Sitting of 9 December 2003

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

    Worcestershire Health Economy
    Mr. Peter Luff: If he will make a statement on the financial situation of the Worcestershire health economy. [142542]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health(Mr. John Hutton): Primary care trusts in Worcestershire will receive a total increase of £118.9 million over the next three years, representing a cash increase of more than 30 per cent. All primary care trusts in Worcestershire are forecasting financial balance for this financial year. However, as the hon. Gentleman will know, discussions are continuing between the strategic health authority and Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS trust to ensure that the trust achieves financial balance over the next two financial years.
    Mr. Luff: I am grateful for that answer. The Minister will know that the budgetary problems of the South Worcestershire primary care trust, which were caused at least in part by an obligation to meet centrally imposed targets, led to significant cuts in local health services early this year. As the Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS trust struggles with its own precarious financial position, caused in part by an obligation to meet the new waiting time targets, can the right hon. Gentleman assure me that there will be no further cuts to patient services in Worcestershire, and that the new GP contract will be fully implemented?
    Mr. Hutton: Yes. There will not be any cuts in front-line health care services in Worcestershire—quite the opposite: we are looking to expand health care services in the county because there is a need for that. The new GP contract will be fully funded and it will be properly implemented, as we have repeatedly made clear. We are trying to address the issues, of concern to the hon. Gentleman and many others in Worcestershire, affecting the hospitals trust. That task would be greatly furthered if we had the hon. Gentleman's support for the additional investment that we are providing.
    Mr. Michael Foster): Has my right hon. Friend made an assessment of the impact on the
    894
    finances of the Worcestershire health economy of diverting cash from the NHS to pay for tax relief on private medical insurance?
    Mr. Hutton: Yes, I have made such an assessment—and it would wipe out the additional £118 million of investment, so I really do not think that the Conservative party's proposals would help to enhance the NHS in Worcestershire. Indeed, they would make the job of the NHS in Worcestershire immeasurably more difficult.
    Sir Michael Spicer: When will work begin on the long awaited new hospital in Malvern in Worcestershire? If the Minister does not know the answer to that, will he write to me about it by the end of the week?
    Mr. Hutton: I do not know the answer, but as the hon. Gentleman has asked me to, I will write to him by the end of the week.
    Mr. Tim Yeo: Are not the people of Worcestershire being let down by the Government? Tax is up, spending is up, but activity has barely increased. Only six days ago, the NHS chief executive admitted that average waiting times are getting longer. Last year only one patient in 400 was able to exercise choice and then only if they had been waiting for more than six months. Against that background and in view of the delays to the NHS information technology project, will the Minister confirm that the promises made this morning by the Secretary of State in No. 10 Downing street about increasing patient choice are just pie in the sky?
    Mr. Hutton: No, I would not accept that, but I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new responsibilities. There are no delays to the NHS IT programme, which will be delivered and implemented on time—because of the additional investment that we are putting into the NHS, which the hon. Gentleman is obviously not prepared to match. As to waiting times, they are falling, rather than rising as they did under the previous Government. Given the hon. Gentleman's desire to represent a new type of politics, he might have had the courtesy and the manners to acknowledge that in the House today.

    NHS Dentistry
    Mr. Colin Breed: If he will make a statement on his Department's proposals to improve access to NHS dentistry. [142543]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Ms Rosie Winterton): The Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003 is the most radical reform of NHS dentistry since 1948, and means that the £1.2 billion currently held centrally will be devolved to primary care trusts to commission NHS dentistry. In the meantime we have allocated £59 million to improve access to NHS dentistry where there are currently acute short-term problems.
    Mr. Breed: I thank the Minister for that response, but her predecessor told me in January that the Government

    895
    would indeed strive to put more investment into NHS dentistry services in Cornwall. We have seen no visible evidence of that. Indeed, children are now being deregistered from NHS dentistry. Such inequity cannot be allowed to continue on. Can the Minister direct any specific investment into areas such as Cornwall so that NHS dentistry can be brought up to at least the average in the UK nationally?
    Ms Winterton: I understand the points that the hon. Gentleman makes and, in the longer term, we will radically overhaul NHS dentistry. However, in the meantime, we have set up 22 new dental clinics in Cornwall since 1998. They provide treatment on the NHS to people who are not registered with an NHS dentist. We are also considering the hon. Gentleman's area as one of the pilot areas for the new system of local commissioning of NHS dentistry, so that we can ensure that dentists stay with the NHS and encourage others to return to it.
    Mr. Peter Pike: My hon. Friend will know that Burnley is one of the worst places in the country for obtaining NHS dental treatment. There is a gaping hole in provision. We welcome what the Government have done and the changes that will take place in 2005, but what can be done to provide urgent dental treatment on the NHS for people who need it now?
    Ms Winterton: I refer back to the £59 million that I have announced in the past few months that will be used to address exactly the problems that my hon. Friend mentions. That will happen through the NHS support team, which is funded by £9 million, backed up by around £35 million in revenue support. The NHS support team visited my hon. Friend's area in August, October and again in November. A local action plan is being drawn up to address some of the real problems that I know exist in his area and I will let him have further details in due course.
    Mr. Hugo Swire:When the Minister wrote to me in answer to a query that I raised about the critical state of dentistry in east Devon, she mentioned the figure of £65.2 million to support the changes. I notice that this morning that figure has fallen to £59 million. Does the Minister agree with me and my constituent Dr. Kenneth Croft that there is no point in improving access to dentists if they do not exist in the first place? Will she consider ensuring that some of the new money is spent on general dental practitioners, who are at the forefront of dentistry, rather than on IT training, recruitment and so forth?
    Ms Winterton: Some of the money will go to dentists in general dental service. That is the whole idea. Some of the money can be used for capital expenditure—for example, if a dentist wishes to expand the surgery area or provide extra facilities in the clinic. In terms of revenue, extra money can be spent on more sessions for NHS patients. In the longer term, we are reviewing the dental work force to ensure that we have more trainees and encourage more people to return to dentistry, especially women. Overall, the hon. Gentleman should
    896
    remember that this state of affairs arose because of the way in which the Conservatives behaved in the 1990s, which led to NHS dentists—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Ian Lucas.
    Ian Lucas: Will my hon. Friend join me in condemning those many dentists, some from the Wrexham area, who have unilaterally withdrawn from NHS practice? What sort of professional sends a patient of 20 years' standing a letter to say that they can no longer treat him unless he signs up to a private dental plan? That is disreputable behaviour. It is time that such dentists recognised that they have a professional obligation to offer health care, not just to seek private profit.
    Ms Winterton: Dentists are independent contractors and, as such, they have the absolute right to withdraw their services if they wish to do so. The problem has been not necessarily the amount that dentists are paid but the way in which they are paid, leading to the treadmill effect of the current system. We are changing that round so that the money that is held centrally will be devolved to local level. The system of payment will change, and we believe that that will encourage more dentists to stay in the NHS and encourage more to join it in the first place.
    Mrs. Patsy Calton: Now that more than half the population are not registered with an NHS dentist, it is clear that access is not the whole story. What will the Government do to ensure that more people are registered with an NHS dentist?
    Ms Winterton: Only some 5 per cent. of dentists offer only private care. Some 60 per cent. of dentists provide some 90 per cent. of NHS care. However, the hon. Lady is right to point to a problem. We need to improve access and encourage registration. The measures that I have outlined—including devolving money held centrally to local level, allowing local commissioning and addressing the issue of the dental work force—will change the situation round. It will be a radical overhaul of the present system.
    Mr. Stephen McCabe: Cosmetic teeth whitening is, I understand, a simple but costly procedure much beloved of some Opposition Front-Bench Members. Is cosmetic teeth whitening available on the NHS and, if not, how much would it cost the NHS, and what would be the impact on availability, if it were to be provided under the patients passport that the Opposition love?
    Ms Winterton: If teeth whitening were for purely cosmetic reasons it would not be available under the NHS, which is purely for clinical procedures, unless there had been a recommendation that it was necessary for clinical purposes. I agree with my hon. Friend about the policies of the Opposition; not only will the patients passport undermine the NHS—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Dr. Murrison.
    Dr. Andrew Murrison: Deteriorating dental health in the UK is but the latest in

    897
    a string of public health disappointments, including tuberculosis, obesity and sexual health, that have become more acute since the creation of the post of a public health Minister. Successive postholders have done little more than tweak management wiring diagrams, from the creation of directorates of infection control to the transfer of responsibility for primary dental care. Does the Minister agree in all candour that in public health terms the Government's impact on preventive oral health has been marginal at best? What comfort can she give the British Dental Association, which has highlighted its concerns to her on repeated occasions?
    Ms Winterton: In fact, we are working extremely closely with the BDA. That is exactly why we have come up with our plans. The BDA told us that it did not like the present system of payment, which was introduced by the previous Administration—who, by the way, at the same time cut dental fees by 7 per cent. while we have increased them by 26 per cent. We have worked with the BDA so that the money currently being spent centrally will be devolved to local level. That is what the BDA told us it wants and that is what we are delivering.
    Shona Mctsaac: My hon. Friend will know that I have been haranguing Ministers for some time about the appalling problems of access to dentistry in Grimsby and Cleethorpes. For example, a vulnerable adult on incapacity benefit, who cannot obtain NHS treatment, was quoted £500 for fillings, while a pensioner who is in severe pain following an accident and needs urgent treatment can get no treatment, not even private treatment, until the new year. I know that initial discussions on improving access in my area have taken place, so will my hon. Friend tell me what progress is being made to ensure that my constituents have access to good dental treatment?
    Ms Winterton: I am well aware of the problems that my hon. Friend has highlighted. She has been as assiduous as ever in bringing them to our attention and I hope that I can offer her some reassurance. The dental support team has made three visits to her area to meet the local primary care trust. As a result, grants have been allocated for about 3,000 extra patients to be registered on NHS dentists' lists, and £50,000 has been allocated for a new service for non-NHS registered patients who need urgent treatment. My Department has also allocated £95,000 to employ full-time salaried dentists in the area. Furthermore, the PCT is working with Sheffield university on a scheme to locate newly qualified dentists in the area. I hope that gives my hon. Friend some reassurance that progress is being made.
    Mr. Andrew Turner: If he will make a statement on the number of dentists in NHS practice. [142544]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Ms Rosie Winterton): On 30 September 2003, there were 18,500 dentists in England—up from 16,728 in 1997. We have also undertaken a dental work force review, which we will publish shortly.
    Mr. Turner: I thank the Minister for that answer. I am sure that she is aware, because she gave me the
    898
    information, that in 1999 41 per cent. of adults in my constituency were registered with an NHS dentist. That figure has now slumped to 30.6 per cent. I have raised this matter with her predecessor. My PCT chief executive tells me that the Department of Health counts the Isle of Wight as
    "amongst the twelve most challenged populations"—
    [Interruption.]—with regard to dentistry, that is—and is very supportive. We have had three meetings with the Department of Health, and another meeting will take place in late January, but is the Minister aware that it is no good offering meetings to managers when constituents want treatment?
    Ms Winterton: I can quite understand why the hon. Gentleman's constituents feel rather challenged. I reassure him that the NHS dentistry support team has, as he suggests, visited his constituency and met the local PCT and the local strategic health authority. It is important that the priorities are agreed at that level because that is how we can improve the system. Of course I understand the point about the hon. Gentleman's constituents. We are very aware of the difficulties that they face, but we have to sort those difficulties out strategically. Not only have those meetings taken place, but a local action plan has been drawn up to ensure that the situation is improved. A recruitment package has been produced. That has been attempted before in the hon. Gentleman's constituency to try to recruit dentists to the area. It was not successful, but that is being looked at again, and emphasis will be put on the fact that the access should not be required off the island and that priority should be given to children. I hope that that will improve the situation.
    Mrs. Ann Cryer: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents cannot register with an NHS dentist? There are many good NHS dentists in Keighley, but unfortunately, there are none in Skipton, so people from Skipton flood the Keighley area to use our dentists. What help can my hon. Friend offer to my constituency?
    Ms Winterton: Again, I can assure my hon. Friend that, through the NHS support team, we are trying to ensure that particularly challenged areas receive extra help. I will certainly ask the support team to consider the points that she makes and to find out whether we can do anything further to assist her area.
    Hywel Williams): I am the victim of an assault—an assault by treacle toffee offered to me by a seven-year-old at a school Christmas fair. I could find no dentist either in London or in my constituency, and I eventually had to pay £400 for emergency treatment. Given that many hon. Members will shortly risk their dental integrity at school fairs throughout the country, can the Minister assure us that emergency dental treatment on the NHS is available in all parts of the United Kingdom?
    Ms Winterton: I can perhaps refer the hon. Gentleman to NHS Direct, which will he able to advise him on the nearest centre where he can get emergency care. That is what we pledged to do: to ensure that

    899
    anyone who telephones NHS Direct can get advice on where the nearest source of emergency care is—either through a dental access centre, or through an NHS dentist who provides emergency treatment.
    Lawrie Quinn: My hon. Friend has done much work with the British Dental Association, which she mentioned in an earlier answer, but crucial to maintaining the number of dentists is continued professional post-graduate training. A very good scheme has been developed on the Yorkshire coast in my constituency. Will my hon. Friend take the opportunity in the new year to come and see that work, which I very much congratulate her and her officials on helping to get started?
    Ms Winterton: I thank my hon. Friend for those remarks. He is absolutely right. That is why we have undertaken the dental work force review to consider training, recruitment and how we can ensure that more dentists stay in the NHS when they have trained. I would be more than happy to visit my hon. Friend's constituency. The NHS support team has already visited the area to consider ways in which it can improve access for his constituents, following representations that he has made, but looking at some of the schemes that he has outlined would be extremely helpful.

    Epilepsy Nurses
    Mr. George Osborne): If he will make a statement on the provision of specialist children's epilepsy nurses. 142545]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. Stephen Ladyman): We do not collect this information centrally, but we understand that there are around 100 epilepsy specialist nurses supporting the treatment and management of children and adults with epilepsy. In February 2003, we published the Department of Health's epilepsy action plan, and primary care trusts are able to develop more epilepsy specialist nursing posts to support the delivery of local epilepsy services.
    Mr. Osborne: A consultant paediatrician in my local hospital, Dr. Owens, has vividly described to me the enormous benefit that specialist epilepsy nurses can bring to families with epileptic children. Yet in my area, as in many others, those specialist services do not exist. Before putting all the responsibility on primary care trusts, would the Minister listen to what Dr. Owens has to tell us—indeed, I forwarded this letter to him a month ago—
    "Whilst the present Government has undoubtedly increased funding for the NHS, moneys are centrally controlled and streamed into specific areas. There is not much funding reaching children's services in district general hospitals.-
    What more can the Minister do to bring benefits to families with epileptic children in my area?
    Dr. Ladyman: First, there is less ring-fencing of money now than ever before. Eight-Five per cent. of the money is passed on to primary care trusts, which can make decisions about how they want to deliver epilepsy services in the best interests of local people. It is
    900
    ridiculous to suggest that specialist nurses—important though they are—represent the totality of the delivery of services for children with epilepsy. I would refer the hon. Gentleman's constituent to the complete and comprehensive improvement in the priority that this Government have given to epilepsy compared with our predecessors. We have the epilepsy action plan, the national service frameworks for children and long-term conditions that are being produced next year, and two sets of NICE guidelines being produced that are also of direct relevance to epilepsy.
    Tim Loughton: The lack of children's epilepsy nurses is another example of the chronic shortage of specialist children's nurses highlighted in the study by the Royal College of Nursing and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, and has been identified as a major factor in avoidable death. It underlines how children's health does not fit into this Government's target priorities. Does the Minister acknowledge the figures from the royal colleges, which point to the fact that another 2,700 children's nurses are needed just to meet demand? Can he now tell the House the number of pre-registration children's nursing training places being made available to overcome that deficiency? Will that serious problem be addressed in the children's national service framework, when we eventually get it?
    Dr. Ladyman: First, there are now 48,000 more nurses in the national health service as a result of the investment made by this Government. How many would there be if we were cutting expenditure on the national health service by 20 per cent? Out of those 48,000 will come a substantial number of specialist children's nurses, including those for epilepsy. If the hon. Gentleman were genuinely reflecting the views of people working in children's health, he would be saying that this Government are dramatically improving prospects for children's health in this country, and that the national service framework is going to be one of the biggest steps forward in children's health in the history of the national health service.

    GP Premises (East London)
    Ms Oona King):What measures he is taking to improve general practitioner premises in east London. [142546]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Dr. John Reid): We have begun to transform the face of primary care in east London. In my hon. Friend's constituency, the local primary care trust is investing more than £1 million in opening, renewing and refurbishing general practice premises. By early next year, Tower Hamlets PCT will have opened three additional practices, bringing much-needed general practitioners to east London.
    Ms King: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Clearly, I warmly welcome the new premises that are being replaced, refurbished and reopened. In places such as east London, however, many older GPs, often operating from single practices that were inadequately housed, are retiring, and we are having something of a problem in ensuring that the new premises are duly

    901
    improved and in the right places. Can the Secretary of State write to me outlining what measures his Department might take to work more closely with developers, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and others involved in regeneration initiatives to ensure that we have improved premises in the areas that need them?
    Dr. Reid: I will certainly undertake to write to my hon. Friend. In the meantime, I can say that she is absolutely right that we need to unleash the capacity that exists in the public or private sector to bring together all capabilities to address health care, whether that relates to buildings or other matters. She may know that we have developed a groundbreaking initiative for the NHS that is referred to as LIFT—the local improvement finance trust—to develop and encourage a new market for investment in primary care facilities. East London contains two LIFT projects, in Barking and Havering, which are bringing investment worth more than £47 million to London. Included in the east London scheme is a £4.9 million one-stop primary care centre in Church road, a £2.6 million primary care centre in Barking road and a £12 million one-stop primary care centre in Vicarage lane. All of that is vitally important, because if we do not put capacity into the NHS, we cannot give people the quality or choice that they should have.
    Mr. Richard Bacon—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I have no wish to ignore the hon. Gentleman, but South Norfolk does not exactly come under east London.

    Nurse Practitioners
    Helen Jones: What progress has been made in developing the role of nurse practitioners; and if he will make a statement. [142547]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): Over the past five years, the number of nurses working in primary care has increased by 18 per cent., and many of them work as nurse practitioners. Their roles have expanded to include prescribing and ordering some diagnostic tests for patients. The Department also remains committed to developing further the role of nurses in secondary care through the establishment of new modern matrons, nurse consultant posts and greater clinical responsibility for nurses.
    Helen Jones: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but will he tell the House how he proposes to extend further the role of nurse practitioners in primary care? Many patients find that extremely useful—it is very popular in my area. How might the arrangements for the new GP contract impinge on that process?
    Mr. Hutton: I agree with my hon. Friend that nurses have a hugely important role to play in delivering an improved range of services in the community and primary care. I know that she assiduously follows such events, so she knows that the new general medical services contract that we successfully concluded with the British Medical Association will allow nurse-led practices to be developed in GMS for the first time. That
    902
    will allow nurses to continue expanding and developing their role to improve services for patients in all parts of the country, including those of my hon. Friend.
    Mr. David Tredinnick: Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that nurses who have trained in therapies such as acupuncture, herbal remedies and perhaps even homeopathy will not be discriminated against in hospitals? Will they be able to use such therapies as they should—to assist patients and reduce the pressure on doctors and other nurses?
    Mr. Hutton: I certainly would not want to dismiss that. I have recently become something of a convert to some of those treatments. I had some reflexology recently and it was very nice indeed—I do not really want to say any more about that.
    The hon. Gentleman raises a fair and important point. He might not have had a chance to read the command paper that has been published today on how we can make the NHS more responsive and equitable with choice. It deals with complementary medicines and I hope that he will find that our statements today take the issue further forward in a way he could support.
    Syd Rapson: May I first, through you, Mr. Speaker, thank the Secretary of State for his morale-boosting visit to Portsmouth last week, which was welcomed by everyone? In welcoming the development of nurse practitioners, may I ask the Minister whether that will give nurses the authority to cope with the MRSA problem that affects most hospitals?
    Mr. Hutton: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State raises the morale of everyone in the NHS wherever he goes. My hon. Friend makes an important point about MRSA. The chief medical officer published a set of proposals last week that will help us to get on top of what we accept is a serious problem for the NHS. I agree that a key way in which we could make a significant improvement would be to develop the authority and role of nurses, which is precisely what modern matrons are doing in our hospitals today.

    Stroke Services
    Sandra Gidley: What the latest average waiting time is for a scan for patients with a suspected stroke. [142548]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Miss Melanie Johnson): The information is not collected centrally. The target in this area is to achieve a CT or MRI scan in less than 48 hours. The 2001–02 national sentinel stroke audit reported that more patients than ever had had brain imaging, with at least 83 per cent. meeting that target.
    Sandra Gidley: I hope that the Minister is not complacent about those figures because they mean that almost 20,000 people did not receive the required service in the required time. As such targets are part of the national service framework, does the fact that the information is not monitored centrally mean that NSFs are not worth the paper that they are written on?
    Miss Johnson: I do not think anyone in the Chamber or outside it will give any credence to that line. One

    903
    target in the priorities and planning framework for 2003 to 2006 requires the establishment of specialist stroke services by April 2004, which are important in all hospitals that care for people who have a stroke. At least three quarters of hospitals already have specialist stroke services. The local delivery plans show that 94 per cent. aim to meet that target soon.
    Mr. Richard Bacon: Will the latest average waiting time for a scan for patients with a suspected stroke be recorded in the national programme for IT in the health service, the contracts for which have been signed with unseemly haste despite the concerns of many in the industry? Can the Minister confirm whether a significant financial bonus has been given to the director general of IT, Mr. Richard Granger, for signing the contracts by a specific date?
    Miss Johnson: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman's line of questioning. The third national sentinel stroke audit said:
    "there has been a revolution over the last few years."
    Those are not the words of the Department of Health, but come from the audit on patients with stroke. Of course we want to improve services to patients through the IT investment that we are making. I should have thought that hon. Members would universally welcome that.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: Is the Minister aware that if someone has a stroke at the back of the head, it affects their balance, and that the test for that reveals whether someone has multiple sclerosis or has had a stroke? It is assumed that if a person is young, he has MS, and that if he is old, he has had a stroke. That is not exactly scientific because there are other possibilities. The proper way to diagnose people in those circumstances is to do a scan. It is important that that service is developed throughout the country.
    Miss Johnson: I am enormously grateful to my hon. Friend for improving my medical education further. That is a useful point. The number of scanners has grown considerably since 1997. Altogether, the number of MRI scanners is expected to increase from 110 in 1997 to 276 by 2004. That is an increase of 151 per cent.
    Mr. Andrew Lansley): The Minister referred to the national sentinel stroke audit, which said that only 27 per cent. of stroke patients spent the majority of their time in a specialist stroke unit. Does she agree that what matters most is the character of the specialist unit and whether patients spend time in it? What milestones or targets does the priorities and planning framework suggest for the proportion of patients who receive specialist care?
    Miss Johnson: By next April, 95 per cent. of all hospitals will have specialist stroke services. I agree that it is important that services are appropriately tailored to meet patients' needs. We are investing in the NHS to make such provision available, which we base on best practice, spread across the service by the Modernisation Agency. That allows patients to receive the standard of care that Labour Members think they deserve, backed by the investment that will deliver that standard of care.

    Care Homes
    Mrs. Marion Roe: If he will make a statement on the change in the number of care home beds since 1997. [142549]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. Stephen Ladyman): In 1997, there were 534,410 care home beds. In 2001, there were 528,000 beds in England. Data on care home capacity have not been collected by the Department of Health since 2001, but data collected independently by Laing and Buisson indicate that at July 2003 there were about 10,000 vacant care home places in the United Kingdom.
    Mrs. Roe: Does the Minister acknowledge the figures published by Laing and Buisson last summer, which show that capacity in the care home sector—throughout all sectors—was 74,000 places lower than the peak in 1996? Does he really believe that this catastrophic loss of care home places is of the care sector's own choosing? When will he admit that care homes are closing because the Labour Government's illthought-through policies are forcing them to do so?
    Dr. Ladyman: Care home places are being lost because older people do not want to go in them. We are giving people choice. There are 81,500 people receiving intensive care home packages so that they can stay at home. If the hon. Lady studies the performance indicators published only a couple of weeks ago, she will find that we have increased the number of people being supported at home by 30 per cent. since 1998. We are giving older people choice. The Conservative party wants to force them all, against their will, into care homes.
    Mr. George Stevenson: Does my hon. Friend agree that a continuing concern about the provision of care for the elderly—particularly in respect of elderly care beds—is the artificial divisions that exist between the national health service and social services? Is it not time that the Government redoubled their efforts to encourage these authorities to merge and to establish care trusts for the elderly so that the necessary focus can be placed on the comprehensive requirements of the elderly when they are in need of care?
    Dr. Ladyman: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. Care trusts to support older people are a valuable tool. I encourage any local council and primary care trust looking for opportunities to improve care for older people to think carefully about building up the partnerships, co-operation and trust that are necessary to improve working, and then to cement those partnerships by forming a care trust that can deliver the comprehensive service that I know my hon. Friend supports.
    Mr. Simon Burns: The care home sector will be deeply distressed that the Minister seems to be in total denial of the crisis in care. At a time when care homes are under severe financial pressures, will he tell us what justification there is for the fact that an enhanced check fee that was £12 per check in April

    905
    2002 will, by next April, have risen 175 per cent. to £33, placing more financial burdens on care homes? It will be seen by many as another stealth tax.
    Dr. Ladyman: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman and his constant attacks on Criminal Records Bureau checks. If we ever needed any confirmation of why such checks are necessary, we saw it recently in the "Panorama" programme. That is what the Government have implemented—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the Minister answer in his own way.
    Dr. Ladyman:Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
    The cost has increased because we consulted the industry and made it clear to it that we would expect full cost recovery over a period. We are moving to that. The industry can pass on the costs to those to whom it sells its services. The Government fully fund that through local councils.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: May I encourage my hon. Friend to concentrate on the care that most of my elderly constituents prefer to receive—domiciliary care? Will he ensure that social services departments are capable of providing the high-quality care that people need when they are living at home?
    Dr. Ladyman: My hon. Friend is right. I am glad that at least on the Government Benches we are consistent in our support for the choice that 80 per cent. of elderly people tell us that they want to make, which is to stay in their own homes. We must work much harder to ensure that social services are aware that people want to make choices and that they have all the facilities that they need at their disposal to make such choices a reality for everybody.
    Mr. Archie Norman: Does the Minister realise that his claim that care homes are closing because elderly people do not want to go into them will sound risible to people in west Kent, where all the care homes are full and elderly people have to be shipped off to the south coast because homes are still closing? Does he acknowledge that one reason why they are closing is the pattern of condescending regulation imposed on care home managers, such as the requirement for experienced care home owners and managers to do a four-year national vocational qualification in management, despite the fact that they have been running perfectly good homes for many years?
    Dr. Ladyman:It is our intention to drive up standards in care homes. The hon. Gentleman represents Tunbridge Wells, so may I suggest that he read the last edition of Caring Times, in which he will see a report from a property consultant saying that the care home market has turned around, and that a care home in his constituency was recently sold for far more than the asking price because serious investors are coming back into what they regard as a healthy marketplace. I am sure that the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), will confirm that
    906
    fact, because he has a declared interest in the care home industry and is presumably making good money out of it.

    Hepatitis C
    The Reverend Martin Smyth: How many people infected with hepatitis C through NHS treatment will benefit from the ex gratia payment scheme. [142551]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Miss Melanie Johnson): Work on the detail of the scheme is ongoing, so the exact number of potential beneficiaries is not yet known.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I am sorry that the number is not known, but does the Minister agree that, despite the goal of patient choice, those people had no choice? They were infected as a result of a mistake by the health service, and should all be compensated. Some of them have died, but their relatives have not been compensated either.
    Miss Johnson: Because we recognised that there were compassionate grounds, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that, in principle, he would introduce ex gratia payments on compassionate grounds for patients infected with hepatitis C following treatment with contaminated blood and blood products. A scheme is currently under construction.
    Dr. Brian Iddon: I hope that my hon. Friend noticed that the annual "Carpet of Lilies" campaign was held last week by the Haemophilia Society and that, sadly, we presented 232 lilies to No. 10 Downing street last week. I hope that she will take into consideration the fact that the relatives of the 232 haemophiliacs who died as a result of contracting the hepatitis C virus deserve compensation. All HCV strains are rather miraculous, as they mutate rapidly and even disappear. so will she take into account the fact that although people contracted HCV years ago they may not be HCV-positive today? However, because of the trauma that they have suffered they still deserve compensation.
    Miss Johnson: First, may I extend our sympathies to everyone who has suffered as a result of contracting hepatitis C, and say that we were aware of the "Carpet of Lilies" day last week? Secondly, we are well aware of a number of concerns expressed by my hon. Friend about the proposed scheme. We are in discussion with the chairman and chief executive of the Haemophilia Society, who have also met my officials in the Department. We are considering those concerns, but the fact is that we have to decide how to use the money to the best effect. As with all things, it is not an unlimited pot.

    Local Treatment Centres
    Mike Gapes:If he will make a statement on plans for provision of local treatment centres. [142552]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Dr. John Reid): The national health service is developing a large number of

    907
    new treatment centres, which will enable more patients to receive more operations more quickly. The programme will also enable the NHS to offer patients a greater choice about where they are treated.
    Mike Gapes:Is my right hon. Friend aware that for many years we have had a severe shortage of hospital beds in north-east London? In my own trust —Barking, Havering and Redbridge Hospitals NHS Trust —we have an average 98 per cent. bed occupancy. Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the decision by my local trust and the Anglo-Canadian Group to establish from March 2005 a treatment centre on the King George hospital site in my constituency, which will treat 12,000 elective surgical patients every year? Will he join me in acknowledging that that is another example of success and investment by the Labour Government?
    Dr. Reid: Yes —[Laughter.] Indeed I will, but the proof of the pudding is not whether the Government give accolades or whether those on the Opposition Front Bench laugh and sneer; it is whether the people who are receiving treatment from the national health service in my hon. Friend's constituency get a better quality service quickly, in greater numbers than before. As he points out, there is no doubt that that independent sector treatment centre, which will treat an average of 11,800 patients a year over five years, will be a major boon and another indication of the results of the investment that we are putting in. Incidentally, 4,300 of those treatments will be additional operations. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and our investment will not only give a better quality of service to patients, but mean that the vast majority of people, rather than just the rich or the privileged, can get a better choice and better quality of health care.
    Mr. David Cameron: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is important that the local aspect of treatment centres is considered? Will he give me an assurance that, if a primary care trust votes against a diagnostic and treatment centre because it believes that it is not in the interests of local people, it will not be subject to improper pressure from the Department of Health or the strategic health authority to change its mind? Can he assure me that that has not happened, and will not happen, in the case of the South West Oxfordshire primary care trust?
    Dr. Reid: If the hon. Gentleman were a cautious person, he would wait and see the outcome of the discussions in the area that he mentioned. I will be prepared to accept them, and all reasonable people will accept that local primary care trusts have to make their own decisions, but the public will want to be sure that those decisions are based on the interests of local patients and are not unduly influenced by the interests of local providers and producers, especially consultants. It is essential that in all these decisions the interests of patients are put first. That is why we are achieving such success in improving the national health service.
    Despite the criticisms that we receive from week to week, it is noticeable that the widespread use of the NHS has now extended to the royal family. I am delighted that in recent days that has been the case. There are
    908
    people of some stature currently using the NHS, not least Ozzy Osbourne, and I am sure that all of us wish him a speedy recovery.

    Passive Smoking
    David Taylor: What contribution to the policies of his Department on controls over secondary smoking in public places has been made by the chief medical officer for England. [142553]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Miss Melanie Johnson): The chief medical officer's annual report that was published in July, which highlighted second-hand smoke, is an extremely valuable contribution to the debate on this important public health topic.
    David Taylor: As chair of the all-party group on smoking and health, I welcome the present taxpayer-funded campaign highlighting the dangers of second-hand smoke, but regret the reluctance of the Government to abandon the failed voluntary approach on these matters. Should we not follow the imaginative legislative example of New Zealand and others listed in my early-day motion 225? Is it not the Secretary of State who is the outrider on these issues, not the chief medical officer?
    Miss Johnson: The chief medical officer is certainly no outrider, nor is the Secretary of State. We have done 98 per cent. of what the chief medical officer advised with regard to smoking. We have introduced a world-leading smoking cessation service, an education campaign with a specific hard-hitting campaign on second-hand smoke, a ban on tobacco advertising and new health warnings on tobacco. Let us be clear. The chief medical officer's role is to provide medical advice, and we as politicians have the responsibility for balancing that advice with protecting the freedom of individuals.
    Mr. Eric Forth: What estimate has the Minister made of the loss of revenue for each percentage drop in smoking in the population at large? What proposals does she or the Chancellor have for making good the revenues lost every time people stop smoking?
    Miss Johnson: That is a matter for the Chancellor, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. Let us not forget that taxation has been crucial in encouraging many people to kick the habit and better still, never to start. For every 10 per cent. increase in price, there is a 3 per cent. fall in smoking. Also, we have funded over 1,000 extra Customs officers and a national network of X-ray scanners to combat smuggling, so we have made considerable progress. The high price of cigarettes in the UK is a contributory factor to that success.

    NHS Funding (Milton Keynes)
    Dr. Phyllis Starkey: If he will make a statement on NHS funding for Milton Keynes. [142554]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): The resources available to Milton Keynes primary care trust will increase over the next three years by £47.8 million or 31.3 per cent. It is for primary care trusts in partnership with strategic health authorities and others to determine how best to use their funds to meet national and local priorities.
    Dr. Starkey: My constituents welcome the generous extra funding that Milton Keynes has already received, but the Minister will be aware that it is one of the Government's housing growth areas and we are concerned about future health spending. In particular, given that health funding is set for a three-year period based on the population figures in year 1, we are concerned about how future health funding will take account of the very fast population growth in our area. Will the Minister consider a special mechanism for Milton Keynes to meet those growth problems, and will he ask the Secretary of State for Health if he would be prepared to meet me and my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) to discuss the issue in more detail?
    Mr. Hutton: Yes, of course we are happy to discuss with my hon. Friends any aspect of the funding formula for primary care trusts. I add two brief comments to what my hon. Friend said. It has benefited primary care trusts to have three-year allocations because that has allowed them to plan more effectively how to use those resources to the maximum effect. Making three-year allocations has been a positive rather than a negative step for the NHS, but any change to the funding formula has to apply equally and fairly to every primary care trust. That is at the forefront of our minds, but we are happy to discuss in further detail any of my hon. Friend's concerns.

    Hospital-acquired Infections
    Mr. Peter Lilley: If he will make a statement on the incidence of infections acquired in NHS hospitals. [142555]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Ms Rosie Winterton): We believe that around 9 per cent. of hospital patients acquire an infection while in NHS hospitals. The chief medical officer has published his report on how to prevent and reduce hospital infections, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has accepted the recommendations in full. We are confident that that will improve patient care in this area.
    Mr. Lilley: Is the Minister aware that the Secretary of State's refusal to make a proper statement in this House about his initiatives to tackle a problem that kills between 5,000 and 20,000 of our constituents every year is a disgrace? Is it because the initiative that he announced on the "Today" programme on Friday when the House was not sitting was treated with derision by doctors in my constituency who say that appointing another layer of management to an already over-managed health service is not the way to bring back the Florence Nightingale culture that we need?
    Ms Winterton: On the right hon. Gentleman's first point, I am surprised that he should make such a statement. He knows very well that if this were new policy it would have been brought to the House. It is not new policy; it is a review of the policy that is being carried out, and my right hon. Friend has written to him to that effect. The right hon. Gentleman might like to think what effect his policy of compulsory competitive tendering had on hospital infection rates—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not for the Minister to worry about such matters.
    Mr. Eric Illsley: In contrast to the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), I welcome the announcement that was made last Friday, particularly in view of the problems being experienced at Barnsley district general hospital. The cleaning contractor, Initial Cleaning Services, has this year had a turnover of 200 staff and has about 40 vacancies on the cleaning contract. It was recently forced to admit that it had lied to the hospital management about the methods that it was using to clean the hospital. Do we not need such an initiative to keep in check companies that abuse their contracts within the NHS?
    Ms Winterton: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the weaknesses of the policies introduced by the previous Administration. I am also glad that he has welcomed this initiative, which is not about introducing new bureaucracy but about ensuring that a health care professional has the authority to put together all the various issues, including hand washing, the environment and the design of buildings, to ensure that such infections are brought under control.

    Maternity Services
    Mr. James Gray: What his policy is on the proximity of maternity services to patients. [142556]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Dr. John Reid): It is up to local health organisations, working with their communities and other local partners, to provide high-quality maternity services that are as safe and as accessible as possible to women and their families.
    Mr. Gray: The Secretary of State has noticeably failed to answer the question. which was about how close maternity services should be to patients. He will know that, thanks to chronic underfunding by this Government, the Kennet and North Wiltshire primary care trust is consulting on the closure of maternity services both in Malmesbury and the constituency of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that it is important that at least antenatal and post-natal services should be situated as close as possible to the women concerned? Will he intervene with the Kennet and North Wiltshire PCT to try to ensure that it provides precisely what he has previously said he would like to see—services at close proximity to the women concerned?
    Dr. Reid: Of course, it is absolute nonsense to speak about reduced input, investment or finance being provided when this Government have provided historically high levels of finance. We want to see maximum choice and access for women and maternity services, but it is not possible always to maintain every single unit. The hon. Gentleman talks about Malmesbury, which is a very small maternity unit. Fewer than two births a week occur there and the total
    912
    cost is almost £7,000 a birth, which is many times the cost of other births, even in the same area. Of course, we want maximum access and choice, but the primary care trust in the hon. Gentleman's area has a responsibility to ask itself whether that money is best spent in that fashion in that area, thus depriving other services. I think that the trust is conducting the public consultation very responsibly, and I only wish the hon. Gentleman was acting as responsibly.

Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting
12.31 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, which took place in Abuja, Nigeria, from 5 to 8 December. Copies of the communiquè and declaration have been placed in the Library of the House.
Her Majesty the Queen attended the meeting in her role as Head of the Commonwealth and also paid a state visit to Nigeria, where she was warmly welcomed by the Nigerian people. The outgoing Commonwealth Chairman-in-Office, Prime Minister John Howard of Australia, paid tribute on behalf of all Commonwealth members to the Queen's dedication and commitment to the Commonwealth. I know that the whole House will wish to join me in echoing that tribute.
Nigeria itself returned to the Commonwealth only in 1999, after a turbulent period of military rule. The Queen's visit and the holding of the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting there underline the progress that has since been made in rebuilding a democratic and prosperous Nigeria. Britain is committed to supporting the reform programme led by President Obasanjo, on whose chairmanship of the summit I give sincere congratulations. In a difficult situation, he managed matters with great skill.
Commonwealth Heads of Government last met in Coolum, Australia, in March 2002. At Abuja, we reviewed developments since then. We agreed on the urgent need to relaunch the world trade talks, which stalled at Cancun in September, and underlined our collective commitment to a successful Doha development round. That commitment is significant. The Commonwealth represents one third of the world's population; developing and developed countries; large and small states; and agricultural, service and manufacturing-based economies. All have different perspectives and interests. The fact that all of us agreed on the need to relaunch the Doha development round and on the need for all parties to show flexibility in the search for agreement shows that a global deal is indeed possible. Everyone will gain if the talks succeed, but the biggest winners will be the world's poor; and if the talks fail, the world's poor will be the biggest losers too.
We discussed other development issues. Heads of Government agreed on the need to accelerate progress to meet the millennium development goals, which aim to halve the proportion of people living in poverty by 2015. I reaffirmed the UK's own strong commitment to that goal. Heads of Government also underlined their concern at the spread of HIV/AIDS, which now threatens not only Africa but, increasingly, Asia and other parts of the world. Three million people will die of the HIV/AIDS virus this year alone, and two in three of the people infected live in Commonwealth countries. It poses one of the gravest threats not just to health but to sustainable development.
We agreed on the need to redouble our efforts to fight this threat. Britain is playing its full part, including through our own call for action on world AIDS day, and we are now the second largest bilateral donor in the world as regards HIV/AIDS, after the United States of
914
America. Our bilateral aid amounted to more than £270 million in the last financial year alone— a real demonstration of commitment on behalf of the people and Government of Great Britain.
The last Commonwealth summit was postponed following the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001. Since then, the terrorists have continued their indiscriminate campaign. We agreed in Abuja that terrorism threatens everyone, regardless of nationality or faith, and that all Commonwealth members should stand together to meet and defeat this challenge.
The meeting considered the situation in the two countries that have been suspended from the Councils of the Commonwealth: Pakistan and Zimbabwe. On Pakistan, Heads of Government welcomed the progress made back towards democratic governance. They expressed the hope that the Pakistan Parliament would soon pass the necessary measures to allow the lifting of Pakistan's suspension.
Where Pakistan has moved forward since Commonwealth leaders last met, Zimbabwe has gone backwards. The country was suspended from the Commonwealth in March 2002, shortly after elections that the Commonwealth's own observers concluded were neither free nor fair. Since then, there has been yet more violence and intimidation against the opposition MDC party—the Movement for Democratic Change against lawyers and human rights activists, and, indeed, against anyone speaking up against President Mugabe's oppressive policies. Zimbabwe's only independent daily newspaper, The Daily News, has been closed down, despite court orders in its favour.
Meanwhile, ZANU-PF's ruinous economic policies are driving the country further and further into chaos. Inflation is now over 500 per cent., and Zimbabwe's GDP has halved in five years. The International Monetary Fund decided last week to begin procedures to expel Zimbabwe, because of its appalling economic policies. Half the population now needs food aid—but it is worth saying that Britain remains the leading cash donor for the UN's humanitarian programmes in Zimbabwe. In the last two years, we have given $100 million in food aid to the people of Zimbabwe.
In those circumstances, I and others argued that it was inconceivable that Zimbabwe could be readmitted to the Councils of the Commonwealth, and that, on the contrary, it should remain suspended until we saw concrete evidence of a return to democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law—the very principles on which the Commonwealth is founded.
I am glad to say that this approach was agreed. It was decided that Zimbabwe should indeed remain suspended from the Councils of the Commonwealth, that President Obasanjo as Chairman-in-Office, together with the Commonwealth Secretary-General, will seek to facilitate progress inside Zimbabwe, and that if sufficient progress is made on the issues of concern he will report, via a representative group of six Commonwealth members, to Heads of Government. Heads will revisit the issue in the light of that report, and take any decision on the lifting of the suspension by consensus.
This is the out come that we wanted. It is also the outcome that Mr. Mugabe worked assiduously to avoid. Incidentally, it gives the lie to one of his most outrageous

915
claims—that the Commonwealth's approach to Zimbabwe is a white conspiracy led by the UK against black Africa. The fact is that every single Commonwealth country signed up to the Abuja statement on Zimbabwe, including the other 19 African members of the Commonwealth, despite the strongly held doubts of some of those countries—nor did any African member of the Commonwealth take up Mr. Mugabe's invitation to boycott the summit meeting. The outcome in Abuja was hard-fought, but in the end it was a victory for Commonwealth values.
Mr. Mugabe's reaction—to withdraw Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth—shows clearly that he does not accept Commonwealth principles. It was a decision taken without regard for the wishes or well-being of the Zimbabwean people. ZANU-PF's isolation will be increased, but the strong bonds that exist between the Zimbabwean people and the rest of the Commonwealth remain. There will always be a place for a democratic Zimbabwe in the Commonwealth.
The summit also re-elected the present Commonwealth Secretary-General, Don McKinnon, for a second and final four-year term. We welcome that outcome. The Secretary-General has done an excellent job in his first term. He will continue to have our full support in his second.
Finally, I participated in the Commonwealth sports meeting. We looked back to Manchester's successful hosting of the last Commonwealth games in 2002, and forward to the next in Melbourne in 2006. I highlighted the UK's future sporting priorities.
At this Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, a group of more than 50 countries came together to discuss the issues that matter most to their peoples—prosperity, security, sustainable development,and the fight against terror—and agreed a common approach on all, in the interests of all. The group discussed more controversial issues such as Zimbabwe, on which it is no secret that there were, and remain, a range of differing views among member states. But here too, through serious discussion and debate, the Commonwealth was able to reach a consensus on the way forward.
I commend the outcome to the House.
Mr. Michael Howard: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. I take this opportunity to welcome back to the House my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), who has just returned from five months' military service in Iraq. We are delighted to have him back safe and sound.
I join the Prime Minister in the tribute that he paid to Her Majesty's dedication and commitment to the Commonwealth. The Harare declaration of 1991 reaffirmed the Commonwealth's values—the protection of human rights; equal opportunities for all regardless of race, colour, creed or political belief; equality for women; democracy; the rule of law; and the independence of the judiciary. Those values are of supreme importance.
Clearly, however, one country has flagrantly and blatantly breached those values. I congratulate the Prime Minister on the strong stand that he took in
916
Abuja to resist the efforts of those who wanted to lift Zimbabwe's suspension from the Councils of the Commonwealth.
Of course, the Government did not always take that view. After the rigged parliamentary elections in 2000, the Opposition called for action, but as late as May 2001 the then Foreign Secretary was still setting out the arguments against the suspension of Zimbabwe. It is sadly true that, in the past, the Government have been behind the game on the issue; they have not led, but have followed. The people of Zimbabwe are the worse for it.
In view of President Mugabe's decision to leave the Commonwealth, will the Prime Minister say what is the current status of the committee established by the Heads of Government to examine the way forward in relation to Zimbabwe? Does President Obasanjo's mandate to encourage and facilitate continued progress and Zimbabwe's return to the Commonwealth still stand? Is it still President Obasanjo's intention to visit Zimbabwe at the earliest opportunity? There appears to be a good deal of confusion about the committee's future status. Will the Prime Minister clarify the situation for the House?
Then there is the position of the European Union. Does the Prime Minister understand that EU sanctions are still not tough enough? Why do they not include the business men who still bankroll Mugabe? Will the Prime Minister press for their inclusion at the EU summit in Rome this weekend?
When will a resolution he tabled in the United Nations? The Commonwealth's leverage is diminished following Mugabe's decision to withdraw: is there not now a powerful case for the UN to become more actively involved?
The summit raised many other fundamental issues. Will the Prime Minister clarify the position on Pakistan? Is there a consensus on the time frame for Pakistan's return to the Councils of the Commonwealth?
Undoubtedly, HIV/AIDS is one of the greatest challenges facing the Commonwealth, and the world as a whole. The Commonwealth recognises the need for greater international co-operation in combating the disease. What, in practical terms, is that likely to mean for the work of its member states?
At a time when terrorism is of such concern across the world, what are likely to be the practical results of the Commonwealth's renewed commitment to action against terrorism?
Corruption is a cancer in developed and developing countries alike. What is the proposed timetable for Commonwealth countries signing and ratifying the UN convention against corruption?
In addition, I join the Prime Minister in emphasising the primary role of business, trade and economic development in the relief of poverty. The whole House will be pleased to see the commitment to trade liberalisation. As the fourth largest economy in the world, Britain should be using its position to bring about the lowering of EU tariffs, which is crucial to opening our markets to primary producers. When a cow in the EU gets more support than a starving child in Africa, surely we can all agree that something is fundamentally wrong.

917
Cancun was a missed opportunity. What practical plans does the Commonwealth have to help to drive through the Doha development agenda? Agreement on the need to relaunch it is a welcome step and is all very well, but should not an attempt be made within the Commonwealth to seek agreement on some of the issues that remain outstanding, and thus send a powerful signal to the rest of the world and the other countries involved in the process?
While recognising the assistance that is already provided to developing countries in trade negotiations, may I ask the Prime Minister also to consider my proposal for an advocacy fund, financed by developed countries, to help developing countries obtain access to high-quality economic and legal advice on trade issues?
The Commonwealth is a microcosm of the world. It embraces north and south, Muslim and Christian, rich and poor. It has the potential to play a much more prominent role in tackling the key challenges facing the world today—terrorism, free trade, the promotion of democracy and the protection of human rights and the environment. I welcome the fact that the Commonwealth consultative group on the environment, which I inaugurated in 1992 with the Environment Minister of India, continues to meet. The work on sustainable development, the work of the Commonwealth ministerial action group and the co-operation between Commonwealth Education and Health Ministers, among others, also bear testimony to the Commonwealth's potential. Does the Prime Minister not agree that there is a good deal more scope for such co-operation between Commonwealth Governments working together to show the way forward to the rest of the world?
The Prime Minister: I add my thanks to the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) for his service in Iraq, which is greatly appreciated.
I thank the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) for his congratulations on the result that we achieved in relation to Zimbabwe. It is important to approach this issue with two things in mind. We are guided to a large extent—I think rightly—by what the MDC and other opposition groups in Zimbabwe say. We try therefore to keep whatever measures we are taking in line with the measures that they are asking us to take. They are on the ground and they know best what helps, and the situation in Zimbabwe is such that, in the end, it is from within that the main change will come.
It is for that reason that on sanctions, for example, we have tried to proceed in a way that such groups support. They do not support general sanctions against the population; they support targeted sanctions, and that is what we have been trying to ensure are put into effect and that is what we managed to get the EU to agree to. We keep under review the number of people to whom we can extend the sanctions and it is certainly worth considering business people and others if we can identify measures that will be effective.
We have put this issue before the United Nations Commission on Human Rights on many occasions, but the problem with a Security Council resolution is that—again, to be blunt about it—the difference of view applies between most members of the Commonwealth
918
and some of the states in the region. Unless the states in the region are prepared to say that they believe that a UN resolution would be advantageous, it is quite difficult to get one through the UN.
We try in every way that we can, including through the statements that were forthcoming from Kofi Annan recently, to put the maximum pressure on Zimbabwe. In the end, there is only one thing that will work—the pressure that we can put on. We can do that by sending signals, and that is why it is important that the Commonwealth sends such a signal. However, we must do that by being honest with people about the fact that there is a limit to what can be done from the outside. It is very important that we give every support to democratic groups in Zimbabwe and, in addition, that we work even harder on persuading the other countries in the region that it is in their interests not to support Mugabe and the Zimbabwean regime, but to facilitate national reconciliation in the interests of changing the regime.
In respect of Pakistan, the time frame is governed by its progress towards meeting the democratic criteria that have been set out. We hope that can happen as soon as possible. No specific time frame is set down; it is a time frame determined by the meeting of the criteria.
In relation to HIV/AIDS, the practical effect will be seen in the programmes for which we use the money. The programmes must be dedicated to two things: first, achieving a sufficient capacity in the Governments of the countries with major HIV/AIDS problems so that they can deal with HIV/AIDS; and, secondly, putting the infrastructure in place in local communities where they can gain access to treatment and to preventive information. That is what we are doing.
The other aspect, of course, is the work that we are doing with drug companies so that we reduce significantly the cost of drugs available to treat people who have HIV/AIDS, but it is a shocking fact that life expectancy in many of those African countries is dropping as a result of HIV/AIDS. That has a hugely important and adverse knock-on effect on development.
In respect of terrorism, truthfully, the most that the Commonwealth is able to do is make a firm declaration of principles. It is for each state to take its own individual measures, but I was gratified to note that no one sought to temporise in any way at all over the threat terrorism poses.
In respect of corruption, the most important thing is to take the work forward on the New Partnership for Africa's Development proposals that we have been working on for two or three years—that is, increasingly, to link aid and development assistance with proper governance. That is crucial, because all those countries that need large sums of aid will not be able either to get them or to use them properly without proper systems of governance being in place.
Corruption is extremely corrosive. Once it grips a country, it is very difficult to weed out, but the best way to do that is by tying the aid and development assistance given through the NEPAD process to proper systems of government being put in place. That includes, incidentally, proper commercial and legal systems.
In respect of trade liberalisation, it is extremely important that we dismantle the EU tariffs over time, as we suggested. That means common agricultural policy reform. I would point out two things to the right hon.

919
and learned Gentleman. The first is that we are better able to get that result if we are participating properly, strongly and positively in Europe. The second is that, of course, the only way that we will ever get CAP reform is through qualified majority voting.
In respect of the World Trade Organisation, we will negotiate, obviously not through the Commonwealth, but through the various blocs, but, again, what is interesting is that there was a consensus that we need to make that Doha process work. We have looked at the ideas for an advocacy fund. We help countries with their capacity building for conducting those trade negotiations and we have found that most of them prefer to have the money in that way.
Finally, it is possible to sneer at what the Commonwealth can achieve, but the Commonwealth achieves a significant amount. The fact that there is a forum in which very diverse countries come together and, even on difficult issues, find a consensus, is a great mark in its favour. From my experience of the Commonwealth meetings that I have attended, I have no doubt that although they can be difficult—indeed, at times tortuous—this is an alliance that Britain should be proud to be a member of and one that does enormous good in the world.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement on the summit and also join in the proper tributes that have been paid to Her Majesty the Queen on the remarkable number of decades during which she has presided over one of the most remarkable global organisations for doing good.
Like the Government, we think that, obviously, it would be infinitely preferable to see a democratic, stable and sane Zimbabwe remaining part of the Commonwealth family of nations, but, given the circumstances, the obviously worsening conditions on the ground and the fact that there are no signs of the Zimbabwean regime seeking to improve their deplorable human rights record, the Commonwealth had no choice but to continue the suspension. That is a sad but inevitable fact.
Over time, we on the Liberal Democrat Benches urged the Government to take a harder line with Zimbabwe and Mugabe at an earlier stage, but the sad fact of the matter is that Mugabe's crass, chaotic and, indeed, despotic administration of his regime and the ruinous effect that that is having on that country have led to this sad and inevitable outcome. However, I would encourage the Prime Minister, given what he said a moment ago, to take every opportunity to remind people that diplomatically on the international stage Britain very much wants to keep the United Nations resolution route open and to encourage others to see the wisdom of that approach.
I want to refer specifically to one or two issues, the first of which is HIV/AIDS. The emphasis given in the communiquè is obviously welcome and I think the Prime Minister would agree—we have seen this in respect of people such as President Mbeki in days gone by—that the issue here is one of both action and political leadership attitudes. Did the Prime Minister
920
come away from the summit more encouraged by the attitudes of those in leadership positions in some countries where the most has to be achieved to tackle this modern scourge?
The Prime Minister rightly emphasised the need for practical programmes in that respect. Will he indicate whether our country or, indeed, the Commonwealth plans financially to support the global fund that is coming on stream and which works against the spread of the incidence of AIDS?
On trade matters, the communiquè says, as the Prime Minister said in his statement, that "all of us agreed on the need to relaunch the Doha development round". That is indeed welcome, but can he give a further indication of what practical steps at Commonwealth level we will follow towards that end?
On debt relief, again the issue is one of practical steps. Obviously, with Zimbabwe dominating so much of those discussions, perhaps less attention could be devoted to the matter than might otherwise have been the case. The communiquè, however, called for
"a broader and more flexible approach to debt relief designed to achieve debt relief sustainability".
We would ask, what better way is there to achieve that than to support the efforts to set up an international insolvency tribunal? There appears to be support for it among many countries that are saddled with debt. Perhaps the Prime Minister could give us an indication of his Government's attitude to that proposal.
On the issue of arms—small arms in particular—and given this country's track record as one of the world's main arms exporters, the Prime Minister could take two steps to honour the commitment in the communiqué and to improve the lives of millions of people. First, we as a country and his Government could sign up to the international campaign for an international arms trade treaty. Secondly, the Government could extend extraterritorial control of British arms brokers abroad.
Britain's commitment to peace and security would be all the more credible internationally to those that doubt it or cast aspersions against it if we took such simple and, we would argue, long overdue steps. Was there any further discussion of those matters at the summit, and has the Prime Minister any positive news to report?
The Prime Minister: First, in respect of the human rights record, it may be worth reporting to the House the information given by the Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum, which consists of 16 local Zimbabwean human rights groups that come together and collate information on what is happening in Zimbabwe. In the first nine months of this year, there was politically motivated violence—nine murders, six attempted murders, 20 death threats, over 300 assaults, almost 400 acts of political intimidation, almost 400 acts of torture and almost 700 unlawful arrests or detentions. Those are the things that the forum can collate as directly politically motivated acts of violence. The truth of the matter is that things have got worse. As for how hard a line we take, as I say, we try to march in step with the M DC and with other organisations there, with which we remain in contact. Those are the best people to give us advice.
In respect of political leadership on HIV/AIDS, yes, I was encouraged by the response. We will make a substantial contribution to the global fund, as well as

921
the bilateral aid that we give, but there is a real understanding now that a major part of dealing with HIV/AIDS is political leadership. Indeed, there are countries in Africa that, through political leadership, have significantly reduced the incidence of HIV/AIDS, but it requires a no-holds-barred approach in respect of information, distribution of condoms and the availability of treatment centres to provide people with the treatment that they need. The missing two parts are the capacity within the countries, and then getting the drugs to come in.
In respect of the Doha round, the best that the Commonwealth can do, as I said, is to give a strong statement of support in principle. It will be through other mediums that we manage the process of negotiation for ourselves through the EU. However, there is now a common willingness to get the Doha round restarted, and it is necessary to do so.
On debt relief, we took certain steps forward. It is worth pointing out that we have seen something in the region of $60 billion worth of debt relief for the developing world since we began the process, which was very much driven from this country. I have to say that I am not convinced that the concept of an international solvency tribunal has sufficient support in creditor countries, but we are looking into how we can make the criteria for the sustainability of debt more rational in order to provide more help to the countries that really need it.
In respect of small arms, we already prevent their sale into Africa, which is the single most important thing that we can do. We mentioned that in part of the communiquè, and countries agreed to look into further measures to prevent the sale and export of small arms to countries where there is going to be conflict. The other important thing$it is part of the New Partnership for Africa's Development process$is to develop a regional set of forces within Africa that could intervene in some of the conflicts. The truth is that many of the conflicts are driven by the desire to acquire natural resources. They often involve people who operate in small gangs, and, as we showed in Sierra Leone, they can be reasonably easily dealt with by a small number of people, but we need a capability based in Africa in order to deal with the problem.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I welcome what was said today by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, about the progress being made in Pakistan, but is the Prime Minister aware that when I recently visited President Musharraf in Islamabad, he assured me of his determination to progress towards full democracy in Pakistan and also emphasised the importance of a negotiation between India and Pakistan that could bring about justice for all the people of Jammu and Kashmir? Will my right hon. Friend dedicate the Government's efforts to bringing about that result?
The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is quite right about the movement towards democracy within Pakistan, which is extremely important. The signs are basically positive there. In respect of Kashmir, I was able to have a bilateral meeting with the Indian Prime Minister at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting and I believe that there is strong desire on all
922
sides to make progress. The key is for Pakistan to end all support for terrorism in any form and, if that proves to be the case, for India to be willing to enter into a sensible dialogue about Kashmir. I hope that the omens are better than they have been. Over the last 18 months there has been some progress, but further progress is required. I remain sure that both Governments are committed to making that progress.
Mrs. Caroline Spelman: The Prime Minister referred to $100 million worth of food aid to Zimbabwe over the last two years, but aid agencies are not confident that it is getting into the right hands. Will the Government support our call for UN monitors to be installed to ensure that the food aid reaches those who it should reach?
The Prime Minister: We are making every effort to do so. There are concerns about whether the food aid is reaching the people it should. Monitors are there now, and the important thing is to make sure that we take their reports back and act on them. We are doing that, but it is a constant struggle because of the attitude of the Zimbabwean Government; but I can assure the hon. Lady that the issue of independent monitoring has already been taken up. The difficulty is that it is sometimes hard to make it work on the ground.
Claire Ward): May I ask my right hon. Friend what specific measures the Commonwealth agreed to take to facilitate Pakistan's becoming a full member again? What action can the Government take to encourage a necessary and vital member of the Commonwealth to return once again to full membership?
The Prime Minister: The contrast with Zimbabwe could not have been greater. The Commonwealth Heads of Government accepted that Pakistan was making the right moves towards democracy and encouraged the country to carry on doing so. As soon as those criteria are met, Pakistan will be readmitted to the Councils of the Commonwealth. So far as we are concerned, it is important to keep up, through our strong bilateral relationship with Pakistan, the process of dialogue and partnership to ensure that the process towards democracy is properly fulfilled. I remain optimistic that it will be. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said a few moments ago on the basis of his conversations with him, President Musharraf recognises the need to fulfil the commitments to democracy that he has already laid out. I remain optimistic that he will do so.
Mr. John Gummer: Did the Prime Minister have the opportunity to explain to Commonwealth leaders why he was taking moneys from the aid budget for activities in Iraq; and were they impressed to find that some of those moneys were being used to pay for gender advisers?
The Prime Minister: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman makes that point. It is inappropriate to do so, because we are actually trebling aid to Africa. In the next two years, we will roughly have trebled the amount of aid going to Africa, despite our commitments in Iraq,

923
by comparison with when we came to power in 1997. This Government and this country can be proud of the commitment that we have made to Africa, but I do not believe that the money that we spent in helping Iraq towards a stable and democratic future was wasted. It is important to do both; we are doing both. With the greatest respect, it is absurd to suggest that all the money is being wasted on gender advice. The money in our aid programme is going to help the poorest people in the world, and it is making a real difference.
David Winnick: Is it not the case that when Labour Members campaigned continuously against the illegal regime of Smith, we were not told by Mugabe and his friends that we were anti-black. The accusation in those days of the settlers and their friends—some of whom were in the House of Commons—was that we were anti-white. If a Commonwealth country that has abolished the rule of law and replaced it with outright violence were allowed to remain in the Commonwealth without any suspension, what would be the point of the Commonwealth?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why we decided that the suspension had to remain. It is worth pointing out two other things. First, in respect of land reform, which is often mentioned by the Government of Zimbabwe and others, it cannot be stressed too often that we provided millions of pounds of help to Zimbabwe for land reform back in the 1980s. We have maintained the position that money can be set aside for land reform in Zimbabwe provided that it is channelled through the UN development programme, so that we can be sure that it is spent on proper land reform and not secreted away by Mr. Mugabe, his henchmen and others. That is why the issue of land reform is, in the end, a diversion from the real problem of bad governance in Zimbabwe.
Secondly, regarding the allegations of colonialism, they are particularly absurd if directed against this Government not merely because of our commitment to people in Africa and the people of Zimbabwe. but because it was our party that, although not in government, was—and I am proud to say this—at the forefront of calling for sanctions against South Africa when apartheid was in place.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: I am sure that the Prime Minister would agree that many of Mr. Mugabe's acts, both past and present, are not just morally offensive, but probably constitute crimes under national and international law. That being so, will the Prime Minister tell the House what conversations he has had with Heads of the Government to ensure that Mr. Mugabe and his henchman are made personally accountable before a court for their past and present offences?
The Prime Minister: It is of course important that they be held accountable for what they have done, but the main objective of most people is to put a proper
924
democratic regime in place in Zimbabwe and thus to have a mechanism through which the people of Zimbabwe can take the action that needs to be taken.
Mr. Tom Clarke: I welcome my right hon. Friend's confirmation that the millennium goals were discussed, even with all the other problems on the agenda. Given the mineral resources and wealth of some developing countries and the necessity that the goals should be based on transparency, accountability and fairness if the poorest people in the poorest countries are to have their needs addressed, does he think that we in Britain have a contribution to make to that growing debate?
The Prime Minister: I pay tribute to what my right hon. Friend has done in that area, which has been extremely important. The best contribution that we can make is through the New Partnership for Africa's Development, which is the concept of a partnership for Africa in which more development assistance is given, and poorer countries are increasingly relieved of their debt, in return for reaching clear benchmarks on governance. It is not simply aid and development assistance that those countries need, because many of them have fundamental problems of capacity within their Governments. Their judicial, commercial, and taxation systems need fundamental reform, and the best way to assist those countries to develop their enormous wealth and resources is through that partnership. The other thing that they need is private investment, but it will not be forthcoming without the proper systems of governance.
As I said earlier, it is vital to reach solutions to regional conflicts and then for the peace to be maintained. It is impossible to put many of those countries back on their feet, because of the conflict within their borders. Their wealth is plundered and their people constantly subjected to brutality and harassment by marauding gangs and factions fighting over the land. As we are trying to show in the Congo at present, the only way of making progress is to put in place a sufficiently robust peace that can be maintained and which allows development aid to be provided and systems of governance to be rebuilt. Otherwise, such countries will continue to be subject to the most appalling depredations which have gone on in Africa for decades; as a result, the people of a potentially rich continent remain poor.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I recognise the complex situation in Africa and welcome the positive steps that have been taken by the Commonwealth conference. Does the Prime Minister agree with those who involved in development aid who say that unless the developed countries increase their contributions, it will be many years before we reach the targets that have been set? I also wish to underline the point that was made earlier about stability in Zimbabwe. The Prime Minister said that he wants a Government for that country which can deal with the problem under their own laws, but unless we indict Mugabe he will continue to use the laws of Zimbabwe to oppress his people rather than to release them.
The Prime Minister: On the latter point, it is important that we keep up maximum pressure to get the

925
regime changed in the only way that that is likely to happen, and then the Zimbabwean people can address those issues. On the first point, it is important that we increase development aid. That is why the international financing facility, proposed by our Chancellor, is a sound idea. It is also why this country should continue to increase the aid we give as a proportion of our national income. Before we came to office, the amount fell substantially, but we have increased it year in, year out. However, we will not obtain the full support for development assistance unless it is in return for a partnership with those countries which are taking the necessary measures to improve their governance.
Mr. Stuart Bell: The entire House welcomes the Prime Minister's statement that there was a collective commitment at the conference to the relaunching of the Doha round. As my right hon. Friend said, that would be of the greatest benefit to the world's poor. In relation to the practical steps that may be taken towards that end, does he agree that when the world's Trade Ministers meet in Geneva on 15 December, the statement from the Commonwealth conference-comprising 50-odd nation states—will give impetus to those talks and provide fresh enthusiasm? It may lead not only to the relaunch of the round, but to its successful conclusion.
The Prime Minister: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right, and let us hope that the meeting on 15 December makes significant progress. It certainly should.
Mr. Andrew Mackay: Clearly the Prime Minister was right to say that maximum pressure must be put on the Mugabe regime. We must also take careful account of the views of the Movement for Democratic Change. The MDC tells us that there should be further sharp sanctions, especially against the crooked businessmen who are keeping the regime going, so it is disappointing to hear the Prime Minister respond to my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition by saying that he would bear the need for such sanctions in mind. We should press now for sharper sanctions, because that is the way to bring the regime down.
The Prime Minister: We have pressed for tougher sanctions the entire time, and next February, when the EU reconsiders its position, we will do so again. We have targeted the assets of the 79 leading members of the regime, but we have managed to freeze only £500,000 worth of assets. That is because those involved ship their assets out to other countries when they are targeted. It is therefore not only a problem for the EU, but for those other countries as well. We need to ensure that the sanctions we have in place are more effective, because they are not fully effective at present.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I refer my right hon. Friend to paragraphs 17 to 19 of the Abuja communiquè, on Belize. Some of the poorest people in the Americas, if not in the world, live on the troubled border between Belize and Guatemala. As chairman of the all-party Latin America group, I urge the British
926
Government to do as much as they can for the development fund that has been suggested by the Commonwealth.
The Prime Minister: The issue of Belize is included in the declaration by the Heads of Government, which notes at paragraph 18 that the proposals for a final settlement of the continuing dispute
"contain a provision for the establishment of a development fund to be used for the benefit of both countries and urged member states to contribute to it generously."
I know that the Secretary-General will be back in contact with the members of the Commonwealth to see what contributions can be made. We want to ensure that we solve the issue in a way that protects the territorial integrity of Belize, but it is important to recognise that certain development issues have to be tackled for both countries.
Mr. Dalyell: Not a great deal of money.
The Prime Minister: No, it is not a great deal of money, so we should be able to do it.
Norman Lamb: The Prime Minister rightly emphasises the importance of the NEPAD initiative in improving governance, which will in turn lead to improved inward investment and increased prospects for development. What real progress is being made on NEPAD? The first big test for the initiative is Zimbabwe. Is there any evidence that African countries are getting to grips with the importance of demonstrating that they are making progress?
The Prime Minister: NEPAD includes a peer review group mechanism, which has now been established. Obviously, Zimbabwe will not qualify, but other African countries accept that their only route to greater development aid and assistance is through proper governance. Zimbabwe is the worst aspect of what is happening in Africa, but several countries—including Nigeria, Ghana and Kenya—have been through that democratic process and changed their governance. They are now sitting around the table, and that is all to the good. Other countries, such as the Gambia, have returned to full, proper democracy.
Much work remains to be done, but NEPAD is having an impact. The peer review group mechanism is making people face up to the problems that they have and is addressing the important issue of regional conflict, because it builds on the UN proposals to establish regional forces. Within the next year, we should have the beginnings of the first of those forces that can keep peace in those conflicts and allow countries to address the other measures in NEPAD, to their benefit. There is a long way to go, but the basic framework is right.
Mr. Clive Soley: Does the Prime Minister agree that the already significant influence of the Commonwealth would be greatly increased if it developed a more coherent and wide-ranging policy to deal with failed and failing states? If the Commonwealth were able to do that, it

927
would be easier not only to deal with the case of Zimbabwe with less opposition from within the Commonwealth, but also to set a model for others.
The Prime Minister: That is absolutely right, and I hope that the Commonwealth does so. I am afraid that there is a dispute between some people, especially in the region, who fear that Zimbabwe will move into greater chaos, which will have a spill-over effect on their countries and damage them and the region. Although I think that it is misguided, there is a strong feeling to that effect. My view and, I believe, the majority view of the Commonwealth—not just the so-called white countries but the Commonwealth as a whole—is that unless a strong stand is taken on Zimbabwe it will be very difficult to convince people that Africa as a whole is making the right progress towards development. That is why I have always said that Zimbabwe and what is happening there drags the reputation of Africa down, unfairly in many respects, so it is important that the problem be dealt with from within Africa itself.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: The Prime Minister said that there was growing awareness of the problem of HIV/AIDS, so was he able to share with the other Commonwealth Heads of Government the reasons why his Department of Health announced a few weeks ago that we had seen the largest recorded increase of that disease in this country?
The Prime Minister: We are dealing with HIV/AIDS in this country and abroad. Obviously, as I pointed out a moment or two ago, we are dealing with the very serious situation in the continent of Africa. We are the second largest bilateral donor after the United States of America. Of course, there is more to do in this country and we are doing it, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not trying to compare the state of HIV/AIDS in this country with what is happening in Africa, where there is a pandemic of the most grotesque and appalling proportions.
Joyce Quin: In consideration of terrorism-related issues, was there any discussion with Commonwealth partners, either formally or informally, of the need for strong support for reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan, especially among those countries that might be able to increase such efforts, to ensure that the needs of Afghanistan are not too overshadowed by the understandable focus on Iraq?
The Prime Minister: I was able to raise that matter bilaterally with several countries, and there is a clear understanding that Afghanistan needs to be helped. It is important to point out that, whatever the problems of Afghanistan today, it is an infinitely better country than it was three years ago when it was ruled by the Taliban. We are taking measures—not so much through the Commonwealth—in the United Nations and, indeed, with our NATO partners so that we spread the security force out from Kabul and so that provincial reconstruction teams help to ensure that the Government in Kabul has the right remit not just in the
928
surrounds of Kabul but also out in the provinces. There is a general recognition that an Afghanistan that is back on its feet, or on its feet for the first time in decades, will be of huge importance to the stability of that region.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Given the dependence of Zimbabwe on South Africa, will the Prime Minister expand on the reasons, at which he hinted a few moments ago, for South Africa's reluctance to take action against the atrocious Mugabe regime? In that connection, what representations are the Government making to South Africa, and have they thought of trying to involve former President Mandela in the process?
The Prime Minister: Obviously there has been a disagreement about how to deal with Zimbabwe and it is important to work primarily through the South African Government. There was a view—at least in parts of southern Africa—that if Zimbabwe were suspended from the Commonwealth we would somehow be unable to engage with Zimbabwe itself. That is just a disagreement, however, and we have to carry on trying to work through it in a reasonably diplomatic way, as we need to reach a consensus in the Commonwealth. It is fair to say that in the end, despite the reservations that South Africa had, it did not oppose the statement about continuing the suspension. The debate is continuing, but it is best continued on the basis that we are two strong allies who have a difference of view but that we will try to reach agreement.
I only hope that people understand that the state of things in Zimbabwe is so bad that in the end the impact will be felt in the entire region, and that the best way of dealing with things is to realise that until that regime is changed the situation will continue. If the regime is changed, it would be as well that the people who then come to office understand that the Commonwealth and other parts of the world actually stood by them.
Mr. Derek Wyatt: The Prime Minister will know that I wrote to him last week as chairman of the all-party group on Zimbabwe asking whether the Commonwealth secretariat would consider arranging an eminent persons visit. I noticed that in his statement today he said that a representative group of six Commonwealth members would go. Is that the same thing; if so, has a date yet been fixed for the start of the visit?
The Prime Minister: I do not think that the idea was ever that the six who formed the committee would go to Zimbabwe, but that President Obasanjo should go, and he will go, although Mr. Mugabe will claim that he goes merely as the President of Nigeria and not as the Chairman-in-Office of the Commonwealth. However, there is at the very least a feeling, even among African countries that strongly support our position on Zimbabwe, that it is important that people such as President Obasanjo go to Zimbabwe, in part to make it clear to the Zimbabwean people that initiatives are directed not against them but against the regime. I do not know whether an eminent persons group would

929
have any impact on the situation; I suspect that at present we do best to work through the existing mechanisms.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: There is certainly widespread support in the House for the stance that the Prime Minister took on Zimbabwe during the conference, not least because the appalling regime of Mugabe is hitting the poorest in that community. However, I think that there is disappointment on the Opposition Benches at the Prime Minister's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), as surely the one person who could really bring pressure to bear is Thabo Mbeki. The Prime Minister mentioned the MDC; it, too, wants Thabo Mbeki to take a much more leading role in getting a grip on things. Why does the Prime Minister feel that Thabo Mbeki is being so weak, so half-hearted and so negative?
The Prime Minister: If we want the President of South Africa to play a role, we do best to deal with the situation in a way that helps him to do so. If I can put things diplomatically, where there is disagreement—as there is over this matter—rather than engaging in an attack on the South African position, it is best simply to indicate why we feel so strongly that the right way to deal with the situation is to change the regime in Zimbabwe and to work with other countries to ensure that. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we make those points very strongly indeed, but there is a way to do it and we must be careful about that.
Hugh Bayley: Given that two-thirds of all the people in the world who are infected with the HIV virus live in Commonwealth countries, does the Prime Minister believe that the Commonwealth as a whole, not just Britain, has a unique role in providing leadership in the fight against HIV and AIDS? What are African member countries doing to argue that the fight against AIDS should take greater priority in the work of the NEPAD secretariat, and what are the Government doing in preparation for our presidency of the G8 and the EU to ensure that it forms an important part of our agenda?
The Prime Minister: The African countries are taking measures to ensure that they have capacity in their own countries to deal with HIV/AIDS, and a few weeks ago, President Bush and I met several health Ministers from African countries to discuss that. For us, issues relating to climate change and to Africa-including, of course, the problem of HIV/AIDS—will be a main part of our G8 presidency in 2005. That will send out a strong signal of the priority that we attach to those issues.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: I am sure that we all agree entirely with what the Prime Minister has said about Zimbabwe, but may I take him back to the maximum pressure to which he referred earlier? How about adopting the suggestion made by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and withdrawing the honorary knighthood that Mugabe was given in 1994? How about raising the matter at the Security Council of the United Nations where it can be debated in world forums and the world can see—as can Zimbabweans
930
and black Africans—the contempt in which Mugabe is held? How about extending the sanctions list to the same people as New Zealand does, so that the immediate families of Mugabe's cronies cannot travel around the world spending their ill-gotten gains, and in particular so that Bredenkamp and the paymasters of Mugabe's regime cannot travel around Britain spending their ill-gotten gains?
The Prime Minister: As I said earlier, when the sanctions come up, we should certainly consider how they could be extended without giving people false solace about how effective they might be in sinking the regime. I will certainly consider the honorary knighthood, although I somewhat question how great the impact of the hon. Gentleman's suggestion would be on President Mugabe.
Mr. Robathan: It is a symbol.
The Prime Minister: All these things are symbols, but in the end the most important thing is, as I say, to work to ensure that the pressure does not just come from here, but from within the region.
In respect of the UN, as I said before, we raise this issue regularly at the UN. It is important, however, that we do not put a resolution before the UN Security Council, in particular, unless we are sure that it would succeed because, if we put one and it failed, the impact would be adverse.
Mr. Harry Barnes: On Zimbabwe, does not Nigeria itself show what Commonwealth pressure can bring about in advancing democratic provisions? For instance, the African meeting of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association was recently held in Abuja-perhaps, in time, another such meeting will be held in Harare—and a spin-off is that the Nigerian arrangements to deal with HIV/AIDS have developed into a progressive programme, considerably assisted by our own Department for International Development.
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, Nigeria represents a model example of a country returning to democracy, and Commonwealth pressure assisted in that, which is why the Commonwealth continuing to suspend Zimbabwe will, of course, have its own impact.
Mr. George Osborne):rose—
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Osborne: I thank my colleagues.
I agree with everything that the Prime Minister says about HIV/AIDS. Of course he is right to work with the drug companies to try to reduce the cost of the drugs, but does he agree that pharmaceutical research is phenomenally expensive—AstraZeneca employs 5,000 on research in my constituency alone—and that it would be a tragedy if the campaign against HIV/AIDS turned into a campaign against international drug companies? We need their help and research, and we must not demonise them.
The Prime Minister: It is precisely for that reason that we as a Government have given such strong support to

931
science and research over the past few years. Yes, of course it is important that drug companies play their part, but they are part of the solution, and part of the solution involves us trying in so far as possible, while protecting their interests, to reduce the cost of the generic drugs that can be used to treat HIV/AIDS patients. All the indications now are that such drugs are available-the drug companies have played their part in that-and if we can only put the right capacity together in those countries whose people are suffering from HIV/ AIDS, we will be able to take a significant step forward in the treatment of the disease. If the drug companies play their part in that, they should be congratulated.
Mr. Stephen McCabe: May I return to the world trade talks? Does the Prime Minister agree that the Commonwealth is an ideally placed organisation and perhaps should do more to campaign on the principles of movements such as the Traidcraft movement, which suggest that investment in trade for developing countries is a good thing, but that it must be done in a manner that supports and reinforces sustainable progress? It should be made absolutely clear to the businesses involved that we will not tolerate exploitative or corrupt practices of the kind that would be intolerable in this country.
The Prime Minister: I am sure that it is right that, when we open up world trade, we do so responsibly. The important thing is to ensure that we break down the open tariffs and barriers as well as the hidden barriers; but the point that my hon. Friend makes about Traidcraft is welcome.

Orders of the Day

  Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill
  [2ND ALLOTTED DAY]
  Further considered.

  Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill
    New Clause 10

      LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
      '(1).The local planning authority must prepare and maintain a plan to be known as their local development plan ("the plan") which will contain a number of Local Development Documents, each of which will cover a different subject matter as specified in the plan.
      (2) The plan must specify—

      (a) the documents which are to be local development documents ("the documents");

      (b) the subject matter and geographical area to which each document is to relate;

      (c) which documents (if any) are to be prepared jointly with one or more other local planning authorities which will be treated the same as if one single authority had prepared it;

      (d) any matter or area in respect of which the authority have agreed to (or propose to agree) to the constitution of a joint committee under section 28;

      (e) the timetable for the preparation and revision of the documents;

      (f) such other matters as are prescribed.

      (3) Different plan documents must, amongst other matters, include:

      (a) those matters in which the County Council or Unitary Authority has a role;

      (b) a plan for each of the larger settlements as detailed in the plan;

      (c) a plan for any other settlement which may be designated in the plan;

      (d) a plan detailing all section 106 matters including the formula or tariff including the provision of social housing;

      (e) a plan detailing how specific planning designations, such as Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty will be operated;

      (f) a plan detailing how land use, sustainability and economic regeneration are to be managed;

      (g) such other matters as the Secretary of State prescribes.

      (4) The local planning authority may withdraw their plan or documents at any time before they are formally adopted.
      (5) The local planning authority must—

      (a) prepare the plan and documents in accordance with such other requirements as are prescribed;

      (b) submit the plan and documents to the Secretary of State at such time as is prescribed or as the Secretary of State (in a particular case) directs;

      (c) at that time send a copy of the plan and documents to the RPB or (if the authority are a London borough) to the Mayor of London;

      (d) prepare, publish and have regard to a Statement of Community Involvement as negotiated by section 4 of the Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22).

