record as a self-proclaimed inventor of the poll tax, an enthusiast for NHS vouchers and the proposer of £20 billion of cuts in public spending. From his speech this afternoon and that of the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), it is clear that the Opposition have no coherent critique of this legislative programme, never mind any coherent alternative.
  The Opposition spoke a lot about targets. They made it clear that they have a target to get public spending down to 35 per cent. of GDP with £80 billion of cuts, privatisation in the NHS and the abolition of the new deal. Where this Government are making tough choices for stability and progress, the Opposition Front Bench propose extreme and muddled policies that would damage schools, hospitals and universities, abolish the new deal, drive up unemployment and threaten Britain's hard-won economic stability.
  The Opposition have not understood that our record on economic stability is the product of choices that we made and they opposed. They opposed the symmetrical inflation target and Bank of England independence. They rubbished tough fiscal rules and would abolish the new deal. Those tough choices and our investment in Britain's future have helped the Government to deliver the lowest unemployment rates for a generation as well as record numbers of people in jobs.
  To pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Huntingdon, twice as many jobs have been created in the private sector as in the public sector, although the Government make no apology for the thousands of extra nurses, doctors and teachers that there now are. That is a sharp contrast with the period when the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) was responsible for employment policy, when unemployment rose by more than 1 million and 1,300 people were consigned to the dole queues every day.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ochil brought particular passion to the debate when he explained how our investment in the new deal has rescued lives and revived communities. By their plan to scrap that successful programme and by their response to the Queen's Speech, Opposition Members remind the country why, just as they could not be trusted in the past, they cannot now be trusted with Britain's future.
  740
  My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West and a number of other hon. Members on both sides of the House welcomed our proposed legislation on pensions. I heard with interest the comments made by the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire and the detailed remarks made by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West. I hope that their support for the principle of the pensions Bill will be shared by those on the Conservative Front Bench. The pensions Bill will strengthen partnership in pensions, set up a pension protection fund, make it easier for companies to run schemes, extend TUPE protection and give people a better deal when they choose to defer taking their state pensions.
  Conservative Front Benchers might also reflect on the fact that, whereas our pensions Bill will extend pension security and retirement choice for the future, the Conservative party's proposals would scrap the state second pension, taking additional entitlements away from 20 million low earners, disabled people and carers—most of them women. A number of Conservative Members have spoken about mass means-testing. Let us be clear that what they really object to is the money—to date, £47 a week on average—that Labour is now getting to millions of pensioners through the pension credit, for the first time rewarding saving, not penalising it.
  This week, the shadow Chancellor described the Conservative pensions policy as much misunderstood. Whose fault is that, I wonder? Could it be because the earnings link that the Conservatives propose has been described as a bogus promise, as
  "seductive politics, but dangerous economics",— [Official Report, 8 July 1993; Vol. 228, c. 516.]
  and as
  "a wild and uncosted policy"— [Official Report, 8 June 2000; Vol. 351, c. 440.]
  Those are not my words, but those of the hon. Member for Havant, when others proposed the very policy that he now has to defend. As the Leader of the Opposition admitted, not only does that policy not help the poor, but whereas our plans are fiscally sustainable, their sums simply do not add up. Again, the right hon. Member for West Dorset, who is wildly gesticulating at the moment, let the cat out of the bag when he said:
  "we may have to make some further painful decisions"
  to pay for the policy. He owes it to the country to tell us what those cuts would be.
  In the limited time remaining, let me welcome the excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood. I thank him for welcoming the draft Disability Discrimination Bill, and I pay tribute to all his years of campaigning and to all those in the disabled people's movement who have helped us to make such progress. The draft Bill will be subject to scrutiny, and there will be an opportunity to examine all the issues that he raised.
  In conclusion, this is a legislative programme that faces the challenges of the future. Just as we have built economic stability by taking tough choices and sticking to them, so we will, with this programme, extend protection and chances in life for children, reform higher education, extend pension security and bring

  741
  integrity to the asylum system. The measures advance progress, fairness and a strong economy, and I commend them to the House.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 171, Noes 286.

  Division No.2]

  [5.59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Allan, Richard

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Amess, David

  Grayling, Chris

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Greenway, John

  Bacon, Richard

  Grieve, Dominic

  Baldry, Tony

  Gummer, rh John

  Barker, Gregory

  Hague, rh William

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Hammond, Philip

  Barrett, John

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W &

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Abingdon)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Hawkins, Nick

  Bercow, John

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Heald, Oliver

  Boswell, Tim

  Heath, David

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Surrey)

  Hendry, Charles

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Brazier, Julian

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Breed, Colin

  Holmes, Paul

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Howarth, Gerald (A/dershot)

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Hunter, Andrew

  Burstow, Paul

  Jack, rh Michael

  Burt, Alistair

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Butterfill, John

  Keetch, Paul

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye &

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Inverness)

  Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Cash, William

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Barnet)

  Lamb, Norman

  Chidgey, David

  Lansley, Andrew

  Chope, Christopher

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Clappison, James

  Leigh, Edward

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Collins, Tim

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Conway, Derek

  Lidington, David

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Cotter, Brian

  Loughton, Tim

  Cran, James (Beverley)

  Luff, Peter (M- Worcs)

  Curry, rh David

  Mcintosh, Miss Anne

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham &

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Stamford)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &

  Maples, John

  Howden)

  Maude, rh Francis

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Dorrell, rh Stephen

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Doughty, Sue

  Mercer, Patrick

  Evans, Nigel

  Moore, Michael

  Fabricant, Michael

  Moss, Malcolm

  Fallon, Michael

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Field, Mark (Cities of London &

  Norman, Archie

  Westminster)

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Flight, Howard

  Öpik, Lembit

  Flook, Adrian

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Forth, rh Eric

  Ottaway, Richard

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Paice, James

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Paterson, Owen

  Garnier, Edward

  Pickles, Eric

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Gidley, Sandra

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  742

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Randall, John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Redwood, rh John

  Teather, Sarah

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Thurso, John

  Robathan, Andrew

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham &

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  M-Kent)

  Tyler, Paul (TV Cornwall)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Viggers, Peter

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Walter, Robert

  Ruffley, David

  Waterson, Nigel

  Sanders, Adrian

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Selous, Andrew

  Whittingdale, John

  Simmonds, Mark

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Wiggin, Bill

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

  Wilkinson, John

  Kincardine)

  Willetts, David

  Soames, Nicholas

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Willis, Phil

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Young, rh Sir George

  Steen, Anthony

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Stunell, Andrew

  Syms, Robert

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mr. Mark Francois and

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mr. Hugo Swire

  NOES

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Ainger, Nick

  Clelland, David

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Coaker, Vernon

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Cohen, Harry

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Coleman, Iain

  Austin, John

  Colman, Tony

  Barnes, Harry

  Connarty, Michael

  Battle, John

  Cooper, Yvette

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cousins, Jim

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Cranston, Ross

  Bell, Stuart

  Crausby, David

  Bennett, Andrew

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Berry, Roger

  Cummings, John

  Best, Harold

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Blackman, Liz

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Davidson, Ian

  Blunkett, rh David

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Dawson, Hilton

  Brennan, Kevin

  Denham, rh John

  Brown, rh Gordon (Dunfermline

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  E)

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

  Dolbson, rh Frank

  Wallsend)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Doran, Frank

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Caton, Martin

  Edwards, Huw

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Efford, Clive

  Challen, Colin

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Chaytor, David

  Farrelly, Paul

  Clapham, Michael

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Fisher, Mark

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Pentlands)

  Flint, Caroline

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

  Follett, Barbara

  Chryston)

  Foster, rh Derek

  743

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

  MacDonald, Calum

  &Rye)

  MacDougall, John

  Foulkes, rh George

  McFall, John

  Gapes, Mike (IlfordS)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Gardiner, Barry

  McKechin, Ann

  Gerrard, Neil

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Godsiff, Roger

  McNulty, Tony

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McWalter, Tony

  Grogan, John

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hain, rh Peter

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hanson, David

  Marshall, David (Glasgow

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  Shettleston)

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Martlew, Eric

  Healey, John

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Merron, Gillian

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Miliband, David

  Hesford, Stephen

  Miller, Andrew

  Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Heyes, David

  Mole, Chris

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Morgan, Julie

  Hinchliffe, David

  Morley, Elliot

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Morris, rh Estelle

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Mountford, Kali

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Mudie, George

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Sefton E)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Olner, Bill

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hutton, rh John

  Organ, Diana

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Illsley, Eric

  Owen, Albert

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Perham, Linda

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead &

  Picking, Anne

  Highgate)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jenkins, Brian

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Plaskitt, James

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Pound, Stephen

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  E)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jowell, rh Tessa

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Dinefwr)

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Purchase, Ken

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Purnell, James

  Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Kemp, Fraser

  Rammell, Bill

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Kidney, David

  Robertson, John (Glasgow

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Anniesland)

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  NW)

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Rooney, Terry

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lepper, David

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Ruane, Chris

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of

  Linton, Martin

  Chester)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Salmond, Alex

  Love, Andrew

  Salter, Martin

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McCabe, Stephen

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McCafferty, Chris

  Sawford, Phil

  744

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Truswell, Paul

  Sheerman, Barry

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

  Sheridan, Jim

  Kemptown)

  Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Singh, Marsha

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

  Ward, Claire

  Finsbury)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Watts, David

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  White, Brian

  Soley, Clive

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Spellar, rh John

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Squire, Rachel

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Winnick, David

  Stevenson, George

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Woolas, Phil

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Worthington, Tony

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Yarmouth)

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Timms, Stephen

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Mr. John Heppell and

  Trickett, Jon

  Margaret Moran

  Question accordingly negatived
  Amendment proposed, at the end of the Question, to add:
  'But humbly regret that the Gracious Speech distracts from sound policies which deal with crime and its causes; further regret the intention to introduce top-up fees for universities; further regret the lack of provision for free personal care for the elderly and disabled people and the failure to tackle the pension crisis; further regret the decision to proceed with an ill-thought through and expensive identity cards scheme; further regret that the Government has chosen to undermine further the rights of people fleeing persecution to seek asylum in this country; note that the Government has failed to put environment at the heart of its legislative agenda and address the crisis in the transport system; regret the failure to introduce single transferable vote as the voting system for the Scottish Parliament; and further regret the absence of measures to tackle the steep inequalities which continue to afflict the most disadvantaged members of society.'.—[Mr. Stunell.]
  Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 33 (Calling of amendments at end of debate), That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 44, Noes 277.

  Division No.3]

  [6.13 pm

  AYES

  Allan, Richard

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Barrett, John

  Gidley, Sandra

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W &

  Breed, Colin

  Abingdon)

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Heath, David

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Holmes, Paul

  Burstow, Paul

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Keetch, Paul

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye &

  Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

  Inverness)

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Lamb, Norman

  Chidgey, David

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Cotter, Brian

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Moore, Michael

  Doughty, Sue

  Öpik, Lembit

  745

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Dinefwr)

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Salmond, Alex

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

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

  Willis, Phil

  Kincardine)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Teather, Sarah

  Richard Younger-Ross and

  Thurso, John

  Mr. Alan Reid

  NOES

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Ainger, Nick

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Davidson, Ian

  Alexander, Douglas

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Dawson, Hilton

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Denham, rh John

  Austin, John

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Barnes, Harry

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Battle, John

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Bayley, Hugh

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Doran, Frank

  Bell, Stuart

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Bennett, Andrew

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Berry, Roger

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Best, Harold

  Edwards, Huw

  Blackman, Liz

  Efford, Clive

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Blizzard, Bob

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Blunkett, rh David

  Farrelly, Paul

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Fisher, Mark

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Brennan, Kevin

  Flint, Caroline

  Brown, rh Gordon (Dunfermline

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  E)

  Follett, Barbara

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

  Foster, rh Derek

  Wallsend)

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

  Byers, rh Stephen

  &Rye)

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Foulkes, rh George

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Caplin, Ivor

  Gerrard, Neil

  Caton, Martin

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Challen, Colin

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Chaytor, David

  Grogan, John

  Clapham, Michael

  Hain, rh Peter

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Pentlands)

  Hanson, David

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Chryston)

  Healey, John

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Clelland, David

  Hendrick, Mark

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hesford, Stephen

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

  Cohen, Harry

  Heyes, David

  Coleman, Iain

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Colman, Tony

  Hinchliffe, David

  Connarty, Michael

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Cousins, Jim

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Cranston, Ross

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

  Crausby, David

  Sefton E)

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cummings, John

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Hutton, rh John

  746

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Picking, Anne

  Illsley, Eric

  Pickthall, Colin

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead &

  Plaskitt, James

  Highgate)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Jenkins, Brian

  Pound, Stephen

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  E)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Jowell, rh Tessa

  Purchase, Ken

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Purnell, James

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Rammell, Bill

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow

  Kemp, Fraser

  Anniesland)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

  Khabra, Piara S.

  NW)

  Kidney, David

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Rooney, Terry

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Ruane, Chris

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Chester)

  Lepper, David

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Salter, Martin

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Linton, Martin

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Sawford, Phil

  Love, Andrew

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Sheerman, Barry

  McCabe, Stephen

  Sheridan, Jim

  McCafferty, Chris

  Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  MacDonald, Calum

  Singh, Marsha

  MacDougall, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  McFall, John

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  McKechin, Ann

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Finsbury)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  McNulty, Tony

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McWalter, Tony

  Soley, Clive

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Spellar, rh John

  Mallaber, Judy

  Squire, Rachel

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Marshall, David (Glasgow

  Stevenson, George

  Shettleston)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Martlew, Eric

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Merron, Gillian

  Tami, Mark (A/yn)

  Miliband, David

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Miller, Andrew

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Timms, Stephen

  Mole, Chris

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Morgan, Julie

  Trickett, Jon

  Morley, Elliot

  Truswell, Paul

  Morris, rh Estelle

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

  Mountford, Kali

  Kemptown)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Olner, Bill

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Organ, Diana

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Ward, Claire

  Owen, Albert

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Perham, Linda

  Watts, David

  747

  White, Brian

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Yarmouth)

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Winnick, David

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Woolas, Phil

  Mr. John Heppell and

  Worthington, Tony

  Margaret Moran

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 275, Noes 174.

  Division No.4]

  [6.24 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Crausby, David

  Ainger, Nick

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Cummings, John

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Atkins, Charlotte

  David, Wayne

  Austin, John

  Davidson, Ian

  Barnes, Harry

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Battle, John

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Dawson, Hilton

  Bell, Stuart

  Denham, rh John

  Bennett, Andrew

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Berry, Roger

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Best, Harold

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Blackman, Liz

  Doran, Frank

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Blunkett, rh David

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Edwards, Huw

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Efford, Clive

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Brennan, Kevin

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Brown, rh Gordon (Dunfermline

  Farrelly, Paul

  E)

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

  Fisher, Mark

  Wallsend)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Flint, Caroline

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Follett, Barbara

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Foster, rh Derek

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

  Caton, Martin

  &Rye)

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Foulkes, rh George

  Challen, Colin

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Chaytor, David

  Gerrard, Neil

  Clapham, Michael

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Pentlands)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Grogan, John

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

  Hain, rh Peter

  Chryston)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Hanson, David

  Coaker, Vernon

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Cohen, Harry

  Healey, John

  Coleman, Iain

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Colman, Tony

  Hendrick, Mark

  Connarty, Michael

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hesford, Stephen

  Cousins, Jim

  Heyes, David

  Cranston, Ross

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  748

  Hinchliffe, David

  Mountford, Kali

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

  Olner, Bill

  Sefton E)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Organ, Diana

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Owen, Albert

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Hutton, rh John

  Perham, Linda

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Picking, Anne

  Illsley, Eric

  Pickthall, Colin

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead &

  Plaskitt, James

  Highgate)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Jenkins, Brian

  Pound, Stephen

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  E)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Purchase, Ken

  Jowell, rh Tessa

  Purnell, James

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Rammell, Bill

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow

  Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

  Anniesland)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  NW)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Kidney, David

  Rooney, Terry

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Ruane, Chris

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Chester)

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Lepper, David

  Salter, Martin

  Leslie, Christopher

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Linton, Martin

  Sawford, Phil

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Love, Andrew

  Sheerman, Barry

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Sheridan, Jim

  McCabe, Stephen

  Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

  McCafferty, Chris

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Singh, Marsha

  MacDonald, Calum

  Skinner, Dennis

  MacDougall, John

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  McFall, John

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

  McKechin, Ann

  Finsbury)

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  McNulty, Tony

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Soley, Clive

  McWalter, Tony

  Spellar, rh John

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Squire, Rachel

  Mallaber, Judy

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Stevenson, George

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Marshall, David (Glasgow

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Shettleston)

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Martlew, Eric

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Merron, Gillian

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Miliband, David

  Timms, Stephen

  Miller, Andrew

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Trickett, Jon

  Mole, Chris

  Truswell, Paul

  Morley, Elliot

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

  Morris, rh Estelle

  Kemptown)

  749

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Winnick, David

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Woolas, Phil

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

  Ward, Claire

  Yarmouth)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Watts, David

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  White, Brian

  Mr. John Heppell and

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Margaret Moran

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Fallon, Michael

  Allan, Richard

  Field, Mark (Cities of London &

  Amess, David

  Westminster)

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Flight, Howard

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Flook, Adrian

  Bacon, Richard

  Forth, rh Eric

  Baldry, Tony

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Francois, Mark

  Barrett, John

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Garnier, Edward

  Bellingham, Henry

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Bercow, John

  Gidley, Sandra

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Boswell, Tim

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Grayling, Chris

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Surrey)

  Greenway, John

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Brazier, Julian

  Gummer, rh John

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L

  Hague, rh William

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Hammond, Philip

  Burstow, Paul

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W &

  Burt, Alistair

  Abingdon)

  Butterfill, John

  Hawkins, Nick

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Heald, Oliver

  Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

  Heath, David

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Cash, William

  Hendry, Charles

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Barnet)

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Chidgey, David

  Holmes, Paul

  Chope, Christopher

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Clappison, James

  Howard, rh Michael

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Jack, rh Michael

  Collins, Tim

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Conway, Derek

  Keetch, Paul

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye &

  Cotter, Brian

  Inverness)

  Cran, James (Beverley)

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Curry, rh David

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham &

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Stamford)

  Lamb, Norman

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &

  Lansley, Andrew

  Howden)

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Leigh, Edward

  Dorrell, rh Stephen

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Doughty, Sue

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Duncan Smith, rh lain

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Evans, Nigel

  Lidington, David

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lilley, rh Peter

  750

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Simmonds, Mark

  Loughton, Tim

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

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

  Mcintosh, Miss Anne

  Kincardine)

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Soames, Nicholas

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Malins, Humfrey

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Maples, John

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Maude, rh Francis

  Spring, Richard

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Steen, Anthony

  Mercer, Patrick

  Stunell, Andrew

  Moore, Michael

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Syms, Robert

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Norman, Archie

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Ottaway, Richard

  Teather, Sarah

  Paice, James

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Paterson, Owen

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Pickles, Eric

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

  Viggers, Peter

  Dinefwr)

  Walter, Robert

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Whittingdale, John

  Randall, John

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Wiggin, Bill

  Redwood, rh John

  Wilkinson, John

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Willetts, David

  Robathan, Andrew

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham &

  Willis, Phil

  M-Kent)

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Young, rh Sir George

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Ruffley, David

  Salmond, Alex

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Sanders, Adrian

  Mr. Peter Atkinson and

  Selous, Andrew

  Gregory Barker

  Question accordingly agreed to
  Resolved,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:
  Most Gracious Sovereign,
  We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.
  To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

  ADJOURNMENT (CHRISTMAS)
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 25 (Periodic Adjournments),
  That this House, at its rising on Thursday 18th December, do adjourn till Monday 5th January 2004.—[Paul Clark.]
  Question agreed to.

  Hemel Hempstead Hospital
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Paul Clark.]
  6.37 pm
  Mr. Tony McWalter: I have only one theme under the debate title of "Hemel Hempstead Hospital". I want the Minister to require some sums to be done by the Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire strategic health authority. It has refused to do any sums and in my view it threatens health services in its area with a huge debt for the next four decades.
  I thank the Dacorum hospital action group, which is in no less than its 29th year of campaigning on the matter. During my seven years as an MP, I have delivered 88,000 signatures to Health Ministers, to Downing street and to others in defense of Hemel Hempstead hospital, yet there is still a strong sense that a desperately bad, wasteful and what I call nugatory decision is about to be taken. By that I mean that the decision will not benefit Hertfordshire and will not lead to the dispersion of services.
  The context of the debate is the desperately bad state of the Hertfordshire acute health system. I have called it a black hole because it is the only population of 1 million that I have been able to find that has no tertiary acute services to support it. There are four acute hospitals, of which three are in a state of acute decay. It is estimated that it will cost £90 million to repair Princess Alexandra tower at Watford, and £90 million to repair the main tower at the Queen Elizabeth II hospital in Welwyn Garden City. There has been a quotation of £50 million for the Lister hospital in Stevenage. Only Hemel Hempstead hospital is in a passable condition and that follows the closure of St. Albans acute services in the early 1990s.
  The desperate condition of the service is reflected in the desperate condition of mental health services, with four large mental health hospitals closed during the Thatcher era. Our system has operated at a chronic loss for decades, so every time we need anything done, people say, "Sorry, we cannot do it. There's no money." The system has been divisive; those in Hertfordshire who are wealthy can go to London, but the poorer get treated in second-rate hospitals that cannot give the full range of services in Hertfordshire.
  That could change. The Government have offered a way forward, with funding that will make the system free of debt and with some tertiary acute services provided locally. The Varley report on cancer said that there should be a location of such services in Hertfordshire and the Government have indicated that they are prepared to finance that move. That is fantastically good news for Hertfordshire and I thank the Minister and his Department for the response that they have made to the recommendations in that report.
  For three decades, there has been a desire for two things from the administrators of health in Hertfordshire. First, there is a desire for what is called a super-hospital—a single hospital with acute services, governing the whole population of Hertfordshire. That is a stupid suggestion because Hertfordshire is a series of relatively small market towns with relatively poor
  752
  transport links between the various bits of the county. We need a distributed hospital system, not a concentrated one. With those suggestions, there has always been a suggestion of marginalising Hemel Hempstead hospital, despite the fact that it is in the most populated part of the county and, indeed, the eastern region.
  We had a review recently. Those involved called it a consultation; we called it an absolute stitch-up. There were two options in the consultation but both involved significant service closures at two of our four hospitals. The first option was to prefer Hemel Hempstead hospital and Stevenage but to shut trauma facilities at Welwyn Garden City and Watford; there was a tick for Hemel and Stevenage under that option. The other option was to close trauma facilities at Hemel and Stevenage and improve them at Watford, while inaugurating a new hospital in Hatfield after shutting down the mouldering Welwyn Garden City hospital. There is a strong demand in most communities for new hospitals and mine is no exception, so option two—the new hospital in Hatfield—was favoured.
  The costs were never properly examined, despite a claim by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard) at a recent meeting that all the sums had been done. I speak as a mathematics graduate and say that none of the sums has been done. Throughout the consultation, there was a strong feeling that an agreement for a £500 million private finance initiative could be gained from the Government, so a new hospital at Hatfield and the demolition of the present hospital at Welwyn Garden City were given active consideration. While we are about it, it was thought, why not bung the new cancer centre in Hatfield, even though it is not even in the current Mount Vernon cancer network area? Why not, by the way, also develop a new medical school—but that was not factored in. That was the strong feeling in the community.
  The deadline for the end of the consultation was early September, but it became clear at the beginning of August—when I made a 20-page submission to the strategic health authority—that although we heard that trauma facilities at Hatfield and Watford were to be developed, only £27 million had been allocated to Watford for improvements. That would not even repair the plumbing. Watford is in as dreadful a state as the Queen Elizabeth II hospital in Welwyn, which the strategic health authority proposed to demolish.
  On 28 August, a mere five days before the consultation was due to end, it was realised that if that part of the plan was kept to, Watford would pull out, recognising that it, too, was going to lose its facilities in a major way. On that day, a document—a "clarification"—was issued, which I have before me. It strengthened option 2 by what I can only describe as fairy godmother economics: let money pour out of the sky, and as a result not only build a £500 million hospital in Hatfield but, it seemed to suggest, provide a similarly scaled scheme at Watford. Incidentally, the Hatfield initiative would be the largest health private finance initiative ever, overtaking the University College hospital, which cost £422 million. But the Watford scheme was never costed or admitted to; mutterings were simply made to the effect that "whatever it took" would be provided.

  753
  I have since found out in a recent meeting with the chair of the West Herts Hospitals NHS trust that every single building at Watford may well have to be demolished and replaced. Thus we have not just a massive,£500 million project, which is what the consultation was said to be about, but a project twice that scale, involving demolishing and replacing two hospitals. We have not a £500 million project for two new trauma centres, but a £1 billion project for two new hospitals in Hertfordshire. That is the current suggestion of the strategic health authority.
  I am afraid to say that in my view, the strategic health authority has severely misled the public. It released the figures on Watford only after I made my submission, in which I pointed out that its plans were incompetent. All that it did was simply to adopt the fairy godmother option: spend, spend, spend, regardless of the constraints that any responsible Government body should have. That is why I ask that the sums be done.
  I do not actually believe that the result of those activities will be a series of new super-hospitals. The strategic health authority's plans are so absurd, costly and damaging that the laudable plan of addressing the problems of the Hertfordshire NHS by developing new tertiary services, along the lines of the Varley report, will be lost as well.
  Everyone is in favour of fairy godmother economics—if they are to receive benefits. At a recent vote, the strategic health authority approved this wonderful plan by 10 votes to one. Personally, I would not have voted for either of its rotten options. Option 1, which people said would benefit Hemel hospital, was based on a wonderful premise that most did not spot. The strategic health authority arrived at the idea that the options would not be that different in cost. How could it have done so, given that the only hospital in Hertfordshire with a decent estate is Hemel? Everyone admits that it is in much better condition than the other three hospitals. The strategic health authority said, "Actually, putting the cancer centre at Hemel hospital, which everyone agrees is decidedly possible, will cost £95 million." That is not exactly chicken-feed, bearing in mind that Dartford hospital cost £94 million. We were pleased that that was possible, but the strategic health authority said, "If we're going to put the centre there, you've got to knock down the rest of the hospital, leaving only the Verulam wing standing."
  What a pernicious, even vicious, premise on which to base a consultation! We repudiate and reject the idea that a hospital that has recently been given £4.2 million of investment—icluding a superb new facility that allows excellent communication between accident and emergency and the fracture clinic, and a new magnetic resonance imaging scanner—should be knocked down, just so that the strategic health authority can make it seem as though it is faced with two options of similar cost.
  Hemel Hempstead happens to he at the geographical centre of the Mount Vernon cancer network area. The new cancer centre could be developed on the so-called Paradise site, which is in public ownership—it is owned by English Partnerships—and can be offered to the NHS as a massive development site, at agricultural prices, in a town centre in Hertfordshire. What a phenomenal boon that would be to the NHS budget. I
  754
  have arranged that deal myself, so I know that it is binding on English Partnerships, which has development land elsewhere in exchange.
  Dacorum council also wants hospital consolidation, and has offered an additional site for accommodation for nurses and other hospital staff. Hemel Hempstead hospital has the capacity to quadruple its present size and still have adequate facilities for a whole range of developments. It also has wonderful access to the M1, the M25 and the A41, and, because it is in a town centre, fantastically good bus links with a wide variety of locations, many of which are a long way from Hertfordshire.
  For £200 million, the whole Hertfordshire hospital system could be revivified, and most of the remaining £105 million could be spent not at Hemel Hempstead hospital, which does not need that much, but in the rest of the system, which is crumbling, derelict in places and desperately neglected. We might then be able to negate the accurate perception that Hertfordshire is not in the forefront of NHS acute services development.
  I do not expect the Minister to announce now that he is in favour of one way of improving the health service in Hertfordshire rather than another. I have known him too well and for too long to think that such an answer would be forthcoming. All I want him to do is to ensure that the sums are done, because we are talking about the difference between £1 billion and £200 million. It will be a scandal if people get away with knocking down new productive NHS plant and putting the same facilities up elsewhere, at massive cost to the taxpayer and the NHS.
  I ask the Minister to direct that any business plan for the development of acute services in Hertfordshire carefully considers the prospect of improving services by developing the cancer centre at Hemel Hempstead, which is in the middle of the cancer network area. The taxpayers of Hertfordshire support the Government's plans to improve the NHS in the county, but they do not want their system saddled with chronic debt for the next 40 years, and they want some resources left for primary care and mental health. Any numerate person must know how absurd are the ill-considered, late breaking. support-brokering plans of the Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire strategic health authority.
  6.53 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. Stephen Ladyman): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) on securing this Adjournment debate. He is a doughty fighter for his constituents; he has been fighting this battle for some time with vigour and determination, and I suspect that whatever I say tonight will not change that by one iota. He will continue to fight for his constituents, and they should be proud of him and grateful to him for his efforts on their behalf.
  In case I run out of time at the end of the debate, I shall start by saying that my hon. Friend is right: Ministers do not use Adjournment debates to change local health policies. Local health priorities and the planning of local health services have been devolved to local areas, under our plans to shift the balance of power away from Whitehall, so I am not in any position to direct in one way or the other. Until such time as certain criteria are met and the Department of Health is asked

  755
  to intervene, I have no powers to order any such things. What I can do is ensure that my hon. Friend's words are read carefully by those who are in a position to take a decision in Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire, that they reflect on them, and that they take account of his views. I shall certainly do that
  I can give my hon. Friend a further reassurance that the next stage of the process is to produce business plans, which will be worked up for both options. It is not true to say that they will both be worked up in the same detail, but they will both be worked further to a certain point. A decision will then be taken and the preferred option will be worked up in even greater detail. I can assure my hon. Friend that his concerns about the sums adding up and the relative costs of the proposals will be aired during that process, so he will continue to have opportunities to express his views if his constituents are still dissatisfied by the decisions.
  I shall say more about the local decisions in a few moments, but it is important to state for the record that the NHS cannot stand still. It has to change if we are to improve it. The health care system is under pressure. Patients are still waiting too long for their operations—despite the dramatic fall in waiting times that has been announced this week, which is surely welcomed by everyone—and many hospitals are still in a poor state and need updating. We also need to recruit and retain more doctors and nurses. We have not only to increase capacity, but to raise clinical standards generally. It is not just more of the same that we need in the health service, but a radical re-look at how services are provided.
  The NHS plan set out a challenging 10-year programme for NHS reform. Far-reaching changes are often necessary to provide the best possible services for patients. We must ensure that services are accessible and flexible, and we want to design services around the needs of patients. As part of the modernisation programme, many NHS economies and organisations are considering, with their local stakeholders, changes to the way in which they organise their services. I believe that we all recognise that hospital services need to change if we are to continue to fulfil patients' needs and improve access.
  Services cannot remain static for ever, but have to be responsive to local needs and changing clinical practice. There are, of course, several different pressures on the service, and providers of health services have a responsibility to live within their means. Those issues and many others need to be taken into consideration in planning changes to services.
  As I said earlier, it is our policy, within the framework set out in the NHS plan and the "Shifting the Balance of Power within the NHS" initiative, to devolve funding decisions to the front line. It is now for primary care trusts, in partnership with strategic health authorities and other local stakeholders, to determine how best to use their funds to meet national and local priorities for improving health, tackling health inequalities and modernising services. They are in the best position to do that because of the specialist knowledge they have of the local community. That is why Ministers no longer have the power to direct local services in quite the way that my hon. Friend requested of me at the end of his speech.
  756
  I believe that my hon. Friend will agree that within Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire, some health services—particularly the major hospitals in Hertfordshire: the Watford, Hemel Hempstead, Lister and Queen Elizabeth II hospitals—do not represent the standard of care and treatment that we expect to see in the 21st century. Indeed, I recently visited the four acute trusts in Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire and saw for myself the services and fabric of those environments. That is why the NHS in Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire undertook an extremely comprehensive and far-reaching consultation—a two-year process, reviewing a number of services and taking into account future trends in health care, national policy and best practice from around the country.
  The formal document "Investing in Your Health" and its associated consultation ran from 3 March to 1 September 2003, having been extended to allow for a parallel consultation on cancer services in north London, run by the North-West London strategic health authority.
  During the consultation period two options for the future reconfiguration of hospital services were proposed; both entailed retaining six major hospitals in Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire, including Hemel Hempstead and Watford general hospitals. Under option 1, Hemel Hempstead would be a major acute hospital caring for people requiring emergency treatment. Under option 2, Hemel Hempstead would treat out-patients and people requiring planned operations and medical procedures, although accident and emergency services would still be retained.
  The overwhelming preference after the consultation process was for option 2, which proposes developing five of the existing hospitals in Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire and building a new state-of-the-art hospital in Hatfield to replace the Queen Elizabeth II hospital in Welwyn Garden City and provide a new cancer centre. I assure my hon. Friend that I have been given an assurance that "Investing in Your Health" went through two scrutiny processes locally, both of which confirmed that people are happy with the process and the outcome. In addition, a joint scrutiny process followed in relation to cancer services specifically. It is expected that the final meeting will take place this month.
  I am aware that option 2 was not the option of choice for my hon. Friend and his constituents, but I am sure he will agree that the important thing is to focus on health outcomes for everybody. The proposed new model of care will mean more resources going towards caring for people closer to home and in community settings. A cancer centre will be located in Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire so that patients do not have to travel outside the two counties for treatment. The quality of health care will be improved by allowing hospitals to specialise in certain fields of medicine to create local centres of excellence, and by moving planned surgery to dedicated "surgicentres".
  I assure my hon. Friend that if, at the end of the process, option 2 is confirmed as a way forward, Hemel Hempstead hospital will continue to have a future. I am informed that it will receive capital investment of about £25 million for its development into a modern, high-quality, major hospital, specialising in planned surgery. Indeed, when I visited the hospital in October I saw for

  757
  myself where some investment has already been delivered; for example, there is state-of-the-art magnetic resonance imaging, and a fracture clinic and dermatology treatment centre opened their doors to patients at Hemel Hempstead general hospital in March. That investment in new clinics means that patients and staff have a new treatment area. The final phase of the project, the construction of a new X-ray reception area, opened at the end of July. The Hemel birth centre opened on 31 March. It is a self-contained unit run by midwives, offering a supportive, "home from home" environment in which mothers can give birth.
  I can also reassure my hon. Friend that under the proposed option 2, the hospital's accident and emergency department would remain open, although patients with serious or life-threatening conditions would be taken to larger trauma centres at Watford, Luton or Dunstable hospitals.
  My hon. Friend has expressed concerns about the cost of option 2, but I am assured that the health authority employed a firm of consultants who carried out an assessment of the financial implications of the overall affordability of the proposal for the health care system of Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire. That report, which is in the public domain, demonstrated that from projected total revenue in excess of £2 billion, the cost differential between the two options was about £10 million, or about 0.5 per cent. It also means that under option 2 more patients will be treated locally rather than large numbers of patients having to travel outside their health area.
  I share my hon. Friend's concerns about access to the hospital, but I understand that English Partnerships is working with West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS trust to develop a comprehensive development strategy that could deliver about 130 key-worker homes on land adjoining Hemel Hempstead hospital.
  As I mentioned earlier, it is our policy that primary care trusts, in partnership with other local NHS trusts and the strategic health authority, decide the priorities
  758
  for the NHS locally. That is where specific local knowledge and expertise lies, and it is not appropriate for Ministers to decide on the direction of travel or how services should be configured—we have made that clear. It is right that the local NHS should do that.
  There is still a great deal of work to be done on the development of business cases and plans before the Secretary of State gives his final seal of approval. The next stage involves producing a more detailed analysis of the proposals. A strategic outline case must be written and it must meet four criteria before it can be approved. The plans must be affordable, achievable and accessible, with proper human resources.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead will understand that it would not be appropriate for me to comment further on this matter in case, following the local process, that would pre-empt any future ministerial decision that may be necessary. However, I assure him that the Department, and Ministers, will continue to work with the local NHS to review the progress of the local economy, and to ensure that the difficulties that are faced remain manageable.
  I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead, who introduced this important debate and who continues to work with the local NHS to build a better future for the residents in the area, will accept my assurance that the sums that he said were needed will be provided. The process will continue, and I know that local health managers will welcome further discussions with him and his constituents. Some people in the local health economy may still have to face difficult decisions, but I hope that we can all agree that what will emerge from the discussions and the change of configuration will be better for everyone, and better for the health of all the people living in Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at five minutes past Seven o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER

  Big Conversation
  Mr. Alan Duncan
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what estimate has been made of the cost of civil service time allocated to the Big Conversation consultation; [141882]

  (2)what his Department's estimate is of the proportion of the total cost of the Big Conversation consultation that will be borne by the Government; [141883]

  (3)how many civil servants have been seconded to work on the Big Conversation consultation.[141884]

  The Prime Minister
  The Labour Party is consulting its members and the wider community on the Government's progress and challenges ahead. This is a party document and has been issued by the Labour Party. No civil servants have been seconded to work on the consultation process.

  However Ministers and special advisers have of course participated in this process according to the rules laid out in the Ministerial Code and the Special Advisers Code.

  Engagements
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to meet the Dalai Lama when he visits the United Kingdom in May 2004. [142064]

  The Prime Minister
  I have not received a request to meet the Dalai Lama.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to amend the Code of Conduct for Special Advisers. [14250]

  The Prime Minister
  In its response to the ninth report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the Government proposed an amendment to the Code of Conduct for Special Advisers to clarify the relationships between special advisers and permanent civil servants. In the light of comments made, the Government have decided to delete the reference to "instructions" in the opening paragraph. A revised amendment has been placed in the Library of the House.

CABINET OFFICE

  Olympic Games
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what steps he is taking to ensure that Ministers representing the United Kingdom abroad are adequately briefed on the London 2012 Olympic bid. [140508]
  114W
  Mr. Alexander
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport gave to him on 3 December 2003,Official Report,columns 64–65W.

  Legislation
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what percentage of(a)primary and (b)secondary legislation sponsored by his Department in 2002–03 was introduced to implement EU requirements. [141127]

  Mr. Alexander
  None.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Angola
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent representations he has made to the Government of Angola about the reintergration of demobilised soldiers. [141374]

  Hilary Benn
  The reintegration of demobilised soldiers is a key issue in the UK's regular discussions with the Government of Angola.

  Since the end of the war in April 2002, over 88,000 ex-combatants have benefited from the Government of Angola's own disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration programme.

  DFID is supporting the World Bank's Multi-country Demobilisation and Reintegration Programme (MDRP) for the Great Lakes region of Africa with a contribution of $25 million. The specific programme for Angola (ADRP) is an integral part of the MDRP and is worth $180 million over the next two years. The programme formally starts in January 2004 and will focus mainly on providing social and economic reintegration assistance including training and employment opportunities for 138,000 former combatants from UNITA and the government's own forces. My department has actively participated in each of the World Bank missions held over the last 18 months in order to design and set up the ADRP. DFID was also one of two donor countries (together with the Netherlands) to participate in the executive committee of the ADRP Special Project that aimed to provide 50,000 ex-combatants with seeds and tools for the autumn 2003 planting season and training in basic livelihoods skills for another 3,000.

  Democratic Republic of Congo
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress is being made with supplying food to vulnerable people in the Democratic Republic of Congo. [141372]

  Hilary Benn
  DRC is considered as one of 38 countries requiring exceptional external assistance by the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the UN, as a result of the effects of civil strife and the presence of large numbers of displaced people and refugees. However not all vulnerable people in DRC require food aid, and the UN's assessed requirement for food aid in DRC is low relative to chronically food insecure countries such as
  115W
  Sudan or Ethiopia. In these circumstances emergency help with health and nutrition can be more effective in reducing mortality than food aid.

  Between 2000 and 2003 the World Food Programme delivered 259,081 metric tonnes (mt) of food for DRC. WFP began a distribution of 46,000mt of food aid in the east of the country in June this year in response to high levels of malnutrition there. This project is due to finish on 15 December. Just under 40per cent. of the requested food aid (17,237mt) has been distributed. DFID has not made a specific contribution to this, although it is supporting food aid distribution in the same area through the International Relief NGO, CESVI.

  DFID has steadily increased its humanitarian programme in DRC over the past five years.

  This year we will spend over 10 million on emergency humanitarian relief. Much of this is for emergency medical interventions, rather than food aid. We are also committed to supporting the new transitional national government and the political transitiongenerally in DRC. It is only with a lasting political solution that the needs of vulnerable people can be properly addressed.

  Iraq
  Clare Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether the £60 million being held in the Treasury to be drawn down to assist humanitarian and reconstruction work in Iraq has been(a) drawn down to contribute to the Madrid pledge and (b) withdrawn. [141512]

  Hilary Benn
  The £60 million is included in the UK's total Madrid pledge of £544 for the three years from April 2003.£30.8 million of it has already been allocated, primarily towards meeting the costs of UK secondments to the Coalition Provisional Authority. The allocation of the remainder is under consideration.

  Liberia
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action is being taken to prevent the assault and rape of civilians by gunmen in Liberia.[141371]

  Hilary Benn
  The international community has put in place a peacekeeping force under the direction of the UN Mission in Liberia (UNMIL). UNMIL has successfully created an arms free zone in Monrovia, and plans progressively to extend its influence over the entire country as it builds up to its full complement of 15,000 peacekeepers by March.

  The most effective way to provide security and protection for Liberian civilians is for all factions to implement the Accra Peace Agreement, signed in 17 August, beginning with instructions to their followers to disarm and demobilise. The UK, as part of the international contact group on Liberia, is supporting the implementation of the agreement. Plans to support the process and to reform the security services, including the police, as part of the reconstruction of Liberia are being taken forward by the UN and donors.

  Somalia
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment he has made of the humanitarian situation in Sool Plateau in Somalia; and what assistance he has offered. [141369]

  Hilary Benn
  Approximately 90,000 pastoralists are at risk from the failure of the autumn rains in northern Somalia. The global malnutrition rate for the Sool plateau is just under 14 per cent., which indicates the need for close monitoring rather than immediate intervention.

  The humanitarian response includes: greater use of targeted family rations by WFP alongside UNICEF's supplementary feeding programme to screened children, monitoring of the health and nutrition situation; cash assistance to allow communities meet their non-food needs especially water, transport for livestock and/or people and to some extent pay up for accumulated credit; emergency water provision; emergency health services provision and veterinary services.

  A United Nations assessment found a difficult situation although not yet a humanitarian crisis. We are envisaging a contribution to a UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs emergency response fund that is likely to appear as an amendment to the 2004 Consolidated Appeal for Somalia. The UN's Children Fund received £1 million from DFID for its health and nutrition work in Somalia in March 2003. We will be making some further contributions to meet humanitarian needs in Somalia very soon.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Aircraft Noise
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the total(a)area and (b)population affected by aircraft noise is within (i) 57 Leq contour, (ii) 63 Leq contour and (iii) 69 Leq contour and above at (A) Belfast International Airport and (B) Belfast City Airport. [141667]

  Mr. Spellar
  The information requested is set out in the following table:

  57 dBA Leq

  63 dBA Leq

  69 dBA Leq

  Belfast International Airport

  Area (km2)

  9.7

  3

  1

  Population

  600

  0

  0

  Belfast City Airport

  Area (km2)

  3.2

  0.9

  0.3

  Population

  4,100

  0

  0

  Note

  The above data relate to the year 1999 and are the latest available material.

  Flu Vaccination
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of those eligible for an influenza vaccination in Northern Ireland have received one; and what steps he is taking to increase take-up of the vaccination. [140809]
  117W
  Angela Smith
  From commencement of 2003–04 flu vaccination campaign to 31 October 2003, 56.7 per cent. of the over 65 population in NI have received flu vaccination. This is up on the same period of 2002–03, when the figure was 56.3 per cent. In the under 65 "at risk" group for the period to 31 October, 41.4 per cent. of these have received flu vaccination. This is up on the same period of 2002—03, when the figure was 39.7 per cent.

  The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety ran the Influenza Immunisation Campaign. This included a TV advertisement and the vast majority of those eligible for immunisation also received a personal invite from their GP along with a detailed information leaflet. In October the Department also issued a second letter to GPs, Boards, Trusts advising that the influenza virus was circulating and exhorting them to take urgent action to encourage uptake of the vaccine, in particular among at risk children. Additional interviews for TV and radio encouraged those eligible to get the flu vaccine. At local levels, HSS Trusts and GPs took action to increase the uptake.

  Irish Marine Environment Report
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the Department contributed to the research reported on in the report, Radioactivity Monitoring of the Irish Marine Environment 2000 and 2001, released in May by the Radiation Protection Institute of Ireland; and if he will make a statement on research collaboration between his Office and the RP II. [141673]

  Angela Smith
  The Department of the Environment, Northern Ireland did not contribute to the research reported in the report, "Radioactivity Monitoring of the Irish Marine Environment 2000 and 2001", released in May by the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland.

  The Department has undertaken a number of collaborative studies with the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland and University College Dublin since 1990. These studies looked at artificial radioactivity in Carlingford Lough, Lough Foyle and Strangford Lough and confirmed that contamination levels in the Northern Ireland environment are of negligible radiological significance.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Air-to-air Refuelling
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the joint-venture bid by Boeing and BAE Systems to provide air-to-air refuelling to the RAF. [140521]

  Jacqui Smith
  Boeing and BAE Systems (with SERCO and Spectrum Capital) make up the Tanker and Transport Service Company (TTSC), one of the bidding consortia for MOD's Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (FSTA) competition. The competition is on-going and it would therefore be inappropriate to make a statement. I have, however, recently met with both consortia concerned (AirTanker and TTSC) to discuss the UK industrial implications of their respective bids.

  Burma
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which British companies have investments in Burma.]141636]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 2 December 2003].The two largest UK investors in Burma, Premier Oil and British American Tobacco, have agreed to withdraw from Burma. British investment is now minimal; a number of British tour operators have links with Burmese travel companies and Sea Containers/Orient Express operate cruises in Burma. I have however written to ABTA to suggest that travel operators promoting Burma, should think twice before proceeding.

  Company Law
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has in the company law review to ensure that company law and industrial and provident society law are brought into line; and if she will make a statement. [141485]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Company Law Review (CLR) focussed on core company law and did not extend to industrial and provident societies.

  The Industrial and Provident Societies Act 2002 enables the Treasury to update industrial and provident society legislation in line with company law, following a change in company law.

  In order to provide for a strategic, consistent and up-to-date approach between companies and societies, the general modernisation of industrial and provident society legislation will be considered by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in the light of new companies legislation following the Company Law Review.

  Cross-border Mergers
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions her Department has had with(a)her European counterparts and (b)the European Commission regarding new proposals for an EC directive on cross-border mergers; what the outcome of those discussions has been; and if she will make a statement. [140526]

  Jacqui Smith
  UK representatives have met with European counterparts and the Commission during the past 12 months in both Council and Commission Working Groups and in informal meetings to discuss the proposed cross-border mergers Directive, which is a part of the EU Action Plan on Company Law and Corporate Governance.

  The new proposal for an EC Directive on Cross-Border Mergers was published on 18 November 2003.

  Electricity Supplies
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what responsibility(a)the Government, (b)the regulator and (c)electricity suppliers have for maintaining electricity supplies in the event of severe winter weather. [141851]
  119W
  Mr. Timms
  Legal responsibility for energy security is shared by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and Ofgem. The Secretary of State is responsible for setting the overall regulatory framework for the supply of electricity. A key part of that framework is set out in section 3A of the Electricity Act 1989 as amended by the Utilities Act 2000 and includes the objectives "to protect the interests of consumers". To this end the Secretary of State has made a new statutory instrument (The Electricity Safety, Quality and Continuity Regulations 2002) requiring electricity distribution companies to prevent interruption of supply as far as is reasonably practical.

  Electricity for domestic consumers is provided through their contracts with electricity supply companies, which are trading organisations, not responsible for the electricity infrastructure such as overhead lines. The local infrastructure is the responsibility of electricity distribution companies. In each electricity distribution region the physical supply of electricity to customers is the responsibility of a monopoly Distribution Network Operator (DNO), regulated through an Ofgem licensing system. The Secretary of State lays down the Standard Licence Conditions. Enforcement of the licence conditions is for Ofgem.

  Euratom Programme
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on how the Euratom programme will provide opportunities for research that may help support the domestic skills base. [141486]

  Mr. Timms
  The Euratom programme covers both fission and fusion research and includes areas of research, like radiation protection, that the Nuclear Skills Group (NSG)1> indicated might face a domestic skills shortage in the future. It allows the UK to be part of large scale cutting edge international projects like the fusion International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER). The programme provides opportunities for UK researchers to collaborate with other EU research groups encouraging the spread of best practice. It has a role to play in maintaining expertise and attracting younger scientists in a sector currently facing considerable change.

  1The Nuclear Skills Group (NSG) was drawn from a number of UK Government Departments, industry, academia and professional institutions. In 2002, it conducted a survey of the UK national nuclear and radiological skill base to provide an insight to the future availability of UK skills. The survey was prompted by an assessment of the international situation by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development/Nuclear Energy Agency (OECD/NEA).

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much the Government have contributed to(a)Euratom and (b)Euratom nuclear fusion research and development programmes in each year since 1997. [141487]

  Mr. Timms
  The EU budget is not disaggregated at project/spending level to show national contributions by members states. However, Euratom spending forms part of the UK's annual contribution to the overall EC 120W
  budget. The following table gives the UK's financial share after abatement to the EC budget for the years 1997–20031

  1External expenditure is not subject to abatement.

  UK percentage share

  1997

  11.9

  1998

  15.2

  1999

  13.4

  2000

  15.8

  2001

  9.6

  2002

  13.1

  2003

  12.9

  The following table sets out the European Commission budgets for the total Euratom and Euratom fusion programmes (GBP millions, 2003 prices1).

  1Figures have been calculated on the basis of official budget documents for 1998, 2000, 2002 and 2003, and have been converted into 2003 prices using Eurostat deflators. Euro figures have been converted into GBP using the average exchange rates for relevant years. Published figures for this expenditure are spread over different parts of the EC Budget, with principal activities falling under budget title 6, "Energy and Transport" (specifically the Community's nuclear energy programme), and budget title 8, "Research", as well as some external actions lines.

  Total Euratom

  Of which fusion programme:

  1997

  159.9

  130.2

  1998

  158.6

  133.8

  1999

  177.5

  139.2

  2000

  189.5

  113.5

  2001

  190.3

  163.4

  2002

  221.6

  141.8

  2003

  176.7

  97.6

  Note

  Figures do not include Euratom loans, which are financed separately from the budget.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much financial support the UK has received from Euratom for nuclear fission research in each year since 1997; and if she will make a statement on research projects supported by Euratom. [141489]

  Mr. Timms
  The European Commission figures on the final use of funding for the FP5 Nuclear Fission and Radiation Protection programme (1998–2002) provide an indication of opportunities that the programme brings to UK researchers. In FP5, the EC funded a total of 289 projects at a cost of 167.2 MEuro. UK participations totaled 266 and those participants received 21.6 MEuro of the available funding. Only France and Germany had a greater number of participations. Commission funding is paid direct to researchers and the UK Government hold no record of these payments.

  The Government take a proactive approach in the negotiation of the Euratom Programmes and content of both FP5 Euratom and the new FP6 Euratom programme (2002–06) broadly match UK interests.

  Export Control Licences
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many export control licences have been revoked for each year since 1997; and on what grounds. [140724]
  121W
  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 3 December 2003]Since May 1997, the Government have published the number of export licences that have been revoked, and also on what grounds. These details are in the Government's Annual Report on Strategic Export Controls, copies of which are available from the Libraries of the House.