      (6) The Secretary of State may direct the local planning authority to make such amendments to the plan or documents as he thinks appropriate, but only when the Secretary of State and Authority can not agree on any matter.
      (7) A direction under subsection (6) above must contain the Secretary of State's reasons for giving it.
      (8) The local planning authority must comply with a direction given under subsection (5).
      (9) The Secretary of State may make regulations as to the following matters—

      (a) publicity about the plan and documents;

      (b) making the plan and documents available for inspection by the public;

      (c) requirements to be met for the purpose of bringing the plan and documents into effect.

      (10) The local planning authority must revise their local development plan and documents—

      (a) at such time as they consider appropriate;

      (b) when directed to do so by the Secretary of State.

      (11) Subsections (2) to (10) above apply to the revision of a plan or documents as they apply to the preparation of the plan or documents.
      (12) When preparing the local development plan or documents under (1) and (2) above the local planning authority must have regard to—

      (a) national policies and advice contained in guidance issued by the Secretary of State;

      (b) the RSS for the region in which the area of the authority is situated, if the area is outside Greater London;

      (c) the spatial development strategy if the authority are a London borough or if any part of the authority's area adjoins Greater London;

      (d) the RSS for any region which adjoins the area of the authority;

      (e) the Wales Spatial Plan if any part of the authority's area adjoins Wales;

      (f) the community strategy prepared by the authority;

      (g) the community strategy for any other authority whose area comprises any part of the area of the local planning authority;

      (h) any other local development document which has been adopted by the authority;

      (i) the resources likely to be available for implementing the proposals in the document;

      (j) such other matters as the Secretary of State prescribes.

      (13) The local planning authority must submit their local development plan and documents in their entirety to the Secretary of State for independent examination.
      (14) But the authority must not submit such a plan or document unless—

      (a) they have complied with any relevant requirements contained in regulations under this Part, and

      (b) they are satisfied that they are ready for independent examination.

      (15) The authority must also send to the Secretary of State (in addition to the development plan) such other documents (or copies of documents) and such information as is prescribed.
      (16) The examination must be carried out by a person appointed by the Secretary of State to be known as the Independent Inspector.
      (17) The purpose of an independent examination is to determine in respect of the local development plan and documents—

      (a) whether they satisfy the requirements in this section;

      (b) whether they are sound in all material aspects.

      (18) Any person who makes representations seeking to change a development plan must (if he so requests) be given the opportunity to submit a summary of each person's representations in writing to the Independent Inspector (as
      934
      defined in subsection 16), who may decline the evidence if he has reason to believe that it is a repetition of evidence which he has already received from another person.
      (19) The Independent Inspector must—

      (a) make recommendations; and

      (b) give reasons for those recommendations.

      (20) The local planning authority must publish the recommendations made under subsection (19):. —[Mr. Clifton-Brown.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      1.33 pm
      Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
      New clause 19—Local Development Plan (No. 2)—
      (1) The local planning authority must prepare and maintain a plan to be known as their local development plan ("the Plan") which will contain a number of Local Development Documents ("the Documents"), each of which will cover a different subject matter as specified in the plan.
      (2) The Plan must specify—

      (a) the Documents;

      (b) the subject matter and geographical area to which each of the Documents is to relate;

      (c) which Documents (if any) are to be prepared jointly with one or more other local planning authorities which will be treated the same as if one single authority had prepared it;

      (d) any matter or area in respect of which the authority have agreed (or propose to agree) to the constitution of a joint committee under section 28;

      (e) such other matters as are prescribed.

      (3) When preparing the Plan or the Documents under (1) and (2) above the local planning authority must have regard to—

      (a) national policies and advice contained in guidance issued by the Secretary of State;

      (b) the RSS for the region in which the area of the authority is situated, if the area is outside Greater London;

      (c) the spatial development strategy if the authority are a London borough or if any part of the authority's area adjoins Greater London;

      (d) the RSS for any region which adjoins the area of the authority;

      (e) the Wales Spatial Plan if any part of the authority's area adjoins Wales;

      (f) the Plan of any adjoining Local Planning Authority together with any of its documents which may be relevant;

      (g) the community strategy prepared by the authority;

      (h) the community strategy for any other authority whose area comprises any part of the area of the local planning authority;

      (i) any other local development document which has been adopted by the authority;

      (j) the resources likely to be available for implementing the proposals in the Documents;

      The "Documents" must include inter alia—

      (a) a statement of those matters in which the County Council has a role;

      (b) a Document for each of the larger settlements as detailed in the "plan"

      935

      (C) a Document for any other settlement which may be designated in the plan;

      (d) a Document detailing the matters relating to the Authority's policies on planning contributions and the provisions of social housing;

      (e) a "document" containing policies for areas where there are specific planning designations, such as Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and National Parks;

      (f) a Document detailing how land use, sustainability and economic regeneration are to be managed;

      (g) such other matters as the Secretary of State prescribes.

      The local planning authority must—

      (a) prepare the Plan and the Documents in accordance with such other requirements as are prescribed;

      (b) submit the Plan and the Documents to the Secretary of State at such time as is prescribed or as the Secretary of State (in a particular case) directs;

      (c) at that time send a copy of the Plan and the Documents to the RPB or (if the authority are a London borough) to the Mayor of London;

      (d) prepare, publish and have regard to a Statement of Community Involvement when preparing the Plan and the Documents as negotiated by section 4 of the Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22).

      (6) The local planning authority may withdraw the Plan or the Documents at any time before submission to the Secretary of State in accordance with (5)(b).
      (7) The Secretary of State may direct the local planning authority to make such amendments to the Plan or the Documents as he thinks appropriate.
      (8) A direction under subsection (7) above must contain the Secretary of State's reasons for giving it.
      (9) The Secretary of State may make regulations as to the following matters—

      (a) publicity about the Plan and the Documents;

      (b) making the Plan and the Documents available for inspection by the public;

      (c) requirements and timetable to be met for the purpose of bringing the Plan and the Documents into effect, which may not exceed six months.

      (10) The local planning authority must revise their local development plan and Documents—

      (a) at such time as they consider appropriate, which may not be later than five years from the date the plan came into effect;

      (b) when directed to do so by the Secretary of State.

      (11) Subsections (2) to (10) above apply to the revision of a plan or documents as they apply to the preparation of the Plan or the Documents.
      (12) The local planning authority must submit their local development plan and documents in their entirety to the Secretary of State for independent examination at the times and in the manner laid down in subsections (5) and (10).
      (13) But the authority must not submit such a plan or document unless—

      (a) they have complied with any relevant requirements contained in regulations under this Part, and

      (b) they are satisfied that they are ready for independent examination.

      (14) The authority must also send to the Secretary of State (in addition to the development plan) such other documents (or copies of documents) and such information as is prescribed.
      (15) The examination must be carried out by a person appointed by the Secretary of State to be known as "the Independent Inspector."
      936
      (16) The purpose of an independent examination is to determine in respect of the local development plan and documents—

      (a) whether they satisfy the requirements in this section;

      (b) whether they are sound in all material aspects;

      (c) whether all or part of the Plan and the Documents need to be subject of the examination.

      (17) Any person who makes representations seeking to change a development Plan or Documents must (if he so requests) be given the opportunity to submit a summary of his representations in writing to the Independent Inspector who may decline to hear either in writing or orally the evidence if he has reason to believe that it is a repetition of evidence which he has already received from another person.
      (18) The independent inspector must within three months unless otherwise directed by the Secretary of State—

      (a) make recommendations;

      (b) give reasons for the recommendations.

      (19) The local planning authority must within one month publish the recommendations made under subsection (18) which must be either confirmed by the Secretary of State or modified and published with reasons within the prescribed period under subsection (9)(c).
      (20) The local planning authority must comply with directions given by the Secretary of State under subsections (2), (4), (6), (7), (9), (10), (12), (14), (18) and (19).'.
      Amendment No. 39, in page 8, line 12, leave out Clause 14.
      Amendment No. 40, in page 9, line 16 [Clause 15], leave out 'scheme' and insert 'plan'.
      Amendment No. 41, in page 9, line 25, leave out Clause 16.
      Amendment No. 42, in page 10, line 22 [Clause 17], leave out subsection (3).
      Amendment No. 43, in page 10, line 34, leave out Clause 18.
      Amendment No. 27, in page 10, line 40 [Clause 18], at end insert—
      '(aa) the housing strategy prepared by the authority under the Local Government Act;'.
      Amendment No. 44, in page 11, line 27, leave out Clause 19.
      Amendment No. 45, in page 12, line 8, leave out Clause 20.
      Amendment No. 46, in page 13, line 4, leave out Clause 21.
      Amendment No. 47, in page 13, line 14, leave out Clause 22.
      Amendment No. 83, in page 13, line 35 [Clause 23], at end insert—
      '(c) any recommendations made by the person appointed to carry out the independent examination of the document.'.
      Amendment No. 84, in page 13, line 36 [Clause 23], leave out subsections (2) to (4).
      Amendment No. 48, in page 14, line 27 [Clause 24], leave out 'document' and insert 'plan'.
      Amendment No. 49, in page 14, line 29 [Clause 24], leave out 'document' and insert 'plan'.
      Amendment No. 50, in page 14, line 31, leave out Clause 25.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am very pleased to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, on this group of new clauses and

      937
      amendments. For the convenience of the House, may I say straight away that new clause 10 has been supplemented by new clause 19? When I tabled new clause 10, I realised that it could be improved, so I shall speak to the revised version—new clause 19—but I do not say that new clause 19 could not be improved as well. I would very much welcome the Minister and his civil servants attempting to improve it, if he were minded to accept it. We shall come to that a little later, but although I suspect that he is not minded to accept it. Nevertheless, I have carefully studied the Minister's remarks in Committee during the previous Session, and I have redrafted my proposals in light of the criticisms that he made then, so I hope that new clause 19 will meet with his full approval and that he will accept it. [Interruption.] I live in hope. It is better to travel in hope than to arrive.
      New clause 19 deals with the whole local plan-making procedure, and the success or failure of the Bill rests entirely on whether the regional and local plan-making processes actually work. I shall not say anything about the regional plan-making process because it is not relevant to new clause 19. Suffice it to say that the Opposition oppose the regional plan-making process. I want to deal with the local plan-making process, which is hideously complicated. Indeed, I have good reason to believe that even the Minister and his civil servants do not fully carry at the top of their heads exactly how it works.
      New clause 19, which I have drafted, would combine eight or nine clauses, depending on which we include and which we exclude, so halving the number of pages. Moreover, this is not just a simple question of consolidation; new clause 19 would make it far easier for local authorities, businesses and, indeed, all those who get involved in the planning process to understand how the local plan-making process worked in one simple new clause. I shall state why I think that it is superior to the Government's eight or nine clauses.
      The Government's stated wish is to produce a simpler, fairer and more transparent planning system. The local plan-making process contained in part 2—clauses 12 to 36—is highly complex. Instead of all the various categories contained in the Bill—the local development schemes, the local development documents, the local development frameworks, the local development plan documents and the joint development documents and schemes, and so on—all with their own provisions for commencement, revision, community involvement, appeals and independent inspections, I propose a simplification that uses just two categories: local plans and local documents. The Bill deals with those two categories. Again, instead of six different tiers and frameworks, I have two—much simpler than the Bill.
      New clause 19 would provide county councils with a statutory role—something that the Government have consistently failed to do. Unfortunately, we will probably not reach new clause 23, which I also tabled. Nevertheless, a statutory role for county councils is important because we believe that county councils, in some cases centuries old, have built up a huge bank of knowledge that could be lost to the planning process if
      938
      we are not careful. We cannot even consider an amendment that would make county councils statutory consultees in the new regional strategy documents.
      Mr. John Gummer: The Government do not dismiss the fact that some parts of the country will clearly not have elected regional assemblies. Clearly, my own area will not a have regional assembly. Does my hon. Friend agree that county councils provide an important input into planning in those areas? What he proposes would be very much supported throughout the shire counties of England—areas such as my own.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: My right hon. Friend is exactly right. We tried very hard in Committee to persuade the Government to give county councils a statutory role in the regional plan-making process. Although we won the argument, we failed because the Government used their huge majority. Members of another place will wish to return to this subject. At this stage, however, I am dealing with the local plan-making procedure, and it is absolutely right that county councils have a statutory and proper role in that process.
      My new clause deals with clause 14, which provides that documents should be submitted to the Secretary of State for independent inspection. Both my new clause, however, which is modelled on the Bill, and the Bill itself provide that other documents are to be submitted to the Secretary of State. The Law Society and others have concerns about that provision, because they feel that if other arbitrary documents are submitted, confusion may arise about what are legal documents and what are not. I would therefore prefer the new clause to be drawn with just the plan and the documents, and no other documents, to be submitted.
      My proposed new subsection (6) allows the local planning authority to withdraw its documents at any time up to submission to the Secretary of State. The Bill allows those documents to be withdrawn at any time up to adoption. In other words, they can go through all the independent examination, and consultation with neighbouring authorities, regional planning bodies and so on, and then suddenly, a few days prior to adoption, be withdrawn. What a waste of time and money.
      In my proposed new subsection (8), the Secretary of State must give reasons for directing a local authority to make amendments to its plan. Again, if a local planning authority has gone through all its committee structures, has carried out its community involvement, has consulted the regional planning body and neighbouring authorities, as required under my new clause and the Bill, and the Secretary of State comes along and directs it to change the plan, surely it is only reasonable and fair that he must give his reasons for doing so. The Bill does not provide for that.
      My proposed new subsection (16) provides that all or part of the plan and documents are to be subject to an independent examination. That gives much greater flexibility than the Bill, which requires all documents to be subject to an independent examination. I envisage that under my system, the plan, which sets out the overall strategy for the area, might remain in place for 10 years. The analogy in relation to my system is that the

      939
      plan is the filing cabinet and the documents are the individual drawers or files within it. The plan might therefore remain, but the documents, which cover all sorts of areas—[Interruption.] Yes, I know that the Minister for Housing and Planning will say that that is his plan, but the trouble is that it is not, because he has so many other different categories. I have just two: a filing cabinet and drawers. Anybody who wants to do so can pull out those drawers at any time, and they can be subject to revision, independent examination and re-adoption of the new plan-simple, flexible and easy to revise. One of the Minister's main criticisms of my proposal in Committee related to that.
      My proposed new subsection (17) provides that in an independent hearing certain repetitive evidence need not be considered by the inspector. We all know of cases in which action groups—suddenly formed, not particularly well organised and with one typewritten statement—file into an independent hearing one by one and read out exactly the same statement. Surely the inspector must have powers to disregard such repetitive evidence, or a great deal of time could be wasted under clause 19(6), which provides that everybody must be heard orally. The Minister must consider that, if nothing else in my new clause.
      Mr. Gummer: Does not my hon. Friend agree that for a very long time inspectors have requested, when they are going over such repetitive ground, that they should be able to say, "We have heard about that, we know about it, and we can now move on." Is it not a great pity that the Government have not taken their advice?
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: I imagine that my right hon. Friend, who is a former Secretary of State for the Environment and has huge experience in these matters, will have come across this problem time and again. He makes a timely and potent intervention, and I hope that the Minister will consider such an amendment even if he does not consider anything else.
      David Wright: I have some sympathy with the point that has just been made about saving time in inquiries. Does the hon. Gentleman agree, however, that it is important that if 100 people, for example, submit the same piece of evidence, those 100 people are counted as objectors or supporters of a proposal? If we are not careful, the system that he proposes could be used to lower the number of objections, and in some cases stop an inquiry being triggered.
      1.45 pm
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point. I would have no objection—in fact, I would find it desirable—if when the independent inspector makes his report he were to say, "And 150 residents of Little Acacia on the Green objected to this proposal with the same evidence. Although I took evidence from Mrs. Black, I had similar evidence from another 149 residents." That would be perfectly reasonable, and I do not seek to stop it in any way whatever. We need some form of power, however, to stop repetitive evidence. After all, in this House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would soon rule me out of order if
      940
      you felt that what I was saying was unduly repetitive indeed, Standing Orders provide that you do that. A court of law may do exactly the same thing. There does not therefore seem to be any reason why an independent inspector in a planning hearing should not be able to do the same.
      My new clause provides for strict times within which various events should happen. Again, the Secretary of State reserves powers to do that by regulations in the Bill. Those are arbitrary, however, and can be revised at any time. It is vital that timetables, or at least the main timetables, are laid down in statute. Otherwise, the new system will fall into exactly the same failure as the present system. The problem with the present one is that nobody forces local authorities to draw up their plans and to revise them within a certain timetable. Unless that is rigorously upheld, with the complexity of the new system, we will hear every excuse under the sun as to why the new plans are not to be revised. My new clause therefore provides that within five years the plan and the documents must be revised. On reflection, the plan must be looked at but it does not have to be revised-some documents, however, must be revised within the five-year period.
      Sir Sydney Chapman: I very much agree with my hon. Friend on the need to introduce sensible timetables for provision and revision of development plans—I prefer to call them development plans rather than documents or schemes as he has done in his amendments. Good precedent for that, whether or not the system works properly, is provided by the fact that a local planning authority is required to give a determination of a planning application within eight weeks; otherwise, the applicant has the right to appeal.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend, who has huge experience in these matters—he referred yesterday to his entry in the Register of Members' Interests and to his previous posts—is absolutely right. A strict timetable should be in place, particularly for revisions of plans, or at least of documents—perhaps the plan should be looked at to determine whether it is still current, but the documents must be revised.
      The timetable should then provide that when the plans have been submitted to the Secretary of State for independent inspection, the independent inspector has three months to carry out his work. Again, unless the independent inspector has a strict timetable, things will just drift and not get done. There must be a proper impetus for him to provide his report within three months unless the Secretary of State directs otherwise. The local authority must then publish the results within one month—having received his report, which may in some cases be quite lengthy, there is no reason why it should not do so. When the Secretary of State confirms the plan or modifies it, there is no reason why it should not be brought into effect within six months.
      I am not saying that those timetables are absolutely right, but some form of timetable along the lines that I have suggested must make eminent sense. Again, I hope that the Minister will consider whether those timetables can be included in the Bill rather than being determined by regulations, which are arbitrary and can be revised at any time.

      941
      New clause 10 represents a simpler approach. It considers the plan-making process as one entity to allow local planning authorities, businesses and individuals to be much clearer about how the system works and make them more likely to become involved in the process. If it is to be as complicated as the Bill prescribes, people will feel alienated from the planning process and will not have a clue about it. Few people get involved in the planning process even now. They become frightfully surprised when a planning application for several houses next door comes along and a local authority says, "We can't refuse that because it was in the plan that we made four years ago," although the residents had no idea about the plan. That is an unsatisfactory way in which to proceed, so I hope that the new process will at the very least encourage more people to participate in the community element of the plan-making process.
      The already overly complicated plan-making process has been made even more complex by yesterday's proceedings, so I fear that it will drown under such complexity. If that happens, the Bill will utterly fail to achieve the Government's stated aim of promoting speed, transparency, community development and a user-friendly process, with the net result that economic growth and sustainability will suffer.
      The Government will probably reject new clause 10 today, but I hope that those in another place will appreciate that having one holistic whole—a dreadful phrase—for the local plan-making process, set out in a relatively simple new clause, would be far better than the provisions in the Government's eight equivalent clauses.
      David Wright: I rise to provoke a debate on amendment No. 27, which I tabled. The amendment relates to local housing strategies and was prompted by my discussions with the National Housing Federation and the Chartered Institute of Housing. I appreciate that the amendment has arrived on the scene somewhat late, but it is worthy of discussion. I should declare an interest as a full member of the Chartered Institute of Housing. The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) said yesterday that, rather than receiving any money from such bodies, he paid them. Similarly, rather than receiving any resources from the Chartered Institute of Housing, it takes money off me— I draw no financial benefit from it at all. Both the institute and the National Housing Federation are excellent organisations that contribute to the wider debate on housing and planning in the UK.
      I want to discuss the broad parameters of the link between housing and planning, although I do not intend to take up too much of the House's time. The amendment is an attempt to join up local housing and planning strategies, so that better planned housing that matches local economic, social and environmental needs can be delivered. It would ensure that the local housing strategy was explicitly included in the list of considerations to which local development documents must have regard.
      Before I came into the House, I spent a long time working as a housing strategy manager. I tried to integrate the workings of a large local authority's planning and housing departments—it was quite a struggle at times. Documents such as local housing strategies were often produced completely independently of local planning documentation. Local
      942
      plans tended to be dominated by professional planning officers who worked at regional level, often with little input from other local authority officers. Housing targets cascaded down the system and arrived on the doorstep of housing strategy officers after decisions were signed, sealed and delivered. It is important to integrate housing strategies more effectively with the local planning process.
      For many years, local housing strategies were framed by local authorities' ownership of large amounts of municipal stock. In the 1980s, the then Government rightly promoted the establishment of an enabling authority—the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal(Mr. Gummer) was involved in that. Local authorities' strategic housing functions are extremely important because they need to be integrated effectively and coherently with local plans.
      I have made the case for better integration. Strategies are often inconsistent and conflict with each other. Many local authorities have housing strategies that promote the growth of affordable housing, but local planning documents often do not take any account of that, which means that sites do not become available for new housing developments. There is often a deep conflict between the actions of local authority departments. We need to put that right, which is why amendment No. 27 would provide that local housing strategies must be considered as a key component of the development of local planning documentation.
      The amendment would create a strong incentive for authorities to reconcile planning and housing policies. It would provide for greater clarity and decrease the number of disputes involving authorities and their stakeholders, especially on planning applications for housing developments. Perhaps most important, it would create a culture of positive planning for housing by reinforcing the mutual importance of planning and housing in achieving sustainable development.
      Why should we co-ordinate the strategies? It is no longer appropriate to think about the housing market and affordable housing separately. We must ensure that areas have a single perspective on the housing market because people move across sectors and tenures to find suitable housing. We need a comprehensive analysis that covers all elements of the housing market in a local area, so planning documentation requires a comprehensive understanding of the way in which the housing market operates. We need to promote a good mix of housing types—houses for affordable rent, shared ownership and owner-occupation—because that creates more stable and sustainable neighbourhoods. We must integrate our housing approach with authorities' wider planning strategies, because factors such as transport, communication and proximity to community facilities are important.
      Richard Younger-Ross: I agree with the points that the hon. Gentleman is making. The importance of what he is saying is shown by the fact that developers may currently say, "Okay, we'll do 20 or 30 per cent. affordable housing," yet design two estates with a wall through the middle, so that social and

      943
      private housing are never mixed. His point is well put: we need integration, rather than fencing communities off from each other.
      David Wright: The hon. Gentleman is right. We need to develop what could perhaps be called "tenure-blind estates", in which people could walk down a road without being able to tell which properties were rented, owner-occupied or in shared ownership. We need a process to integrate tenures throughout a neighbourhood and to ensure that all facilities are consistent for everyone living there. That is how balance may be achieved and sustainable communities built.
      Another key point about the co-ordination of strategies for housing is that the delivery of affordable housing is being hampered because of inconsistencies in local plans and housing strategies. That provides an opportunity for appeals against decisions. Local housing authorities need to do much more to understand their housing markets and they should integrate the results of housing need and housing market surveys into their planning strategies. Developers often challenge authorities because they are not confident that their housing market analysis is correct. Such authorities tend to back off because they are not sure that they can win the case. We need a strong and consistent approach between authorities' housing and planning departments to ensure that, if cases are taken to appeal, housing officers will have a commitment from their planning colleagues that the assessments will be defended.
      Government policy is starting to tackle failing housing markets but I wonder whether planning practice is responding to that. When we develop comprehensive regeneration strategies for areas in consultation with communities, we need to ensure that our planning colleagues—if I may say that as an ex-housing strategy officer—respond to them positively and plan estates coherently and effectively.
      The debate has been enjoyable. It is a bit like groundhog day, with the same few Members in the Chamber, but the debate has been of a high quality.
      2 pm
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: Amendment No. 27 recognises that the Local Government Act 1992 requires local authorities to draw up a housing plan. They are also required to draw up a homelessness plan under the Homelessness Act 2002 and a sustainability plan under this Bill. The Opposition are keen that all the plans should mesh together; otherwise local authorities will drown under the weight of drawing up separate plans with separate provisions.
      David Wright:I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's comments-that is why my probing amendment was tabled. I want to hear what the Minister has to say about how the new structure will integrate the variety of strategies that local authorities are required to produce. In particular, it will be interesting to hear what guidance will be issued to local authorities on the integration of housing strategy with planning policy.
      Our debates have been interesting on both days. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response before I decide whether to press my amendment to a vote.
      Matthew Green: In tabling the new clauses and attached amendments, the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) has given us an opportunity to discuss the scheme at the heart of the plan. Once again, he has produced a revised alternative scheme.
      We have been discussing the Bill for almost 12 months and there is now a great danger of consensus emerging, with our positions getting closer and closer.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: But is that not what Parliament is all about—debating matters until a consensus is reached? The Government approach things with a sledgehammer, using their huge majority to vote out any sensible proposals from wherever they emerge.
      Matthew Green: If a consensus emerges, that is all good and well. Some of us have moved along a little faster than the hon. Gentleman, for whom it is sometimes a case of "Hurry up at the back."
      David WrightD: Does the hon. Gentleman think that it was a good idea to carry the Bill over into this Session? That gave us even more time to consider it and allowed the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) enough time to prepare his notes.
      Matthew Green: The extra time, perhaps unintentionally on the part of the Government back in January, has been valuable for a huge number of reasons. The hon. Gentleman may have touched on one of them.
      A consensus is building around the idea of a flexible scheme. Before the Minister claims the phrase as his own, I think I originally referred to a filing cabinet or box file comprising a series of folders. He pinched my words and used them around the country. and I am delighted to have given him such assistance. After our deliberations in Committee, the hon. Member for Cotswold has moved on to similar ground. There is an understanding that we need a flexible scheme.
      A local example highlights why such a scheme is needed. It concerns an application for an eco-business park on the edge of Ludlow, currently before the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), who is the planning Minister for the west midlands. South Shropshire district council realised that it was running out of business development land. It is revising its local plan, but its implementation is probably about 18 months to two years away. The council will run out of business development land before the plan is likely to come into force.
      Almost two years ago, the council entered into a process of considering where future business development land might be. It is a controversial process, because no one wants to be next to such land. The council held an inquiry in public, although it cannot be called a public inquiry, over two days. All sorts of organisations were able to give evidence, and possible sites became clear. The council committee made a decision on them and adopted their development as part of council policy. They are included in the new draft local plan but are obviously not in the current plan.

      945
      An application has been made, which the council accepted, but it has been called in because it is not in the current plan. The difficulty is that the process has been gone into in great detail locally. In fact, the Audit Commission holds it up as an excellent example of open local government. A more flexible scheme would have allowed South Shropshire district council to make changes to the local development document. The application would not have encountered the same difficulties and Government officials would not be clawing all over it. So greater flexibility is important.
      As the hon. Member for Cotswold said, new clause 19 is the key clause. However, it is deficient. He is trying hard to produce something so that he does not have to agree with the Government's scheme, although his proposals are close to it.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: Consensus is breaking out.
      Matthew Green: Indeed. The hon. Gentleman might as well accept that the Government's scheme is satisfactory.
      Unlike the Government's proposal, new clause 19 does not stipulate that statements of community involvement are to be documents in the scheme. The effective use of statements of community involvement will speed up the planning process more than anything else. The schemes that go through the planning process with the least difficulty are those on which there has been the greatest consultation before a planning application is made. The most enlightened developers do that with large schemes. They carry out extensive local consultations, which iron out many of the problems, before the application is made.
      I hope that councils will be encouraged to ensure that there is sufficient pre-consultation on those elements. The problem is, of course, that we do not know for sure whether that will happen until the regulations and guidance are published in their final form, but the suggestion is built into the Government's scheme. Unfortunately, however, it is not included in new clause 19. Perhaps the hon. Member for Cotswold intends it to be included in another document under subsection (4) (g), which refers to:
      "such matters as the Secretary of State prescribes."
      Statements of community involvement are fundamental to the success of a faster and more open planning system. I am surprised at their absence from the new clause.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman is confusing two things. Community involvement in plan making is one thing; pre-application discussions on an individual application are a different matter.
      New clause 19(3)(g) would ensure that the local planning authority has regard to community strategy. The Local Government Act 1992 requires local authorities to draw up a statement of community strategy. As that will have to be done anyway, why should it also be one of the documents? If a local planning authority does not have regard to that community strategy, it will be subject to judicial review.
      Matthew Green: I think that the hon. Gentleman fails to understand the full importance of the potential of a
      946
      statement of community involvement. When the council draws up such a statement, it will set out exactly the way in which the community will be involved in individual plans. It is a document in the scheme and it sets out the process. There is no mention of a statement of community involvement, but there is mention of a community strategy, which is a different issue. I shall understand if the hon. Gentleman says that he meant to mention a statement of community involvement in the new clause, which has had various incarnations as it has moved gradually towards being the same as the Government's proposal.
      There is another area with which I have some difficulty. A number of councils—I mention South Shropshire council again, but only because I know it well as it is in my constituency—have been quite forward thinking in developing planning policies. There is no law that prevents that. South Shropshire council has its own separate document setting out its affordable housing policy. It also has its own separate document on policy that relates to how it deals with mast applications, which is quite a controversial issue. That is something that many councils have not done. The council uses the document to guide those who are making mast applications so that they know how they will be dealt with-central Government have not said that the council cannot adopt that approach. It is creating effective local policies in other ways, too.
      My understanding of the Government's scheme is that, in effect, local development documents will be allowed to include documents that relate not only to geographical areas, not only to settlements, not only to housing and not only to areas of outstanding natural beauty, but also to specific areas such as business development land and a strategy for dealing with masts, for example. That is a great degree of flexibility, local decision making and local choice. I thought that all three parties were trying to compete with one another to show just how much they are in favour of the new localism, to use a word that comes from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. I do not think that there is sufficient flexibility in new clause 19 to allow councils to do that. There is too much structure in the clause.
      I used to think, particularly back in January, that the Government had created a scheme that involved a plethora of new terms and far too many new clauses. In creating flexibility, it is difficult to have only one scheme. I urge the hon. Member for Cotswold to withdraw new clause 19 which, as I have said, moves broadly down the route that the Government have taken.
      I am pleased that the hon. Member for Telford (David Wright) tabled amendment No. 27. He was right to do so. I suspect that it will not be necessary to give effect to it, but it has enabled him to raise some important issues relating to housing strategies and their close involvement with local planning. I was struck by his rightful call to see proper mixed-tenure estates, rather than divided estates. The Government need to be careful that by changing section 106, which we debated yesterday, they do not create a situation where non-mixed tenure estates are encouraged by the back door. One way to avoid that is the close involvement of housing strategies in local plans. I hope that the Government guidance will include a strong line recommending to councils that that is exactly what the Government would expect to see. We do not want all the

      947
      social housing at one end of the settlement and the owner occupiers at the other end, with a high wall and protective fencing round it. Heaven forbid that we ever move down that route.
      2.15 pm
      Mr. Mark Francois: When I served in local government, we did much to try to promote shared ownership housing—this meets the sort of objective that the hon. Gentleman and others have been talking about. We found that that worked well on mixed-tenure estates, and also when such housing was built next to private estates. It did not seem to worry anybody and it gave everybody an opportunity to get a foot on a rung of the housing ladder. It is something of which I have always been proud.
      Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Given house prices, we shall have to see a growth of shared equity of various forms. There are various ways of arriving at shared equity. The key thrust is not only mixed-tenure estates but, as the hon. Member for Telford said, the experience of walking down a street without knowing the tenure of the properties. There has been a tendency to get through the social housing obligation by putting a couple of boxes at one end of the estate and then building some nice five-bedroom houses on the rest of the estate. That approach has been adopted in some areas, but it is not satisfactory.
      Once again, the hon. Member for Cotswold has done the House a favour by tabling his new clauses, because he has allowed us to debate matters that are at the heart of the new planning system. I was worried when he said that he wanted independent examination of his drawers, but, to be more serious, the new clauses have allowed us properly to debate these matters. However, I think that new clause 19 is unnecessary and I hope that he will withdraw it. This part of the Bill is now satisfactory and does not need substantive amendment.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: Is the Liberal spokesman saying that he thinks that the local plan-making process as provided in the Bill is entirely satisfactory?
      Matthew Green: I would struggle to say that it is entirely satisfactory. I suspect that there are few pieces of legislation that any of us would describe as entirely satisfactory, but this part of the Bill moves in the right direction. As with any new system, it may need tinkering with later. The Government have made a good stab at trying to create a flexible and more open system.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the Bill is not entirely satisfactory, may I ask him, mischievously, why he has tabled no amendments to try to improve this part of the Bill?
      Matthew Green: Time will probably tell us where the deficiencies lie in the Government system, as time has told us where the deficiencies are in the 1990 Act. Given what the Government have set out, and given the slight amendments that have been made over time, I think that the Government have made a reasonable stab. I think
      948
      that they have moved in the right direction in creating flexibility, local decision making and accountability, and that that will lead to some speeding up of the planning process. However, I do not follow the mantra of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that speeding up the process is the be all and end all, and that British business would suddenly flourish even more if we speeded it up so that somebody could get an application through in a week. That is a lot of nonsense. We would do the public and business a great disservice if we pretended that that could be achieved. A well-structured, efficient and flexible planning system is what local business people and others want.
      Mr. Gummer: First, I declare an interest both as an honorary officer of the Town and Country Planning Association and of the Landscape Institute, and as a chairman of a company that, among other things, gives sound planning advice, particularly of an environmental nature. Perhaps that means that I care particularly about the simplicity of the documents and measures that we are considering. I suggest that the House gives serious consideration to some of the amendments, including the one tabled by the hon. Member for Telford (David Wright), which deals with a key issue. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to ensure that the Bill takes a more integrated approach, and has used the example of the housing strategy, although it has a wider application. We must ensure that when we make planning decisions and write local plans we do so holistically. That is crucial, as that does not happen at the moment and will not do so under the Bill in its current form. The Minister will no doubt help us by saying that he will introduce regulations to achieve that end. However, I commend the amendments because the requirement for an holistic system should be included in the Bill.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) has done the House a service, both generally and specifically, in tabling his amendment. It is hard to conceive how local plans will work if the county council, which has responsibilities not only for the overarching plan but for highways, education and other concerns, is excluded from their operation. Why, then, is it wicked to remind the country that the county council is, and ought to be, a statutory consultee? I do not believe that the Minister is a bad man or has a hidden agenda, but there is an unattractive antagonism towards county councils in the way the Government talk about planning.
      In many parts of the country, the county council is an historical structure that covers an area that, for the people who live there, equates closely to the locality. Nobody in my constituency has much love for a region called East Anglia. The people of Trimley St. Mary find it hard to believe that they have much in common with the people of Rickmansworth, and I doubt whether they will be seeking a close association with Essex. My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela. Watkinson) may believe that the feeling is mutual, but it is worth making the point that the concept of the regional nature of locality is alien to many parts of the country. However, there is a commitment to the county, even when the county is in the care of the Labour party and its Liberal supporters. I am sure that those Liberal supporters will be considering why, yet again, their party wants to push up the county rate. The Liberals will

      949
      be blamed, as they deserve to be, for their association with this spendthrift Government. Even when we have just suffered an 18.5 per cent. rise in council tax, we still like our county structure and believe that it is important. That ought to be reflected in the Bill
      Matthew Green: The right hon. Gentleman will know that last week the Audit Commission's report made it clear that, regardless of political control, council tax has been forced up by the council tax system, with the biggest effect resulting from the central Government grant. The report makes it clear that external forces are responsible, so I do not accept that rises are dependent on party control.
      Mr. Gummer: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was listening to what I was saying. In Suffolk, we have consistently asked the Liberals to stand up and say that it is the Government's fault. We have told them to stand up and attack the Government. We have told them that we do not expect them to support the Labour party any more because of the damage done to the county. However, as usual, the Liberals have sycophantically supported the Government, as they always do and always will. They are the other Labour party.
      Richard Younger-Ross:Richard Younger-Ross:rose—
      Mr. Gummer: They always rise to the bait, which is a great joy. I rarely make a speech on local government in which I do not manage to get almost every Liberal who has bothered to turn up for the debate to intervene. I have one more to tempt today, but in the meantime I shall give way to the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross).
      Richard Younger-Ross: How does the right hon. Gentleman answer the point that in Devon the councillors who run the county are a coalition not only of Tories and Liberal Democrats but of Labour and independent councillors? In Devon, the Tory party is tied to the Labour party as well, so what he has just said about the Liberal Democrats surely applies to his own party.
      Mr. Gummer: Not at all, because the Conservatives in Devon have made it perfectly clear that they oppose the Labour Government and want to get rid of them. They also want to get rid of the need to associate themselves with the Liberals, which must be a very unpleasant experience for them. I very much commend them on putting the county's interests above the unpleasantness of being close to the Liberals.
      I shall move on, because I have not been able to tempt the third Liberal in the Chamber to speak—I shall have to be a little more extreme to get the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) to intervene. There is a serious problem with the Bill. I wish that the Minister had been much more radical, as many things should have been covered in the Bill, including sustainability, energy saving and the way in which building regulations should develop. The Government ought to be legislating on many of those things, as they are important. The Bill is truncated, and does not include many things that we have been pressing for on an all-party basis. I am
      950
      concerned that the provisions on local development plans are not wide, progressive or radical enough. I am sure that that is not the Minister's fault, and that it was his predecessor who got us into this situation. However, I wish to put down a marker for the future.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: Before my right hon. Friend leaves the subject of county councils, does he not think that almost all their responsibilities, including transport, highways, archives and education have a critical bearing on the planning system? If those councils are excluded from the fundamental plan-making part of that system, I do not see how it will work.
      Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend has put his finger on an important matter, which I have raised myself. The difficulty is that the Government may say, "Yes, that is perfectly true, but we do not need to say so." However, if it is true, it cannot do any harm to say so. There must be a reason why the Government do not want to say so, and I believe that it is their antagonism towards county councils. They do not like them because they are old. The Government have got a thing about anything that has gone on for a long time and is working. They usually stop such things working by changing them when that is not necessary, leaving us with a much worse situation—vide the House of Lords. However, we do not want to get into that now.
      Sir Sydney Chapman: I did not know why the Government did not like me very much, but now I realise that it is because I am old. In fairness to the Minister, as my right hon. Friend knows, there is reference in the Bill to sustainable development, but it is confined to clause 38. As I argued in Committee, the Bill mentions sustainable development, but it does not even define what it is. Given my right hon. Friend's vast experience as a former Secretary of State for the Environment, does he not think that sustainable development needs much greater attention in the Bill? The opening clause in the relevant part of the Bill should begin with a definition of sustainable development.
      2.30 pm
      Mr. Gummer: I need to be careful, lest you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, should feel that I am straying from the amendment that we are discussing. One of my criticisms of my hon. Friend's amendment is that it does not make clear that very point. Perhaps I know why sustainable development is not defined. If they define it, the Government have to admit that so far they have spoken a great deal about it, but done little. The trouble is not that they need joined-up government. They need joined-down government: there ought to be a connection between the mouth and the action. There needs to be more done and less spoken. I hoped that the Bill and this part of the Bill would deliver so many of the things about which the Government have rightly spoken. For five or six years I have tried hard to be non-party political and bipartisan on the subject of the environment, but it is increasingly difficult to continue, because there is no delivery in that regard. Although I am sometimes less than utterly polite about Liberals, on this occasion I think they would agree that we need more action. In the context of local development plans, I

      951
      should have liked to see a much greater sense of urgency about sustainable development spelled out in a way that could insist upon action.
      Mr. Andrew Turner: I am wondering whether the disparity between action and words on the part of the Government in relation to the environment was due to the fact that the environment itself was mostly old.
      Mr. Gummer: I should not pursue that line too far because I know that Mr. Deputy Speaker is assiduous in ensuring that I remain in order, but I have great sympathy with my hon. Friend on that.
      Matthew Green: On sustainability and new clause 19, the Government would argue that they have left the matter open so that they can deal with it through regulations because it is such a difficult subject to deal with. I understand that one of their own consultations came up with 50 different components of sustainability, including happiness. The right hon. Gentleman is right. The Government should have written some definition of sustainability into the Bill, leaving themselves the ability to add to it later through regulations, because the argument is evolving—we are at a different place now from where we were 10 years ago as regards sustainability.
      Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman is right, particularly in his last point. The Prime Minister said that sustainability was at the heart of the Labour party programme. The heart of the Bill is the part that we are seeking to amend, and sustainability should be included in that. For that, it must be defined. It is better to have a poor definition that gives at least some indication than merely to use words with no definition and to tell the House that everything will be done by regulation afterwards. I shall say something in a moment about regulation, with particular reference to the new clause.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: In new clause 10(3)(f), I specifically included a reference to
      "a plan detailing how land use, sustainability and economic regeneration are to be managed".
      I took out an entire subsection about that because I knew the Minister would criticise me for putting some things in and not others, so I decided to take the whole lot out. I accept my right hon. Friend's criticism. Perhaps I should have left the whole subsection, particularly paragraph (f), in new clause 19.
      Mr. Gummer: I hesitate to force such an apology from my hon. Friend. Indeed, I see the new clause as a mechanism for asking the Government to rethink in time for the discussions in another place. My hon. Friend will no doubt agree that it is difficult for the Opposition to produce such a detailed clause. I am sure the Minister will make some such comment—I have made such comments myself from the Government Benches—and I know that one should not look towards them, but the officials will glow with pleasure at the fact that the Minister has reminded the House that without their help it is difficult to proceed.
      952
      I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman will do that in the same elegant way as we have all tried to do it from time to time, but I hope he will not use that for an excuse. I hope he will undertake to look again at the fundamental concerns behind the new clause. I shall explain what I think them to be. First, as I said, one does not have the feeling that the Government have grasped the concept that the exercise should be holistic. That is where I agree with the hon. Member for Telford. Secondly, the Government have failed to define sustainability and put it at the heart of what they are trying to do in this part of the Bill.
      Thirdly, I have a problem with the approach whereby the Government intend to deal with the matter in regulations. There is a real issue about the House's control. Someone came into my constituency surgery in Woodbridge recently complaining about a particular part of a Bill. She asked how any sane collection of people could pass that clause. I looked it up and I know why. We never discussed that clause, as we did not discuss almost two thirds of that Bill, because the Government made sure that we could not do so. We had to make a choice between proper discussion of part of it and no discussion of the rest, or improper discussion—if that is the word—of the whole Bill.
      The emasculation of Parliament by procedure has been the mark of the Government. The same is true of the over-use of regulations. Of course it is true that in many cases regulations have to be made beyond the Bill, because of their detailed nature, but we do not have a satisfactory mechanism in the House for dealing with regulations. Many regulations are therefore not properly produced, and they affect the rights of the citizen. The Government should have given a much clearer indication of the nature of the regulations that they propose under this part.
      The fourth reason why I hope the Government will think again is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold made about the complexity of this part of the Bill. The Minister goes round the country talking as though this part were as simple as the amendment that has been proposed by my hon. Friend. When the Minister talks about it, he does not explain how many documents, papers and so on must all come together. He has a simplistic and rather attractive way of presenting it. Those things should be in the Bill, and not merely be his explanation of what is in the Bill. The public would never understand it if he presented what is written in the Bill. They would be caught up in terminology such as "hereinafter" and "before him", and would begin to wonder whether they were supposed to have access to the system at all.
      The Minister does not try to explain that. He explains, more or less, what my hon. Friend has proposed in his new clause. I hope the Minister will think again about his excellent speeches—not the ones that he makes in the House, but the ones that he makes in public, when he explains to ordinary people what he is trying to do—and ask himself whether he can put that into the Bill so that people will understand what it is about.
      Fifthly, I hope the Minister will take notice of the timetable issue. When I was Secretary of State, one of our difficulties was that we did not have enough powers to insist that local authorities completed their plans. Some of them, of all political parties, were unbelievably long-winded about trying to do it, not because they were

      953
      so busy consulting and listening to the public, but because they were so incompetent that they never got to the point at which they could do that. It needed the use of the law to get them to do it. For that reason, I commend to the Minister the concept of timetabling. We may have got it slightly wrong—perhaps we should have given an extension in some cases and shown more flexibility in others—but does he accept that if we do not have something more akin to a timetable, he will find it difficult to get out of some local authorities the work that he needs?
      Matthew Green: To elucidate the right hon. Gentleman's point about local plans, I understand that 38 local authorities still do not have their first ever local plan, let alone a revised one.
      Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman underlines what I was saying; that given that I was trying to do that five years ago, I was not all that successful, and the Government have not been very successful since. If we now have a new system that supersedes the one that they have not filled in, it is doubtful whether those local authorities will ever end up producing anything at all. If the Minister were prepared to seek to do more it would be helpful.
      I was intrigued by the point made by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green). I see that, rather than being tempted to intervene, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome has now been forced out of the Chamber, so I am pleased that I have at least half won. The hon. Member for Ludlow referred to local authorities' ability to take a forward look at aspects that are particularly pertinent, and my local authority of Suffolk Coastal is also good at doing that. One knows where one is with Suffolk Coastal and it is prepared to be radical. I am pleased that it has given planning permission for an outstanding modern house in the countryside, totally contrary to what the Minister seeks to do, giving real jobs to architects who will do some really good work. I declare an interest, in that I serve on a committee of the Royal Institute of British Architects. That is the sort of interest that shows that one may know something about this matter, which usually excludes one from speaking in this House—but there we are. The Minister has tried to reduce and withdraw the employment of architects and builders of quality by the changes that he has already made. But one of the things that my local authority tries to do is to meet the particular needs of the area in advance so that people know where they are. I do not know South Shropshire district council, but it clearly works in the same way.
      I am all for that kind of material being applied, but the Minister should not forget the point that has been made, which was also made by the Law Society. I rarely like points made by the Law Society because they are usually wrong and are usually about protecting the interests of lawyers, which I sought not to do when I came into the House. It is important that not every bit of paper or statement should be admitted, simply because it means that there may be circumstances in which that which is simply not appropriate, applicable or right—truthful—might find itself treated as if it were on a common basis with that which was obviously necessary. There is an issue here that should be looked at.
      954
      My last point is the one in relation which I intervened earlier. We need to enable better local consultation, and one way in which to do that is stopping otiose repetition. It is not proper consultation to have 92 different versions of the same pressure group appear one after the other before an inspector. It is not proper consultation for small groups to hijack the discussion in particular areas and to prevent the wider community from playing a proper part, and I think that both sides of the House would agree. One way to avoid that is to give greater powers to the inspector.
      2.45 pm
      I warn the Minister what his officials will do to him, because they did it to me. After a very important inquiry had finished when I was no longer in office, I criticised the length of time that it had taken and the length of the inspector's report. He asked to talk to me and he revealed that he had asked to see me as Secretary of State before he had started the inspection, and that he had wanted to say that if the job was to be done properly he wanted to do it in a particular way, at a certain speed and to produce a certain type of report. Officials not only made sure that he was not allowed to do that, but never told me that he had asked to do so.
      I warn the Minister that there is a kind of fear that he should be too implicated in these matters. Of course he must not become implicated in the sense of being unfair, but we must have a planning system where the Minister can facilitate its speed and efficacy when the law allows him to do so, but is not so detailed as to ensure that it happens automatically. Therefore, I hope that he will give himself the elbow room to make it possible for inspectors to do the job that he wants them to do, and to listen to the general public and not to be hijacked, and insist that the law be not applied in so inflexible a manner that he is not even allowed to understand the concerns of the inspector whom he has appointed. It should not happen like that, I can show that it does happen like that, and I am perfectly sure that that is still going on. Unfortunately, nothing in the Bill gives me the feeling that it may stop.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: Is it not curious that the Government, in the Bill and in statutory instruments on tribunals inquiries, have given themselves very much the sort of powers that my right hon. Friend adduces for major infrastructure projects, but they have not taken the same powers in this part of the Bill relating to local plans? That is a curious anomaly.
      Mr. Gummer: I am entirely in favour of what the Government have done on major infrastructure projects. That is crucial. I would have wanted them to go further, and I supported the previous proposals. That is something that the general body politic needs if Britain is to be able to make difficult major decisions. However, as my hon. Friend says, the principle should be extended to these issues. In terms of a locality, these decisions are just as important. They may not be important to the nation, but in my constituency a decision relating to whether a new park-and-ride service should be at one place rather than another. is, to the people who live nearby, just as crucial as a decision relating to terminal 5. Therefore, the system must not be hijacked by a small number of campaigners. I say that about wind farms. I

      955
      would not like to embarrass the Minister, but I oppose a particular scheme in my constituency. For the people round about, such issues really matter, and he should have the powers to ensure that inspectors can do their jobs without being hijacked by small groups.
      For that reason, I hope that he will be careful in his reply, offer to take some of these points on board, and use the other House for the excellent purpose for which it exists, which is to revise. There is no shame about second thoughts; I have had them myself, and I certainly will not crow if the Minister is kind enough to take some of those points on board.
      Sir Sydney Chapman:It is a great pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). If I may spare his blushes, I have to say that, among many of the professional institutions at least, but other organisations as well, he was regarded as one of the finest Secretaries of State for the Environment, at least in relation to environmental issues. I hope that I am in no way passing any comment on those on the Government Benches in saying that, because there is now no such person as a Secretary of State for the Environment.
      I am with the hon. Member for Telford (David Wright) on his amendment No. 27: I believe that adopted housing strategies are of key importance in planning any community and that they should be included in the new clause. Clause 18, which he seeks to amend, already contains 10 categories. In Committee, a bipartisan attempt was made to try to keep the number of categories to a minimum, as Members wanted to include archaeological finds and other such items. Of course, the Minister may argue that clause 18(2)(f), which deals with community strategies, could include housing strategies. He might advance the same argument about paragraph (h), which refers to
      "any other local development document which has been adopted by the authority".
      Presumably, that could include housing.
      Incidentally, if I may say so, I think that it is idiocy that this House can meet in two places at the same time. The reason I say that is that an important debate on affordable housing is being held in Westminster Hall at this very moment. This is not a point for the Minister to deal with, but I again ask the Government to reconsider the issue of this House meeting in two places at the same time.
      I should like to address one remark to the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green), whose interventions and performances—I say this very sincerely—I always find interesting. I am very much in favour of pre-application consultations where necessary, post-application consultations on significant applications where necessary and the undertaking of public consultation before local development plans are drawn up. I am 100 per cent. behind him on that issue, but. I wish to make what I shall call a human nature observation. I have found, especially as a Member of Parliament, that the more a local planning authority consults the public, the more angry the local community
      956
      will be if the authority does not seem to take its advice. That is a human nature point that must be overcome, but I think that we must recognise that it exists.
      Mr. Andrew Turner: Does my hon. Friend agree that another problem is that people can be consulted to death? The response to consultation can be in inverse proportion to the amount. Sometimes, people feel that a second consultation does not need the same level of response—for example when a second planning application is made broadly along the same lines as an earlier one.
      Sir Sydney Chapman: I hesitate to say this, but I cannot give definitive proof that I have yet been consulted to death. None the less, I agree with the generality of what my hon. Friend says. There must be a sensible balance, with full consultation. If there has been full consultation at an earlier stage, less will be needed at a later stage.
      Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman speaks about consultation as though it is only the local authority that reacts to it. One of the reasons why I am keen to see a lot of pre-consultation on planning applications is that it is often the applicant who reacts to what the public have said and alters his or her application to lessen the likelihood of public opposition. One of the key elements is that the applicant responds to the consultation by listening and making changes, rather than the local authority responding by deciding whether to say yes or no
      Sir Sydney Chapman: I agree. I am in favour of pre-application consultation, which should obviously be organised by the applicant rather than by the local authority, which would consult on significant cases after the application had been submitted.
      I am anxious to make progress. I should like to consider new clause 19, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), in a slightly different light. As I understand it, his one, albeit long, new clause seeks to replace eight clauses and parts of two other clauses. It is worth pointing out that his amendments propose the deletion of clauses 14, 16, 18 to 22 and 25, and parts of clauses 17 and 23. I am very much in favour of Bills being as simple as possible. A year ago, the Government heralded the introduction of the Bill by saying that they wanted a firmer, fairer and simpler planning system. We all say amen to that. It is not for me to argue now whether the Bill is fairer and faster—perhaps I can do so later today—but I am anxious to ensure that it is simpler.
      I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold is on to a good point with new clause 19, which would make the legislation simpler. I know perfectly well that, as the Minister will probably point out, legislation must be complicated and comprehensive to a certain extent. For example, we could decide across party divisions that it was a good thing to ban spitting on the Queen's highway on the Sabbath. However, we could not merely introduce a 13-word clause stating, "it is an offence to spit on the Queen's highway on the Sabbath". We would have to define the Queen's highway, spitting—I shall go no further on that point—and the Sabbath, which, as I understand it. represents different days to different religions. I therefore

      957
      understand that, in order to attempt to cover all eventualities and any loopholes, legislation is necessarily more comprehensive and complicated than we might at first think it needs to be.
      I have not been able to compare new clause 19 with the Government's clauses, because of the time factor. Whatever professional reputation I have, although I am retired, I must cover myself by making that comment, but I ask the Minister most sincerely—he does respond to genuine points—to consider whether his clauses can be made simpler, even if he feels unable to accept new clause 19 as it is drafted.
      I should like to say how much I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) about the importance of public recognition of county councils. My constituency, which is situated in the Greater London area, used to have a county council. It now has the Greater London Authority, which I suppose is a regional council of some sort, although it can be argued that the natural region of the hub of our country, London, extends well beyond the boundaries of the Greater London area. I strongly support him in stressing the importance of county councils. If, perchance, any part of England ever has a regional council or assembly—I hope that will not happen, as such a body would be yet another tier of government—I hope that the Government will take to heart the public identification with the county council in the name that is given.
      I feel that it would be quite wrong to transfer any powers from a county council to a regional assembly unless and until that assembly was democratically elected. I shall say no more about that, as I raised the same matter in Committee, but I think that it is vital. The Minister might say, "Well, of course, the regional assemblies include nominations from county and borough councils," or whatever, but I think that that direct link with the voter who votes for the county councillor makes it essential that we do not lose sight of that important point.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend, with his enormous expertise and knowledge, agree that the bulk of knowledge that county councils have built up over decades, and in some cases centuries, has not been given enough weight in today's debate? If we are not careful, that bulk of knowledge and the very experienced strategic planning officers who are employed by county councils could be lost. That would be greatly to the detriment of the sort of county council areas that my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) and I represent.
      Sir Sydney Chapman: I agree. County councils are known and accepted by the public. People had great difficulty in identifying with the new councils—Avon or Humberside, as I think the latter was called—that a previous Government introduced.
      Mr. Gummer: I abolished them.
      Sir Sydney Chapman: My right hon. Friend reminds me that he abolished some of them. He deserves extra brownie points for that.
      Mr. Andrew Turner: Would my hon. Friend also deliver appropriate brownie points for the restoration of Herefordshire and Rutland?
      3 pm
      Sir Sydney Chapman: Yes, and although I shall not be standing at the next election, I shall willingly join anybody who wants a mention of any fine piece of architecture in their constituency—although I do not suppose that any of those will have been designed by me.
      I seriously commend to the Minister the suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold that instead of talking about development documents and development schemes in different parts of the Bill, we go back to the phrase that everybody knows—development plan. The development plan in operation in my local planning authority area is the unitary development plan, which consists not only of plans and maps but of statements and reports. "Development plan" is an all-embracing phrase that is accepted and understood in town and country planning.
      I also agree with my hon. Friend's wish to introduce more timetables. He said that each local planning authority should revise its plan every five years, and I would suggest a scintilla of amendment to that proposal by saying that a review should be begun five years after the plan is approved, which means that it may not be completed until a few months later. That is a trivial point, however, and I do not need to explain it further. There would then be three months for the inspector to report, although there could always be exceptions for big cases, for which the Secretary of State could suggest six months or whatever. The report should then be published within one month. I stress that idea in particular, because I know that Secretaries of State sometimes delay a report if they feel that it is politically sensitive and an election is looming—although I am sure that that my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal never did that.
      I am very much in favour, as we all are, of the community participating in the planning process. In my area there are Agenda 21 forums, which could be used to gauge opinion. They do not necessarily reflect all public opinion in their communities, but it would be a good thing to use them.
      New clause 19 consolidates eight clauses and parts of two others, and I am in favour of it. Whatever Bill goes on to the statute book, while we are talking about consolidating clauses may I make a final plea to the Government—this may be my last opportunity to do so—that as the principal Act is the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 this would be a good time to have a consolidated town and country planning Act embracing all the relevant legislation that has been passed since 1990?
      The Minister for Housing and Planning(Keith Hill): The hon. Gentleman made exactly the same recommendation in favour of a consolidated planning Act in the Standing Committee, and at the time I said, as I expect he recalls, that I wholeheartedly agreed with him—so long as I was not the planning Minister who had to take it through.
      This has been a good and amiable debate, which has gone to the heart of the Government's new planning framework. I assure the House that I have listened carefully to all the arguments that have been made, although I do not suppose that I shall be able to respond wholeheartedly to them all. As usual, the debate has

      959
      been sustained by what I have come to describe as the planning Bill repertory company—in which I can now include my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (David Wright), who has sat through two days of our proceedings on the Floor of the House. There was also a fleeting but welcome appearance by the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois), and we have listened to an interesting contribution by a distinguished former Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). I assure him that I listened to him as carefully as I avidly read his column in Estates Gazette, and as avidly as I visit his delightful constituency, which contains the nation's premier serious music venue.
      I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) for his growing enthusiasm for our local development framework. He was absolutely right to attach such importance to the statement of community involvement and its implications. I fully acknowledge that he invented the filing cabinet metaphor. He will remember that as I am a somewhat old-fashioned chap myself, my metaphor of preference was the concertina file—but the filing cabinet image seems to have taken hold.
      The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal and the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) will have to forgive me if I do not follow them down the path of talking about the role of county councils now. It goes without saying that that matter has been well ventilated already in our proceedings, and I am reasonably confident that it will be reverted to elsewhere.
      I shall focus on the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown). He promised that he would return to the subject of how local planning should work and how we should legislate for it, and as always, he has been as good as his word—or perhaps I should say twice as good, because we have not one but two new clauses to look at, and they are not even the same.
      The hon. Gentleman starts from the view that the system that we are putting in place is too complicated. Secondly, he believes that attempting to cover local planning arrangements in a single clause, however long, will make the system better and easier to understand. Thirdly, he believes that the arrangements in his new clauses—or at least, those in one of them—would lead to a better local planning system than would part 2 of the Bill. I have to reveal to him that I disagree on all three counts.
      It is the Government's contention that our new arrangements, although precise, are not complicated. The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet was right to say that we believe that they will deliver simpler, clearer local planning that is faster and more flexible, and with which the community can more easily become involved.
      Describing the component parts of the system in sufficient detail means that people can be certain how it operates. Each element of our new system is there for a reason—to address the problems in the present system and to contribute to the goals of our planning reforms. The proposals of the hon. Member for Cotswold not only fail to address some of those problems, but would create some entirely new problems.
      960
      Our proposals are perfectly straightforward. Each authority must have a core strategy, covering 10 or more years. There will be a proposals map, showing which land is to be developed and which is to be conserved. Authorities may choose to have one or more area action plans showing in more detail what will happen in areas where there will be a lot of change, or in areas that will be kept as they are.
      Those documents will be subject to independent examination. They will be known as development plan documents and, with the regional spatial strategy for the area, will form the development plan. What could be simpler than that?
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: The number of plans is mushrooming by the second. I picked out six in the Bill, but today I have heard from the Minister about two new ones that I have never heard of before—a proposals map and an action plan, neither of which is mentioned in the Bill, so far as I am aware. The system is getting more complicated every second. Instead of the two filing cabinets in my system, the Minister's system now has eight.
      Keith Hill: As I shall seek to demonstrate, the hon. Gentleman himself has suggested no fewer than six elements in his local plan. At the core of the Government's local development framework are proposals for three development plan documents—those that I have mentioned. Of course, as we have already said, a local authority may expand the number of those documents if it chooses. They are the categories of the development plan document.
      Local planning authorities will also be able to set out more details on their main policies, or on their policies in relation to, say, accessibility or design. Those elements will be known as supplementary planning documents.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: Oh no!
      Keith Hill: The hon. Gentleman has sat through fifty-five and a half hours of this. He knows perfectly well that SPDs are proposed. They correspond to what is normal practice already. I fail to see the problem with them.
      Each local planning authority will also have a statement of community involvement, which will explain how local people and other interested parties will be able to influence, and express their views on, plans for their areas. I confess that that is new, but it is perfectly reasonable and straightforward. To make sure that those elements are put in place within a reasonable time, each area will prepare, and stick to, a project plan. That plan will set out what documents it will prepare, and a timetable for them, and it will be known as the local development scheme. That, too, is surely eminently sensible.
      Our proposals will also ensure that local planning will not suffer from the serious problems encountered under the current system. No longer will plans take far too long to put in place, and no longer will it be extremely difficult and time consuming to update them. It is worth reflecting that half the local plans compiled by the nearly 300 local planning authorities are out of date, and that

      961
      15 authorities never completed one in the first place. We intend things to be different. The plan will have to set out a clear strategy for an area's future development, and not merely list hundreds of policies that make it hard for anyone to see what development might happen where. No longer will preparing a plan be such a mammoth endeavour that residents and businesses find it too hard or too off-putting to get involved, and stay involved, in the process.
      Matthew Green: Does not the scheme have another potential advantage? At the moment, local authorities preparing the mammoth documents that are local plans inevitably get involved in a public inquiry. Preparing the plan in a series of folders carries the advantage that, if one of the folders is controversial and ends up the subject of a public inquiry, the other folders will not require such an investigation. At the moment, a local plan is put to a public inquiry even though most of it is not controversial. That means that local plans are held up because of problems in one element.
      Keith Hill: The hon. Gentleman is right. A great advantage of the Government's proposed schema is that it offers the flexibility that he describes. We have already debated in Committee the possibility that the new framework would mean that, if a new site unexpectedly became available—say, after the closure of a factory—it would not be necessary to respond by initiating the complex process of disentangling the existing plan. The new framework will make it possible to look at the site and to slot it into the relevant part of what the hon. Gentleman calls his filing cabinet and what I call my concertina file.
      I admit that these are new arrangements. As with all changes, it will take time for people to become familiar with them. No one expects reading a Bill to be the best way to grasp a new system, but we have already taken action on various fronts. We have published for consultation five drafts of the key documents in local planning. They are the part 2 regulations, the transitional regulations, planning policy statement 12 on local development frameworks—that is, the policy statement that sets out the new system—a guide to procedures, and the code of practice which is aimed at helping interested parties and the person on the street to get involved in the new procedures. We have also published a guide to creating local development frameworks, which is a "how-to-do-it" guide for local authorities and others involved in preparing the new local development documents.
      Comments are welcome up to mid-January, and we will take them fully into account in preparing final versions of the documents. They will be published in an accessible fashion.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am holding the documents to which the Minister refers. My local planning officer asked me the other day how his staff were supposed to cope with getting to grips with all the documentation. His department is already overstretched, as there are not enough planning officers to deal with the present system. to say nothing of the new one. How are they supposed to deal with the new system, with an even more complicated section 106 procedure system as well?
      3.15 pm
      Keith Hill: I accept that there is a resource scarcity in planning departments around the country. The Government are addressing that problem. We want to incentivisc improvements in planning performance by means of our £350 million planning development grant over the next three years, £50 million of which has been disbursed already. I am very pleased that, although the grant is not ring-fenced, many local planning authorities are putting the grant money back into the planning system. Despite the scarcity of resources at local level, the latest figures show that planning performance in all categories is at its highest levels for 10 years. A problem exists, but I am delighted to say that the planning system is responding to it.
      We are engaged in preparing further guidance on the availability appraisal, the strategic environmental assessment—the right hon. Member for Suffolk,Coastal will be interested in that—and on monitoring and indicators. We are working with a range of organisations to spread the message about the new system and to train planners in it. Those organisations include the Planning Officers Society, the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, the Royal Town Planning Institute, the British Urban Regeneration Association, and the Town and Country Planning Association. We are engaged in a major programme of communication and training. The aim is to develop knowledge and appreciation of the Government's new proposals, so that planners have the attitudes, skills and resources they need to practise our new spatial planning proposals effectively.
      I have attempted briefly to describe the Government's new planning framework and the planning reform agenda. However, I take seriously the Opposition's alternative proposals, and I shall focus on some of the detail.
      The task has not been easy, as I have had to study two new clauses that are similar but not identical. In light of the problems clearly experienced by the hon. Member for Cotswold in drafting the new clauses, it is slightly ironic that they are supposed to be a simpler alternative to the Government's, and easier to understand.
      Flexibility in revising the local plan is at the heart of the Government's proposals. It is not clear that the new clauses offer that. I was confused by the fact that both new clauses have a plan containing documents. It is not clear whether the local planning authority would be able to prepare or revise one document at a time-and we believe that to be of critical importance, as noted by the hon. Member for Ludlow—or whether it would have to tackle everything at once, with all the problems that we know that that causes. Both new clauses suggest that the authority would not be able to do that. That is a fatal flaw that would perpetuate the problems of the existing system.
      One might have expected that the alternative plan would be about planning policies, but I could not see what it was supposed to be about. Although there are various elements that the alternative plan must include, neither new clause says that that plan must set out the authority's spatial or land-use planning policies. As far as possible, there must be a separation between the purposes of real planning and the process by which real plans are put in place.

      963
      Admittedly the Opposition's schema—the plan, its document and any changes that the local authority wants to make—will have to go through an independent examination. However, the plan and/or documents will include practical matters too. What these will be depends on which of the new clauses one examines. In new clause 10, the practical matters included are joint working, joint committees, the timetable, and the role that county counties and—oddly, because they are planning authorities—unitary authorities would play. In new clause 19, the list has been cut to joint committees and the role of the counties. Why subject these processes to independent examination? I simply cannot see the justification for such an onerous procedure for any changes to these matters.
      The hon. Member for Cotswold has attempted to address that point in new clause 19 by specifying that the examination would consider whether an examination was necessary. Therefore, a proposal that a county council should do something more or different would have to go to an examination, and then the inspector would carry out an examination to decide whether an examination was needed. Perhaps I have got it wrong, but that hardly seems a sensible approach. It would be a barrier to county-district co-operation and partnership. This approach, which mixes real planning with how it will be done, is also incompatible with our plan-led system in which planning applications are determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations dictate otherwise.
      The hon. Gentleman accuses the Government of complexity, but he wants every authority to have at least six separate documents or plans within the overall plan dealing with various subjects. The approach to particular planning issues under our proposals is far more sensible.
      Let us consider settlements, for example. The core strategy will set out which settlements in a local authority's area will be a focus for new development, such as housing and employment, and will take into account national policy guidance and the regional strategy. It will apply other strategic policies to different settlements, such as restrictions on the scale of growth that can take place in villages in the countryside.
      Mr. Gummer: I hope that the Minister will take this point seriously, but can we remove for ever from our planning jargon the word "settlement"? I know of nobody who lives in a settlement. People live in either a village or a town, but my county has scattered settlements. I live in one of them, but I have never said that I live in the scattered settlement of Winston. I hope that we can start using language in planning that is the language of the people and not of planners. Can we lose the obnoxious word "settlement"?
      Keith Hill: As a very new Minister for Housing and Planning, I have no stake in this matter, and I am absolutely willing to examine that proposal. I have heard the right hon. Gentleman use the word "stake", but even if I do not wholly succeed, by and large, I manage to excise from my remarks the expression "stakeholder", about which I am not entirely enthusiastic. I take his point about settlements: I am sure that his own is delightful.
      964
      The proposals map will show all the policy designations, such as green-belt or conservation areas, that apply to "settlements" in the area arising from the core strategy and other development plan documents. The map will identify where land is allocated for particular uses through development plan documents. It may also show the boundaries to those living areas to which the right hon. Gentleman takes such exception. When there are proposals for change or conservation in a settlement or part of a settlement, the authority could choose to set out the comprehensive set of policies that will apply to that area to achieve what is wanted in an area action plan.
      New clause 1(3) provides for regulations to require the authority to set out in the development plan document, or such other documents as is prescribed, the key matters relating to the policy that it is adopting on planning contributions. The hon. Member for Cotswold raised that issue. On areas of outstanding natural beauty, as I have already made clear, designations will be covered in the proposals map. National park authorities are, of course, the local planning authorities for their areas.
      The last document that the hon. Gentleman's proposals would require is one that would set out how land use sustainability and regeneration are to be managed. These issues will be central to an authority's core strategy, which must set out not only the vision and the strategic policies, but the proposals to deliver that vision. He also proposes that the plan and/or document should specify the matters on which county councils and—oddly, under new clause 10—unitary authorities would have a role. I am certain that district councils will work closely with their county councils when preparing their development plans and supplementary documents, but surely it cannot be sensible to set that out in the plans and/or documents themselves. Would the county be unable to play a role until a plan and/or document was adopted? What would happen if everyone agreed that the county was to play a role on a matter that had not been specified?
      I could make many more observations about the hon. Gentleman's proposals. However, in the relatively short time that I have before I deal with amendment No. 27, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Telford, I should perhaps say a brief word about the timetables about which several Opposition Members expressed a view. It seems to me that the hon. Member for Cotswold was revising the timetable for his proposed revisions as he went along. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal also raised this issue, and I say to him that we expect the local development scheme, which is the project plan for the emergence of the local development framework, to be in place in local planning authorities by the end of 2004. That will set the timetable for the development of the local development framework, and we expect LDFs to be in place by 2007. We shall monitor the process very carefully. I also point out that this matter is not in the possession of the Secretary of State. They will be local development schemes and project plans that set out what is to go into the LDF and what the timetable for that framework will be. That will be published locally and it will be owned by the local authority and known by local publics. To that extent, there will be a powerful compulsion on local planning authorities to develop their LDFs.

      965
      I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Telford for the able way in which he spoke to amendment No. 27 and for his expertise in housing policy. However, I suspect that it will come as no surprise to him to learn that I shall have to invite him not to insist on the amendment. It would require the local planning authority, in preparing local development documents, to have regard to the housing strategy that it has to prepare under section 87 of the Local Government Act 2003.
      Our planning reforms are about getting authorities to take a comprehensive and spatial approach to planning. We do that through a primary duty in clause 16(3), which says that
      "local development documents must…set out the authority's policies…relating to the development and use of land".
      That is not restricted to policies implemented through planning permissions.
      Draft PPS12 on the local development frameworks also makes it clear that under the new system local development documents should provide an agreed vision for an area signed up to by the community and interested parties. That will involve linking strategies and programmes that exist at the local level, but it will not be restricted to matters that may be implemented through the planning system.
      One of those strategies would, of course, be the housing strategy. However, the range of policies, programmes and strategies that authorities should have regard to when preparing local development documents is wide. Frankly, we believe that it would be impractical to identify and set out every one, even of those prepared by the authority itself, in the Bill. Indeed, the only strategy prepared by the local planning authority listed in the Bill is the community strategy. That is included because it is the statement of the authority's strategic vision for the area and the context for all subject-based strategies, policies and programmes.
      I doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Telford would question the importance that the Government attach to housing issues. For example, in the past year we have published the sustainable communities plan and an update to planning policy guidance note 3 on housing. A consultation on a full replacement for PPG3 finished on 31 October, and we expect to publish a final version in the summer of next year.
      Regulations made under the Bill will also strengthen the consideration of housing by requiring the authority's annual monitoring report to set out how many houses and flats have been built during the year. If I might say so to my hon. Friend, in any event the Secretary of State has power under clause 18(2)(j) to prescribe other matters that authorities ought to have regard to should it transpire, for whatever reason, that difficulties arise with that approach. While I entirely understand his desire to highlight the role of housing and the need to integrate housing in local planning, I must tell him that I believe the amendment to be unnecessary. I urge him not to press it.
      I have attempted to deal with many of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Cotswold, and the House owes him a debt of gratitude for allowing us once more to turn our attentions to the core of the Government's
      966
      proposals, but I have to say that we find his new clause unnecessary and defective. I urge him to withdraw the motion.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: While I accept that my proposal is not drafted perfectly—if it was, I would be seeking a job as a parliamentary draftsman—it is sufficiently robust to show that the four pages on which eight Government clauses are printed could be consolidated in one simple new clause. We did not get a chink of light to show that the Minister is prepared to consider anything in the new clause, despite some experienced voices on the Opposition Benches pleading with him to give county councils a greater role and to give greater powers to the inspectors to enable them to control the independent hearings more judiciously and more expeditiously. On that basis, I urge my colleagues to vote in favour of the motion.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 134,Noes 329.

      Division No. 6]

      [3:31 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Hague, rh William

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Hammond, Philip

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Bacon, Richard

      Heald, Oliver

      Baldry, Tony

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Barker, Gregory

      Hendry, Charles

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Hermon, Lady

      Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Boswell, Tim

      Howard, rh Michael

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Brazier, Julian

      Jack, rh Michael

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Burt, Alistair

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Butterfill, John

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Cameron, David

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Lansley, Andrew

      Letwin, rh Oliver

      Chope, Christopher

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Clappison, James

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Lidington, David

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Collins, Tim

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Conway, Derek

      Loughton, Tim

      Curry, rh David

      Mcintosh, Miss Anne

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Maclean, rh David

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Malins, Humfrey

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Maples, John

      Dodds, Nigel

      Mates, Michael

      Duncan Smith, rh lain

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Evans, Nigel

      Mercer, Patrick

      Fabricant, Michael

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Fallon, Michael

      Flight, Howard

      Moss, Malcolm

      Flook, Adrian

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Francois, Mark

      Norman, Archie

      Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Ottaway, Richard

      Goodman, Paul

      Page, Richard

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Paice, James

      Grayling, Chris

      Paisley, Rev. Ian

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Paterson, Owen

      Grieve, Dominic

      Pickles, Eric

      Gummer, rh John

      Portillo, rh Michael

      967

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Swire, Hugo (EDevon)

      Syms, Robert

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Randall, John

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Redwood, rh John

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Robathan, Andrew

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

      Tredinnick, David

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Walter, Robert

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Waterson, Nigel

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Whittingdale, John

      Ruffley, David

      Wiggin, Bill

      Selous, Andrew

      Wilkinson, John

      Shepherd, Richard

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Wilshire, David

      Simmonds, Mark

      Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

      Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas

      Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

      (Macclesfield)

      Soames, Nicholas

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Young, rh Sir George

      Spring, Richard

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Steen, Anthony

      Angela Watkinson and

      Swayne, Desmond

      Mr. Mark Field

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Ainger, Nick

      Casale, Roger

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Caton, Martin

      Alexander, Douglas

      Challen, Colin

      Allen, Graham

      Chapman, Ben (Wirra/S)

      Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

      Chidgey, David

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Clapham, Michael

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Atheiton, Ms Candy

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Austin, John

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Bailey, Adrian

      Baker, Norman

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Barnes, Harry

      Clelland, David

      Barrett, John

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Battle, John

      Coaker, Vernon

      Bayley, Hugh

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Beard, Nigel

      Cohen, Harry

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Coleman, Iain

      Bell, Stuart

      Colman, Tony

      Bennett, Andrew

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Berry, Roger

      Cotter, Brian

      Best, Harold

      Cousins, Jim

      Betts, Clive

      Cranston, Ross

      Blackman, Liz

      Cruddas, Jon

      Blizzard, Bob

      Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

      Boateng, rh Paul

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Borrow, David

      Cummings, John

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Breed, Colin

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L,

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Dalyell, Tarn

      Darling, rh Alistair

      Browne, Desmond

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Bryant, Chris

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      David, Wayne

      Burden, Richard

      Davidson, Ian

      Burnham, Andy

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Dawson, Hilton

      Cairns, David

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Carton, Mrs Patsy

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Dobson, rh Frank

      968

      Doran, Frank

      Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

      Doughty, Sue

      Kemp, Fraser

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye Inverness)

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Edwards, Huw

      Kidney, David

      Farrelly, Paul

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green Bow)

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Follett, Barbara

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Foster, rh Derek

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Lamb, Norman

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings &Rye)

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Foulkes, rh George

      Lepper, David

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Leslie, Christopher

      Gapes, Mike (l/fordS)

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Love, Andrew

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Gidley, Sandra

      Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

      Gilroy, Linda

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Goggins, Paul

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      McCabe, Stephen

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      McCafferty, Chris

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Grogan, John

      MacDonald, Calum

      Hain, rh Peter

      McDonnell, John

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      MacDougall, John

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      McFall, John

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      McGrady, Eddie

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Hanson, David

      McIsaac, Shona

      Harman, rh Ms Harriet

      McKechin, Ann

      Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      McNulty, Tony

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Heath, David

      McWalter, Tony

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      McWilliam, John

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Hesford, Stephen

      Mallaber, Judy

      Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

      Mandelson, rh Peter

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Mann, John (Basset/aw)

      Holmes, Paul

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Merron, Gillian

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Mole, Chris

      Hutton, rh John

      Moonie, Dr. Lewis

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Morgan, Julie

      Illsley, Eric

      Morris, rh Estelle

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Mudie, George

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Jamieson, David

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      Jenkins, Brian

      O'Hara, Edward

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Olner, Bill

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Opik, Lembit

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Organ, Diana

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Owen, Albert

      Jowell, rh Tessa

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Perham, Linda

      Keen, Alan (Fe/tham)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      Plaskitt, James

      Keetch, Paul

      Pollard, Kerry

      969

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Pound, Stephen

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Stringer, Graham

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Stunell, Andrew

      Purchase, Ken

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Purnell, James

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Rammell, Bill

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Thurso, John

      Rendel, David

      Timms, Stephen

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Rooney, Terry

      Touhig, Don (Is/wyn)

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      Truswell, Paul

      Ruane, Chris

      Turner, Dennis (Wo/verh'ton SE)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

      Tyler, Paul (TV Cornwall)

      Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Salter, Martin

      Walley, Ms Joan Ward, Claire

      Sanders, Adrian

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Watts, David

      Sawford, Phil

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Sheerman, Barry

      White, Brian

      Sheridan, Jim

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Short, rh Clare

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Singh, Marsha

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Willis, Phil

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      Winnick, David

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Wood, Mike (Batley)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Woolas, Phil

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Worthington, Tony

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

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Soley, Clive

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Southworth, Helen

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Margaret Moran and

      Stevenson, George

      Mr. Jim Murphy

      Question accordingly negatived.
      It being more than two hours after the commencement of proceedings, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
      Remaining Government amendments agreed to.
      Order for Third Reading read—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, and Prince of Wales's consent, on behalf of the Duchy of Cornwall, signified.]
      3.47 pm
      Keith Hill: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      We have held full and extensive debates on the Bill. I again sincerely thank both Opposition parties for the serious and responsible way in which they contributed to the proceedings. The Bill is in good shape and it is right that we now commend it to the other House, where I hope that it will receive a fair and impartial hearing from both sides.
      970
      As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made clear, we have a huge agenda to deliver sustainable communities. A reformed planning system is a key part of our strategy for those communities. The challenges of sustainable development, of building sustainable communities and of dealing with the problems of providing decent and affordable homes for our people should be taken up by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
      The Government are rising to those challenges, but we can and must do better on planning. The Bill will help us to build a better planning system to help us to achieve those goals. It delivers on our commitments to introduce a simpler and more flexible plan-making system regionally and locally. Perhaps most important, effective community involvement and the achievement of sustainable development are at its heart.
      This is an important Bill and I commend it to the House.
      3.49 pm
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am pleased to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, in what has been a real marathon. The Bill was read the First time in the House on 1 December last year and the Second time on 17 December. After a rushed first stage in Committee, the Government went to sleep until June, when they suddenly awoke and decided to recommit the Bill, having got it wrong the first time, to Standing Committee in October. We had an inadequate number of sittings in Committee in October—eight, although we pleaded for 12 in debating the recommittal motion—and a day and a quarter on Report, followed by Third Reading now. That represents a complete manipulation of the parliamentary timetable, using the Government's guillotine procedures. It is very unsatisfactory that large chunks of the original Bill remain undebated to this clay. Of course, we should have liked to have the opportunity to debate those important matters.
      The regional element of the Bill and the sidelining of county councils will only diminish the legitimacy of the planning system and increasingly distance people from the planning decision-making process. If people feel alienated from their own planning process, they will not participate in it. It will become less effective, so it will decline. Limiting the role of county councils effectively breaks up a large bank of planning knowledge that has been built up over centuries in some cases. County councils have a clearer view of a local area's needs—and a superior grasp of the important strategic detail in an area—than large regional authorities. Counties allow for accountability. Local people readily identify with them. They also have a long-standing pool of planning expertise and local knowledge.
      The local development framework—the local plan-making system, about which we had a long debate before Third Reading—will be unnecessarily complex and cause further delays in the planning system. In that debate, I identified no fewer than six types of local plan in the Bill. I was absolutely horrified when the Minister, when replying to that debate, identified a further four types of plan that are not even in the Bill: the proposals map, the action plan, the project plan and the local development scheme. No wonder plans will be implemented more quickly—there are so many of them that each must take less time to implement—but the question is whether they will all be implemented.