  Insolvency Service
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the procedures adopted by the Insolvency Service for dealing with members of staff believed to be inefficient; and whether there have been recent changes in these procedures. [141258]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  [holding answer 3 December 2003]The Insolvency Service has two procedures to deal with inefficiency, unsatisfactory performance and unsatisfactory attendance. The procedures are designed to bring performance (or attendance) up to the required standard, and comply with employment legislation and the ACAS Code of Practice on Discipline and Grievance (2000). The inefficiency procedure was revised earlier this year. Both sets of procedures will be reviewed again next year to ensure compliance with the Employment Act 2002 (Dispute Resolution) Regulations.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many Insolvency Service staff have had inefficiency proceedings initiated against them in each of the past five years; and what the ethnic background of the individuals concerned was in each year. [141259]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  [holding answer 3 December 2003]The following table shows the number of Insolvency Service staff and their ethnic background who have had inefficiency proceedings initiated against them in the last five years.

  Number

  White

  Black1

  Unknown

  1998

  3

  3

  0

  0

  1999

  1

  0

  1

  0

  2000

  3

  3

  0

  0

  2001

  1

  1

  0

  0

  2002

  4

  3

  0

  1

  2003

  1

  1

  0

  0

  1The data have not been further broken down into categories of ethnic origin as they were collected prior to the latest census ethnic origin categories being used.

  Note

  The data above exclude inefficiency proceedings taken as a result of unsatisfactory attendance. These data cannot be provided in the timescales given.

  Iraq
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures she is taking to implement British Standards in the reconstruction of Iraqi industry and commerce. [140535]

  Ms Hewitt
  It is for a future, independent government in Iraq to decide which standards that country should adopt. The Coalition Provisional Authority is using existing standards as much as possible. I fully support this approach.
  122W

  MG Rover
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with representatives of the firm MG Rover about the decision to suspend production on 25 November. [141248]

  Jacqui Smith
  None.

  Mining-related Compensation Claims
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the total paid to date in compensation claims for(a)chronic bronchitis and emphysema and (b)Vibration White Finger of former coalminers is in (i) the Rother Valley constituency and (ii) the United Kingdom. [141536]

  Nigel Griffiths
  As of 31 October 2003 £10.4 million had been paid for respiratory disease claims and £16 million for Vibration White Finger claims in the Rother Valley constituency; and as of 23 November 2003 £913 million for respiratory disease claims and £983 million for Vibration White Finger in the United Kingdom.

  Note

  Constituency figures can be found on the DTI website: www.dti.gov.uk/coalhealth The information is complied in the middle of the month and shows the figures for the end of the previous month.

  Motor Industry
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what financial contributions have been made by her Department to the Foresight Vehicle LINK programme. [142120]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department has made commitments totalling £12.4 million, as follows:

  £000

  1997–98

  672

  1998–99

  149

  1999–2000

  660

  2000–01

  772

  2001–02

  1,382

  2002–03

  3,975

  2003–04

  3,493

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the operation of the Foresight Vehicle LINK programme.[142122]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Foresight Vehicle LINK programme supports technology transfer through collaborative R&D, aiming to raise the innovation performance of the automotive industry in the UK, including its supplier base. A supporting knowledge transfer network, now managed by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, carries out technology roadmapping to set the research priorities for the programme, brokerage and dissemination activities. The programme includes a wide portfolio of projects, valued in excess of £100 million, in the key thematic areas of advanced materials; advanced electronics, sensors, software and telematics; powertrain; alternative
  123W
  propulsion systems; and design and manufacturing processes. DTI has now fully committed it funds of £12.4 million to the programme.

  Natural Gas
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the recent change in the price of natural gas. [140520]

  Mr. Timms
  Wholesale spot gas prices rose from 15p a therm in September to a peak of 34p a therm in October (and on 2 December stood at 27.6p a therm). This may reflect seasonal factors.

  Ofgem has announced that it is seeking views from industry on the recent increase in wholesale gas prices, and that it is examining the allegations about possible manipulation of wholesales gas prices. In due course Ofgem will determine whether it is appropriate to start a formal investigation.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the cost of managing nuclear waste in each of the next 10 years. [140957]

  Ms Hewitt
  The cost of managing Britain's civil public sector nuclear waste is included within the estimated total of nuclear liabilities which currently stand at around £48 billion. Reliable estimates of annual costs are hard to identify as there remains considerable uncertainty surrounding both the total of the liabilities, and the ongoing operational imperatives and constraints at individual nuclear sites. The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), which is intended to be operational from April 2005, will need to establish more certainty on the overall liabilities and annual costs. To this end the government has already started preparation of lifecycle baselines for NDA sites that will provide the basis for estimating the costs of clean up going forward. The NDA will be operating within the overall framework of Government policy on decommissioning and waste management and will need to manage the clean up programme accordingly.

  In the longer term, the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) will make recommendations to ministers about the long-term strategy for managing UK radioactive waste.

  Precious Metal Articles
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry from which other EU member states the sale of precious metal articles in the UK has been validated for sale by the hallmark of that member state; and whether such a validation process applied to past hallmarked articles from those member states. [140525]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  As a signatory to the Vienna Convention, the UK accepts items marked with the Common Control Mark (CCM) without additional marking and testing. Other member states belonging to the Convention and entitled to use the CCM are: Austria, Finland, Portugal, Sweden, Ireland, Denmark and the Netherlands. Following the ECJ Houtwipper judgment in 1999, the UK has also recognised the 124W
  hallmarks of other EU member states without a CCM where they have been marked by independent assay offices. This includes France, Ireland, Portugal, the Netherlands and some Spanish marks.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what reports and recommendations her Department has received since 1998 relating to the draft Directive on Articles of Precious Metal; and to what extent their recommendations have been followed. [140528]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The DTI has received a number of reports and recommendations from stakeholders about the draft Directive. The majority of these have been against the proposals. Since we believe that the draft Directive would effectively weaken consumer protection, and there was little support for a change of system, the UK did not support the Directive in Council Working Group discussions. At Coreper (Committee of Permanent Representatives to the EU), it was decided that the draft Directive and Progress Report would not go forward to the Council of Ministers on 27 November because of the lack of agreement.

  Re-branding
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what business support schemes and organisations within her Department have been re-branded within the last two years; and what the cost was of each re-branding exercise. [141610]

  Ms Hewitt
  No existing business support schemes or organisations within my Department have been re-branded within the last two years. Four new business support products were launched in spring 2003: these and future DTI business support products have to conform with DTI corporate brand guidelines which aim to standardise design and eliminate the cost of developing unnecessary new brand identities.

  I have joint responsibility with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for UK Trade and Investment, which recently brought together British Trade International, Trade Partners UK and Invest. UK under a single worldwide corporate identity at a cost of £600,000. Consequential savings of £250,000 per year are anticipated through the use of commonly branded stationery and promotional materials.

  Regulatory Accountability
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many times the Ministerial Panel for Regulatory Accountability has met since its formation. [141607]

  Mr. Alexander
  I have been asked to reply.

  It has been established practice under successive Governments not to disclose information relating to the proceedings of Cabinet Committees. This practice is now formalised by Exemption 2 of Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Staff Efficiency
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will publish the outcomes of
  125W
  inefficiency proceedings initiated against members of staff in each of the past five years; how many involved (a)office transfers, (b)resignations and (c)dismissals; and what the ethnic background of the individuals concerned was in each year. [141260]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 3 December 2003] The DTI does not collect statistics on inefficiency proceedings initiated in each of the past five years in the form requested. The total number of dismissals for inefficiency in DTI HQ in the period June 1998 to November 2003 was 16.

  Wind Farms
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what research her Department is undertaking to establish the potential impact of offshore wind farms on common scoters; and if she will make a statement; [141955]

  (2) what action her Department is taking to ensure that common scoters are protected from adverse impacts of proposed offshore wind farm developments; and if she will make a statement. [141956]

  Mr. Timms
  The DTI itself has not commissioned any research on the potential impact of wind farms on common scoter specifically. A DTI report published in 2001 assessed the effects of offshore wind farms on birds. The report reviewed all contemporary published data from both UK and overseas studies and looked at the effects, if any, that wind farms have on birds including common scoter.

  More recently, a Strategic Environmental Assessment has been completed in advance of the second round of offshore wind farm development. The Environmental Report resulting from the Assessment considers the full range of impacts that might arise from wind farm activity including those affecting birds. The Report also identifies additional studies that need to be carried out. These include further work on the distribution and main flight paths of seabirds including migratory, feeding and roosting patterns and their behavioural response to wind farms.

  The University of Wales at Bangor is close to completing a project on the potential displacement of birds (especially common scoter) from benthic feeding areas because of the impact of wind turbines. The Bangor study is being carried out on behalf of COWRIE (Collaborative Offshore Wind Farm Research in the Environment), a body which includes members drawn from the Crown Estate, Government, offshore wind farm developers and environmental groups.

  Before any offshore wind farm can be developed, a number of statutory consents are required—especially under either the Electricity Act, the Food and Environment Protection Act (FEPA) and the Coast Protection Act or under the Transport and Works Act and FEPA. As part of the application process for Electricity Act and Transport and Works Act consents, the applicant has to undertake an Environmental Impact Assessment, the product of which is an Environmental Statement. This document addresses the potential environmental impacts (including those affecting bird populations) of the projects under application. In determining the application, the
  126W
  Secretary of State will consider any likely impacts on the environment including on any European sites in line with the requirements of the Birds and Habitats Directives. Any decisions about granting consents for offshore wind farms will consider advice provided by the statutory nature conservation bodies and other interested parties about their impact on the marine environment.

  Any consent granted in response to an application may include conditions that will minimise and monitor impacts. Since the Food and Environment Protection Act specifically addresses the protection of the marine environment, it is likely that conditions relating to seabirds would be incorporated into any licence issued under this Act.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to hold a public inquiry into Cirrus Energy's proposed offshore wind farm development at Shell Flat, Liverpool Bay; and if she will make a statement. [141957]

  Mr. Timms
  Cirrus Energy has applied for consent for the proposed Shell Flat offshore wind farm under the Transport and Works Act 1992 (TWA). The TWA process requires that a decision is taken on which one of three processes will be used to consider objections to an application for consent: a public inquiry, a hearing or an exchange of correspondence. The timing of this decision can be varied at the request of the applicant for the Order or at the instigation of the Secretary of State.

  No decision has yet been taken on how to deal with the objections to the Shell Flat proposal.

DEFENCE

  A1 Yamamah Programme
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what his Ministry's obligations are under the Government-to-Government arrangements with Saudi Arabia concerning the A1 Yamamah programme; [140789]

  (2) if he will publish the terms of reference for the Director-General of the Saudi Armed Forces Project. [140790]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence's obligation in respect of the A1 Yamamah programme are covered in Government-to-Government arrangements, the details of which are confidential between the United Kingdom and Saudi Arabian Governments. The Director-General of the Saudi Armed Forces Project (DGSAP) is responsible for fulfilling the Department's obligation under these arrangements. DGSAP and his staff are involved in the negotiation of the A1 Yamamah contracts, monitoring the progress and performance of the programme prime contractor in the delivery of goods and services to the Saudi armed forces and, when satisfied, endorsing claims made by the prime contractor in accordance with the terms of the contracts for payment by the Saudi Government.

  Flying Hours (RAF Marham)
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many hours on average were flown by RAF pilots based at RAF Marham in each month over the past two years. [141295]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information in the table. shows the number of hours flown on average by pilots based at RAF Marham, by month. These figures include hours flown by exchange pilots from foreign air forces serving with RAF Squadrons based at the Station, as these are not recorded separately. On average there are two such pilots at the Station, and they would normally fly at the same rate as RAF pilots. The figures include hours flown by Marham-based pilots deployed on Operation TELIC, hence the increase in March and April 2003.

  Month

  Average hours per pilot

  December 2001

  29.97

  January 2002

  32.93

  February 2002

  28.55

  March 2003

  38.28

  April 2002

  35.85

  May 2002

  31.11

  June 2002

  30.07

  July 2002

  40.11

  August 2002

  31.71

  September 2002

  37.55

  October 2002

  38.86

  November 2002

  25.16

  December 2002

  21.28

  January 2003

  29.32

  February 2003

  29.08

  March 2003

  47.44

  April 2003

  97.30

  May 2003

  25.65

  June 2001

  37.78

  July 2003

  32.87

  August 2003

  33.70

  September 2003

  30.87

  October 2003

  31.42

  Iraq
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many deaths in custody there have been since the start of the Iraq conflict of Iraqis(a) under UK responsibility, (b) under US responsibility and (c) under the responsibility of other authorities in Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [141102]

  Mr. Ingram
  There have been six recorded deaths of Iraqis while in the custody of UK Forces all of which are being investigated. The number of deaths of Iraqis in custody of authorities other than UK Forces is a matter for those authorities.

  Joint Strike Fighter
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on technology transfer agreements which have been concluded between BAE systems and the US Administration on the Joint Strike Fighter Project. [141922]

  Mr. Ingram
  BAE Systems has recently concluded negotiation of an updated technology transfer agreement, marking a significant step on the path towards achievement of its full participation in the Joint 128W
  Strike Fighter development programme. With the involvement of the company, a plan has been drawn up to identify future key technology transfer milestones, in order to ensure that further updates are signed when required.

  Legislation
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many pages of(a) primary and (b) secondary legislation his Department put through Parliament in 2002–03. [141124]

  Mr. Ingram
  My Department did not sponsor any primary legislation during the 2002–03 session.

  In the case of secondary legislation my Department was responsible for the making of 11 General Statutory Instruments which would have been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments or the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. These instruments made a total of 53 pages.

  Low-flying
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what the NATO requirements for low-flying military training are for 2004; [140540]

  (2) what discussions he has had with NATO colleagues on changes in the requirements for low-flying military training;[140541]

  (3) what recent changes there have been in NATO policy on low-flying military training. [140543]

  Mr. Caplin
  NATO sets the minimum standards for low-flying military training but does not have a separate policy on how to achieve these standards. Nations are responsible for their own training to achieve what is required of them and make their own arrangements for any low-flying training which they deem necessary. There are no foreseeable changes to this position in 2004 and I have not been involved in discussions with NATO on this issue.

  Military Deployment
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) Royal Navy, (b) Royal Air Force, (c) Army and (d) civilian MoD personnel are on deployment to (i) NATO HQ in Brussels (ii) NATO Southern Command and (iii) other NATO command centres; and if he will make a statement. [141346]

  Mr. Ingram
  As at 1 December 2003, the number of United Kingdom Ministry of Defence armed forces and civilian personnel in NATO HQs was as follows:

  Naval service

  RAF

  Army

  Civilian

  Total

  NATO HQ

  20

  15

  22

  16

  73

  Southern Region

  147

  99

  98

  0

  344

  Other HQs

  258

  529

  459

  1

  1,247

  Total

  425

  643

  579

  17

  1,664

  In addition, the Ministry of Defence has a small number of people on secondment to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that work within the NATO organisation.
  129W
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many military diplomatic personnel have been deployed to the United States in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [141347]

  Mr. Ingram
  During the last five years since November 1998, 26 Service Attachés have been deployed to the United States. These are broken down as follows:Three Defence Attachés (also the Head of the British Defence Staff, Washington)
  Three Naval Attaches and five Assistant Naval Attachés
  Three Military (Army) Attachés and three Assistant Military Attachés
  Three Air Attachés and three Assistant Air Attachés
  Three Heads of British Defence Intelligence Liaison Staff
  There is overlap due to some of the Attaches commencing duty prior to November 1998.

  Military Tours
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether a 24-month gap between tours has been achieved for(a) the 1st Battalion, The Royal Scots and (b)the 1st Battalion The King's Own Scottish Borderers since 1997; and if he will make a statement; [140454]

  (2) what the (a) shortest and (b) longest gap between tours experienced by (i) the 1st Battalion, The Royal Scots and (ii) the 1st Battalion The King's Own Scottish Borderers was since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [140455]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Army's Harmony guidelines recommend a tour interval of 24 months between each six month operational tour, per Army Battalion. Since 1997, the 1st Battalion, The Royal Scots and the 1st Battalion, The King's Own Scottish Borderers have both experienced a gap of at least 24 months between operational tours.

  The 1st Battalion, The Royal Scots have undertaken two unaccompanied operational tours since 1997, with a gap of 36 months between them. In addition they have completed a two year residential (accompanied by families) tour in Northern Ireland.

  The 1st Battalion, The King's Own Scottish Borderers, have completed four operational tours since 1997. The longest and shortest gaps between these tours are 26 months and 10 months respectively.

  Milk Tankers
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many civilian milk tankers have been converted to military refuelling tankers; and how many of them have been deployed to Iraq; [141923]

  (2) what the (a) cost and (b) life expectancy of a (i) converted milk tanker and (ii) custom built oil tanker is; and if he will make a statement. [141924]

  Mr. Ingram
  No civilian milk tankers have been converted to military refuelling tankers.
  130W
  The Wheeled Tanker programme, which will provide 357 tankers to carry fuel (300) and water (57) at a cost of £171 million, is planned to come into service in February 2005 and will have a 15 year life.

  Network-centric Warfare
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the potential of network-centric warfare in the future tactics of the(a) United Kingdom and (b) United States armed forces; and what plans he has to adopt it. [140567]

  Mr. Hoon
  Developing a networked capability is fundamental to achieving desired effects in joint and coalition warfighting. It offers the potential for dramatic increases in tempo—the ability to make better quality decisions and act more quickly and with greater agility, control and precision.

  The Ministry of Defence has commissioned research to assess the positive impact of Network Centric Warfare, which we in the United Kingdom refer to as Networked Enabled Capability. At this stage, the preliminary results of this study indicate that Networked Enabled Capability will have a very positive impact on the operational effectiveness of our armed forces. The study is due to report next year and it is anticipated that it will produce detailed results demonstrating the benefit. Additionally, the MOD is collaborating and providing data for a United States Department of Defense (US DOD) study which is looking at the benefit delivered by Networked Enabled Capability. The outcome of this work is expected in the summer of next year.

  Northern Ireland
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many soldiers from Scottish battalions have been stationed in Northern Ireland in each of the last 10 years; and what estimate his Department has made of the number of soldiers required in future years; [141656]

  (2) how many British soldiers have been stationed in Northern Ireland in each of the last 10 years; and what estimate his Department has made of the number of soldiers required in future years. [141657]

  Mr. Ingram
  The number of Army personnel stationed in Northern Ireland, in each of the last 10 years, is as follows:

  Date as at 31 October

  Number of army personnel

  1994

  16,960

  1995

  15,680

  1996

  15,060

  1997

  15,250

  1998

  14,100

  1999

  13,130

  2000

  12,240

  2001

  12,540

  2002

  12,830

  2003

  12,300

  Information on the exact number of soldiers from Scottish battalions who have been stationed in Northern Ireland in each of the last ten years, is not held centrally and could be provided only at

  131W
  disproportionate cost. I can, however, list those Scottish battalions that have served in Northern Ireland over the last 10 years. The minimum manning strength for an infantry battalion in Northern Ireland is 550.

  Date

  Battalion

  April 1992-December 1994

  1st Battalion, The King's Owns Scottish Borderers

  September 1992-March 1993

  1st Battalion, The Royal Scots

  November 1992-May 1993

  1st Battalion, The Queen's Own Highlanders

  May 1994-November 1994

  1st Battalion, The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders

  June 1994-December 1994

  1 st Battalion, The Scots Guards

  December 1994-April 1995

  1st Battalion. The Highlanders

  May 1995-November 1995

  1st Battalion, The Black Watch

  September 1995-April 1997

  1st Battalion, The Highlanders

  October 1995-March 1996

  1st Battalion, The Royal Scots

  November 1995-May 1996

  1st Battalion, The King's Owns Scottish Borderers

  May 1996-November 1996

  1st Battalion, The Scots Guards

  February 1997-February 1999

  1st Battalion, The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders

  May 1997-November 1997

  1st Battalion, The Royal Highland Fusiliers

  June 1997-December 1997

  1st Battalion, The Royal Scots

  September 1997-March 1998

  1st Battalion, The King's Owns Scottish Borderers

  March 1998-March 2000

  1st Battalion, The Scots Guards

  June 1998-November 1998

  1st Battalion, The Highlanders

  December 1998-May 1999

  1st Battalion, The Black Watch

  March 1999-August 1999

  1st Battalion. The Royal Scots

  January 2000-April 2000

  1st Battalion, The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders

  June 2000-December 2000

  1st Battalion, The Highlanders

  September 2000-April 2002

  1st Battalion, The Royal Scots

  March 2001-March 2003

  1st Battalion, The Royal Highland Fusiliers

  March 2001-March 2003

  1st Battalion, The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders

  June 2001-November 2001

  1st Battalion, The Scots Guards

  September 2001-March 2002

  1st Battalion, The King's Owns Scottish Borderers

  All military force structures are based on operational need given the current and future security environment in which the armed forces are likely to operate. Until there is agreement on Security Normalisation in Northern Ireland, it would be premature to come to any conclusions on the future composition of the Northern Ireland garrison.

  Personnel Costs
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many people work for the(a) Army Personnel Centre and (b) Army Training and Recruiting Agency; how many are employed in Scotland; what the personnel costs of each agency are; and how these figures compare to the previous year; [141023]

  (2) how many people work for the (a) Warship Support Agency and (b) Defence Procurement Agency; how many are employed in Scotland; what the personnel costs of each agency are; and what the figures were 12 months previously; [140973]

  (3) how many people work for (a) the Defence Housing Executive and (b) the Defence Intelligence and Security Centre; how many are employed in Scotland; what the personnel costs of each agency are; and what these figures were 12 months previously; [141007]
  132W
  (4) how many people work for (a) Defence Estates and (b) the Defence Geographic and Imagery Intelligence Agency; how many are employed in Scotland; what the personnel costs of each agency are; and how these figures compare to 12 months previously; [141005]

  (5) how many people work for the Defence Dental Agency; how many are employed in Scotland; what the personnel costs of the agency are; and what the equivalent figures were 12 months previously; [141012]

  (6) how many people work for the (a) Defence Transport and Movements Agency and (b) Medical Supplies Agency; how many are employed in Scotland; what the personnel costs of each agency are; and what the figures were 12 months previously; [140972]

  (7) how many people work for the (a) Defence Communications Services Agency and (b) Defence Storage and Distribution Agency; how many are employed in Scotland; what the personnel costs of each agency are; and what the figures were 12 months previously; [140969]

  (8) how many people work for (a) the MOD Police and (b) the Defence Bills Agency; how many are employed in Scotland; what the personnel costs of each agency are; and what the equivalent figures were 12 months previously; [141011]

  (9) how many people work for (a) the Naval Manning Agency and (b) Service Children's Education; how many are employed in Scotland; what the personnel costs of each agency are; and how these figures compare to the previous year; [140988]

  (10) how many people work for (a) the Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency and (b) the Defence Analytical Services Agency; how many are employed in Scotland; what the personnel costs of each agency are; and what the figures were 12 months previously; [141009]

  (11) how many people work for the (a) Veterans Agency and (b) British Forces Post Office; how many are employed in Scotland; what the personnel costs of each agency were in 2002–03; and what the figures were 12 months previously; [140968]

  (12) how many people work for the (a) Queen Victoria School and (b) Duke of York's Royal Military School; how many are employed in Scotland; what the personnel costs of each agency are; and how these figures compare to the previous year; [140985]

  (13) how many people work for the (a) Naval Recruiting and Training Agency, (b) RAF Personnel Manning Agency and (c) RAF Training Group Defence Agency; how many are employed in Scotland; what the personnel costs of each agency are; and how these figures compare to the previous year; [140982]

  (14) how many people work for the (a) Defence Vetting Agency and (b) Defence Medical Education and Training Agency; how many are employed in Scotland; what the personnel costs of each agency are; and how these figures compare to those 12 months previously; [140959]
  133W
  (15) how many people work for the (a) Disposal Services Agency and (b) Pay and Personnel Agency; how many are employed in Scotland; what the personnel costs of each agency are; and what the figures were 12 months previously. [140960]

  Civilian

  Civilian

  Service

  Total staff

  Scotland1,2,3

  total1,2,3

  total4

  costs (£000)5

  Financial year 2001–02

  Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency

  110

  230

  170

  11,609

  Army Personnel Centre

  680

  750

  163

  25,554

  Army Training and Recruitment Agency

  100

  4,250

  7,030

  504,546

  British Forces Post Office

  10

  340

  170

  12,009

  Defence Analytical Services Agency

  6—

  150

  6—

  4,040

  Defence Bills Agency

  6—

  580

  6—

  10,994

  Defence Communication Services Agency

  110

  3,050

  1,620

  153,150

  Defence Dental Agency

  10

  160

  7—

  36,887

  Defence Estates

  110

  1,360

  10

  46,099

  Defence Geographic Imagery Intelligence Agency

  6—

  690

  620

  42,484

  Defence Housing Executive

  90

  940

  6—

  22,092

  Defence Intelligence and Security Centre

  6—

  140

  350

  13,685

  Defence Medical Education and Training Agency8

  9—

  9—

  7—

  9—

  Defence Procurement Agency

  130

  3,730

  650

  234,336

  Defence Storage and Distribution Agency

  20

  2,750

  100

  63,478

  Defence Transport and Movements Agency

  6—

  310

  100

  11,420

  Defence Vetting Agency

  6—

  260

  6—

  7,555

  Disposal Services Agency

  6—

  80

  6—

  22,092

  Duke of York's Royal Military School

  6—

  110

  6—

  3,189

  Medical Supplies Agency

  10

  270

  7—

  6,919

  Ministry of Defence Police

  820

  3,260

  6—

  152,961

  Naval Manning Agency

  6—

  110

  200

  12,851

  Naval Recruiting and Training Agency

  10

  1,000

  106,720

  145,030

  Pay and Personnel Agency

  6—

  660

  6—

  13,110

  Queen Victoria School

  70

  70

  6—

  2,043

  RAF Personnel Management Agency

  6—

  240

  11780

  14,732

  RAF Training Group Defence Agency

  50

  2,050

  3,780

  307,512

  Service Children's Education

  6—

  730

  6—

  45,478

  Veterans Agency

  10

  880

  6—

  18,658

  Warship Support Agency12,13

  2,500

  7,680

  440

  335,291

  Financial year 2002–03

  Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency

  20

  170

  200

  14,296

  Army Personnel Centre

  680

  810

  170

  23,070

  Army Training and Recruitment Agency

  60

  4,240

  6,630

  552,262

  British Forces Post Office

  10

  380

  160

  13,501

  Defence Analytical Services Agency

  6—

  140

  6—

  4,419

  Defence Bills Agency

  6—

  590

  6—

  11,492

  Defence Communication Services Agency

  150

  3,180

  1,500

  160,050

  Defence Dental Agency

  10

  160

  730

  38,210

  Defence Estates

  110

  1,500

  20

  52,105

  Defence Geographic Imagery Intelligence Agency

  6—

  760

  660

  43,351

  Defence Housing Executive

  90

  880

  6—

  21,841

  Defence Intelligence and Security Centre

  6—

  140

  310

  14,382

  Defence Medical Education and Training Agency8

  6—

  630

  1,410

  9—

  Defence Procurement Agency

  110

  3,730

  670

  187,254

  Defence Storage and Distribution Agency

  770

  4,460

  180

  67,666

  Defence Transport and Movements Agency

  6—

  290

  100

  11,300

  Defence Vetting Agency

  6—

  290

  6—

  7,469

  Disposal Services Agency

  6—

  70

  10

  3,563

  Duke of York's Royal Military School

  6—

  100

  6—

  3,410

  Medical Supplies Agency

  10

  260

  30

  7,240

  Ministry of Defence Police

  800

  3,220

  6—

  148,971

  Naval Manning Agency

  6—

  110

  240

  14,143

  Naval Recruiting and Training Agency

  10

  1,040

  102,360

  146,066

  Day and Personnel Agency

  6—

  690

  6—

  14,200

  Queen Victoria School

  70

  70

  6—

  2,168

  RAF Personnel Management Agency

  6—

  210

  11180

  14,294

  RAF Training Group Defence Agency

  50

  2,010

  3,800

  327,019

  Service Children's Education

  6—

  710

  6—

  54,684

  Veterans Agency

  10

  810

  6—

  18,749

  Warship Support Agency12,13,14

  1,100

  5,100

  2,440

  297,249

  134W
  Mr. Caplin
  Figures for service and civilian personnel and overall staff costs relating to each organisation are provided below. Information on numbers of service personnel working in Scotland is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  135W
  1Figures refer to permanent staff only and include proportionate values for part time staff.

  2All figures are rounded to the nearest 10, as a result totals may not always equal the sum of the parts.

  3Personnel information is collected and presented in different forms across MOD according to local management need, as a result the figures in this table may differ slightly from those in other published sources such as the Agencies' Annual Reports and Accounts.

  4Strength of UK regular forces.

  5 Taken from Agencies' Annual Reports and Accounts 2002–03.

  6Zero or less than six.

  7Not available.

  8Defence Medical Education and Training Agency—launched on 1 April 2003, subsumed responsibilities of the Defence Medical Training Organisation and the Defence Secondary Care Agency.

  9Not applicable.

  102003 figure excludes untrained personnel paid for by NRTA but not employed directly by the Agency.

  112003 figure excludes non-productive and untrained personnel paid for by the PMA but not employed directly by the Agency.

  122002 figures based on "New Management System" data, 2003 figures based on Resource Accounting and Budgeting data.

  132003 figure includes personnel previously employed by the Naval Bases and Supply Agency.

  14"The figures take accounts of the Clyde Dockland PFI initiative.

  Note

  Figures as at 1 April of financial year end.

  Surge Capacity
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the original target date for the completion of work on surge capacity was; what the reasons were for the delay; and if he will make a statement. [140983]

  Mr. Caplin
  We had planned to advise the Defence Committee of the results of the work on the need for a surge capability by the end of 2002. It took longer than anticipated to obtain all the relevant background information, but this meant that we were able to take account of the Ministry of Defence Police's experience in meeting extra commitments during Operation TELIC. The work resulted in recommendations for a modest increase in capability, including improved co-ordination and responsiveness.

  TREASURY

    Parliamentary Questions
    Mr. Hammond
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what research has been undertaken into the reasons for differences in the average cost of answering parliamentary questions between government departments. [141905]

    Ruth Kelly
    No research has been undertaken into the reasons for inter-departmental differences in the cost of answering parliamentary questions. The Treasury update the averages cost figures annually, the basis of the calculation having been explained by the Chief Secretary in a written answer on 22 May 2002,Official Report, column 417W. Departments are not obliged to use the average cost figures and can use their own internal costing systems to determine the cost of answering parliamentary questions.

    Tax Credits
    Mr. Woodward
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many families on average were entitled to claim the Working Families Tax Credit in(a) St. Helens, (b) Merseyside and (c) the North West region for each year since its introduction; and how many in each case are entitled to claim Working Tax Credit; [141297]
    136W
    (2) how much Working Families Tax Credit was received on average by an eligible family in (a) St. Helens, (b) Merseyside and (c)the North West region in each year since its introduction. [141296]

    Dawn Primarolo
    There are no estimates below the national level for the take-up rate of Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC), or for the number of families entitled to claim it. For estimates of the number of families in each region who are expected to benefit from the Child and Working Tax Credits, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) on 17 December 2002,Official Report, column 733W. No estimates exist for local authorities.

    For each quarter between May 2001 and November 2002, the number of families in each region and local authority receiving tax credits, and the average weekly award, appear in "Working Families' and Disabled Person's Tax Credit Statistics. Geographical Analyses". For earlier quarters, sample estimates for each region appear in the WFTC Quarterly Enquiries, but no estimates exist for local authorities. These documents can be found on the Inland Revenue website, at www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/stats/personal-tax-credits/menu.htm.

    Banking Access
    Brian Cotter
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he is taking to ensure the maintenance of banking facilities in sole bank communities and those areas with limited access to bank branches. [141651]

    Ruth Kelly
    Branch closures are commercial decision for banks to make and the Government does not intervene in such decisions. However, the Government expects banks, to consider whether disadvantaged communities have sufficient access to financial services, when making operational decisions.

    Brian Cotter
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received regarding the implementation of the revised Banking Code in relation to guidelines on notice periods for branch closures. [141652]

    Ruth Kelly
    The implementation of the Banking Code is a matter for the Banking Code Standards Board, which is responsible for its development, production and continuing revision.

    Child Trust Fund
    Mr. George Osborne
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what research has been carried out by the Treasury into the likely impact of the Child Trust Fund on attitudes to savings. [141704]

    Ruth Kelly
    The Child Trust Fund is an initiative with multiple objectives:to help people understand the benefits of saving and investing;
    to encourage parents and children to develop the savings habit and engage with financial institutions;
    to ensure that in future all children have a financial asset at to start of adult life to invest in their futures; and
    to build on financial education to help people make better financial choices throughout their lives.

    The Government first consulted on the Child Trust Fund in "Saving and Assets for AH", published in April 2001. The Government received a large number of responses from a wide variety of sources, including financial services providers, consumer organisations, academics, charities and other interested parties. Respondents broadly supported the principles underlying the Child Trust Fund, as reported in the follow-up document "Delivering Savings & Assets", which was published in November 2001. Both of these documents are available on the Treasury website.

    Recent surveys by non-Governmental organisations have also shown that the Child Trust Fund is likely to be a popular initiative with families and has the potential to improve attitudes towards savings.

    Mr. George Osborne
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the impact of the Child Trust Fund on the incomes of the(a)poorest quintile of 18-year-olds, (b) the richest quintile of 18-year-olds and (c) other quintiles. [141706]

    Ruth Kelly
    CTF funds are accessible on their holder's 18th birthday and they might have an impact on income at that point because of investment returns, or indirectly thanks to enabling young people to take up opportunities which enhance their incomes. The magnitude of the indirect impact on incomes would depend on a variety of factors.

    It is not possible to give a definitive figure for the impact of the CTF on incomes of the identified groups.

    Mr. George Osborne
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to extend aspects of the Child Trust Fund scheme to children born before 1 September 2002. [141708]

    Ruth Kelly
    Eligibility for the Child Trust Fund is already back-dated from its expected launch date in April 2005 to 1 September 2002 to include as many children as possible in the school cohort being born at the time of the Budget 2003 CTF announcement.

    There is already a wide range of savings and investments parents can make for older children. Extending particular aspects of the Child Trust Fund to children born before 1 September 2002 would create another savings product and the risk of confusion. Financial providers will also be in a position to respond to any demand for certain aspects of the Fund.
    138W
    Mr. George Osborne
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what ethical restrictions will be placed on the kind of investments which Child Trust Funds can make. [141709]

    Ruth Kelly
    The Government understand that people may object to certain types of accounts because of their ethical or religious beliefs. In recent years there has been a growth in 'ethical' investment funds and there is increasing interest in funds compliant with Islamic Shariah law.

    The Government would welcome CTF providers including products which are compatible with ethical or religious beliefs. We are not proposing to prohibit investment in non-ethical funds—as this would be hard to police, and consumers will be able to exercise their choice.

    Mr. George Osborne
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether matching funds available under the Savings Gateway will be provided for contributions to child trust funds. [141710]

    Ruth Kelly
    The Saving Gateway is at the pilot stage and is being evaluated for its effect on savings behaviour. The final evaluation report is expected in February 2005 and an update will be provided following the pre-Budget report.

    Mr. George Osborne
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether charges by child trust fund providers will be capped. [141711]

    Ruth Kelly
    A decision on the charge cap for the CTF will be announced shortly.

    Mr. George Osborne
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the expected cost is to the Exchequer of child trust funds for each of the next 25 years. [141712]

    Ruth Kelly
    Estimates of the cost in the first three years were published in Budget 2003 and will be updated in the pre-Budget report. The bulk of the cost to the Exchequer consists of the Annually Managed Expenditure for the initial Government endowments, which varies with birth cohort size and is therefore expected to be relatively stable after 2005–06. Costs to the Exchequer due to the tax loss from the small proportion of savings that would otherwise have been in taxable savings vehicles are negligible in the initial years and may then rise slowly, until the first accounts mature in 18 years. After this the cost of the tax loss is expected to remain stable. Tax loss will be small or negligible compared to the costs of the endowments. Estimates are not available for the cost of any further Government contributions at age as the value of these has yet to be decided.

    Mr. George Osborne
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer who will be responsible for regulating child trust funds. [141713]

    Ruth Kelly
    The proposed arrangements build on the structure that operates effectively for ISAs.

    CTF providers will be FSA authorised. The FSA ensures that all FSA—authorised firms are run in a prudent and financially sound way and regulates their business practices, including the sales process.
    139W
    Inland Revenue auditors will ensure that providers claim Government payments and tax relief correctly, building on the way ISAs are currently audited.

    Mr. George Osborne
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the expected cost is of the planned information programme about child trust funds. [141714]

    Ruth Kelly
    One of the key aims of the CTF is to improve financial literacy and help people make better financial choices throughout their life.

    The Government has commissioned research into how best to communicate information about the CTF and the financial decisions involved, with a view to addressing the needs in particular of parents with little or no experience of savings and investment.

    Until this research is completed and the information programme is fully specified and finalised, it is not possible to provide an exact figure for the expected cost of this programme, although it forms part of current forecasts of the overall Revenue implementation costs for the CTF.

    Consumer Prices (Harmonised Index)
    Dr. Cable
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to link index-linked government securities to the harmonised index of consumer prices; and what estimate he has made of the change in debt servicing obligations which would result. [141730]

    Ruth Kelly
    [holding answer 3 December 2003]The Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his statement on Economic and Monetary Union on 9 June that, in the event that the government confirms it will move to an

    Gross Value Added (GVA) by NUTS 1, 2 and 3 areas1 at current basic prices2Table A—GVA

    £ million

    1992

    1993

    1994

    1995

    1996

    1997

    1998

    1999

    2000

    2001

    United Kingdom6

    536,475

    564,781

    597,002

    626,703

    663,148

    705,851

    749,688

    781,847

    816,111

    851,408

    NorthWest

    58,078

    60,954

    64,159

    66,887

    69,905

    73,670

    77,698

    80,836

    84,058

    87,584

    Merseyside

    —

    —

    —

    10,781

    11,308

    11,985

    12,733

    13,215

    13,692

    14,221

    East Merseyside7

    —

    —

    —

    2,328

    2,477

    2,526

    2,759

    —

    —

    —

    1NUTS (Nomenclature of Units for Territorial Statistics) is a hierarchical classification of areas that provides a breakdown of the EU's economic territory.

    2Estimates for GVA at NUTS 1 level are consistent with those published on 20 August 2003. Data from 1997 onwards are provisional.

    3Estimates for GVA at NUTS 2 level are consistent with those published on 31 October 2003. Data from 1997 onwards are provisional.

    4Includes taxes less subsidies on production.

    5Components may not sum to totals due to founding.

    6Excluding GVA for Extra-regio, which comprises compensation of employees and gross operating surplus which cannot be assigned to regions.

    7Data at Nuts 3 level are provisional and consistent with those published on 26 April 2001.

    Source

    Office for National Statistics

    Table B—Growth rates: percentage change on previous year

    1992

    1993

    1994

    1995

    1996

    1997

    1998

    1999

    2000

    2001

    United Kingdom1

    4.4

    5.3

    5.7

    5.0

    5.8

    6.4

    6.2

    4.3

    4.4

    4.3

    North West

    4.5

    5.0

    5.3

    4.3

    4.5

    5.4

    5.5

    4.0

    4.0

    4.2

    Merseyside

    —

    —

    —

    —

    4.9

    6.0

    6.2

    3.8

    3.6

    3.9

    East Merseyside2

    —

    —

    —

    —

    6.4

    2.0

    9.2

    —

    —

    —

    1Excluding GVA for Extra-regio, which compensation of employees and gross operating surplus which cannot be assigned to regions.

    2Data at Nuts 3 level are provisional and consistent with those published on 26 April 2001.

    Source

    Office for National Statistics
    140W
    inflation target based on the harmonised index of consumer prices (HICP) in the pre-Budget Report on 10 December 2003, there will be no change from the use of the general index of retail prices (RPI) for calculating the inflation uplift on index-linked gilts.

    Economic Growth (St. Helens)
    Mr. Woodward
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of economic growth in the St. Helens area for each year since 1992. [141305]

    Ruth Kelly
    The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

    Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Woodward, dated 4 December 2003

    As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question on economic growth in the St Helens area for each year since 1992. (141305)

    The nearest geography for that area for which a measure of economic activity (that is gross value added (GVA)) is East Merseyside; this includes St Helens and Knowsley.

    The estimates in tables A and B are based on the regional GVA estimates published in August and October 2003 for regional (North West) and sub-regional (Merseyside) data and April 2001 for the local area (East Merseyside) data. These are available on the National Statistics website at http://www.statistics.gov.uk/ StatBase/Product.asp?vink = 7359.

    Growth rates are normally calculated on the basis of data at constant prices. However, regional Gross Value Added (GVA) data are only available on a current price basis, in the absence of regional deflators or volume measures. The growth rates shown in the table below will therefore include the effects of inflation.

    Estimates for East Merseyside consistent with the sub-regional data up to 2001 will be published on 11 December 2003.

    Identity Cards
    Mr. Webb:
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the implications of the introduction of compulsory identity cards for his Department. [141413]

    Ruth Kelly
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to him on 19 November 2003,Official Report, column 1095W.

    Income Tax
    Sir Paul Beresford
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much additional revenue would be raised from the residents of each of the district councils in Surrey for every penny increase in the basic rate of income tax. [142034]

    Dawn Primarolo
    The requested information is given in the following table.

    Additional full-year yield of increasing the basic rate of tax by 1p in 2000–01

    District councils in Surrey

    £ million

    Elmbridge

    8.7

    Epsom and Ewell

    6.1

    Guildford

    10.1

    Mole Valley

    5.0

    Reigate and Banstead

    9.1

    Runnymede

    5.0

    Spelthorne

    6.4

    Surrey Heath

    7.4

    Tandridge

    5.3

    Waverley

    8.6

    Woking

    6.2

    Estimates are based upon the 2000–01 Survey of Personal Incomes. The effects of the illustrative changes can be scaled up or down over a reasonably wide range. The results exclude any behavioural response to the tax change.

    Tax Credits
    Richard Burden
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether caps will be set on the amount of recovery sought from individual claimants arising from overpayment of tax credits. [141294]

    Dawn Primarolo
    I refer my hon. Friend to the Inland Revenue's Code of Practice "What happens when you have paid too much tax credits". The code was placed on the Inland Revenue web site on Tuesday 11 November. A copy can be found in the House of Commons Library.

    Cigarettes—packet of 20 cigarettes

    Specific duty (£)

    Ad valorem (£)

    VAT (£)

    Specific duty as percentage of retail price

    Ad valorem as percentage of retail price

    VAT as percentage of retail price

    Austria

    0.30

    0.88

    0.42

    14.3

    42

    20

    Belgium

    0.26

    1.07

    0.49

    11.2

    46

    21

    Germany

    0.86

    0.57

    0.38

    36.6

    24

    16

    Denmark

    1.14

    0.60

    0.70

    40.5

    21

    25

    Greece

    0.06

    0.94

    0.31

    3.6

    54

    18

    Spain

    0.05

    0.73

    0.22

    4.0

    54

    16

    Finland

    0.21

    1.40

    0.61

    7.6

    50

    22

    France

    0.11

    1.86

    0.63

    3.3

    58

    20

    United Kingdom

    1.94

    1.02

    0.81

    41.7

    22

    18

    Ireland

    1.74

    0.57

    0.65

    56.6

    18

    21

    Tobacco (Tax)
    Mr. Barron
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the purchase price is paid in taxation for an average(a) packet of 20 cigarettes, (b) 250g of hand-rolling tobacco, (c) packet of five cigars and (d) 250g of pipe tobacco in each country in the European Union. [141530]

    John Healey
    Information on retail price and taxation for a packet of 20 cigarettes in each country in the European Union can be found in the HM Customs and Excise 'Tobacco Factsheet' page 15, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

    The following table shows the proportion of the purchase price that is paid in taxation for a packet of 20 cigarettes in each country in the EU. The information requested on other tobacco products is not available.

    Cigarettes—packet of 20 cigarettes

    Total tax as percentage of RSP

    Austria

    76.3

    Belgium

    78.0

    Germany

    76.9

    Denmark

    86.7

    Greece

    75.5

    Spain

    74.0

    Finland

    79.6

    France

    81.0

    United Kingdom

    81.2

    Ireland

    96.0

    Italy

    78.0

    Luxembourg

    72.1

    Netherlands

    76.0

    Portugal

    80.8

    Sweden

    74.9

    Note

    Figures for France and Ireland have been updated with later information to take account of recent rate changes and correct an error, respectively.

    Source

    European Commission Excise Duty Tables: September 2003

    Mr. Barron
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the amount is in(a) pounds sterling equivalent and (b) percentage of purchase price of (i) specified excise duty, (ii) ad valorem excise duty and (iii) VAT and other sales tax levied on an average packet of 20 cigarettes in each country in the European Union. [141535]

    John Healey
    The amounts and percentages of specific duty, ad valorem and VAT on a packet of 20 cigarettes in each of the European Union countries are given in the following table:
    143W

    Cigarettes—packet of 20 cigarettes

    Specific duty (£)

    Ad valorem (£)

    VAT (£)

    Specific duty as percentage of retail price

    Ad valorem as percentage of retail price

    VAT as percentage of retail price

    Italy

    0.05

    0.78

    0.29

    3.7

    54

    20

    Luxembourg

    0.17

    0.76

    0.24

    10.3

    47

    15

    Netherlands

    0.77

    0.43

    0.40

    36.5

    21

    19

    Portugal

    0.57

    0.34

    0.28

    38.8

    23

    19

    Sweden

    0.31

    1.13

    0.72

    10.7

    39

    25

    Note

    Figures for France and Ireland have been updated with later information to take account of recent changes and correct an error, respectively.

    Source

    European Commission Excise Duty Tables: September 2003

    Mr. Barron
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue was raised from each of the taxes payable on each category of tobacco product in the last year for which figures are available. [141537]

    John Healey
    Excise duty and estimated VAT revenue for tobacco can be found in the HM Customs and Excise Tobacco Factsheet' pages 1 and 2, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

    Figures showing revenue raised from duty on each category of tobacco are available up to the year 2002–03. Estimates for VAT raised are only available for tobacco products as a whole and the most recent year is 2001–02.

  ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

    Albatrosses and Petrels
    Mr. Whittingdale
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures have so far been taken to implement the Action Plan contained in the Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels; and if she will make a statement. 141074]

    Mr. Morley
    The Agreement and its associated Action Plan formally come into effect three months after the fifth range state has ratified the Agreement. South Africa became that fifth state in November. The Agreement will therefore enter into force on 1 February 2004.

    However, a number of measures in the Action Plan are already being taken forward. For example, the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) has agreed international action plans which seek to reduce the threat to the birds from longline fishing. The Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) also has such measures. Data are now being collected on foraging areas and migration routes using satellite tracking and "at sea" observations, which will help target the conservation effort—British scientists are involved in this. The Falkland Islands are also already monitoring their colonies, preventing tourist disturbance and looking to tackle the threat from rats.

    Animal Husbandry
    Miss McIntosh
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what 144W
    representations she has received on (a) the fact that the slaughter premium is not payable on animals slaughtered on farm and (b) that it remains a fineable offence for farmers to move the animal from farms receiving no compensation under the rules of the slaughter premium. [141440]

    Alun Michael
    No representations have been received about the ineligibility for slaughter premium of animals slaughtered on farm. It is not a fineable offence for farmers to remove these animals from farms provided they are disposed of in accordance with the relevant legislation.

    Departmental Recruits (Apprenticeships)
    Miss McIntosh
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will establish a three-month apprenticeship to be spent on farms, at an auction mart and in other rural situations for every new recruit to her Department.[141443]

    Alun Michael
    New recruits attend a 'Welcome to Defra' event, which outlines Defra's aims and objectives, but, most induction training takes place in the workplace, where staff are encouraged to make outside visits to raise awareness of specific issues and to meet those involved. Resource restraints and equal opportunities policies do not make a three-month apprenticeship viable. It should be remembered that Defra's responsibilities are wide ranging and include local environmental issues in towns and cities as well as an interest in all matters effecting rural communities, food issues and environmental issues that range from the local to the global. A full indication of Defra's work is given at www.defra.gov.uk

    Flood Defence (Hereford)
    Mr. Wiggin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when funding promised for flood defence in the City of Hereford will be delivered by(a) the Welsh Assembly and (b) the Government. [140817]

    Mr. Morley
    Defra provides funding for capital flood defence schemes in England which meet set criteria and achieve an appropriate priority score. The Welsh Assembly does not provide funding for flood defence work in England. However the responsibility for deciding on which projects to promote and their timing rests with local operating authorities, such as the Environment Agency. I understand that the Agency's Wye Local Flood Defence Committee gave priority to
    145W
    constructing defences for Hampton Bishop rather than Hereford, but have engaged consultants to determine the viability of flood defence measures for Hereford. I understand that the consultants are due to complete a project appraisal report by June 2004 and the Agency plans to start work on a scheme at Hereford in 2005, if it qualifies for funding.

    Mr. Wiggin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for what reason £700,000 has been paid to W. S. Atkins for a design for the flood defences in Hereford City. [140818]

    Mr. Morley
    I understand that to date, the Environment Agency has paid Atkins Water fees totalling £145,000 in relation to the Hereford Flood Alleviation Scheme. The work carried out includes feasibility studies, environmental investigations, hydraulic river modelling, design, public consultation and liaison with other public bodies. A further £155,000 will be paid to Atkins Water by the Agency for completion of the project appraisal report. Detailed design of the scheme will cost an estimated £200,000 which will bring the total expenditure on fees to Atkins Water to approximately £500,000, a sum that the Agency believes reflects the particular complexities associated with the scheme, which is currently forecast to cost some £4.2 million.

    Genetic Nation Debate
    Andrew George
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what assessment she has made of the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission report on issues of liability and coexistence in respect of GM crops; [140846]

    (2) what assessment she has made of the possible financial consequences to public funds of setting up a Government liability scheme to protect farmers and growers from the unintended consequences of growing GM crops as set out in the report by the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission into liability and coexistence. [140845]

    Mr. Morley
    The report by the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission was published on 25 November. We are now assessing this and will give our considered response in due course.

    GM Maize
    Alan Simpson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the(a) dose, (b) timing, (c) formulation and (d) method of application of the herbicide selected for use on GM maize in the farm scale evaluations was modelled upon the standard commercially adopted herbicide regimes used on Liberty Link GM maize varieties in (i) the USA and (ii) Hungary. [140770]

    Mr. Morley
    No. The dose, timing, formulation and method of application of glufosinate ammonium ('Liberty') herbicide on fodder maize in the UK farm-scale evaluations was based on the terms of the draft product label in line with the experimental approval for use in UK conditions.

    Legislation
    Mr. Redwood
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many pages of(a) primary and (b) secondary legislation her Department put through Parliament in 2002–03. [141171]

    Alun Michael
    Two of the Bills sponsored by the Department during the 2002–03 session were enacted, amounting to a total of 270 pages.

    In the case of secondary legislation the Department was responsible for the making of 120 General Statutory Instruments which were subject to consideration by either the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments or the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. The total number of pages can be calculated only at disproportionate cost.

    Recycled Paper
    Sue Doughty
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures are in place to ensure Government Departments buy recycled paper. [140595]

    Mr. Morley
    On 30 October the Government accepted the Sustainable Procurement Group recommendation for the immediate purchase of:Copying paper: 100 per cent. recycled content, with minimum 75 per cent. overall content being post-consumer waste;
    Paper for printed publications: minimum 60 per cent. recycled content, with 45 per cent. overall content being post-consumer waste; and
    Kitchen and toilet tissue: 100 per cent. recycled content.