      971
      My suspicion is that the local plan-making process will be so complex that huge excuses will be made not to revise the plans regularly. Surely the major lacuna in the present system is that 15 authorities have no plans at all and many others never revise them. It would have been far better to fix the present system, rather than to rip it up and implement a new system that is bound to cause delay and, at the very least, to become a lawyers' paradise.
      Other elements of the Bill are reprehensible. The idea of replacing outline planning permission—a legal process—with a statement of development principles will cause developers many problems because they will not be able to obtain finance on the basis merely of such a statement, which has no binding effect on a local authority. The Secretary of State's power is greatly strengthened in the Bill. It has almost become a planning system by diktat of the Secretary of State. This hugely centralising measure will take powers away from local people and local authorities. It will move powers upwards, rather than devolve them, which is what we sincerely advocate. Add to all that the complexity of an alternative system to the section 106 procedure, which we discussed yesterday, and I am not sure how local planning officers, who are often in scarce supply, will cope with the whole process.
      The proposal to cut the duration of consents is wrong. The principal legislation—the Town and Country Planning Act 1990—already provides flexibility on the duration of consents. Local planning authorities already have the power to grant planning consents for only three years if they wish to do so, so why make that mandatory? Developers on big developments will have a great deal of difficulty with consents of three years' duration. It often takes three years to overcome certain things, such as compulsory purchase. The Government rejected our amendments that would have ensured that the three years ran from the end of any statutory procedure in the plan-making process.
      The proposal to remove the so-called twin-tracking process is wrong. Under that system, if the local authority does not determine an application made by a developer within eight weeks, which it is supposed to do, the developer continues negotiating with the local authority but at the same time puts in an alternative application, which it takes to appeal. If the system works properly, the local planning authority is able to negotiate with the developer, the original application is passed. or sufficient reasons are given why it will never pass and the alternative proposal is withdrawn. Under the system in the Bill, however, there will be far more appeals, because local developers will have no alternative but to appeal.
      We welcome parts of the Bill—the clarification of the compulsory purchase procedures and the Crown immunity provisions—but we have grave concerns about the general resources available for planning. Many times in Committee and during debates on Report, the Minister said that the Government are already distributing part of the £350 million planning grant. The problem, however, is that it is not ring-fenced. Therefore, cash-strapped local authorities are
      972
      likely to spend some of it elsewhere. In any case, I believe that a large chunk of it will go into setting up an unnecessary and unwanted regional tier of planning.
      The Bill is hugely complicated and hugely bureaucratic—that is just the regulation so far related to this Bill. By the time that we finish, my guess is that the quantity of regulations related to the Bill will be even bigger than the pile in front of me. How on earth will local planning authorities, which are already hard-pressed to deal with existing regulations, devote their energies to enforcement, which we have discussed under various amendments? I simply do not know how the planning system will cope.
      This is a bad Bill. It will cause delay and a great deal more complication in the planning system. The right hon. Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers) said when he started the review of our planning process:
      "The customers"—
      you and I, Madam Deputy Speaker, and everybody who uses planning departments—
      "have a right to an efficient and user-friendly service. Business, in particular, needs to know that their planning applications will be dealt with efficiently and predictably. Time delays caused by bureaucracy, lack of skilled staff or over-complex systems are bad for business and do little good for anyone else. Delays in receiving a planning decision can mean loss of competitiveness for business, something that we simply cannot afford in the modern global economy."
      I agree wholeheartedly with every word of that. The trouble is that it is completely hollow, because the Bill will be completely contrary to everything in that paragraph. We will see, but I bet the Minister—he has been unfortunate enough to be cast in the role of trying to sort out this mess; it is Hill's Bill and it will be a testimonial to him—that there will be at least one and probably several planning revision Bills in the next five years to sort out the mess that he has created. On that basis, I will urge my colleagues to vote against this bad and over-complex Bill.
      3.58 pm
      Matthew Green: May I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) on his shortest contribution so far in all the stages of our consideration of this Bill? I sometimes wonder whether the reason the Conservatives are always antagonistic towards programmed Bills is that they work on the principle, "Why make a five-minute speech when a 25-minute speech will do?"
      We welcome much that is in the Bill, as the Minister and Members who have followed this debate will know. We broadly welcome the new planning system at the heart of the Bill, with the local development schemes and local development documents. It should lead to a more flexible, open and accountable system, which should result in fewer appeals to the Secretary of State, fewer public inquiries, more public contentment—happiness is probably too strong a word—with the planning process, and, therefore, a speedier process. I therefore want to put on record that the idea that—moving to an entirely managerial process—of which we hear more from the Chancellor than from the Minister—will solve the nation's economic problems is far-fetched. The reality is that it will take some time for

      973
      a proper and effective planning system to work, but it does not have to take the amount of time that it sometimes does at the moment.
      Mr. John Redwood: Given the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for the new regional-plan-led system, will the Liberal Democrats support all the extra houses that the Secretary of State will want to visit on the green fields of many beautiful places in England?
      Matthew Green: Had the right hon. Gentleman deigned to participate in any of the Bill's stages before Third Reading, he would have anticipated that I would address some of the Bill's problems, including the regional elements, and explain why we shall vote against it.
      There are other aspects of the Bill that we like. It contains a provision on sustainable development, although we would have liked it to include a definition of that. We hope that the regulations will be effective. At least there is now the intention for sustainability to form part of the planning process. Although the clauses that concern Wales have not found universal approval, no one can find any reason to object to them and the Welsh seem happy with them, so that is good enough for me. The local development orders represent a step forward and the Bill's provisions on Crown immunity are long overdue. Although I am worried that the section 106 reforms might have perverse consequences for affordable housing—I am sure that the Minister will work to try to prevent that—the changes are broadly welcome, as are the Bill's compulsory purchase provisions.
      We have some worries about the Bill, though. We did not discuss the simplified planning zones—or "Gordon's planning zones", as I call them—at length in Committee. I think that the provisions are in the Bill only because the zones were mentioned in last year's Budget. If the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister were honest, I am sure that it would rather that the provisions were not in the Bill because broadly similar provisions exist, although no one—including developers—use them or is enthusiastic about them. Developers and businesses often prefer a structured process to a simplified one. When development takes place, people want to ensure that there is some control on what happens next door. I suspect that the Bill's provisions on such zones will not be used.
      We are also worried about the introduction of statements of development principles. The Government rightly had to row back from abolishing outline planning permission because of the question of land banks and their value. There is a danger that the statements of development principles will become rapidly discredited because they will be relatively worthless. It would be good if the shift from outline planning permission to statements of development principles could be achieved, because the statements would allow planners to detail what they would like to see on a site, rather than using a reactive system in which they must wait for applications to come forward. However, it will be difficult to make that transition and
      974
      given that the Government are rightly allowing outline planning permission to continue, the statements of development principles will be fairly worthless.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: I thought that the hon. Gentleman said that the Government had to row back on the abolition of outline planning permission, but I understand that that is not the case. A provision to abolish outline planning permission remains in the Bill and the Minister in Committee said that such planning permission would be abolished once the Government had decided that statements of development principles were working properly.
      Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman is right that the Bill still contains such a provision. The Government have rowed back because the Bill originally provided that if a development was covered by a statement of development principles, outline planning permission could not be issued. They have removed that provision and left the situation for outline planning permission unchanged. The Bill does include a provision to abolish such permission, but the Minister will never be able to use it because he will find that statements of development principles will unfortunately be discredited and considered to be worthless. It will be potential objectors or people with a third-party interest who will apply for them, rather than developers, who will continue to opt for outline planning permission.
      Those are the technical details. There is one fundamental reason why we will not support the Bill. The regional element means that powers are transferred from elected county councils and elected principal local authorities up to a regional tier. That would be acceptable if elected regional assemblies were in place. Regional planning can make a great deal of sense, especially for transport, which is difficult to organise at a local level. However, in many cases power will be transferred before elected regional assemblies exist. In some cases, it will be at least a decade before those assemblies are established, because the Government will not win referendums in the south-east and south-west unless they review the regional boundaries. The powers will go to the regional planning bodies, which are accountable to no one except the Secretary of State, who appoints them.
      The transfer of powers from elected to unelected bodies is unacceptable. That is a strong enough reason to vote against the Bill, regardless of its good aspects. A compromise is possible. As I made clear in Committee, and as I have told the Minister at other times, if the county councils or principal local authorities have a power of veto over the new regional spatial strategy, the elected county councillors could indirectly hold the regional planning body to account and it would be forced to take note of their views. That would be a step forward, which might go some way to allaying some of the concerns raised.
      As I have said before, the Minister has the numbers on his side in this place, but he does not in the other place, which will be greatly concerned by issues such as the transfer of powers. If he wants the good parts of the Bill to survive, he needs to find a way around the problem. I cannot foresee circumstances in which the other place will accept that proposal in its current form.

      975
      Overall, there is much in the Bill to welcome, but the fundamental problem remains. I am surprised that the Minister has signed up to it, because I should not have thought that he would want to sign up too often to allowing power to be taken upwards, away from elected people to unelected people. For that reason, I too shall urge my colleagues to vote against the Bill.
      4.8 pm
      Sir Sydney Chapman: I want to pick the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) up on one thing. He complained about the length of the performances of my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown). They were as long as they were because my hon. Friend allowed Members on both sides of the House to intervene to raise specific points, which, ultimately, saved time. The hon. Gentleman spoke for longer than he intended because he accepted an intervention from my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood).
      My main point is that here we are again, involved in a rushed and shortened Third Reading of an important Bill, with not enough time to consider it on Report. The Government amendments went through on the nod and the same thing happened in Committee.
      David Wright: I have one point to make. As I said on Report, the Government could have crashed the Bill through Parliament in the last Session. Instead, they took time to consider its contents and to carry it over into this Session. Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that it could have been crashed through with a large parliamentary majority?
      Sir Sydney Chapman: I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's point in my own time, because I wish to raise that specific matter.
      The purpose of the Bill is to speed up the planning system—that is the summary in the explanatory notes. I accept that the Government would say that they want to "speed up the planning system while ensuring that it becomes fairer or remains as fair, and is as simple as possible."
      Of course I welcome parts of the Bill, as the hon. Member for Ludlow has, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown). If we could speed up the handling of major infrastructure projects, that would be a good thing. The devil is in the detail, and we must look into that. There is a good case for simplified planning zones, except perhaps for people who live in the affected areas, who may not think that a simplified system is necessarily the best way forward.
      On reforms relating to the handling of planning applications, I do not think that the process will become quicker and more efficient, except possibly in the simplified planning zones. The regulations have been made more and unnecessarily complicated.
      I am sorry that the Minister resisted the timetable proposals for drawing up development plans and for the inspector examining them and publishing the reports. Like the hon. Member for Ludlow, I feel strongly that there should be no question of transferring any powers
      976
      from county councils to regional assemblies unless and until those assemblies are directly elected. That is not an unreasonable point to make. Even at this late stage, I ask the Minister to think again. I am against the strategy of regional assemblies. In the whole planning system, I think that outline planning applications serve a useful purpose and in many instances save time and money.
      Let me deal with the remarks of the hon. Member for Telford (David Wright). The Government introduced the first Bill, if I may call it that. We had a Second Reading almost a year ago and the Bill was rushed through Committee in January. The Government said that they rushed it through because they needed to get it on to the statute book quickly—those are their words, not mine. We then waited expectantly for no fewer than six months before the Government decided to recommit the Bill. That was unique in my experience in this place. The Government then added substantial new clauses.
      The Bill now returns to the Chamber, having gone through a special procedure and having been carried forward into a new Session, and the Government have added more new clauses to the revised Bill.
      Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman made many sensible contributions in both Committees. He will recall that in Committee in January the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) made several hundred references to Heathrow airport and terminal 5—every clause seemed to have an issue to do with Heathrow and terminal 5. Some account should be taken of the fact that time may have been wasted during some sittings of the Committee.
      Sir Sydney Chapman: I cannot speak for my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire); I can only say that if my constituency included Heathrow or was adjacent to it, I would raise the issue of terminal 5 as many times as I could. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that we are here to defend our constituents' interests at all times within what we believe to be the national priority.
      Instead of rushing the Bill through now, and given what the Minister has said about the planning contribution proposals, it would have been far better to have delayed the Bill until perhaps next year, when the consultation period will have finished and the Minister will have had time to reflect on the public view on many of the issues that we have been discussing.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: The Government claim that their timetable has not rushed the Bill and that all the major parts of it have been discussed. Clause 44, to which my hon. Friend has referred, deals with major infrastructure projects It is a highly complex clause covering five and a bit pages. It was never discussed in either Committee. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a disgrace?
      Sir Sydney Chapman: I do indeed, and I entirely accept the point that my hon. Friend makes. I have been trying to make the point, perhaps with a little resistance from Liberal Democrat and Labour Members, that far too little time has been devoted to those important issues.
      Whatever the time constraints, which may not be the Minister's fault, I want to try to finish on a bipartisan note and congratulate him, the Under-Secretary of

      977
      State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold and, indeed, the hon. Member for Ludlow on dealing valiantly with some big issues in a relatively short time. Finally, may I make a plea to the Minister for Housing and Planning about a matter that applies more to this Bill than perhaps to any other with which I have been involved in the Commons? It is essential that there is sufficient time to deal with these matters in the other place. Planning is not a party political issue, and it is a priority to get the best possible legislation on to the statute book. I hope that the Minister and the Government will think for a long time about, and consider sympathetically, any amendments that may be made in the other place.
      4.15 pm
      Mr. Redwood: I share the worries of my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) about the lack of time for debate. My objections to the Bill are fundamental, which is why I wish to make them on Third Reading. I was given guidance earlier that time was limited on Report and that the Government kept rewriting the Bill in Committee, so it was a good idea to wait and see what the final outcome was. However, now that I have seen that outcome, I am afraid that the Bill is little better than it was originally and the big problems that were apparent when it was introduced remain. I have declared my interests in the Register.
      The first objection that my constituents and I have to the Bill concerns the phenomenal powers that it gives the Secretary of State. Secretaries of State have traditionally had substantial powers, which are often vexatious for constituencies and councils, including those in my area, because they are usually used to encourage more development than is desirable for the local community or can be easily accommodated, given the inadequacies of investment in transport, health and education. The Bill will make that problem far worse, as it gives the Secretary of State phenomenal powers to drive through major infrastructure projects and his own housing targets as part of the regional spatial strategy. It will cause endless disagreements and difficulties with elected councils and communities, which will be angry when the Secretary of State flexes his muscles and uses those powers.
      I am suspicious about the delay that will be caused by throwing the existing planning system into the air and having to build a new one at considerable expense. Undoubtedly, the Secretary of State will then panic about the delay preventing the development that he would like. That, I fear, is likely to mean that the present Secretary of State or a future one will want to increase the targets even further, whatever the wishes of reluctant communities, as there will be another shortfall in housing provision, as assessed by him, caused by the uncertainties of the new planning system.
      Good points have already been made in our short debate about the lack of democratic accountability of the new regional planning bodies. Like my hon. Friends, I do not welcome regional government of any kind in
      978
      England, and certainly do not want it to affect my constituency—that is also the majority view of my constituents. Regional government is a waste of money, and it is offensive when it is designed, as it is in the Bill, deliberately to override the wishes of local communities as expressed through their elected unitary authorities or county or district councils. What is the point of all the costs and expenses of elections, planning officers and councillors in our areas if they will simply have to dance to the Secretary of State's tune on all the major issues that matter to those local communities?
      I am sure that the Secretary of State has one good intention, and would like more development on brownfield sites. But we know that in practice the regional spatial strategy will be used to demand development across the piece, including development on the large number of green fields that remain in constituencies beyond the main metropolitan areas,
      We also know that the Government's transport shambles continues apace, and that there are no plans now or on the horizon for increasing rail or road capacity to serve the large new housing areas that will undoubtedly emerge from the regional spatial strategies. Once again, the Government have produced a solution to the problem that will not work. Once again, that shows their inability to indulge in joined-up government. The Department for Transport is stumbling well behind the pace, with no ability to provide the links that are needed, and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, which is responsible for planning, is worried that it is not driving enough housing through in areas with green fields, so it has invented a new planning system that will allow it to do that, making the transport and other infrastructure problems far worse.
      My constituents in Wokingham and I have a heavy heart about the legislation being driven through this afternoon. We hope that in another place wiser counsel will prevail. Regional government in England is unnatural and a waste of money. Regional government directed by a Secretary of State who is out of touch and sympathy with many of our constituents is an abomination to us democratically, and it leads us to wonder why we go to the expense and trouble of building and electing local authorities when they are to be treated in such a cavalier fashion. I hope that in the other place those wiser counsels will force Ministers to think again. If they mean what they say about devolving power to local communities and acting democratically, they should tear up a large chunk of the Bill.
      Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:
      The House divided: Ayes 301, Noes 178.

      Division No. 7]

      [4:22 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Ainger, Nick

      Austin, John

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Bailey, Adrian

      Alexander, Douglas

      Banks, Tony

      Allen, Graham

      Barnes, Harry

      Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

      Battle, John

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Beard, Nigel

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Bell, Stuart

      979

      Bennett, Andrew

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Follett, Barbara

      Berry, Roger

      Foster, rh Derek

      Best, Harold

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Betts, Clive

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings &Rye)

      Blackman, Liz

      Blizzard, Bob

      Foulkes, rh George

      Boateng, rh Paul

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Borrow, David

      Gapes, Mike (ItfordS)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Gilroy, Linda

      Goggins, Paul

      Browne, Desmond

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Bryant, Chris

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Grogan, John

      Burden, Richard

      Hain, rh Peter

      Burnham, Andy

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Cairns, David

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Hanson, David

      Casalle, Roger

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Caton, Martin

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      Challen, Colin

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Clapham, Michael

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Clelland, David

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Cohen, Harry

      Hughes, Kevin (DoncasterN)

      Coleman, Iain

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Colman, Tony

      Hutton, rh John

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Cooper, Yvette

      Illsley, Eric

      Cousins, Jim

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Cranston, Ross

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Crausby, David

      Cruddas, Jon

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

      Jamieson, David

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Cummings, John

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Dalyell, Tarn

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Darling, rh Alistair

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

      David, Wayne

      Kemp, Fraser

      Davidson, Ian

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Kidney, David

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Dawson, Hilton

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Denham, rh John

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Doran, Frank

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Lepper, David

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Edwards, Huw

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Farrelly, Paul

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Love, Andrew

      980

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Salmond, Alex

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Salter, Martin

      McCabe, Stephen

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      McCafferty, Chris

      Savidge, Malcolm

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Sawford, Phil

      MacDonald, Calum

      Sheerman, Barry

      McDonnell, John

      Sheridan, Jim

      MacDougall, John

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      McFall, John

      Short, rh Clare

      McGrady, Eddie

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Singh, Marsha

      McIsaac, Shona

      Skinner, Dennis

      McKechin, Ann

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

      McNulty, Tony

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      McWalter, Tony

      McWilliam, John

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Soley, Clive

      Mandelson, rh Peter

      Southworth, Helen

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Spellar, rh John

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Squire, Rachel

      Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Stevenson, George

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Martlew, Eric

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Michael, rh Alun

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Stringer, Graham

      Moffatt, Laura

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Mole, Chris

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Moonie, Dr. Lewis

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Moran, Margaret

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Morgan, Julie

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Mudie, George

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Timms, Stephen

      O'Hara, Edward

      Tipping, Paddy

      Olner, Bill

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

      Organ, Diana

      Truswell, Paul

      Owen, Albert

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Perham, Linda

      Twigg, Derek (Ha/ton)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Plaskitt, James

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Pollard, Kerry

      Ward, Claire

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Pound, Stephen

      Watts, David

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Weir, Michael

      White, Brian

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan Dinefwr)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Purchase, Ken

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Purnell, James

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Wilson, Brian

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Winnick, David

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      Wishart, Pete

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Wood, Mike (Batley)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Woolas, Phil

      Rooney, Terry

      Worthington, Tony

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Ruane, Chris

      Ruddock, Joan

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

      Gillian Merron and

      Paul Clark

      981

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Goodman, Paul

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Bacon, Richard

      Grayling, Chris

      Baker, Norman

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Baldry, Tony

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Barker, Gregory

      Grieve, Dominic

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Gummer, rh John

      Barrett, John

      Hague, rh William

      Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

      Hammond, Philip

      Berth, rh A. J.

      Hancock, Mike

      Bellingham, Henry

      Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Boswell, Tim

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Heald, Oliver

      Brady, Graham

      Heath, David

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Breed, Colin

      Hendry, Charles

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Burt, Alistair

      Holmes, Paul

      Butterfill, John

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Hunter, Andrew

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Cameron, David

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

      Keetch, Paul

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Chope, Christopher

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Clappison, James

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Lamb, Norman

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Lansley, Andrew

      Collins, Tim

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Conway, Derek

      Leigh, Edward

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Letwin, rh Oliver

      Cotter, Brian

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Cran, James (Beverley)

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Curry, rh David

      Lidington, David

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

      Loughton, Tim

      Luff, Peter (M-Wows)

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      Mcintosh, Miss Anne

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Maclean, rh David

      Dodds, Nigel

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Doughty, Sue

      Malins, Humfrey

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

      Maples, John

      Evans, Nigel

      Mates, Michael

      Fabricant, Michael

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Fallon, Michael

      Mercer, Patrick

      Flight, Howard

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Flook, Adrian

      Forth, rh Eric

      Moss, Malcolm

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Francois, Mark

      Norman, Archie

      Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Gidley, Sandra

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Ottaway, Richard

      982

      Page, Richard

      Steen, Anthony

      Paice, James

      Stunell, Andrew

      Paisley, Rev. Ian

      Swayne, Desmond

      Paterson, Owen

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      Pickles, Eric

      Syms, Robert

      Portillo, rh Michael

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Randall, John

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Redwood, rh John

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Rendel, David

      Thurso, John

      Robathan, Andrew

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

      Tredinnick, David

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Walter, Robert

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Waterson, Nigel

      Ruffley, David

      Watkinson, Angela

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Whittingdale, John

      Selous, Andrew

      Wiggin, Bill

      Wilkinson, John

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Shepherd, Richard

      Willis, Phil

      Simmonds, Mark

      Wilshire, David

      Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

      Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

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

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      Soames, Nicholas

      Young, rh Sir George

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Spring, Richard

      Mr. Mark Field and

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Mr. Peter Atkinson

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed.
      Mr. Anthony Steen: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I seek your advice on the problems of the postal service to and from the House of Commons using franked House of Commons envelopes, and the disadvantageous effect on constituents? I had an advice centre session lasting from 10 o'clock to 6 o'clock on Saturday, and I did a tape, with which I travelled 25 miles to Totnes to catch the midday post on Sunday. The franked House of Commons envelope has still not arrived. There were some important cases and serious issues on that tape, and the Post Office has completely failed to deliver the mail. Is there anything you can do to ensure that House of Commons envelopes get priority when posted from constituencies to the House of Commons?
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): The House authorities will have heard the hon. Gentleman's comments, and no doubt they will make any report if necessary.

  Fisheries
  [Relevant document: European Commission Document COM (2003) 746 Final: Commission proposals for 2004 TA CS and Quotas.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Kemp.]
  4.38 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): I am pleased that it has proved possible to arrange this annual debate at the most appropriate time. The European Commission published its key proposals for the management of fisheries in 2004 late last week, on 4 December. The Council of Ministers is to meet from 17 to 19 December to reach its decisions on them, so today presents an opportunity, which I welcome, for us to debate the important issues that are to be addressed.
  I hope that it will be helpful if I start by sketching out the state of our progress on the recovery of fish stocks, and then what the Commission proposes. I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members will be aware of the hard decisions that the Council of Ministers had to take this time last year. The scientific advice on a number of key fish stocks had emphasised the need to act urgently to avert the risk of collapse, and for some stocks, the closure of fisheries was recommended. The scientists also stressed that setting total allowable catches—TACS?alone was not an adequate means of addressing the depletion of stocks in mixed fisheries. More direct measures to curtail fishing effort were essential as well.
  Mr. John Redwood: Why cannot the EU understand that abolishing the discard policy and stopping industrial fishing would solve the problem in the North sea? Will the Minister put that case strongly, and win it for Britain?
  Mr. Bradshaw: The right hon. Gentleman does not speak with great authority on these matters. There is a problem with discards, which the European Commission is addressing already. The right hon. Gentleman is clearly not aware of that. However, discards are only part of the problem. As the Norwegians have discovered to their cost, abolishing industrial fishing and banning discards will not solve the problems.
  In response to that advice, the Council of Ministers in December 2002—
  Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Bradshaw: Yes, as the hon. Gentleman speaks with more knowledge on these matters.
  Mr. Salmond: I have a specific and important question. Mr. John Rutherford is the chief executive of the Sea Fish Industry Authority. He was able to tell the all-party fisheries group a few hours ago that the results of the authority's survey in the North sea showed that cod by-catch in pursuit of the haddock stock was less than 3 per cent. Will the Minister take that vital
  984
  information to next week's talks, and get for our fishermen the bumper stock of haddock to which they are entitled? That would be instead of the derisory quota that they are being offered by the European Commission.
  Mr. Bradshaw: Yes. I shall be happy to take with me that extremely useful piece of information from the all-party fisheries group. The hon. Gentleman is right: we must do whatever we can to separate the measures that may have to be taken to protect cod stocks from opportunities to continue to fish varieties such as haddock, whose stock levels are healthy.
  In response to the advice last year, the Council of Ministers set out to find the right balance between ensuring the recovery of depleted stocks and maximising the availability of continued fishing opportunities. The package agreed for 2003 included two basic elements. First, there was a one-year regime setting maximum permitted days fishing per month by vessels having an impact on cod in the North sea and the west of Scotland. Different monthly allowances of days were set according to gear type. This measure was designed to reduce the fishing effort on cod by 65 per cent.
  Secondly, a set of TACs was established for commercially exploited species, specifically set—in the case of recovery stocks and the stocks associated with them—to equate to the 65 per cent. reduction in fishing effort.
  Mr. Eric Forth: I do not understand.
  Mr. Bradshaw: The right hon. Gentleman does not understand because he knows little about fisheries.
  Mr. Anthony Steen,: The Minister wants authoritative contributions, so would it not be helpful to UK fishermen—especially those in Brixham—if we got out of the common fisheries policy? That would mean that fewer boats would be chasing the available fish. We could then get rid of the discard policy and have a much happier industry. Why has not the Minister approached that matter in the constructive way adopted by authoritative people who have been saying the same things for 20 years?
  Mr. Bradshaw: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman agrees with the policy of those on the Opposition Front Bench. I suspect that he does not. but I am prepared to answer his question. The smiling contours of his face suggest that he does not agree with his Front-Bench colleagues, and that he agrees with other, sensible Conservative Members—that the Opposition policy of withdrawal from the CFP would be an absolute disaster, not least for the fishermen of Brixham. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I shall deal with that later in my speech.
  For the UK, an absolutely key issue was that there be fairness in the number of days at sea per month that our fishermen would receive. The Commission's original proposal for the figures in what is now known as annexe XVII would have given our key whitefish trawl fleet a mere seven days per month. The outcome negotiated by

  985
  my predecessor, who is now the Minister for the Environment, and his Scottish colleague, Ross Finnie, was 15 days.
  To complete the background, I need to mention just a few subsequent developments during this past year. Aid amounting to £60 million has been made available by fisheries Departments in the UK. This was mainly for decommissioning, as an adjunct to the days-at-sea restrictions. In April, various adjustments were made to the days-at-sea rules to reflect practical points, many of them identified by UK fishermen in their discussions with us. In May, the Commission issued its proposals for a longer-term recovery plan for cod. This reflects the Commission's view that the current regime, which allocates days according to gear type, is essentially an interim measure.
  The Commission's longer-term proposal would allocate a quantity of kilowatt days of fishing effort to each member state according to its fleet's historical fishing record and it would leave it to each member state to decide how to allocate these days among its fishing vessels. The recovery plan would also contain harvest control rules that would commit the Council to reacting in a prescribed way each year in response to the annual scientific advice on the state of the stock. The prescription's basic aim would be to increase the biomass by 30 per cent. each year until recovery was achieved. A parallel proposal from the Commission is on the table for a hake recovery plan.
  That brings us to the latest developments, which are this year's scientific advice and the Commission's proposals that are based on it. The scientific advice reports some small improvements in the state of the cod stocks in the Irish sea and North sea. We can draw just a little encouragement from that, but we need to see greater signs of improvement sustained over a longer period before the scientists will be able to conclude that the recovery plans are working.
  Mrs. Joan Humble: Not only the scientists but the fishermen recognise that cod stocks in the Irish sea have improved and are improving. However, it is utterly bewildering to the fishermen of Fleetwood that, although they are seeing a small increase in the amount of cod that they can catch, they have been told that they will have to reduce substantially the amount of plaice that they can catch given that plaice is the only species in the Irish sea that is designated as being within its safe biomass.
  Mr. Bradshaw: My hon. Friend may be putting her finger on one of the problems of setting TACs and quotas in a mixed fishery where cod, which is an endangered species, may be caught as a by-catch. I shall come to that point a little later in my remarks.
  In any case. there is a high degree of uncertainty in the assessment because the catch data are not entirely reliable. The basic message drawn by the Commission from the advice is that we do not need to change our aim of achieving a 65 per cent. reduction in effort compared with 2002, but that, on the other hand, we need to make sure that we actually achieve that reduction.
  Unfortunately, though, the scientific advice indicates that some further stocks are in need of recovery action. Plaice in the North sea and sole in the western channel
  986
  are examples that are of direct concern to the United Kingdom. An important new feature of the advice this year is that it recommends a fishery-based approach to management on the grounds that single species management does not adequately reflect the complexity of mixed fisheries in which stocks are caught together. Therefore, the recommendations for each management zone now aim to take account of the need to reduce effort not only on the stocks that are outside safe biological limits, but on the associated stocks that involve a by-catch of the recovery stock concerned.
  That brings me to the issues that will be before us next week at the December Council. The first is the TACs and quotas for 2004. They are the main features of the voluminous Commission proposal—document No. 15388/03—that was issued on 4 December. The Commission has, of course, aimed to reflect the scientific advice and the commitments made at the Council last year to reduce the effort that impacts on depleted stocks. It would be entirely absurd of me to try and convey to the House the full list of proposals, but I will note one or two key features.
  For cod in the North sea, Irish sea and west of Scotland and stocks associated with it, the proposals are generally for roll-overs of last year's TACs, for minimal increases or for further reductions. There is also a proposal for a closed area west of Scotland. Around the fishing grounds of interest to the UK, there are proposals for TAC reductions for stocks newly shown to be in decline. There are, on the other hand, some more positive features—for example, an increase in the North sea nephrops TAC, an increase in the western anglerfish TAC, which confirms what we found and fought for successfully in 2003, and a higher TAC for North sea herring. We are currently studying these proposals carefully and will, of course, be discussing them with the industry.
  Mr. Bob Blizzard (Waveney) (Lab): My hon. Friend mentioned an increase in the TAC for herring. As he will know, there is now an abundance of herring in the North sea whereas a few decades ago we thought that the species had become extinct. That shows that stocks can recover. However, the difficulty inshore fishermen in my area face is that there is no market for herring. They could catch herring and make a good living from that if there were a market. Will he do what he can to stimulate such a market? Would that not also have a conservation benefit, given that I am told that, with demersal species depleted, an abundance of pelagic species can be an obstacle to the recovery of those demersal species?
  Mr. Bradshaw: Yes, certainly. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I would love there to be a much more buoyant market for herring in the United Kingdom and I would recommend herring to any Member present. Herring roe is probably the most delicious roe from any fish and I eat it regularly. There is a healthy export market for herring and herring products. Indeed, some of our pelagic boats, which fish herring successfully, export a great deal to central and eastern European countries that traditionally consume a lot more herring than we do.
  My hon. Friend is also right in his point about the successful recovery plan and this is a good example in respect of stocks that were in serious jeopardy. All the

  987
  pelagic stocks—not just herring, but mackerel and bass—are doing very well indeed. They present good fishing opportunities to our industry and he is right to draw attention to the fact that although we have faced serious difficulties in the white fish sector for many years with declining cod, other bits of the industry, such as pelagics, shellfish and prawns, have been doing extremely well.
  Andrew George Andrew George (St. Ives) (LD)rose—
  Mr. A. J. Beith Mr. A. J. Beith(Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)rose
  Mr. Bradshaw: I shall give way first to the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George), if I may.
  Andrew George: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. How sound is the science on which the recommendations are being made by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea and the quotas proposed? Last year, it was clear that the quota for angler fish—monkfish—in area VII was so unsound that fishermen discovered, and persuaded the scientists, that the stock was a great deal more healthy than previously indicated. No doubt that will be the same in the North sea. On what precautionary basis are the quotas proposed and the science based?
  Mir. Bradshaw: It would be true to say that marine biologists who work in the field are naturally cautious. That is their job. They see it as their interest to preserve and conserve stocks and to ensure that stocks are not depleted to the extent that they become non-renewable, as it were. However. I do not think that there is any doubt about the state of cod stocks. The nature of fish stocks is that they fluctuate dramatically from one year to the next if there is a good recruitment year, as there was with haddock four years ago. One good recruitment year can completely transform the situation for haddock stocks, as it has. Fish move around, so there may have been a prediction on angler fish in the south-west made on good science, which changed quickly because of movement or because of a single good recruitment year.
  We have come quite a long way in improving how the industry works with the science, although there are still some in the industry who do not accept it. I always say to those in the industry and to those in this place who make a habit of saying that they do not believe the science that they should go off and commission science of their own and have it peer reviewed. I would be interested to see it.
  Mr. Beith: I thank the Minister for giving way. To return to the point about herring, which he discussed with the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), surely the key to the herring market is processing, whether it involves Craster kippers or smoked herring. What we have seen in the herring market could happen again with cod, because if the processing and marketing mechanisms collapse, as they nearly did during a period when fishing was restrained, and we are unable to ensure the processing industry's survival, when the fish return there will be no market for them.
  Mr. Bradshaw: Forgive me for forgetting that kippers are another delicious way to consume herring. The right
  988
  hon. Gentleman is right to a certain extent, but he should not necessarily equate the success of the processing industry with UK-caught fish. There are successful processing industries, not least in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona Mclsaac), that rely largely on imported white fish from areas of the world with healthier stocks. So, a successful processing industry, which we have—it is important to recognise that fact—does not necessarily depend on domestic stocks. However, that does not mean that we should not do what we can to protect and encourage the growth of those stocks.
  Mr. Michael Weir: I thank the Minister for giving way. Does he accept that what he says about processing is true for large-scale processors, but that there is a serious problem for small-scale processors who rely on locally caught fish? Many, such as those in my constituency, are suffering because they cannot get such fish.
  Mr. Bradshaw: Yes, I accept that, but the answer is to ensure that we have credible policies in force to protect the fish stocks and secure sustainable and profitable fisheries for the future. Taking risks with the stocks would put the processors as well as the fishermen out of business.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The Minister has told the House that people who disagree with the scientists in Europe should get scientists of their own to examine the issue. Is he not aware that that has been done in Northern Ireland? The fishermen have consulted other scientists, who backed up those fishermen. A meeting was held in Brussels on 28 and 29 October, at which it was put to the Fisheries Committee that some scientists disagreed strongly with the recommendations from Europe.
  Mr. Bradshaw: I am aware of dissident scientists and dissident science—[Interruption.] I recall people standing up in the House about 10 years ago proclaiming, on the basis of what dissident scientists said, that there was no such thing as AIDS in Africa. All I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that he and others who challenge the orthodox science should commission some research and have it peer reviewed. The simple fact is that it has never been done.
  Mr. Salmond: I speak as a dissident MP and ask the Minister to reconsider his point about monkfish. The monkfish quota is not based on empirical evidence of the number of monkfish, but on landing data. Clearly, if the quota is reduced, so are the landings and the quota is then reduced for the next year. It is a circular argument. Given the Minister's experience of the monkfish quota elsewhere, will he now look with a more sceptical eye at the monkfish quota being set for the North sea?
  Mr. Bradshaw: The hon. Gentleman is wrong because the scientists take landings as well as studies of biomass and ocean research into account. It is simply wrong to

  989
  imply that they do not take any notice of landings. They do, and they even take into account the fact that actual landings are in some cases higher than they should be.
  Mr. Salmond: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Bradshaw: I want to make some progress.
  Mr. Richard Bacon: Give way.
  Mr. Bradshaw: I have been generous in giving way. Does the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) want to say something about fisheries?
  Mr. Bacon: I was merely pointing out that, if the Minister gave way to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), he might learn something.
  Mr. Bradshaw: I have already given way to him three times—[Interruption.] —all right, twice, but perhaps I will give him another go in a minute.
  As I have already said in response to interventions, we shall be looking for ways of decoupling the associated stocks from cod, so that our fleet can take advantage of fishing opportunities that exist, but which are contraindicated because of a link with cod. That involves identifying more closely the extent of the association with cod, and finding ways—technical or geographical—to ensure that the associated species can be caught without undue damage to cod. More widely, I am aware that some of the total allowable catch reductions proposed will have serious effects on local communities, and we will be checking the scientific justification for all the proposals and arguing that any agreed to be excessive should be reined back. We will take close account of the industry's view in preparing our position.
  The process of setting TACs on an annual basis has been criticised as too short-term an approach. One of the achievements of the reform of the common fisheries policy last year was that we now have a new tool for setting the policy for TAC levels over a longer period. We welcome that new mechanism, which can be useful as part of managing recovery plans for the most depleted species. The proposal that I mentioned earlier for a long-term recovery plan for cod is the second major item that will be before the Council next week. We support its approach for adjusting the cod TACs year by year in the light of scientific advice. It would provide greater assurance as to future TACs and would provide the industry with a clearer view of how policy on quota levels responds to changes in fish stocks.
  We agree with the view that for some areas recovery plans based on TACs and technical conservation alone may not be sufficient to restore the most depleted stocks. It is important that fishing effort is not too high, and in some cases it can be necessary to tackle fishing effort directly, by limiting the amount of time that vessels can spend at sea. We therefore agree with the development of long-term recovery plans for cod and hake, and we will want to develop a suitable long-term mechanism for restraining fishing effort to restore the cod stocks.
  Mr. Alistair Carmichael: The Minister will be aware that the working document
  990
  for annexe V—the proposal on days at sea that will replace annexe XVII—makes the interesting suggestion that it should be possible to allow 22 days a month to fishing boats that limit their effort on cod to less than 5 per cent., as opposed to the 15 days they currently have. The difficulty is that the proposal is not open to boats with a track record for the years 2000, 2001 and 2002 of more than 5 per cent. on cod. Will the Minister consider removing that restriction, and does he agree that it would be the most significant incentive to minimising cod by-catch from an increased haddock quota?
  Mr. Bradshaw: I shall certainly look at that. The hon. Gentleman is right. We need to do whatever we can to try to decouple cod from other healthy stocks and to encourage a reduction of the cod by-catch in the fisheries to which he referred.
  Bob Spink: Is the Minister aware that the balance between vessel viability and control of fishing effort is delicate, especially for the inshore fleet, which is not responsible for the mass depletion of fishing stocks? Will he make an exception for small inshore fleets such as that at Leigh and Canvey Island, so that they can remain viable?
  Mr. Bradshaw: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about the need to protect the interests of our inshore fleet, which was one of the successes of the reform that we achieved at last year's Fisheries Council. We did protect those interests, contrary to the predictions of several hon. Members, including some Conservative Members.
  We also support the element of the proposal that would allocate a total amount of fishing time to each member state, enabling the member state itself to decide how to allocate that total among its fleet. That flexibility would enable us to allocate fishing time in the way most appropriate to our own national needs. It would, however, take some time to work out, in consultation with the fishing industry, how to apply those arrangements in this country. We agree with the Commission that it would not be practicable to introduce the scheme at the beginning of next year. If the Council can agree on how fishing effort should be controlled, we would look to introduce the scheme in perhaps a year's time.
  We already have limits on fishing effort in the North sea and the west of Scotland, which should continue next year. The Commission has proposed an extension of the current scheme. The formal proposal for the extension is the fifth annexe to the TAC and quota regulation, so we would have to get used to remembering that the scheme that we currently call annexe XVII would from next year be called annexe V.
  There need to be some changes to the form of the scheme. Annexe XVII was negotiated very quickly, and experience has shown that there is room for improvement. We want the scheme to be adjusted so that it can achieve the objectives that the Council set for it a year ago. Several aspects have made it difficult to operate as effectively as is necessary. I hope that we can make changes that will ensure that the limits on time at sea are fully observed. I hope, too, that we can minimise the amount of bureaucracy. We appreciate that the number of days permitted for vessels targeting cod is an

  991
  important priority for the fishing industry, and we want to retain the current amount of fishing time for those boats next year.
  Mr. Blizzard: Does my hon. Friend agree that the various schemes, such as TACs, stand any chance of succeeding only if they are adhered to? As he said earlier, there is a large discrepancy between what is supposed to be landed and what is landed. What is his estimate of the degree of misreporting and underreporting that exists in this country and throughout the European Union?
  Mr. Bradshaw: The fact that it is unreported makes it difficult to put an exact figure on it, but it is serious. Otherwise, the European Commission would not have singled out the UK and Spain for strong criticism of our enforcement. My hon. Friend may await with expectation the report from the Prime Minister's strategy unit, which is expected in January and which has looked closely at enforcement. My hon. Friend is right, however: none of that will be any good unless we can be satisfied and confident that our enforcement procedures work, and I was just about to set out exactly what we propose to do about enforcement.
  Sir Robert Smith: Will the Minister clarify the Government's stance in the negotiations on the allocation of days at sea between countries? Will he press for the baseline to be the 2001 fleet, given that since then we have made considerable efforts to decommission our fleet while other countries have been using EU money to build up their fleets? A fairer allocation would be made using 2001.
  Mr. Bradshaw: The hon. Gentleman anticipates the next sentence of my speech: I was about to say exactly that. The UK decommissioned substantial amounts of capacity in 2001 and this year, and we must ensure that we obtain full credit for that cut when the days permitted for fishing are calculated.
  Mr. Weir: The Minister mentioned annexe V of the new regulations. Is he aware that it includes a two-net rule that would affect fishermen who fish for white fish and nephrops? They use a different-sized net for each species, and as the regulation proposes that they may change their nets only once every three months, it would effectively destroy that fishery, which is extremely important in many small ports in Scotland, such as Arbroath in my constituency. If the Minister is involved in negotiations on annexe V, will he ensure that the two-net rule is amended to allow individual nations to impose their own time limit for the swap-over period?
  Mr. Bradshaw: I shall certainly bear the hon. Gentleman's comments in mind, but I hope that he will join me in welcoming the fact that there has been a slight increase in the recommendation for the TACs for prawns—nephrops—and that we must do as much as we can to exploit those opportunities without taking cod as a by-catch or in any other form.
  Mr. Alan Reid: The Minister referred to the Commission's proposal for an increased
  992
  nephrops quota, but he will be aware that it applies only to the North sea. There is no proposal from the Commission for an increase in TACs in the west of Scotland, where nephrops stocks are abundant. Given the abundance of the stocks and the fact that since the baseline precautionary TAC was introduced the area over which nephrops were fished has extended and the TAC has not been increased to take that into account, will the Minister go back to the Commission and try to negotiate a modest increase—say, 10 per cent.—in the TAC for nephrops in the west of Scotland?
  Mr. Bradshaw: I am happy to examine the case made by the hon. Gentleman, but without considering the detail I cannot give him the commitment he seeks.
  No debate on TACs and quotas and the conservation of fish stocks would be complete without reference to enforcement. This year, enforcement is of added significance because fisheries scientists have repeatedly referred to stock assessment work being compromised by the lack of reliable data on landings, while the industry has repeatedly claimed that stocks are in much better shape than official landing statistics. To manage fisheries successfully, it is essential to have reliable and accurate data on fishing activity and landings. It is the very lack of such data that has led the Commission—reluctantly, I believe—to begin legal proceedings against the United Kingdom for failing to take adequate steps to ensure that fishing activity and landings are properly monitored and recorded.
  I recognise that the fishing industry has been badly affected by the impact of successive cuts in quota over the last three to four years and that there have been tensions as fishermen adjust to changing circumstances, but that is no excuse for dropping our guard. Effective and consistent standards of monitoring and control across the Community remain a key objective and we must be seen to be playing our part. Fisheries inspectors have a key role to play. They do a difficult job at the best of times, and I trust that all members of the industry will continue to co-operate fully with them in the performance of their duties.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: Has the Minister noted the 43rd report of the Public Accounts Committee, which states:
  "The probability of a fishing vessel being subject to physical inspection at sea or on landing fish is low, being just 1 and 6% respectively on any day of fishing."
  In fact, if people infringe the quotas, the chance of their being found out is extremely low.
  Mr. Bradshaw: I certainly welcome the PAC report, which has already informed some of the measures that we are taking to improve our enforcement record and will continue to do so. I do not think that it is fair to paint a completely bleak picture of our enforcement system. We have one of the highest spends on enforcement under the CFP in the whole EU; we impose some of the stiffest penalties on people who are caught and prosecuted, and our inspectors do an excellent job. However, I acknowledge that there is plenty of room for improvement, and the recommendations of the PAC report are welcome and helpful.
  Mr. Roy Beggs: Has the Minister any plan to develop closer working

  993
  relationships between scientists and fishermen, so that the scientific outcomes are more believable to fishermen?
  Mr. Bradshaw: Not only do we have plans, but in the last financial year we spent £1 million of public money on collaborative projects between fishermen and scientists. We have put scientists on trawler boats for the first time at the request of fishermen from ports where for a long time they have said, "Oh, we know where the fish are. We can find plenty of them. There are plenty of cod out there. We'll show you if you put some scientists on our boats." We have also put fishermen on the scientific vessels. That exchange has contributed to a better atmosphere between scientists and the fishing industry than there was a year ago, and it is desperately important that we try to improve that in future. I should like a system whereby each region's fishing industry took responsibility for the management of its own industry, but in doing so would have to fund and accept the scientific research, as happens in some of the most successful fisheries in other parts of the world.
  Mr. Carmichael: The Minister will be aware that all vessels over 18 m will need to be fitted with satellite tracking devices from 1 January. Does he accept that that represents a significant contribution to enforcement, particularly in relation to days-at-sea regulations? What assessment of that proposal's effectiveness has his Department made?
  Mr. Bradshaw: Again, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: effective satellite monitoring will become increasingly important in future fisheries management. If he is patient, he will hear some good news a little later in my speech, which is about to come to an end.
  Mr. Malcolm Savidge:I thank my hon. Friend for being generous in giving way once more. The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, referred to 1 and 6 per cent. in any day's fishing, so the chances of boats being inspected in any given year are surely not that bad. I am not saying that we do not need to do much more, but we are carrying out proper supervision.
  Mr. Bradshaw: We could do better, but we are neither the worst nor the best on enforcement.
  Mr. Steen: The Minister will be aware that one of the major problems in south Devon and the rest of the west country is the number of dolphins caught by way of by-catch. Scottish and French boats are to blame. Does that concern him? What will he do about it? It is most dreadful to see hundreds, if not thousands, of those dolphins washed up on the beaches of the west country.
  Mr. Bradshaw: The hon. Gentleman raises the spectre of the old alliance. He is right to say that cetacean by-catch is a problem, but it is not restricted exclusively to pair trawling for bass off the south-west coast; it happens in all fisheries, unfortunately. At the most, only two or three pairs of Scottish boats are involved, compared with about 30 from the French side. While we
  994
  take the problem extremely seriously and have been funding some very successful research involving the use of a separator grid in the nets, which almost reduced to zero the number of dolphins caught in that way, the French have so far not shown the same sense of urgency. There is not even the same awareness of it in France, but we are working very hard on that. My predecessor wrote to the French Fisheries Minister, and we are giving the evidence of our successful trials to the Commission and the French. We very much hope to make progress on that sad phenomenon.
  I expect to set out our plans to enhance monitoring and control early in the new year, taking account of any additional commitments that arise from the decisions to be taken at next week's Council. The plans will involve a greater emphasis on weighing and inspecting fish in port, changes to our designated port arrangements, the installation of tamper-proof satellite position-reporting terminals on all vessels over 15 m and the registration of the sellers and buyers of first-sale fish. I can also advise the House that my Department will meet the full cost of fitting satellite terminals to all vessels for which it is the licensing authority.
  I want to end on a more strategic note. The reason why we contemplated the measures now under discussion, with the pain that they have unquestionably brought, is to ensure a sustainable future for our fishing industry. It would be good for the decisions that we take to be reached within the framework of a long-term strategy aimed at that sustainable future. That was exactly why the Prime Minister, after last December's Council of Ministers, asked his strategy unit to set up a fisheries project to identify the options for ensuring a long-term sustainable future for the industry. The strategy unit has been doing an extremely thorough job of examining the issues and discussing ideas with all interested parties. Its report will be an important document, and we look forward to receiving it early in the new year.
  5.15 pm
  Mr. John Whittingdale: This is the first time I have spoken in this debate, but the issues under discussion are depressingly familiar. Once again, they revolve around a Fisheries Council at which the agenda will consist of further reductions in total allowable catches, leading to further cuts in quotas, squeezing still further an industry that is already in crisis. For fishermen, the outlook is one of unremitting gloom as each year they struggle harder to survive while yet more of their number give up the fight and leave the industry for good.
  Fishing is not just another industry—it is one of the first ever pursued by the residents of these islands and it is also one of the most dangerous. The chief inspector of the marine accident investigation branch said in his annual report last year:
  "Fishing remains the single most hazardous occupation in the United Kingdom."
  Last year, 18 fishing vessels were reported lost, and I would like to pay tribute to the eight crew members who lost their lives.
  No one understands better than fishermen the need to conserve fish stocks. If there was evidence that the common fisheries policy was succeeding in building

  995
  back up depleted stocks, they would be much more willing to support it. The CFP, however, has been a miserable failure. Each year, the estimates of stocks are reduced once again and the inevitable prescription is another cut in TACs.
  Angus Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to identify the common fisheries policy as being an unmitigated disaster. Will he take the opportunity to apologise on behalf of the Conservative party for signing the UK up to it in the first place?
  Mr. Whittingdale: I suspect that all Governments need to take some of the blame, and I would point at the record of the previous Labour Government, who extended the limits to 200 miles and gave access to EU ships into all those British waters. I want to concentrate on the future, however, and on what the next Conservative Government will do.
  It takes three years for a cod to mature, so fishermen point out rightly that if the policy were working, after three years, TACs should start improving. The revision, however, is always downward, and the pressure on the industry increases relentlessly.
  Mrs. Humble: Will the hon. Gentleman recognise and acknowledge that in fact the Irish sea cod recovery programme is working, and it is doing so because of the commitment of Irish sea fishermen, including my constituents in Fleetwood? The cod stocks are going up, and this year the Commission is suggesting a small increase. The problem for Fleetwood fishermen is the associated species. The cod recovery programme, however, is paying dividends, and we are seeing mature cod—it is working.
  Mr. Whittingdale: It is good to hear that in one small part one species is showing some signs of recovery. If the hon. Lady concludes from that that the common fisheries policy is a success, however, I suspect that her fishermen would not agree.
  Mr. Calum MacDonald: Actually, stocks of herring have increased over the past 20 years, stocks of mackerel have increased over the past 20 years, and stocks of shellfish are doing better than they have done over the past 20 years. How does that square with the hon. Gentleman's simplistic condemnation of the common fisheries policy?
  Mr. Whittingdale: If Labour Members believe that the common fisheries policy has been such a wonderful success, why is it that every year more and more of our fishermen go out of business and we experience continuing reductions in quotas? Why is it that the Minister must again go to the Fisheries Council to argue against yet another savage cut in quotas that will lead to more of our fishermen losing their livelihoods? It is fiction to believe that the policy has been a success. It is hardly any wonder that fishermen conclude that the CFP has little to do with conserving fish stocks and rather more to do with accommodating the vast Spanish fishing fleet in our waters.
  996
  Before the advent of the common fisheries policy, the British fishing industry was a model of sustainability. Thirty years on, throughout which the CFP has been in operation supposedly to conserve stocks, large areas of the most fertile and productive fishing grounds in the world are threatened with closure.
  Shona Mclsaac: The hon. Gentleman says that we had wonderful fisheries 30 years ago. Does he acknowledge that one of the greatest impacts on our fishing industry resulted from the cod war when Iceland introduced its own fishing limit? It is wrong to blame the EU for the decline in places such as Grimsby, because that was a result of the cod war.
  Mr. Whittingdale: I do not share the hon. Lady's view that the problem was all Iceland's fault, and I doubt whether fishermen would agree with her either. In 1995—only eight years ago—there were 9,200 British fishing vessels that landed 912,000 tonnes of fish on these shores. In 2002, 7,003 vessels landed 686,000 tonnes—a 25 per cent. reduction in just eight years.
  The decline in Scotland has been even more dramatic. There was a total of 1,782 boats of more than 10 m in length in 1975, but it is estimated from current decommissioning plans that there will be about 700 such boats next year. That will represent a 60 per cent. cut in the Scottish fishing fleet since we joined the CFP. Each of the sold or decommissioned boats would have grossed an average of £300,000 a year at current values from landing about 333 tonnes of fish. The annual loss of direct income to the catching sector is therefore more than £300 million. However, the knock-on effects of that are felt far more widely. Associated industries that are dependent on fishing, such as processing, marketing, netting and boat repair industries, have suffered. The recognised gross domestic product impact ratio for fisheries is 2.35 times the landed value, so the total annual loss to the Scottish economy as a result of the reduction to the Scottish fishing fleet has reached £785 million. If one adds to that the cost to public funds from unemployment benefit and other benefits, the figure is still higher.
  The figures cannot reveal the personal tragedies experienced and the destruction of thriving communities that lie behind them. Major harbours such as Lossiemouth that used to be a focus of social and economic life throughout the year are now reduced to being marinas for a handful of yachts for a few weeks in summer. The story is repeated all around the coast of Britain. I was in Lowestoft yesterday, which was once the largest fishing port in England and only a few years ago would have been home to a couple of hundred boats, including 130 ft trawlers. I saw only a dozen boats in the harbour yesterday and only two were more than 10 m long. I went on to attend the morning fish auction in the purpose-built hall on the quayside. The hall is cavernous—it stretches perhaps five times the length of the Chamber—yet the fish available for auction on what I was told was a relatively good day took up only a few square metres of space. Additionally, a significant proportion of the fish, including the one large halibut that sold for £250, had not been caught by local boats but imported from Iceland.
  The tragedy for our fishing industry is that there is no reason why it must be in decline. Other countries manage their fisheries extremely successfully by

  997
  conserving stocks and supporting a viable industry. Norway operates a quota system that is agreed by a management advisory board on which fishermen are represented. Discards are banned, as is the fishing of undersized fish. Cheating is largely unknown.
  In the Faroe islands, fishing is the principal source of income. The incentive to manage stocks in a sustainable way is even greater. Under their system, vessels are grouped according to size and gear type. Each group is allocated a set number of fishing days per year, which are divided among the vessels. That is combined with gear regulations designed to protect juvenile fish, as well as closures of extensive areas to active gear, such as trawls, to protect nurseries and spawning stocks.
  By allocating fishing days rather than stock quotas, mixed fisheries are allowed, giving the entire catch an economic value. The system works extremely well in achieving its aim that not more than a third of each stock should be taken every year. It is well supported by the fishermen, who are closely involved in deciding the number of fishing days to be allotted each year. As one respected fishing journalist recently wrote:
  "There are always some complaints, but the grass roots hatred and sheer loathing of the management system that is heard from fishermen in Iceland and most EU countries is entirely absent in the Faroes. Unbelievably, everyone in the Faroes appears happy with their system. Stocks are healthy and fishing is flourishing".
  In the Falklands, strict controls are exercised within the 200-mile conservation zone. The main squid species caught has a lifespan of just a year, so the stock assessment needs to be updated constantly. To ensure that conservation targets are achieved, fishing effort is controlled by strictly limiting the number of vessels licensed to fish within the zone. The lesson of the Falklands and the Faroes is that because the fishermen trust the data, they are prepared to accept limitations on their activities based on it.
  Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend makes a powerful case. Does he understand why the Minister is so hostile to the idea of banning discards when last year 20,000 tonnes of fish, more than the combined quotas for cod and haddock, were dumped dead in the sea and not landed for human consumption? Is not that an outrage? Would not getting rid of that system make a lot of difference?
  Mr. Whittingdale: It would clearly make a difference. Discarding dead fish into the sea is a disgrace and should be stopped. I agree with my right hon. Friend that that is an essential component of a sensible fisheries policy.
  Mr. Bacon: My hon. Friend mentioned the Falkland islands, which I visited last year. I saw the fisheries department while I was there. As it controls the system, it can close the entire fishery earlier than planned if necessary. As it takes three years for a cod to mature, is it not the case, with 900,000 people unemployed, 14,000 of whom are fishermen, as a Minister of State told me the other day, that for the cost of just one failed Government computer system we could support the entire fishing industry in this country for three years, keep out all the foreign boats and have a sustainable industry again?
  Mr. Whittingdale: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, in particular for telling us of his recent experience in the Falklands. He is, of course, absolutely right.
  998
  The essential point is that there are very successful examples of national fisheries management schemes which contrast with the complete failure of the CFP. The system of quotas for each species that is operated under the CFP means that a fish of a different species or a fish that is in excess of quota is discarded back into the sea, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wok ingham (Mr. Redwood) said. Each year as many, if not more, fish are discarded to pollute the seabed as are landed for human consumption. How can that possibly help the conservation effort? The alternative is that the fish are landed black and fishermen risk being turned into criminals for breaching quota regulations.
  Mr. Blizzard: The hon. Gentleman gave examples of the way in which more remote islands manage their fish stocks. I agree that the CFP has, self-evidently, not conserved fish. In advocating national controls, however, how would he deal with the issue of the median line in the North sea? The fish would not respect the median line. Many species spawn in shallower water on the continental side and swim over. If we had the median line, the Dutch and others would catch all the fish before they got here.
  Mr. Whittingdale: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman accepts that the CFP has been a complete failure. That is at least an advance on some of his colleagues. Obviously, if there were national management—I shall say a little about how we believe it should operate—it would require negotiation and bilateral agreements with other fishing nations.
  Mr. Bradshaw: That will be easy.
  Mr. Whittingdale: I think that compared with the annual fight which he goes into and which is about to take place next week, where every nation scratches around to try to benefit its own fishing industry within the framework of an ever-reducing total allowable catch, it will be rather more simple. As I have said, the CFP has been a complete failure. Almost anything would be an improvement on the CFP.
  Mr. Leigh: May I give a positive idea to my hon. Friend that might commend itself to Members on both sides of the House? It is an idea that was discussed in the report of the Public Accounts Committee. It relates to discarded fish. Many of these fish are dead or dying when they are thrown into the sea. We suggested that we should seek changes in European Union legislation to allow the landing of discards and over-quota catches, but with proceeds being used to fund research and greater enforcement activity, as is already the case in Iceland. Will my hon. Friend and perhaps the Minister consider this idea?
  Mr. Whittingdale: The report of my hon. Friend's Committee is undoubtedly a valuable contribution. However, we believe that the problem is the system itself. A system based on quotas creates the incentive or the necessity either for the discard of dead fish which are over quota or the alternative, which is the illegal landing of fish. Many fishermen have little choice but to break the law, given that their allocation of legal quota is so pitiful that it is impossible for them to sustain a living.

  999
  At the same time, the enforcement system has led to fishery inspectors, who were previously regarded as the friends of fishermen, being regarded with utter hatred throughout the industry.
  As has been suggested in several interventions, fishermen are increasingly disbelieving of the figures on which TACs are based. Estimates of fish stock are based on two main types of data; those which are fishery dependent and those which are fishery independent. Fishery dependent data come from commercial vessels and comprise the quantities of fish landed into port and measures of the time spent fishing or searching for fish to catch. The quota allocations are so inadequate that inevitably fishermen cheat to make a living. They either do not declare landings or they make false declarations as to the locations in which fish are caught. As a result, the amount of fish is under-reported, leading to quotas being set even lower.
  Even the European Commission has now acknowledged that
  "the reliability of commercial fisheries information has declined."
  The Commission is therefore relying increasingly on data from research vessels, but those too are flawed. For instance, in the critical North sea cod fishery, test trawls are made by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs-commissioned survey vessels. These are conducted in the spring and autumn when standardised gear is shot in specific locations at the same time each year, and trawling is carried out at a standard speed for half an hour. The catch is then measured and compared year on year to determine changes in stocks.
  It has been said that the process is similar to flying in a hot air balloon high over a land completely covered in cloud, with the occupants seeking to determine what lives on the land, how many of each species there are and how their populations might change, all with a basket and a long rope. The surveyors are asked to scrape the basket along the ground for half an hour, haul it up and guesstimate the population, a process which they repeat at the same place at the same time the following year to determine trends.
  Mr. Jim Portus, the chief executive of the South West Fish Producer Organisation, told my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) this morning that the scientists on research vessels often have inappropriate kit that is wrongly set. Those in the industry who have seen photographs were flabbergasted that the Commission should put such reliance on information gleaned from such badly set equipment. The solution, as the Select Committee recommended last year, is to have more independent scientific observers aboard fishing vessels.
  Mr. Bradshaw: During his visit to Lowestoft yesterday, did the hon. Gentleman visit the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, which conducts those trials, and did he put those questions to it?
  Mr. Whittingdale: I did not go to CEFAS, but certainly intend to go back and talk to it. As the hon. Gentleman should know, because he was there a few months ago, there is a CEFAS laboratory in my constituency, so I talk to CEFAS quite regularly.
  1000
  The conclusion that we must draw is that ever-reducing quotas are calculated from TACs that are based on questionable data. While the CFP may be limiting unnecessarily the fishing of mature fish, it is failing to prevent industrial fishing, which may be doing far more damage. Trawling for sand eels results in hundreds of thousands of tonnes of the basis of the marine food chain being scooped up every year, while landing at the same time masses of juvenile cod, haddock and whiting as by-catch. To produce fishmeal to feed farmed fish and Danish pigs and, it is even said, fish oil to run a power station, the basic foodstuff on which are fish stocks depend is being removed.
  By any measure, the CFP has been a disaster for the British fishing industry, which is why my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition reaffirmed on Sunday that
  "we are committed to a policy of withdrawing from the Common Fisheries Policy and restoring national control for our fishing industry".
  In the next few months, we will develop a new way of managing fish stocks based on controlling inputs by limiting fishing effort and banning industrial fishing in place of the discredited and damaging quota system of output controls. As I have said, other places such as the Faroes operate such management schemes extremely successfully. We therefore intend to sit down with the fishermen to work out the details of an alternative to the CFP.
  Mr. Bradshaw: How is the hon. Gentleman going to ban industrial fishing if he takes national control, which he knows is impossible, in those bits of the North sea over which we have no control?
  Mr. Whittingdale: I shall tell the hon. Gentleman precisely how we will do so. It is not impossible to restore national control over our own waters—it is a question of political will. I shall explain to the hon. Gentleman how we will do so, as there is a genuine opportunity on the table right now to carry out a renegotiation of the CFP. In the draft constitution that is being considered by the intergovernmental conference, article 12 gives the European Union exclusive competence over
  "the conservation of marine biological resources under the Common Fisheries Policy".
  The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), who served on the Convention on the Future of Europe, said that
  "this is basically a renegotiation of the basic Treaties".
  There is therefore no reason why the Government cannot introduce a proposal in the IGC to renegotiate the CFP and restore national control. That should be a red line issue for the Government, but instead they are meekly prepared to continue with a failed policy that is destroying our industry.
  Mr. Blizzard: If that is the case, why did the Conservative representative on the Convention on the Future of Europe not make an issue of that in all the months in which he talked about it? He made one feeble reference to it, and did not turn it into a major issue. Why, when the Conservative party had the chance to put it on the agenda, did it fail to do so?
  Mr. Whittingdale: I have the highest regard for my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr.

  1001
  Heathcoat-Amory), who represented my party on the convention, and I am told that he did move amendments to that effect. Nobody could be more robust in their defence of British industry and the British fishing industry than my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Bacon: My hon. Friend may like to know that our right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) said in the Standing Committee on the Convention that he would often move amendments. He also protested about the fact that an amendment moved by someone opposed to a proposal would not even be recorded.
  Mr. Whittingdale: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend. I have no doubt that that is the case. I am afraid that all too often during the process of that Convention, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells was a lone voice of sanity.
  Mr. Savidge: If the right hon. Member for Wells was a lone voice of sanity, what chance does the hon. Gentleman think he would have of conducting a successful negotiation?
  Mr. Whittingdale: I will tell the hon. Gentleman precisely. I quote the example of his own Prime Minister, who said before the general election in 1997:
  "We certainly have not ruled out holding up IGC business in order to get the right changes to fishing policy in the British interest".
  Now his Government are not even prepared to put it on the agenda.
  The Government have said that they are prepared to fight to prevent the European Union having any say over our oil and gas reserves, as is proposed in the energy chapter of the European constitution.
  Mr. Salmond: May I point out to the hon. Gentleman that Professor Neil McCormick incessantly moved amendments on fisheries in the Convention? Perhaps a little more support from the Conservative representative would have been appreciated. The Conservatives did not raise the matter on 16 September 2003. The hon. Gentleman has alighted on a good policy. It would help his credibility if he admitted that it is also a very recent policy for the Conservative party.
  Mr. Whittingdale: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support, but it was the policy of my party rather earlier than it was the policy of his party. The policy was advocated under the past three leaders of the Conservative party.
  I return to the Government's determination to fight to prevent the EU having any say over our oil and gas reserves. The hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) tabled a good early-day motion on the subject which has been signed by almost 100 of his colleagues. It calls for the Government to veto any proposal to cede competence over licensing and other national control of the UK's oil and gas reserves to the European Union. Although the Government are prepared to stand up to protect our oil and gas reserves, they seem unwilling even to contemplate mounting a similar fight to re-establish national control of our fish reserves.
  1002
  When France and Germany recently decided that the terms of the stability pact were operating against their national interest, what did they do? They simply ignored them. It is not true to say, therefore, that a policy to restore national control cannot be achieved. It is a matter of political will. It is time for the Government to start standing up for the interests of the British fishing industry. Unless they do so, there soon will not be an industry left.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Before I call the next hon. Member to speak, I remind the House that Mr. Speaker has imposed a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches. That applies from now on.
  5.42 pm
  Mr. Calum MacDonald: I shall raise a matter that is of great importance for my constituency and for fishermen up and down the west coast of Scotland. It is a matter that has already been mentioned in the debate: the nephrops stocks on the west coast of Scotland.
  In opening the debate, the Minister observed that nephrops stocks are perfectly healthy and viable. Indeed, my fishermen tell me that the catches are as good as they have been for 20 years, in terms of both the quantity of the landings and the quality of the prawns. The catch is exceptionally good, but stocks are affected by the linkage to the threatened cod stock.
  The Minister suggested in his opening remarks that we should consider finding technical solutions to the problem. Instead of going down the road proposed by the European Commission this year and last year of reducing the prawn stock or other viable stocks in order to have a positive impact on cod, we should look at technical measures that would allow us to continue fishing for viable stocks without having an adverse impact on cod.
  I should like to use my few minutes to flag up one proposal that has emerged recently from within the industry, which I urge the Minister to consider and to ask his officials to study with a view to pressing it at the Council later this month. The Commission, in its proposals for the west coast nephrops stocks, has once again advocated a reduction, this time of the somewhat puzzling figure of 40 tonnes, which set against an overall TAC of 11,300 tonnes would not seem to make much difference one way or the other, and one wonders how on earth it came up with that particular figure. The concern of my fishermen is not simply to avert that reduction but, as the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) said earlier, to try to restore the previous 10 per cent. cut, and even to go beyond that and increase the TAC to a sustainable level that can provide a viable fishery.
  The proposal that has emerged recently is to try to target conservation measures on the best spawning grounds for cod—to try a zonal approach to the problem of the west coast prawns and cod linkage. I am told that the consensus in the scientific community is that the best spawning ground for cod on the west coast is just north of my constituency, about 40 miles off the Butt of Lewis, and the proposal that has achieved a consensus in the industry is for a full closure of that area

  1003
  for prawn trawling at least during the spawning of the cod, which is typically from about February through to April. A complete three-month closure of prawn trawling could be targeted on that area to ensure that the spawning grounds are untouched, giving the cod a chance then to move on into the wider area.
  In return for such a complete closure, affecting prawn trawling in that area, the industry wants not just a holding off of the proposed 40-tonne cut, but a restoration of the 10 per cent. cut that happened some years ago, and a fresh look at the case for a gradual restoration to the original TAC of several years ago, when it was in the order of 16,000 tonnes. As the Minister is already aware, the case for a restoration to that figure is considerable, because there is a strong argument that the current TACs are based on a misreading of the landing figures some years ago.
  I should be grateful if the Minister would give an undertaking that he will look closely at that new proposal that has emerged to tackle the problem that has already been flagged up in the course of the opening speeches, and that he will look sympathetically at the case for a zonal closure in return for a restoration of the 10 per cent. cut on the west coast. It would be helpful if he could tell me later or in writing whether he is sympathetic in principle to such a zonal approach—so that the industry will know whether it should continue to investigate and research the matter—and give a commitment to look hard at the new proposals, and with urgency, so that they can be raised and, I hope, pushed at the summit later this month.
  5.50 pm
  Andrew George: May I welcome the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) to our annual fisheries debates? He was right to pay tribute to fishermen and fishing communities, and to reflect on the tragic loss of eight lives in the industry this year. Those of us who represent fishing constituencies fully understand the tragic circumstances in which the industry often has to operate, and we use this opportunity to reflect on them each year.
  Once again, we are discussing in the annual fisheries debate rather panicked negotiations occurring at the eleventh hour about how we are to settle TACs and quotas for species that will be vital to the industry over the next 12 months. Although the revised common fisheries policy talked bravely of the need to establish a medium-term plan in respect of multi-annual quotas, which would at least inform the industry about the prospect of the indicative quotas for subsequent years on the basis of the best science available in making decisions for the next year, the fact is that no mention has so far been made of multi-annual quotas. One of a number of failures of the policy that have occurred since its reform at the beginning of this year is the failure to look for medium-term solutions to the very serious problems that are besetting the industry.
  A complaint was rightly made in the previous debate on this matter about the fact that negotiations and discussions between fishermen and scientists were still not as productive and constructive as we would have
  1004
  hoped. In many other European countries, the relationship between scientists and fishermen is more productive, and greater confidence and respect operate both ways. When one speaks to fishermen in this country, it is clear that they still strongly feel a sense of disregard of the basis on which scientific advice is given. That is clearly an issue on which further work is needed.
  Work is also needed on something that I detected at an early stage in the negotiations—the fact that the scientists are not bringing fishermen in early enough to discuss the science. In my view, the Minister has a role to play in encouraging better dialogue at a much earlier stage in the process. He knows from his own dealings in respect of monkfish in area VII, for example, about an indicative and precautionary quota that has been set on the best information that the scientists say is available to them, despite fishermen's claims that the stock is a great deal more healthy. When fishermen demonstrate what is happening during the year by referring to catch and landings, as well as to the speed of those landings, which is a clear indication of the health of the angler fish stock, it is important that scientists learn lessons from them, just as fisherman—to be fair, it is a balanced relationship—sometimes need to learn lessons from the scientists.
  I think I heard the Minister, in response to an earlier question, make the telling remark that fishermen and scientists need to take responsibility for the management of the fishery. Indeed, one of the failings of the annual fisheries debate is the fact that we are here at all, debating the details about the relationship between nephrops and cod, and cod and haddock, and about what will happen in area VII and the North sea. Politicians, who merely dip into the subject from time to time, are not best placed to make decisions on those subjects.
  The Minister must admit that when he goes to negotiations such as those in the Council of Ministers, which he is soon to attend, the Ministers, even with the benefit of their best experts' advice, are likely to come up with a political fix. That is what happens each year. All the evidence is pushing us towards recognising the need to give fishermen and scientists genuine responsibility for the management of their fisheries in devolved regions.
  Mr. Blizzard: The hon. Gentleman is talking about fishermen and scientists. Does he also acknowledge the substantial contribution made to the local economy in his constituency and mine, and in the others all round our coasts, by recreational sea angling, which I believe is worth about £1 billion a year? Does he agree that as politicians we should give some thought to how we can manage the stocks immediately around our coast so that sea angling is encouraged, and can continue to make that important contribution?
  Andrew George: Yes, but there are also other stakeholders who should be involved in the discussions and the production of management plans. Fishermen and scientists are the two groups that tend to lock horns most on the issue of what is best overall for fisheries management. Clearly they need to be there as two of the main stakeholders in any decision-making process, but the hon. Gentleman is right to say that recreational sea anglers, too, need to be represented. Indeed, it was sea

  1005
  anglers who first drew attention to the problem of cetacean by-catch in western waters. They also pointed out that pair trawling was having a detrimental impact on bass stocks, which normally made a substantial contribution to the local economy of the coastal communities in the west, where many tourists are taken out to catch bass by line.
  There are other stakeholders, too, such as processors and environmental bodies such as WWF, which is now engaged with the industry, including the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation, in the establishment of the new project in the south-west. There are many bodies that could play a constructive and productive role in the future of the regional management bodies.
  There was a policy within the revised common fisheries policy to establish regional advisory councils. We were all disappointed that those were to be purely advisory, and in discussions with Commissioner Fischler it was encouraging that he wanted to develop that idea into regional fisheries management councils, but as a written answer from the Department received yesterday shows, a year into the policy, little has happened.
  Most of the development has resulted from the industry's desire to push the process along, which has not been helped by either the Commission or the Government. In that written answer, the Minister who is here today says:
  "It will take time for effective RACs to develop, but fishermen and other interests active in international fisheries partnerships in the North sea, the Irish sea and the south west, the Baltic and the Mediterranean have already made good progress"— [Official Report, 8 December 2003; Vol. 415, c. 224W.]
  That is largely the result of their own initiative, and not because the European Commission has pushed them in that direction. Support is needed if that policy is to make progress. We need to step up the momentum in delivering that policy.
  I do not want to rehearse the arguments already made to some extent in interventions. The Minister will be armed with industry responses to specific proposals, especially for cod, monkfish, herring, haddock, nephrops and hake. However, it is clear that the industry is justified in querying the science. For example, the absolute measure for North sea cod spawning stock biomass shows an increase of around 60 per cent. over the past two years. That meets the SSB regeneration target of 30 per cent. that has been predicted, and planned for. Similarly, the hake recovery programme has been shown to have worked well so far. The Minister must take account of the variety of views about the science.
  The same is true for the inevitability of a very significant mixed-fishery by-catch. There has been a high cod by-catch in western waters, for example. A lot of the area VII fishery is mixed, and the Minister must find new methods for the proper management of such areas. We need a more sophisticated and localised method of fisheries management, as it cannot be denied that the CFP has been extremely damaging to fishing
  1006
  communities, fish stocks and fishermen. We must move away as quickly as possible from the centralised basis of the CFP.
  Mr. Owen Paterson: Does the hon. Gentleman therefore endorse the views of his colleague in Scotland, Mr. Tavish Scott, a member of the coalition Government in Scotland, who said:
  "The CFP has failed fishermen, fishing communities and fish stocks and must end."
  That view has been endorsed by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael).
  Andrew George: Yes. The CFP has failed in exactly the way that has been described. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that we need to examine credible solutions that will deliver a better future for fishermen. However, the Conservatives were responsible for fisheries policy for 18 years, and never once in all that time did the apparently obvious—that they should unilaterally withdraw from the CFP—occur to them in a blinding flash. It was not muttered or mentioned even once, but that suddenly became party policy a few nanoseconds after the Conservatives lost power in 1997. The Conservative policy on fishing has no credibility.
  Shona McIsaac: Did the hon. Gentleman notice that the anti-European brigade exited the Chamber a few nanoseconds after the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman sat down, and as soon as my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. MacDonald) rose to speak? Unlike Conservative Members, he knows an awful lot about this subject.
  Andrew George: That is certainly true. Although many hon. Members are genuinely concerned about the future of a serious industry, it is tragic that many fishing communities and fishermen are used as convenient front-line troops in an anti-European war by many Members who represent land-locked constituencies. We need serious and credible solutions. If we can suspend disbelief and concede that the Conservatives have a policy that is legally and technically attainable, let us scrutinise it. I keep an open mind on all these issues, but I fundamentally believe that we should have a policy that is deliverable and that gives fishermen in the UK a better future than is currently projected for them. I am always prepared to consider alternative approaches.
  I strongly endorse the views expressed by several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford, about industrial fishing. We need a more robust debate on that issue. We should take that bull by the horns, because such fishing has a detrimental effect on the stocks of sand eels and scad. As has been shown, a significant by-catch of white fish is also associated with industrial fishing.
  I draw the Minister's attention to a deep concern in some coastal communities about the six and 12-mile zones. Fishermen in my constituency use inshore boats to fish to the six-mile limit, but they often find large French trawlers trawling across their fixed gear. That is happening with increasing frequency, and damage occurs to gear in many cases. That restricts many cove fishermen from the far west of Cornwall to within the

  1007
  six-mile limit, and it does not give them room for manoeuvre. Those fishermen already face tremendous problems, so they need our support.
  A serious problem also relates to the future of small cove boats. Fishing from boats of less than 8 m—those that are dragged up the beaches in many coves in Cornwall and the south west—is often restricted by quotas. Such boats use sustainable methods to catch shellfish and other species, and it is argued that they should form a sub-group below the 10 m restrictions and have different regulations applied to them.
  I also wish to caution the Minister about the shellfish licensing scheme, which will be implemented progressively from January to April next year. Many young people are now able to enter the inshore industry literally with a punt and go out to catch crab. They have traditionally been able to build their own businesses in that way. Even though the shellfish licensing scheme provides them with the freedom to catch five lobster and 25 crab, that would not provide them with sufficient opportunity to succeed. Such young people are the future lifeblood of the inshore industry in many coves, and I would like the Minister to consider ways of protecting quotas so that young entrants are not excluded from the industry. There is concern in some communities that the introduction of shellfish licensing will mean the end of cove fishing.
  With those remarks, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I thank you for your forbearance.
  6.9 pm
  Mr. Frank Doran: I want to make a short contribution about the processing side of the industry and to address other issues that have been raised. My primary constituency concern is processing, because Aberdeen lost its main fishing fleet many years ago. A number of issues are of concern to the industry. The major one is that it has become increasingly difficult to secure regular supplies of fish. I think that, if the Minister answered that point directly, he would tell me that the fish processing industry has had quite a good year this year. That is true, but a lot of it has come on the back of imported fish. Most primary processors depend on regular supplies of locally caught white fish. That remains a concern and I ask him to keep himself fully apprised of it.
  The industry is constantly struggling against the difficulties of regulation. Every time I get to my feet in the Chamber to talk about it, new problems seem to have been raised. At the moment, two issues are causing concern: animal by-products legislation and the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999, which is having serious cost implications for the industry. I will write to the Minister about particular concerns on that. There is another major issue. Some sections of the industry went through a difficult period at exactly the same time as the catching side but have not had the same help. There is a sense that it is a two-tier industry. I simply put that point on the record.
  I will not labour the points, but I want to use the rest of the time available to me to pick up on what was said by the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale). The points he raised are important.
  1008
  Although I do not want to say that I have swallowed them hook, line and sinker—he would not expect me to do that—the way in which the Conservatives and the Scottish National party are addressing the issue sends a warning to the Government. It is important that we do not indulge in the usual political rhetoric and try to brush them off, because there are difficulties.
  Before making my points, I want to say that I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's speech. He tried to persuade us all of the virtues of independence. The nationalists and the Tory party have always been close—we have known that in Scotland—and it was interesting to hear that being pointed out today. He picked a number of unfortunate examples that do not bear scrutiny, mentioning Norway, the Faroes and the Falklands.
  The Norwegian industry is quite different from ours. Apart from its importance to a country the size of Norway, it has been heavily subsidised and modernised with the aid of oil money. The nationalists will say that we could do that in Scotland, but I am not going down that road. Those factors distinguish it from our industry. Its importance compared with that of the UK industry is different. The importance of the Faroese industry is similar, as fishing is the major industry there, as it is in Iceland. Apart from tourism and the possibility of oil, it is difficult to see what other major industry the Faroes might have. Therefore, we are talking about a completely different situation.
  What amused me was the hon. Gentleman's reference to the Falklands. I have been there and seen its industry. There is virtually no indigenous fishing industry in the Falklands. There is no fishing fleet. The Falklanders sell their licences to foreign vessels, making £40 million to £50 million a year, which has transformed the Falklands economy. I think that there is an argument, although fish processors in my constituency do not want to hear it. for learning one lesson from the Falklands—I refer to the idea of selling licences each year. However, some fishermen have spent thousands of pounds in buying up licences for quota, so they would be greatly opposed to that idea.
  On the basis of how the Scottish nationalists and the Conservatives are reacting and from what I know about my area, there are real problems with how the common fisheries policy is managed. It is important to see how the stakeholders are reacting to the management of the CFP. It suggests that we are at a fairly advanced stage in the breakdown of trust in the process. That means that we are in real difficulties. I do not need to go into the details, because the Minister has already heard the various interventions about those matters.
  I always listen carefully to the fishermen in my constituency. I have been involved in these debates since I was first elected to this place in 1997. Throughout that period, mistrust in the Commission was never as strong as it is now. We have heard the word "contempt" used, but I believe that that is too strong because most people in the industry know that they depend on the Commission for their future. Nevertheless, serious concerns remain about the management of the CFP. Every year around December, there are a couple of months of panic as the scientists produce their report,