    Central Government already buys a considerable amount of recycled paper, through, for example the DfT Recycled Printing Papers Framework and the OGCbuying.solutions catalogues. Defra and the Office of Government Commerce recently published the revised "Joint Note on Environmental Issues in Purchasing", which provides guidance on sustainable procurement for non-specialists and guides them towards more sustainable purchases.

    Government are currently developing sustainable procurement targets under the "Framework for Sustainable Development on the Government Estate". The targets and online guidance will be published by spring next year.

    Recycled Paper

      Rural Payments (Mapping)
      Miss McIntosh
      To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received from farmers on the way their land is designated in the process of digitalisation of mapping of the land for the purposes of assessing rural payments. [141439]

      Alun Michael
      The Rural Land Register digitisation project does not change the designation of land parcels but it is intended to increase the certainty and accuracy of Defra's records. A small number of farmers have queried changes to the eligible area of their land made as a result of a change to the gross field size. These have been dealt with on an individual basis.

    Water Supplies
    Mr. Jenkins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans are in place for the provision of water supplies to homes and businesses if low rainfall continues. [141852]

    Mr. Morley
    Each water company has a drought plan which sets out the actions necessary to maintain public water supplies during a drought. Dependent upon the severity of the drought and the effectiveness of the company's earlier actions, a company can apply for drought permits or drought orders to, respectively, the Environment Agency and the Secretary of State if further measures are required.

    In addition, water companies are required, under a Direction issued in 1998 by the Secretary of State, to have in place plans to ensure the provision of essential water supply at all times. These plans are regularly reviewed and are independently audited every year.

  SOLICITOR-GENERAL

    Mrs. Sally Clark
    23. Mr. George Osborne
    To ask the Solicitor-General what the cost to public funds was of the(a) prosecution and (b) imprisonment of Mrs. Sally Clark. [141779]

    The Solicitor-General
    The total costs incurred by the Crown Prosecution Service were £320,000 and the prison costs, based on average costs per prisoner, were approximately £111,000.

    Following the appeal of Sally Clark, the Attorney General and I met the Director of Public Prosecution to discuss the implications of the appeal We established a Group comprising the police, Crown Prosecution Service, Home Office and other relevant agencies to consider whether any cases in which Doctor Williams has given important evidence require a more in depth review.

    Interim guidance has been sent to all Chief Crown Prosecutors requesting that all current cases be identified in which either Doctor Williams or Professor Meadow are witnesses. The defence is then to be served with a copy of the judgment in the Sally Clark case and its attention is drawn to sections of the judgment touching on his evidence. Further and fuller guidance will be provided to prosecutors as soon as possible. This will apply to both present and future cases.

    On 28 July, the Inter-Departmental Group held its first meeting. Progress was made in two areas. How previous cases in which Doctor Alan Williams conducted a post mortem were to be identified and what factors would be used to select the cases on which the group should concentrate.

    Following that meeting, work commenced immediately on the identification of cases. Several agencies assisted in respect of this process, with the police and the Crown Prosecution Service taking the lead. The Group set a deadline of mid-September for the conclusion of that process. By that date, approximately 50 previous cases had been identified, which dated back between 5–7 years. These cases all involved charges of murder, manslaughter or
    148W
    infanticide where Doctor Williams had been instructed by the police to conduct the post mortem and which had resulted in a conviction.

    The cases themselves are now being reviewed. An experienced member each of the Metropolitan Police and the Crown Prosecution Service are conducting the review. This work is continuing. It is anticipated that the results of the initial review will be considered early next year.

    The Group is also considering whether the exercise of reviewing cases should be extended to those involving Professor Meadow.

    The Home Office Pathology Advisory Board will understand publish new Codes of Practice and Procedure for Pathologists, which will take account of the judicial comments on the methodology employed by Doctor Williams in the Sally Clark case. Once published, the Codes will be distributed to pathologists.

    Rape
    Mrs. Betty Williams
    To ask the Solicitor-General, if she will make a statement on measures being taken to improve the conviction rate for those guilty of rape. [141780]

    The Solicitor-General
    We are concerned that rape should be properly investigated and effectively prosecuted.

    To make sure that happens, the Crown Prosecution Service are working more closely with the police; ensuring victims are helped to give their evidence, including by video link so that they do not have to attend court; and by ensuring that every case is handled by a specialist rape prosecutor.

    The law on rape has recently been strengthened and clarified as part of the Sexual Offences Act. Progress on tackling sex offences will be assisted by ministers across all departments, including myself, working together as part of a new ministerial, group which will meet shortly.

    Crown Prosecution Service (Children's Commissioner)
    25. Ms Munn
    To ask the Solicitor-General what support she expects the Crown Prosecution Service will offer to the proposed Children's Commissioner for England. [141781]

    The Solicitor-General
    The Crown Prosecution Service looks forward to working with the proposed Commissioner to enable children's views to be fed into policy-making and to inform good practice.

    Crown Prosecution Service (Victims)
    26. James Purnell
    To ask the Solicitor-General if she will make a statement on how the National Strategy for Victims and Witnesses will affect the working of the Crown Prosecution Service in dealing with victims of crime. [141782]

    The Solicitor-General
    The Crown Prosecution Service worked closely with its criminal justice partners in developing the national strategy and is committed to putting it into practice.

    Domestic Violence
    27. Dr. lddon
    To ask the Solicitor-General if she will make a statement on discussions with the Department of Health on ensuring that health professionals are trained in assessing evidence of domestic violence. [141783]

    The Solicitor-General
    I have regular discussions with colleagues on the Inter Ministerial Group on Domestic Violence on all aspects of Government policy on domestic violence.

    The health service has an important role to play in identifying and responding to domestic violence. Health care professionals may be the first people to whom women disclose their abuse, and they therefore have a vital role to play in offering support, information and validation.

    Number of new awards for each year ending 31 May for people under age 20 whose main disabling condition is mental illness, by Government Office Region

    Thousand

    1997

    1998

    1999

    May 2000

    2001

    2002

    2003

    All

    6.8

    9.0

    9.8

    11.0

    13.1

    14.3

    14.9

    England

    5.9

    7.1

    9.8

    9.0

    11.2

    11.8

    12.7

    North East

    0.3

    0.4

    0.6

    0.7

    0.8

    0.7

    0.6

    North West

    1.0

    1.1

    1.1

    1.2

    1.7

    1.7

    1.8

    Yorkshire and Humber

    0.8

    0.7

    0.9

    0.9

    1.0

    1.0

    1.0

    East Midlands

    0.4

    0.5

    0.7

    0.7

    0.9

    0.9

    1.2

    West Midlands

    0.7

    0.5

    0.7

    0.9

    1.4

    1.3

    1.4

    East

    0.6

    0.8

    0.9

    1.0

    1.1

    1.4

    1.4

    London

    0.7

    0.9

    1.0

    1.3

    1.2

    1.5

    1.5

    South East

    1.0

    1.3

    1.4

    1.7

    2.2

    2.1

    2.5

    SouthWest

    0.6

    0.8

    0.7

    0.8

    1.0

    1.2

    1.1

    Wales

    0.5

    0.9

    0.8

    0.9

    0.8

    0.8

    1.0

    Scotland

    0.4

    1.0

    1.1

    1.2

    1.1

    1.8

    1.2

    Notes

    1. Figures are in thousands and rounded to the nearest hundred.

    2. Figures are for 12 month ending 31 May each year.

    Source

    IAD Information Centre, 5 per cent. sample

    Disability Rights Commission
    David Winnick
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) if he will arrange for a reply from the chief executive of the Disability Rights Commission to the letter dated 28 October from the hon. Member for Walsall, North arising from representations from the local community health council; and if he will ask the chief executive to provide an explanation for the reasons for(a) the delay and (b) the absence of an acknowledgement letter; [141874]

    (2) if he will ensure the Disability Rights Commission replies promptly to correspondence and telephone calls which require a response. [141875]

    Maria Eagle
    I understand the Chief Executive of the Disability Rights Commission has written to my hon. Friend with a full reply which addresses all the concerns raised by his constituent.

    I meet the Chair and Chief Executive of the DRC regularly to review the DRC's performance and place great importance on the Commission delivering its services with due regard to timeliness and quality. Independent surveys of the DRC's services record high levels of satisfaction from service users.

  WORK AND PENSIONS

    Disability Living Allowance
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many claims for disability living allowance there were from people under 20 disabled by mental illness in(a) England and (b) each region in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [140830]

    Maria Eagle
    The number of people under age 20 who are disabled by mental illness and have been awarded disability living allowance is set out in the following table. The information is for England and Wales, is also set out by Government Office Region and is the only geographically based data available.

    Widowers' Benefits
    Mr. Hopkins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much it cost to present the United Kingdom's case when the right of widowers' benefits was considered in all courts above the level of appeal tribunal in each year since 1997. [141655]

    Maria Eagle
    The costs to the Department of presenting the Government's and United Kingdom's case in litigation cases is not routinely collected and the information requested could be provided only at a disproportionate cost.

  CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

    Conditional Fees
    Mr. Laws
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs when he expects to publish his Department's responses to its consultations on(a) the conditional fee agreement regime, (b) proposed changes to publicly-funded immigration and asylum work and (c) delivering value for money in the Criminal Defence Service. [141206]
    151W
    Mr. Leslie
    The information is as follows:

    (a) The consultation period on the conditional fee agreement regime was extended to end of October and we expect to publish a response by spring next year.

    (b) The Government made an announcement on 27 November unveiling new measures aimed at cutting out abuses of the public-funded immigration and asylum system. The changes include an accreditation scheme for lawyers, a unique file number for asylum cases and a reduction in the amount of legally-aided advice offered to applicants.

    (c)The Government will also shortly be publishing its response to the consultation on delivering value for money in the Criminal Defence Service.

    Legal Advice
    Lynne Jones
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what assessment he has made of the availability of legal advice through contracts with the Legal Services Commission for(a) family matters and (b) asylum application appeals; and if he will make a statement. [140511]

    Mr. Leslie
    There are currently 3,592 solicitors' offices contracted by the Legal Services Commission to provide publicly-funded advice and representation in the family category of law in England and Wales. In addition, the Commission contracts with three Not for Profit agencies for the provision of advice in family matters.

    There are currently 504 solicitors' offices and 90 Not for Profit agencies with contracts to provide immigration and asylum advice and representation in England and Wales.

    Preliminary analysis by the Legal Services Commission suggests that the number of solicitor suppliers for the next contract bid round from April 2004 will be maintained across England and Wales in all categories, including family and immigration and asylum.

    Magistrates
    Mr. Allen
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what steps he is taking to increase the number of magistrates from the Nottingham, North constituency. [140615]

    Mr. Leslie
    Recruitment of magistrates is co-ordinated locally by the Lord Chancellors' Advisory Committees on Justices of the Peace. My local Advisory Committee has not reported to me any particular problems recruiting magistrates in the Nottingham area. The Advisory Committee has, however, used a number of new initiatives to attract candidates from different backgrounds including news sheets in local magazines and information on their website. BBC Nottingham also broadcast a television item on the magistracy. During next year's recruitment round we will be adding to those initiatives with a local bus advertising campaign backed up by supporting material in local media sources.

    Public Records
    Dr. Murrison
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what progress has been made in improving access to public records for amateur historians. [141049]

    Mr. Leslie
    In recent years The National Archives (TNA) has made considerable progress in improving online and onsite access for amateur historians. The online catalogue (PROCAT), with references to over nine million records, is available over the internet. Users can identify the original documents relevant to their research and place an order for them in advance of a visit to TNA at Kew. In addition, digital images of the entire series of wills from 1384 to 1858, which are of considerable interest to family historians, can be downloaded from the TNA website. TNA also provides digital copies of other records on demand over the internet. Many of TNA's online services are free of charge, including the award winning Learning Curve gallery, which provides online content for school teachers and pupils working on Key Stages 2 to 4 of the History National Curriculum, and the Pathways to the Past section of the website, which includes a wide variety of online material aimed at lifelong learners. The Moving Here project, led by TNA, comprises online exhibitions focusing on the historical experience of immigration to the UK in the last 150 years, and has opened archives up to entirely new audiences.

    Since 1997, the public reading rooms have been open six days a week, with late opening until 7pm on Tuesdays and Thursdays. New users are given an induction tour on their first visit to Kew and can ask trained staff on duty in the reading rooms for further expert advice. All users are encouraged to make suggestions for further service improvements. The Public Record Office (PRO) first gained the Charter Mark Award in 1998 and achieved re-accreditation in 2001. Surveys of users onsite regularly achieve satisfaction levels of 90 per cent. and above.

    The completion of the merger between the PRO and the Historical Manuscripts Commission in December 2003, resulting in a shared physical location and website, will provide increased access to records, benefiting historians still further.

    Remembrance Day (International Brigades)
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will make it his policy to ensure that veterans of the International Brigades are invited to future Remembrance Day parades; and if he will make a statement. [140909]

    Mr. Leslie
    My Department is responsible for co-ordinating the organisation of the ceremony at the Cenotaph on Remembrance Sunday. The parade, or march past the Cenotaph, which follows the official ceremony is organised by the Royal British Legion, to whom applications to participate should be made. The march past includes ex-Servicemen and women who have served under the direct command of British or Commonwealth Forces, the widows and widowers of ex-Servicemen and women, members of Transport for London—commemorating bus drivers who drove ambulances and troop transport in France in the First World War—and, since 1998, the Bevin Boys. From the
    153W
    year 2000, the march past was extended to include 2,000 marchers from civilian associations connected with past conflicts.

  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Anti-Social Behaviour
    Mr. Woodward
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Anti-Social Behaviour Orders have been(a) applied for and (b) granted in each council area within Merseyside since their introduction. [141287]

    Ms Blears
    The number of notifications received by the Home Office of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) applied for, and issued, in Merseyside from 1 April 1999 (introduction) up to 30 June 2003 (latest available) is given in the table

    The number of ASBOs applied for, and issued, within Merseyside, as notified to the Home Office, 1 April 1999 to 30 June 2003

    Area

    Total applied for

    Total issued

    Merseyside

    57

    52

    Of which:

    From 1 April 1999 to 31 May 2000 by pfa1

    12

    8

    From 1 June 2000 to 30 June 2003 by:

    Local authority area

    45

    44

    Knowsley MBC

    2

    2

    Liverpool CC

    28

    27

    Sefton MBC

    5

    5

    St. Helens MBC

    4

    4

    Wirral MBC

    6

    6

    1Between 1 April 1999–31 May 2000 data available by police force area (pfa) only

    Note

    No notifications have been reported of ASBOs issued on conviction (application not required) within Merseyside from 2 December 2002 to 30 June 2003

    Martin Linton
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Anti-Social Behaviour Orders have been issued in London since 1 April 1999, broken down by London borough. [141310]

    Ms Blears
    The number of notifications received by the Home Office of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) issued in London from 1 April 1999 up to 30 June 2003 (latest available) is given in the table.

    Number of ASBOs issued in London, as notified to the Home Office, from 1 April 1999 to 30 June 2003

    Area

    Total issued

    Greater London

    84

    Of which:

    From 1 April 1999 to 31 May 2000 by pfa1

    9

    From 1 June 2000 to 30 June 2003 by local authority area

    75

    Barnet

    2

    Bexley

    11

    Bromley

    1

    Camden

    27

    Croydon

    2

    Greenwich

    3

    Hackney

    2

    Hammersmith and Fulham

    2

    Hounslow

    1

    Islington

    1

    Kingston-on-Thames

    2

    Lambeth

    1

    Lewisham

    2

    Merton

    1

    154W

    Number of ASBOs issued in London, as notified to the Home Office, from 1 April 1999 to 30 June 2003

    Area

    Total issued

    Newham

    2

    Richmond upon Thames

    2

    Southwark

    1

    Sutton

    4

    Tower Hamlets

    2

    Westminster

    6

    1 Between 1 April 1999 to 31 May 2000 data available by police force area (pfa) only

    Basic Command Unit Strength
    John Mann
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the Home Office sets as a minimum acceptable number of detectives, on a monthly basis, for an individual police Basic Command Unit. [140581]

    Ms Blears
    [holding answer 1 December 2003]The Secretary of State sets no targets for the number of detectives. The number of detectives for any given Basic Command Unit or specialist unit is ultimately a matter for chief officers of police and will depend on factors such as local crime patterns and the strategy to address them.

    BB Guns
    Mr. Pickthall
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to ban the sale of BB guns. [140683]

    Caroline Flint
    [holding answer 1 December 2003]We have no such plans. However, under the provisions of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2004, which we intend to bring into effect early next year, it will be an offence to have an imitation firearms in a public place without reasonable excuse. We shall be looking closely at the whole question of controlling imitation firearms as part of a comprehensive review of the firearms legislation, starting with the publication of a consultation paper in January.

    Knives
    Mr. Gordon Marsden
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions his Department has had with retailers on the guidelines they operate on the sale of knives. [141364]

    Caroline Flint
    None. Both the Offensive Weapons Act 1996 and the Knives Act 1997 deal with the sale of knives. Section 6 of the Offensive Weapons Act 1996 makes it an offence to sell knives to persons under 16 and section 1 of the Knives Act 1997 makes it an offence to market a knife in a way which indicates, or suggests, that it is suitable for combat or is otherwise likely to stimulate or encourage violent behaviour involving the use of a knife as a weapon.

    Police (Wales)
    Mr. Wiggin
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) police officers and (b) special constables there were in Wales in each year since 1997. [141166]
    155W
    Ms Blears
    The information requested is set out in the table. At the end of August the four Welsh forces had record strength totalling 7,354, which is 762 (plus 12 per cent. more than it was in March 1997.

    At the end of March 2003 police (support) staff strength in Wales was 3,178. This is 723 more than in March 1997 when there was 2,455 police staff. In addition Gwent had 30 Community Support Officers (CSOs) approved under Round 1 in 2002–03 and on patrol at 31 August 2003. All of the Welsh forces are recruiting CSOs under the Round 2 allocations in 2003–04 and the four Welsh forces should have a total of 113 CSOs by 31 March 2004.

    We are working to ensure that forces make best use of Specials' skills, time and links to the community to increase the effective delivery of local policing and at how the use and recruitment of Specials might be widened.

    Total police and special constable strength for Welsh forces for 1992 to 2003

    Year1

    Police officers2

    Special constables3

    1997

    6,592

    1,142

    1998

    6,617

    1,097

    1999

    6,646

    1,088

    2000

    6,632

    835

    2001

    6,837

    789

    2002

    7,194

    701

    2003

    7,268

    588

    20034

    7,354

    5—

    1As at 31 March.

    2Police officer strength is for full-time equivalents (fte).

    3Special Constable strength is an actual headcount (fte figures are not collected).

    431 August.

    5Not available.

    Shop Security
    Mr. Jim Cunningham
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions his Department has had with the Treasury on measures to aid retailers' investment in specified security equipment for stores under 3,000 square feet. [140862]

    Ms Blears
    [holding answer 3 December 2003]My officials have consulted Treasury colleagues on the possible use of tax incentives to encourage the installation of physical security measures by businesses. However, we are not convinced that a tax incentive scheme is the best way to help small retailers facing crime problems. In particular, it could be perceived as unfair in that it would offer no assistance to businesses (arguably those in most need of help) that do not make enough profit to pay corporation tax. We also understand that the administration and compliance costs of such a system (to both businesses and the Government) would be high.

    However, the Home Office has received £15 million funding from the Treasury's Capital Modernisation Fund for the Small Retailers in Deprived Areas initiative. By the end of this year, this scheme will have provided security measures and environmental improvements to over 12,500 small retailers and businesses in some of our most deprived areas. Part of the evaluation of this scheme will assess the effect this funding will have had in promoting the benefits of crime reduction and encouraging the recipients and others to take forward further crime reduction activity.

    Speeding
    Mr. Damian Green
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what revenue from fines as a result of prosecutions arising from speed camera evidence was generated in(a) 2000, (b) 2001 and (c) 2002. [140827]

    Ms Blears
    Information on the revenue raised from speeding fines is not available.

    However, the table shows the total number of prosecutions and the average fine for speed offences detected by camera within England and Wales for 2000 and 2001. As the majority of such offences are dealt with by the issue of a fixed penalty, the table also shows the total amount of fixed penalties ordered to be paid.

    Not all fines and fixed penalties will have been paid.

    Information for 2002 will be available early in 2004.

    Court Proceedings and fixed penalty data for Speed Offences detected by cameras1 in England and Wales 2000 and 2001

    2000

    2001

    Court proceedings

    Number of prosecutions

    109,200

    137,100

    Average fine (£)2

    107

    111

    Fixed penalties3

    Number of tickets3

    599,200

    877,500

    Estimated revenue (£000)4

    25,965

    52,650

    1Offences under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and Motor Vehicle (Speed Limits on Motorways) Regulations 1973.

    2Based on forces providing reliable figures

    3Paid i.e. no further action.

    4Estimate based on £40 fixed penalty charge January to October 2000. From November 2000 the penalty was raised to £60.

  TRANSPORT

    Air Transport
    Mr. Hopkins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether external agencies have been contracted to analyse the responses to the consultation into the Future Development of Air Transport in the UK; and if he will provide details of his Department's processes for analysing the responses. [141654]

    Mr. McNulty
    The vast majority of responses have been analysed by officials. Analysis of more detailed and technical responses has been carried out by a team of consultants with expertise across a range of subject areas. Responses to the NOP consultation questionnaires have been analysed by NOP. Departmental officials have been responsible for supervising all parts of the analysis process and for the preparation of advice to Ministers on its conclusions.

    The results of the analysis will be published alongside the air transport White Paper before Christmas.

    Alternative Fuels
    Mr. Djanogly
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assistance his Department has afforded to non-public sector corporations to develop vehicles powered by other means than petrol. [141628]
    157W
    Mr. Jamieson
    My Department's PowerShift programme provides grants to motorists and companies to encourage the purchase of LPG, natural gas, electric and other clean low-carbon vehicles. The CleanUp programme provides grants for the conversion of existing vehicles, and the New Vehicle Technology Fund programme provides grants for the development and demonstration of innovative low carbon vehicle technologies. The Governments' overall strategy for leading the global shift to clean, low carbon fuels and vehicles is set out in "Powering Future Vehicles—The Government Strategy", published in July 2002, and the First Annual Report on implementation of the Strategy was published in October. Copies of both documents have been placed in the Library.

    Car Parks
    John Mann
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport under what legislation private operators of(a) local authority car parks and (b) privately owned car parks may pursue (i) civil action and (ii) criminal action for unpaid fines levied on late and non-payers of car park charges; and when guidance on these matters was last issued by the Department. [141876]

    Mr. Jamieson
    On entering a local authority owned car park or a private car park a user is effectively agreeing to abide by the terms and conditions of its use, which should be displayed clearly. Paragraphs 14–16 of Local Authority Circular 1/90 dated 14 May 1990 covered information at car parks and drew attention to the need for local authorities to provide adequate information to users of their car parks, particularly about such matters as charges.

    Section 32 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 empowers local authorities to provide off street car parks and section 35 enables them to impose conditions on their use, including charges. Failure to comply with such conditions is an offence under section 35 A of the Act.

    A local authority may pursue non-payment of any charges incurred in connection with use of one of their car parks through a magistrates court. Alternatively, if they have obtained decriminalised parking enforcement powers, a penalty charge for non-compliance with the conditions of use may be issued by the authority under section 76 of the Road Traffic Act 1991. Under Schedule 6 to that Act an authority may take steps to enforce payment of a penalty charge through the Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northampton County Court.

    Privately owned car parks are private property and charges and conditions for their use are a contractual matter between the owner and users. This is not a matter that is the subject of public legislation and it would be for the owner to pursue any unpaid charges as a civil rather than criminal matter.

    Lifeboats
    Mr. Carmichael
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps his Department is taking to improve lifeboat safety; and what plans he has to introduce requirements for(a) minimum launching system standards and (b) common operating procedures. [140666]
    158W
    Mr. Jamieson
    The UK has adopted and fully supports international standards for life saving appliances, as required by the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS). Standards have been developed by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and are contained in the publications "International Life Saving Appliance Code (Res. MSC.48(66))" and "Testing and Evaluation of Life Saving Appliances (Res. MSC.81(70)", which incorporate the requirements for launching systems and operating procedures.

    The Maritime and Coastguard Agency promulgates detailed advice to the industry through the publications "Survey of Life-Saving Appliances Volume I and 2" and a variety of Marine Notices.

    International standards continue to be reviewed by the IMO's Design and Equipment sub-committee (DE), which is made up of delegations from participating marine administrations. The last meeting of DE in March 2003 established a working group to undertake a comprehensive review of the standards and guidelines which currently apply to the launching and operation of lifeboats.

    Light Dues
    John Thurso
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what the annual budget of(a) the Trinity House Lighthouse Authority, (b) the Commissioners of the Irish Lights and (c) the Northern Lighthouse Board was in each of the last five years; [141749]

    (2) how much was contributed by the central fund to the Northern Lighthouse Board in each of the last five years. [141751]

    Mr. Jamieson
    The expenditure requirements of the three General Lighthouse Authorities are met from the General Lighthouse Fund. The annual expenditure from 1998–99 to 2002–03 is set out in the following table.

    £000

    Trinity House Lighthouse

    Northern Lighthouse Board

    Commissioners of Irish Lights

    1998–99

    29,362

    22,057

    13,401

    1999–2000

    28,587

    28,185

    13,701

    2000–01

    30,364

    22,930

    15,077

    2001–02

    30,203

    24,210

    16,168

    2002–03

    31,998

    22,385

    16,034

    John Thurso
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what criteria he will use to review the level of light dues in spring 2004. [141750]

    Mr. Jamieson
    The Secretary of State will determine the light dues to be levied in 2004/05 taking account of the General Lighthouse Authority Corporate Plans and investment in new depots and ships and of the level at which the General Lighthouse Fund Reserve should be maintained to underpin the operation and pension arrangements.

    London Underground
    Mr. Damian Green
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many train cancellations there were on the London Underground in each year between 1990 and 2003, broken down by line. [140928]
    159W
    Mr. McNulty
    London Underground (LU) transferred from Central Government to Transport for London on 15 July. The information for the years before

    Number of peak train cancellations

    1996–97

    1997–98

    1998–99

    1999–2000

    2000–01

    2001–02

    2002–03

    Bakerloo

    718

    405

    654

    739

    1,844

    931

    934

    Central

    1,401

    1,052

    1,605

    1,184

    1,280

    1,233

    7,877

    Waterloo and City

    91

    9

    47

    14

    55

    34

    238

    Circle

    600

    525

    541

    537

    1,096

    1,224

    973

    Hammersmith and City

    542

    267

    303

    343

    517

    636

    District

    1,378

    303

    628

    463

    1,647

    2,116

    1,461

    Jubilee

    423

    173

    169

    586

    1,492

    747

    579

    East London

    0

    0

    186

    97

    169

    101

    106

    Metropolitan

    889

    333

    427

    500

    978

    1,323

    1,296

    Northern

    1,715

    1,283

    3,537

    1,206

    962

    567

    1,142

    Piccadilly

    1,576

    1,329

    2,288

    2,100

    3,522

    2,953

    2,659

    Victoria

    514

    422

    404

    182

    526

    222

    539

    Total number of cancellations

    9,847

    6,101

    10,789

    7,951

    14,088

    11,451

    18,440

    Mr. Damian Green
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the average percentage of scheduled train kilometres operated on the London Underground was in each year between 1990 and 2003, broken down by line. [140929]

    Percentage of scheduled kilometres operated

    Percentage

    1996–97

    1997–98

    1998–99

    1999–2000

    2000–01

    2001–02

    2002–03

    Bakerloo

    91.4

    93.6

    92.5

    90.5

    82.6

    89.2

    92.1

    Central

    95.3

    95.1

    95.2

    96.5

    96.6

    97.3

    79.3

    Waterloo and City

    94.5

    98.2

    96.9

    98.4

    96.8

    98.1

    88.1

    Circle and Hammersmith

    90.9

    93.0

    91.4

    89.7

    81.8

    86.3

    86.0

    District

    96.0

    98.3

    97.4

    97.0

    92.9

    91.6

    94.2

    Jubilee

    96.4

    98.0

    97.5

    92.7

    89.2

    93.9

    95.7

    East London

    97.3

    97.3

    92.7

    95.7

    94.1

    95.7

    96.1

    Metropolitan

    95.9

    98.0

    97.5

    96.7

    95.0

    93.3

    92.7

    Northern

    94.4

    95.5

    90.2

    94.9

    96.5

    98.2

    96.0

    Piccadilly

    93.5

    92.9

    89.5

    90.9

    86.6

    87.2

    91.3

    Victoria

    95.0

    95.1

    96.1

    97.4

    95.8

    95.7

    92.9

    Average all lines

    94.5

    95.5

    93.6

    94.3

    91.6

    92.9

    91.1

    Ports
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the change in(a) total trade, (b) tanker trade, (c) container trade

    UKport traffic 1998–2002

    Million

    Annual%

    Million

    Annual%

    Million

    Annual%

    Million

    Annual%

    tonnes

    change

    tonnes

    change

    tonnes

    change

    tonnes

    change

    1998

    569

    -

    286

    -

    47

    -

    119

    -

    1999

    566

    -1

    288

    -

    50

    6

    113

    -5

    2000

    573

    1

    294

    2

    52

    4

    114

    1

    2001

    566

    -1

    277

    -6

    52

    -

    124

    9

    2002

    558

    -1

    273

    -1

    51

    -1

    116

    -7

    1Includes Ro-Ro traffic and other general cargo

    Mr. Stephen O'Brien
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of spending on infrastructure in UK ports in each of the next five years. [140944]

    Mr. Jamieson
    The information requested is not available.
    160W
    1996 could be provided only at disproportionate time and cost. London Underground has provided the following:

    Mr. McNulty
    London Underground (LU) transferred from Central Government to Transport for London on 15 July. The information for the years before 1996 could be provided only at disproportionate time and cost. London Underground has provided the following:

    and (d) dry bulk trade in UK ports in each of the (i) next and (ii) last five years. [140943]

    Mr. Jamieson
    The available information is provided in the table.

    Road Noise
    Mr. Robathan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what systems are in place to ensure that road renewal schemes are prioritised for funding according to the number of people who suffer greater than 65 decibels levels of noise. [140804]
    161W
    Mr. Jamieson
    Local roads are a matter for the relevant local authority. As far as the strategic road network in England is concerned low noise surfaces will generally be used as a matter of course when maintenance is due. And the Secretary of State announced to the House on 1 April 2003 that we expect quieter surfacing to have been installed on over 60 per cent. of the trunk road network, including all concrete stretches, within the period of the 10 year plan. Following consultation, we announced that four criteria would be used to prioritise the resurfacing of concrete roads. They are:Wherever possible, the application of quieter surfaces will fit in with normal maintenance needs;
    Priority will be given to those sites where treatment would benefit the greatest number of people;
    The works will be carried out in such a way as to minimise disruption to the general public and other users of the network; and
    Priority will be given to roads opened since June 1988 where actual noise levels have turned out to be significantly higher than predicted at the time of the public inquiry.

    Road Safety
    Dr. Murrison
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies his Department has(a) conducted and (b) commissioned to assess the effect on road safety of removing white lining on rural roads; and if he will make a statement. [141039]

    Mr. Jamieson
    The Department's view is that road markings make an important contribution to road safety on inter-urban rural roads by clearly defining the path to be followed, by separating conflicting movements and by delineating the road edge on unlit roads at night.

    The Department has collaborated in a joint European project on road markings and their effect on driver behaviour, in which 15 countries pooled their research resources. This established, among other findings, that drivers on inter-urban rural roads find it difficult to steer accurately at night if they cannot see the road markings sufficiently far ahead.

    With regard to rural villages, the Department commissioned TRL to monitor a traffic management scheme in Stiffkey, Norfolk which included the removal of centre lines. We have also commissioned the "Drivers and Traffic Calming" project to examine the effect of psychological (non-physical) traffic calming measures in both urban and village locations, some of which involve the removal of white lines.

    Mr. Clifton-Brown
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research the Government has undertaken into the(a) cost and (b) safety-effectiveness of different types of crash barriers to prevent cross-over accidents. [142010]

    Mr. Jamieson
    Extensive research was undertaken during the 1980s, which contributed to the decision to introduce central reserve barrier onto the trunk road network in 1986. The majority of product placed on the network at that time was tensioned steel barrier. More recently, different types of barrier have been placed on the network, including wire-rope and concrete barrier. Data obtained from the in-service performance of these 162W
    products over time is now being used to support research into the cost and safety-effectiveness of different types of central reserve barrier.

    The research is considering the performance characteristics of different barrier types, as well as the whole life construction, maintenance, repair and replacement costs, including traffic delay costs and safety risks to operatives carrying out the work. This research is expected to be completed in early 2004 and will help in the understanding of how to prevent cross-over accidents.

    Shipping
    Mr. Carmichael
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps his Department is taking to protect the shipping industry from terrorist attack. [140667]

    Mr. Jamieson
    Maritime issues continue to be high on the Government's security agenda. Mandatory maritime security requirements were first introduced under the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990, and the industry has been subject to security regulation since then. Inspectors carry out monitoring and compliance inspections, both in the UK and overseas, to ensure that security measures are properly implemented.

    Following the events of 11 September 2001 all transport security programmes were reviewed and enhanced and they are kept under continuous review in light of the prevailing threat. While we can never be complacent, we believe that the core policies, baseline measures and the current levels of security required are appropriate to the current situation. For obvious reasons, it is not our practice to detail the required security measures.

    The national regime will be augmented next year with the implementation of the International Maritime Organisation's (IMO) global maritime security regime. The security assessments and security plans that are required by the IMO's International Ship and Port Facility Security Code (ISPS Code) are designed to identify and address existing vulnerabilities.

    The UK's existing maritime security regime, the ISPS Code requirements and a forthcoming EU Regulation are being drawn together to form the basis of a new National Maritime Security Programme. This programme will include both mandatory security measures and industry best practice guidelines and will provide a consistent, holistic approach to further enhance the security of the maritime sector.

    Mr. Carmichael
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his Answer of 1 December 2003,Official Report, column 7W, on shipping, which flags are flown by the ships that use the tonnage tax scheme but do not fly the red ensign; and what requirements these ships are required to meet to qualify for this tax scheme. [142405]

    Mr. Jamieson
    The following flags, other than Red Ensign, have ships in tonnage tax:Barbados, Bahamas, Germany, Antigus & Barbuda, Liberia, Panama, Hong Kong, Norway, Ireland, Netherlands Antilles, Singapore, Japan, Denmark, St. Vincent, Marshall Islands, Netherlands and Luxembourg.
    163W
    To qualify for the tonnage tax scheme ships must be seagoing, at least 100 gross tons, and used for:
    Carriage of passengers, or
    Carriage of cargo, or
    Towage, salvage or other marine assistance, or
    Transport in connection with other service of a kind necessarily provided at sea.

    They must also be operated by companies within corporation tax that are "strategically and commercially" managed in the UK.

    Single-hulled Tankers
    Mr. Carmichael
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to provide compensation to ship owners phasing out single-hulled tankers. [140665]

    Mr. Jamieson
    None.

    Speeding
    Mr. Donohoe
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many drivers were disqualified from driving as a consequence of accumulation of points on their driving licence for speeding in(a) 2000, (b) 2001 and (c) 2002.[141464]

    Ms Blears
    I have been asked to reply.

    Information collected centrally on the Home Office Court Proceedings database does not separately identify the individual motoring offence by which a driver is disqualified as a result of "totting up" of points on their driving licence under s.35 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

  CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

    Broadcasting (Children)
    Mr. Don Foster
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what measures her Department has put in place to safeguard children's radio; and if she will make a statement; [141406]

    (2) what discussions her Department has held with (a) the BBC, (b) commercial broadcasters and (c)other bodies on the establishment of a designated children's digital radio channel. [141407]

    Estelle Morris
    The licensing of commercial radio services is a matter for the Radio Authority and, from 29 December, Ofcom. This Department has therefore had no discussions about establishing a designated children's radio channel. The authority as already licensed a number of digital radio services for children and one of the community radio pilot services is a children's service. In the case of the BBC, Charter Review will provide the occasion for an examination of all aspects of the Corporation's activities, including its role in relation to children and young people.

    Mr. Don Foster
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions her Department has held with Ofcom on the(a) rights and (b) needs of children in broadcasting.[141408]
    164W
    Estelle Morris
    Ofcom is due to assume the majority of its regulatory functions only on 29 December. To date, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has written to the Chairman of Ofcom asking him to consider proposals for strengthening the existing code on advertising food to children and to inform her of Ofcom's plans to promote greater media literacy among children.

    Digital Television
    Mr. Wiggin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport whether BBC Freeview digital television transmitted from English transmission sites to Wales will automatically carry Welsh regional channels. [140816]

    Estelle Morris
    Digital Terrestrial signals from English sites do not carry Welsh regional channels at present. The BBC broadcasts Welsh regional variations to all parts of the UK on digital satellite.

    Mr. Gamier
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many digital television transmitters are operating in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland; and how many people have access to digital television (i) in the UK and (ii) in Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland. [141505]

    Estelle Morris
    There are 80 Digital transmitters serving the UK as a whole. In Leicestershire, there is one digital transmitter in Waltham, serving much of the central, north and east of the county. Some parts of the west of the county are also served by signals from the Sutton Coldfield transmitter.

    In the UK, 98 per cent. of households have access to digital television by one platform or another and this figure is representative of the coverage in Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland. The Independent Television Commission are not able to provide area-by-area figures of total digital coverage.

    Mr. Garnier
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans has she to increase free access to digital television in(a)the United Kingdom and (b) Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland. [141506]

    Estelle Morris
    The Government are committed to ensuring that everyone who can currently receive analogue television signals will be able to receive them digitally after switchover. A Digital Television Action plan has been produced jointly with broadcasters and other stakeholders. This sets out a series of specific actions for Government and the stakeholders collectively to work towards to achieve the switchover criteria.

    According to the Independent Television Commission (ITC), around 73.1 per cent. of households are currently able to receive all of the free-to-view channels available on the Digital Terrestrial Television (DTT) network. Broadcasters are committed to increasing DTT coverage, but cannot do so until digital switchover.
    165W
    Mr. Carmichael
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate she has made of the number of pensioners over 75 who will be charged for the new viewing card. [141914]

    Estelle Morris
    This information is not available as these figures are not currently collected.

    Legislation
    Mr. Redwood
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many pages of(a) primary and (b) secondary legislation her Department put through Parliament in 2002–03. [141125]

    Mr. Caborn
    The information is as follows:

    (a) My Department sponsored two Bills (one jointly with the Department of Trade and Industry) during the 2002–03 session, which made a total of 765 pages once enacted. (This answer excludes Private Members' Bills.)

    (b) In the case of secondary legislation, my Department was responsible, during the 2002–03 session, for the making of 13 General Statutory Instruments, which would have been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. These instruments made a total of 33 pages.

    Mr. Redwood
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what percentage of(a) primary and (b) secondary legislation sponsored by her Department in 2002–03 was to implement EU requirements. [141172]

    Mr. Caborn
    The information is as follows:

    (a) As regards primary legislation sponsored by my Department during the 2002–03 session, none of the provisions for which my Department was responsible implemented EU requirements. This answer excludes the provisions in the Communications Act which were the responsibility of the Department of Trade and Industry. It also excludes provisions in that Act which were the responsibility of my Department, but which re-enacted previous provisions implementing EC requirements.

    (b) As regards secondary legislation for which my Department was responsible during the 2002–03 session, one statutory instrument of four pages implemented EC requirements. This equated roughly to 12 per cent. of the secondary legislation which my Department was responsible for making during the period (calculated by reference to the total number of pages of such secondary legislation).

    Meridian TV
    Mr. Waterson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions she has had with the Regulator on Meridian TV's intention of moving its Maidstone operations to Southampton. [141932]

    Estelle Morris
    This is an issue for the Independent Television Commission.

    Nosterfield (Prehistoric Remains)
    Miss McIntosh
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what representations she has received on the complex of prehistoric remains near 166W
    Nosterfield in North Yorkshire, which include three large henges; and whether the henges are scheduled ancient monuments; [141444]

    (2) what action she takes to preserve important megalithic monuments; [141445]

    (3) if she will instruct English Heritage to take urgent steps to provide adequate legal protection for the whole of the setting of the Thornborough henge site to ensure that the planning authority (a) recognises and (b) will be obliged to take into account the national importance of the site. [141447]

    Mr. Caborn
    A number of representations have been received both at DCMS and at English Heritage from a diverse range of organisations.

    Most important megalithic monuments are scheduled as ancient monuments and as such are protected from uncontrolled disturbance by the provisions of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979. Additional protection is provided by the Government's Planning Policy Guidance on Archaeology and Planning (PPG 16).

    The site is Scheduled as an Ancient Monument under the title of "Earth circles, cursus, pit alignments and burial sites near Nosterfield and Thornborough, including Centre Hill round barrow, Hambleton, North Yorkshire—County Monument No. 36".

    English Heritage is concerned about the wider landscape setting of the henge monuments and is currently funding a project by Newcastle University to undertake extensive archaeological research in this area. My Officials are supporting English Heritage's firm opposition to any further gravel extraction in the vicinity of the scheduled site until the research is completed, and the archaeology is better understood.

    Rugby League
    Mr. Woodward
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what support the Government are offering to Rugby League in(a) St. Helens and (b) Merseyside. [141293]

    Mr. Caborn
    Since 1995, Rugby League in St. Helens has received one Community Capital award for changing rooms at Portico and Grange Park Junior Amateur RLFC of £8,720, one Safer Sports Ground award to St. Helens RLFC for £30,876 and over £39,200 in Awards for All grants for 10 projects.

    In addition to this, Rugby League in Merseyside has received two Awards for All grants totalling £9,800.

    Sports Expenditure
    Mr. Gardiner
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) how much per head of population has been spent by the Government on promoting and facilitating sport and physical activity in(a) 2001, (b) 2002 and (c) 2003; [140496]

    (2) how much per head of population has been spent by her Department on promoting and facilitating sport and physical activity in (a) 2001, (b) 2002 and (c)2003. [140498]
    167W
    Mr. Caborn
    The following table sets out the total government funding directly attributable for sport per capita in England.

    Exchequer

    Population

    Exchequer

    funding

    totals

    funding per

    (£ million)

    (million)

    capita (£)

    2000–01

    39.8

    49.1

    0.81

    2001–02

    47.7

    49.3

    0.97

    2002–03

    103.5

    49.5

    2.09

    The Department for Culture Media and Sport's funding for sport and physical activity in 2000–01 was £39.8 million, in 2001–02 was £47.7 million and in 2002–03 was £103.5 million. These figures do not reflect the grant in aid funding which the Department provides to UK Sport.

    The Department for Education and Skills investment in specialist sports colleges for 2000–01 was £9.5 million, in 2001–02 was £14.6 million and on 2002–03 was £23.4 million. However this funding is for the provision of sport and also contributes to raising standards across the curriculum.

    The information for the Department of Health is not available. The amount spent by Primary Care Trusts on the promotion of physical activity from the devolved Department of Health budgets is not known centrally.

    Sport also receives significant funding from Central Government mainly through local government block grant, as noted in "Game Plan: a strategy for delivering the Government's sport and physical activity objectives", a joint Department for Culture, Media and Sport and Strategy Unit Report published in December 2002, page 33. This spending is not centrally recorded on a consistent basis, but "Game Plan" suggested that in 1999–2000 £1,015 million was spent on sport and physical activity by local government as part of their block grant.

    Television Reception
    Gregory Barker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate she has made of the proportion of the population of East Sussex who are able to receive(a) Channel 4 and (b) Channel 5 through terrestrial television. [140964]

    Estelle Morris
    Terrestrial coverage for Channel 4 and Five has not been calculated on the basis of county boundaries. However, coverage figures for the whole of the UK are 99.4 per cent. for Channel 4 and 80 per cent. for Five. In Sussex, neither of the main transmitters at Dover and Heathfield are able to transmit Five and coverage is therefore very limited.

  DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

    Government Grant (Havering)
    Mr. Rosindell
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much central Government money the London Borough of Havering received per citizen in 2002–03. [141722]
    168W
    Phil Hope
    The London Borough of Havering received £722.46 per head in central Government grant in 2002–03.

    This includes the 2002–03 Revenue Support Grant (RSG) and Redistributed Business Rates (NNDR) distributed by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and information on special and specific grants within AEF supplied by the London Borough of Havering to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on their Revenue Summary form (RS 2002/03).

    The mid-2000 population estimates for Havering have then been used to work out the amount of grant per head. These population estimates were those used in the calculation of the 2002/03 RSG and NNDR.

    Home Ownership Task Force
    Martin Linton
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when the Home Ownership Task Force will report on the range of programmes helping people into home ownership. [141311]

    Keith Hill
    The Home Ownership Task Force's report, "A Home of My Own", was published on 13 November 2003. Copies of the report and executive summary are available on the Housing Corporation's website at: www.housingcorp.gov.uk

    The Task Force looked at the whole range of programmes aimed at helping social tenants and others into home ownership and has put forward 45 recommendations to assist in the delivery of affordable housing to those on modest incomes. These include advising on new frameworks for a low cost home ownership programme, how to provide better information and advice and sustainable home ownership.

    The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is taking forward four of the recommendations relating to the Right to Buy in the Housing Bill. We will be considering the other recommendations in more detail and responding in the New Year.

    Learning and Skills Councils
    Mr. Hammond
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what discussions his Department has held with the Department for Education and Skills on the possible transfer of responsibilities and funding from learning and skills councils to regional development agencies. [141255]

    Jacqui Smith
    I have been asked to reply.

    Sponsorship of the Regional Development Agencies transferred to the Department of Trade and Industry in June 2001. The Department has had no discussions with the Department for Education and Skills on the possible transfer of responsibilities and funding from the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) to Regional Development Agencies (RDAs). It is not the Government's intention to transfer responsibilities and funding from one body to another, as the approach set out in the Government's Skills Strategy published in July this year makes clear. Instead we have made it clear that we expect RDAs and local LSCs to work together.
    169W
    RDAs and local LSCs have been working together in a number of areas on regional skills pilots, which are looking at pooling and co-ordinating funding.

    Further, as part of the Skills Strategy, the Government has asked RDAs and their partners to work up proposals for Regional Skills Partnerships which will enable RDAs, local LSCs, and other stakeholders with an interest in skills, to work more effectively together to deliver employment, skills and business support, and to improve flexibility and responsiveness to the skills needs of employers and individuals.

    New Millennium Experience Company
    Alan Keen
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what he estimates the surplus will be of the unutilised grant, which is expected to result from the solvent liquidation of the New Millennium Experience Company. [140491]

    Keith Hill
    This is a matter for the Millennium Commission as grant-funder. However, I understand that it is currently estimated that the surplus of unutilised grant, resulting from the solvent liquidation of the New Millennium Experience Company, is expected to be £25 million.

    Quasi-Judicial Decisions
    Mr. Viggers
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what factors are taken into account when he takes a decision in a quasi-judicial capacity; and how these differ from the factors he takes into account in decisions taken normally. [141925]

    Keith Hill
    Quasi-judicial powers are administrative powers which must be exercised in accordance with the rules of natural justice. In taking quasi-judicial decisions, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister must act and be seen to act fairly and even-handedly, by bringing an unbiased and properly directed mind to his consideration of the matter. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister must take into account all relevant matters and not take into account irrelevant ones. These factors do not necessarily differ from the factors to be taken into account in other decisions but there may be a different degree of scrutiny by the courts.

    Renewable Energy
    Mr. Stunell
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what representations he has received on Merton Borough Council's policy PE14 on renewable energy, formally adopted on 31 October; and if he will make a statement. [141381]

    Keith Hill
    As the hon. Member will know, Merton's UDP policy PE14 (now renumbered PE13 in the Plan as adopted) encourages the incorporation of various environmentally friendly measures into buildings, and indicates that:"all new non-residential development above a threshold of 1,000 square metres will be expected to incorporate renewable energy production equipment to provide at least 10 per cent. of predicted energy requirements".

    This policy was introduced into the Plan in post-inquiry modifications, an objection was made. Representations were made to the Office of the Deputy
    170W
    Prime Minister by Councillor Andrew Judge, Council Leader of the London Borough of Merton, and from Rebecca Willis, of the Green Alliance, with members of the Energy Entrepreneurs Network as co-signatories. In both cases the representations pointed out that a viability test had been introduced by the Council to address the Government's concerns, and asked that the Government should not intervene to direct the removal of the policy from the Plan.

  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Colombia
    Clare Short
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what military aid is being provided to Colombia; and of what(a) type and (b) value. [141508]

    Mr. Ingram
    I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 16 October 2003, Official Report, column 322W, to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock).

    Ethiopia
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to implement sanctions against Ethiopia in the event that it does not accept the Algiers agreement; and if he will make a statement. [140917]

    Mr. Mullin
    We have underlined to the Ethiopian authorities that the Boundary Commission's decision on the border, provided for in the Algiers Agreement, is final and binding. We are working with the rest of the international community to encourage Ethiopia and Eritrea to begin a political dialogue on all the issues separating the two countries, including the implementation of the Boundary Commission's decision. The Government have no current plans to implement sanctions against Ethiopia.

    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent meetings he has had to discuss ways of preventing the border dispute between Ethiopia and Eritrea escalating. [140918]

    Mr. Mullin
    When I met the Ethiopian ambassador on 16 October, I emphasised to him that the Boundary Commission's decision is final and binding and that dialogue is essential for the normalisation of relations between Eritrea and Ethiopia. I conveyed this same message to the Eritrean ambassador at a meeting on 25 November and to the Eritrean Foreign Minister at a meeting on 1 December.

    Jeremy Corbyn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what actions have been undertaken by his Department to ensure that the Commission's resolutions on the future border between Ethiopia and Eritrea are adhered to; and if he will make a statement. [141618]

    Mr. Mullin
    We have emphasised to both parties that the Boundary Commission's decisions are final and binding. The Government are working with other
    171W
    members of the international community to encourage Ethiopia and Eritrea to begin a political dialogue on all the issues separating the two countries.

    EU Constitutional Treaty
    Mr. Spring
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many copies of the proposed EU Constitutional Treaty have been purchased by(a) Government bodies and (b) others. [140802]

    Mr. MacShane
    In August 2003 the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Command Paper 5897 The `Draft Constitutional Treaty on the European Union', which included a full copy of the text, was published by the Stationery Office. 53 copies of the paper were subsequently purchased by the FCO; some of which were forwarded to other Government Departments. In total 729 copies have been sold by the Stationery Office.

    Copies of the draft Treaty are also available free of charge from the European Commission.

    European Constitution
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the additional policy areas to be subject to majority voting in the latest draft of the European Constitution. [140897]

    Mr. MacShane
    The latest redraft of the Constitution, in CIG 50/03, does not include any fundamental changes to the Convention text, but does incorporate some legal clarifications on the basis of the work of Council lawyers.

    The Presidency have issued some proposals for amendment in CIG 52/1/03. These are still under discussion. They include a new proposal for the use of qualified majority voting when adopting a European decision on a proposal put forward by the European Foreign Minister. The British Government have made it clear that they cannot accept this proposal.

    European Union Accounts
    Mr. Blizzard
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his response to the refusal of auditors to approve the accounts of the European Union. [140819]

    Mr. MacShane
    It is disappointing that the Court of Auditors (EGA) has again been unable to give a positive Statement of Assurance, though we note that the ECA did find the accounts to be reliable overall, as it has every year. We will be working with the ECA to address the specific problems they identified. But it is important to note that revenue, commitments, administrative expenditure and pre-accession aid did receive a positive Statement of Assurance. In addition, it noted improvements in the management of the agriculture budget, especially in the area of payments and in the Integrated Administration and Control System. The Government believes that the entry into force of the new Financial Regulation on 1 January 2003 will produce further improvements in financial management and accountability. The ECA also commented favourably on the progress made to reform financial management in the Commission—and noted the ambitious timetable 172W
    for this. We expect the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee to debate the report in the usual way in February 2004.

    Food Supplements
    Mr. Stunell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the EU meetings held in 2003 which(a) Ministers and (b) officials from the Department have attended where the maximum permitted level of nutrients in food supplements was discussed; and if he will make a statement. [141410]

    Mr. MacShane
    The Food Supplements Directive 2002 lays out a framework for the setting of maximum permitted levels of vitamins and minerals in food supplements. Following this, the European Commission has to make a proposal listing EU maximum permitted levels for vitamins and minerals in food supplements. It has not yet done so and we do not expect it to do so for another two-three years. Until such time it is unlikely that there will be any EU meetings dedicated to the discussion of these levels and there have been none in 2003.

    The UK has taken every opportunity to argue that maximum levels should be set on the basis of food safety. In 2003, Food Standards Agency officials attended two scientific meetings at which maximum permitted levels were discussed in the context of risk assessment.

    Iraq
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs upon what evidence the claims that foreign fighters are operating in Iraq were made; how many he estimates are involved; what their countries of origin are; and if he will make a statement. [140907]

    Mr. Rammell
    We have received reports that foreign fighters from a range of countries are operating in Iraq. The Government have urged Iraq's neighbours to tighten up security and border controls to deny terrorists access to Iraq. I am withholding details of the Government's estimate of the number of foreign terrorists in Iraq under Exemptions 1 and 2 of Part 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

    Mr. Woodward
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the average(a) level and (b) number of hours of supply of electricity to the Shi'a population of Iraq (i) before and (ii) after the conflict. [141280]

    Hilary Benn
    I have been asked to reply.

    Information on electricity supplies in Iraq is not collected on the basis of religious or ethnic groupings. The power system in southern and central Iraq particularly has suffered from a lack of maintenance over many years and since the conflict has suffered looting and sabotage. Nevertheless, good progress has been made with the restoration of power supplies so far. Power capacity in Iraq peaked in early October 2003 at 4,518MW, surpassing the pre-war level of 4,400MW. This peak level has been temporarily reduced to allow necessary long-term repairs and planned maintenance to take place.
    173W
    The majority of the Shi'a population are located in the South of the country and supply levels in Basrah are now generally equalling or exceeding the pre-conflict supply levels of approximately 20 hours per day. DFID is currently supporting an Emergency Infrastructure Project in the South, which is further strengthening the power supplies to key installations. This $30 million project forms part of a wider Essential Infrastructure Programme (totalling $127 million), which is being managed by the Coalition Provisional Authority.

    Somalia
    Jeremy Corbyn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contacts with organisations representing people in Somalia are maintained by his Department; and what visits have been made by members of his Department to Somalia in the past year. [141617]

    Mr. Mullin
    My officials meet regularly with members of the Somali Diaspora and with key Somali figures visiting the UK. Our ambassador in Addis Ababa and other UK officials visited Somaliland most recently on 10 to 14 November 2003.

    Jeremy Corbyn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have been held with(a) the Administration of Somaliland and (b) the Organisation of African Unity concerning future recognition by the UK. [141616]

    Mr. Mullin
    I have met with Mrs. Edna Adan, foreign affairs spokesperson for the Somaliland authorities, and expressed the hope that a mutually acceptable solution on the future status of Somaliland can be agreed between Somaliland and the south.

    I have not held discussions with the African Union on this issue.

    Uzbekistan
    Mr. Pope
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when HM ambassador to Uzbekistan will return to Tashkent. [140936]

    Mr. Rammell
    I do not know. The ambassador, Craig Murray, returned to the UK for medical treatment. It would be inappropriate to comment further on a private matter.

    Western European Union
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the effects of dissolving the Western European Union; and if he will make a statement. [141353]

    Mr. MacShane
    The Council of the Western European Union at Marseille in November 2000 agreed on a number of measures "designed to address the consequences for the WEU of the changes under way", particularly the evolution of ESDP. This included putting into place residual functions and structures for the WEU. There have been no decisions to dissolve the WEU. The focus of EU Partners and NATO Allies has been primarily on strengthening European security arrangements through ESDP and the NATO/EU 174W
    permanent agreements. WEU nations may want to look again at its structures and functions in the light of the outcome of the EU Inter-Governmental Conference.

    Western Sahara
    Jeremy Corbyn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have been held with the governments of(a) Morocco and (b) the United Nations concerning resolution of the problems faced by the Saharwi people. [141646]

    Mr. Rammell
    [holding answer 3 December 2003]We regularly discuss the situation in Western Sahara with our contacts at all levels in the Moroccan Government and the United Nations.

    My noble Friend Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean discussed Western Sahara with the Moroccan Deputy Foreign Minister Fassi-Fihri when she visited Morocco on 15–17 September 2003.

    British officials in Morocco. Algeria and at the United Nations in New York have, in recent months, held discussions on this issue with the UN Secretary-General's Special Representative for Western Sahara, Mr. Alvaro de Soto.

  HEALTH

    Cancer Care
    Mr. Ben Chapman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the demand for proton therapy at the Clatterbridge Centre for Oncology in the next 10 years. [140548]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    The responsibility for assessing future demand of specialised services such as proton therapy at the Clatterbridge Centre for Oncology lies with primary care trusts. The commissioning and assessment demand arrangements around the country differ. Patients come from all over the country to receive proton therapy at the Clatterbridge Centre for Oncology, and in 2003–04, the number receiving treatment will be in the region of 80. This includes a very small number of patients who are treated privately.

    Care Homes
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many residential care(a) homes and (b) places there were in the Portsmouth Unitary Authority area in each year since 2001. [141355]

    Dr. Ladyman
    The number of residential care homes in the Portsmouth Unitary Authority at 31 March 2001 was 140 and the number of places was 1,600.

    Figures for later years have been collected by the National Care Standards Commission, but comparable details broken down by authority are not available.

    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nursing care(a) homes and (b) beds there were in the Portsmouth and south-east Hampshire health authority area in each year since 2001. [141356]
    175W
    Dr. Ladyman
    The number of nursing care homes in the Portsmouth and south-east Hampshire health authority at 31 March 2001 was 60 and the number of places was 1,690.

    Figures for later years have been collected by the National Care Standards Commission, but comparable details broken down by authority are not available.

    Mr. McLoughlin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) residential care homes and (b) nursing home places were available in West Derbyshire in each year since 1997, broken down into places available at (i) local authority-run homes, (ii) independent private homes and (iii) homes run by independent charities and other not-for-profit organisations. [141453]

    Dr. Ladyman
    The table shows the number of care home places by type of accommodation available in the Derbyshire area as at 31 March for the years 1997 to 2001.

    Figures for later years have been collected by the National Care Standards Commission, but comparable details broken down by local authority are not available.

    Data are not available for West Derbyshire.

    Number of care home places in the Derbyshire area by type of accommodation at 31 March 1997 to 2001

    Residential homes1

    Nursing homes2

    At 31 March

    Local Authority

    Private

    Voluntary

    Small

    Independent

    1997

    1,760

    3,410

    750

    330

    4,550

    1998

    1,490

    3,570

    750

    210

    4,500

    1999

    1,380

    4,110

    810

    340

    4,590

    2000

    1,470

    4,010

    720

    220

    4,310

    2001

    1,470

    3,980

    650

    210

    4,260

    Notes

    1. In 1997 this covers Derbyshire local authority. From 1998 onwards Derbyshire local authority re-organised into Derby City and Derbyshire local authorities.

    2. Includes North Derbyshire and South Derbyshire health authorities.

    3. Independent registered care homes with less than four places.

    Source

    KO36, RA and RH(N)

    Community Pharmacies
    Dr. Murrison
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the implications for the workload of community pharmacies of delivering over-the-counter statins; [141042]

    (2)what consultation he has had with pharmacists on the dispensing of over-the-counter statins; [141043]

    (3)what checks will be carried out by pharmacists dispensing over-the-counter statins; [141044]

    (4)what assessment he has made of the number of lives likely to be saved each year through over-the-counter availability of statins. [141045]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    No assessment is routinely made by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) on the workload of community pharmacists when the legal status of a product is changed from a prescription only medicine to a176W
    pharmacy only medicine, nor when a product changes from a pharmacy only medicine to general sale list availability.

    The consultation document (ARM 18) on a proposal to allow simvastatin 10mg to be available over the counter through pharmacies rather than on a prescription has been distributed widely, including to the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (RPSGB) and the National Pharmaceutical Association (NPA). All pharmacists have been made aware of the consultation exercise via the Pharmaceutical Journal, which directed pharmacists to the consultation document displayed on the MHRA's website. At the end of the consultation period, the responses received will be considered by the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) which will advise Ministers.

    The applicant company for the proposal to supply simvastatin 10mg over the counter is proposing to conduct a pre-launch pilot study in a number of pharmacies to test the feasibility of the pharmacy protocol. This will provide valuable information about the supply of the product, will highlight areas for improvement and will test the overall feasibility of pharmacy availability. The proposed protocol, including a questionnaire, will be introduced for first time purchasers of simvastatin 10mg to be completed at the start of the supply process. It is proposed that the questionnaire focuses initially on age and then where appropriate, other risk factors for Coronary heart Disease (CHD) i.e. age (if below 55), family history, smoking, ethnicity, obesity. Based on the responses to the questionnaire, the pharmacist will be able to identify individuals for whom simvastatin 10mg would be suitable. An education and training package is being developed to support the pharmacist in the sale and supply of simvastatin 1Omg. Pharmacy bodies including the RPSGB, the NPA and the Centre for Postgraduate Pharmacy Education (CPPE) are being consulted on this material.

    The RPSGB's code of ethics and standards sets out the professional standards all pharmacists are expected to follow when dispensing medicines against a prescription or when selling pharmacy medicines. The code is published as part of the Society's Medicines, Ethics and Practice, A Guide for Pharmacists which is available on its website at www.rpsgb.org.uk.

    Pharmacists will be able to offer cholesterol testing to people who choose to take up this option. The CSM has advised that it is beneficial to reduce cholesterol levels regardless of the starting level of cholesterol. The safety profile of statins at a low dose is such that CSM advised that there is no need for routine liver function tests once treatment has started.

    The number of lives likely to be saved each year through over-the-counter availability of statins will depend on the level of take up of the product that would not otherwise he available on prescription. Individual risk reduction could be by as much as a third after three years of treatment.

    Contaminated Blood
    Mr. Brady
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether his Department's ex-gratia payments to people with haemophilia infected with hepatitis C will extend to
    177W
    (a) those co-infected with HIV, (b) those who have cleared the virus through treatment and (c) the families of those who have died from hepatitis C. [141250]

    Charles Hendry
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the money allocated to compensate victims of contaminated blood will be spent; and if he will make a statement.[140636]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    The details of the hepatitis C ex gratia payment scheme are being worked out. We expect to announce the scheme's eligibility criteria and payment structure shortly.

    Dental Practice Board
    Mr. Waterson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will announce the result of the Lyons Review, with particular reference to its conclusions on the future location of the Dental Practice Board. [141586]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    The Department is considering the options for relocation in the light of the Lyons Review. These will need to be taken in the light of the review of the Department's arms' length bodies which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, announced at the Health Select Committee on 30 October 2003 and which it is expected will reach its conclusions by the middle of next year.

    Diabetes
    Tim Loughton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what diagnostic methods are available on the NHS to allow diabetics to monitor their blood sugar levels; [141153]

    (2) whether he intends that provision of blood glucose test strips will remain available on the NHS in the long term. [141154]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    There are two types of diagnostic methods available on the National Health Service that allow people with diabetes to self-monitor their blood glucose levels. These are blood glucose testing strips and urine testing strips.

    Blood glucose testing strips will remain available on the NHS for the foreseeable future and I am not aware of any plans to remove them from NHS prescriptions.

    Tim Loughton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what further steps he will take to ensure that(a) diabetics are able to make an informed choice on the types of insulin available and (b) that healthcare providers advise patients of the risks and benefits of different types of insulin. [141160]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    Patient education, information and empowerment is central to the values of the national service framework for diabetes standards published in 2001. Standard Three states:"that all people with diabetes will receive a service that encourages partnership in decision-making and supports them in managing their diabetes, and helps them adopt a healthy lifestyle".
    This would include, for those requiring it, information about insulin.
    178W
    Full guidance on prescribing and use of synthetic insulins, including possible side effects, is provided in the product information for prescribers and patients.

    Drug Prescribing
    Tim Loughton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS prescriptions for(a) Aricept, (b) Concerta XL and (c) Risperidone have been made in 2003; and what additional funds have been made available for prescription of these drugs.[141071]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    Information on the number of prescription items and net ingredient cost (NIC) of all Aricept, Concerta and Risperidone drugs dispensed in the community in England in 2003 (January to September) is shown in the table.

    National health service bodies are expected to meet the costs of prescriptions from their unified allocations, which have increased on average by over 9 per cent., over the three years starting from 2002–03.

    Number of prescription items for Aricept, Concerts and Risperidone drugs dispensed in the community in England in 2003(January to September 2003 only. Not a full year)

    Chemical name

    Items (000s)

    Donepezil Hydrochloride (Aricept)

    181.3

    Concerta

    93.6

    Risperidone (Risperdal)

    1,019.6

    Notes:1.

    1. Aricept is included in British National Formulary (BNF) Section 4.11 (Drugs for dementia), and is a brand of the chemical entity Donepezil Hydrochloride. Aricept is the only brand. There are no generics available.

    Concerta is included in BNF Section 4.4 (Central nervous system stimulants), and is a brand of the chemical entity Methylphenidate Hydrochloride. Concerta is one of many brands of Methylphenidate Hydrochloride, including the generic. Risperidone is a chemical entity and is included in BNF Section 4.2 (Drugs used in psychoses and related disorders). Risperdal is the only brand of Risperdone, there are no generics available.

    2. The data are based on prescription items dispensed in the community, ie by community pharmacists and appliance contractors, dispensing doctors, and prescriptions submitted by prescribing doctors for items personally administered in England.

    3.The data do not cover drugs dispensed in hospital or private prescriptions.

    4.Doctors, dentists or nurses write prescriptions on a prescription form. Each single item written on the form is counted as a prescription item.

    Source

    Prescription Cost Analysis (PCA) data from the Prescription Pricing Authority

    Flu Deaths
    Mr. McLoughlin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people aged 65 years or over died of influenza in(a) West Derbyshire, (b) East Midlands and(c) the UK in each year since 1997. [141454]

    Ruth Kelly
    I have been asked to reply.

    The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.
    179W
    Letter from Len Cook to Mr. McLoughlin, dated 4 December 2003

    As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking how many people aged 65 years or over have died of influenza in (a) West Derbyshire, (b) East Midlands,
    (c) the UK in each year since 1997. (141454)

    Figures for West Derbyshire parliamentary constituency, East Midlands government office region and the United Kingdom are provided in the table below. The most recent year for which data are available is 2001.

    Numbers of deaths among people aged 65 years and over from influenza,1 1997 to 20012for West Derbyshire parliamentary constituency, East Midlands government office region and the United Kingdom3

    Numbers of deaths

    West

    East

    United

    Derbyshire

    Midlands

    Kingdom

    1997

    -

    21

    413

    1998

    -

    13

    129

    1999

    *

    60

    598

    2000

    *

    43

    630

    2001

    *

    5

    27

    =Zero deaths

    *Fewer than 5 deaths

    1Deaths with an underlying cause of influenza defined using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) code 487 for the years 1997 to 2000 and, for the year 2001, the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes J10 and J11.

    2Figures are for deaths occurring in each calendar year, except for data for Scotland and Northern Ireland included in the United Kingdom totals. These are deaths registered in each calendar year.

    3Deaths of usual residents of these areas.

    Group B Streptococcus
    Mr. Brady
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what analysis he has made of regional variation

    Primary Diagnosis (ICD-10 Q82.0, 189.0, 197.8) Lymphoedema—Counts of Finished In year Admission Episodes by selected Health Authorities of Residence. NHS Hospitals, England 1997–98 to 2001–02

    Health Authority of residence

    1997–98

    1998–99

    1999–2000

    2000–01

    2001–02

    OAK

    East Surrey HA

    3

    6

    4

    2

    3

    QAL

    West Surrey HA

    3

    4

    8

    4

    15

    QA M

    East Sussex Brighton & Hove HA

    46

    10

    25

    48

    22

    QAN

    West Sussex HA

    579

    312

    357

    333

    384

    Notes

    1. Admissions-admissions are defined as the first period of in-patient care under one consultant within one healthcare provider. Please note that admissions do not represent the number of in-patients, as a person may have more than one admission within the year.

    2. Diagnosis (Primary Diagnosis)—the primary diagnosis is the first of up to 14 (seven prior to 2002–03) diagnosis is fields in the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) dataset and provides the main reason why the patient was in hospital.

    3. Grossing—figures are grossed for both coverage and missing/invalid clinical data except 2001–02, which is not yet adjusted for shortfalls.

    Source

    Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health.

    Macular Disease
    Mr. Sheerman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of people with macular disease have been provided with low vision aids on the NHS. [141422]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    Figures are not held centrally on low vision aids provided to people with macular disease.
    180W
    in (a) preventative measures and (b) treatment and care for newborn babies infected with Group B streptococcus. [141252]

    Dr. Ladyman
    No regional analysis has been made.

    Health and Social Care
    Mr. Lansley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish the statement on standards provided for by section 45 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003. [141317]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    [holding answer 2 December 2003]A draft statement of health care standards will be published for public consultation early in 2004.

    Journey Times
    Mr. McLoughlin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average journey time was for patients to the nearest(a) general practitioner surgery, (b) dentist and (c) accident and emergency unit in West Derbyshire in the last 12 months. [141452]

    Dr. Ladyman
    The information requested is not held or collected centrally.

    Lymphoedema
    Tim Loughton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people living within the Adur, Arun and Worthing Primary Care Trust area suffered from lymphoedema in each of the last five years; and how many received treatment. [141145]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    Data are not available by primary care trust (PCT) of residence for the last five years available, nor is it available by strategic heath authority (SHA) of residence. However, the following table shows figures for the four health authorities (HAs) which were merged to form Surrey and Sussex SHA, for which Adur, Arun and Worthing PCT is part.

    Low vision aids are available free on loan, to any person requiring them. It is for local areas to decide how best to organise their low vision services. Most services are provided in a hospital setting by the hospital eye service, who will assess the needs of the individual and provide any necessary low vision aids, this could be in the form of strong reading glasses, magnifiers or telescopes.
    181W
    The integrating community equipment services initiative, known as ICES, aims to produce better equipment services for people by bringing what were previously separate local national health service and social services equipment services into integrated organisations. Local services have the responsibility for achieving this integration by April 2004.

    Mr. Sheerman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been allocated(a) in England and (b) in the Huddersfield and Kirklees area for the provision of low vision aids for patients suffering from macular disease in the last 12 months. [141423]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    There is no national allocation for low vision aids. It is for local national health service providers to decide how much should be made available to fund low vision aids out of their overall allocations, in light of local needs.

    Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS Trust hold the budget for the provision of low vision aids for Huddersfield patients. In 2003–04 £8,078 was allocated for patients suffering from macular disease. Figures are not available for the Kirklees area.

    Low vision aids are available free on loan, to any person requiring them. It is for local areas to decide how best to organise their low vision services. Most services are provided in a hospital setting by the hospital eye service, who will assess the needs of the individual and provide any necessary low vision aids, this could be in the form of strong reading glasses, magnifiers or telescopes.

    The integrating community equipment services initiative, known as ICES, aims to produce better equipment services for people by bringing what were previously separate local NHS and social services equipment services into integrated organisations. Local services have the responsibility for achieving this integration by April 2004.

    Plano Lenses
    Joan Walley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in re-evaluating the funding status of plano lenses under the national health service for(a) children and (b) adults. [140482]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    Plano tinted lenses may be prescribed by the hospital eye service for patients who have a recognised clinical need for them.

    Although there are indications that some children and adults with reading difficulties may benefit from tinted lenses, these need to be provided as part of a proper scheme of assessment and treatment or many people could receive them unnecessarily. There is a risk otherwise that more appropriate responses to their needs could be delayed while time is taken up investigating tinted lenses.

    Currently, plano tinted lenses are not available under the general ophthalmic services and there are no plans for this to change.
    182W

    Preventive Health Strategies
    Mr. Gardiner
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much per head of population has been spent by his Department on preventive health strategies in(a) 2001, (b) 2002 and (c) 2003.[140501]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    The information requested is not available. Prevention and improving the health of the population are important aspects of the Department's work and feature in many of its activities, including tackling health inequalities, reducing the risks associated with coronary heart disease and cancer, improving sexual health and dealing with substance misuse.

    Sanitary Products
    Mr. Blizzard
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will offer financial support to women for the purchase of sanitary products. [140895]

    Dr. Ladyman
    The Government accept without question that sanitary protection is essential for women's personal hygiene. However, these are not for medical use and cannot be provided on the national health service. To show the Government's willingness to listen to the views and concerns of women throughout the country, VAT on women's sanitary products was cut to five per cent. from January 2001.

    St. Helens Hospitals
    Mr. Woodward
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were treated in hospitals that serve St. Helens in each year since 1992. [141481]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    The information requested is shown in the table.

    St. Helens and Knowsley Health Authority 1996–97 to 2001–02

    Provider

    St. Helens and

    St. Helens and

    Knowsley Hospitals

    Knowsley

    NHS Trust

    Community Trust

    1996–97

    60,622

    11

    1997–98

    61,409

    —

    1998–99

    63,358

    *

    1999–2000

    66,516

    —

    2000–01

    69,157

    —

    2001–02

    68,338

    —

    1. The St. Helens and Knowsley Health Authority came into existence in 1996, but was dissolved in 2001–02 and became part of the Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic Health Authority.

    2. Low numbers—due to reasons of confidentiality, figures between one and five have been suppressed and replaced with '*'.

    Zeros have been replaced by '—'.

    Source

    Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health.

    Mr. Woodward
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent per patient on(a) health care as a whole, (b) general practitioner surgeries and (c) hospitals in (i) St. Helens, (ii) Merseyside and (iii) the North West Region in each year since 1992. [141483]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    The information requested is not collected centrally.

    Suicide
    Charles Hendry
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding is available to voluntary organisations through the National Suicide Strategy; and to which organisations funding has been granted. [140643]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    Resources will be made available both centrally and through the National Institute for Mental Health in England's eight development centres for specific pieces of work to help implementation of the national suicide prevention strategy. No voluntary sector organisations have yet been granted funding through these resources.

    A number of voluntary sector organisations apply for grants under the Section 64 General Scheme. Some of these organisations have a remit that explicitly includes attention to the needs of vulnerable groups who may be at risk of suicide. Information about the Section 64 General Scheme is available on the Department's website at www.doh.gov.uk/sect64/s64. This also includes the full list of currently approved grants.

    Waiting Times
    Mr. McLoughlin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average waiting time for a first consultant appointment was in West Derbyshire in each year since 1997. [141455]

    Dr. Ladyman
    The information requested is shown in the table.

    Average (median) waiting times for first consultant out-patient appointment following G(D)P referral: Western Derbyshire

    Median waiting times (weeks)

    1997–98

    5.80

    1998–99

    5.96

    1999–2000

    6.53

    2000–01

    6.49

    2001–02

    6.67

    2002–03

    5.82

    Note

    For 2002–03, data are taken from High Peak and Dale primary care trust (PCT) and Chesterfield PCT. Prior to this, data are taken from North Derbyshire Health Authority (HA) and Southern Derbyshire HA.

    Source

    Department of Health form QM08R.

    Mr. McLoughlin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the clinical areas where the NHS in West Derbyshire has longer(a) waiting lists and (b) waiting times than the national average.[141456]

    Dr. Ladyman
    The information requested is shown in the tables.

    Patients waiting for elective in-patient admission: Position at 30 September 2003: England, and High Peak and Dales PCT and Chesterfield PCT

    Waiting list per 10,000 head of population

    High Peak and

    Dales PCT and

    Specialty

    England

    Chesterfield PCT

    Trauma and orthopaedics

    51.0

    71.9

    Neurosurgery

    1.3

    2.2

    Gastroenterology

    2.0

    4.4

    Cardiology

    6.3

    7.3

    184W

    Patients waiting for elective in-patient admission: Position at 30 September 2003: England, and High Peak and Dales PCT and Chesterfield PCT

    Waiting list per 10,000 head of population

    High Peak and

    Dales PCT and

    Specialty

    England

    Chesterfield PCT

    >Nephrology

    0.2

    0.7

    Medical oncology

    0.0

    0.1

    Radiology

    0.1

    0.3

    All specialties

    195.2

    200.2

    Source

    Department of Health form QF01.

    Average (median) waiting times for elective in-patient admission: Position at 30 September 2003: England, and High Peak and Dales PCT and Chesterfield PCT

    Median waiting times

    High Peak and Dales PCT and Chesterfield

    Specialty

    England

    PCT

    Trauma and orthopaedics

    3.52

    4.27

    0.75

    Oral surgery

    2.36

    3.00

    0.64

    Neurosurgery

    3.12

    4.40

    1.28

    Cardiology

    2.47

    2.79

    0.33

    Nephrology

    1.92

    2.10

    0.18

    Radiology

    2.33

    6.00

    3.67

    All specialities

    2.71

    2.70

    -0.01

    Source

    Department of Health form QF01.

  EDUCATION AND SKILLS

    Key Stage 1
    14. Mr. Jenkins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to reform assessment methods at Key Stage 1; and if he will make a statement. [141770]

    Mr. Stephen Twigg
    We have developed a new approach to assessment at Key Stage 1. We have asked the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority to trial an approach that uses testing to underpin teacher assessment.

    Teachers will make a rounded assessment of each child, taking into account task and test results and their own judgment on the child's work. 37 LEAs are in the trial. If the trial is successful it will be extended to all schools in the next academic year.

    Student Bursaries
    15.Mr. Joyce
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has for university student bursaries; and if he will make a statement.[141771]

    Alan Johnson
    We have made it clear that universities will need to offer bursaries and other forms of financial support in their access agreement if they want to charge a fee above the standard level. We are considering and discussing the precise contents of access agreements and the duties of the Office for Fair Access and will make a statement in due course.

    School Funding
    16. Michael Fabricant
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the range of funding available through the formula spending share per pupil in local education authorities. [141772]

    Mr. Miliband
    The Government funds a basic amount per pupil, which is the same everywhere, plus top-ups for deprived pupils, again the same amount per pupil wherever they live, and further top up for areas with high recruitment and retention costs. Authorities receiving more through the top-ups receive a higher level of funding per pupil, reflecting their relatively greater need.

    Mr. Luff
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many schools are in education action zones in the current financial year, broken down by local education authority; and what the total funding made available in the current financial year under the programme is in each education authority area; [141460]

    (2) how many schools are in excellence clusters in the current financial year; and what the total funding made available in the current financial year under the programme is in each local education authority area; [141424]

    (3) how many schools benefit from the Excellence in Cities programme in the current financial year, broken down by local education authority; and what the total funding made available in the current financial year under the programme is in each local education authority area; [141425]

    (4) how many schools received leadership incentive grant in the current financial year, broken down by local education authority; and what the total funding made available in the current financial year under the programme is in each local education authority area. [141426]

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

    Tuition Fees
    17. Mr. Woodward
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of(a) flat rate and (b) variable university tuition fees, with particular reference to equity of access. [141773]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    Flat rate fees force all students to pay the same fee, regardless of the quality of their course, the demand for it, and the return they get from it. Fixed fees mean that there would be no Office for Fair Access, no progress on widening access and no bursaries for poorer students; and they continue to subsidise rich students at the expense of poorer ones. Flat fees would also require universities to charge the required amount even where they wished to offer a course at a lower charge. Variable fees suffer none of these drawbacks: they are fairer than flat rate fees.

    Foster Carers
    18. Mr. Kidney
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to increase the number of foster carers; and if he will make a statement. [141774]

    Margaret Hodge
    In March 2002 we launched the Choice Protects Programme which aims to improve placement choice and stability for looked after children. The first tranche of the three year £113 million grant was given to local authorities to expand and strengthen their fostering services. At national level we have taken action to improve foster carers' pension entitlement and tax position. We have commissioned the Fostering Network to produce recruitment guidelines and are developing a publicity pack to help local authority recruitment of foster carers. Both of these will be available early next year.

    The Green Paper, "Every Child Matters", has sought views on radical and imaginative ways of encouraging people to become foster carers and ensuring they are valued and recognised.

    School Funding (North Yorkshire)
    19. Miss McIntosh
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent representations he has received on school funding in North Yorkshire. [141775]

    Mr. Miliband
    My right hon. Friend has received few recent representations about school funding issues in North Yorkshire. On 29 October he announced proposals to restore stability to school funding. Further information about funding for next year was announced on 19 November as part of the provisional Local Government Finance Settlement. In 2004–05 all authorities will see an increase in their School Formula Spending Share of at least 5 per cent. per pupil: North Yorkshire's increase is 6 per cent.

    Admissions Policy
    Mr. Hoban
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidance has been issued to schools on special measures about their admissions policies; and what discretion they have been given on the admission of children who have been excluded from other schools. [141951]

    Mr. Miliband
    The School Admissions Code of Practice states that, exceptionally, admission authorities for schools under special measures or those that have recently come out of them may refuse to admit a challenging child, outside the normal year of entry and where there are places available, on the grounds that admission would prejudice the provision of effective education or the efficient use of resources. This will normally only be appropriate if they already have a particularly high concentration of pupils with challenging behaviour, or the child is particularly challenging,

    Bullying
    Mr. Woodward
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assistance the Government is
    187W
    providing to primary schools to (a) establish student councils, (b) combat bullying and (c) develop anti-bullying (i) strategies and (ii) products. [141719]

    Mr. Ivan Lewis
    The Department has worked with School Councils UK to produce a took it to help primary schools develop effective School Councils. A copy has been sent to every LEA in England.

    Last month I launched the schools' anti-bullying Charter for Action at the first of a series of regional DfES anti-bullying conferences. We hope primary and secondary schools will adopt the Charter or adapt it to create their own. The Charter includes good practice suggestions. We are also producing audit and training materials for primary schools which deal with bullying as well as other aspects of managing behaviour and attendance. These supplement the DfES guidance pack "Bullying: Don't Suffer in Silence" which helps schools develop and implement their anti-bullying policies.

    Debt (Late Payment)
    Brian Cotter
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many claims for statutory interest payments have been submitted to private companies under the terms of the Late Payment of Commercial Debt (Interest) Act 1998; how many claims were met; and what the total value was of such payments in each year since the Act has been in operation. [141598]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    No such claims have been made by my Department.

    Education (North-west)
    Mr. Woodward
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of young people in(a) St. Helens, (b) Merseyside and (c) the North West achieved (i) five or more A*-C GCSE grades and (ii) one or more GCSE passes in (A) 1992, (B) 1997, (C) 2001 and (D) the last year for which figures are available. [141267]

    Mr. Miliband
    The statistical information requested is detailed in the following tables:

    Percentage of 15-year-old pupils1 achieving 5 or more grades A*–C

    Academic year

    St. Helens

    Merseyside

    North West

    1992

    30.5

    28.7

    33.5

    1997

    40.2

    37.1

    41.5

    2001

    45.8

    42.2

    46.1

    2003

    44.8

    46.1

    48.9

    Percentage of 15-year-old pupils1 achieving at least one GCSE/GMVQ

    Academic year

    St. Helens

    Merseyside

    North West

    1992

    89.7

    87.7

    89.9

    1997

    91.5

    89.5

    92.1

    2001

    93.7

    93.0

    94.5

    2003

    (Provisional)2

    92.5

    92.6

    94.4

    1Pupils are aged 15 at the start of the academic year i.e. 31 August.

    2The provisional figures for 2003 exclude any adjustments for refugees, which may affect the LEA averages.

    Grammar Schools
    Sir Teddy Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many referenda on the future of grammar schools have taken place in the last 12 months; and what the outcome was in each case. [141320]

    Mr. Miliband
    There have been no grammar school ballots in the past 12 months.

    Millennium Volunteers
    Charles Hendry
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the total funding for Millennium volunteers for each local authority area has been for(a) 2003–04, (b) 2002–03, (c) 2001–02 and (d)2000–01; and what the anticipated level of funding for 2004–05 is. [140662]

    Mr. Ivan Lewis
    The amount of funding allocated for Millennium Volunteers projects in each local authority area is not collected as many projects operate across boundaries. £10 million was allocated for MV in England in 2000–01 but information by region is not available.

    The amount of funding allocated in each region in 2001–02,2002–03,2003–04 and 2004–05 is provided in the table. The figure for 2004–05 is lower than that in previous years because the Department invested additional funds in excess of the allocated budget in the spending period.

    £

    Region

    2001–02

    2002–03

    2003–04

    2004–05

    East Midlands

    1,027,174

    1,059,268

    1.121.052

    979,036

    East of England

    1,474,717

    1,452,331

    1,325,198

    1,157,321

    London

    2,062,717

    1,933,514

    1,711,119

    1,494,353

    North East

    1,072,368

    932,442

    960,734

    839,027

    North West

    1,834,084

    1,967,701

    2,018,315

    1,762,633

    South East

    1,468,231

    1,933,827

    1,952.871

    1,705,479

    South West

    1,628,993

    1,675.570

    1,810,513

    1,581,156

    West Midlands

    1,598,413

    1,577,314

    1,664,627

    1,453,750

    Yorks & the Humber

    1,315,365

    1,711.213

    1,748,783

    1,527,245

    Totals

    13,482,062

    14,243,180

    14,313,212

    12,500,000

    Charles Hendry
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the impact of the decision to fund support for Millennium volunteers through Connexions. [140681]

    Mr. Ivan Lewis
    The impact of the decision to fund support for Millennium Volunteers through Connexions will be significant. It will ensure that the programme will be more responsive to the needs of young people and their local communities and that the programme will be marketed and supported alongside a range of support for young people. The early pilots of Connexions delivery have demonstrated that additional investment in the programme can be achieved as well as economies of scale in areas such as data collection, marketing and celebration events.

    Modern Apprenticeships
    Mr. McLoughlin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many young people in(a) West Derbyshire and (b) East Midlands have entered (i) an advanced modern apprenticeship and (ii) a foundation modern apprenticeship since the schemes' inception. [141450]
    189W
    Mr. Ivan Lewis
    The information is not available for West Derbyshire as requested by the hon. Gentleman. However, information is available for old Training and Enterprise Council (TEC) areas and new Learning and Skills Council (LSC) areas. The following table shows the number of starts on modern apprenticeships in Derbyshire Learning and Skills Council (LSC) between 26 March 2001 and the end of July 2003, as well as the number of starts from the inception of the programmes until 25 March 2001 in the three TEC areas that became part of Derbyshire LSC area. The table also shows the number of starts in the East Midlands region in these respective periods.

    Time period/TEC/LSC

    Advanced MA

    Foundation MA

    Inception to March 2001

    North Derbyshire

    2,500

    1,300

    Southern Derbyshire

    5,600

    2,000

    Stockport and High Peak1

    3,800

    1,900

    East Midlands Region

    37,800

    19,500

    March 2001 to July 2003

    Derbyshire LSC

    2,300

    5,300

    East Midlands LSC region

    9,100

    21,300

    1Some of the Stockport and High Peak TEC area became part of Derbyshire LSC, but some of the old TEC area also became part of Greater Manchester LSC.

    Open University
    Mr. Jack
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average cost per graduate of an Open University degree was in the last year for which figures are available. [141902]

    Alan Johnson
    The estimated cost of the course fees and other study costs to a student at the Open University graduating with a BA/BSc degree in 2001/02 was £4,400. This excludes the costs to the university and any costs to the student of supporting themselves while studying.

    Student Loans
    Mr. Cousins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average size of student loan on entering repayment status was in the last year for which figures are available and; what the average loan taken out in 1999–2000 to 2001–02 was in(a) each region of England, (b) the county of Tyne and Wear and (c) the City of Newcastle-upon-Tyne. [141194]

    Alan Johnson
    The table shows the average student loan debt at the point at which they entered repayment status for borrowers who became liable to repay their loans in financial year 2003–04.

    Average student loan debt on entering repayment status in financial year 2003–041

    £

    Mortgage Style loans2

    6,070

    Income Contingent loans3

    7,170

    Part-time loans4

    650

    1Data rounded to nearest £10. Include interest accrued up to the point of entering repayment status. Exclude any early voluntary repayments which may have been made before borrowers enter repayment
    190W
    status in the April following their graduation or otherwise leaving their course. Borrowers may have accounts in more than one cohort year of entering repayment.

    2Loans made to students who entered higher education up to 1997/98 or who entered in 1998/99 under existing arrangements. Includes loans repayable to the private sector following the sale of two tranches of student loans.

    3Loans repayable on an income contingent basis, available to students who entered higher education from academic year 1998/99. These loans were subject to a repayment holiday until April 2000. Includes hardship loans.

    4Fixed-rate loans made to eligible part-time students, introduced in September 2000.

    Source

    Student Loans Company

    Borrowers entering repayment status include those who attended shorter courses as well as those who have left higher education before completing their courses. Therefore the average level of debt will not be representative of the average debt experienced by those who complete their courses.

    Borrowers are liable to repay their loans from the April following graduation or otherwise leaving their course. Most borrowers who started their course from the 1998/99 academic year will repay income contingent loans. Loans for those who started their course before 1998/99 are repayable on a mortgage style basis.

    The table shows the average full-time income-contingent loan taken out by students in the English Government Office Regions, Tyne and Wear and Newcastle upon Tyne.

    Average income-contingent1,2,3 loan taken out by domicile of student—academic years 1999/2000, 2000/01 and 2001/024

    £

    Academic rear

    1999/2000

    2000/015

    2001/02

    Government Office Region6

    North East

    3,060

    3,020

    3,060

    North West

    3,130

    3,090

    3,130

    Yorkshire and Humberside

    3,110

    3,080

    3,130

    East Midlands

    3,190

    3,120

    3,170

    West Midlands

    3,140

    3,090

    3,150

    East of England

    3,180

    3,150

    3,190

    Inner London

    3,540

    3,470

    3,500

    Outer London

    3,240

    3,200

    3,240

    South East

    3,180

    3,130

    3,160

    South West

    3,240

    3,190

    3,250

    Tyne and Wear7

    3,000

    2,990

    3,020

    Newcastle upon Tyne

    3,050

    3,020

    3,030

    1Loans available to students who entered higher education from September 1998, excludes the fixed rate loans (£500) for eligible part-time students, introduced in September 2000.

    2Mandatory award holders, i.e. those eligible for mortgage style loans, made applications for student loans through their education institution; data are therefore not available for these students.

    3Data have been taken from available data and may include a small number of loans which have been authorised for payment but not paid.

    4Figures have been rounded to the nearest £10.

    5The apparent fall in the average value of income-contingent loan taken out in 2000/01 can be explained mainly by the fact that this was the third year of this loan scheme; students on the third year of a three year course will receive the final year rate of loan which is at a lower rate as it does not cover the summer vacation. This effect is not present in 1999/2000 and has been levelled out in the years subsequent to 2000/01. Additionally, this is likely to be the

    191W
    first year in which those students on sandwich courses have their placement year and are therefore in receipt of the reduced rate of loan.

    6Government Office Region of domicile of student.

    7The Metropolitan County of Tyne and Wear was abolished in 1996; it comprised Gateshead, Newcastle upon Tyne, North Tyneside, South Tyneside and Sunderland.

    Source

    Student Loans Company

    Data on the domicile of students taking out fixed rate mortgage style loans (normally those who entered higher education before 1998/99) are not available because applications are made through their education institution.

    Mr. Webb
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether student loan repayments made via the Inland Revenue are immediately credited to individual loan accounts; how frequently the interest on student loan accounts is calculated; and if he will make a statement. [141525]

    Alan Johnson
    Student loan repayments are collected by the Inland Revenue mostly through PAYE and the data is transmitted to the Student Loan Company after the end of each tax year. At that stage, repayments are credited to the student's loan account as at the date they were collected. Interest on student loans is calculated annually, set every year from 1 September based on the Retail Prices Index published in April for the previous year.

    Students
    Chris Bryant
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) Welsh students are studying at English universities and (b) English students are studying at Welsh universities. [141762]

    Alan Johnson
    The latest information shows that in 2001/02, 30,387 Welsh students were studying courses at English higher education institutions (HEIs) and 31,441 of English students were studying at Welsh HEIs.

    Teacher Vacancies (Portsmouth)
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teacher vacancies there are in(a) primary and nursery and (b) secondary schools in the Portsmouth local authority area; and if he will make a statement. [141349]

    Mr. Miliband
    Vacancy information is collected in January of each year. Information for January 2003 is shown in table 17 of the Schools Workforce in England statistical first release (SFR) of 9 September 2003. A copy of this SFR has been placed in the Library. The table is also available on the statistics section of the DfES website at: http://www.dfes.gov.uk/rsgateway/ DB/SFR/s000411/index.shtml

    Teachers' Television Channel
    Mr. Hoban
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on(a) the total cost of, (b) the cost to his Department of and (c) the revenue to be raised by the proposed new television channel for teachers.[141733]
    192W
    Mr. Miliband
    [holding answer 3 December 20031 The Department has signed a contract for the supply of Teachers' TV with Education Digital, a consortium of Carlton Communications, Brook Lapping Productions Ltd. and the Institute of Education of the University of London. The contract is to provide

    (a) a comprehensive pilot for the Teachers' TV proposition, and

    (b) if the pilot demonstrates the channel will be effective and provide value for money, to supply the channel up to August 2007 (with the possibility to extend to August 2008)

    The costs to the Department of piloting the channel are currently estimated to be £1.5 million. This figure comprises the costs of independent research into the effectiveness of the channel proposition as well as content production and distribution costs.

    The full channel, if launched, will need to demonstrate value for money compared to other expenditure to reach the same objectives. The pilot will help us determine the right level of programming and therefore overall costs. Further information on the cost of the full channel will be available after the pilot.

    The Department is currently proposing to underwrite the full costs of the channel through savings in other central expenditure. However, we will continue to look for ways to mitigate these through sponsorship, commercial airtime and programme sales. We have investigated the commercial value of Teachers' TV airtime, but concluded that, initially, the potential revenue would be unlikely to exceed the cost of sales. We will continue to investigate potential revenue streams that may result from a successful channel and that could be used to off-set total channel running costs.

    Mr. Hoban
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on how the effectiveness of the proposed new television channel for teachers will be measured; and what targets will be set. [141734]

    Mr. Miliband
    [holding answer 3 December 2003]We have put in place a comprehensive measurement system to ensure the effectiveness of Teachers' TV. A balanced scorecard of measures will be used to measure performance in four areas:

    (a) Audience

    Targets for channel reach and loyalty among the target audience will be set following the pilot (so the pilot can be used to establish realistic but stretching targets). Further key performance indicators have been set to measure relevance, applicability in the classroom and ease of use.

    (b) Content

    Educational outcomes for the channel have been set to ensure programming as a whole is in line with the Department's strategy (e.g. supports raising literacy and numeracy standards). An independent Teachers' TV board will ensure, among other things, programme quality standards are maintained.

    (c) Financial

    Open book accounting will be used to ensure financial transparency. Cost overruns will be borne entirely by the supplier by the Department. Under-spends on content will be entirely retained by the Department,

    193W
    while any economies which the channel supplier can realise in non-content areas will he shared between Department and supplier.

    (d) Functional-technical

    Industry best practice is being adopted in requiring the supplier to meet the same obligations placed on public service broadcasters by the Broadcasting Act 1990, such as independent and regional production quotas. This category also covers maintenance of technical standards such as channel downtime.

    The supplier will be paid on a cost-plus basis. In addition to costs, the supplier will be rewarded for performance against these key performance indicators. Of the maximum 12.5 per cent. channel management fee, 10 per cent. is performance-related, designed to reward excellence by the channel supplier in meeting channel objectives. An independent governance authority, drawing on the work of an independent research agency where appropriate, will evaluate supplier performance.

    Top-up Fees
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of the proportion of universities that will seek to adopt the maximum top-up fee in 2006. [141768]

    Alan Johnson
    It will be up to universities themselves to set their fee levels, provided that they have an access agreement approved by the Office for Fair Access.

    Mr. Willis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what assessment he has made of the impact of the proposed top-up fees on the number of students entering Post Graduate Certificate in Education courses after 2006; and if he will make a statement; [141785]

    (2) what plans his Department has to contribute towards the cost of tuition fees for students entering Post Graduate Certificate in Education courses after 2006; and if he will make a statement. [141786]

    Alan Johnson
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) on 20 November 2003,Official Report, columns 1497–498W.

    Tribunal Decisions
    Liz Blackman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action he will take to ensure that Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal decisions in favour of parents are fully implemented by local education authorities. [140704]
    194W
    Mr. Miliband
    The Education (Special Educational Needs) (England) (Consolidation) Regulations 2001 set out the actions that an authority must take to comply with a Tribunal order. If the authority does not comply within the appropriate period, the parent may complain to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills. It will then be open to him to issue a direction under sections 496 or 497 of the Education Act 1996. Section 496 applies if the local education authority has acted unreasonably with respect to the exercise of any power or duty. Section 497 applies if the authority has failed to discharge a duty imposed on them.

    Truancy
    Mr. Forth
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures the Department has taken since 1997 to reduce truancy in secondary schools; and what the cost was of each programme. [R][140583]

    Mr. Ivan Lewis
    Departmental expenditure on attendance-specific measures includes around £700,000 on publicity materials aimed at parents, practitioner conferences and research into truancy, £11.25 million for electronic registration systems in secondary schools and around £500,000 for intensive expert support for education welfare services in 60 local education authorities.

    This is in addition to funding for a wide range of measures to improve behaviour and attendance provided by the School Inclusion: Pupil Support Grant between 1999 and 2003, through the Behaviour Improvement Programme since 2002 and through the behaviour and attendance strands of the Key Stage 3 Strategy and the Primary Strategy from 2003. Because many of these measures relate to both behaviour and attendance, expenditure on reducing truancy in secondary schools cannot be disaggregated.

    Mr. Forth
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many pupils committed truancy from secondary schools in(a) 1997 and (b) the most recent year for which figures are available. [R][140584]

    Mr. Ivan Lewis
    The level of truancy is properly expressed as the percentage of all available half days missed due to unauthorised absence. The data for unauthorised absences from secondary schools in 1997/98 and 2002/03 are in the following table:

    School year

    1997/98

    2002/03

    Pupil population

    2,786,943

    3,003,590

    Number of pupils missing at least one half day

    452.900

    630,058

    Average number of half days missed

    20

    17

    Percentage of half days missed

    1.10

    1.08

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Government Indemnity Scheme
  The Minister for the Arts (Estelle Morris)
  The provision for the Government Indemnity scheme is made by the National Heritage Act 1980. The scheme facilitates public access to loans of works of art and other objects for public display made to museums, galleries and other such institutions by private owners and non-national institutions. It does this by indemnifying lenders against loss or damage to their loan. Loans covered by the scheme must be for public benefit. The scheme also covers loans of such objects for study purposes within borrowing institutions where this would contribute materially to the public's understanding or appreciation of the loan. Examples of this are enhancing interpretation or explanation to the public of objects or bringing into the public domain, the conclusions of any study.

  In the six month period ended 30 September, the following undertakings to indemnify were given under section 16 by the relevant Departments for objects on loan to national and non-national institutions. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport issued 610 undertakings, the Scottish Executive Education Department issued 232 undertakings and the National Assembly for Wales issued 241.

  The value of contingent liabilities in respect of undertakings given at any time under section 16 and which remained outstanding as at 30 September for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport are £2,954,237,461. The value of section 16 contingent liabilities as at 30 September for the Scottish Executive Education Department are £695,960,679 and £67,838,929 for the National Assembly for Wales.

  The value of non-statutory Government indemnities to cover loans handled by the Government art collection and which remained outstanding as at 30 September are £4,500,000. The value of non-statutory undertakings given to Her Majesty in respect of loans from the Royal Collection and which remained outstanding as at 30 September are £170,694,295.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Court Service Business Plan for 2003–04
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie)
  The following table sets out the targets that have been set for 66WS
  the Court Service for 2003–04. Copies of the Court Service Business Plan for 2003–04 has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Headline Targets

  Target 2003–04

  To support Local Criminal Justice Boards (LCJBs) in meeting their targets, including:

  reduction of Crown Court ineffective trials, contribution to an overall national reduction from 24% to 17% by March 2006;

  4% reduction

  the percentage of Crown Court defendants and appellants whose cases are heard within target time;

  78%

  the period from charge to sentence for Persistent Young Offenders: and

  71 days

  increasing sitting days in the Crown Court, facilitating the increase in the number of crimes for which an offender is brought to justice to 1.2 million by 2005–06;

  101,500 sitting days

  Increase year on year the level of satisfaction in four key areas of service delivery.

  To increase:
  Knowledge of court staff at the public counter.
  Knowledge of court staff on the telephone.
  Speed of resolution of complaints.
  Helpfulness of written replies.

  The percentage of Public Law Children Act cases dealt with within 40 weeks (from commencement to disposal).

  70% of cases dealt with within 40 weeks.

  The proportion of asylum cases to be cleared through decision and appeal.

  60% of cases deal with within target.

CABINET OFFICE

  Autumn Performance Report
  The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Douglas Alexander)
  I have today published the Cabinet Office 2003 Autumn Performance Report. Copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Employers Liability Compulsory Insurance
  The Minister for Work (Mr. Desmond Browne)
  On 3 June the Government published its First Stage Report into Employers' Liability Compulsory Insurance. In response to problems for business caused by rapid increases in premiums for this insurance, the report analysed the nature of the difficulties within the Employers' Liability Compulsory Insurance (ELCI) market, the causes and their impact on business. It identified an agenda for action committing Government to work with stakeholders to bring about improvements. Government promised to report on progress in the autumn.
  67WS
  I am pleased to announce the publication of the report that meets that commitment. I have arranged for copies of the report to be placed in the Library. This second and final report describes the work that has been undertaken since June, identifies the further actions we intend to take and sets these in the context of a strategic approach aimed at improving the efficiency, sustainability and outcomes of the Employers' Liability Compulsory Insurance system.

  The First Stage Report contained some difficult messages: that there were no quick solutions; that premiums had been held artificially low prior to recent rises and that the current levels of premiums were reflecting the true economic costs of accidents, injuries and ill health in the workplace. However, it also recognised that the pricing behaviour within the market meant that far too many businesses, quite out of the blue, had faced acute price increases; late renewals and premiums that often have not reflected individual health and safety efforts. The market has not failed but in many instances it is simply not working well enough.

  So, as the report demonstrates, the Government are acting. We have been facilitating improvements in the short term, while helping stakeholders begin to tackle the difficult long term issues. In the past six months we have worked with business, the insurance industry, lawyers and unions to build a real and constructive partnership.

  Already this partnership is having beneficial results for business, particularly smaller businesses, in areas such as renewals and making underwriting more risk-based. Providing better risk information has improved Small and Medium Sized Enterprises' (SMEs') access to the EL insurance market and in some cases delivered lower premiums. Further work is aimed at encouraging better health and safety and occupational health and thus, fewer costs to firms from injury, illness and absence. Action to reduce process costs will also help keep premium increases under control, as could greater use of rehabilitation in sonic cases.

  To deliver significant, sustained improvements we must tackle the underlying problems together.
  68WS
  Consequently, we have helped stakeholders identify ways to reduce process costs and are working with them to pilot these measures. We are working on ways to improve companies' management of health and safety and so cut both the incidence and the costs of claims. And, in the light of increasing evidence that effective and timely rehabilitation can reduce overall costs whilst delivering a better outcome for the victim, we are making a significant step-change in our approach to rehabilitation. Our safety performance in the UK is good. That is one reason why the costs of Employers' Liability Compulsory Insurance are still much lower than our international competitors. However, there is more to be done, particularly on occupational health. Absence management, incident management and follow-up can help cut both the incidence and the costs of claims. That is why Government are working with the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and insurers to provide guidance and to help business present hard evidence on their management of health and safety to the market thereby ensuring they get value from their health and safety investment. This should help tackle the problems faced by small firms with good health and safety practices.