  1009
  the Commission produces its response and the various forces within the EU go into battle to deal with the issues.
  Angus Robertson: Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern and that of hon. Members on both sides of the House, including members of the European Scrutiny Committee, that, with the entrenchment of the common fisheries policy and with fishing becoming an exclusive competence in the EU constitution, we are taking a dangerous step backwards? Will he urge his Front-Bench colleagues, in the few remaining weeks of the IGC, to turn that position around?
  Mr. Doran: I am not going down that road. The hon. Gentleman knows that many issues, in which we have both been involved, remain open to negotiation. I hope that that is one of the issues that will be dealt with. The whole basis of the negotiations is of major concern. There is a major rift between the industry and the scientists. We all welcome the advice and we need hard facts. I looked, for example, at the briefing from the Scottish Fishermen's Federation. It is a modest and serious briefing, throughout which there are constant challenges to the scientific evidence.
  Mr. Carmichael Mr. Carmichael rose—
  Mr. Doran: I want to finish my points and I know that other hon. Members want to contribute to the debate.
  The industry has gone through two years of trauma, in which the Scottish fleet has been reduced by half. We heard this morning from the chief executive of the Sea Fish Industry Authority that the income of operators in the white fish catching side of the industry has decreased by another 30 per cent. this year. There are serious issues here. If the stakeholders are losing confidence in the process, the process will fail.
  It is no accident that both the Conservatives and the nationalists have adopted withdrawal from the CFP as the main plank in their fisheries policy. I certainly do not support that policy, which is nonsense and populist and will be extremely damaging to our fishing industry. At the same time, however, the Government must pay attention to what is happening on the ground. Debates about the future of the industry have moved on immensely since the Government were elected in 1997. Everyone in the industry awaits the report from the strategy unit due in 2003, which will make an important contribution to the debate. Somehow or other, we must get the message across to the Commission that it must understand the growing problems created by the management of our industry.
  6.19 pm
  Ann Winterton: I wish to begin by genuinely wishing the Minister well in the forthcoming negotiations at the Council of Ministers. For him, it will be a baptism of fire, but it is essential for the actual survival of the industry that he is successful and salvages what he can for the UK fishing industry. It will not be a straightforward meeting at which the UK can make real progress, because the proposals come directly from the Commission and will already be cut and dried. It must also be recognised that the Council of Ministers cannot
  1010
  change the Commission's proposals other than by unanimity. The Commission is, after all, the guardian of the treaties and therefore works only within the confines of those treaties.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) clearly and succinctly described to the House the policy espoused by the Conservative party, but I want to correct the impression that it is a recent policy. I remind the House that the former hon. Member for Teignbridge first introduced it, followed by myself—
  Mr. Blizzard: He was sacked.
  Ann Winterton: As was I. However, the policy will not be sacked, because it is right. The post was then held, with great distinction, by my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), who has not been sacked. Now we have my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford, and I would put money on him not being sacked. He will stay and carry the policy through into government.
  Mr. Blizzard: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ann Winterton: No. The hon. Gentleman has already intervened many times today. He should make his own speech, rather than trying to be reported in his local newspaper by intervening on other hon. Members.
  Mr. Salmond: I would not dispute for a second the hon. Lady's consistency on this matter. When I referred to a recent policy, it was not the policy of withdrawal from the common fisheries policy, but the recent realisation that the European Convention provides the lever to bring about the fundamental renegotiation of fisheries policy. That is the recent conversion.
  Ann Winterton: I was actually addressing the point made by the Liberal Democrat spokesman. I am pleased to support the Bill of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). He has been converted rather late on the road to Damascus, but he is welcome to join those of us who support the policy of national control.
  During a recent Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Question Time, the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) asked:
  "Does the Minister agree that those who claim that we can unilaterally withdraw from the common fisheries policy are engaged in creating an irresponsible diversion and perpetrating a cruel hoax on desperate fishing communities?"
  The cruel hoax is being perpetrated not by the growing number of hon. Members who support national controls, because they put forward the truth, unpalatable as it is to some; it is being perpetrated by their accusers. The hon. Gentleman continued:
  "Does he therefore agree that the UK should now take the lead, grab the issue by the scruff of the neck, go back to the drawing board, and acknowledge that the centralised basis of the common fisheries policy should be scrapped and replaced with a robust. devolved, regional management structure— [Official Report, 20 November 2003; Vol. 162, c. 938.]
  The Minister agreed with him, and by so doing displayed the breathtaking lack of knowledge and understanding that the original question exhibited. Frankly, it does not bode well for the forthcoming

  1011
  negotiations when the Minister and the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesman, who represents a south-west constituency, are either ignorant of the structure of the European Union and the rules within which we have to work or just do not want to know. No wonder fishermen in the UK industry are in such a desperate state. That solution is not credible.
  First, if we wanted to scrap the centralised basis of the CFP, as confirmed by the Foreign Secretary on 22 October at column 389 in reply to the hon. Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing), we would have to scrap the terms of our accession to the EEC in 1973, which included the principle of equal access to a common resource without discrimination. In other words, we would have to withdraw from the CFP, which is exactly what the Conservative party have been saying for several years.
  More often than not, the Liberal Democrats—with the honourable exception of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), who sensibly consulted his constituents and now supports national control—say different things to different constituencies throughout the United Kingdom. An obvious example, which was mentioned earlier, was provided by the MSP for Shetland, one Tavish Scott, who supports national control while he is in Shetland but who, as a Minister in the Scottish Executive, supports the Liberal Democrat party line of regional management. Something about trying to have one's cake and eat it springs to mind.
  Do the Minister, the hon. Member for St. Ives and other Liberal Democrat Members realise that, with the support of new Labour, they are trying to scrap the CFP? Perhaps the penny has not dropped. If, as they said on 20 November, they want the CFP to be replaced by a robust, devolved, proper regional management structure, perhaps they can tell us how that will be achieved. Commissioner Fischler has already made it clear in relation to Baltic cod that the principle of subsidiarity does not apply to fisheries, so can the Minister or the hon. Member for St. Ives tell us how they will obtain the treaty changes necessary for the type of regional management they support, instead of our being fobbed off with toothless regional councils?
  Andrew George: It would of course be churlish of me to point out Tory inconsistencies, although I understand that, on a number of occasions, the Conservative MEP in Scotland has taken a different view of fisheries matters from that of his party. If we assume that the Conservatives have adopted their policy with the best of intentions and that it is neither naked populism nor opposition for opposition's sake, will the hon. Lady at least accept that there is a question of interpretation? Will she keep an open mind as to the possibility technically of delivering a decentralised system, just as I am prepared to keep an open mind about the legality of her claim?
  Ann Winterton: All the Scottish MEPs are in favour of national control. In fact, the hon. Gentleman has some questions to answer. I am posing questions to the
  1012
  Liberal Democrats about their party's policy; it is about time they stopped trying to play it both ways. The hon. Gentleman should tell the House precisely—
  Mr. MacDonald: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ann Winterton: No, I am responding to the hon. Member for St. Ives. I want him to tell the House precisely how the Liberal Democrats will achieve those vital treaty changes and I suggest that he stop trying to deceive fishermen.
  Mr. MacDonald: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ann Winterton: I have only three minutes left for my speech, so I intend to continue.
  During the same oral questions to which I referred earlier, the Minister accused me of annoying countries with which we would have to negotiate reciprocal arrangements in the event of national control. Let me assure him that Iceland, the Faroes and Norway have made it perfectly clear that they would not even contemplate EU membership unless national control of fisheries was in place. Furthermore, those countries would rather negotiate with the United Kingdom than with the whole European Union.
  What is also staggering is that on 20 November at column 972 of Hansard, the Leader of the House described the other place as unelected and undemocratic, yet the UK fisheries Minister considers it best to relinquish responsibility for the British nation's marine resources and for them to be controlled by an unelected, undemocratic and corrupt Commission. The Government have no principle and no consistency, and they are all over the place.
  I can only say, to the repeated hollow cry that establishing national control will mean leaving the European Union, "What arrant nonsense!" I did not notice France or Germany at the exit door as they broke their treaty obligations on the stability pact; in fact, they seem to be in the driving seat, with the British whimpering at the sidelines.
  On 11 November, during my Adjournment debate on the demise of cod in the British sector, the Minister threw down the gauntlet—he has repeated this twice today-challenging me to produce alternative science. I responded to that challenge by writing to him on 20 November—I have not yet received an acknowledgement or a reply—inviting him to chair a meeting to be held in the House of Commons in the spring, at which scientists of my choice will debate and challenge the scientists who advise him. I very much hope that he will agree to attend, although the meeting will take place anyway. If neither the Minister nor the scientists whom he nominates is present, a clear indication will be given to the fishing industry that the Government's actions cannot be defended, and they will stand condemned in the eyes of fishermen as a result.
  When the Prime Minister recently entertained the President of the United States of America in Sedgefield, they lunched, we are told, in a rather nice pub, on cod, chips and mushy peas. That delectable dish is the hallmark of Save Britain's Fish fringe meetings at Conservative party conference, which always attract maximum attendance, although haddock is served,

  1013
  rather than cod I am glad that haddock is so plentiful at the moment, and we very much hope that changes will be made so that more can be caught in the future. The cod eaten on that occasion at Sedgefield came from the constituency of the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), and I hope there was nothing fishy about that.
  The Prime Minister is on record as saying that he is very partial to fish and chips. What a pity his much-vaunted No. 10 strategy unit was not allowed to start examining fisheries policy with a clean sheet of paper, but was given specific orders: its remit was to stay within the bounds of the CFP. What a wasted opportunity and yet another piece of cruel deception and spin. The truth speaks louder than words, and it is not those who support national control who cruelly deceive but those who shine an imaginary light at the end of a very long tunnel of deception. United Kingdom fishermen will never prosper while policy remains in the CFP, and the fishing industry will suffer yet further emasculation. The only solution is national control based on—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has had her time.
  6.32 pm
  Mr. Eddie McGrady: It is with some trepidation that I go from the global problems to the parochial problems of those fishermen in the Irish sea who fish off the County Down coast. The three most important fishing ports in Northern Ireland are on the County Down coast, and two of those are in my constituency. We have an added problem—I had hoped that it would not be a problem this year—in that our devolved institutions are suspended, and we have no local Minister responsible for fisheries to attend the Brussels negotiations. We are dependent on a no doubt able person to represent third hand the concerns and views of the Northern Ireland fishing industry.
  Fishermen's observations regarding the Irish sea are usually criticised as self-interested, but we have evidence from independent scientists that the fishermen's assessment, in fact, has justification. I was rather disappointed during the early part of the Minister's introduction, when he called such scientists dissidents, as opposed to people with dissenting opinions. Those two terms have different meanings in my vocabulary. A scientist's credibility should always be taken on board and he should not be castigated in any way simply because he has a different or opposing view.
  Leaving that aside, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea is much more positive for 2004 in respect of the Irish sea than it has been for many years. In fact, the chairman of the fishery science group stated at a recent meeting that the positive signs from the Irish sea had to be emphasised. We shall look to see how that emphasis on the positive aspects is reflected in the outcome of the negotiations.
  Those positive signs include the fact that cod stocks in the Irish sea have increased by a multiple of three—three times what was there before. In the past year alone, the availability of Irish sea cod has increased by 40 per cent. Those are not the opinions of dissident scientists—the ICES scientists are advisers to the Commission. They go on to say that one of the most important species now, nephrops, remains robust.
  1014
  Given that backcloth, the proposals coming out of Brussels indicate that that is not being taken on board. That is so desponding that it has driven the fishermen of Northern Ireland to the point where they, like many others, wish to withdraw from European fisheries policy. I am a committed European. In this instance, however, for serious, particular reasons, I would support a policy of withdrawal unless there is a meaningful, fair and alternative means of species preservation.
  The Northern Ireland fishing fleet is very small. In the past 10 years, however, it has been halved. In the past three years, income right across the white fish industry has dropped by 76 per cent., and in relation to nephrops it has dropped by 40 per cent. The Northern Ireland fishing fleet has made a major contribution, suggested conservation measures, promoted them, participated in them and done a good deal more than its share. That should be taken on board.
  When the measures in relation to closure of the Irish sea were introduced, the Northern Irish fishermen who had suffered since 2000 got no compensation. Yet when other UK fleet industries suffered the same fate, they received transitional aid.
  Mrs. Humble: Does my hon. Friend recognise that Fleetwood fishermen, who were part of that Irish sea community, received no compensation either? They have been working closely with their colleagues in the Northern Ireland fishing communities to make sure that the cod recovery programme works, without receiving any compensation.
  Mr. McGrady: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Like me, she is fighting her corner of the Irish sea. I agree that the restricted days-at-sea efforts should be subject to some transitional aid. None was given in Northern Ireland, and none was given to the Fleetwood fleet. We envy the Scottish fishing industry, which, I understand, received some transitional aid, but it has the benefit of devolution.
  If the 10 days per month at sea proposal is brought into effect in respect of the north Irish fleet, it will spell the death knell of that fleet. There is no doubt about that whatever. I remember reading back in 1991–92 a very special report from the European Community on the Irish sea. The report acknowledged the Irish sea's unique biomass and—of particular interest to me—the fact that the fishing communities of the east Down coast to which I refer were so dependent and so vulnerable to the ups and downs of the fishing industry that they required special consideration. I do not think that that report, which was accepted, was ever really put into practice. The specialness of the Irish sea's biomass and the total dependency of communities on fishing was never taken into account to facilitate its findings.
  I could cite the views of several scientists that are much more optimistic than those mentioned by the Minister and give a degree of confidence about how things might go forward. Does the Minister realise that against scientific advice, there is a proposed reduction of the total allowable catch for Irish sea haddock stocks from 1,500 tonnes to 1,075 tonnes? Again against scientific advice, it has been suggested that the TAC for plaice should be reduced from the scientists'

  1015
  recommendation of 1,700 tonnes to 896 tonnes. We have heard about a 14 per cent. increase in the TAC for nephrops in the North sea, but although nephrops are one of the basic species fished in the Irish sea, it is proposed to reduce the TAC for nephrops by a further 340 tonnes.
  We must take account of all those factors and the history of competition from fishermen from the Republic of Ireland. My constituency has a water border with the Republic of Ireland—Carlinford Lough. The restrictions on fishermen in the north of Ireland are not the same as those that apply two miles out at sea across an imaginary water border. The co-operation of these isles is vital if justice is to be done, so I ask the Minister to take on board some of the facts that I have presented tonight—albeit poorly. As someone said, politicians simply have to dip into a difficult science. I do not pretend to be an expert; I simply try to represent the views of my local fishermen and the communities that they sustain.
  A separate Northern Ireland Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development will not represent our fishing industry at the talks this year, unlike the last year, so I ask the Minister to give special consideration to his ministerial colleague who will represent Northern Ireland, and remember that he has three huge Northern Ireland Departments to run—it is difficult enough to deal with only this issue. I ask—I almost beg—for special consideration to be given to the facts and for representatives from the Department for Agriculture and Rural Development in Northern Ireland to be given a fair hearing.
  6.42 pm
  Mr. Alex Salmond: I used to think that there was a constancy to the personnel in fishing debates—indeed, I used to think that the only thing that changed from debate to debate was the Conservative fishing spokesperson. This year, however, not only the Conservative spokesperson, but the Minister with responsibility for fisheries and the Secretary of State for Scotland have changed. I do not present that to the new Fisheries Minister as a warning. I merely suggest that his performance at the Fisheries Council might be important for his future career prospects, especially as far as fisheries MPs are concerned.
  The loss to fishing communities of the jobs on which they depend has been more important than the change of personnel to fisheries spokespersons. Some 50 per cent. —half—of our Scottish white fish fleet has disappeared and been decommissioned over the past three years. A few years ago, Ross Finnic, the Scottish Minister for Environment and Rural Development, said that he would not preside over the destruction of the Scottish fishing industry, yet he and the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), are presiding over the destruction of the Scottish white fish fleet. That is not a forecast; it is what has happened.
  The Scottish White Fish Producers Association and the Scottish Fishermen's Federation gave evidence to the all-party group on fisheries earlier today. They
  1016
  pointed out graphically that we are now in a situation in which every fishing boat in the North sea has 1,000 square miles in which to fish, which shows how few boats we have in our specialist white fish sector. Indeed, Michael Park, the chairman of the Scottish White Fish Producers Association, explained that his boat, the Denebula, had to sail 190 miles to help another fishing boat in distress this week because he was closest to it. That is the extent to which our boats and white fish sector have been denuded over the past three years. The industry is the lifeblood of our communities. The companies that depend on that white fish fleet for their Orders—the engineers, ice factories, painters and carpenters—are under the most horrendous pressure and have been shamefully treated by the decommissioning scheme in Scotland.
  If there were no fish in the sea, the situation would be regrettable, but perhaps nothing could be done. We are not in that situation, however. The sea is full of fish; it is just empty of fishermen. We heard that the herring and mackerel stocks are at high levels. Haddock stock is on a 32-year high in the North sea; indeed, we could walk to Norway on the haddock in that sea. Prawn stocks are in a robust condition. Cod stocks, although at a low level, are recovering. It might interest the Minister to know that monkfish in the North sea are assessed not on survey data, but purely on landing data. If the quota goes down, the landings go down and the quota is lowered again the following year. After the Minister's experience of monkfish stocks elsewhere, perhaps he will turn his attention to increasing the quota in the North sea, as any intelligent assessment would require and defend.
  Mr. MacDonald: The hon. Gentleman's solution is unilateral withdrawal from the CFP, as set out in his private Member's Bill introduced at the end of the last Session. When I asked the House of Commons Library to evaluate his Bill, it said:
  "If the Bill were passed, it would not result in the UK withdrawing from the Common Fisheries Policy. That policy has been established by various EC Council Regulations, and no single country can simply repudiate them."
  Surely his Bill and policy are a complete fraud and con on the fishing community.
  Mr. Salmond: I relied heavily on two things in framing the Bill: the excellent Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and the advice of the House of Commons Clerks. The Bill was well founded. In a reply to a constituent of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) just a few months ago, the Government explained that the UK Parliament could withdraw from the European Act 1972 or any part of that Act. The hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. MacDonald) should check with his colleagues and Government before he launches attacks on me.
  Ann Winterton: May I back up the hon. Gentleman's point? In a written answer to me, the Minister for Europe said:
  "The UK will honour its international treaty obligations until such time as Parliament decides to repeal the Acts that give effect to them." —[Official Report, 30 October 2003; Vol. 412, c. 360W.]

  1017
  It is this place that decides, not the House of Commons Library.
  Mr. Salmond: As the hon. Lady and I discussed a few moments ago, the European Convention offers the Government a huge opportunity to force the issue, if they had the political will to do so.
  I have three specific points to make on the negotiations. The first is that for all the badinage, they are vital. I told the Minister about the haddock quota and I think that I got a favourable reply on the information from Seafish about the cod by-catch and haddock fishing. If he cannot secure the bountiful quota that we should have in the North sea, he will have committed a cardinal failure.
  I understand that the Prime Minister's strategy unit is complimentary about the Faroese fishing policy. If the Faroese were managing the North sea haddock fishery, this year's quota would be set at 150,000 tonnes as opposed to the 37,000 tonnes suggested by the European Commission. For marketing reasons, the fishing industry would not suggest that the quota should be set that high, but if it were doubled to 80,000 tonnes, that would be worth £40 million to the hard-pressed Scottish fishing industry. Haddock is not the only species that needs to be decoupled from cod, but that quota will be the benchmark on which we judge the success or otherwise of this Fisheries Minister.
  My second point relates to days at sea. The Minister was asked—I think he took it on board—about the huge reduction in capacity absorbed by the Scottish fleet, and the English fleet to a lesser extent, over the past few years. It would be incredible if the Scottish fleet ended up with the same number of days at sea as the Irish or French fleets, which have increased in size. We must make sure, whether it comes out of annexe XVII or annexe V, that we do not end up, having decommissioned half our fleet, with no benefits accruing to the half that remains. The Minister should understand that the fishing entitlement of the decommissioned boats has not gone to the boats that remain. We are in the dreadful position that the people who are still in the industry are not getting the benefit from less fishing effort that has been applied in the North sea and elsewhere.
  Thirdly—this is a point for the Government as well as for other interests—I am sick and tired of hearing arguments from celebrity chefs, environmental organisations, the Government and companies such as Birds Eye on which it is carelessly said that the North sea is denuded of fish, when that is not the case. That claim has been a significant factor, as Seafish told us today, in the reducing the demand for our excellent products over the past year.
  Instead of arguing from that position, the Minister should be addressing the need for more money for Seafish to promote fish. He should be looking carefully at funding for the processing sector to enable it to move into higher value-added markets. He should be refuting, not encouraging, suggestions that there are no fish in the North sea and elsewhere.
  I move on to the European Convention. I think that the Minister is missing the point, as all Fisheries Ministers on being relegated in importance within the Government are bound to miss, perhaps, that it offers a
  1018
  huge opportunity. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), the Labour representative on the Convention said today:
  "The process in the convention was riddled with imperfections and moulded by a largely unaccountable political elite, set on a particular outcome from the…start…There are certain provisions in there which I think the British government would find unacceptable."
  Professor Neil MacCormick, MEP, head of constitutional law at Edinburgh university for 20 years and the SNP representative on the Convention said:
  "At this time, public opinion leans strongly towards transferring substantial powers back to Member States or to Zonal Management Authorities involving regional groups of Member States. It is quite unacceptable to enact a new constitutional entrenchment that will make any change in practice harder to achieve".
  Putting into the Convention, as an exclusive competence, a failed policy such as the common fisheries policy is a step backwards, or a step further into the mire into which successive Governments have taken the industry.
  The question that fishing communities ask is, I suppose, the same question that was asked after the revelations that 30 years ago they were considered in the European negotiations as "expendable" in the light of Britain's wider interests. That is not something that those in the fishing community have made up—civil service documents released under the 30-year rule stated that the Government of the day regarded Scottish fishermen as "expendable" in the light of Britain's wider interests. We suspect that in common with Lord Owen, Lady Thatcher and John Major's Government, the present Government still regard those fishermen as expendable in the light of other negotiations.
  Why cannot fishing be a red line issue? Why cannot fishing be the priority in negotiations? Why cannot the unanimity that is required within the European Convention and the intergovernmental conference be used to extract concessions and the dismantling of the common fisheries policy, which has caused so much damage to our fishing communities?
  I do not doubt the good intentions of the Fisheries Minister, I merely say to him as gently as I can that whereas he has been in office for 180 days, I have been representing the Banff and Buchan fishing community for 16 years in this place. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby has been representing his constituents since before recorded parliamentary history in this place. What has drawn us and others to the conclusion that the CFP is fundamentally flawed and needs to be dismantled? It is not party political banter. It is not talking about who said what and when. It is the effect that the policy has had on once thriving fishing communities. It is the damage that the policy is still inflicting on the industry that we have left. It is the lost opportunity of a magnificent crop of haddock not being accessible to fishing boats, to fish processors and to the fishing support industry, which require it at a time when any rational policy would set out that that should be done. In a private meeting with the Minister last week I quoted remarks made by David Griffith, the head of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, in a radio debate that we had in late October. He said that if ICES had the information, it would have made the same recommendation as we have about the haddock

  1019
  stock. Instead of telling me that I was quoting David Griffith out of context, which I was not, the Minister should make sure that fishing opportunities are realised and, just once, ensure that the fishing industry and our communities are a priority for Westminster Government.
  6.55 pm
  Mrs. Joan Humble: Like many Members in the Chamber, for the past few years I have talked about the depressing situation of our fishing industry and the European quotas. This year, paradoxically, the backdrop to our debate is, for the fishermen of Fleetwood in my constituency, a success story in the Irish sea, which makes the cuts that they now face all the more bewildering.
  I should like to clarify a point that I made in an intervention on the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale). I referred to the Irish sea cod recovery programme, which he interpreted as support for the common fisheries policy. However, I should like to point out that nobody in the Chamber thinks that the CFP is an unmitigated success. In my own constituency, the fishing fleet has deteriorated and declined over the past 10 years. However, I should like to emphasise the fact that the fishermen of Fleetwood and many of the fishing communities around the Irish sea accept that fish stocks need to be conserved if they are to have hope for the future. They want fairness from the CFP for all the different national vessels that fish the Irish sea, and have worked hard to make sure that the CFP works.
  We are now in the fourth year of that policy, and the fishermen tell me that when they go out they see not just more cod but more mature cod. They are catching mature cod, not codlings. They are therefore seeing the success of their investment, but have been told that they cannot profit from it. That is the difficulty that they are experiencing, and that is the message that the Minister must take to his meetings in Europe. There has been a reduction in the British fishing effort, and spawning stock biomass has increased. Unfortunately, however, the Belgians and the southern Irish have not decommissioned any of their fleet, and their catch of cod and plaice has gone up, while ours has gone down.
  The European Commission must accept that it will only secure support for its proposals if it manages to achieve a balance between stock recovery and vessel viability. Fleetwood fishermen need to earn a living, and whatever the Commission's decision, it must guarantee that. The Fleetwood fishermen have been working closely with other Irish sea communities, and have formed the Pan-Irish Sea Alliance, whose immediate priority is that
  "the biological distinctiveness of the Irish Sea and adjacent fisheries be fully recognised and taken into account by the Commission and Council of Ministers."
  Many fishermen who target the Irish sea are concerned that proposals that may be appropriate for the North sea or Scottish waters are not appropriate for the Irish sea—we need our own special measures and recognition of what mixed fishery means in the Irish sea.
  1020
  The objectives of the Pan-Irish Sea Alliance include the need for
  "central involvement of the fishing industry in all management decisions."
  I urge my hon. Friend the Minister, when considering reform of the CFP, to ensure that we get regional management for the fishing industry. PISA also calls for further
  "involvement of fishermen in the collation and interpretation of scientific data of all stocks and setting of management objectives."
  I repeat the point that many other people have made about the need to listen to fishermen. They have a voice arid it is as important as the voice of the scientists.
  Another key objective is building fish stocks to optimum harvesting levels, recognising the natural fluctuations in species' levels. Those alter from year to year, and we should not panic and bring in draconian measures if a species' numbers go down one year, just as we should not allow over-fishing if the stocks go up a little in one year.
  In every annual debate I have argued that the voice of the fishermen must be listened to. That is why I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister's comments that he is considering much closer working between fishermen and scientists. That will be vital. Such collaboration is set against huge reductions in quota over the past several years. In 1996 the cod quota from area VIIa was 288 tonnes. Next year it will be reduced by 75 per cent. In 1996 the sole quota was 83 tonnes. Next year it will be just 5 tonnes. That is a 94 per cent. reduction. The plaice quota will be down 85 per cent. since 1996 and the whiting quota will be down by 96 per cent.
  There is serious concern, especially about the proposals for a substantial reduction in plaice quota. Over the past three or four years of the cod recovery programme, because Fleetwood fishermen could not target cod, they targeted plaice. Now they are being told that they can catch a little more cod, but at the cost of not being able to catch the fish that they have been catching successfully over the past three years. The irony is that Irish sea plaice is being fished within safe biological limits. The advice from the Advisory Committee on Fisheries Management in October was for a roll-over. Why is the advice now a 46 per cent. cut? What has happened between October and now?
  Fleetwood fishermen need an answer to that, because without that plaice quota, they will be in serious difficulties. They are concerned that they seem to be taking a disproportionate share of the pain of managing the cod recovery programme. They see Belgian beamers increasing their cod by-catch by a large amount—it went up from 283 tonnes in 2001 to 318 tonnes in 2002. In three months Belgian beamers—I cite them not because I am anti-Belgian, but because it is a blatant example of what is happening—are taking three times as much cod as the Fleetwood fish producers organisation is allowed for a year. That is not seen as fair by the fishermen of Fleetwood.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) mentioned, the advice from ICES is that the spawning biomass of cod has tripled. The Irish sea cod recovery programme is working, so why does the European Commission not recognise that Fleetwood fishermen, who contributed to that, should be allowed to earn a livelihood? The Commission seems to be

  1021
  linking the catching of cod with the catching of plaice. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider whether that link exists. Fleetwood fishermen tell me that when they catch plaice, they are not catching cod. The plaice quota could be increased while protecting the improvement in cod stocks.
  Tom Watson of the Fleetwood fish producers organisation is quoted in Fishing News of 5 December as saying:
  "Fleetwood's fishing industry is not dead by a long way. There are people in it who are doing well, but it can't take any more knocks. We will fight tooth and nail to stop a cod ban or any quota cuts."
  So will I. I am standing up to defend the fishermen of my community, and I urge my hon. Friend to fulfil the promise that he made at the beginning of his address to us that he will defend fishing communities and, if there are cuts that are disproportionate and not justified by science, he will fight against them. I urge him in the strongest terms to do that at the Council of Ministers meeting.
  7.4 pm
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I have been in this House longer than most Members sitting around me today—more than 30 years in the House and 25 years in Europe—and this is a matter of great seriousness; it is not a party political issue. It unites all the people who are associated with and know the needs of the fishing industry and what it faces.
  No one would say that the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and the hon. Member for North Antrim agree on the big issues in Northern Ireland, but we agree on this. I should like to put it on record that I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman because he graciously hung up all over Northern Ireland a beautiful photograph of me and my son. It is not very often that the opposition puts out photographs of its opposition, and I am grateful, but it did not have the decency to send me a copy. I had to go round and get one when the election was over.
  Mr. McGrady: I guarantee to send the hon. Gentleman an autographed photograph.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The photograph was auctioned for my election, and I obtained a massive sum—I will not say how much—but what money a photograph autographed by the hon. Gentleman could bring in. I thank him. I await the day.
  The House should remember that when we joined the Common Market, as it was then, we controlled, owned and had sovereignty over a vast stretch of territorial waters. We were told by people who wanted us to join the Common Market that, as the voting was based on a weighted majority, we would always be able to protect our fishermen. But the fishing industry today is only a slight shadow of what it was. This jewel in the crown of industry has been taken away from us hit by bit. Those who control it are interested not in the well-being of fisherman in Britain, but in the well-being of fishermen in their own countries, and, unlike Britain, those countries do not police the regulations against fishermen—and they get away with it.
  1022
  Our once prosperous fleet is tiny today. In 1993, 213 commercial fishing vessels were registered in the Northern Ireland fishing fleet. By the beginning of 2003, that had been reduced to 136, and with the continuing decommissioning schemes the number has now been reduced to around 110. Since 1999, the average profit, before depreciation, of a Northern Irish-based whitefish trawler has fallen by 76 per cent. to £10,400. The average profit of a nephrop trawler has fallen by 48 per cent. to £15,600. That is a reflection of the imposition of four years of temporary closures in the spring of the year, which have removed the whitefish fleet's main fishing season and led to an increased supply of nephrops undermining the market for all nephrop fishermen.
  I speak for the fishermen who have asked me to take part in this debate tonight, and if this plan, or any semblance of it, goes through, it will sound the final death knell of the local fishing fleet, and I am sure that my friend across the way, the hon. Member for South Down, will agree with that, as will my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Mrs. Robinson) who represents the other large part of the fishing industry in South Down. This is a very serious matter.
  I was saddened at the start of the debate when the Minister said that he felt that there was something wrong in respect of fishermen and scientists. I sat in a meeting at Brussels—I would like him to remember this—and we argued the matter out. The fishermen said, "All right, you say that the scientists want to hear our side," and they named a boat, appointed a day and gave a schedule so that the scientists could go out in the boat with them, allowing them to show the scientists what they saw when they were at sea. Not one of the scientists turned up. I must ask why. I am glad that the Minister has said that encouragement is being given, as there is a battle between certain scientists and the fishermen, who think that the truth is not being fully told.
  The time has come when that obstacle must be overcome. The scientists must see that they can make mistakes and recognise that, while the fishermen are filled with zeal about keeping their fisheries, they are also the friend of the fish. If the fish are destroyed, their activity will be destroyed as well. Let us think of the fishermen. They do not want to put out of existence their own industry.
  The Minister will face a difficult situation, as this decision will be taken not on the truth but on politics. Let no one in this House be mistaken about that. For all any of us know tonight, it is probably all fixed, fiddled and finished. If it is fixed, fiddled and finished, it will have dire consequences for our fishing industry and we will see the result in coming days. This is not a matter of being for or against the European Union or of what view we take of the constitution, but a matter of the well-being of our fishing industry. If the European Commission cannot look after our industry, let us look after it ourselves. What is wrong with that? Is there something immoral in a nation looking after its own fishing industry and in a person saying "We gave you the job and you failed; we do not have any waters or territorial claims, we have given everything that we could give and, at the end of the day, we have seen our fishing industry lost to society"?
  In Northern Ireland, we cannot afford the loss of one job, let alone of this whole industry, as it feeds a number of fishing villages. In those villages, fishing provides

  1023
  employment. Once we close down the boats, we will close down the village and the future of the men and women, and boys and girls, in that village.
  I know a little about Europe and I say to the Minister that I pity him. He faces a hard task. One does not know why a man leaves a meeting and comes in again having had a road to Damascus experience. He will have suddenly changed because something has been offered to him—a pay-off. Our fishermen should not accept a pay-off. They deserve what is right, and I trust that the Minister will succeed in getting what is right for them.
  7.14 pm
  Lawrie Quinn: Yet again, I have the sense of "Groundhog Day" that I get at this time of year. I hope to keep my remarks brief so that at least one other Opposition Member representing a fishing community might say their piece for that community.
  This morning, I was looking at this year's census figures. It staggered me to find out that only 138 people declared themselves as working in the fishing industry in my constituency. Even that number, if we extend it using the conventional multiplier of eight, means that about 1,000 people in my constituency work in the fishing industry. That is still a significant number.
  The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) spoke of the road to Damascus. From the perspective of my constituents, I wish the Minister well on his road to Brussels, and I hope that he tries to achieve the best he can from those negotiations.
  As is traditional in this debate, we have already been told that, sadly, people die in the fishing industry every year. I am passionate about health and safety at work; it is a policy area to which I have tried to commit a lot of time, and I hope that the Minister will have the fullest regard to the perils that people in my constituency face when they go to sea. When he is considering subjects such as days at sea, I hope that he will understand the pressures that people going out to sea face as they try to maximise their achievement in reclaiming the harvest that they feel is their own.
  The Minister knows only too well that the current chairman of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations in England is one of my constituents, Mr. Arnold Locker, and that one of his close colleagues is Mr. Fred Normandale, the master of the Alliance fishing organisation in Scarborough. He knows those two individuals very well. He talked at some length about his concerns about enforcement and the pressure that the Commission is bringing to bear on the British fishing industry, and I ask him to have due regard to the recent court case in which Mr. Locker, Mr. Normandale and seven other of my constituents faced charges for allegedly breaching the enforcement measures.
  As the Minister knows, since the summer I have been trying to have a conversation with him, but, regrettably, for some reason his diary did not permit that conversation to take place. There is a need to bring not only the inspectors but everyone involved in enforcement, especially in the English industry, round the table to think about how they can try to manage that difficult area.
  1024
  The Minister will know that the case was thrown out, at considerable cost to his Department, because the breach was alleged to have occurred a month before the notice and the regulation took effect. The fact that such a fundamental mistake could be made, wasting much time and money and causing great distress to my constituents, is a disgrace, and I urge the Minister to go back to his Department and try to encourage the more co-operative partnership approach that he described earlier.
  Like many of my constituents, I regarded the Prime Minister's intervention earlier this year, and his commissioning of a strategic report on the fishing industry, as quite hopeful. The report is very timely, but there is also major scepticism about it, not least on the part of Mr. Fred Normandale, who was quoted in the local newspaper as saying that it was rather like trying to rearrange the deckchairs on the Titanic. That conveys the sense of beleaguerment felt by many people who face the perils of the sea daily, when they consider the measure about which we hope we will hear conclusions in the near future.
  Finally, I shall offer a little glimmer of hope and try to look beyond the difficult times that many people in my constituency and in the rest of the industry now face. In Whitby, there is a small success story. A sea fishing school has about a dozen apprentices learning their craft onshore before they go out to sea. I am pleased that youngsters wanting a career in the fishing industry come to Whitby from all over the UK, with the aim of learning how to ply their trade at sea.
  I want my hon. Friend the Minister to take the message from Scarborough and Whitby to the difficult negotiations in Brussels. I want him to have regard for the youngsters who seek a future at sea. I notice that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire), is sitting on the Front Bench next to the Minister. She knows only too well the difficulties faced by families who earn their living by going to sea in boats. Those people need skill and craft, but above all they need the hope that they have a sustainable future.
  I wish my hon. Friend the Minister well in his attempts to secure the best outcome for this country.
  7.20 pm
  Mr. Alistair Carmichael: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn), who favoured us with a cogent and thoughtful analysis of the industry's problems. I endorse in particular his remarks about the problems of enforcement. I hope that the Minister will take them on board.
  It bears saying that this debate is not about fish alone, but about people living in communities that depend on fish. It is difficult to overstate the importance of this issue to my constituency. As I did my tour of the outer isles of my constituency this summer, more than 100 people turned up to the Symbister hall in Whalsay to lobby me on the state of the fishing industry.
  One of the most difficult things that I have ever had to do was to stand up in the Lerwick mission hall on 19 December last year, six days before Christmas, and face more than 100 skippers and crew members. I had to try to explain the bad, corrupt and downright deceitful deal