  As we address the problems in the market and for businesses, particularly smaller businesses, it is important to remind ourselves why employers' liability compulsory insurance is important:
  to provide an incentive to reduce accidents at work and improve health and safety;
  to properly compensate employees who are injured through their employers' negligence; and
  to protect businesses by spreading the risk of workplace accidents which might otherwise ruin them financially.

  Employers' Liability Compulsory Insurance (ELCI) has served us well for nearly thirty years. However, as risks evolve, so too must employers' liability and our response to those risks. A lot has been done since June. We are committing to do much more. But we also recognise that there is no simple, quick solution. It is not a problem that Government can take away and fix.

  An effective response and sustainable improvement, requires a long term partnership. The past six months have seen such a partnership develop and start to deliver. Government are determined to play its part. This may be a final report, but it is not an end to our work.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Gloucester.

Business
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, as the House knows, from time to time there have been complaints from all sides about the House not rising at the time indicated, for example, 7.30 p.m. on Thursdays. I can apprise noble Lords that were all Back-Bench speeches to be limited to seven minutes the House would be able to rise at 7.30.I also remind noble Lords that when the number seven appears on the clock, it indicates the end of the seven minutes.

Address in Reply to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech
11.7 a.m.
Debate resumed on the Motion moved on Wednesday last by the Lord Ashley of Stoke, as amended on Tuesday—namely, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows—
"Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament, but regret the decision of Your Majesty's Government to abandon the search for cross-party consensus on constitutional reform and to launch unilateral proposals for changes to this House that could gravely weaken the House; and call on Your Majesty's Government to respect the formal undertakings given to this House, to withdraw their current proposals and to undertake meaningful consultation with Parliament and the senior judiciary before proceeding with legislation."
The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker): My Lords, last Wednesday, the Prime Minister set out the Government's strategy for legislation and reform. Today I shall focus in particular on the planned legislation. The programme for this Session will enhance economic stability, further reform and improve public services, and create a fairer, more secure and more just society. I shall delineate some of the issues relating to about half a dozen of the Bills that will come before your Lordships' House.
The fire and rescue services Bill, which will be introduced by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, will be the first substantial piece of legislation to modernise the fire service for 50 years. It will reflect the White Paper published in June and the findings of Sir George Bain's independent review of the fire service. We believe that the Bill will create a service better able to
440
protect the public and to respond to changing demands. The Bill will create a new duty for fire and rescue authorities to respond to serious civil emergencies, ranging from flooding to terrorist incidents. It will also create a duty to promote fire safety, recognising the role that fire-fighters have long played in preventing as well as fighting fires.
The Government will shortly publish a new national framework for consultation which will provide the clear, strategic direction that the service requires. Within that framework, the fire and rescue authorities will have greater flexibility to set priorities locally, and will work together at a regional level.
Last Session the Government introduced a draft Housing Bill. It has been consulted on and considered by various Select Committees. The Bill will be introduced for consideration this Session. It will help to create a fairer and better housing market and to protect the most vulnerable tenants, particularly in the private rented sector. Many of the most vulnerable in our society live in poor private sector accommodation. The Bill will give local authorities new powers to license selectively private landlords where there is a particular problem such as anti-social behaviour. Houses in multiple occupation represent some of our worst properties; they are often badly managed and in a poor physical condition. Therefore, we intend to fulfil a manifesto commitment— a double manifesto commitment because I believe that it was in the manifesto of 1997—to introduce a licensing scheme for the highest risk houses in multiple occupation.
The Housing Bill will also continue the modernisation of the right-to-buy scheme, tackling abuses and reducing profiteering. We have added to the provisions already contained in the draft Bill to continue this process. So the Bill has changed since it was introduced in draft form. That responds in some way to the recommendations made by the Select Committee in the other place and the Home Ownership Task Force. It is our duty to ensure that we get value for money and high standards from funding for new affordable housing. The Bill provides for the Housing Corporation and the National Assembly for Wales to pay grant to organisations other than registered social landlords.
There is plenty of evidence to show that nine out of 10 people are very unhappy with the process of buying and selling a home. Therefore, we intend to make provision for the introduction of home information packs. Research so far indicates that making key information available right at the start of the process will make home buying and selling easier, more transparent and more successful. Currently we are discussing with consumer and industry stakeholders the possibility of a phased introduction of home information packs as part of a national rollout.
We shall also consider the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. The delivery of new housing and sustainable communities will require a flexible and quick planning system, as set out in the Green Paper in 2001. The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill is part of a wider strategy to reform the planning system. We believe that it will help to make the system fairer, faster and far

441
more predictable for all concerned. The Bill will bring, clarity, certainty and a new sense of strategic direction to the planning system. It will support and speed up investment in major infrastructure and regeneration. Most importantly, the Bill will put sustainable development at the heart of the system of regional and local plans. As part of that, the Bill will strengthen community involvement and the opportunity for local people to make their views known and to have their say on the future of where they live.
We intend that the Bill will also include changes to Section 106 dealing with planning gain. At present it is a complex and slow process. Sometimes it takes longer to negotiate than the planning permission itself. The proposals for that change were set out in the consultation document that we published on 6th November. I freely admit that these proposals will be before Parliament before the close of the formal consultation.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, that is a shame.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, that is a great shame, as the noble Baroness says, but nevertheless in a sense this Bill is unique. It has been carried over from one Session to another so that it can receive proper scrutiny from both Houses of Parliament. Indeed, it has not finished its process in another place. Next week it will receive its Report stage and Third Reading and will come to your Lordships' House early in the New Year when we can debate it and add our scrutiny to the massive amount that it has already received in the other place, having been recommitted back to a Standing Committee following the Summer Recess.
The Government will also in due course introduce a higher education Bill, setting out the strategy for the future of higher education to ensure that the country's deserved reputation for excellence and equality of opportunity is secured for the future. The Bill is a vital tool to achieve this strategy. It will permit higher education institutions that commit to protecting the needs of disadvantaged students the freedom to set fees of up to £3,000. That will ensure a new stream of assured investment under their own control, greater financial autonomy and the opportunity to compete more effectively both within the UK and internationally.
The higher education sector has many institutions committed to widening participation from all sectors of society. The Bill will build on this solid foundation and ensure that progress continues by creating a director of fair access. The director will be charged with ensuring that institutions that take advantage of the freedom to charge higher fees also make greater efforts to encourage participation in higher education by people from non-traditional backgrounds. The Bill will also enable the creation of a new arts and humanities research council, which will put funding for arts and humanities on the same footing as funding for science and technology.
I discussed some of these issues with colleagues in the other place in the Tearoom earlier this morning. The big issue down in the other place is variable fees. I took the opportunity to remind some of them to go and talk to Open University and part-time students or students in
442
further education. They all know about variable fees. It is not a question of inventing the wheel. So we must not get hung up on the wrong issue.
We will also introduce a children's Bill. Consultation finished earlier this week on the Green Paper entitled Every Child Matters which sets out proposals for helping every child to achieve his or her potential. Much of the change set out in the Green Paper of course is not about legislation. The most important challenge will be to bring about a shared culture in services; so that those working with children, young people and their families do not see themselves as being simply concerned with one narrow aspect of a child's or a family's needs. An important part of getting better outcomes for children is to make sure that services are designed around the needs of children and young people.
The Bill will establish a children's commissioner to develop ways of understanding young people's views and feed them in effectively at local and national level. Legislation needs to clarify accountability for children's services, to meet some of the challenges set out so clearly in the report of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, on the inquiry into the death of Victoria Climbi¹.
However, the issue is not just about children at risk. To meet our aim of improving outcomes for all children we need to target them earlier and more effectively to prevent any problems accumulating. That means bringing together the planning, commissioning and delivery of all services that affect the lives of children, young people and their families. It will largely be left to local discretion, but legislation will set some important building blocks in place. We shall strengthen arrangements for child protection by making local safeguarding children's boards statutory bodies, and ensure that all local authorities put in place a director of children's services and lead member for children and young people. These will be backed up by the new duties to ensure co-operation and that all agencies have a responsibility to promote the welfare of children and young people.
The Bill will support the practical aspects of joint working by seeking to remove legislative barriers to information sharing. That was another problem highlighted in the report of the noble Lord, Lord Laming. It will also support an integrated inspection framework to assess how well services work together to improve outcomes for children.
There will also be a draft school transport Bill for consideration. Although I cannot say when, this will be published during this Session in draft form for pre-legislative scrutiny. The Government believe that children should be able to travel to school on foot, by bicycle or—if they live too far to walk or cycle—on the bus, wherever it is safe to do so.
The school transport Bill will ask local education authorities to trial new approaches to school transport intended to cut car use on the school run. It will disapply the existing school transport legislation in six to 12 areas in England, allowing up to 20 local education authorities to establish new models of school transport provision. We believe that the Bill will demonstrate our commitment to sustainable

443
travel, our confidence that local education authorities have the capacity to design local schemes meeting the needs of local communities, and our determination to modernise public services.
There will also be a traffic management Bill for consideration. Congestion is a source of frustration. As we all know, it makes journeys slow and completely unreliable in some cases. The Bill will enable roads to be managed in the interests of road users. It will allow us to deal with the causes of delays and congestion and hopefully to make better use of road space. Therefore, we hope we shall be able to reduce the problems that delay journeys. It will enable the Highways Agency to patrol roads and deal quickly with incidents; and local authorities will appoint traffic managers whose role is to keep traffic flowing.
We have already put in place a substantial policy framework to address challenges to our environment at home and internationally. We are well on the way to meeting our Kyoto and national commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. There is no doubt about it: rural and urban air quality is improving and rivers and bathing waters are cleaner than ever. We are well placed significantly to reduce the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010. The recent reforms of the common agricultural policy mark a breakthrough in our efforts to align agriculture with greater protection and enhancement of the environment.
There are three priority areas for environmental protection over the coming year. We shall rigorously follow up the Energy White Paper to address the threat of climate change. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to the impacts of global warming continues to be among our greatest challenges. We will continue to protect our natural environment and resource base, addressing important issues such as diffuse pollution from agriculture. We will build on the framework published earlier this year on sustainable consumption and production. That has the potential for significant economic savings from greater resource productivity and to lead ultimately to a break in the relationship between economic growth and environmental degradation.
The Government are committed to a strong rural policy. I know that there is strong debate about that in the other place, but there are far more Members representing rural constituencies on the Labour Benches in the Commons than on the other Benches. Much has been achieved so far. More than 200 of the 261 commitments in the rural White Paper have been achieved or are ongoing.
We are ensuring equitable access to public services for everyone in rural areas, which we know is a key challenge to all concerned. We need to concentrate resources on disadvantage wherever it appears, and that is a key element of our rural strategy.
The recently published Rural Delivery Review conducted by my noble friend Lord Haskins presents a compelling analysis of the present rural delivery landscape as confusing and too bureaucratic and centralised to meet future challenges. We have welcomed the report and already made a start on
444
reviewing rural funding streams. Much work will be required to take the proposals forward as a whole and the Government will publish a practical implementation plan next spring.
However, organisational reform is not an end in itself; it is a means to deliver improvements on the ground for business, farmers and wider rural communities. It is also about devolving decision-making from the centre to the localities and empowering those at that level. Equally, it is about ensuring continued independent policy advice to government on important issues such as biodiversity and rural concerns. Our approach to implementation, in partnership with all concerned, will preserve and strengthen that aspect.
We will set out in much more detail how we intend to meet that task when, early next year, we publish a refreshed rural strategy and our detailed plan for taking forward the Rural Delivery Review.
The legislation and our wider programme in this area of the gracious Speech is intended to create sustainable communities, improve our education provision and transport services and maintain our constant vigilance on the rural agenda by rural-proofing all legislation that issues from Whitehall. Every department is still accountable to the Minister for rural affairs and the independent bodies to ensure that we have covered all the points that have been drawn to our attention. That represents a comprehensive and powerful agenda for change, backed by significant resources.
I do not intend to repeat the summary of the Bills; we will have plenty of time to discuss them. I commend the Bills and the package to the House.
11.22 a.m.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for outlining the Bills relating to today's debate, which were announced in the gracious Speech. As a significant number have emanated from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, it has fallen to him to open the debate on behalf of the Government and for me to respond now on behalf of the main Opposition.
I disclaim at the outset any responsibility for dealing with any matters concerning education, which will be addressed by my noble friend Lady Blatch when she winds up the debate for this side. That will include any comments on the children's Bill and the school transport Bill, with which I shall not deal. My noble friend Lady Byford will in her inestimable way speak on rural affairs and some other matters.
I have entered a vow of silence on education, except in one regard. We did not have an opportunity to debate the local government finance settlement in this place, owing to other important business. Had we been able to do so, I should have wanted to probe the Government on their massive ring-fencing of education grant—for the instruction by the Secretary of State for Education and Skills that all grant should be passported through to schools is just that: ring-fencing, something that the Government have always said that they will reduce, but have not in this instance.

445
Education authorities have no option but to give that part of the grant settlement directly to schools—even if, in some cases, it amounts to the totality of the grant that they receive in support of all services. For at least 12 councils, that is the reality.
The absurdity of that situation is that what cannot come from the block grant must come from the council tax payers. If a substantial part—or, indeed, all—of the grant is already circumscribed by government diktat, the local authority has no alternative but to raise its council tax to pay for all its other requirements. I should have liked to ask the Minister whether the threat made by the Minister for local government to cap councils whose council tax increases are above an as yet unquantified percentage was intended to be implemented before or after the amount of the grant passported. For, as can be seen, some councils will have to raise all their required additional resource from the council tax payer.
My determination to raise that now has been reinforced by the report of the Audit Commission published today, which has finally blown the Government's fig-leaf cover that local authorities alone are responsible for large rises in council tax by confirming what anyone involved in local government—especially in the south-east—would have told them for nothing: that it is the Government who bear responsibility for those rises because of how they have shifted resources from the councils in the south of England to those in the north.
The commission points out the blindingly obvious: that large tax rises equate to low grant and lower rises to higher grant. It points out that it is government priorities, such as education, increases in National Insurance contributions, expenditure on highways and services to the elderly, which, however necessary and meritorious they are, have broken the camel's back. Against that background, it believes that the Government's proposals to return to capping cannot be supported.
The report bears out all local authorities' assertions about the Government's propensity to fiddle the grant and lay extra expenditure burdens on local authorities which, because of the gearing, are never truly compensated for by grant. If such addition to expenditure is justified, local authorities should not be excoriated and penalised by Ministers. No doubt we will return to that report, but for now the Minister, when winding up the debate, should come clean and admit that the ring-fencing of education grant will add—indeed, as this is the second year it has happened, it has already added—to local authorities' pressures and lead to significant increases in council tax.
I shall tread no further on my noble friend's territory, but now address the future programme. As the Minister said, the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill has barely emerged from its scrutiny in the other place. It has limped along in an extraordinarily protracted way since its first introduction there, early this year, ending in its being recommitted to Standing Committee in October.
446
The ink is not yet dry on the latest provisions to be included in it, to which the Minister alluded; namely, those relating to the proposed changes to Section 106 of the main Act to allow for tariffs to meet developers' planning obligations and the new requirements for Crown Estate to seek planning permission for any of its developments. Both those areas will require careful attention. There are inherent dangers in the first proposal that insufficient resources will be recouped by local authorities to provide for the community benefits for which they are intended. In the case of the second, there is a potential under the legislative provisions for many Crown Estate applications, because they are of significant size, to be referred directly to the Secretary of State for determination— thus defeating the objective of having approval given at a local level by taking to the centre the decision-making process.
We remain concerned about the plans for regionalising development plans, the relevance of regional spatial plans and their relationship to local framework and development plans—particularly in London, where the draft London plan is not in the form of a statutory development plan. We are also concerned about the role of county councils—or their lack of role—through statutory involvement in the preparation of regional spatial strategies. That is particularly important, as those strategies will encompass many areas over which county councils currently deliver services. Over 80 per cent of local government services are carried out by county councils. They bring together transport, education, housing, health and employment, which are enormously important areas of local government responsibility.
We are also concerned about the undermining of elected representatives in the determination of applications, with the insistence that 90 per cent of applications be devolved to officers. That is an extremely important area. Electors expect their representatives to have a major role in planning. Already about 80 per cent of applications are devolved, but those remaining are contentious and need the overview of elected representatives. We need to look at the issue clearly. As the Minister said, we will have an opportunity to begin those discussions early in the new year. My noble friend Lord Hanningfield did not expect to have to be present today, because of the change of Minister, and apologises for his absence. He and I look forward to the forthcoming debates.
We also look forward to the consideration of the draft housing Bill, the new fire Bill and any other Bill that arises from the Deputy Prime Minister's Pandora's Box of tricks, including the civil contingencies Bill, which will cross many departmental responsibilities. Although we will not be responsible for dealing with that Bill, we will take considerable interest in it because of its potential impact on local government.
The draft housing Bill has been around for some time, but it will now include proposals for the licensing of houses in multiple occupation, with which we have sympathy, and for sellers' packs, with which we do not. The latter proposals have found their way back into

447
legislation, having been decoupled from the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 because they were so controversial, and they would have sunk that Act if they had been proceeded with. They are no less controversial now and are opposed by nearly every professional organisation, including the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors—ironically, the one profession that would benefit most from their implementation. The Minister can be assured of a sharp and questioning discussion on those matters alone.
The Minister also mentioned the right to buy, another controversial issue, particularly given that the discount has been lowered so much, especially in London, that the scheme is almost a thing of the past. Both the housing Bill and the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill have a significant role in the Government's plans for sustainable communities. The plethora of consultation documents on revised planning guidance notes, regulations and reports from, for example, the Home Ownership Task Force, will need to be taken into account during the discussion of both Bills. The amount of housing, where it goes, the infrastructure to support it, and the conflict with proposals for new airports in the south east, in particular, are matters of great concern. The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill and the housing Bill are relevant to all those issues, and local determination of developments is salient to the results.
The fire and rescue Bill follows hot on the feet of the Fire Services Act 2003. All of us will breathe a sigh of relief that the Act was redundant before it started, that the hours we spent on it had not been required and that the majority of fire-fighters have now agreed to the terms of the settlement. That is good news that will enable consideration of this Bill, which contains many sensible proposals, to be carried out in an unfevered atmosphere, unlike its unlamented predecessor.
The Government are obsessed with regionalisation. There is, therefore, a rationale from their point of view for continuing the absurd regionalisation of the fire service. As with housing, planning and government, it removes discretion and decision-making from local communities and their elected representatives. It will have serious consequences for the delivery of a responsive and high-class fire service—surely the purpose of this Bill.
Sadly, too, the Government have failed to grasp the nettle by legislating to establish an independent mechanism for determining fire service pay to ensure that fire-fighters are properly rewarded for their invaluable and dangerous work. Their incorporation as a fire and rescue service, with all that that implies, makes that a grave omission. The history of the recent dispute leads one to believe that intervention in pay bargaining by, in this case, the Deputy Prime Minister should be avoided at all costs.
The absence from the legislative programme of a regional assemblies Bill is puzzling. Plans for elections to assemblies are roaring ahead in the three northern regions. People are being encouraged to take up positions related to elected regional assemblies
448
without the slightest idea of what is involved, but with a government-launched and slanted information campaign in full swing. During the passage of the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill, we debated the absolute need to publish a Bill in good time, prior to the elections, and for unpartisan information to be available to the electorate on regional government powers and responsibilities. Now we learn that the Deputy Prime Minister believes that the Bill should not be considered until after the elections. How about the electorate being asked to buy a pig in a poke?
This will be a packed Session. With the Bills outlined in the Queen's Speech and others already appearing out of the woodwork—there has already been a First Reading of Bills that we did not expect—there is much to be done. I look forward to the Session ahead.
11.38 a.m.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I thank the Minister for outlining clearly the areas of the gracious Speech that we shall debate today. I shall begin by discussing the Bills from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the main areas on which I speak for these Benches. I shall also touch briefly on the associated areas of energy and the environment, and shall take the opportunity to register our regret where we see serious omissions in the gracious Speech. My noble friend Lady Sharp of Guildford will, with her usual ability, discuss education.
I begin by discussing housing, as it is the area on which I speak most in this House. The Bill is based on the draft housing Bill, which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, said, has been around for some time. There is much to welcome in the Bill: the licensing of houses in multiple occupation, an issue that has been discussed for 10 years; the selective licensing of private landlords in areas of low demand; a new health and safety rating system to replace fitness standards; reforms of the right to buy to prevent abuse of the scheme; and, I hope, rights of succession for unmarried partners, including same-sex couples.
As the Bill passes through the House, I am sure that we will have interesting discussions on much of the detail of those issues. However, like the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, we on these Benches are not in favour of the home information packs proposed in the Bill. We do not believe that they will achieve the Government's aim of speeding up house sales. That sector of housing is where we have the least problem in the country. The results of a pilot scheme in Bristol were not convincing. Considerable developments are taking place in home buying and selling, such as the National Land Information Service with e-lodgement at the Land Registry and proposals for electronic conveyancing. They will ease the process of buying and selling homes far more effectively than the proposals in the Bill for home information packs.
From my experiences and those of my family—I am sure that others in this House will back this up—the difficulties of buying a house centre on trying to deal with those lending money for mortgages and those dealing with the legal matters, who never stick to

449
timetables and never return phone calls. The proposals will not help that. In addition, the real problem with buying and selling even under these proposals is that the deal is signed and settled only when contracts are exchanged at the last minute. People can withdraw at any time beforehand. It is the market supply that is important. The home information packs will therefore not solve the problem.
It is good to encourage people to market their homes properly, especially to draw attention to the energy efficiency of the properties that they are selling. However, we believe that such packs should be voluntary. Rather than insisting that people have them, we insist that they make it clear when they do not have one.
There are serious omissions in the housing Bill. I agree with bodies such as the Law Society, the citizens advice bureaux and Shelter that would like to see the inclusion of a statutory scheme to deal with tenancy deposits. The Law Society puts this very well:
"The proper management of deposits is a significant issue. If disputes about deposits are not resolved satisfactorily, tenants may not have the necessary funds to move onto the next property in the private rented sector"—
a sector that we all want to see develop. The Law Society continues:
"This affects people's mobility and may exacerbate homelessness. In addition research has shown that help with deposits leads to low-income families securing better-quality housing".
There is a missed opportunity in this Bill on that issue. I would also like the Bill to have improved the conditions of those who live in park homes—an issue that I have spoken about in this House that I do not have time to go into in detail today—and to have introduced a statutory duty to facilitate the provision of sites for gypsies and travellers.
On the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, in a Green Paper in 2001, the Government promised a clear and comprehensive planning system capable of reaching decisions that command public confidence. I have received briefings from several bodies, many of which feel that the planning Bill, despite being amended, is not keeping that promise very well. What we object to most about the Bill is that it is wrong to take strategic planning powers from the presently elected planning bodies and give them to unelected regional bodies. Until there are elected regional bodies, county councils must retain a statutory sub-regional planning role.
The present system set out in the Bill involves a plethora of framework schemes, documents and statements that do not help the Government's aim of speeding things up and making things simpler. The planning system needs reform, but we need to take away the Government's excessive powers of intervention and devolve power back down to local communities. I listened with interest to what the Minister said. When I looked at the Bill, I did not think that it achieved that. The Minister said that local people would get a good opportunity. I hope that he is right.
450
I would like to take this opportunity to ask the Minister about another issue. I understand that Kate Barker has been working for the Government on housing. She will be publishing details of her conclusions next week and I have heard that she may recommend changes to the planning system. If that is so, how will the Government approach the issue, given that the planning Bill is well advanced in the other House? Will we go through another system, with lots of new clauses being introduced in this House? On the 106 agreements, there is a lot of concern that I am sure we will discuss in great detail about whether the Government's proposals have been carefully thought out and whether the results will achieve the Government's aim.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, and I spent many hours discussing the fire service in the last Session. Nevertheless, the new Fire and Rescue Services Bill is welcome. We are generally supportive of it, especially because it examines fire safety. However, safeguards are needed to ensure that the powers do not mean that accountability is taken away locally. Some of the proposals could lead to that.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, we regret that things are missing from the remit of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in the gracious Speech. As she pointed out, there is no draft Bill on regional planning powers. The Minister will remember that we discussed this in some detail when the Regional Assemblies Bill was passing through this House. On 7th April 2003, the Minister said,
"as I repeated several times, we shall do our best to introduce a draft Bill before the referendum takes place".—[Official Report, 7/4/03; col. 27.]
However, there was some confusion when the Deputy Prime Minister spoke in another place earlier this week, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, pointed out. At one point he said:
"He must be well aware that I have promised that after the referendum takes place a Bill will be brought before the House",
to spell matters out. But later on he said:
We promised the House … a Bill in the July before the referendum".—[Official Report, Commons, 1/12/03; col. 248.]
Will the Minister have a conversation with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to clarify this matter for us at some stage? It is extremely important that, when people are voting on these massive changes, they know exactly what they are voting for. It is true that local government reorganisation is going very well. It is well advanced and people have some idea about that, but they do not know about the powers.
We on these Benches are most disappointed with omissions relating to environmental matters. The Government claim to put the environment at the heart of their agenda but, once again, the reality is rather disappointing. There is a nuclear bail-out Bill, but we would like to see much more legislation on the environment to deal with the problems of waste, traffic and energy consumption, which are all increasing. In the past, legislation affecting those areas has been left to Private Members' Bills. Energy efficiency in the home, waste, recycling and fuel poverty were all dealt

451
with by Private Members' Bills. It is high time that the Government enabled us to discuss these matters in a proper way and not by that system. I regret that my noble friend Lord Ezra is not here to talk about those issues in greater detail, but he will put forward his views clearly at the Second Reading of the Energy Bill.
We understand that, next week, there will be some announcements about the Comprehensive Spending Review. There was much about the environment in the energy White Paper. I hope that the Government will show us that the environment is at the heart of their agenda, given our disappointment with what was in the gracious Speech.
I shall touch briefly on one other environmental matter, although my noble friend Lady Sharp of Guildford will talk about it in more detail: school transport. I acknowledge that the Government recognise the consequences of having too many children going to school in the car. But oh, dear. From what 1 have read—I admit that we have not seen the detail—the plans appear to have been drawn up by people who live in cities. They do not live in rural Northumberland, otherwise, if what I have read is right, they would not have made those proposals. Many children in rural Northumberland have to go more than three miles to school. For them, in effect, there will be no free education, something on which we have prided ourselves in this country. I hope that, by the time that the proposals reach the statute book, some compensation will have been made, to make sure that some children in rural areas do not miss out.
The Minister spoke eloquently about the Government's desire to help people in rural areas. There was little in the speech. The Minister promised us another rural paper, but there is a serious problem.
The big issue in local services is council tax. There was no mention of radical reform in the gracious Speech. This morning, on Radio 4, I heard the Minister, the right honourable Nick Raynsford, blaming local government, and I heard the right honourable David Curry for the Opposition blaming the Government. The debate was illuminated for us by the Audit Commission, which pointed out that the real problem was that 75 per cent of funding for local government came from central government, which makes life difficult. Everybody this morning avoided the issue of capping. I get angry when I think about capping; I have seen both sides change their mind, depending on whether they were in government or out of government.
It is time that we reformed local government finance properly. We need a tax that is based on people's ability to pay. People will know that we think that there should a local income tax. We are already being told that it will not work and that we have not considered the details carefully. We have considered the details, and we continue to do so. There is detailed research on the matter. There are various countries, quite different in nature, in which local income tax works successfully.
452
Time does not permit more detailed analysis today. In the coming weeks, as we go through the Bills, there will be more detailed scrutiny. There are some good proposals and some that need more scrutiny, but sadly, as I said, there are some glaring omissions.
11.53 a.m.
Lord Grantchester: My Lords, I apologise for not being in my place at the start of the debate. I was somewhat thrown off my perch by being designated as a maiden. It is a rewarding privilege to be able to address your Lordships' House again, after getting my voice back. The warm welcome that I have received has been most invigorating.
The gracious Speech did not make much mention of the rural agenda, but it is a time of fundamental change in the countryside. I take as my text the opening words of the gracious Speech:
"My Government will maintain their key commitment to economic stability and growth".—[Official Report, 26/11/03; col. 1.]
That is exactly what rural areas have needed for the past few years, as they have operated with product prices below the cost of production.
It is a time of fundamental change, consequent upon last June's agreements in the European Union on the change of payment system. Payments are no longer based on production subsidies. There has been much debate on how the payments will affect rural areas. They will make a fundamental change in the way in which people adapt their business to go forward on a sustainable economic basis. We all want agriculture to stand on its own two feet alongside other industries.
The decisions relate to the two systems of payment— historical payments and area-based payments. Debate has raged throughout the agriculture industry, and there has been much polarisation. Both systems will mean that many people will be severely disadvantaged, depending on how their farming system relates to the system that is adopted.
We should try to devise a hybrid system under which the disadvantages that anyone will suffer under either system are minimised as far as possible. We should understand the payment system as a method of moving from a position in which there is a system of support to one in which there is no system of support. Consequent to that, we should try to mirror, as far as possible, the subsidies that went to people on the basis of their production profile, so that they will not be disadvantaged immediately but will be able to adapt their systems as quickly as possible.
It has been stressed that we must consider the longer term. In an agricultural context, it is difficult to interpret the systems in any long-term way with regard to the agricultural cycle. In any case, they will, over time, shrink, because of modulation and depreciation due to inflation. We should manage the systems as far as possible to mitigate hardship in rural areas and should look for a new entry-level scheme, under which we go forwards rather than backwards. We should appreciate the value of agriculture and try, in some way, to put a measure on it. We should reward those who try to bring environmental benefits to society.

453
Another consequential issue that is on the rural agenda is how we make agriculture sustainable in the longer term. That brings us to the supply chain code, under which producer groups in the supply chain feel at a distinct disadvantage in terms of economic power. We must look forward to enforcing the code more strictly, perhaps by introducing an ombudsman.
I also look forward to discussing in your Lordships' House the changes that will result from the report prepared by my noble friend Lord Haskins on rural delivery. I agree fundamentally with my noble friend that delivery must be devolved to the regions. However, I know that there is great concern that the changes to fundamental structures that have already been made in the move towards regionalisation will, when added to the plethora of existing agencies and delivery systems, cause confusion about who is meant to be implementing what.
I hasten caution to my noble friend to proceed at a careful pace so that the normal good functions of government are upheld at all times. With those few words, I look forward to the future debate in your Lordships' House.
Noon
Lord Palmer: My Lords, it is a great privilege on behalf of the whole House to welcome back the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and to congratulate him on his second maiden speech today. We have much in common: we were born in the same year, we are both farmers and we have both served on Sub-Committee D. But when I lived in Liverpool, we did not support the same football teams. I am delighted that we have another rural affairs supporter on the government Benches, who I hope will "never walk alone". I hope that we hear from him often and, indeed, for a long time to come.
It is with sadness that I once again take part in the debate on the gracious Speech. From what Her Majesty said, this will be the last such occasion that I shall have to take part. My sadness is deepened that yet again there was no mention of anything remotely to do with the rural economy, although as President of the British Association for Bio Fuels and Oils, I was heartened to hear the words,
"My Government will also introduce legislation on energy matters to establish a Nuclear Decommissioning Authority and to promote secure sustainable supplies and a safer environment".—
[Official Report, 26/11/03; col. 3.]
However, I have to say that I was a little bemused to hear the Minister's opening remarks and his reference to greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture.
With the announcement of 23 Bills in the gracious Speech, we are obviously in for a long and contentious time. As one newspaper headline announced,
"Blair promises something to annoy everyone".
With the leave of the House, I wish to repeat a few sentences that I made in the debate on the British countryside back in June.
454
"The powerhouse of the countryside has to be a healthy, sustainable and profitable agricultural industry This is why root and branch reform of the CAP is so urgently needed and why the current MTR review now known as the Fischler report must deliver, as it is a constant worry to all of us engaged in agriculture".—[Official Report, 11/6/03; col. 216.]
I am aware that farmers have the reputation for crying wolf, but their problem is very real and inhibiting reinvestment. Farming incomes are lagging way behind the rate of inflation. Forty years ago, to buy a medium-sized tractor, one needed to sell 23,000 litres of milk or 11 prime cattle or 144 prime lambs. Today, that farmer would need to sell at least twice the produce to buy the same machine. It is interesting to note that 40 years ago, 40.8 per cent of the national weekly wage was spent on food. Today, just 16 per cent of the weekly wage is spent on food.
Malting barley is worth half today what it was 20 years ago. I often wonder how many Ministers or indeed, Defra officials would relish the idea of returning home to announce to their families that their income had been slashed to half what it had been 20 years ago. Surely, these figures emphasise the serious plight of farming today in the United Kingdom.
Having had the privilege to sit on Sub-Committee D for the last three years and as a farmer, I am extremely worried about the MTR of the CAP. Only last week there was a frightening headline,
"Mass exodus from UK arable".
It went on,
"as much as ¼ of the UK arable land could be removed from production as a result of the MTR of the CAP according to a new study".
In round terms, that is well over 1 million hectares—1 million hectares. With such an exodus nobody seems to have thought of the added costs of social security and housing benefit for the thousands who undoubtedly will be made redundant. The deficit to our balance of payments is frightening, as undoubtedly we will have to import more of our food. Surely, any economist with the minimum amount of intelligence would say that this was utter madness.
I turn now to what I would like to consider as a glimmer of light from the gracious Speech—a glimmer for farmers and, indeed, for the nation as a whole. It is one that I have mentioned countless times on the Floor of the House and I make no apology for doing so yet again; that is, legislation on energy matters to promote secure, sustainable supplies and a safer environment.
Ten days ago the European Union environment Ministers adopted legislation to allow member states to scrap duty on biofuels from January next year—not 2007 or some date after that, as so often applies to EU legislation, but next year Germany has already signalled its intent to stay on the zero tax route. The reason that I started to get so involved in biofuels was that I found it irksome that my oil seed rape grown in Scotland was exported to Germany and turned into biodiesel. It must surely make sense for us in the United Kingdom to have our own vibrant biofuel industry. All sectors of our economy have a part to play in meeting our Kyoto targets.

455
The UK is moving towards a net import position for road fuels under increasingly unsettled international conditions. I mention turmoil in the Middle East as perhaps a poignant reminder. It must be prudent to build up a viable if modest domestic biofuel production capacity to increase UK fuel security. This would also be extremely popular politically.
The CO2 savings from biofuels are agreed at between 50 and 70 per cent better than fossil petrol and diesel and some 30 per cent better than road fuel gases, which have a 40 pence per litre rebate. Hence a blend of only 5 per cent can deliver a 3 per cent CO2 saving. There are also well proven air quality benefits from biofuels.
Use of set-aside land for biofuel production would increase rural productivity. There need be no conflict with conservation interests if appropriate headland, woodland and spinney management is incorporated into biofuel production. A recent paper put to the Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership by English Nature and the RSPB suggested that rape seed for fuel would have a positive effect on biodiversity. Current legislation should be sufficient to allay all other environmental concerns.
Low biofuel blends can reach the customer very easily through the existing fuel distribution network (unlike gas) and without expensive engine conversions. In addition, the efficiency of fossil fuel combustion is increased by biofuel blends by up to almost 20 percent. The assets of mainstream agriculture via conventional crop production will need to be brought into play to meet the likely need for biofuels, but at absolutely no extra cost to the prime producers. This must be a major added-value bonus.
The UK has to submit to the EU its biofuel target for December 2005 by July 2004. We must ensure that when setting this target, Her Majesty's Government allow for the contribution from mainstream farming and not just waste cooking oils, as at present. If the full weight of UK agriculture was brought to bear, we could achieve the initial EU 2 per cent target in 2006 and 5.75 per cent by 2010, with a serious gain to our domestic energy supplies and a valuable reduction in CO2 emissions. The creation of a biofuels industry will create new employment and consequent tax revenues. These should go some way to balance the cost of the relevant fuel duties.
The proposed legislation could be one of the most exciting Bills ever brought forward by any government. The Government support the principle that the polluter should pay. If biofuel inclusion was made mandatory, at per
Cent inclusion, the cost of a 30 pence per litre rebate would be only some 0.25pence per litre on the balance of fossil petrol and diesel over and above the 20 pence per litre rebate already in place for biodiesel and promised in
January 2005 for bioethanol. Such an arrangement would ensure a whole new energy-creating rural industry. I deeply commend this principle to Her Majesty's Government. Two million tonnes of energy-saving liquid biofuels from British farms is an early and a practical target; 1 million tonnes from land now
lying idle under set-aside and 1 million tonnes from the million tonnes of wheat which, most years, is exported.
456
I am particularly disappointed not to be able to take part in the Second Reading of the Energy Bill on 11th December, but I look forward to its subsequent stages.
Turnip Townsend revolutionised British agriculture 190 years ago. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, could become known as "Biofuels Whitty". He could not only rejuvenate agriculture, but give us a cleaner, safer environment and a rural scene that our grandchildren will be happy and proud to live in.
12.10 p.m.
Baroness Goudie: My Lords, I welcome the gracious Speech and the proposed energy legislation. Cleaner, greener power is surely something that we all wish to see being promoted. Therefore I very much welcome the new Energy Bill which will help to develop more environmentally friendly sources of power. I also welcome the contribution that it will make towards dealing with the United Kingdom's nuclear legacy.
The major contribution that the Bill will make is to help to create a low-carbon economy. It is vital to ensure that, before long, a substantial proportion of the UK's electricity will come from renewable sources. The energy White Paper published earlier this year marked a milestone in energy policy, while the White Paper, Managing the Nuclear Legacy, published last year, paved the way. The new Energy Bill will implement what is required.
Many of the Bill's provisions are technical, but none the less they are vital to ensuring competitive and reliable energy supplies. I should like to highlight three aspects of the proposals. First, there is to be support for sustainable energy by enabling projects for wave and tidal power schemes, and for offshore wind farms to be built beyond our territorial waters.
Secondly, provisions will secure the decommissioning and clean-up of the UK's civil nuclear sites, along with the effective management of nuclear waste by creating for the first time a single body with complete responsibility in this area, the nuclear decommissioning authority. Thirdly, so that energy markets are made more competitive, the Bill will provide for the establishment of a single, wholesale electricity market, bringing greater choice for customers in Scotland and providing all generators and suppliers with access to the British-wide market.
These policies are not merely for the "here"; they are also for now. They represent a strategy for the long term and a strategy for the three pillars of environmental protection: reliable energy, competitive markets and affordable energy for all. It is a strategy that will enable future generations to reap the rewards of cleaner, greener power.
12.13 p.m.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, as both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord preceding her talked about energy, I recall that I was formerly a Secretary of State for Energy. Somehow I wish that I had devoted my remarks today to energy matters rather than to education, on which I am going to speak.

457
However, I want, first, to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, on his second maiden speech. That in itself is, I believe, a controversial statement in some parts of the House, but nevertheless he made a fine exit from the Chamber through no fault of his own. I hope that he will not make quite such a quick exit through the fault of his noble friends, but that remains to be seen.
I declare an interest as the Chancellor of Brunel University. However, on this occasion I speak for myself and myself alone. I was never lucky enough to go to university and I started work when I was 17 years old. However, perhaps I should admit that, like the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Prescott, I was once a student of Ruskin College, Oxford, although I suspect that I ended up with rather different conclusions than he from that education. Therefore I approach the subject of higher education with a degree of humility.
I welcome the reference made in the gracious Speech to a Bill to change the funding of higher education. Whether that Bill will go far enough remains to be seen, but I have great confidence in the Secretary of State for Education, whom I have known for many years. Further, as a former Chief Whip, if I was to say that he is a pretty good thug, that is meant as a compliment and not as a criticism. So we will have to see how he gets on with his noble friends as regards the Bill.
However, I think that some things are clear: our higher education sector is falling behind the rest of the world, and there are many ways in which that can be tested. For example, we simply do not win our share of Nobel prizes that a population of our size would expect. Since 1980 the United States has won 34 Nobel prizes for physics, while we have not achieved a single one. What is also clear is that we spend far less on educating our students than do our competitors. We spend 30 per cent less than Australia, while the United States spends something like three times as much. We are near the bottom of the league of OECD countries.
In my opinion, universities have relied for far too long on the taxpayer for the bulk of their income. As a result, they have developed far too many of the bad characteristics of state-run enterprises: lack of investment, a student/staff ratio which has doubled from nine to one to 18 to one over the past 10 years, and low staff salaries. We have nothing like the endowments enjoyed by American universities. 1 gather that some 39 American universities benefit from endowments of more than 1 billion dollars. I know of no British university which can match that. The Treasury is right to call for further initiatives in this area, but in doing so it must ask the question whether additional fiscal incentives will be necessary, certainly in the short run. I think that there is a very strong case for providing incentives in the short term.
If it is agreed that more resources are urgently needed, then it is absolutely unrealistic—a pipedream—to think that the Government are going to provide them. They have their priorities and I fear that higher education is not one of them. Per capita spending on health has
458
increased by 64 per cent while spending on higher education has decreased. In any case, the current system of funding through the Higher Education Funding Council, giving each university a quota of subsidised places, does not encourage the best use of resources. It means that no matter how well or how badly universities treat their students, every one gets a fixed allocation of subsidised places. In my view, that is not the way to encourage excellence.
The system is also coming to the end of its useful life because it is not compatible with offering the kind of choices that students will increasingly demand, in particular if they are contributing more themselves. A significant increase in tuition fees payable by graduates will accelerate the demand for better universities and, most importantly, more relevant courses, which will be a good thing. I shall certainly study the Bill when it is published and I hope that I shall see provisions to ensure maximum flexibility in the fees to be charged and capacity for payments of bursaries to those who have difficulty in paying those fees. Investment in a good university education, with repayment terms that are both fair and generous, will increasingly be seen as the best investment of a lifetime.
The lack of resources available to British universities is also clearly reflected in academic pay. We lag well behind the salaries offered in other countries and most universities have reported increasing difficulties in recruiting staff.
In conclusion, I give two more reasons why a Government initiative in this area would be welcome. First, we need to educate more of our young people rather than fewer, and we need to educate them better. If there is any doubt about that, we need only look at what our international competitors are doing. Secondly, higher education is the best path to social mobility. It provides the fairest and most acceptable way to maintain a dynamic society. Education through a high-quality university system is the best way to ensure that Britain is a country in which talent is nurtured and rewarded.
12.20 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, several references were made in this year's gracious Speech to the Government's policies and legislation on environmental issues which should continue and strengthen their current actions in this field. As an environmental scientist and activist—I declare an interest as a professor, a director and chair of two NGOs—I should like to comment on this programme, which has a generally intelligent approach and utilises the political, administrative and economic methods at the Government's disposal.
There should of course be improvements, especially in the joined-up action of government agencies and departments. As any local politician will tell you—and I used to be one—getting right the environmental issues is vital to political success. While in the UK there are many active non-governmental organisations, we have no m from green parties. In European countries the reverse is found.

459
Environmental policy should be based on thorough science and a technical knowledge of the environment and its potential for both sustaining life and mitigating disasters. Everyone now recognises that sustainable environmental policies can be put into practice only if they are well understood and accepted by communities, as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, emphasised.
New approaches to consultation and public involvement are being tried all the time. The report of Professor Grant's seminars on the use of genetically modified organisms in the UK makes very interesting reading, especially as it concluded that people's greatest concern was that they could not trust the scientific data. Similar concern has been expressed by environmental groups, by foreign countries which are worried about low-level radioactivity in the UK and by the fishing industry in regard to fish stocks. Does Defra—perhaps in concert with the Office of Science and Technology and the research councils— have a strategy for ensuring greater confidence and transparency in government research? This could be achieved, for example, by ensuring that all scientific work is properly peer reviewed in scientific literature, which, as I understand it, is not the case with some high-profile governmental reports.
The Government should also ensure that more resources are devoted to environmental monitoring as well as to basic environmental research. This point was made strongly by senior environmentalists at a recent conference on the Arctic.
The third strand of environmental policy is that it is an essential part of economic growth in a modern society. I was astonished that at a recent press conference to announce the huge international programme to clean up the Russian Arctic a journalist even asked whether economic growth and environmental clean-up were compatible. Some noble Lords may have heard the old expression of "Where there's brass there's muck" or "Where there's muck there's brass". This should now be interpreted quite differently by progressive industries as "Making brass from the muck"—but, preferably, we should avoid making the muck in the first place.
I hope that the Minister will confirm that the Government's commitment to encouraging enterprise will focus on the huge potential everywhere in the UK to develop environmental projects, especially small and medium-scale enterprises. The biofuels aspect was referred to by my noble kinsman, the noble Lord, Lord Palmer. The problem of waste is an excellent example of where local and regional governments can contribute to building up international capabilities.
The balancing of environmental, housing and employment decisions is an essential part of planning, as several noble Lords have said. How will the new powers help in this difficult role where too many wrong decisions have been made in the past, especially in regard to building on flood planes?
It is not the style of the gracious Speech to scare us, but, as with the health and security issues referred to in this year's Speech, environmental issues should concern us very seriously indeed. Climate change,
460
which is being considered in Milan this week, is accelerating and its effects are touching ever more people, businesses and countries. The Russian Minister whom I met yesterday in Moscow confirmed that Russia has not decided against signing Kyoto. That was a press briefing too far by certain people.
We have learnt that there were more than 20,000 excess deaths this year in Europe as a result of the summer heatwave. Fortunately, such deaths were largely avoided in the UK through the good long-range forecasts of our meteorologists and a highly responsive health service. Floods are likely to increase and probably high winds as well.
On the one hand, the Government are working to mitigate climate change through alternative energy and perhaps nuclear power—although they could be a little more proactive in that regard—and, on the other hand, the proposed legislation for civil security is welcome. This is one aspect of adapting to climate change. I hope that the Minister will confirm that the Government will clarify the responsibilities of central, regional and local agencies, as well as European and UN agencies, all of whom are making valuable contributions.
We know about Chernobyl and I understand that the oil from the "Prestige" has now reached Guernsey. The legislation should ensure a more integrated approach that is common to different types of disaster and to security alarms. Social science research—for example, at the University of Middlesex—has demonstrated that the planning and immediate response at local level could be improved as different kinds of disaster have many common aspects in the best method of response.
Politically, the Government need to be equally focused on ensuring that the environment is healthy and comfortable. Good air quality in urban areas provides a huge bonus for health, especially for those with asthma. One hopes that the Government will consider the effect it will have on runners in the London Olympics in the summer of 2012, as Beijing has already for the summer of 2008 in collaboration with UK consultants. What will the Government do, through regulation and the encouragement of local authorities, to ensure that local planning and advance technology vehicles assist in the further progress of cleaning up the air in our cities?
Finally, measures are absolutely necessary to reduce noise—especially in residential areas—to continental levels, in particular the noise produced by traffic and aeroplanes. These measures should reflect planning, technology and social behaviour. The UK, I am glad to say, is no longer the sick man of Europe or the dirty man of Europe, but we might become labelled as the noisy man of Europe. One wonders whether the gracious Speech will need extra amplification in this regard in future.
12.27 p.m.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, I do not intend to follow the "noisy" path of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton, but I shall confine my remarks to environmental issues. I should have liked to speak to the

461
planning Bill but time is so short that I must press on to my main theme—that is, the Government's renewable energy policy and, specifically, onshore wind power and draft Planning Policy Statement No. 22.
The first point I wish to make is that wind turbines are both inefficient and intrusive. Moreover, wind is unreliable—it comes and goes unpredictably—and it is harnessed in the wrong place. The Government's target of 10 per cent by 2010 will require, according to the Minister at a recent Question Time, 3,000 to 5,000 wind turbines. Presumably by 2020 it will be at least double that. That is a huge number of wind turbines.
As a consequence, this means that the National Grid will have to be rebuilt because the electricity will be generated in the wrong places and in very small dollops. The regulator has put the cost of rebuilding the grid at more than £1 billion. Notwithstanding this, the Government clearly seem to believe that wind is the only show in town and they are happy to bend normal planning rules to promote it. That is my concern.
I said that wind farms are intrusive. They are hugely intrusive. The new generation wind turbines are bigger than St Paul's. Anyone who has seen the wind turbines in Cornwall, Wales or the edges of the Lake District and thinks that they are rather attractive has not seen anything yet. They are on a scale which completely dwarfs our upland landscapes. They are huge industrial structures—there is no other word for it— which are quite alien to our countryside.
If you mark out on a map of Cumbria the wind farms now operating, under construction or under evaluation, there are more than 20 sites ringing the national park. How many there will be in the years ahead, I have not the faintest idea. But as of today a noose is encircling the national park and the proposed Planning Policy Statement No. 22 specifically aims to encourage it. Paragraph 12, which is entitled,
"Buffer Zones and Local Designations",
states:
"Regional planning bodies and local planning authorities should not create 'buffer zones' around international or nationally designated areas and apply policies to these zones that prevent the development of renewable energy projects. Nor should local landscape and local nature conservation designations be used in themselves to refuse planning permission for renewable energy developments".
National parks are not, to adapt the poet Donne, "islands entire of themselves". They are set in a wider context of geography and landscape. That applies equally to AONBs, which I remind noble Lords under the 1949 Act have equal landscape value to national parks. One simply cannot divorce them from their surroundings at the convenience of an administrative boundary. What about the people who live and earn their living in the boundary areas of the national parks? They have already suffered from foot and mouth disease, particularly in Cumbria, and their future economy is now likely to depend on a judicious mix of niche farming and tourism. I have in mind the excellent Curry report which hints at a possible way
462
forward. The serried ranks of these huge structures are hardly likely to be attractive to the tourism on which such areas will depend. They are anathema.
Therefore, I urge the Government to look again at the drafting of PPS 22. Am I alone in finding it ironic that in a recent news release on 5th November, which ran the headline,
"Planning must work for the environment",
the Minister went on to say:
"The purpose of the consultation is to explore how locals and central government can work together"—
noble words—
"to deliver renewable energy without unnecessary blight to the countryside"?
Furthermore it is argued, and it is implicit in PPS 22, that this is in the interests of sustainable development which betrays to me a very serious misunderstanding of what that phrase means—a much abused concept. On the whole nowadays it tends to mean whatever the speaker wants it to mean. I think the Red Queen had something to say about that in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.
I conclude with a final point. There are many applications for wind farms in Cumbria and no doubt there are many more to come. Each is likely to be fiercely fought over by the local inhabitants. It seems absurd to hold perhaps a dozen—or maybe more— public inquiries, in many instances in overlapping areas. Surely there must be a better way forward. Would it not be fairer and more sensible to establish a reasonable amount of wind farm energy to come from Cumbria outside the national park and its buffer zones and then to settle the individual sizes and locations by a single inquiry? Would it not also be fairer to arrive at the Cumbrian share by apportioning the national renewables obligation by reference to the geographical distribution of population in England? In the north there is a good deal of resentment. Why should those in the north supply power and ruin the countryside for the sake of the south? It would be interesting to see if we had a 350-foot high wind farms on the edge of the Chilterns, possibly near Chequers. Why should Cumbria be blighted for the convenience of the south-east?
12.34p.m.
Lord Biffen: My Lords, although my remarks will refer to livestock and dairy products, the thrust of my argument concerns the European Union and it would have been more appropriate to have delivered them yesterday, but because of hospital treatment that was not possible. I am most grateful for your Lordships' tolerance which has enabled me to make my remarks in today's debate.
I have not done very much research on this topic. I have sat here in my place at Question Time and noted that, on 3rd November, my noble friend Lord Higgins inquired about,
"powers to prevent the export of live horses for slaughter". — [Official Report, 3/11/03; col. 518.]

463
On 12th November the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London inquired about, "progress in … negotiations with the European Commission to introduce a 5 per cent rate of VAT on repairs and maintenance to listed places of worship".—[Official Report, 12/11/03; col. 1351.]
Finally, on 13th November my noble friend Lord Monro of Langholm inquired,
"Whether there are any plans by the European Union to ban the use of the descriptive term 'yoghurt' as used in the United Kingdom".—[Official Report, 13/11/03; col. 1568.]
Those three matters do not seem to me to be the commanding heights of the economy. They seem to be exactly the kind of matters that we should be able to decide on our own account, using our own institutions of this Parliament and thus to fashion our relationships within Europe, trying to breathe some life into the concept of subsidiarity—an ugly and meaningless word, spawned at the time of the Maastricht Treaty. I regret that in the gracious Speech there is no commitment to try to crusade to make a reality of subsidiarity, so that the three items that I have mentioned almost casually could quite properly be where they should be in the context of European decision-making.
When thinking about the historic sequence of events in Europe, I make this reflection having observed the words of Aristide Briand, the French prime minister after the Locarno decisions, when he said:
"A Locarno nous avons parl¹ europ¹en. C'est une langue nouvelle qu'il faudre bien que l'on apprenne".
I can distribute the English text for any sceptics who feel it is required. It seems to me that we are seriously out of focus in our approach to Europe. We are now discussing the prospects of a constitution. I have no objection to there ultimately being a constitution or some formula that will govern the relationships of a Europe that is enlarged to include the applicant countries and holding in trust the likely further expansion to include countries like Croatia, Turkey and maybe others. However, we have a more immediate challenge which is to try to rid ourselves of a burgeoning bureaucracy that does little to enhance the cause of Europe. We need in the name of realism and of idealism a commitment to see that the nation states—
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. On his point of burgeoning bureaucracy, which is smaller than the number of officials employed by Surrey County Council, does he not welcome the provision in the European draft constitution to give, for the first time, to the national parliaments some opportunity to pronounce and effectively to intervene when there are matters that are properly dealt with at national level? Is that not a great advance for Europe?
Lord Biffen: My Lords, within the ambit of a seven-minute speech, I think that it is very generous of me to give way. However, I would welcome that prospect if subsidiarity, which was promised at Maastricht, had in fact delivered anything tangible as a consequence. Nevertheless, we will travel together and we will argue together, and I hope that we will come to mutual conclusions.
464
I conclude as I had intended by saying that it is not just practicality but idealism which requires us to see that the nation state is at the centre of our European relationships and has the authority to carry out the things that are most appropriate for it.
12. 40 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, while totally agreeing with almost everything that the noble Lord, Lord Biffen, said, I should like to revert to the environment and indeed to deliver the Green Party's own Queen's Speech since I am serving notice that I intend to introduce legislation on these subjects in your Lordships' House failing the Government taking them up.
The first subject is unadopted roads. I asked a Question on this in your Lordships' House on Tuesday. Although I received a straight reply to the question, "What are the Government going to do about them", which was, "Nothing", I received less than a straight reply from the Minister when in my supplementary I pointed out the evils of pests, dangers of accident and crime and the general environmental degradation involved and that the Government's solution—that local authorities should act—was no solution at all since they were not going to act seeing that there were neither incentives for them to do so or penalties if they did not do so and that in the nature of things there were therefore no votes in it.
I am also hoping that your Lordships will allow me to introduce a Bill next Tuesday on air traffic reduction. The Bill will propose a reduction in emissions of carbon monoxide, nitrogen monoxide and greenhouse gases due to air traffic as well as reducing pollution around airports and in the upper atmosphere. The intended effect is to reduce the amount of air traffic and thus eliminate the demand for new runways to be built.
The Government have predicted that the demand for air travel will treble over the next 30 years and that new runways must be built to meet that demand. That is an old-fashioned "predict and provide" policy. "Predict and provide" was abandoned for roads policy after it was reported that more roads would simply attract more traffic and would not end congestion. Predict and provide is not a sound policy for air transport either. The Green Party is not alone in this field. The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, in its 18th Report on Transport and the Environment, said:
"an unquestioning attitude toward future growth in air travel, and an acceptance that the projected demand for additional facilities must be met, are incompatible with the aims of sustainable development".
Aviation is the most highly polluting transport mode on Earth and its pollution constitutes a major hidden cost to the economy. Aviation is also subsidised directly and indirectly by the taxpayer and is a major drain on the UK balance of payments. The most important, but least obvious impact of aircraft is the contribution to climate change When burnt, aircraft fuel is converted to carbon dioxide and water. The global warming effects of carbon dioxide are well

465
recognised and much attention is now being paid to the issue. However, carbon dioxide emitted by aircraft on international flights is excluded from national targets for the Kyoto agreement. The costs of UK aviation's contribution to climate change are estimated at well over £2 billion a year in 2001.
Aircraft emit large quantities of pollution on their landing and takeoff cycle. The most important pollutants are concentrated on Heathrow and places like that. Small particulate matter is less a problem from aircraft, the majority around airports coming from the road traffic and fixed sources such as power plant. However, the health costs of air pollution from the aviation sector are estimated at more than £1.3 billion per year. But the impact that most concerns those living near airports is noise, particularly—but not only—night flights. When I was a vicar in Kew, the services in one of my churches had to be paused periodically because of the overhead flights. It did not make for particularly easy preaching or indeed for reading of the Word.
Professor John Whitelegg, in the Green Party's Aviation's Economic Downside report, stated:
"The overall hidden economic costs of the European Union's aviation sector are currently estimated at £14.3 billion a year—of which the UK alone accounts for £3.8 billion, or 26 per cent".
That does not include the costs of aviation accidents and accident services.
Aviation is under-taxed compared with most other sectors of the economy. Flight tickets, aircraft and aviation fuel are all zero-rated for VAT which costs the Treasury vast sums. All those costs and subsidies are increasing rapidly as the aviation sector grows. The application of a fairer tax regime on aviation could cut UK passenger numbers to 59 per cent of the figure forecast for 2020.
We want rigorous action to curb the growth of the aviation sector through a seven-point plan: the European-level charge on aviation; an end to all public subsidies to aviation; investment in less polluting travel alternatives; research into and promotion of further alternatives to business air travel, including more video conferencing, tele-presence and so on; optimisation of air traffic control; changes in land use planning law; and a public education programme. The Bill which I propose to introduce into your Lordships' House will implement the first of those; that is, air traffic emissions charges.
The Greens in the London Assembly—where the Green Party is fairly represented, unlike in Parliament— believe that Heathrow's hidden costs of £520 million should be reclaimed through a combination of fuel taxes, emissions charges and congestion charging. The air traffic reduction Bill will be just a first step towards getting the aviation industry under control. It would reduce pollution from air traffic and remove the need for new runways.
In environmental terms, these Bills are needed. If the Government will not act, then the Green Party must.
12. 47 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords during the last years of the Conservative government I became familiar with the process of speaking in the debate on the Queen's Speech and using the expression, "I regret that there is no mention of… ". The subject that I wanted then was, of course, the return of a Scottish Parliament, which has subsequently been achieved For the next few years I did not feel the need to use those words Now, however, I wish to do so again So here they are I regret that there is no mention of the devolution of the whole railway in Scotland.
I am impressed by the actions of the Scottish Parliament in dealing with the parts of the railway that are devolved Those are, of course, the ScotRdil passenger franchise, freight facilities grants, new railways, Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive and the other passenger transport authorities as they evolve So far, the Scottish Parliament has decided what sort of a passenger railway is required, and the current franchise renewal process has a subsidy of £210 million attached to it At the same time, the executive has bought about 20 new trains—Class 170 Turbostars—for the passenger railway That means that almost all of the Class 150 Sprinters can be cascaded into English and Welsh franchises It is also worth remembering that ScotRail and Strathclyde PTE have no Class 140 Pacers in use For anoraks, there is one Class 140 Pacer set in Scotland, on the private railway in the Dufftown area.
My principal argument is this Scotland can decide, and has decided, what sort of passenger railway it wants, excluding, of course, GNER and the two Virgin franchises, West Coast and Crosscountry. My argument for the devolution of the freight railway and for the track and infrastructure is based on my answer to the question is the railway in Scotland a peripheral regional railway or a national railway? My answer is, emphatically, that it is a national railway With the precise exception of the three cross-border franchises already mentioned, the Stranraer to Newcastle and the Caledonian sleeper services, the vast majority of passenger trains start and finish in Scotland.
I agree that there are also cross-border freight services, and I encourage that That is a long-term benefit of the Union treaty However, when I come to consider the track and infrastructure, that is when the argument is strongest With the exception of the East Coast Main Line and the West Coast Main Line, all the other Scottish main lines are classed by Network Rail as principal secondary routes, and are thus starved of investment That is not because the Strategic Rail Authority does not like Scotland but because the Strategic Rail Authority and Network Rail have to concentrate on the south-east of England, which is undoubtedly their busiest area.
Devolution of the track and infrastructure in Scotland would allow the Scottish Parliament to receive additional funding through the block grant for the whole railway Scotland could then decide for itself what kind and quality of a national railway system it wants, as do our neighbours in Ireland and Norway.

467
The prospect I conclude with is that of Virgin Pendolinos and GNER Mallards running at 140 miles an hour in places in Scotland and then slowing down for the English sections. Similarly, high speed running could be achieved in places on the principal routes from Edinburgh and Glasgow to Aberdeen, Dundee and Inverness.
Nothing I have said today undermines the devolution settlement. It would merely devolve responsibility for railways to the same degree as is already devolved for roads in Scotland. The Government have produced a tightly drawn Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Bill. This could be redrawn so that modifications could be made to Schedule 5, Section E2, rail transport, or, indeed, a separate Scotland Act order could be proposed.
12.52 p.m.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I shall address the needs of children and young people rather than higher education which will be debated by many other noble Lords. I must declare an interest as the co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Children. I believe very strongly that if the health, social, emotional, educational and economic needs of children were addressed, many problems relating to, for example, anti-social behaviour and offending would be tackled. This Government have made noble attempts to deal with child poverty, family welfare and underachievement, and that should be welcomed.
The welfare of children crosses many boundaries, and I know that some noble Lords, including myself, have found it difficult to decide in which debate to speak. That is perhaps a good sign. The gracious Speech included a number of Bills that will have an impact on children's lives and there will be much debate around particular issues. Child trust funds will provide an endowment for all children and more for those from poorer families and the child protection Bill will have an impact on the way in which services for children are organised. The Asylum and Immigration Bill also has implications for children and families. The Domestic Violence Bill should provide greater protection to victims and witnesses, many of whom will be children.
Children, of course, do not come in distinct parts with one labelled education, another health and so on, and, of course, there are many different types of children: children from different home backgrounds, different races or cultures; looked after children; children with disabilities; young carers; children of asylum seekers and travellers; and children of different gender and sexual orientation. It is not an easy task to cover all needs but it is our responsibility at a national and local level to do our best. I strongly support the creation of a children's commissioner for England as a champion for children.
In the brief time that I have available today I shall put forward some views on three matters: first, on some of the new structures proposed to benefit children; secondly, on citizenship education and, thirdly, on education for parenthood. I shall base my remarks largely on a consultation exercise carried out
468
in five parts by the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Children with Members of both Houses of Parliament, the statutory and voluntary sector and with young people themselves In doing so, I must pay tribute to the energy and commitment shown by the children's group administrators based at the National Children's Bureau and to all those who took part in the consultation which gave us the substance of the group's response to the Green Paper Every Child Matters.
First, I turn to new structures. It is good to see proposals to extend the statutory safeguarding duties and responsibilities held solely by local authority social services departments to other professionals and agencies A clear message needs to be acted on — that all services at a local level, including housing, education and prison services have a duty to care for and protect children. Statutory local safeguarding boards should ensure that there is capacity within the community to safeguard children. The creation of the post of Director of Children's Services could provide a single simple structure for accountability. I recognise that details need to be worked out, in particular which services the director will manage directly. The appropriate sharing of information proposed in the Green Paper is essential in order to protect children. How and when that information is shared will be crucial. School-based intervention services could be powerful in detecting emotional and behavioural difficulties. When I was first in teaching there were school counsellors in many schools. I think that we should bring back counselling services for young people.
There is much that is worthwhile in the review of services and I shall look to the Minister to clarify how the system will hang together and how, for example, children's trusts can be most effective. Should they not, for example, reach into youth justice?
I now turn to the school system and comment on citizenship education and education for parenthood. It is interesting that both those topics arose in every one of the five consultation exercises carried out by the all-party group. The young people present were themselves vocal on these issues, particularly on citizenship education It was felt that citizenship education should include classes on parenting, finances and politics and should be very practical and be taught by specialist teachers or relevant outside organisations. It was felt that citizenship education is about getting young people involved in their community and about skills for life. There was some cynicism on the part of the young people about citizenship education being a soft option relegated to filling in worksheets and answering factual questions far too often. I suggest to the Minister that we need some actual examples of good practice from schools that are taking this area seriously. Citizenship, together with personal, social and health education can provide some solid foundations for children and young people who are less confident and knowledgeable about life skills. In turn,
can enhance academic achievement.

469
Supporting parents and carers forms part of section three of the Green Paper. The consultees felt that parenting skills were often taught only when something had gone wrong. Promoting parenting services should be seen as a routine part of life and not as a stigma or sign of failure. Such education should surely begin in school and not just for the less academic, as it certainly used to be, but for all pupils. Many will become parents a few years after leaving school with no knowledge of what that will entail. It does not always come naturally, as we know to our cost. Parenting skills may be more useful to pupils than many other lessons undertaken, may be more memorable and may benefit their children in turn, thus helping to resolve the notorious cycle of deprivation.
I look forward to working with the Minister on the children Bill. Could I also ask her to collaborate with colleagues in discussing the areas that I have raised today? They are but part of a much wider jigsaw. The jigsaw has in the past had pieces missing or been too difficult to put together. Can we strive now to make the systems and structures which affect children more cohesive and powerful at a local and national level? This is a great opportunity which we should grasp with enthusiasm.
1 p.m.
Lord Neill of Bladen: My Lords, the topic that I would like to address is higher education. I declare an interest. I held the role of vice-chancellor of Oxford University from 1985 to 1989, and was a deputy chairman of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, as it was then called. In that role, we were confronted with a permanent shortfall in money and a winding down of government support. I speak in a totally non-political position. Those were the days of a Conservative government who did not provide adequate money for the universities. That situation continues today. I remember on one occasion I adapted the poem and said, "Does the road wind downhill all the way?". The answer to my question was yes—every year less money was available.
I shall talk a little in a moment about Oxford, but I am aware that many other universities have suffered singular deprivation as a result of funding shortage. The latest to come to my attention is Durham, where, as some noble Lords will be aware, the department of east Asian studies is on the point of being closed down, with a loss of impetus in an area that needs special protection. That sort of news is tragic.
I shall develop my two themes, which are that more money is needed and that we should not be ashamed of or mock the excellence of certain universities. I particularly have in mind the charge against Oxford and Cambridge of being elite. I would prefer to substitute "very good" for that. They are aiming to match the standards set by the best American universities. Unless we match those standards here, we will slip.
I shall give an Oxford figure for funding. In the money that comes in to be spent on teaching, there is a shortfall of £23 million a year. I dare say that the Cambridge
470
figure is not very different. There has to be cross-subsidy from other parts of the income. It is said that the universities are not doing enough to help themselves. Currently, Oxford is raising about £163 million from research and contact with industry. In other ways, we have been running a campaign to raise money on a fund-raising basis from sources all round the world. I was connected with that when it began in 1988.
The shortfall of money makes it imperative that there be an additional supply. If the only route that can be found for that is top-up fees, let it be top-up fees. In my perception, it is not unreasonable that the students who benefit from the education that they receive should be called on at a later date to repay the debt. The repayment is not required until they are in an earning position.
We can argue about whether the point for payment should be at a salary of £15,000 or £20,000 per annum and about the detail, but in principle students are getting a pretty good deal. Money is paid up-front on their behalf, with a nil interest rate and payback when they are in a position to do so. If they cannot do so— if they are primary school teachers, care workers or in some dedicated form of work that produces a very low income—the day may never come when they have to repay. Again, that seems entirely fair. If they benefit from the education and are able to earn much larger salaries than ordinary people, I do not for the life of me see why they should not be called on to make repayment under a fairly worked-out scheme.
That is my first point—that more income is needed and that I do not see in principle any deep-rooted objection to what is proposed. The argument has been raised that the fees will be a deterrent—that children from a poorer background will say, "That is not for me", and that their parents will warn them against university. I am not sure that there is any compelling evidence for that. It is an assertion at the moment, with certain parts of the media asserting that it is the case. It is not borne out by the Australian experience, and is not a rational argument. Time will show whether it is true or false.
One cure or remedy for the argument is that the universities will have to be particularly astute in having proper bursary provisions and schemes in place to help those who are really disadvantaged. A lot of that is already happening. I am sure that noble Lords will not ignore the fact that universities have been widening access and making provision for those who have very little money. Harvard recruits on quality. It goes round the United States, picks the ablest students and then says, "What are your financial needs?". If a student has wealthy parents, nothing is needed. If they have no money at all, Harvard provides. There has to be a back-up bursary system working alongside. That is being worked out.
I do not have long to speak on my other theme, but noble Lords will see what I have in mind on the question of universities being elite. It is absolutely essential that we have excellent universities in this country that have an international reputation. I was involved quite often at Oxford in recruiting people,

471
particularly some very fine scholars from America. Two factors really got them to come to Oxford. One was the quality of the academic community with which they would be associated. In other words, they would be coming to work with people at the same peer level as their own in America. The other—I say this without any feeling of shame—was the magnetism of the college system, the form of life that could be provided for someone in the humanities by being a member of a college. Those were the twin attractions that enabled one to persuade Americans to come to Oxford at a much lower salary than they could command elsewhere in the world.
I hope that, whatever scheme is introduced, the Government will place a large measure of trust in the universities to run their own system. Let them pick the students whom they want. Let them develop the disciplines and subjects that they think best suited and that they want to develop. The fewer controls and restrictions placed on them, the better. I am not saying that suggestions cannot be made or guidance offered and so on, but it is imperative to allow the academic communities to run their own system as they know best.
Those are my thoughts on the matter. We should look forward to increasing the excellence of the universities, and should not be ashamed of having two or three that are particularly distinguished. The aim should be to bring the level up for all universities. Intrinsically, we have the basis of a marvellous system and some wonderful teachers in the university system throughout the land.
1.8 p.m.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, it is a great pleasure and privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Neill, both literally and thematically. First, I shall say a word on our socially uneven participation in higher education, especially in the 19 Russell group universities. In her answers to recent questions of mine, the Minister has told me that those universities are admitting more students from the relatively small independent and grammar sector than from the huge numbers attending comprehensive schools. Indeed, in two of the Russell group—Oxford and Cambridge—only about one fifth of new students come from comprehensives; well over half come from independent schools—54.5 per cent in 2002.
This imbalance is something that universities have been struggling to rectify for decades. In part, the problem is down to comprehensive pupils lacking the self-confidence or ambition to apply to top) universities— lacking too the support and encouragement of their teachers to do so.
In his memoirs, Wings of a Man's Life, my late friend Gorley Putt writes of his constant frustration as admissions tutor at Christ's College, Cambridge, in the 1970s. Year after year, he and his colleagues made enthusiastic recruiting visits to big comprehensives up and down the country. I quote his words:
ow our kids to apply to Oxbridge', I would be told. They tried to prevent me even from meeting possible candidates".
472
This is an area, surely, which the new office for fair access should look at, if only to see how widespread are such appalling attitudes.
But of course the chief reason for the abiding imbalance in admissions is the failure of comprehensives to come anywhere close to independent schools in pupil achievement at A-level. In answer to another of my questions, the Minister told me that in 2001 and 2002, the proportion of students getting straight As at A-level was 5 per cent at comprehensive schools but 23 per cent at independent schools.
It will take a long time to get state secondary schools up to scratch, though the specialist schools—now nearly 1,500 of them—are showing the way. It is their aim to do well not only in their specialism—be it science, technology or foreign languages—but for this to rub off on the rest of the national curriculum.
There are examples to show that this is working. Members of the Wolfson Foundation education panel were struck last month by the William Howard School in Cumbria. This has the status of a specialist school in science. But in last year's exams it had huge numbers getting GCSEs and A-levels in two foreign languages. One was of course French, but 80 youngsters got their GCSEs in Italian, which is almost an endangered species in British education.
With more schools like this, and with aspiration to match, we will come closer to the "world-class education" promised in the gracious Speech and to a better balance at university. But I am not holding my breath.
I turn now to the issue of university finance, which, as my noble friend Lord Neill said, is urgent and indeed critical. I declare an interest as a Fellow of UCL. Over the past 20 years, state funding per student has fallen, in today's money, from about £10,000 per student to about £5,000. We now make a loss on every undergraduate we teach. Where till recently we had a university system that matched the best in the world, few would have the confidence to make such a claim today.
It is to the Government's credit that the seriousness of the position is well understood and is being addressed: as it is in Australia, with Brendan Nelson's Bill now before the Canberra Parliament. The proposal here to allow universities to charge supplementary tuition fees up to £3,000 is a welcome step in the right direction, but let no one think that it is other than a modest step. The current Economist uses the word "trivial". It is not trivial, but it would become so if the plan were to be watered down to a lower level than £3,000 or compromised by being made universal across all institutions and all fields of study. Then our problems would be made worse rather than better and the Government would have fluffed the chance of making a step-change towards the policy, repeatedly stated by Secretary of State Charles Clarke, to introduce competition between universities and between courses within universities. I quote from his website last week, and the same words were used in his speech in the House of Commons yesterday, at col. 536 of Hansard of 3rd December. He said:
"A flat-rate fee is simply unjust… to charge the same amount across the board irrespective of the demand, nature, or quality of the course and the potential rate of return for the student".

473
To object to this with talk of creating a "two-tier" university system is to be seriously at odds with reality. We actually need—in fact we actually have—not a two-tier system but a finely graded multi-tier system. Differential fees are essential to reflect and promote such gradience, essential too if we are to have honest transparency and plain common sense in the costing of higher education.
This being so, it is for consideration at Second Reading of the forthcoming Bill whether we cannot move a little towards the corollary by some modest tweaking of the £3,000 limit. Might not universities be given the freedom of virement within a total of £3,000 per admitted student, so that they could vary supplementary fees within an institution-wide average—I stress that—of £3,000?
This would involve no additional cost to the Exchequer and universities would be able—indeed, almost forced—to test their claim of superior provision by challenging lower fees at a rival university and charging, say, £5,000 a year for courses with a good "rate of return" (say, law or accountancy) while choosing to attract students to maths or nursing with a low (or no) supplementary fee.
But for the present it is enough to ask the Minister whether those two admirable aims in the gracious Speech—
"a world-class education system",
and,
"Universities … on a sound financial basis"—[Official Report,
26/11/03; col. 1.],
are not merely connected but contingent. Can we have the one without the other?
1.17 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government, in response to the report of my noble friend Lord Laming on the tragic death of Victoria Climbié, introduced in the gracious Speech the children's Bill that we have already discussed. I warmly welcome that, as I welcome the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill which will, I hope, contain important safeguards for children. I am concerned about the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill and I should be most grateful to the Minister if she could state as early as possible the likely impact of Clause 7 on children of asylum seekers.
Her Majesty's Government, in their Green Paper, Every Child Matters, acknowledge that the purpose at which they aim with the children's Bill will not be achieved unless the childcare workforce issues are addressed. I hope that your Lordships will therefore permit me to concentrate on the wider agenda of the childcare workforce covered in the children's Green Paper, an area for which the Minister has special responsibility.
The vacancy rates for child and family social workers nationally stand at about 15 per cent and in London at about 20 per cent. The vacancy rate for residential
474
childcare workers stands at about 11 per cent and in London I believe that the figure is 15 per cent. Those compare with a vacancy rate for teachers of below 1 per cent nationally and 2 per cent in London. That illustrates the challenge that faces us. We are short of midwives, and health visitors are very stretched in their work. Recently at a meeting with the Minister for Children, an early-years educator—a nursery nurse, I believe—said to the Minister that many of her colleagues are leaving to work at Tesco, Waitrose and other retailers because they receive better pay and conditions there.
We are short of good fosterers. Another 6,000 are required in England and Wales and, despite the Government's efforts, it is hard to imagine how those vacancies can be filled. It is encouraging to learn that there has been a 10 per cent increase in the recruitment of social workers in the past year. It is also encouraging to hear that more social workers are trying to obtain post-qualifying qualifications. It would be helpful to know how the retention rate for social workers now stands.
The Green Paper, Every Child Matters, was originally envisaged as being cost-neutral. I am pleased to hear that, in certain areas, Her Majesty's Government have decided to invest more in implementing the Green Paper.
The most important part of the childcare workforce involves parents. We should all be very grateful for the Government's action in promoting parenting. I think, in particular, of the outstanding programmes for supporting parents whose children have committed offences and the positive outcomes in terms of reoffending. I welcome the additional funding that is being made available in that area. However, my noble friend Lord Northbourne is concerned that the £25 million that will be available over three years—I hope that I have that figure correct—will not be adequate to meet the need that exists. The noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, spoke very eloquently on the issue of parenting schools.
Every Child Matters examines how we might benefit from positive strategies in other fields by learning from what has been done elsewhere—for example, in teaching and other professions—and applying those lessons to the recruitment and retention of social care professionals. I welcome very warmly what the document says about developing common core training for childcare workers.
I also welcome the introduction of a children's workforce unit and the acknowledgement that the developmental nature of children needs to be understood by all those who work with children. If that is applied properly, I believe that the group of workers who may most benefit will be residential childcare workers—those who work in children's homes. They value teamwork above almost every other aspect of their work. They feel that they can best assist the children when they work successfully as a team. Sadly, those children are often so troubled that that impacts on the team and can affect the carers' co-operative efforts.
Such workers also often feel overlooked by other professionals—teachers, social workers and mental health professionals—because of their poor training.

475
They still suffer from the cloud of the sad history of abuse in children's homes, including those in north Wales. Therefore, it is difficult for them to work as part of a wider team. They value teamwork in their own children's homes but it is hard for them to work with other agencies. Therefore, I value what the Green Paper says about encouraging multi-agency work and developing a common culture of childcare. I hope that children's trusts can be a tool by which partnerships are increased with health, education and other agencies, thereby building the confidence of this group of often hard-pressed staff. Eventually, I hope that that will lead to expanding the positive experience of children who go through children's homes.
We need to do more for the carers—the parents and grandparents. I believe that that was illustrated very strongly to parliamentarians when they listened to Mrs Scholes, who told of her son who recently committed suicide in a young offender institution. He had suffered a long history of sexual abuse and had been through a difficult time. His parents had separated and, following a custody battle, he was taken into care in a children's home. He self-harmed, cutting himself across the face many times. He was sentenced to custody and the court advised a secure children's home. He ended up in a YOI and hanged himself.
Many people who enter our over-crowded penal system have sad histories of family dysfunction. I very much hope that the wider workforce measures that are coming forward will help to promote improved outcomes for such children. I should appreciate it if, in her response, the Minister could say—as I have not given her warning of this question, perhaps she will write to me—whether her department is putting forward a robust application in relation to the Comprehensive Spending Review for increased remuneration and support for those who work in such areas.
1.26 p.m.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, I want to address the issue of keeping Britain's livestock healthy on the basis that healthy livestock in our community leads to a healthy rural economy and forms part of the economic stability and growth of the rural environment.
We are all aware that in recent years British livestock agriculture has suffered devastating outbreaks of animal disease, such as classical swine fever, bovine spongiform encephalopathy and foot and mouth disease. We are all privy to the dramatic social, economic and environmental consequences that those have brought about. Some are still with us— for example, tuberculosis in our cattle and in badgers.
The Policy Commission on the Future of Fanning and Food that followed those disease outbreaks made the following recommendations:
"In view of England's abysmal animal health record in recent years, DEFRA in conjunction with the Industry need to devise and implement a comprehensive animal health strategy".
476
I believe we all agree with that. It raises the obvious question of what must be done to implement the recommendation.
The lessons learnt from the outbreaks to which I have just referred have been commented upon in several reports and discussions. However, to my mind, it is paramount that we put in place measures and structures to ensure that those devastations do not occur again. It would be fallacious to imagine that entry into the United Kingdom of highly infectious and contagious diseases will not occur again. The global movement of people, animals and food products is such that it would be miraculous if disease were not to accompany it. I shall give an idea of the scale of the movement. Some 750,000 airline flights land in this country annually, bringing in 72 million passengers annually. Even if a very small proportion of those were to carry infectious disease of one kind or another, we would be in deep trouble.
The Phillips report on BSE made two important points. One was that,
"an effective system of animal disease surveillance is a prerequisite to effective control of animal disease".
The other was that,
"an effective system of passive surveillance will depend on farmers and their veterinarians having the incentive and the facility for drawing instances of animal disease to the attention of the State Veterinary Service".
It might be noted that the first case of BSE in cattle was spotted by a veterinary surgeon in general practice.
A variety of consultative documents resulted from the various inquiries that have been held into the foot and mouth outbreak. They have identified needs for animal health and welfare strategies up and down the country. They advocate a partnership between vets and farmers to deliver them. However, a general problem in livestock farming is its profitability. That is coupled with a major decline in the number of veterinarians visiting farms on a regular basis owing to that reduced profitability. Farmers do much of the veterinary work themselves. This all results in a major reduction in on-farm veterinary work. For example, now only 9.4 per cent of veterinary practitioners' time is spent working on livestock farms, compared with 20 per cent in 1998, which was only a few years ago. This results in a vicious circle in which there are not enough positions available in veterinary practices to accommodate people wishing to be large animal practitioners, incomes are lower, work is harder and often entails longer hours than those in companion animal work. Nevertheless, large animal practice work is still much in demand by new veterinary graduates, especially by women, if they can find it.
The State Veterinary Service has an important role to play in surveillance and delivering good animal health. We are aware of a decline over recent years in its personnel numbers, as was indicated in the foot and mouth outbreak. The implications are clear. We need greatly to enhance its manpower numbers. The way forward may well be, as envisaged by Defra, for the State Veterinary Service to become a Next

477
Steps executive agency. That will mean improved accountability through the clear separation of responsibility for policy and delivery, as recommended in the report by the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, on delivering government policies in rural England. If that is to be the case, adequate funding for manpower and services must be available for this new concept.
How do we change the situation so that we have a healthy livestock industry in this country rather than one threatened by disease? The House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee recently published its report Vets and Veterinary Services. It put forward many of the needed developments. An important comment is that all in livestock agriculture should take responsibility for championing animal health and welfare. An example of that is the National Animal Disease Information Service (NADIS), which is an independent body of, at present, 40 veterinary practitioners who formed a sentinel practice network in 1995. It regularly collects information and dispenses it to other veterinary practices and the press, both nationally and locally. This is an example of the profession helping itself, rather than going cap in hand and asking for funds for this to be done. It is an important development. The Commons committee has suggested that the work should be boosted by inputs from Defra and other organisations connected with agriculture.
The need for surveillance is exemplified by the sea of livestock diseases around us, some of which are transmissible to man. A recent example is the highly pathogenic avian flu epidemic that struck the Netherlands. Prompt attention by the European authorities in Belgium, Denmark and Germany stamped out that disease. Fortunately, it did not reach this country, although it may well have done.
A constant theme throughout the lessons learned from inquiries is the need for research, more veterinarians in research and more veterinary research. My noble friend Lord Selborne, who is not in his place at present, chaired a committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. It produced a very important report which strongly emphasised the importance of getting more veterinary research into veterinary schools. I am happy to say that, several years after that report was published—much delayed but nevertheless it has been published—£25 million has been made available over a period of five years to boost veterinary research, training and teaching in the veterinary schools. That is a most welcome shot in the arm. But it is important to recognise that that should not be the end of the support and that it should continue for a number of decades.
There are certain areas in which research is particularly important, such as diagnostic tests to allow for rapid diagnosis of animal disease instead of having to send specimens through the mail. Another example is the nature of improved vaccines; vaccines that will produce life-long immunity to important diseases such as foot and mouth disease. The need for such vaccines is urgent since never again should we approach disease control with the only option being the slaughter of tens of thousands of animals.
478
Preparedness for the unusual is vitally important. We know little of why disease entities suddenly appear. An example of course is the recent SARS epidemic out of China into Hong Kong and elsewhere in the world. But there are likely to be more—coming we do not know when or how—as the agents rearrange their genetic make up and take advantage of a human or animal niche to proliferate.
As I have said before in this House, the price of freedom from these diseases is eternal vigilance.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I beg to move that further debate on the Motion for an humble Address be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 1.37 to 2 p.m. for Judicial Business and to 3 p.m. for Public Business.]

Assistance for Visually Impaired Peers
Lord Morris of Manchesterasked the Chairman of Committees:
What steps have been taken over recent years to help Peers with severe visual impairments in discharging their parliamentary duties; and what further action is being considered.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, recent improvements have been made to the clarity of documents, including the Order Paper and new format Committee reports. Official documents are also available on the Internet and Intranet, and may be printed at whatever size type is most convenient.
The physical environment has also been improved including adapted lifts and Braille signs. A survey of the Palace for access and facilities is currently underway and will report in the New Year.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, who is as totally committed as any Member of this House to placing people with sight problems on the same footing as those of us who can access standard print. Is he aware that the European Commission, among many other institutions, already has a transcription centre to transfer printed documents into formats such as large print, electronic, audio and Braille? Are there any plans to provide transcription facilities here in consultation with organisations such as the RNIB to make information available in these other formats for Peers, employees and visitors with visual impairments that make it difficult or impossible for them to access standard print?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his kind words. I pay tribute to him

479
for all the work that I know he has done over many years for people who are visually impaired. I am indeed aware of the facilities provided by the European Commission documentation facility for visually impaired people. There are currently no plans to provide centralised transcription facilities in the House of Lords.
The House endeavours to respond to demand from individual Members and members of staff with visual impairments to provide them with the appropriate support to allow them to carry out their work. I am of course always willing to receive requests for additional support. In recent years, we have worked closely with the RNIB to make improvements in providing information for visually impaired Members and staff in a suitable format. In addition, the brief guide to the House of Lords is now available in Braille to visitors and work is being done to make the brief guide available in audio format.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am glad that there will be a general review but could whoever is responsible for it pay particular attention to the lighting on steps and stairs, because that is what some of us who are visually impaired find particularly difficult?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I was not aware of the problem with lighting; I will now see what can be done to improve it. I would say only that if noble Lords have problems that they feel should be considered, please come to my office or Black Rod's office and we will see what we can do.
Lord Addington: My Lords, although thanking the noble Lord in advance for the individual reaction that he is taking to disabilities in this House, will he inform us exactly what co-ordination there is between the different types of problems and their solutions within the House? For instance, a good, solid hand rail will help someone who is visually impaired and someone who has movement difficulties.
What sort of process is there to ensure that ongoing improvements in aids such as voice operation software, which speaks back to you and to which you can speak, can be worked into what is available as the normal package in the House?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I would hope that we will continue to have meetings with the RNIB, as we have had in recent years. I am very happy to meet again if that would help. I am sure that that would lead to the sort of improvements for which the noble Lord, Lord Addington, looks.
As for co-ordination, again, I would hope that people would come to me if they have suggestions to make. As I said, a survey of the House is underway to consider how not just visually impaired people but all people with a disability can be assisted. I believe that the survey will report early in the New Year, and I hope will provide useful suggestions.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, while accepting that the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 does not apply here, does the Chairman of Committees agree that Parliament should as far as possible provide help no less favourable than best practice outside?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Indeed, my Lords. Although technically speaking the DDA does not apply to the Palace, because of Crown immunity or whatever, we try—I hope we succeed—to fulfil the requirements laid down for us.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, does the Chairman of Committees agree that the in-house transcription mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, would also have the added benefit that it would be useful for those sighted Peers who receive correspondence in Braille from people with disabilities to enable them to carry out their parliamentary duties?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Baroness makes an interesting point. I have not been made aware of problems with Peers receiving material in Braille that needs to be translated. I have been considering the matter the other way round: where text needs to be translated into Braille. It is an interesting point that we should consider translating Braille into text. Translation services are available to us. which I am sure could fulfil that role as well.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it is one thing for the noble Lord, and the organisation generally, to respond to requests from individual Peers—I am delighted that that happens. However, could the noble Lord be a little more pre-emptive? Is information collected on the number of Members of this House who have a sight problem and what would be their preferred format in which to receive information, if they cannot use the facilities provided?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not believe that information is collected in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, describes. As he suggests, we are more reactive than proactive; obviously, we do not want to make available facilities that are not required, because of the expense that goes with that.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I occasionally find myself very embarrassed going down the staircase from the Committee Rooms? When I start, there is no one there. By the time I have got down, the whole staircase has been blocked by my being so slow. It is the going down which is the problem for people with bad eyesight— with one eye, and so on. As the noble Lord asked for suggestions, I let him have my view.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, perhaps I may suggest that the noble Lord uses the lifts, which now—

481
many of them, anyway—have what some noble Lords find annoying: this voice which tells you at what floor you are.

Abandoned Vehicles
3.10 p.m.
Baroness Byfordasked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they have taken to reduce the number of abandoned vehicles in England.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the Government take very seriously the problems posed by abandoned vehicles. We are taking a number of initiatives to reduce their incidence. We have enabled local authorities to remove such vehicles more quickly by reducing the statutory notice period for removal and giving them wheel-clamping powers. We are introducing continuous registration in January 2004, and will ensure provision of free take-back and treatment for all end-of-life vehicles by January 2007.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. Is he not disappointed that the number of abandoned vehicles is very much on the rise? London continues to have the highest number, which increased by 84,000 in 2000–01. More worrying is the position of Yorkshire and Humber, where the number of abandoned vehicles has increased by 54 per cent, and the eastern area, where there has been a 47 per cent increase. How does the Minister expect the police to cope with that when the Home Office's own figures of 17th November reported that rural crime had trebled since 1980?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, any relationship to rural crime is caused by entirely different social factors. The increase in abandoned cars is largely explicable by the drastic fall in scrap metal prices. One gets virtually nothing for a scrapped car. For that reason, and because of the non-registration and illegal driving of cars, there has been a significant increase. The combination of the greater powers that we have already given local authorities to remove abandoned cars, better co-ordination between authorities and, shortly, continuous registration will place responsibility on owners and give local authorities and police more powers.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I apologise for adding a United Kingdom dimension to the Question. Is the noble Lord aware that the price of scrapping a vehicle at my local scrapyard in Alloa is £30 plus the keys? Does he agree that under the new regulations at least an extra £50 will be required? Does he further agree that the likelihood of dumping in the countryside, whether in England or Scotland, will
482
increase so long as the last user must pay at least £80, which, in the case of a banger, may be more than was originally paid for the vehicle?
Lord Whitty: Yes, my Lords. Not long ago, people paid you for your car, but now you must pay them to take it and give them access to it if it is revivible. The economics have changed. The end-of-life vehicle directive will also create a further responsibility and a cost. Continuous registration will require the last registered owner to take that responsibility, and, from 2007, the responsibility will be on the producer. We have a two-stage programme to deal with the fundamentals of the problem In the mean time, we have given local authorities more powers.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, most abandoned vehicles that I come across do not have many wheels, if any, and some have been set on fire. What is the point of allowing local authorities to clamp such cars?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the back streets that my noble friend frequents are perhaps not a great case in point Such powers would be somewhat belated there. Nevertheless, in some places there are abandoned cars in perfectly good condition but which the alleged owner is not prepared to remove. Under previous regulations, we had very little leverage in such situations Clamping helps in those cases and when cars are abandoned on private land.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that abandoned cars are merely one particularly objectionable form of litter? Litter is increasing hugely on our roads, particularly on trunk roads, which are the responsibility of local authorities, which simply do not do their job. Would it not be simple for the Highways Agency to clear up the roads that local authorities have failed to clear up and send them the bill?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I doubt it, as there is a clear demarcation between Highways Agency roads and local authority roads. A local authority is responsible for keeping all its roads clear and in reasonable condition. Although the noble Lord has been concerned about the issue for some time, statistics indicate that roadside litter has improved—though it is still a serious problem is some parts of the country. I am not sure that the problem could be dealt with under the powers to deal with abandoned cars, although strictly speaking they are litter, too.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, the SORN regulations have been in place for some time. How many prosecutions have been initiated under them?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, that is a very good question I shall write to the noble Earl. Although the SORN regulations are helpful where there are records, they are not particularly helpful in cases where a car is

483
not registered. That is why continuous registration and placing responsibility on the last known, reported and registered owner are an important improvement.
Lord Monson: My Lords, further to the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, approximately what proportion of abandoned cars have been stolen by yobs and set on fire for fun? Lincolnshire is full of such burnt-out wrecks.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I cannot give an overall figure. Most abandoned cars are faintly serviceable and therefore not burnt out. I am afraid that information on the number of wheels on such cars is beyond my statistical records.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, tracing the previous owner of an abandoned vehicle, making him liable, as the law says, and extracting money from him to remove the vehicle and have it destroyed is likely to be costlier than disposing of the vehicle in the first place and likely to lead to an unreasonable delay. How do the Government intend to handle that dilemma?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, tracing the previous owner does not stop a local authority removing a car and disposing of it after the due notice period. Much of the cost of that would be met under the system of continuous registration by the previous registered owner. We cannot have a situation where the last traceable owner says, "I sold it in a pub and it is no longer my responsibility". The fact that the alleged new owner had not registered the car can no longer be used as an excuse by the previous owner.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, the Minister said that the owners of abandoned vehicles were not prepared to remove them. What, then, is the point of clamping them?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in certain circumstances, it is clear that an abandoned car is worth something and that at some point, therefore, the owner will return to collect it. The authorities will have to use their discretion in deciding whether to tow away a car or clamp it. It will depend on their view of the nature of the offence and the value of the car. If the owner wants it back, he will have to pay the unclamping fee and a fine.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, what happens when a vehicle has apparently been abandoned but yet has current vehicle excise duty?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is still an abandoned car, but it is taxed. If the car has a tax disc, there will be a record of the owner, who will be liable.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, are the Government considering altering the current situation whereby, if a car is abandoned on private land, particularly farming
484
land, the cost of removal lies with the landowner, whereas if one is abandoned in a street it is a local authority matter?
Lord Whitty: In some respects, my Lords, in that we have recently consulted on reducing, from 15 days to five, the period of notice to landowners in which they might object to a local authority going on to the land to remove a car itself. Although there has been opposition to the reduction, most local authorities are in favour of it, as are some landowners. We will decide whether to proceed with it very shortly.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, who is liable if a car has been stolen and then considered abandoned? If the police have been notified of the theft, who is responsible?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, if the police have been notified of the theft, the owner would not be responsible so long as the theft was reported prior to the car being found abandoned.

Carers: Rights and Entitlements
3.20 p.m.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, I beg lea\e to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In so doing, I remind your Lordships that today is carers' rights day.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to ensure that carers are aware of their rights and entitlements.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner): My Lords, the Government are pleased to be supporting Carers UK in promoting carers' rights day 2003. My honourable friends the Ministers for community and for disabled people will be launching this year's event this evening.
As my noble friend knows, the Government, working with the public, voluntary and private sectors, have made major improvements to carers' entitlements and knowledge of their rights. Carers' rights day will help to ensure that even more carers receive the support available to them in the demanding work that they do.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply and am happy to acknowledge the huge progress that has been made for carers in recent years. However, my noble friend will know that, in spite of two Acts of Parliament, most carers are still unaware of their right to an assessment of their community care needs and that, therefore, too many of them are not getting one.
Does my noble friend think that it would be helpful to review the performance assessment framework that local authorities use, to see whether we are measuring the right outcomes for carers? The key seems to be to

485
change the behaviour and attitudes of local authorities, especially social services departments, so that they recognise what carers need.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that there are still problems and that more must be done. Work is in hand in my department to develop a measure of carers' assessments and their outcomes, so that it can be used to monitor a council's performance. Discussions are in progress with the Social Care Institute for Excellence to develop a good practice component to assessments on the Department of Health carers' website.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, one of the few bright spots in the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Bill were the amendments secured by the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, regarding assessments for carers, when the person for whom they cared left hospital. Does the Minister's response mean that those assessments will also be included in the performance assessment that he outlined? Those rights came into effect this October, and it will be important to monitor and assess them.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I am sure that that will be examined, as part of the work being done in the department.
Lord Laming: My Lords, what are the Government doing to highlight the special needs of the growing number of young people who are, sometimes, the principal carer in the family to ensure that their needs are identified and that they are given proper support in the formative years of their life?
Lord Warner: My Lords, young carers are in a difficult situation. The Government have been working to improve the support that is given to them. That work will continue.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, have the Government anything in mind for improving the supply of professional carers? Has the Minister anything in mind for improving the facilities for offering training to family members who act as carers? Frequently, such people have no training and no idea of what their responsibilities may be, in the case of a family member who is, perhaps, injured. When that person leaves hospital, the situation comes upon the carer suddenly. What help do the Government have in mind?
Lord Warner: My Lords, the Government have hugely increased the amount of money available for health and social care, which has led to a large increase in the number of staff who would be described as professional carers in the sense in which the noble Lord uses the term.
Social services, in particular, work to help family members who care for people at home and to provide the advice and support necessary in those circumstances.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, my question follows on from that asked by the noble Lord,
486
Lord Tebbit Does the Minister think that it is the right of carers to be taught safe lifting and handling techniques, if they care for somebody with mobility problems?
Lord Warner: My Lords, that is all part of the assessment done by social services, when they come to examine the needs of a person with a disability or condition that needs care support in the home. In their assessment, they will take into account the ability of an informal carer to cope.
Baroness Howells of St Davids: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister is aware that more than 300,000 carers miss out on claiming the carer's allowance because they do not know about it Does the Minister think that social services departments should be more proactive in encouraging carers to claim?
Lord Warner: My Lords, we know that there is a problem, but there has been a huge increase in the number of people who claim the allowance. If last year's experience is anything to go by, carers' rights day will help improve that number.
Responsibility for the carer's allowance rests with the Department for Work and Pensions. It will bring in better claim packs for those benefits in order to simplify the claiming process The Government will continue to work with councils and the voluntary sector to improve take-up.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the arrangements for social security payments for adults caring for young people with behaviour problems are so complex that it is almost impossible for them to receive their entitlement? I have been lobbied by someone who has two children with identical needs but cannot get the same arrangements for them.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I do not claim to be an expert in the area, but I shall look into the matter and write to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, as someone who has only recently become a carer, may I bring up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, about people leaving hospital? The person whom I look after left hospital just before 1st October, so the arrangements did not apply. Is it now the case that each person who is to look after someone leaving hospital is given a note about their rights and entitlements? I had no idea that I had any rights or entitlements, I may not have.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I shall examine the noble Baroness's circumstances and see whether she was dealt with appropriately I shall write to her.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it is welcome that the carer's allowance has been extended to people over retirement age However, because of the financial rules, it is an incredibly complicated process, taking in pension

487
arrangements, the minimum income guarantee and so on. I am delighted to hear the Minister say that the Department for Work and Pensions is looking into it and will send out new information.
That is all very well from the point of view of administrators. The important thing is that it should be read and understood by the recipients. That has not always been the history of the Department for Work and Pensions.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I recall that the Department for Work and Pensions has a good record of subjecting its guidance to the scrutiny of the Plain English Campaign.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is there, in accordance with the principles of e-government, a website that carers can log on to, input details of their circumstances and get information about their entitlements? If there is, will the Minister give us the URL?
Lord Warner: My Lords, a number of websites is available to carers. They have been developed with Carers UK and other voluntary organisations. I am not familiar with all the websites of the Department for Work and Pensions. I shall look into the matter and write to the noble Lord.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, is there a mechanism in the noble Lord's department for recognising, when a person is assessed for health needs, that a child may be involved in caring for that person and for flagging up that fact with other departments, without breaching confidentiality with the patient? Is that an aim of the Green Paper? Is the Minister aware of any current mechanism for that?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I am not aware of any mechanisms in the department, but I would have thought that that was a matter for local social services departments, in assessing the circumstances of a carer.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, can the Minister give us an estimate of the number of young people in England and Wales or the United Kingdom who are carers?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I do not have the number immediately available, but I know that it is available. I will be happy to write to the noble and learned Lord.

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
3.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Falconer of Thoroton):
My Lords, may I take the opportunity to inform the House that I will be attending a Cabinet meeting on Tuesday 9th December? Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.

Business of the House: Thursday, 18th December
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I should like to make the usual comment about the last day before the Recess; that is, Thursday 18th December. The usual channels have agreed that the House should sit at 11 o'clock, with Starred Questions as first business and with no break at lunch.

Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos):
My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend Part 1 of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 to make further provision concerning the Public Prosecution Service established by that Act; to impose a new duty on certain criminal justice organisations in Northern Ireland in relation to human rights standards; to make provision consequential on the dissolution of the Juvenile Justice Board; to amend the law relating to bail in Northern Ireland; to provide for the transfer of certain prisoners from Northern Ireland to England and Wales; to amend Section 103 of the Terrorism Act 2000; to provide for driving while disqualified to be an arrestable offence in Northern Ireland; to re-enact, with amendments, Sections 79 to 81 of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 and to make further provision about court security officers in Northern Ireland; and to enable barristers in Northern Ireland to enter into contracts for the provision of their services; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.— (Baroness Amos.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

Administration and Works Information Refreshment Works of Art
3.31 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the four Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper en bloc.
Administration and Works
Moved, That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the committee;

L. Cope of Berkeley

L. Craig of Radley

B. Darcy de Knayth

489

L. Dixon

L. Grocott

Bp. Guildford

L. Kirkham

B. McFarlane of Llandaff

E. Mar and Kellie

L. Roper

L. Shaw of Northstead

B. Wilkins;

That the committee have leave to report from time to time.
Information
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider information and communications services, including the Library and the Parliamentary Archives, within financial limits approved by the House Committee;
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the committee;

L. Avebury

L. Baker of Dorking (Chairman)

L. Brougham and Vaux

L. Burnham

E. Erroll

B. Gale

B. Gardner of Parkes

B. Goudie

L. Haskel

L. Mitchell

L. Rodger of Earlsferry

E. Sandwich

L. Smith of Clifton;

That the committee have leave to report from time to time.
Refreshment
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to advise on the refreshment services provided for the House, within financial limits approved by the House Committee;
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the committee;

L. Borrie

L. Burnham

B. Fookes (Chairman)

L. Grocott

B. Harris of Richmond

L. Palmer

B. Pitkeathley

L. Redesdale

B. Rendell of Babergh

Ly. Saltoun of Abernethy

B. Strange

L. Wade of Chorlton;

That the committee have leave to report from time to time.
Works of Art
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to administer the House of Lords Works of Art Collection Fund; and to consider matters relating to
490
works of art in the House of Lords, within financial limits approved by the House Committee,
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the committee;

L. Bernstein of Craigweil

V. Chandos

L. Cobbold

L. Crathorne (Chairman)

L. Eames

L. Luke

L. Redesdale

L. Rees

L. Rees-Mogg

L. Tordoff

B. Trumpington

B. Warwick of Undercliffe,

That the committee have leave to report from time to time —(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Address in Reply to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech
3.32p.m.
Debate resumed.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, the centrepiece of what I have to say concerns top-up fees, which, clearly, are among the most important issues to be resolved in this Parliament. They are important because it is unarguably necessary to secure more resources for our universities if we are ever to return universities to their previous high international standing There can be no doubt about the need. Academic salaries in Britain are quite disgracefully low As the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, said, the student/staff ratio has doubled from 9:1 to 18:1 in the past decade Student per capita funding has decreased by 37 per cent State contribution per student today is £1,125 per annum, which is nothing like the full cost of approximately £4,000 By contrast, Australia spends 30 per cent more per student and the United States spends nearly three times as much.
The Government are to be congratulated on being both courageous and realistic in their decision to tackle the problem, which has been shelved by previous governments for far too long Their plans are surely a step in the right direction. If we accept the premise, as I do, that higher education is no longer for the few, but is necessary for the many—not least for international economic competitive reasons—we must encourage not just a variety of routes, such as part-time or distance learning, in order that students of all ages are able to achieve higher education, but even more importantly, additional ways of financing students, including contributions from the students themselves That is where so-called top-up fees come in, which would be payable, not at the time but after graduation, through an income-related repayment scheme.

491
Of course, one has sympathy for the university students of today and tomorrow and the potential debt that they will have accumulated when they graduate. But the majority will earn considerably more than the average wage. The deferral of any up-front fee payment until after graduation will be a significant help to all students. The anticipated delays and exceptions proposed for those on low earnings before repayment clocks in may need to be increased, but are undoubtedly a considerable and significant concession.
Although it is a novel idea in this country, it is at the heart of the much better-funded United States university system, and is part of changes taking place in Australia to enhance the quality of universities and to enhance access to those universities. That is a further and highly legitimate factor in pursuit of the Government's important objective of "inclusiveness". Those from deprived backgrounds who qualify should—indeed must—have access to adequate means-tested maintenance grants of a sufficient size on which to live during their studies.
I do not believe that that has to be done by a government loan. That is not the way in which it is done in Australia or the United States. If we follow their examples, surely we need to give universities more—not less—freedom to run their own affairs. By all accounts, the US has the most successful university system and the most highly paid academics. It is also the most competitive and the most variously funded. Access is provided for as well.
Certainly, its Ivy League universities manage to apply a means-test approach to admission; that is, only after acceptance do they decide how much the student should contribute personally, with the balance being found from bursaries or other sources Clearly, as there are no fewer than 39 US universities, each with an endowment of 13 billion dollars, it will be some time before we can compete at that level. But we must start now.
There are other ways in which we could make our system more flexible. Why, in principle., should not universities have the freedom to charge variable fees? As the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said, it happens with part-time courses. As a previous deputy chairman of the Open University, I know that exactly the same thing applies there. Why should we not apply a more market-based approach to over-subscribed courses, such as media studies, to enable some cross-subsidy to less popular but much needed subjects?
The trouble with our "system" is that the Government have become too involved with the minutiae of how universities are run. There are many complaints of undue bureaucracy and of endless offers in "biscuit tins", as one vice-chancellor far from the Russell Group described it. Money is offered for specific government objectives and universities are lured off their own agenda, in order to qualify for a little desperately needed extra money.
That is why I cannot endorse the notion of a director of "fair access". Setting up yet another expensive statutory body to judge whether a university has done enough to attract more disadvantaged students is both insulting and further evidence of the Government's wish
492
to interfere with the independence of universities. There are surely less expensive ways of achieving that highly desirable objective, not least to trust universities, in a rather different environment from many years ago, to deliver. Already the statutory bodies with which universities need to do business cost nearly £1 billion per annum and employ 1,500 staff.
All that represents an added and avoidable burden on the taxpayer, who has many other even more pressing educational needs to finance. As political parties know well, there is certainly a limit to the level of taxation that the electorate will tolerate. If we are looking at the many priorities for government, more resources for schools rightly is top of the agenda. Indeed, I would argue that the most vital component of the success of the Government's higher education proposals is to ensure that schools in deprived areas are equipping those students with university potential to achieve the necessary qualifications.
I warmly commend the Government for the many initiatives—Sure Start and others- that aim to compensate disadvantaged children from backgrounds where learning is not valued. Universities, too, are playing an important part here. They are opening their premises to visits from schools, with university students going into schools to encourage those children with high potential to aim higher. That is yet another reason why we need to concentrate more resources at school level.
But one has to say that, so far, these efforts have not seemed to be as successful as one would have hoped. If one takes the deprived area schools in inner London, for example, it is inevitable that children there will need the most inspiring and dedicated teachers—and more of them per school—if there is to be any real hope of success in this direction. I would argue, as I did when I was a member of the Inner London Education Authority some years ago, that as these schools need double the staff effort and dedication of, say, schools in the leafy suburbs, then surely the answer is to ensure that they get double the resources and double the number of teachers.
I believe that there are plans to open four new schools in inner London, but I am concerned that, important though the initiative may be, it will not fully meet the Government's otherwise admirable objectives. More action and less bureaucracy is needed and I hope that, when she responds to the debate, the Minister will be able to reassure me that this will happen.
I may seem to have ended at a point some way from my opening concern with higher education, but this is all a seamless web. The plain fact is that, if we are to find the resources for the vital early stages of a child's education, then it cannot be wrong to expect those lucky enough to benefit from a high quality tertiary education—and they certainly do—to pay back some of the fruits of that benefit. That is the social justice of the case for so-called "top-up" fees.
3.41 p.m.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, one of the difficulties associated with taking part in the debate on the humble Address is to decide on which subject to focus.

493
Given my own interests, I have had to make a choice between rural affairs, where a number of important policy advances have been made, with more to come, on which I could say some warm words, and education—in particular higher education—where I am afraid that those words would be less warm. I have chosen higher education.
I start by declaring an interest as the senior vice-principal of the University of Aberdeen. I should make clear that I do not speak for the University of Aberdeen on this subject; I am speaking purely for myself and myself alone. I hope also that, on this topic, we shall not have any nonsense that those noble Lords who come from Scotland should not participate in this area of policy. As we have a single labour market for academics and increasingly a single market for students, whatever happens in England has quite direct implications for Scottish higher education. I think that we have a justifiable interest.
One of the good developments of the past few weeks and months has been the general recognition that higher education is under-funded, and that is to be welcomed. If we are to maintain—actually, I think the word is now "regain"—our world position of excellence in higher education, then we have to look at increased funding for such education and a new funding stream. There is no doubt about that.
Many aspects of the Government's approach to the funding of higher education are soundly based. It is right that the main beneficiaries of higher education should be expected to make a contribution. It is right that that contribution should be in the form of a requirement to pay following graduation rather than the payment of up-front fees. It is also right that the contribution made should be income-contingent. I believe that, among serious commentators, there is general agreement on those three elements. However, it is when we go beyond that point that the difficulties and the scope for criticism arise.
Let us look at variability. The Government and the Prime Minister have placed great weight on the need to provide for variability in setting fees. What we know is that the Government have announced that the maximum fee will be limited to £3,000 per year, a figure which is to stand for some years. The higher education sector has responded to that by declaring that, basically, all universities will charge that fee for all their courses. So a problem with variability arises at the very beginning because it assumes that, some way down the track, the cap will be lifted and the opportunity for universities to charge higher fees for their courses will be given. It is important that the model is correct from the beginning, no matter what are the particular figures agreed on fees at the start.
I am not convinced that students from modest backgrounds—not the poorest backgrounds—will not be influenced in their choice of course or university by the size of the fee that they will be expected to repay. That is wrong and we ought not to do anything that could lead in such a direction.
494
I turn now to income contingency, which in its concept and principle is absolutely right. However, the Government's present proposals are very much a blunt instrument. Basically, a common, universal contribution is to be made, one that is not related to the extent to which the individual graduate benefits from higher education. So the contribution is not directly related to the benefit derived. I illustrate the point by referring to two graduate professions: primary teaching and the law. The primary school teacher will pay as much as the top lawyer, and that is wrong. The Minister may have a partial answer to that, so I shall narrow the example down and look in general at graduates in law.
Law graduates do not all go on to become top lawyers. Many noble Lords are top legal professionals, but not everyone with a law degree becomes a top lawyer. Some work in community law centres, while some leave the practice of the law, as did my own private secretary, to work for a significant period in the voluntary sector. It is wrong that all those graduates should be expected to pay the same level of fee because the financial benefit or return is different.
There is another way of dealing with the problem, one that addresses the three principles on which all participants in the debate are agreed. In fact it would result in a closer correlation between the amount paid and the benefit derived; that is, through a graduate income tax. I read somewhere that the Government were moving away from such a solution because they had evidence that those from more affluent backgrounds were reluctant to contribute towards the higher education of those who chose to work in less financially rewarding careers. I think that that is a very good reason to go down the graduate income tax route; it is a strong argument in favour of it. I also believe that a graduate income tax, rather than the proposals currently before us, is closer to the core values and beliefs of my party.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, would he explain how the graduate income tax would work for graduates who leave to work abroad?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, the answer to that is: how would the Government's proposals work for those who leave to work abroad?
3.48 p.m.
Earl Peel: My Lords, despite the fact that agriculture and rural affairs did not get much of a mention in the gracious Speech, it does not mean that there is not a great deal of activity in that quarter. I am glad to say that fanning fortunes have recently picked up a little, but how sustainable that will be remains to be seen. However, it is one thing for the farming community to try to cope with an unprofitable industry, but it is quite another when it tries to do so in the knowledge that the very structure in which farming has operated for so long is about to undergo a sea change.

495
I declare an interest as an owner of land which is subjected to several tenancies. However, I certainly subscribe to the view that most farmers recognise fully the need for a radical change in the subsidy system. It is no longer tenable for taxpayers' money to be used to support production and if farmers are to continue to receive support it is right and proper for it to be channelled in the direction of the improvement of the environment. So I welcome the principles behind Herr Fischler's proposals for decoupling support in his mid-term review.
But I believe it is imperative that, given the degree of flexibility open to member states in how they implement the proposals, Defra must not rush headlong into decisions that will affect the future of farming without very carefully considering the options.
As the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, said—I take this opportunity to welcome the noble Lord back to your Lordships' House and congratulate him on his second maiden speech—the Government appear to be concentrating on two scenarios so far as concerns the new single payment. One scenario revolves around the individual historic entitlement calculated on what the farmer has received during the relevant period; and the second is a regional average payments system which, broadly speaking, means what it says.
We are led to believe—and I am pleased to see that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is in his place—that the Government are leaning towards the first scenario which, on the face of it, may appear the simplest to operate and the most equitable. But any farmer who changed his business operations during the relevant period on which the payment will be based could be in great difficulties and reliant on an untested—and almost certainly under-funded—appeals system if he is to receive a reasonable payment. I believe—I may be wrong—that some 1 million acres could fall within this category of uncertainty. I therefore suggest to the Government that if they pursue this route there could be very considerable difficulties ahead.
I ask the Government to consider also the case of a farmer who, encouraged by the new mood in agriculture, abandoned his intensive operations in favour of an extensive system of production geared towards environmental gain. However, because he did so at the end of the entitlement period but was still extensively farming during the entitlement period, under the new single farm payment he could receive up to, say, £600 a hectare. Compare this to his neighbour who converted to a more benign system just before the entitlement period. He may qualify for only, say, £100 per hectare. They are both farming in a responsible and sustainable fashion but the enlightened farmer who converted earlier is penalised to the benefit of the less entitled farmer who converted late. This cannot be an equitable solution. Once again it demonstrates the dangers ahead for the Government if they pursue this option.
496
The other method—that of regional average payments—remains a popular alternative with some. However, this, too, has its shortcomings. I believe that, as a broad brush calculation, more than 20 per cent of fanners would lose more than 20 per cent of their support. So, again, this option also produces problems.
As the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, pointed out, two hybrid schemes are available. I urge the Government to consider seriously the one that broadly combines historic payments for animals and regional average payments for crops. This is not the time to go into details but this option could lead to a more sustainable system, which is exactly what the industry needs during this time of uncertainty.
Perhaps I may now say a few words about the recently published report of the noble Lord, Lord Haskins. In my view, anything that is designed to streamline the operations within Defra and to reduce the present confusion must be welcomed, and I am sure that there is much to be welcomed in the noble Lord's report.
I wholeheartedly applaud the idea of integrating the landscape and recreational dimensions of the Countryside Agency's responsibilities with the nature conservation role of English Nature. They are all inextricably bound up. Indeed, I remember that when we last discussed this issue—which I believe was back in 1996—I spoke in support of the amalgamations, which of course eventually took place in Scotland and Wales but not in England.
I would go further than the recommendations of the noble Lord, Lord Haskins. I can see no logical reason why the new agency should not embrace the responsibilities of promoting the economic viability of rural businesses in addition to the environmental stewardships. I say this because the objectives are all interwoven. Without a healthy, profitable rural sector the management of the countryside and all the sustainable conservation objectives that are so important to so many of us simply will not happen.
I end by saying to the Government that, despite my enthusiasm for much of what the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, recommends, I urge caution. The implications of the mid-term review in all its guises, along with the implementation of Sir Don Curry's level 1 and level 2 schemes, are truly profound as far as changes in the countryside are concerned. Between them they are likely to produce one of the most significant changes that agriculture has experienced for some time.
There is much anticipation and there is hope. But there is also fear and confusion. No matter what option the Government finally decide on in terms of single farm payments, there will be huge uncertainty both within the farming industry and Defra itself. I strongly recommend that any changes to the department and its agencies should not be contemplated until such time as everyone is ready and the effects of the mid-term review have been allowed to settle. There are some good proposals here, but I urge the Government not to run before they can walk.
3.57 p.m.
Lord Mitchell: My Lords, as someone who has had a substantial student loan, paid it back and lived to tell the tale, I should like to make my contribution by putting a real life perspective into the current debate.
When 5 per cent of the population went to university, the state could well afford to finance them. Now 50 per cent of our young people aspire to higher education—and this must be a good thing—but the bald truth is that the Government cannot afford to fund the complete tuition fee. Plus we must face the fact that, like so much else in our country, our universities have been crumbling due to inadequate finance. Truth be told, even our best universities are losing out in the global academic hierarchy.
When I was 21,I went to the United States to study for a master's degree in business administration. In those days no such degree was available in this country, and besides I wanted to see the world. I was accepted by Columbia University in New York city. I left England with £500 in my pocket, realising that not only would I have to pay my tuition fees but also that I would have to find money to live.
American universities work hard—harder than I had ever known. In my case, nine until six every day; one week off for Christmas and only a few days for Easter. But, despite this, I still had to work to eat and for four nights a week I worked as a waiter, living on tips. Even so, I could not afford my tuition fees.
In those days the tuition fees were 8,000 US dollars per term. The university helped a little but, for the bulk of the cost, I had to borrow. I came back to the UK in 1966 with a loan equalling 15,000 US dollars. We were given a three month settling-in time and then the repayment schedule kicked in. Unlike the current proposals, no consideration was taken of future income; there was no respite until salaries reached a pre-set level; you had a loan and you had to pay it back. My American colleagues were receiving salaries of around 12,000 US dollars per annum, but I came home to the UK, where my first job paid £750 per year.
Your Lordships can imagine how hard it was to survive. One year later, the pound was devalued against the dollar, the effect of which was that the principal that I had begun to reduce was increased in sterling terms even above its original level. I learnt an important business lesson—never have a foreign currency mismatch between principal and income. But I survived. To me that loan was never a debt: it was an investment. Was it worth while? Yes it was, thousands of times over. What did it teach me? That all that hard work got me my masters degree, but also that anything is possible if you set your mind to it. For me, it was a good lesson. I have no hesitation in saying that.
The Government are right to say that students should make a contribution. They are also right to say that different universities should be able to charge different levels of top-up fees, but that subject will run and run and I will not go on about it any longer.
I now turn to my real education passion, which is e-learning, and here I must declare my interest as a trustee of the eLearning Foundation and that my
498
employer supplies computer services to schools. E-learning is a great British success story. It is the process whereby children—as well as university students and adults—are able to learn either at school or at home using computers, not as a replacement for classroom teaching but as a complementary aid. The eLearning Foundation was set up two years ago with the simple remit to ensure that every child in this country has access to computer learning with the ultimate objective that all children should have their own computers, in their rucksacks, just as they have their pens and pencils. Our new chair is my right honourable friend Estelle Morris.
Today, over one million children go to schools that are associated with the eLearning Foundation. The Department of Education and Skills has been hugely supportive of e-learning in general and my foundation in particular. I must thank my noble friend the Minister and the Secretary of State for their wholesome backing. The department's commitment to e-learning includes £280 million of e-learning credits; £195 million in laptops for teachers; and a £287 million commitment to ensure that all schools will have broadband capacity by 2006. The Government's target is for one computer for every eight children in primary schools and one computer for every five children in secondary schools by 2005. In my opinion that is too timid. In a knowledge based world we need to have higher aspirations.
There remains a massive problem associated with the so-called digital divide—that middle class children have computers at home and poor children tend not to. We simply cannot have our most disadvantaged children missing out on the very skills that could ensure their employment prospects in the future.
Does e-learning matter? Is it all worth while? I have visited schools in socially excluded areas that employ state-of-the-art technology, and the effect is dramatic. Hard evidence is now replacing anecdote that schools that embrace IT improve their results in SATS and GCSE. Staff and students are better motivated, school pride is enhanced and parents are becoming more involved. Most importantly, those young people are going into the world with 21st century skills. What we see for those lucky ones must be available to all.
4.3 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, no one can accuse this Government of not consulting widely in and on the countryside. They cannot claim to be unaware of the problems and needs of rural communities. The Curry report, the Haskins report and the three inquiries into the mishandling of the foot and mouth outbreak, all stress that rural areas have many problems that are different from those of towns. I remind the House of our family farming interest. The conclusions of those consultations, the recommendations of the reports and the much-vaunted concentration on joined-up government should combine to ensure that policy takes rural factors into account. I fear that that is not so in the gracious Speech.
Educational reform by this Government includes a great deal of very heavy micromanagement. For example, I am told that the DfES has produced more.

499
than 200 pages of detailed "guidance" on how local education authorities should structure their formulae for school funding. It seems fairly obvious that an LEA concerned with several hundred inner-city schools will face rather different pressures and problems from a rural LEA with fewer schools but much greater distances between them. The DfES is "guiding" LEAs to put more and more of their financing into schools using age-weighted pupil units in place of base or school allocations. That militates against the continuing operation of many of our smaller schools, most of which are in rural areas.
Schools are funded from local sources. They have to conform to national agreements. There is nothing wrong with that one might say, but if the necessary funding for the various government initiatives is not made separately available, it has to be taken from the school's budget. The smaller the school, the higher the ratio of income per pupil and the more difficult it is to pay for them. As recently as 7th November (at col. 552) Hansard contains a Written Answer that admits that government funding is not sufficient to pay increases to teachers on the upper pay scale who moved to point 2 in 2002. Will the Minister tell us how many teachers reached level 2 in 2002 and are therefore now eligible for advancement to level 3 but for whom there is no funding? Will she also clarify whether the Government intend to fund the cost of the extra pay each year following the award of a level 1? Small schools may have difficulty finding the money to pay these increases.
The whole question of funding was touched on succinctly by my noble friend Lady Hanham this morning. Indeed, she referred to the National Audit Office's report condemning the Government and their policies for calling for extra spending and then blaming local government, which is not fair.
The gracious Speech announces pilot school transport schemes, and I understand that LEAs may be allowed not only to raise existing charges but to introduce them where buses are now free. There are relatively few rural secondary schools and it is normal for older village children to travel more than three miles each way to attend school. Furthermore, primary school rolls are falling all over the country because of the declining birth rate. Government pressure to reduce surplus places allied to the greater linkage of funds with age-weighted pupil units will mean the closure of more village primaries. To charge for school transport, especially for those below the age of 16, will be to discriminate against rural children.
We await the details of the transport Bill, but I urge the Government to remember that cars are an essential way of life for rural folk. Any integrated transport system should be based on local community needs, especially those of local schools.
I now turn to housing. Lack of affordable housing is a problem for town and rural dwellers alike. In rural areas, average weekly wages are not only much lower than in urban areas, but the problem is all the more acute. The Government's record is a disgrace. Statistics show that 130,000 or so households are
500
without a permanent home of their own, while at any one time, 750,000 properties stand empty in this country. Of those, 20 per cent are in the public sector. In the rural White Paper of 2000, promises were made that 3,000 affordable houses a year would be built in small settlements. The record shows that that was not achieved. In 1997, some 2,020 were built, but in 2001 that figure had dropped to 1,371. Added to those figures is the fact that between 1997 and 2001, only 20 per cent of affordable housing was rural build. The Countryside Agency report of 2002 stated that public sector and social housing account for 14 per cent of total stock in rural districts, compared with 23 per cent in urban ones. Hopes have been raised, but targets have not been achieved.
We await the details of the housing Bill. However, I should like at this stage to flag up the concern that was mentioned in an earlier debate about the "seller's pack". That issue is still causing great anxiety.
I turn to the planning Bill. Two consultation papers are currently out on the draft planning and policy statement PPS7 and on sustainable development in rural areas. Planning authorities should allow limited development to meet local business, community and identified housing needs, particularly in order to maintain the viability and vitality of smaller towns and villages. A positive approach should be taken to improve accessibility and community value of existing facilities such as village pubs, shops, village halls and schools.
Paragraph 18 of the consultation paper states that the reuse of existing rural buildings is usually preferable to leaving them underused, vacant or derelict—a point which I raised with the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, in an earlier debate. The rural districts of England contain more than 577,000 businesses which represent 30 per cent of England's total. Agricultural businesses account for 15 per cent of the total in rural districts. One way in which the Government can help current and future businesses is to encourage the spread of broadband or high-speed electronic communication. Currently only 3 per cent of rural businesses have broadband compared with 11 per cent in urban areas.
I turn now to what was not included in the gracious Speech. There was no hunting Bill. What are the Government's intentions? In another place, in debating the gracious Speech, at col. 338 of the Official Report for 1st December, Mr Alun Michael confirmed that, as the Prime Minister had made clear the previous week, the issue will be dealt with in this Parliament. How will that be achieved when, as has been upheld, the previous Bill impinges on human rights?
The gracious Speech also did not include a Bill on animal welfare, which has long been promoted by Elliott Morley and long looked for by many outside organisations. My understanding is that a draft Bill will be presented in spring 2004 and brought before Parliament if time allows. I ask the Minister whether there might not be a link between the non-appearance of those two Bills.

501
I began by saying that the Government have consulted widely, and it is true. However, the hard reality is that, unless action is taken urgently, agricultural and horticultural businesses will be at the whim of the current thinking of politicians. The Curry report and the Haskins report are both hugely important. The latter looks at the ways in which Defra evolves its policy and reflects how those policy decisions are delivered. Defra distributes more than £1 billion of its total £3 billion in more than 45 agri-environmental schemes. What a lot of people employed unproductively, and what a lot of time and money being spent in bureaucracy and form filling! That really must not continue.
For the sake of our countryside and our rural businesses, and of course for the long-term conservation of wildlife and habitat, the Government must urgently settle those details. CAP reform, however, is the more important issue. It is of prime importance that we agree how those payments should be made. Should they, as my noble friend asked earlier, be based on an historic, a regional or a hybrid system? What we must not do is burden agricultural businesses with added costs, making them uneconomic compared with other countries. The Government should clearly bear in mind the risk they run of exporting our food production and the effect that that would have on our balance of payments.
I believe that long-term food security is more important now than in years gone by. This year's June census gives a grim warning: 17,000 farmers and farm workers left the industry in England between 2002 and 2003. Nearly 85,000 have left the farming industry since the Government took office in 1997. I believe that opportunities exist; the development of non-food crops, for example, can bring great advantages. However, the Government's energy policy lacks direction and has failed to supply sufficient fiscal help. There is much to do. I hope that the Government will move from their consulting mode to an action mode.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Puttnam: My Lords, I am required to speak quite briefly, certainly too briefly to do justice to the challenge of achieving a sustainable future for the whole of this country's higher education sector. I should, of course, declare an interest as chancellor of the University of Sunderland. I have apologised in advance to the Minister for the fact that I was not in my place this morning. I chair the National Museum of Photography, Film and Television. We arranged to interview new directors this morning and some of them have flown in from overseas. No discourtesy was intended to the House, but I also avoided any discourtesy to prospective candidates for the job.
Everyone connected with our universities can only be grateful to the Government for acknowledging the hopelessly inadequate level of funding that has been suffered for years. The Government's proposed legislation is undoubtedly well meaning. I find myself in agreement with almost every word the Prime
502
Minister uttered last week in setting out the need for an early Bill. In fact, I disagreed with only two words. Unfortunately, those words were "these proposals". The scale, the nature and the urgency of the problem have already been clearly identified. That is the good news. The bad news is that the proposed remedy in the form of "variable" or "top-up" fees could quickly prove every bit as damaging and divisive as it will over time be seen to be hopelessly inappropriate to the scale and nature of the challenge.
One of the great benefits I have derived from membership of your Lordships' House is the opportunity that it affords non-politicians such as myself to question former Ministers on their retrospective attitude to the effects of this or that piece of legislation for which they were responsible. In listening to them, I have been struck by a single recurring theme; that is, levels of under-investment that have been found acceptable by successive governments despite certain knowledge that, sooner or later, the piper would have to be paid. Any snapshot of the post-war years serves to highlight our continual failure to address the fundamental inadequacy of our transport infrastructure, our public education system and our health service. I could add to that list at great length, and every example I could offer would strike a resonant chord with one or other Member of your Lordships' House.
Now we are being asked to turn our minds to higher education funding. Better late than never, some will rightly mutter. But there lies the first and possibly the biggest bear trap. The lack of resources within the sector is so chronic and has been ignored for so long that anything looks like up. Sad to say, many— possibly even most—vice-chancellors have bought a "bill of goods" dressed up as the best or the only game in town. Shame on them; they should know better. There cannot be one of them who sincerely believes that the Bill, when published, will be the solution to the long-term problems of the sector, although a few—a very few—might privately believe that subsequent secondary legislation will enable them to have something close to the funding stream of their dreams. However, they also know that their security will be bought at the cost of undermining and possibly crippling the aspirations of the great majority of students and higher education institutions in this country.
No, the present proposals will not do. For a start, this entire funding argument is being distorted by an entirely legitimate need for consolidation in the sphere of what I will term "Big Science". I entirely accept the necessity for capital-intensive "centres of excellence" which cannot be generally replicated around the country. These will tend to attract the majority of ambitious young scientists, and, as a realist, I am prepared to live with the distortions to which this concentration of power and money will inevitably lead. But these very particular circumstances do not apply to the vast majority of departments at our universities.

503
Irrespective of any assurances you may hear, these proposals will, in short order, lead to the emergence of significant differential fees as, for the very first time, a wholly unwelcome marketplace emerges within our state provision of public education.
In many parts of the country the very notion of debt is abhorrent, and that attitude is most prevalent in those self-same communities in which this Government have made real inroads in breaking down generations of prejudice—a fear and prejudice that insists that universities are just "not for the likes of us".
Of those who actively seek the creation of elite, expensive institutions I ask, having graduated with flying colours, do we not want the very brightest and best of our young people seriously to consider a career in the public sector? That being the case, I very much doubt that the mountain of debt that they will be carrying will be much of an encouragement.
I believe myself to have been born a citizen of a great country. More than anything I want my grandchildren to be citizens of a great country. Surely our sole reason for being in this place is to help make that possible. But I do not believe that this country has much of a future if we fail really to crack this issue of university funding. Having read and heard a great deal, my every instinct tells me that these present proposals which, when fully implemented, will raise some £1.25 billion a year, will prove inadequate to meeting one of the great challenges of this new century. That instinct was supported by an article by the Chancellor, Gordon Brown, in The Times this morning in which he said:
"The reason we seek to broaden access to universities is that only by drawing on the widest pool of talent, from whatever social background, can we achieve for Britain the excellence our economy requires".
Please note that the Chancellor does not use the words "seeks" or "hopes for", but "requires". To achieve that we have to cast our minds well beyond any half-baked compromises. We need to think big and dig deep, just as are other highly competitive countries, many of which are juggling with these self-same priorities but with far fewer assets with which to address them.
My own preference, which I shall go into in more detail should the Bill obtain a Second Reading in this House, is a hypothecated graduate tax underpinned by the issue of a higher education bond. I shall suggest that the bond is designed to raise some £20 billion and is underwritten on a 50:50 basis by the Government and the universities themselves collectively. Not only would the sum raised go a long way towards achieving that frequently invoked nirvana, a world-class HE sector, but it would do so in a flexible, equitable and, I hope, sustainable manner.
If I may, I shall address my final remarks to colleagues in my own party. Not only do I believe that I was born into a great country, I also believe myself to be a member of a great party. Like many of your Lordships I expect to be campaigning for that party in the not too distant future. This Government have much of which they can be justifiably proud, not least in the area of education. It is those achievements I should like to shout from the rooftops. However, I
504
have no idea what I shall answer when asked, as inevitably all of us will be, "Which manifesto commitments will you renege on this time?"
Perhaps because I am not a lawyer I shall not resort to the kind of semantic evasion I have recently heard offered as a means of wriggling out of our self-created dilemma. Surely all of us in this and another place have an overwhelming interest in promoting trust in our political system, not undermining it.
In conclusion, my deepest dread is that 20 years from now I shall find myself shuffling down these corridors passing another generation of men and women who express only regret for their missed opportunities, most particularly for the timid and inadequate manner in which they addressed what might well be remembered as the great university funding crisis of 2004.
4.24 p.m.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I was struck by the welcome in the Minister's opening speech— unfortunately, he is not present at the moment—for the area of the gracious Speech that concerned a fairer and more just society. I am sure that is something that the Minister has cherished for some time. It may appear slightly strange for someone in my position to say that the question of what is just and fair may depend on one's own situation.
I must declare an interest as a farmer and livestock rearer, as I speak on those subjects. I wish to touch on two points: the countryside in general and an issue that specifically concerns Europe. For very many of those involved, one of the attractions of being a farmer or rural landowner is that it has been possible to sustain the impression that a rural life means living a life of independence within your own acres. There was a flexibility to choose what line of production would best suit your situation and your temperament. Farming was regarded as an essential element of the national life, and the "honest toil" celebrated in literature and verse was seen as thoroughly beneficial in taming nature and allowing all kinds of useful things to flourish, although some of the Minister's remarks showed how much that attitude has changed. Many of the ways in which government offered to underpin production left a lot of room to sustain that impression. But in fact, what with the progress of science and with government and EU subsidies and regulation, all of those things have become progressively less and less true, and the public seem to be less and less convinced that money provided to sustain those activities is to their benefit.
As so ably expressed by my noble friend Lord Peel, I feel that we are now facing a watershed. Most of that air of independence is being swept away and once again the state is taking over. It is perhaps a little difficult to say whether the state should be regarded as Britain or Europe but, whichever it turns out to be, it does not imply a fundamental difference. The state, of course, is taken to be acting on behalf of the people and therefore any rights of the individual that are being diminished are somehow wonderfully increasing the rights of large numbers of others.

505
That may seem fairly incontestable when we are dealing with something like access rights, which of course we have seen being enacted on a rather wider basis in Scotland than is proposed in England and Wales. In Scotland it is proposed that access can be exercised anywhere but in the curtilage of a domestic dwelling or school. But, wherever it occurs, it is a diminution of the right of the individual property owner.
The new philosophy is very much that we should be paid to put on a show for those who wish to escape the harsh realities of their lives and be able to wander curiously in the fresh country air without finding anything that will give them offence.
There is also a new wave of enthusiasm for community ownership, most easily conceived as community ownership of woodland, but gradually being rolled out into ownership of property, and in most cases receiving handsome financial assistance from public funds. However, there is an awkward question that lies behind the community woodland proposal in particular. Woodlands require management and even those on the scale of the Forestry Commission are currently losing money—in that particular case several million pounds a year. How will things work when there is a burden of losses to be met by the community, perhaps in one year or perhaps in more than one year?
As many of my noble friends have said, by far the biggest change to our understanding of what constitutes a rural way of life is likely to come from the mid-term review and the complete decoupling of agricultural subsidies from production. As it stands, this appears to be the most likely option offered by the mid-term review of the CAP to be chosen for this country. This seems at first glance to be the most radical simplification of all the myriad forms, returns, permits and applications that the industry could ever conceive and, if that was all, we would all be likely to send up a big cheer.
However, as many of your Lordships will be aware, coupled with that requirement is a stipulation known as cross-compliance. Certainly, to my knowledge, in Scotland, and more than likely in the remainder of the country too, this will be centred mainly on the requirement for everyone who is receiving the single farm payment to agree to what is termed a "whole farm plan". This will be drawn up to suit the criteria of the administration which will have a fairly pre-conceived idea of what produces the most public good. In the nature of this kind of thing, any desire for innovation or variation from what has been laid down is liable to be acceptable only after considerable persuasion and negotiation. The shape of the countryside will be taken in hand by the Government.
As someone who has care of and responsibility for animals, I should like briefly to express my thanks to my noble friend Lord Soulsby for flagging up so much our problems with health for animals. I also want to mention a regulation currently being considered in Brussels that has its roots among the public perceptions that I mentioned. It is the proposed
506
regulation for the welfare of animals in transport. It plans to bring in far more onerous criteria than those in the Welfare of Animals in Transport Order 1997, the current rule in this country. Any problems that have arisen have tended to be from a flouting of those existing criteria, which have been accepted as thoroughly practical and are in use as the basis of some of the highest animal welfare schemes in the country. The new proposed regulations have created great concern for all sectors of the livestock industry, but particularly for the sheep sector and remote areas.
We live in a country of immense climatic and geological variability. We have a livestock industry that depends on transport to ensure the welfare of that livestock, because it requires to be moved from one part of the country to another. I draw noble Lords' attention to a study carried out for one remote area, by the Highlands and Islands Development Board, of the effect of the proposals. It estimates that, for sheep moving within Scotland, the proposals will cost producers an extra 75p per head. For those moving beyond Scotland, they will cost £2 per head. For cattle, they will cost £6.15. That may not seem much but, when calculated over the total animal movements for that area alone, the cost is £ 1.65 million, in an industry that is severely stretched. Do the Government know any scientific reasons that can be advanced for those EU proposals? What attitude do they expect to take in the negotiations?
Under our old support systems, farmers liked to feel that they had the ability to cope with all the changes that a commodity trading market could throw at them. The next stage will offer new and greater challenges. Like my noble friend Lord Peel, I ask the Government, if they are making haste, to do so very cautiously.
4.32 p.m.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, in the very wide topics that we are debating, I wish to talk about policies on higher education, as other noble Lords have done. Those policies have two overriding priorities. The first is that we do not waste any human capital. Everyone who wishes to go into higher education and is qualified to benefit from it should be able to do so. The second priority is that the universities are sufficiently well funded and free from government interference to provide the right and most suitable kind of higher education for the vastly increased number of students now entering the system.
Access is fundamental. Any structure that higher education adopts must be sufficient to ensure that the access is to the right kinds of courses, fitted both to the needs and abilities of students and to the needs of the economy and employers outside. Incidentally, I have no problem with the Government's target of 50 per cent. That came not from the Government in the first case, but from the CBI after some very careful study of what the overall demands of the economy would be.
However, we should remind ourselves that that economy is very diverse. The idea of graduate employment being restricted to a fairly small number

507
of elite jobs is no longer at all credible in a knowledge economy. As other noble Lords have said, there is a wide range of needs in the economy now for highly educated people, which includes everything from the most esoteric of physicists or engineers to the well educated retail manager, hotel manager or surveyor, and nurses and teachers of course in the professions.
If we are to meet the needs of both the students and the economy, it is important that our system is diverse. I am concerned that the Government's proposals for the £3,000 maximum fee do not encourage diversity. As the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, said, all the signs are that the universities are already saying that they will all charge a flat £3,000 fee for every course and in every kind of institution. That sum simply does not give enough headroom to get the kind of variation that the Government rightly seem to want. It will force the system into uniformity instead of the diversity that we are rightly seeking.
Let us look at the possibility of adequate financing for the universities. The sum of £3,000 per student is simply not enough. As many noble Lords have said, UUK's estimates are of a £3 billion shortfall, and the £3,000 fee will deliver only half that. Of the £1.5 billion that on the Government's best estimates it will deliver, one third is quite properly set aside for bursaries. Assuming that the Treasury coughs that up in the years before the loans start being repaid, only £ 1 billion at best will go into universities, which is only a third of what they really need.
That is an overall figure for all universities. I cannot but declare my interest in my university of Cambridge. Like many of the other top research institutions, it must be able to continue to compete in the international market with universities in the United States and elsewhere where the funding is much better. Having chaired for five or more years 11 of Cambridge University's appointment boards in the sciences, engineering and medicine, I know at first hand how desperately difficult it is to recruit the really top researchers that our country needs in our best universities, when they are being offered not only twice as much, but sometimes five times as much as we can afford to pay them here, by universities in the United States.
After many years of working and being involved in higher education, my conclusion is that the most important thing that we can do for universities is to set them absolutely free to raise appropriate fees for those students who are well able to pay. Almost half the students at our top universities come from schools where their parents have been paying anything from £12,000 to £20,000 a year for their education. Why should they pass from the sixth form of such a school to a university that they get for £2,000, £3,000 or £4,000 a year? That seems wrong.
It also seems wrong that the Government are attempting to interfere with the academic freedom of the universities in the nature of the students whom they recruit and accept. In every democracy, the government have traditionally stepped back at arm's length in any question of admission to universities,
508
even though funding is given. The access regulator seems an affront to all who believe in the freedom of the university system.
It is because of that that I very much welcome the letter that the very respected Council for Industry and Higher Education has written to the Secretary of State It states:
"We also want our higher education to be innovative and responsive to an expanding range of needs. This is more likely to be achieved with less central intervention Each institution, like any other business should tell people what they will get for their money, price accordingly and let the customer choose".
I agree entirely.
A priority in higher education policy is that no student who is capable of benefiting from higher education and wishes to go into it should be denied the opportunity because they or their parents are unable to pay It is for that reason that I beg the Government to consider the importance of a proper bursary scheme, well publicised, funded and founded, to allay the fears of students from less well-off families that they will acquire debts that they will be unable to pay. Those frighten them in perception more than reality, as the Government will argue, but that may be enough to put them off, which saddens me greatly.
So I very much welcome the announcement made last week by Cambridge University that, despite its financial difficulties, it intends to provide the one-third of its students, who in the Government's proposed maintenance grant for poorer students will qualify, with bursaries of up to £4,000 a year. It is not intending to do that entirely from its fees but from fundraising I ask myself how many universities have the range of alumni among whom fundraising can successfully be done, as it can, it is to be hoped, at Cambridge. Very few will be able to match that conclusion.
I therefore beg the Government to consider setting the universities free to charge reasonable fees. I am sure that Cambridge, if it were left free to set its own market fee, would be able to charge its wealthy students much more and therefore be enabled to give much more to its poorer students. I do not accept the Government's proposals as they stand I believe that they will discourage the less well-off students; they will not provide sufficient money to bridge the gap in university funding; and they will not encourage the necessary diversity.
4.41 p.m.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, I, too, shall speak on higher education in which I declare an interest as chief executive of Universities UK.
I warmly welcome Her Majesty's announcement of the Government's intention to introduce a higher education Bill in this Session. There are several excellent and welcome elements to this Bill, but I want to concentrate on that which is most controversial; that is, tuition fee increases I commend the Government for taking the tough decision to include this controversial Bill in the legislative programme and I urge noble Lords to support its passage through this House.

509
Her Majesty's Government have a grave responsibility to do what is right and necessary and not just what is easy and popular. In standing by their conviction that urgent action must be taken to safeguard the future of higher education, Ministers have chosen the difficult path. But, in my view, it is the right one.
The Government are often accused of not listening— but in this case they have listened to what the universities have been saying. They have also listened to what this House has been saying about the urgent need to find a solution to the university funding crisis. They now offer this House and another place an opportunity to act. I think it is now almost universally accepted that universities need more resources. The real debate is about who should pay, how much and when.
At this point, I want to commend to the House the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing. Like the noble Lord, in his seminal report, I believe that all those who benefit from higher education should contribute to its costs when they see that benefit. And I can say that Universities UK believes that it is fair to ask graduates, who gain most from higher education, to pay something towards the costs of their tuition.
But we now find ourselves at a crossroads. The Government want to give universities the freedom to raise their fees for full-time undergraduate students up to £3,000. They want to give institutions the freedom to chose whether they charge the maximum amount or something lower. They want to give institutions the same freedom and flexibility to set full-time undergraduate fees that they already have—and have managed responsibly—for part-time, international and postgraduate students and, as my noble friend the Minister said this morning, which the Open University has had since its inception. It is worth recalling that at least 50 per cent of all students already pay variable fees.
A number of alternatives have been discussed. I believe that the idea of a flat-rate increase of £2,500 is being circulated in another place. As others have said, even the Government's proposal will go only some way towards redressing the funding crisis. Of course, any increase in the current fee would help, as the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, pointed out, but, in my view, the Government's option offers the best chance of beginning to bridge the funding gap. I am convinced that the way forward lies with a flexible fee structure. I believe that all universities will benefit from the new degree of freedom offered by variable fees.
Much of the unease about the Government's proposals for variable fees has centred on the idea that it will somehow create poor universities for poor students. I am convinced that will not happen. First, all universities will be better off under the Government's proposals, and so all students will see the benefit of that. Secondly, it is by no means clear that some universities will charge £3,000 for all their courses while others will charge much less for theirs. It is much more likely that course fees will vary within institutions, with most charging more for some courses
510
and less for others. The variable system proposed by the Government will give vice-chancellors the freedom and flexibility to respond to local conditions and to stimulate demand for courses where demand has been weak in the past, such as some languages and science courses. Do we really want to tell universities that they should be prohibited from cutting course fees? Universities need the same flexibility in relation to full-time undergraduates as they have for other students.
Thirdly, the Government propose to increase the level of financial support for the poorest students. Currently, around 42 per cent of students do not pay fees. Universities have been discussing with the Government the best ways to ensure that these most disadvantaged students are in no way worse off as a result of the proposed changes. And with their increased income from fees, the universities will be in a better position than ever to offer additional assistance to the students who are in most need.
Combined, these factors mean that the students from the poorest backgrounds, who may well be those most likely to be put off by the prospect of debt, are likely to be no worse off under the proposed system than under the current one. That means that no poor student should be put off attending even the most expensive course. And other students will also benefit because none of them will pay any fee at all until graduation.
What the Government propose is that we ask potential students to make a considered investment in their future—an investment which, as my noble friend Lord Mitchell so lucidly demonstrated, is clearly worth it. There is plenty of evidence from the benefits graduates enjoy in terms of higher earnings, more choice and opportunity, social mobility and even health.
What is more, despite the increase in the number of graduates in the UK, emerging evidence shows that the earnings premium is increasing. There is plenty of help for those most likely to be cautious. The repayment threshold and zero real rate of interest protects those who take a long time to repay their loans because their income is low, or because they take career breaks.
In my lifetime, I have seen higher education transformed from the preserve of a fortunate elite to something to which everyone can aspire. I passionately believe that this is right and necessary for social justice and economic success.
This Government are not afraid to make tough choices. They could have settled for a quiet life and ignored the implications of continued neglect of higher education. They have instead demonstrated their commitment to higher education through the introduction of this Bill. Noble Lords will know that Universities UK will be taking an enormous interest in the details of the Bill once it is published, but I have no hesitation whatever in welcoming its inclusion in the Address.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, does she accept that the contribution made ought to be proportionate to the benefit received?
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend will agree that all graduates

511
obtain a benefit from higher education and that in the case of those making a contribution on a variable basis, they will be making a proportional contribution.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, will she not accept that a sizeable number of graduates are doing menial jobs? Not long ago, I was in the north east and saw three graduates on the assembly line at the Samsung factory. My son is an academic in science research at Cambridge University and at the age of 36 he is earning £26,000 a year. The notion that graduates automatically coin in the money simply is not true.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, for many of us who went to university, the first jobs we undertook could by no means be called undergraduate jobs. I am pleased to say that most of us have been able subsequently to benefit from our higher education. But I do not believe that there is a difference between us because those on low incomes will make no repayment of their fees. Under the Government's proposals, they will not begin to make contributions until they are earning, currently, £15,000 a year.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, perhaps, as a point of fact, I may ask the noble Baroness whether, on that basis, she agrees that those who do not earn more than £31,000 per annum during their lifetime on current rates would never pay back their debt? Does she agree that the effective rate of income tax on the loan amounts to 41 per cent, which is more than the rate of income tax that we charge millionaires? They would continue to pay that throughout their working lives if they never earned more than £31,000.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly comment on that. It seems to me that the proportion of income that they will pay on that basis will remain small as well.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I rise with some diffidence in an attempt to be a filling in a higher education sandwich. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Desai will continue the debate. However, I want to talk about something completely different—the environment, transport and safety. It has been an interesting debate, but transport is part of the environment. I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group, although I shall not talk too much about rail freight now.
In the gracious Speech is the prospect of legislation on school transport and roadworks but sadly, I believe, nothing on road safety. However, I believe that it is still the Government's policy to encourage more people and freight to move to less environmentally bad means of transport. That is part of their policy, as is their intention to reduce injury and deaths on the roads and on other means of transport.
Therefore, I want to consider the issue of transport safety in the round. Yesterday, the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, asked an interesting Starred
512
Question. We all want safety in our lives but, as my noble friend Lord Peston said, life is dangerous, even at home. However, I believe that we then need to ask ourselves whether the rules, standards and laws, and so on, help to achieve safety or whether there are perversities, such as when the application of rules in one sector causes more accidents by transferring an activity to a less safe and less regulated mode.
Every year, nearly 4,000 people are killed on the roads and very many more are seriously injured, compared with just a handful on the railways. That excludes accidents at level crossings and as a result of suicide or trespass, which are not really caused by the railways. Some may argue that rail travel should be safer because one expects a higher standard when in the care of others. But the same comment applies to most road accidents. Few are self-inflicted and certainly not those in which thousands of pedestrians and cyclists are killed and seriously injured by motor vehicles each year. Many of those victims and drivers were "at work" .
It is the role of the Health and Safety Executive and Health and Safety Commission to minimise the risk of death or injury in the workplace. But, interestingly, I received a Written Answer on 18th November which stated:
"It has been the policy of successive governments that the HSE should not generally seek to enforce health and safety at work legislation where public and worker safety can adequately be protected by more specific and detailed law enforced by another authority".—[Official Report, 18/11/03; col. WA282.]
Therefore, the HSE spends about £262 million every year chasing just a few deaths on the railways and forcing up costs many times while, perhaps at the request of government, it ignores nearly 4,000 deaths a year on the roads. Surely it should also be working towards reducing the number of deaths and injuries which occur on transport, regardless of mode. The problem is that the HSE's action on the railways, and inaction on the roads, is having completely the opposite effect.
There is a government policy to encourage more public transport, but the problem is that the costs on the railway are shooting up and out of control. I want to quote from a report produced about a month ago by Transport 2000. It stated that analyses suggest that,
"unit costs [of railway] have increased by a factor of three or more since privatisation. In some cases the multiple can be as much as five times".
No single factor is responsible for cost inflation; rather, it is a combination of internal effects—for example, the sub-contracting of responsibility for maintenance and so on—and external forces, such as safety legislation. Costs have risen by a factor of three, four or five since privatisation.
As noble Lords may know, Network Rail has taken maintenance back in-house and is restructuring to reduce costs. One wishes it well. But passenger train services are costing more and more. Therefore, I want to consider the causes of the costs. The Government rightly tell industry that it must reduce its costs but, when it comes to the causes of costs, that is an issue

513
which the Government can change for the better as it is something that the Government have created themselves.
I shall give a few examples. I read about the best one, which came from the Health and Safety Executive, only last week. New trains on the Connex South Central service south of London are longer than the platforms at which they will stop. The Health and Safety Executive said that the platforms must be extended, but that would cost hundreds of millions of pounds. Eventually, the train operator obtained permission to extend only a small proportion of the platforms and install something called "selective door opening". That means that the driver can press a certain button and only the doors opposite the platform will open. "Ah", said the HSE, "but how does the driver know that he is at a short platform?" The answer was that GPS would have to be fitted to the cabs of every train so that drivers would know where they were. Surely, if a driver is responsible, he will know where he is. What is the cost of the GPS and of the platforms? The worst thing is that the HSE will deny all that and say that the operator offered to carry out the work. However, the operator offered to do so only because there was no other way to get the trains to run. They would continue to sit in the sidings, as they have done for the past few years.
I could give many, many such examples, but I believe that the real problem is that a bureaucracy has entered this issue, coupled with a fear of prosecution. The HSE will say that that is a good thing and that, in any event, it never requires things to be done. It covers its tracks well, but the climate of fear is there. Is it really right for the railways to be subject to the same enforcement policy as oil rigs and gas plants and so on? Are the railways really so dangerous when roads, according to the HSE, are not dangerous? Noble Lords may have read in the Economist last week about the recent resignation of the Director of Rail Safety, Alan Osborne. He was quoted as saying that the HSE had become "dysfunctional".
It is funny that the HSE set up a complete department to implement the Cullen recommendations following the accidents on the Great Western line. There are 194 recommendations. However, the only one that the HSE has not implemented is the one that would allow a new independent chief inspector of railways from outside the industry to run the Railway Inspectorate. That is a classic case of good old Whitehall protecting itself and never mind the rest of us.
I agree with Mr Osborne: the real problem is that the HSE has become totally dysfunctional. I believe that we must consider carefully the possible solutions. The HSE must implement the common value for preventable fatality between road and rail. Billions of pounds are being wasted. With the creation of the Rail Accident Investigation Branch and the RSSB, which we all discussed when debating the Railways and Transport Safety Bill last summer, do we really need the HSE and the HMRI dipping their fingers into everything, hyping up the media and then, having done so, saying that there is public concern? We do need an
514
independent safety regulator under the forthcoming European regulations, but it does not have to be this way.
My suggestion, for what it is worth, is that the overall regulation should be moved to a joint safety and economic rail regulator. That would have many advantages It would save a great deal of money; it would keep the regulator at arm's length from central government, and it would ensure that the economic and safety aspects of the railways were considered in the round.
I believe that the Government would then achieve their twin goals of reducing railway costs, getting more passengers and freight on to the railways, and reducing transport accidents overall by moving towards a CAA approach to the railways At the same time the HSE might spend some of its £256 million on turning its attention to road fatalities If that is not a good idea, it could give some of that money to the police and to the other law enforcement agencies to get a reduction in some of the 4,000 deaths. The Government could be in a win/win situation I conclude by asking my noble friend whether we can expect a short Bill next summer to put right some of those gross anomalies.
5 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I have taught in higher education in this country for 38 years. As I have just retired I do not have to declare an interest in relation to these proposals. If these proposals, whatever they may be—even the most generous version in terms of resources—are implemented, people who follow me will not be as well off as I was when I arrived in 1965.
In my teaching career I have witnessed—at least in the past 20 years—nothing but massive deterioration in the working conditions of academics, especially young academics who struggle to find a full-time job almost six or seven years after completing their PhD, after writing articles and after having published books.
A strange anomaly is that when we talk about hospitals and mental health services everyone in the political world enthuses about nurses and doctors, everyone loves secondary school teachers; and cannot do better for them or for primary school teachers, and everyone loves the producers in manufacturing industry and in public services, but everyone hates the academics. No one has a single word of sympathy for the plight of academics. That is so because when one thinks of higher education or when higher education is shown on television one thinks of or sees the lovely lawns of an Oxbridge college with people swanning about in gowns. The world believes that all academics teach and live in Oxbridge colleges; the world believes that academics do not really have to do any hard work, they give the same lectures every year, have long vacations and somehow they are lotus eaters.
I would echo one part of what my noble friend Lord Puttnam said in an imaginative speech. If this matter is not put right at this juncture, 20 years from now we shall not have a higher education system; we shall have what Germany or Italy has, which is an education system that is so awful that, ever since it

515
became possible for students in the European Union to undertake courses in British universities, at the same level of fees as British students, we have had a huge influx of European students. The reason is that our system, even now, is better.
What is to be done? We all agree that resources are needed. I have been a supporter of loan-financed higher education with contingent income loans since 1987 when my young colleague, Dr Nicholas Barr, first sent me a paper on loan-financed higher education. I want to put that paradox to people. It is not equitable in an unequal society to have uniform pricing. It is actually very inequitable. Over the past 30 years we have subsidised the richer, middle-class children due to the fear that the minority working-class children, who would not be able to go to university if higher fees were charged, would suffer. Therefore, until December 1997, the 10 per cent tail has wagged the 90 per cent dog—middle-class people. They received a huge subsidy and that has been inequitable.
That is regressive distribution of income, giving people free higher education because of a desire that more working-class people should go to university. The reason that such people have not gone to universities in the past has had little to do with the level of fees. When I first arrived here to teach there were no working-class students, there were no fees and there were full maintenance grants. There were no working-class students because the quality of our secondary schools was such that they did not stay on after the age of 16. If one wants more working-class children to go to university one should not look at universities, but at schools. One must also make many opportunities available for people who do not want to go to university immediately at age 18. There are many more routes to choose.
That is exactly what happens in the United States. The reason why the United States has the largest degree of access to higher education compared with any European country is not that it is socialist, but that it is not. It has always had a diversity of fee charging and a diversity of standards in different universities. No one lays down uniformity or that every university has to do the same thing. They allow universities to choose how to structure themselves. If universities choose to be good the students will recognise that, and if they choose to be bad the students will know that they are bad. After all, those going to universities are literate 18 or 20 year-olds and they can find out for themselves whether a university is good or bad. One does not have to tell them. If they had to be told it would not be worth going to university.
My first solution, which will never happen, would be that universities would charge whatever they want for whichever course and that the current level of support that the Government provide will be leveraged into bursaries, so that everyone would pay, and those who qualify for bursaries and win them would receive full bursaries. Rather than waste your subsidy on middle-class children, as we do now, we would conserve the new resources in order to give bursaries. That bursary fund would not be specific to universities but would be national.
516
Like American universities, there would be income-blind admissions. Universities could then admit people and those with an admission could go to the National Bursary Fund saying, "I have been admitted to Oxford, Warwick, Sunderland, or wherever; I want this much money; these are my qualifications; give me the money". That would allow for much greater leverage.
My time is running out, but I have one more point to make. I believe that we have muddled the maintenance grant problem. Everyone talks about the debt horror, but it is strange that people talk about debt horror only in relation to higher education. Have noble Lords read any tabloids lately? The last half of every tabloid is about borrowing. We borrow for everything else but not for higher education. That is nice, is it not?
We have muddled the maintenance grant. This probably would not happen because it is a rather idealistic proposal, but I would put all full-time higher education students on income support. Why give them that money? We would do so because they are doing something in which society wants to invest. We want them to have that time at university and it is worth giving students the minimum that we believe anyone deserves for survival.
Of course, that will cost money, but that money will be repaid from their future income tax. In a sense it is an investment and it will remove the fear. If I had more time I would comment on the proposal made by my noble friend Lord Puttnam. My proposal is that any fee that is charged by any university would generate the resources, but if one is not allowed to do that I would prefer the proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord Quirk. He said that as regards the £3,000, there will be variations within that for each university. Therefore, I say to my noble friend, "Let us not have £20 billion, but can we have £40 billion please?"
5.9 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, I regret that the noble Lord, Lord Desai, does not have more time because the debate between him and the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, would be worth listening to.
I regret also that your Lordships can make only one speech in this debate, as I would have been tempted to put down my name to speak on rural affairs, the environment, and education. If all noble Lords had done that, an already lengthy debate would have gone on long into the night. So, because of the Church's close involvement with education, the choice today must be education. I speak on my own behalf and that of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth, who chairs the Church of England's Board of Education but who cannot be in his place.
We welcome the high priority given to education in the gracious Speech. It was particularly interesting to hear a link between,
"individuals achieving their full potential",
and "Britain's future success". I should like to put that another way: the aim of education surely must be to equip students to make their own way in the world and to help them to make that world a better place for others.

517
There is more to an individual than economic production and so more to an individual achieving his or her full potential than becoming an effective unit of resource. Real success for Britain will be the rebuilding of a humane and civilised, diverse but cohesive society. Many teachers today are strongly committed to students achieving their full potential in that way. They have felt as though they were swimming against a strong tide in recent years.
The Government, we are told, are committed to raising educational standards. That can and should be interpreted to mean much more than literacy and numeracy, important though they are. Such standards have been raised in primary schools but at a great cost. The Government, to their credit, have recognised that cost and now promote excellence and enjoyment as the main drivers for the primary school curriculum.
The school league tables published today for the first time rightly include a value added factor. They therefore become more useful as a guide to how well a school is doing, although I remain cautious about the whole concept of league tables. As it happens, seven out of the 10 best performing schools in these tables are faith schools—Jewish, Roman Catholic and Church of England. We have more than 100 church schools in my own diocese, many of which are in the urban areas of south London. I know just what a springboard of opportunity these schools are, in particular for minority ethnic children.
The Minister in introducing the debate referred to the consultation paper Every Child Matters. Every child does matter. School standards matter, but in a frantic and fractured society where school is sometimes the only centre of stability for some children, the ordered, happy climate of a primary school can itself be a great blessing to its pupils, whatever the other standards might be.
Of course standards need to be raised in secondary schools. That is a demanding task, particularly in south London where house prices make it difficult for urban schools to maintain a stable teaching body and where sometimes the majority of students receive free school meals. Standards matter, especially for the non-academic, many of whom are still failed by the system, but again that must not be at the expense of breadth in the curriculum.
We on these Benches are conscious that reforms being planned to the school curriculum post-14 might jeopardise some of that breadth. For example, the Secretary of State, recently said that,
"the call of the times is for a higher profile for Religious Education",
in schools. We agree. Yet, post-14 reforms might put that at risk.
The Church of England is happy to play its part in promoting a more diverse secondary system. I am particularly pleased to have visited the St Cecilia's Church of England High School, which recently opened in Wandsworth in my diocese. This school, which specialises in music, is one of many brand new state-of-the-art Church of England secondary schools being opened through an effective partnership
518
between the Church and local government with the encouragement of national governments. Thankfully, the days are long gone when some local authorities regard church schools with suspicion.
The Church of England has welcomed much in the proposals on higher education set out by the Government It has a very long history of commitment to this sector. The 11 Church of England colleges and universities serve a diverse student body. Our chaplains serve the needs of students and staff in the majority of higher education institutions in the land. We want to see our universities flourish, not just for the good of those who study and work in them, but for us all Here I must declare an interest. I am a member of the council of King's College, London, and, indeed, I chair its staffing policy committee. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Desai, that I for one have a high opinion of academics.
I know from this first-hand experience how much universities and colleges have striven to maintain quality despite financial pressures in recent years. They urgently need better resourcing. But how to do so is a matter of great debate. We welcome some aspects of the proposed new funding arrangements: the reintroduction of the grant and deferring payment of fees and loans until graduates earn enough to afford to repay them But there is a perception that what is being demanded of students is a widespread acceptance of greater levels of debt.
The Church is rightly proud of the record of its colleges in widening participation. It would be most concerned if a perception that higher education is only for those who can afford it puts wider access in peril. Universities are precious institutions. There is a long tradition of Christian reflection in this area. John Henry Newman in 1854 wrote:
"The general principles of any study you may learn by books at home but the detail, the colour the tone, the air, the life which makes it live in us you must catch all those from those in whom it lives already".
That is what universities are truly about Universities do not just bestow individual financial benefits. Such benefits may come, but graduates frequently choose a profession despite it not being well paid.
The ideal of service in the common interest is central to the Christian tradition. We should beware that self-interest does not become a prime motivation in government policy.
Whatever measures are put in place must be for the common good. we look forward to playing a part in the forthcoming debates. Whatever other weighty matters may be before your Lordships' House in the coming months, I believe that nothing will have more significance than this matter.
5.18 p.m.
Lord Rix: My Lords, first I must apologise for not being in my place this morning. I have explained my absence to both Front Benches and I am grateful to them for being so understanding and agreeing to my speaking in the gap.

519
I should like to refer to the part of the gracious Speech which touched on higher education. In so doing, I must declare an interest, although not a financial one. Six years ago I was privileged to become the first Chancellor of the University of East London. For the past month I have been performing at the Barbican. Some old thespians have a pantomime season; in my new role I have a graduation season. This year I have shaken the hands and congratulated more than 1,500 of our students whose hard work— often in the most straitened circumstances—has won them success.
The gracious Speech referred to a new office of fair access. I must say that my university does not need such an office. While Oxford and Cambridge colleges were still debating whether or not to admit the fairer sex, our foundation institution was training women for careers in teaching, nursing and industrial chemistry. Now the quality of our arts is rated the same as Oxford, our sociology the same as Durham and our cultural and media studies is one of the handful of international class departments in Great Britain.
Even before we had the opportunity to read the Lambert report this morning, we had responded to the call from the Chancellor to forge stronger links between universities and industry. Our business incubator units are full. We have a centre of manufacturing excellence with Ford and other universities at Dagenham. Working with such companies as Cisco and Logica, we provide the network hub for another new technology institute. We have established our inventors' club and a number of our products have already reached the marketplace. The list goes on. Yet we are a university likely to be adversely affected by the Government's proposals, as are other universities that serve the poorer areas of our country. Have not the recent ludicrous proposals from the HEFCE, which will leave four out of five universities with the most black students worse off, created enough turmoil already?
I begin with fees. It seems that the Government desire variable fees—fees that vary not just from subject to subject, as they do in Australia, but from university to university. If the Ivy League universities are to add to their substantial endowments by charging more than relative newcomers, it will not be long before a whole class of higher education institutions are dismissed by some Government spokesperson as "bog-standard universities".
We are also told that one third of any top-up that we charge should go to bursaries. Regrettably, it is the universities that serve the poorest areas that will be least able to support extensive bursary schemes. As the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said, a fairer way would be for those "thirds" to be paid into a national bursary fund, not the lottery of individual bursary schemes.
I am sure that there is much in the Government's proposals for higher education that deserves our approbation—for example, the belated adoption of the ideas contained in the report of my noble friend Lord Dearing, who is not in his place, of payment after graduation and the restoration of the student
520
maintenance grant for those who need it most. However, I must ask three questions that require an answer. Is the system of bursaries the best that we can devise? Is the system of differential fees truly world-class? Do the Government's proposals safeguard those universities whose mission is to serve the poorer parts of our country?
If the answer to any of those questions is "No", I can only fall back on a phrase that was commonplace among educators in my youth, but, alas, has fallen out of favour in these politically correct times: the Government must try harder.
5.22 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, today's debate on the gracious Speech has addressed the issues of education, the environment and rural affairs. In consequence, we have had a wide-ranging debate, which has touched on issues as diverse as European regulations for yoghurt, Scottish railways, wind farms, farm management, animal health regulations and traffic safety, as well as the issue of top-up fees, which has perhaps come to dominate our discussions, especially just recently.
Inevitably, given the wide range of topics that has been discussed, someone in my place—asked to wind-up the debate—wonders where to begin and end. If I may, I shall concentrate mainly on issues in education, which is my field, but touch on one or two others, because it is appropriate to do so when speaking from the Front Bench.
One thing that has struck me is that although no legislation is proposed for agriculture this year, nevertheless, from the speeches that we have heard, it is clear that many and wide-ranging changes are afoot in that sector that will result in considerable changes in organisation and management, and that, on the whole, at present the Government are a follower rather than a leader of those changes.
As a follower and a leader, the Government are also in danger of doing too little in the field of the environment—where, again, there is surprisingly little legislation. Despite the frequent obeisance to notions of sustainability and the sustainable community, what is actually proposed will do little to channel the activities and energies of this country into more sustainable routes.
I very much agree with some of the ideas advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, who is not in his place. For example, it is vital that we begin to face up to the environmental pollution created by the aviation industry. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, mentioned wind farms and said that, in a sense, they are the only game in town at present in sustainable energy, but there is the real problem of what we do when the wind does not blow. We must provide back-up facilities by ordinary methods of energy creation.
As I said, I shall concentrate mainly on education issues. I touch on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, about school finance. That does not fall within the ambit of the gracious Speech but, nevertheless, it may well dominate some of our

521
discussions during the next year. It is vital that we get it correct. The whole issue of local governance was raised by both the noble Baroness and my noble friend Lady Maddock.
Today's Audit Commission report makes it clear that at present, in many senses, local government receives too much from central Government: it is too beholden to central Government. We need a reordering within the framework of local government finance between locally derived and centrally provided resources. The main reason why there have been such huge increases in council tax is the reordering of the grants already given by the Government. We need real consideration of the local government finance settlement and new developments in it.
I also briefly mention the question of school transport, on which there will be a Bill. The issue bridges the educational and environmental agendas. The Bill's aim will be to lessen the congestion caused by the school run. I hope that, at a time when we are worried by growing obesity in children, just as much attention will be given to encouraging children to walk or cycle to school as to forcing their parents to reconfigure their lives by staggering school hours, and so forth.
I am myself staggered by the suggestion that school children should be means tested for school bus fares. I recognise that the current proposals are merely for trials, but it defies the laws of supply and demand that we should think that one way to avoid congestion on the roads is to charge children on school buses more. I hope that that experiment will not be carried out in rural areas, where children are dependent on school buses for travelling to school, and that it will prove to be an experiment that gets lost.
Before I turn to top-up fees, I should discuss the child protection Bill. The Bill follows two Green Papers: No Child Left Behind and Children at Risk. Along with other noble Lords who have spoken on the subject in this and other parts of the debate, broadly speaking, we welcome the Bill's proposals. In particular, we are delighted to read of a children's commissioner for England alongside the children's commissioners that already exist for Wales and Scotland.
Last year, I had cause to entertain in your Lordships' House the children's commissioner for Denmark. I was intrigued and delighted to discover from him that he made himself such a champion for children that, in effect, he had his own Childline— children spoke directly to him about their problems and he championed their issues. He was not just a voice for the lobby groups for children. 1 hope that our children's commissioner will be the same.
I also welcome moves to bring together all the services dealing with children. It is important that we have a director of children's services in local authorities. I look forward to discovering how the new children's trusts will work. I hope that in both cases there is meaningful accountability and it is not just another exercise in renaming and buck-passing. There must be real accountability, which means that there
522
must be real authority over issues that impinge on children beyond education and social services; for example, housing, policing and psychiatric and counselling services. I echo the hope expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, that school counsellors will be reinstated. They can do enormous good and prevent problems being pushed down the road and getting bigger.
I echo the thoughts of the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, on the importance of parenting education and its role on the citizenship agenda. It is important that we educate young people before they become parents. I have always maintained that the most important time to provide parenting education is during ante-natal classes. I hope that parenting will become part of ante-natal preparation.
We have heard many contributions from around the Chamber on top-up fees. It is no secret that we oppose top-up fees, but it is not correct to suggest, as Ministers and the media have sometimes done, that our position is sheer opportunism. We have a fully fledged, coherent policy on higher education, which, if truth be known, we believe to be more comprehensive than that proposed by the Government in their White Paper. We are looking not just at the higher education sector but also at further education, as the boundaries between the two have become blurred. We agree entirely with the observation by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, that higher and further education are the best routes towards social mobility.
In our paper we also embrace the concept of e-learning, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Parry. The Government's paper does not embrace such concepts or present a 21st-century vision for higher education. Too often, it looks backwards to the academic vision of higher education—that is our main criticism of the paper. We have developed coherent proposals on that front. I wish to make an important point on the structure of higher education. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, said that we were in danger of muddling the maintenance and tuition aspects of universities. In my opinion, we are in danger of muddling the research and teaching aspects.
Much of the concern expressed about universities relates to this country's ability to maintain the competitive leading edge in research. That is very true. It is now widely accepted that research and development help to create innovation, which is at the core of the country's competitiveness. The United Kingdom's difficulty is that, traditionally, since 1980, we have spent less as a proportion of GDP on research and development than most of our advanced industrial competitors. That applies to the government sector, whose share of the proportion of R&D has fallen dramatically over the past 25 years, and the industrial sector, whose share is abysmal, with the exception of the pharmaceutical and aeronautical industries.
Unless the Government and industry both pull their socks up and ramp up investment in research and development, our research sector cannot survive, as Michael Porter said in his very interesting study,

523
Report on the Competitiveness of the UK Economy. The Government have done their bit. University research budgets have received money—in 1999, under the joint infrastructure project, and under all the CSRs. In the latest Comprehensive Spending Review, the increase in the research budget in real terms is 10 per cent per annum. I accept that there is a huge backlog to be made good, but we recognise that the Government are doing something about research.
University teaching budgets have been starved by this and previous governments. Nobody cares much about university teachers and their conditions. I was surprised that it was the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, who raised a debate in this House about salaries of academic staff, which was interesting. Top-up fees are not the answer to research funding problems in universities and cannot be expected to be. The money to be raised from top-up fees is intended to help university teaching. Student numbers have doubled without a proportionate increase in resources, so the unit of resource has halved precisely over the past 20 years. In the end, chickens come home to roost. Buildings are crumbling due to lack of maintenance; there are not rooms big enough to accommodate classes of 20; and there are not lecture halls big enough to take the size of lectures that must now be given. Pupil/teacher ratios are higher than in secondary schools. Everybody now accepts that universities need more money; the question is where it will come from. That is the issue of top-up fees.
The Government have muddied the field by setting themselves twin objectives that in some senses are diametrically opposite. There is the objective of increasing the resources available to universities, but alongside that is the objective of expanding numbers under the inclusion agenda. It is almost impossible to meet both objectives simultaneously. If you wish to include more people from low-income families, you do not increase the price, which is what the Government are doing through top-up fees. I accept that by increasing the price we are using the market. However, those who argue for the use of the market then say that they do not want to use it because universities already have a market based on ability, and that students should be selected by ability. Supporters of top-up fees say that they do not want those of high ability to be unable to go to university because they cannot afford it; therefore, they are disposing of the market. If you want to use top-up fees to ration places at universities, you cannot accept simultaneously that the market should be ignored and another scheme introduced to admit able students. That is a form of selection by ability.
The Government propose to raise the money by putting up fees. It will be "study now, pay later". The Government say, "We are not going to charge upfront fees. Instead, we will switch to loans". We should not forget that those loans will be a bigger subsidy to the middle classes than they had before. We have already seen that with the maintenance loans. Essentially, we will offer the middle classes free money to put into the building society and earn interest on while they are at college.
524
As well as the "pay later" loans, there is the means-tested grant. In the White Paper, the means-tested grant was for maintenance; now it is to defray fees. Which is it intended to be? On top of that, the Government are saying that the important thing is the differential fee. We will have "Oftoff" or "Offa"—or whatever it will be called. There will be a director of access. Originally, we thought that the director of access would look to see which universities offered decent access to those from low-income families and then allow them to put up fees, so that it would be universities such as the University of East London that would put up fees. We now understand that the Russell group will be able to put up fees, but only to £3,000 and that one third of the revenue from fees is to be allocated to bursaries. Again, there is that administrative cap—only up to £3,000. That hardly provides anything.
What have we got with all the complicated procedures that have been put in place to try to marry the two objectives? We have a mess of pottage. We have a system that is unfair because of debt aversion. Whether we like it or no, those who come from low-income families are worried by huge debts and are put off applying to places where they might incur them. Secondly, those debts bear down disproportionately on young graduates who do not earn much and on those who, during their career, will not earn much. People will not pay off the debt, if they earn less than £31,000. With earnings up to something like £22,000, they will not even pay the interest, even with inflation, on the debt that they are likely to have. That is an important issue.
The system will be inefficient. How much will the fees raise? At most, they will raise £1 billion for the universities. How much do the universities need? They need at least £2 billion a year. The proposals are ineffective, and the fees will not raise what we require for the universities. So much of the money will be diverted into bursaries. Basically, they will raise £1 billion a year.
It will be costly. How much will it cost us to raise £1 billion a year? Loans do not come for free. The Treasury has to borrow the money. It borrows at 4.5 per cent, but students pay only 2.5 per cent. There is also the risk of default. The study done by the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows that 40 per cent of the cost of fees must be regarded as a resource cost. I underline that. It will cost £400 million a year for a £1 billion benefit. That is a costly way of raising money.
Our way of raising the £2 billion would be to look to income tax, an income tax on those earning over £100,000 a year. This generation of students has already borne the cost of the switch from maintenance grants to maintenance loans. Those who earn more money pay more tax, if the income tax system is properly progressive. We do not think that the income tax system is properly progressive, which is why we want to make it more progressive. Some 82 per cent of those who earn over £100,000 are graduates, so we are

525
getting to what the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, spoke about; namely, a dedicated graduate tax on high earners.
I am of the generation that benefited from a university education for which tuition fees were paid and there were generous maintenance grants. That was funded by earlier generations. Why should the current generation, which has benefited disproportionately from the rise in income for those in the professional classes, jerk away from being equally generous to future generations?
5.43 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have always thought it a privilege to open or wind up in a debate on the gracious Speech. However, today is even more special, as it is the first time that I have had the opportunity to wind up for the Opposition on the final day.
There have been many excellent speeches in the past five sitting days, covering all areas of interest that will be the subject of our work in the rest of the Session. The House has been privileged to hear three excellent maiden speeches during our debates—those made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool and the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, from whom we heard today. I am not sure that what we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, was, in fact, a maiden speech. The noble Lord has enjoyed what can only be described as a second coming. I congratulate him warmly on his speech today, and I know that Members in all parts of the House look forward to hearing him speak in future debates.
It is regrettable that the debate should embrace so many subjects and that it should take place on a truncated parliamentary day. Due to time constraints, there is no way that I could do justice to so many speeches that have been made today. Of course, all our debates on the gracious Speech will provide the Government and the House with a valuable insight into the views of Members on all Benches about the Bills that are scheduled to come before us in the next weeks and months. My noble friend Lady Hanham opened the debate with an impressive speech. My noble friend brings a wealth of knowledge and experience of local government to our debates. Certainly, her contribution today was evidence of her fingertip knowledge of some very complex matters.
I am fortunate to have three Front Bench noble friends helping to cover the many topics contained within the title of today's debate. My noble friend Lady Byford also has enormous experience of rural affairs. She has spoken from these Benches with skill and a deep understanding of issues concerning the countryside and country people. My noble friend the Duke of Montrose also brings considerable expertise to bear on our debates and today was no exception. I am deeply grateful to each of my noble friends for their contributions today.
The protection of children as a high priority is supported by all political parties and measures to improve the service for vulnerable children often
526
achieve political consensus. The detail of the Bill when it comes before the House will receive very careful attention. It is critical to produce reforms that are practical, manageable and properly funded. People who have responsibility for such sensitive work should be fully accountable and the level of unnecessary bureaucracy should not stifle the work of the professional.
The tragedy of the Victoria Climbie case, the Lauren Wright case and other cases was that so many professionals knew that there were problems, but they failed to act on them. My honourable friend Tim Loughton said that,
"the effectiveness of child protection will not be determined by a new Tsar or more levels of bureaucracy but rather by having the right (trained) professionals at grass root level picking up intelligence on child abuse and working with other agencies to intervene".
My concern is the dangerously high level of vacancies in this specialist work which needs to be addressed with urgency—a point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. What is being done about that problem? I echo what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. If the Government are serious that the child protection Bill should be cost neutral, once again I fear that local authorities will be left unilaterally picking up the bill.
On reading the Green Paper, a single monolithic system appears to be the Government's answer to child protection. I wonder whether that is right. We will want to look carefully at the arrangements for keeping electronic records of all the 11 million children in this country. We will wish to explore what information will be kept and for what purpose, and who will have access, who will authorise third party access and who will hold and administer the register.
The Government's record for managing computer systems is so far lamentable. We shall look for guarantees that the keeping and administration of such sensitive information is not farmed out to a third world country, like so much other work. Perhaps the Minister will give answers to those questions when she replies.
I understand that there is to be a draft Bill relating to the rights and opportunities of disabled people. We look forward to being involved in the scrutiny process. However, I am not absolutely certain at this stage whether that will come under the education portfolio. Perhaps the Minister can tell us.
The ink is hardly dry on the Anti-social Behaviour Act when we are warned in the gracious Speech that further anti-social behaviour powers will be sought for schools and local authorities. What is so new now that was not foreseen only a matter of months ago? Quite frankly, schools and local authorities must be in despair at the Government's lack of coherence and competence in that area.
We are warned that there is to be a shake up in the provision of school transport. My noble friend Lady Byford has referred to that matter as it affects the rural communities. I hope that the Government will take note of what my noble friend said. Narrow

527
country lanes without sidewalks and the distances that children have to travel could present insuperable problems for rural families if school transport were to be removed.
I turn now to the most contentious part of the gracious Speech; that is, the higher education Bill. It proposes the introduction of variable top-up fees of up to £3,000 for access to university. Am I alone in being dismayed at two references in the gracious Speech in relation to this Bill? The first concerns the deceptive language used:
"A Bill will be introduced to enable more young people to benefit from higher education. Up-front tuition fees will be abolished for all full-time students".—[Official Report, 26/11/03; col. 1.]
It will not be lost on anyone, least of all our students, that there was no mention at all of an increase of 200 percent in the top-up fees. Secondly, I was struck by the inelegance of the phrase "up-front tuition fees".
I have read the higher education White Paper very carefully and many questions remain to be answered. For example, paragraph 7.40 on page 87 states that "after graduation", or indeed following dropping out of university,
"loans will be repaid through the tax system at the rate of 9 per cent of [the individual's] income above a certain threshold".
Can the Minister tell the House what is that threshold?
There is no argument between the political parties that higher education requires increased funding. I agree with my noble friend Lord Wakeham, the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, and others that this is the case and has been so for a long time; indeed, that is why the Dearing report was commissioned, although sadly his recommendations were not accepted by the Government. However, there is concern about the Government's 50 per cent target for access to higher education. Concern is also felt about the high drop-out rates at some of our universities and about the number of students who are accepted into university with inadequate qualifications which inhibit them from benefiting from a higher education degree. It is also the case that there needs to be a substantial increase in the provision of high-quality vocational options to meet more effectively the needs of many post-16 students.
There are a number of real concerns about the Government's proposals to raise top-up fees. Many concessions have already been made, and from what we learn from the pressure on Mr Blair and on Mr Charles Clarke to woo their own party members, more concessions could be on the way. It is possible that, just as the Bill on foundation hospitals resulted in such a diluted proposition that the original proposals were lost from sight, top-up fees will hardly be worth collecting if the greater proportion of the money going into universities through fees are fed back through complex concessionary arrangements. Apart from the cost of a massive means-testing bureaucracy, the additional grants and further delays in the repayment threshold, the net amount from which the universities will benefit will be seriously eroded. I agree with the remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, that it will go absolutely nowhere to resolve the problems in higher education.
528
However, the most pernicious proposal of all is the appointment of an access tsar and the funds that will have to be diverted to pay for his department. This is pure social engineering and a direct attack on academic freedom. The Government dishonestly use the language of freedom for the universities and then totally contradict themselves by the appointment of a access tsar. Universities will not be free to make a decision about additional fees on the basis of a fully costed business case, but only on the whim of the access tsar, who will make a judgment about the degree to which each university has socially engineered its intake.
I have been impressed by many of our universities which go to enormous lengths to find the brightest young people from schools and families in which there is no tradition of attending higher education. Access should be on the basis of merit decided by the institution itself, not according to contrived rules overseen by a government-appointed apparatchik.
The way to increase the opportunities for young people from poorer backgrounds is, as has been said, to improve school-based education and to raise the aspirations of young people, along with those of their families and teachers. However, this is a Government who removed the life chances for many children by abolishing the assisted places scheme which was specifically designed to help bright young people from poorer homes. They also abolished selection on the grounds of academic ability, not to mention the Government's manifest dislike of the remaining grammar schools. Those were steps on the ladder for bright young people from poor homes.
Many of those who support top-up fees do so, however reluctantly, because they believe that more money will flow into higher education. Therefore, the most pertinent question for the Minister to answer is: will the Government guarantee that, if they succeed in getting the Bill through Parliament, the full effect of the top-up fees will be truly additional funding? The answer that the fees will go direct to each university will not suffice because the full effect of the tuition fees introduced in the previous Parliament disappeared without trace as the Treasury did not fund the universities in line with the increased numbers of students. The outcome was that the unit funding for students decreased. All that resulted was that the student shared the burden of payment while the Government enjoyed the benefit. I predict that if the Government introduce top-up fees to the value of £3,000, history will repeat itself, and that over time the benefit will not accrue to the universities and the student will be the poorer.
Reference has been made to an omission in the gracious Speech—that is, the hunting Bill. The right honourable Peter Hain has peddled much distorted information in the media about the history of the Bill in the previous Session, so I hope your Lordships will allow me to put the record straight.
A Bill was introduced into the House of Commons in December 2002. Note that date because there was a considerable delay before its introduction into this House. The Bill that was introduced in December 2002

529
would have allowed hunting to continue under a system of regulation. It had the support of the Prime Minister and of the Minister who took it through its stages in the House of Commons. It would have been welcomed by many Members—I believe a majority— of this House.
The Bill received 81 hours of debate in another place and not until the last hour of Third Reading did the Government Minister accept an amendment from a Back-Bencher, without any warning or explanation, proposing a total ban on hunting, which completely contradicted all that the Minister had been advocating throughout the passage of the Bill.
When the Bill—which had not in its amended form been through any of its stages in the House of Commons—arrived in this House there was an enormous backlog of parliamentary business. Although an additional day was offered by both my noble friend the Opposition Chief Whip and, indeed, those Peers closely involved with the Bill, it was rejected by the Government. Consequently, the Bill had only 12 hours of debate in this House.
It is widely rumoured that the Government may support—even advocate—the use of the Parliament Act on the hunting Bill on the back of its reintroduction via the Private Member's Bill procedure. On an issue that is the subject of a free vote on all Benches and which has not found a basis of consensus support inside or outside of the House, and which directly affects the civil liberties and human rights of a significant minority of country people, the use of the Parliament Act would represent a gross abuse of procedure. Anyone who cares about the conventions of our long-standing parliamentary procedures should regard this as a challenge to be resisted.
However, this Government have little time or regard for the history, conventions and traditions of this or the other place. There is a universally accepted convention that a line in the gracious Speech should state,
"Other measures will be put before you".
That line is included to allow the government of the day the flexibility to introduce legislation later in the parliamentary year that had not been foreseen at the outset or in response to an emergency situation. However, the Government introduced the Gender Recognition Bill—not mentioned in the gracious Speech—the very next day. The Bill must have been in print even as the gracious Speech was being made.
There is also the act of sheer constitutional vandalism when the Government decided to disregard 1,400 years of glorious history by abolishing the post of Lord Chancellor and announcing the setting up of a Supreme Court on the back of a failed ministerial shuffle, without prior discussions with key relevant people, without a Green Paper or a White Paper and, frankly, without even being aware that the post of Lord Chancellor could not be removed without an Act of Parliament.
530
Then we had further abuse with the Government's total lack of conscience about breaking an unequivocal pledge made to Parliament by the then Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, not to remove the elected hereditary Peers until a fully worked through stage two had been completed. However, the Government betray trust with regularity and, sadly, with a casual indifference. Higher education students were promised at the time of the 1997 general election that tuition fees would not be introduced, and at the 2001 general election they were promised that top-up fees would not be introduced. Despite all the stamping of feet and finger wagging over top-up fees by the Prime Minister and his ministerial colleagues, how can their word ever be taken on trust again?
Finally, there is the complete distortion, especially by the right honourable Mr Peter Hain, that somehow the hereditary Peers—as he would incorrectly call them—are largely responsible for government defeats in this House. The facts are that of the 88 government defeats in the previous Session, if only two-thirds of the Government's own Members had voted in each of those Divisions, the Government would have won 50 of the 88 Divisions. It is also worth putting on the record that if one removed the hereditary Peers of all Benches from the voting figures on Tuesday evening, the Government would still have lost the vote by a considerable margin.
Some of us have been puzzled about the nature of the problem that the Government are trying to resolve by their reform proposals. No, the removal of Peers has less to do with a modern agenda or making the House more effective. It is partly politics of envy or a form of class warfare and partly a numbers game. Constitutional change should be undertaken with caution underpinned by a wide basis of popular support. I was deeply saddened but not surprised to hear from a Labour Member of Parliament recently that I should understand that House of Lords reform and the Hunting Bill were about the Prime Minister tossing some red meat to his Back-Benchers. If that is the justification for constitutional change, it is shameful.
I continue to take comfort from the fact that this House, with its present composition, will take its scrutiny and revising role seriously. By and large in this House, arguments have to be won, no one party is dominant and different alliances of Members come together on the basis of the particular issue before the House. This House has proved over and again its ability to hold the executive to account without fear or favour, always accepting the right of the other place to have the last word. Whatever the outcome of constitutional change, the strength and independence of this second Chamber must be sustained. Today was an excellent example of that. Members on the government Benches have spoken freely and bravely against the Government and Members on my side of the Chamber have spoken freely and bravely against some of the proposals that I will support later in the year.

531
I make just one heartfelt plea to the Government— do not alter our procedures in this House to reduce in any way our ability to carry out our core work of holding the executive to account by a process of scrutiny and revision. My noble friends and I stand ready to work constructively with Members on all Benches as we navigate our way through a predictably heavy parliamentary workload. Taking into account the programme of work before us and having read all the debates on the gracious Speech and having listened to many of them, I do not underestimate the task.
6.4 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, this has been a predictably varied and interesting debate, which reflects the debates that we have had over the full five days on the gracious Speech. I join the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in being privileged to close not only this debate, but this particular group of debates. We can look back on five days of intense discussions and I believe that we can look forward to robust debate in the days to come. Many noble Lords asked detailed questions on the legislative programme covered by today's debate. I recognise that I might fail to answer all of the substantive points, but I give an assurance that responses will be forthcoming. I begin by paying tribute to my noble friend Lord Rooker for opening today's debate.
I shall, however, endeavour to cover all of the broad themes. 1 begin with the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, which dealt with the whole range of our debates. She challenged me to address a number of concerns, particularly this morning's Audit Commission report. I believe that the report is to be welcomed. I believe also that it is important that it is read from beginning to end. I do not make any apology for the work we have done to ensure that our schools have the funding that they need for the future and to give them certainty. We have given every local education authority a sufficient revenue grant increase to enable them to passport the schools formula spending increase to schools in full. We have also made £300 million of additional resources available for other local services. I also make no apology for the priority that we have placed on our schools.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, on the importance of the balance of funding review which is in progress. I also welcome her comments on constructively thinking through funding issues and our relationships with local government. I believe that we can do much in that sphere and I welcome the Audit Commission's work in that respect.
The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, also ranged widely in her remarks. In particular, she expressed her disappointment regarding some of the environmental issues that we raised.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, made less of a maiden speech than a second coming, as I think it has been described. I am glad to welcome him back. He made a very important speech and demonstrated his commitment and understanding of environmental issues.
532
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, also made a tour de force by offering a rural perspective on all the Bills that lie before us.
Some 12 noble Lords spoke on issues of higher education. Two focused particularly on the children's Bill and two referred to our school transport Bill. My noble friend Lord Berkeley asked whether there would be a Bill on transport safety. I am afraid that I have not the faintest idea. I have been unable to ascertain the answer, but I shall, of course, write to him.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, referred to our housing Bill. The noble Baronesses. Lady Byford and Lady Blatch, referred to hunting. The Prime Minister has made it clear that he intends the issue to be resolved in this Parliament. I cannot give any more details. The Government will announce how they intend to proceed when they are ready. Specifically, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, that there is no link between the non-appearance of the animal welfare Bill and the hunting Bill. Work is proceeding on the animal welfare Bill.
Some 11 noble Lords spoke on issues concerning the department of my noble friend Lord Whitty. I shall start by addressing some of the specific concerns raised. My noble friend Lord Hunt spoke about very important climate change issues. Global temperatures have increased in the past 100 years by 0.6 degrees centigrade. Through the UK climate impacts programme we are building a picture of that change. We are also working internationally through important groups such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the intergovernmental group on climate change. I agree with my noble friend on the importance of environmental enterprise. We need to make the most of the opportunities to improve our environmental performance while at the same time improving business competitiveness. I am sure that we will find many opportunities to debate those issues.
My noble friend was also concerned about air quality. Although we identified particular problems In 2003, the pollution trend is downwards and that is to be welcomed. There is, of course, much more to do.
The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, talked at length about the issue of wind energy. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister issued a consultation paper to which the noble Lord referred—PPS 22. The planning paper will be published alongside a companion guide containing a technical annexe and good practice guidance which I hope will go some way to addressing the noble Lord's concerns.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, dubbed my noble friend as Lord "Biofuels" Whitty. I have already referred that to my noble friend. I am sure that he will be known as that for a considerable time. The energy White Paper addresses some of those issues. I know that the noble Lord will be in dialogue with my noble friend to pursue those issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, were very concerned about the common agricultural policy. I believe that we have made

533
significant strides in that direction. I listened with care to what noble Lords said about the mid-term review and the issues of cross-compliance. Those will be picked up by my noble friend and by those officials working on the matter. They will, of course, be in touch to discuss those issues more fully.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, talked about air traffic pollution and energy issues. I am sure the noble Lord is aware that an aviation White Paper will be issued shortly. I have no further details but I hope that the noble Lord awaits that with great interest.
The noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, with his great knowledge and experience, talked in great detail about vets, as I shall call them. It is good to know that at the present time there is no difficulty in recruiting good quality vets and that there are no particular retention problems, which is very important. However, as the noble Lord will be aware, a report on vets and veterinary services will contribute to the final development of the animal health and welfare strategy. That will be a particularly important contribution. A working group has been promised to look at the issues surrounding that report.
The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, made many comments on general countryside issues. We believe that through the reforms to the common agricultural policy, the strategy for sustainable food and farming and the development of a refreshed rural strategy, we are beginning to succeed in improving the lives of rural communities and reducing administrative burdens. Notwithstanding noble Lords' concerns about wanting us to be quicker, more effective and so on, I believe that we have begun to make inroads in that regard.
The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, was concerned about the transportation of live animals. The department has supported the relevant proposals. Indeed, the UK urged the Commission to bring them forward. We want to ensure that existing rules are updated and that enforcement is improved. In some cases, that adopts or builds on good existing UK practice.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, the noble Earl, Lord Peel, and, in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, referred to the review of my noble friend Lord Haskins. We believe that the report is an important piece of work. We have welcomed it, although I believe that parts of it make uncomfortable reading for government departments. There is much to be said for the integrated agency, although, of course, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that she believes there is an ongoing role for the Countryside Agency. We believe that devolution as regards the way in which Defra and its agencies deliver policies to ensure we achieve greater effectiveness and accountability is important. We are working to ensure that we have a complete set of proposals to bring forward. In doing so we endeavour to work closely with colleagues in other agencies. Obviously, that includes the regional development agencies but, not least, the voluntary and community sector. I hope that the noble Earl,
534
Lord Peel, would agree that it is important to emphasise that this reform is not an end in itself but a means of delivering improvements on the ground for business, farmers and rural communities.
In short, the task is to work with our fanners and the whole rural economy to meet the challenges that we have described in order to sustain the quality of our environment and countryside. We look forward to noble Lords' input in that.
My noble friend Lady Goudie made a succinct intervention on the energy White Paper. I was grateful for what she said about the strategy for the long term. We are rigorously following up the issues in the widely acclaimed energy White Paper. We look forward to further debates on that in your Lordships' House.
The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, talked about the housing Bill and said that there was much to welcome, for which I am grateful. The Government are committed to the right-to-buy principle but we are concerned in particular about the availability of affordable homes—a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. The relevant legislation will focus on park homes and will draw on the report of the park homes working group. That will appear at some point in the not too distant future. During the passage of the legislation there will clearly be much debate on sellers' packs. In our consultation nine out of 10 sellers and purchasers were very keen to see such packs introduced.
I turn to school transport and the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, on rural schools and travelling. It is worth saying that £600 million a year is spent by education authorities on getting one in 10 pupils to school. A third of all pupils are driven to school, and the absence of suitable buses no doubt makes it difficult for some children to participate in after-school activities. Parents, pupils, education authorities and the Churches say that they want us to look at more choice and flexibility. Parents, in particular, are concerned about high fares, bullying, vehicle quality and arrangements that simply do not cater for younger children.
We believe that now is the time to look for innovation, safer routes and safe crossings, walking buses, secure cycle parking, lockers and bus bays, pedestrian and cycle safety schemes and car sharing. We need to consider the important point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, about children and obesity. I accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, said about car transport often being the only option, but we need to look at giving children more options than car transport on our roads. That is particularly important for poorer families that do not have access to car transport, which of course creates its own issues.
We will explore about 20 pilots in total, which will be agreed by the Secretary of State, with about 12 local education authorities—the final figure is to be decided. There will be opportunities to explore what better policies we could have by enabling them to try them on the ground. The issues of rural communities will be very central.

535
It is also worth mentioning the work between my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and the Rural Affairs Minister, Alun Michael. They meet regularly and have identified transport as an issue on which they want to work. I am sure that we will be able to do more. Children who live between one and three miles away do not have the facilities, and we could do more to support their transport needs. I look forward to debating the matter in the House, but I hope that there will be some agreement on it.
I was grateful for many of the supportive remarks made about what we sought to do in the children's Bill. I agree with the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, about the children's commissioner who must be a champion for children and not merely a response to the lobby groups, important though they are to us all. It is important that such a body is independent of government, reporting on progress against the outcomes for children, particularly the outcomes that in our consultation children told us mattered to them. Those include enjoying and achieving, staying safe and making a positive contribution to society, to name but three.
We shall look at how we develop the work with local authorities to put in place a director of children's services, mirrored by a lead member. I am glad that that was welcomed by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. I understand the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, about buck-passing. Part of the reason for that proposal is to say that the buck firmly stops there. Those people are given the responsibility for bringing together the services and rising to that challenge. The enthusiasm that I have seen in addressing the conferences on the Green Paper in the past few weeks demonstrates that that is an important area, although we will need to look very carefully at the detail. I look forward to doing so.
I was pleased by the point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark about the importance of schools, particularly for children who have what might be described as chaotic lifestyles. That brings us to the whole work of extended schools, and the way in which our integrated services need to work.
I say to my noble friend Lady Massey that I add my congratulations to the all-party group. The work of the children's trust pilots will be important, to see how we involve all agencies including, as she said, those on youth justice issues, which will be an integral part of some of the pilots. Citizenship and education are very important to us. Through the Standards Fund, we support a good number of advanced-skills teachers in citizenship, and help them to support their colleagues. We also support the accreditation of PSHE teaching. At the moment, 750 teachers are going through continuous professional development, and we hope to see that number rise to 3,000.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, talked about the childcare workforce, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, referred to it, too. I agree with many of the sentiments expressed. There will be a new workforce unit within the department dedicated to
536
working on the issues of retention, recruitment and so on. We have to do more to promote foster parenting, and to give respite care to foster parents. We are looking at that and trying to be imaginative. Recruitment and retention are critical. It is about creating a scaffold to enable people who come in to work with children to move across the profession, advance their professional development, feel that they may start in one area working with children but have many options, and feel that they are part of a professional team.
It is not about being cost-neutral in what we are describing. We believe that if we integrate so that, for example, children no longer have eight or nine assessments for their disability but merely one, there will be costs to be saved and spent more wisely and better. But we are looking to the spending review, about which, noble Lords will appreciate, I cannot say more.
Twenty-five million pounds for parenting over three years is important, but it is not the only money. Sure Start did a lot of work on parenting and will continue to do so. Teamwork multi-agencies are critical. The story described by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, about a young man who eventually killed himself is one about prevention. It is a story about ensuring that the children we identify under five as already demonstrating what might be called "anti-social behaviour" or as having difficulties in their families do not make the journey that can end up in the criminal justice system. That is the thrust of what we have said in the Green Paper.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, asked in particular about the retention of social workers. The turnover rate has fallen during the past three years from 15.3 to 12.4 but there is more to do. He asked specifically about Clause 7 of the new asylum Bill. It is straightforward. It does not include any provision for taking children into care. The provision is that local authorities in the United Kingdom have duties to all children living in their areas, including the children of failed asylum seekers.
A local authority may accommodate, or otherwise look after, a child who is in need. Children are taken into care only when they are suffering, or likely to suffer, harm. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that the disability Bill will be brought forward by the Department for Work and Pensions and not through the education Bill. I point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, that no teachers currently on the upper pay scale 2 have been prevented from progressing to pay scale 3 by funding difficulties. The next round of progressions will take place in September 2004 and we are currently in discussion about those issues.
My noble friend Lord Mitchell talked about e-learning. He is a passionate advocate of that most important issue. We are working towards a unified e-learning strategy, removing barriers at all levels of education for those who want to be involved in it. I say to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark on the 14 to 19 work, he has nothing to fear about the role of religious education. The Pathfinders are in operation. I will send details to the right reverend Prelate and invite him to engage in debate.

537
We spent much time in the debate on higher education. I am mindful that during the passage of the Bill we will have many opportunities to debate these issues at great length. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Perry of Southwark, that high-level schools will be in even greater demand in future. Our predictions are that by 2010, 2 million more graduates will be needed by employers than are needed today. Eighty per cent of jobs created in the decade will require the kind of skills and qualifications that higher education provides. It is the Government's responsibility to respond to that.
We have clearly set out what we want to do in the three pillars in our higher education strategy. It is accepted on all sides of your Lordships' House that universities need more money. Indeed, most noble Lords who discussed this area of policy referred to that. It is accepted by most noble Lords, although not all, for different reasons that the number of students will continue to grow.
It is also accepted by most noble Lords that financing needs to come from the taxpayers, but also from those who will benefit from university education. It is the principle behind the work of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing. And of course there is a need for fairness within that. Our proposals mean that there will no longer be an entry price into a university of £1,125.I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that students will pay back only when they reach the earning threshold of £15,000-plus.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. That was not my question. My question was: what is the threshold on which the 9 per cent will be based in the salary of the graduate when he or she comes to pay it back? Students will pay 9 per cent of a certain amount. It is not described as "gross income" or "post tax income". It is 9 per cent above a certain threshold and I want to know about that threshold.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness. I will give her some figures in a moment, but if they do not clarify the matter I shall of course write to her. The principle we have determined upon is that university students, as graduates, will pay back only what they owe when they can afford it. I accept what noble Lords have said about bursary schemes and their relevance and importance. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, in particular that we continue to work with the coalition of modern universities and others to look at how to make that scheme the most effective. In particular, we recognise that some universities already have high numbers of students from poorer backgrounds.
I was grateful for the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, has confidence in the Secretary of State. I was interested in his remarks on funding and, in particular, in what he said about priorities. It is perhaps worth saying that we spend £5,300—a different figure from the one given by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe—per university student. That
538
compares with £1,800 a year which is spent on the average three year-old and £3,200 on the average primary school pupil.
The surveys and work carried out on the impact of early years education indicate that it is relevant in breaking the link between a person's social and economic background and his education attainment We must ensure that we invest in early years learning, too That is the policy of this party and it is why I am a member of it Therefore, I say only that governments must make choices about where to invest money for the greatest benefit.
Noble Lords—in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Quirk—rightly pointed out the need to increase the number of applications to universities and to improve the school system I agree At present, we spend £4,000 a year on each secondary school pupil and £5,300 on each university student Therefore, I ask the noble Lord where my priorities should be I believe that we must ensure, as a government priority, that we have a fair and balanced system for universities.
That takes us back to the issue raised on the Liberal Democrat Benches about the taxation system It would not necessarily be our first priority to fund universities directly and wholly through taxation. It is important to ensure that students receive a high-quality education so that they apply to university The evidence indicates that if they apply, they are given a place However, they do not apply because they do not always achieve the necessary A-level results and they do not always receive the support that they need in order to do so That is a critical factor.
During the lunch break, the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, asked me what would happen if someone died He asked whether a person would have to leave the debt in his will The answer is no, if a person dies, simply and straightforwardly, that is the end of the debt I am glad to reassure noble Lords on that point.
I am very grateful for the support that has come from around the House I am conscious of the time restraint but I want to deal quickly with the issue of the office for fair access and with the concerns expressed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Howe and Lady Blatch, about the bureaucracy involved We are conscious of the need to address that and shall ensure that we do not create bureaucracy or expense The higher education Better Regulation Review Group has been supportive of our plans thus far It has said that the value of the principle of good regulation has become clear to the group during its work, notably in considering proposals for the office for fair access. We shall continue to strive to achieve that and, in doing so, we shall take on board comments made by noble Lords.
The noble Lord, Lord Rix, stated that a third of the money being raised would go into bursaries. We have not made a decision, and I want to make it absolutely clear that we are still holding discussions on that matter We shall make an announcement in due course We are still talking to university professors about that.

539
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Perry of Southwark, that we are very clear that admissions policies and procedures will be outside the remit of an access agreement and the office for fair access. No doubt we shall return to debate that issue.
In terms of the repayment of fees, I want to make it clear that someone who earns less than £15,000 a year will not pay back anything. At present, as noble Lords know, repayments are made when earnings reach £10,000; at £18,000, a person will pay back £5.19 per week; and, at £30,000, he will pay back £25.96 a week. I consider those to be reasonable amounts in the context of the salaries that people will be earning.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in relation to the figures that the noble Baroness has just given, does she realise that someone who earns up to £18,000 will never pay off the loan? At present, both the loan and the tuition fees increase by 3.1 per cent each year. That is the neutral level of interest—we know that it is not real-terms interest. If that is the case, a £20,000 loan would increase by £600, which is £12 a week. Therefore, if a person paid £5.19 a week, not only would he never pay off the debt but the debt would continue to rise as he paid. Thus, at the end of each year, he would owe more and not less.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, that does not fit with the figures that I have. To help the noble Baroness I suggest that I place a letter in the Library of the House explaining the figures in detail. As always, the noble Baroness makes a very important point about the longer term. We shall keep this debate in mind and consider what we can do further. My right honourable friend will be interested in it.
540
As the noble Baroness is concerned about what happens to graduates, it is worth saying that graduate employability is better than non-graduate employability. Graduate unemployment falls significantly over time. A graduate is half as likely to be unemployed and almost 80 per cent of employed graduates take jobs that make use of their skills. We should not forget that the rates of return to tertiary education are higher in the UK than in any other OECD country. I was asked how we collect loans from graduates who work abroad. The Student Loans Company already does that.
As my noble friend Lord Desai said, if we do not now get this matter right we shall regret it. I say to my noble friend Lord Puttnam that if I ever live to shuffle down these corridors, whatever else I may regret I shall not regret the higher education Bill which I believe puts universities on the best footing that they have had for a long time. It will ensure that my children, my children's children and the children and grandchildren of other noble Lords will be able to attend well-funded universities that are not crumbling and that have the resources that they need to enable students to make their contribution.
With gratitude to all noble Lords who have spoken, I commend the Bills to your Lordships' House.
On Question, Motion, as amended, agreed to nemine dissentiente; the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lord Chamberlain.

Mersey Tunnels Bill
Brought from the Commons; the declaration of the agent having been deposited pursuant to the resolution of 11th November, the Bill was read a first time.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before seven o'clock.

  North/South Language Body
  North/South Language Body
  North/South Implementation Bodies: Funding
  North/South Implementation Bodies: Funding
  Special Advisers
  Special Advisers
  Customs and Excise: Review of Current Practices
  Customs and Excise: Review of Current Practices
  Court Service: Headline Targets 2003–04
  Court Service: Headline Targets 2003–04
  Teaching Staff: Appointment and Dismissal
  Teaching Staff: Appointment and Dismissal
  Interim Executive Boards
  Interim Executive Boards
  Autism: Children
  Autism: Children
  Foot and Mouth Disease
  Foot and Mouth Disease
  Illegal Food Imports
  Illegal Food Imports
  National Heritage Act 1980: Government Indemnity Scheme
  National Heritage Act 1980: Government Indemnity Scheme
  President Bush's Visit: Road Closures
  President Bush's Visit: Road Closures