  1025
  foisted on them by people in Brussels. It was a vicious deal, and they were its victims. They were staring ruin in the face—that is the human cost of the decisions taken last year. I do not believe for one second that Franz Fischler could have been a party to that deal if he had had to stand where I had to stand on that day. That is why I say that the remoteness of Brussels in respect of fishing cannot be overstated.
  We in Shetland have taken our share of the pain. Two years ago, we had a white fish fleet of 27 vessels fishing out of Lerwick, but today we have a fleet of 14. In the intervening period, the Zenith, the Harmony, the Donvale II, the Shannon, the Brighter Dawn, the Neptune, the Fear Not, the Madalia, the Langdale, the Andromeda, the Lomur, the Auriga, the Heatherbelle, and the Sarah Joan have either been decommissioned or sold. They have been lost to our community: 40 per cent. of the vessel capacity units have now been removed from the Shetland white fish fleet.
  It is not just about the boats, but about the jobs that go with them. It is not just about the jobs on deck, either, but about the onshore jobs associated with them. I want to impress on the Minister the fact that we have suffered the pain, and are now looking for some of the gain. We are looking for a bit more stability in fisheries management. I want the Minister to accept the message, and to take it to Brussels with him, that there is now opportunity for growth in certain areas.
  I turn first to the question of cod stocks. Figures from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea show that there has been a 59 per cent. increase in those stocks in the past two years. If that increase is repeated this year—and the extent of decommissioning over the past 12 months means that that may be a conservative estimate—it is reasonable to expect that the spawning stock biomass of cod in the North sea will be in the region of 69,000 tonnes next year. The ICES figures show that 70,000 tonnes is the minimum safe biological level. Therefore, the ICES proposal earlier this year for a total closure of cod was completely ill judged. At the same time, recruitment to the cod stocks has stabilised and, more important, the cod mortality fishing rate is now half what it was in 2000. In fact, it is at its lowest since 1979.
  With a little imagination, there is an opportunity to explore the way in which spatial management might be used to decouple cod stocks from those of haddock. I have already made the point to the Minister about the opportunities that are provided by annexe V and the proposal to allow 22 days at sea for those boats that are able to take less than 5 per cent. of their catch from cod, However, that will be of little benefit to anyone if it excludes boats that, in previous years, have a track record of taking more than 5 per cent. That is one fight that must be winnable for our white fish fleet, and it would make a remarkable difference to the situation in which it finds itself.
  I share the irritation of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) about the impression that, in some way or another, the North sea has been denuded of fish. I met an academic this morning who, at the end of our time together, told me that a fish van visited his village. He said that he liked to buy haddock from that van, but he was a bit concerned that buying haddock would affect the cod stocks. He knew that the level of cod stocks was critical. I told him that he was probably
  1026
  buying imported haddock so we perhaps should not go into that matter. However, I explained that if he was eating mature haddock, he would probably improve the recruitment to cod, so that his continuing to eat haddock might, in fact, do the cod a favour. If he really wants to help the stock of cod or that of any other species in the North sea, the one thing that he might do is stop eating Danish bacon. That is the ultimate destination of the sand eels and immature by-catch that industrial fishermen remove from the North sea.
  As I have said to the Minister before, surely any proper application of the precautionary principle would mean that, instead of saying that the case that industrial fishing is damaging had not been proved, that point should be taken as self-evident. The burden of proof should be on the industrial fishermen to show that they are not damaging fish stocks by taking the amount that they do from the food chain.
  The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan also mentioned monkfish. I emphasise the importance of monkfish to the fishermen in my constituency. My understanding is much the same as his. I believe that the stock levels that are prepared by ICES are made on the basis of landings and that there are no trawling data available specifically for monkfish. That is possibly because monkfish are inevitably a by-catch from other species; there is no targeted fishing of monkfish. Let us consider the figures. There was a 31 per cent. increase in the spawning stock biomass of monkfish this year, and there has been a 50 per cent. reduction in their fishing mortality over the past three years. The increased flexibility that the industry seeks for monkfish is crucial to the continued survival of a very fragile white fish fleet.
  Sadly, nothing has been said about the pelagic sector, which is also of great importance to my constituency. It is healthy at present, but we must recognise that, like every other fishery sector, it will always remain vulnerable to bureaucratic micro-management from the centre. As others have said, we have an abundance of herring, but I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) to what is said in the briefing supplied by the Scottish Fishermen's Federation. In relation to pelagic stocks and herring? it says:
  "The proposed increase of 11 per cent.…in the southern component is less prudent."
  That is a very responsible attitude for the federation to take.
  We have also seen a slight downturn in the numbers of mackerel, but I hope that the Minister will take on board the concerns in the pelagic sector that an 8 per cent. reduction in the mackerel TAC is excessive and unnecessary. It is an over-reaction.
  At this time of year, we always wish the Minister well. Indeed, we could not wish him anything other. He has a massive task ahead of him. I very much hope that he is equal to it, because the survival of fishing communities in my constituency, as in so many other places in this country, depends on his success.
  7.29 pm
  Mr. Peter Duncan: It gives me pleasure to respond to the debate. The Opposition attach importance to the industry in Scotland, so it is a matter of some regret that the

  1027
  Secretary of State for Scotland has not managed to find time in his diary to be with us today, not least in view of the effect on the economy of the disaster affecting the fishing industry, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) demonstrated, represents in excess of £780 million. Scotland will judge the Secretary of State's absence.
  In the short time available, I must point to the incredible situation in which not one Back-Bench contribution gave unqualified support for the common fisheries policy. It has been a striking attribute of the debate that not one person free of the Government's whipping stood up to defend that which is doubtless indefensible. Indeed, only the Government are out of step with public opinion in the communities and opinion in the House.
  The hon. Memberfor Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) rightly said that the debate is not about numbers or ships; it is about communities, people, families and family businesses. Yesterday and the day before, I was in Pittenweem, Peterhead and Fraserburgh. I learned there of the devastation of the industry. In Fraserburgh, 600 jobs have gone since 1997 and people cannot look with certainty towards a fishing industry course at the local college next year. That scale of devastation in the industry is truly one that we cannot contemplate, and I am pleased to reassure hon. Members that the Opposition will not countenance it for much longer. I was presented with a photograph that amply demonstrates the cost to the British taxpayer of tearing up Scottish fishing vessels, which we learn are being built elsewhere with that same UK taxpayers' money.
  For the avoidance of doubt, the CFP has been an environmental, ecological, social, commercial and economic disaster that Her Majesty's Opposition will not tolerate for any longer than is necessary. The communities in Scotland and the UK as a whole that are affected will want to hear explicit confirmation of our plans. We will shortly commence work with industry representatives on our strategy for managing our fish resources once we return to national control. However, we must not equivocate. One of the first priorities for the next Conservative Government will be negotiating the return of national control of our fishing.
  We do not underestimate the price that our fishing communities have paid, and unlike the Government and the Minister, we are not complacent about the price that will still be paid between now and the general election. Shortly after it, the political will required to remove us from the disaster of a CFP will be provided by Her Majesty's official Opposition when we return to government. The communities affected will not be disappointed by the priority that we give to this matter. For too long—for 30 years too long—our communities have paid a high price. They will not pay that price for much longer.
  7.33 pm
  Mr. Bradshaw: It may he helpful to tell hon. Members—it may save their knee joints—that I am not going to take any interventions as I have only three or four minutes in which to speak. I think I was pretty generous in taking interventions during my opening remarks.
  1028
  We have had a wide-ranging and mainly constructive debate that understandably concentrated on those parts of the fishing industry that are under pressure and highlighted concerns in advance of next week's all-important annual Fisheries Council. Before turning to those concerns, let me thank those Members in the Chamber who reminded the House that the fishing industry is more than the commercial white fish fleet.
  My hon. Friendthe Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) rightly emphasised the importance of recreational fishing, which is worth £3 billion to the UK economy every year. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) emphasised the importance of the fish processing industry, which is doing well in many parts of the UK. My hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. MacDonald) stressed the health of the nephrops stocks off the west coast of Scotland. The hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George), who leads on fisheries for the Liberal Democrats, reminded the House that the crab and lobster fisheries in the south-west of England are thriving. My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona Mclsaac) spoke about the healthy state of the pelagic stocks, and, finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) made an important speech about the importance of safety in the fisheries industry. I associate myself entirely with his remarks about the sacrifice that fishermen make in a dangerous profession. He also rightly pointed to the importance of the forthcoming publication in the new year of the Prime Minister's strategy unit report on fisheries. I remind the House that this is the first time for 30 years that any Government of any political colour have had a proper long-term strategic look at the future of the fishing industry.
  Let me turn to the matters that are at the forefront of most right hon. and hon. Members' minds: the forthcoming Council and the particular stocks that are under pressure. I am happy to give an assurance that I have listened to and will take into account the points made by individual Members in the debate this afternoon who admirably represented their own local industry interests.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles asked about nephrops and a zonal approach off the west of Scotland. The special position of the Irish sea was highlighted by the hon. Members for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley). I reassure them that the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, South (Mr. Pearson), does an excellent job of representing Northern Ireland interests. I meet him regularly, just as I work closely with my colleague Ross Finnie and the Scottish Executive. We work in parallel, representing United Kingdom interests. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) made a case on behalf of her fishermen in Fleetwood. Scottish and North sea Members want, as I do, to see maximum decoupling between cod and other species whose stocks are healthy.
  Those were all sensible and constructive suggestions about how to fight for the best possible deal for our-fishing industry. We want to fight for fishing opportunities while ensuring that the stocks under threat are allowed to recover. Several hon. Members advocated a constructive working relationship with our

  1029
  EU partners and securing a better deal through a genuinely reformed common fisheries policy. I associate myself absolutely with the comments of the hon. Member for St. Ives about making faster progress with regional advisory councils.
  Conservative Front Benchers are deluding themselves—and, I am afraid, the House—if they believe that all the problems of the UK fishing industry can be solved by a unilateral repatriation of fishing rights to the UK and a unilateral withdrawal from the common fisheries policy. Even if that were possible without leaving the EU as a whole—and anyone who knows anything about the matter knows that it is not— it would leave an isolated UK having to renegotiate with the whole of the rest of the European Union and the other nations to which they referred in the debate from a position of weakness and isolation. The idea that they could get a better deal for this country under those circumstances is, I am afraid, a cruel deception on the UK fishing industry.
  I welcome the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) to his new position, but—
  It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put, pursuant to Order [8 December].
  Shona Mclsaac: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you explain why the hon. Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton) was given 13 minutes to contribute to the debate? As far as I am aware, she does not represent a fishing community. I am such a representative, yet I was not called in the debate, so the voice of the fishing industry in Grimsby and Cleethorpes was not heard. What are the rules on time and constituency interest?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member For Congleton (Ann Winterton) was allotted the standard time allowed in debates. As to the other point mentioned by the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona Mclsaac), the fact that Mr. Speaker imposed a time limit on the debate demonstrated his wish to try to get as many Members as possible to contribute to it.
  Mr. Roy Beggs: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to point out that many hon. Members did not have an opportunity to contribute to the debate, even though there is a crisis in the fishing industry. I ask those who organise Government affairs to take that into account for future debates.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: We cannot go back to the debate now, but the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) has put his remarks on the record.

  BROADCASTING
  Ordered,
  That, for the purposes of its approval, the Amendment (Cm. 6075), dated 4th December 2003, to the Agreement (Cm. 3152) dated 25th January 1996 (as amended by the Amendment (Cm. 4797), dated 3rd July 2000), between the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and the British Broadcasting
  Corporation, shall be treated as if it were an instrument subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation). —[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

  MODERNISATION OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Ordered,
  That Mr David Cameron be discharged from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons and Mr Oliver Heald be added. — [Mr. Jim Murphy.]

  PETITIONS

    RAF Stafford
    7.41 pm
    Mr. David Kidney: The Ministry of Defence is carrying out a review of air combat service support units that could have a catastrophic effect on RAF Stafford. That is why, in just the last three weeks, some 5,000 residents of Stafford and the surrounding area have signed a petition backing RAF Stafford. The first signature on the first page is, fittingly, the first citizen of Stafford borough and current mayor, Councillor John Russell. Also among the signatories is the chairman of Staffordshire county council, Councillor Eddie Boden. The number and range of signatures shows the depth of feeling and the concern in my community about the future of RAF Stafford.
    The prayer reads:
    The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons call on the Secretary of State for Defence to acknowledge the operational effectiveness of RAF Stafford, its commitment to tri-service working, provision of Cadet training and contribution to local recruitment to all HM Forces; urge him not to remove from RAF Stafford the majority of its uniformed personnel and to recognise that to do so would undermine the viability of the rest of the base's activities; assure him that the loss of RAF Stafford would seriously damage the local economy and good community relations between the Ministry of Defence and the civil population; and invite him to give the Petitioners an assurance that his Ministry's review shall have regard to the serious long-term implications for the whole community of Stafford.
    And the Petitioners remain etc.
    To lie upon the Table.

    Travellers
    7.42 pm
    Andrew Selous: I wish to present a petition from three small villages in my constituency, signed by 1,835 of my constituents, about the establishment of residential communities by travellers on non-residential land, without planning permission. It is a subject of enormous concern and upset to my constituents. It is also a matter of concern to me that the Government have had three occasions on which they could have tried to rectify the matter and have done nothing. They talked out the private Member's Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) on this subject, and we had an Adjournment debate in the summer—
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that a speech is not appropriate on this occasion.
    Andrew Selous: I am coming to the petition itself, but it is a source of concern that opportunities to do something about the problem have not been taken.

    1031
    The petition reads as follows:
    To the House of Commons
    The petition of the residents of Billington, Stanbridge and the surrounding areas, Declares that the law is inadequate to prevent Travellers setting up residential communities on non-residential land without prior planning permission, and that specifically, the petitioners are concerned about the extreme speed of the recent development on Stanbridge Road, Billington, Bedfordshire.
    The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to change the law relating to the unlawful use of non-residential land by travellers who set up residential communities without planning permission, and give local authorities new powers to enable them to halt such unauthorised development more easily.
    And the petitioners remain, etc.
    To lie upon the Table.

    Uttoxeter Jobcentre
    7.43 pm
    Mrs. Janet Dean: I wish to present a petition from my constituents and people in areas around Uttoxeter who are concerned about the proposal to close the Uttoxeter jobcentre, leaving a large area of Staffordshire without that important local service.
    The petition states:
    The Petition of the people of Uttoxeter,
    Declares that proposals to close Uttoxeter Jobcentre will have a detrimental effect on customer service and an adverse effect on the local economy.
    The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to re-examine the decision to close Uttoxeter Jobcentre and to maintain the full provision of Jobcentre Plus services in Uttoxeter.
    And the Petitioners remain, etc.
    To lie upon the Table.

    Childhood Poverty
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. — [Mr. Jim Murphy.]
    7.44 pm
    Mrs. Patsy Calton: I am grateful for the opportunity to debate this important topic in the House, especially given the nature of the statements that are likely to be made tomorrow.
    Although I acknowledge the many initiatives undertaken by the Government to alleviate the effects of poverty and to remove a number of children from the poverty statistics, I am sure that the Government themselves recognise that there is still much to do in this, the fourth richest country in the world. At first sight, it may seem odd that someone who represents what is on the face of it one of the wealthiest constituencies in terms of income should request this debate, but my early experiences as a community politician, subsequently backed up by a research study "Profiling Stockport" carried out in Stockport in 1995, led me to realise that more than half the poverty in our borough was hidden away in small pockets, well below ward level at district enumeration level. I have a persistent concern, therefore, that only a small part of the problem is being addressed. Children are suffering, and ultimately society suffers, too.
    Before I go into the statistics, which are a disgrace in a country that aspires to call itself civilised, I want to thank some of the organisations that do such good work in the field and have been generous with their time in assisting me.
    Barnardo's, which shocked us with its advertising campaign—I confess that I was disgusted by it—has nevertheless ensured that few people could miss the point. The pictures jangled a raw nerve. Indeed, I am little annoyed with myself, because I thought for a while that my sensibilities were more important than the suffering of children—they are not, and Barnardo's has done us all a service.
    Save the Children provided me with information that makes it clear that the transition between work and benefits causes many children to fall into severe poverty. One does not have to look far to see that, to deal with part of the problem, we need not to throw extra money at it but to ensure that there is a more timely application of the money that is due in benefits. The failure to implement the new system at the Child Support Agency, alongside the failings of the previous system, has thrown many lone parents into debt and poverty.
    The change from the working families tax credit to the child tax credit left families on low earnings without their entitlement, for months in some cases. Some months ago, I was concerned when I heard a Minister say on the "Today" programme that the only outstanding cases were those in which applications had not been adequately completed. The truth is that some families who had already completed the forms were asked to fill in another set, even though those forms asked for no more information than had been correctly supplied in the first place. I do not doubt for a minute that the Minister believed that she was telling the truth, but I hope that Ministers look behind some of the information supplied by officials from the organisations that are supposedly administering the system for the very real hardship that is being caused.

    1033
    In a response to the Gracious Speech, the Equal Opportunities Commission made the case for a public sector duty to promote equality between men and women. That would have a direct impact on child care provision in the public sector. Good-quality child care, available for the working day, would do more than anything to lift women and their children out of poverty.
    I have been sent the submissions made by the Child Poverty Action Group and Save the Children to the Select Committee on Work and Pensions inquiry into child poverty. The Child Poverty Action Group submitted a powerful document. which, while applauding the Government's intention to examine measures to make faster progress on eradicating child poverty, draws together several studies that show how much remains to be done.
    The statistics for 2001–02 on households below average income showed that 3.8 million children, or one in three, were living in income poverty, compared with 1.9 million in 1979. Of those 3.8 million children, 55 per cent. were living with a couple and 45 per cent. with a lone parent; 52 per cent. with a family in which one or more members of the household worked full-time—work does not always protect families; 48 per cent. in a workless household; 45 per cent. in a family with three or more children; 25 per cent. in a household in which one or more adults had a disability; 47 per cent. in a family whose youngest child was under five; and 16 per cent. in London.
    The risk is not shared equally across all household types: 54 per cent. of children in lone parent households live in income poverty, compared with 22 per cent. in couple families. Children in households with no adult working are at significantly greater risk of income poverty, at 79 per cent. However, one in five children in poverty live in households with at least one adult working. Half of children in families with four or more children live in poverty. Children from black and minority ethnic households are more at risk of income poverty, as are travellers' and asylum seekers' children.
    As the CPAG says, growing up in poverty has adverse consequences for children. The effects are manifested in different ways on physical health and development, learning, behaviour and emotional well-being. The result is that children are prevented from realising their full potential. It is not far from there to the proposition, which I argue, that those individual consequences for children and the older people they grow into have a profound and negative effect on our whole society.
    What, then, does poverty mean for the children? Children have been defined as deprived if their parents cannot afford one or more of the necessities listed in the Joseph Rowntree Foundation survey "Poverty arid Social Exclusion" published in 2000. It found that 34 per cent. of children lacked one or more items and that 18 per cent. lacked two or more. About 1 million children—8 per cent. —have been identified as severely poor on three measures: income poverty, child deprivation and parental deprivation, the latter two of which involve parents and children going without what most people would consider necessities. About 13 per cent. of that 8 per cent. lack a warm waterproof coat; 17 per cent. do not have new, properly fitted shoes; 18 per cent. do not have enough underpants; 31 per cent. do
    1034
    not get meat, fish or a vegetarian equivalent twice each day; 21 per cent. do not get fresh fruit and vegetables daily.
    In 1998, the Acheson inquiry—an independent inquiry into inequalities in health—highlighted the fact that low-income mothers were not able to afford an adequate and healthy diet. There is a link between low birth weight and social class, and low birth weight may influence later cognitive function and educational performance. Breast feeding is better for babies, but those in lower income groups are less likely to breast feed. Pilot studies where mothers are supported through breast feeding have proved beneficial, but what is being done elsewhere? The CPAG study "Poverty Bites: food health and poor families" challenges the notion that families in poverty have only themselves to blame for poor diet. Parents go without so that their children can eat, but those diets are still likely to be of poor quality.
    I am pleased that the appalling suggestion that poor expectant and nursing mothers should have to go through hoops to receive the welfare food benefits that the state believes they need was removed from the Health and Social Care (Community Health Standards) Act 2003, when it was debated in the other place. On a related theme, any suggestion that the benefits that affect families with children in poverty should be withdrawn because of family or personal behaviour must be rejected.
    Sure Start, while undoubtedly beneficial to those who receive it, has not necessarily reached those in greatest poverty, and Save the Children is particularly concerned. Early years centres need to be extended to more areas. On the positive side, the Government's school fruit initiative is a good start in schools, but they need to do more to ensure that all food available at school, including that at breakfast clubs, and early years establishments is of good quality and supports a healthy, mixed diet. I will not go on yet again about junk food and drinks machines in schools, as the Government have got the message.
    There is clear evidence that children living in poverty do less well at school. They go to school hungry and feel stigmatised by their clothing and shoes, as well as by their inability to take full part in activities paid for by more well-off parents. In my area, the children from one enumeration district do significantly less well in a local school that has very good results overall. The problem is that those children do not register on the radar that determines funding for their special needs.
    I argued during the last local government spending review that it is wrong that children from similar backgrounds or with similar disabilities receive very different funding from the state for their education. In 2002, only 59 per cent. of children receiving free school meals reached the expected key stage 3 levels, while 70 per cent. of those not needing school meals or not receiving them did so. Schools in the poorest communities have between 10 per cent. and 25 per cent. of children achieving five GCSE passes at grades A to C, compared with a national average of almost 50 per cent. Nearly 90 per cent. of failing schools are in areas of deprivation and have a large proportion of children eligible for free school meals.
    Lack of facilities for study at home and the extra pressures of school breaks cause additional problems. One fifth of children have no holiday because of

    1035
    financial constraints. Poverty that is in some way visible tends to result in children being treated differently from their peers. There are clear financial implications when stigmatising benefits are not taken up.
    The Government targets—the Treasury public service agreement—aimed to reduce child poverty by a quarter by 2004–05. Before the 2001 general election, the Government said that they had lifted 1.2 million children out of poverty, measured as children in households below 60 per cent. of median income. The 2002 manifesto pledged to lift another 1 million children out of poverty. In a speech at the time, the Chancellor promised that that would be achieved by 2005. The reduction between 1996–97 and 2000–01 was in fact 500.000, according to the households below average income figures for 2000–01—a little short of the promised 1 million. Even if the Government meet their 10-year target, according to Save the Children that would still leave the UK with the highest child poverty rate in Europe.
    The Institute for Fiscal Studies has indicated that the Government are likely to miss their target of fewer than 3.1 million children in poverty in 2004–05 by 200,000—some estimates say 300,00—unless further measures are taken to improve financial support. Latest figures suggest that an additional £5 per week increase in benefit for every child living in a low-income family is needed to ensure that the poverty reduction targets are met.
    In Budget 2003, the Chancellor made clear his intention to advance faster towards his child poverty reduction goals. It is not clear, however—and will not be until the review of child poverty measures is published by the Department for Work and Pensions—exactly what the goals are against which faster progress is to be made. I hope that we will not simply see a change in the counting methods with the statements likely to be made tomorrow. Although 60 per cent. below median income is not easy to understand, it provides a reliable measure that can be checked from one year to the next. Clearly, however, the whole range of other indicators have a part to play. I was interested to find that in my constituency, which, again, is regarded as wealthy, figures for child tooth decay, for example, are considerably higher than average, at 1.67 missing, filled and decayed teeth at age five. It seems to me that such statistics could be used reliably.
    Good-quality public services such as health, education, housing and transport are required by people living in poverty. However, there is no evidence that local authorities and health services use resources to reflect the consequences of child poverty or to tackle the issue. Simply focusing on areas deemed to be deprived will miss over half the poverty. The Secondary Heads Association estimates that education funding for deprivation misses two thirds of children living in poverty. Families in poverty have a greater need for services but often less access to them. I believe that that is called the inverse care law.
    The CPAG says:
    "There needs to be an explicit commitment by every spending department to the goal of eradicating child poverty with poverty related targets".
    1036
    I agree. The Local Government Association says:
    "`Local Government is a key player in the battle to reduce child poverty".
    I agree with that, too. Local government must recognise, however, that it cannot be a key player if it refuses to change its way of working. Children's social services, education, housing and health must work together, and children's trusts provide a way forward.
    It seems that the Government have rejected the notion of a minimum income standard, but the CPAG believes that one should be established and used as the basis of social security benefit rates. It says that the minimum income standard should be enhanced if a person has a disability—I agree with that, too.
    Maximising take-up of benefits is absolutely crucial, because as many as 600,000 families did not take up the working families tax credit. Underpayments and overpayments need specific care in line with Save the Children's work on the increased rate of severe poverty and the interface between work and benefits. The CPAG recommends writing off administrative errors involving overpayment. That would be entirely consistent with the recognition that families in severe poverty find it almost impossible to pay back overpayments.
    The social fund is not working. According to Save the Children, some 13 per cent. of children in persistent poverty have parents with social fund debts, while only 4 per cent. of such parents have loans. Both the CPAG and the Liberal Democrats believe that the funding to be used for the child trust fund would be better spent on alleviating poverty in the early years.
    The Government have the opportunity to seize the issue, and seize it they must if they are to embrace their declared aims. The Department of Health today published the document "Building on the Best". I welcome the Secretary of State for Health's determination to make the NHS
    "a responsive service that provides the patient with the best possible experience".
    I hope that the same attitude will pervade the Department for Work and Pensions as it tackles child poverty. People who live on low incomes and benefits should be treated with respect and dignity. Too often the benefits system loses sight of the very people whom it is supposed to help. The level of child poverty in this country is shameful to us all and it will stay that way until every child is brought up in a household with sufficient to meet what most of us regard as the necessities of life.
    8.1 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions(Mr. Chris Pond): I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) on securing a debate on childhood poverty in the United Kingdom. I know from the quality of her representations this evening and her active interest in the area that we agree that the subject is a matter for constant attention because of the blight on children's opportunities that poverty causes. That is the very reason why we have pledged to eradicate child poverty by 2020 and halve it by 2010. As today's Joseph Rowntree Foundation report and the recent Institute for Fiscal Studies report show, we are making steady progress on that aim, although we fully recognise, as she suggests, that we have set ourselves ambitious targets and that there is more to do.

    1037
    I shall start by outlining why tackling child poverty is such a priority for us. Social justice and strong communities are absolutely central to this party and Government. Since 1997, we have worked hard—with real success—to tackle inequality and expand opportunities for all. Today's report for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which was prepared by the new policy institute, reports that
    "some significant milestones have now been passed"
    in tackling low incomes.
    We have done that in a new way by giving people the power to transform their own lives, their family and their community through a new and enabling welfare state. It is a modern welfare state that attempts not only to ameliorate poverty, but to tackle its root causes, thus giving people the opportunity to become active citizens, rather than the passive recipients of welfare. We need to break the cycle of disadvantage that too often in the past has led to poor children growing to be poor pensioners.
    That is why we are rebuilding the benefit system and my Department around the support of work for those who can work, while ensuring that support is there for those who cannot. Today's Rowntree report confirms:
    "Out of work benefits to both working-age families with dependent children and to pensioners have risen by around 30 per cent. in real terms since 1998, faster than earnings".
    However, for people of working age, there is now overwhelming evidence that the best route out of poverty is a job. Since 1997, we have helped nearly 2 million more people into permanent jobs and virtually eliminated long-term youth unemployment. For the first time ever, more than half of all lone parents are in work. The minimum wage and the system of tax credits are also designed to ensure that work pays, so that when people have a job they are lifted out of poverty.
    The hon. Lady referred to the implementation of the new tax credits, of which she was somewhat critical. We admitted that because the change is massive—the biggest change in support for families since the establishment of Beveridge's welfare state—there were difficulties in the early stages, and we have apologised to those families affected. She should recognise, however, that nearly 6 million families, containing more than 10 million children, are benefiting from the new tax credits. Combined with child benefit increases, child support for the first child has risen to £54.10p a week, twice as much as it was in 1997.
    Our crusade to tackle inequality starts where it should: with children. We should never forget that previous Conservative Governments witnessed a shameful increase in child poverty. By the time they opted out of the European social chapter, Britain accounted for a quarter of the poor children in the EU. The fact that not a single representative from the Conservative party is in the Chamber to hear this important debate shows how uninterested they are in the welfare of children and the problem of child poverty. The increase in child poverty that we experienced in those years cannot be tolerated by a civilised society. For that reason, we have set ourselves the most ambitious target to be set by any Government: we have pledged to eradicate child poverty in a generation, and we have wasted no time in starting on that task.
    Real rises in child benefit and the new tax credits have meant that all families with children are on average £1,200 a year better off and the poorest fifth of families
    1038
    are on average £2,500 a year better off. We have cut the number of people sleeping rough and are beginning to make in-roads into reducing the high rates of teenage pregnancy.
    I hope that the hon. Lady, as a former teacher, recognises the priority that we have attached to education in breaking cycles of deprivation. I know that she thinks we have not done enough, but more has been invested in education. There are smaller primary class sizes and a stronger emphasis on literacy and numeracy. We recognise, however, that many disadvantaged children are simply not ready to learn by the time they reach secondary school age. Research shows that the early years of a child's life are crucial to their welfare and future. Sure Start, to which the hon. Lady referred, is aimed precisely at addressing early childhood disadvantage by improving child care, health and family support in the most deprived areas. Local parents are directly involved in shaping provision to meet local needs.
    We have also matched new resources with demanding targets to reduce worklessness, maternal smoking and the number of children at risk and with learning and behavioural difficulties. We have concentrated efforts to boost family incomes on those with young children through, for example, the enhanced child tax credit available for babies. Our wider child care strategy has created new child care places for 1.3 million children, about 8,000 out-of-school clubs and a new curriculum for the early years that places a premium on play and learning.
    I think I heard the hon. Lady say that she opposed the child trust fund.
    David Cairns: She did.
    Mr. Pond: My hon. Friend confirms it. The hon. Lady described herself as a community politician, but that message will not go down well on the doorsteps. For the first time in this nation's history, we have an opportunity for young people to start their lives with a nest egg, which could give them a stake in this country's future wealth.
    We are already seeing the results of the Government's commitment and investment. More than 500,000 children have been lifted out of low-income households since 1997. This means that we are making steady progress on our public service agreement target to reduce by a quarter the number of children in low-income households.
    I think that the hon. Lady confused the statistics and the commitments in that she suggested that we had promised to lift 1 million children out of poverty. We have said that the commitment is that the number of children in "low income" is more than a million lower now than it would have been if we had taken no action at all since 1997. The numbers in poverty would have continued to grow. As a result of the actions that we have taken, 500,000 children have been lifted out of low-income households since 1996.
    The hon. Lady will know from the interest that she has shown through parliamentary questions that we will

    1039
    announce the results of our consultation on long-term child poverty measurement before the end of the year.
    Poverty, as we have always said, is not just about low income, so it is encouraging to see progress in other domains too. For instance, the proportion of children living in houses that do not meet basic standards has fallen from 43 per cent. to 30 per cent. Schools in the most deprived areas have seen their results rise fastest. Teenage conceptions have fallen by more than 10 per cent. since we launched our teenage pregnancy strategy. The number of children living a household where nobody works has fallen by 350,000.
    Yet despite this success we cannot be complacent because we must not underestimate the scale of the challenges that we still face. Our strategy has to be an all-embracing one that addresses income, access to basic amenities and key services such as education and health. It must be one that balances support with personal responsibility. That is why employment is at the heart of our strategy to tackle poverty across all age groups.
    Once again, I welcome this debate and congratulate the lion. Lady on securing it and on her determination to keep the issue at the top of the agenda. I hope that I have been able to show that we are making real progress in tackling child poverty in the UK. However, we are under no illusion that the Government can go it alone. We cannot. If we are to win the fight against poverty, we
    1040
    will need to use every lever at our disposal: jobs; help for people who cannot work; and public services that deliver for us all.
    A partnership between the Government and all sectors—voluntary organisations to which the hon. Lady referred and to which I also pay tribute, and private, public, faith and community groups working together—is the best way to tackle poverty and support families. That is demonstrated by the fact that some of the best projects of recent years have partnership with community organisations at their heart, from Sure Start to the new deal for communities. We need to tap into that expertise continually to refine our strategy in line with what works on the ground.
    Today's British Social Attitudes report shows that the British people oppose the idea, in an increasingly prosperous society, that large numbers of our fellow citizens should live in poverty. They reject the Tory philosophy of cuts in public services and the claim that economic prosperity can be achieved only at the expense of social justice. We reject that philosophy as well.
    We are making progress in building the fairer society that people want, but there are no quick fixes to sort out problems that have developed over several decades. We have set ourselves an ambitious target and we are determined to deliver it. We are ready to be judged on whether we do.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes past Eight o 'clock

Preamble
[MR. EDWARD O'HARA in the Chair]

Post Office Closures (Wales)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned. [Margaret Moran.]
9.30 am
Llew Smith: My constituency has some of the worst deprivation problems in any part of Wales and many parts of the United Kingdom. We have the highest incidence of disability and some of the worst health problems, including heart disease, respiratory disease, cancer, emphysema, pneumoconiosis and so on—you name it, we have it in abundance. We have among the lowest incomes and the highest unemployment, as well as one of the lowest levels of car ownership in any of the valleys throughout south Wales, combined with poor public transport. Where there is public transport, it almost invariably does not cater for disabled people, whom we have in abundance in our community. We have an ageing population, but also a considerable number of lone parents. In recent years, we have seen the collapse of the manufacturing industry; prior to that, the policies pursued under Tory Administrations during the Thatcher years wiped out the coal industry. Disadvantaged groups of people are particularly dependent on a vibrant post office service. It is reasonable to assume that the Post Office, working in conjunction with the Government, could find ways to strengthen the service to meet the demands of such people, but instead of a process of reinvigorating the service in our communities, it has embarked on a mass closure programme.
It is almost impossible to discuss the matter with the Post Office, even during periods of consultation. Mr. Barrett, who is responsible for the closure programme, says that we do not understand because we are simple folk, but that the Post Office is not in the business of closing post offices. He says that the Post Office has drawn up a network reinvention plan. I do not know what berk thought up that description, but if it is a network reinvention programme it is an insult to the people in my community. I anticipate that when senior citizens go to what was their local post office and see that the doors and shutters are closed, they will protest at the closure, but the Post Office will accuse them of being stupid and of little intelligence, and Mr. Barrett will proclaim that the post office has not closed, but has become part of the network reinvention plan.
The Post Office is telling people in my community that they have nothing to worry or complain about. I suspect that it wants to be thanked for its initiative and for devastating the postal service in my community, but, thankfully, the people in my community are more intelligent than that. They know better and they have the courage and good sense to raise their voices in protest, as they did yesterday at a demonstration when Mr. Barrett visited the Welsh Assembly, and as they will
2WH
this afternoon when Mr. Barrett is dragged into my valley to meet the local authority. He will receive a traditional valley welcome—a welcome in the hillsides—when he visits Ebbw Vale and its local authority this afternoon. People are coming out in their hundreds and thousands to express their discontent and opposition at public meetings, demonstrations and in letters. You name it, local people have done it.
Mr. Wayne David: Has Mr. Barrett or another senior representative of the Post Office taken the trouble to go to all the post offices that the Post Office wants to close in Ebbw Vale?
Llew Smith: When we were demonstrating at the Welsh Assembly yesterday, one constituent had a placard stating: "We seek him here, we seek him there, we seek Mr. Barrett everywhere." This is a serious point: even during a period of consultation the only way in which we can have discussions with Mr. Barrett is to seek him out. If the consultation were real, he would show respect to the community by visiting it and becoming involved in dialogue with it. The answer to my hon. Friend's question is no, Mr. Barrett has not visited my community or spoken to the people in it.
Mr. Barrett wants us to believe that there has been consultation, but that is another insult to our intelligence, because when he did visit the constituency, he came to speak to postmasters and postmistresses. After those discussions and negotiations, a closure programme and redundancy package for those postmasters and postmistresses was agreed. If Mr. Barrett was serious about consultation, he would not have met the postmasters and postmistresses first and agreed a redundancy package. He would have gone into the community, consulted people and got involved in public meetings and dialogue and, after listening to people's concerns and ideas about the future of post offices, he would have gone back, drawn up plans and then discussed those plans, the future of the post offices, redundancies and so on. However, that has not happened. The reverse has happened.
Mr. Barrett is the person responsible, but he refuses to take part in public meetings, which is a vital part of the consultation process. We have had public meetings that hundreds of people have attended. There was one at the school in Willowtown a couple of nights ago: the school hall was full and people were queueing along the corridors to get into the meeting. That is just one of many examples highlighting local people's concern about the closures.
We are a few days from the end of the so-called consultation period, but I saw Mr. Barrett for the first time on Sunday, when he addressed the nation and said that the people of Blaenau Gwent and elsewhere had nothing to fear. That is an insult. People have been trying to get their ideas over but have been unable to meet Mr. Barrett. The first lime they saw him was via the television screen on Sunday. Yesterday, he came to the Welsh Assembly, and busloads of people came from my community to express their concern. When he turned up, he and his representatives asked me in which committee room the meeting was being held, because he wanted to read out a statement to representatives of the

3WH
local community. I told him that he would not be in any committee room or making any statement to the representatives because busloads of people were heading south and he was expected to become involved in a dialogue. After much argument, he said that he would read out his statement and listen to questions and then think about them when drawing up his final plan. I said that that was not good enough because people had come to the Assembly and they, unlike him, had shown an interest in the post offices, so he must not only listen to people's concerns but address them and do so now. Eventually he did that, because he realised that the occasion was a public relations disaster. We were using his tactics—broadcasting to the nation and expressing our concern about the closures and the tactics of those responsible for the consultation document.
The local community had the good sense to realise that the occasion had nothing to do with consultation but was mere spin. It was a public relations stunt, a sop to appease local people and to give them the impression that their views were important and will be listened to and responded to positively. I, as the Member of Parliament for Blaenau Gwent, am not the only one to express concern about the consultation. The Under-Secretary of State for Wales, whose Islwyn constituency neighbours mine, put out a press statement some weeks ago, and I had a conversation with him this morning in which he declared that the consultation process in his constituency was a sham and a fraud. When local people tried to meet Mr. Barrett to propose alternatives to the closure programme in Islwyn, he refused to meet them, which is surely unsatisfactory.
People recognise that the closure programme in Blaenau Gwent is the first stage and that more closures will follow. If anyone is in any doubt, they should read the Post Office statement:
"If our proposed changes go ahead, we cannot guarantee that there would not be further changes."
Yesterday, I spoke to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), who told me about his community's experience. In that case, the Post Office tabled a consultation document proposing closures while saying, "Not to worry—although this particular post office is closing, there is another one down the road that local people can use." The Post Office then closed not only the first post office, but the alternative post office as well. What happened in Wrexham will almost certainly happen in Blaenau Gwent.
The Post Office plans to close seven post offices—one in Tredegar and six in Ebbw Vale. On top of the problems that I have mentioned, Ebbw Vale has been devastated by the closure of the steel giant Corus. With the knock-on effect of those job losses, some 1,500 jobs have gone in that small town—and not any old jobs: by the standards of working people in Blaenau Gwent, they were good, well paid jobs in a plant where the trade unions had a positive involvement. Tredegar was also devastated by the closure of the steel plant. Both Ebbw Vale and Tredegar have been hit by further closures, including the other two main manufacturing companies in the community, Bosal and Faurechia. By
4WH
the standards of Blaenau Gwent, those companies paid good money and provided the kind of jobs that we need in our community. To make matters worse, six of the seven post office closures are in Communities First areas, where there is the greatest deprivation. We have not replaced the jobs lost with similar jobs. Those communities have not recovered from the closure of the coal industry. Too many low-paid, part-time, nonunion, unskilled, soul-destroying jobs have been created in my constituency in recent years. While the Government are trying to reinvigorate and save the communities of Blaenau Gwent, the Post Office is delivering us a body blow—indeed, it is delivering us seven body blows.
The Post Office has not shown us the respect of bothering to carry out research into the closures. It has invented public transport: for example, Mr. Barrett says that Willowtown post office is served by excellent public transport and that he knows, because he has been there, that there is a bus stop outside the post office. I have been there, and there is no public transport—there has been no public transport for the past 16 years. In order to con people and the Government into supporting its plans, the Post Office has invented public transport. In addition, the Post Office's plans, which are based on a map, give the impression that Blaenau Gwent is flat. I have not got a PhD in geography—we are humble folk—but I know that the community is not flat. The community is based on valleys because the area is mountainous. When I read the report, I was reminded of how the ambulance service drew up plans to change its service in Blaenau Gwent when in reality it wanted to close one ambulance station. Its plans, too, were based on a map. We had to remind the service that although A was three miles away from B, there was a mountain in between them. It could not comprehend that and neither can the Post Office.
In Blaenau Gwent, as in other parts of Wales and the United Kingdom, if the post office closes, the local shop closes because the two are linked. In communities such as Cefn Golau, if the shop closes there is no other facility because the estate is on the side of a mountain. The tragedy is that the council, which works in conjunction with the Assembly and the Government, is trying to reinvigorate those communities to give them hope for a better tomorrow, but the only facility on the estate, a post office linked to a shop, is obviously going to close. The Post Office does not take that into account.
The Post Office also fails to take into account the lack of public transport to travel to alternative post offices. It does not consider how often services run. what facilities there are for the disabled, the cost of public transport, the low level of car ownership in Blaenau Gwent, the cost of using an alternative taxi service, deprivation in the area and the difficulties many people would have in travelling to an alternative post office. The topography of the area is difficult because it is mountainous, and Mr. Barrett should know that the area is not flat. People who are disabled or suffering from poor health will be worst affected. The age of the population is also important.
We must remember that the post office is not like any other shop. In every public meeting we hold, a senior citizen always gets up and reminds us that the post office is not just a shop. It is a community meeting place that

5WH
offers the only opportunity that some senior citizens get each week to communicate with someone else. That is sad, but it is a fact of life. When people go to the post office, they are not just going to buy a stamp or to collect their benefit; they go to meet friends and to share news, gossip, ideas and many other things. When a post office closes, it is more like a school closing than a shop closing, because the heart of the community goes with it. While we are trying to defend our communities, the Post Office is helping to devastate them with its plans. The Post Office's policy contradicts the Government's policy to increase community cohesion and to decrease social inclusion. Closing a post office denies senior citizens and others their meeting place.
Linked to that is a point that a home carer made to me in a public meeting. Home carers have a particularly important role in our community because of the age of the population and the incidence of disability and health problems. I was told that when carers visit a client they are allocated perhaps 30 minutes to carry out, or to attempt to carry out, the tasks necessary to ensure that that person has a little dignity in their life. If the local post office closes, carers will be expected to go to an alternative one, perhaps a mile down the road, to pick up the benefits or stamps needed, and by the time they return, their allocated time will be gone. The real reason for a home carer going to a home to see a client will then not be fulfilled. Carers will be forced to spend the time carrying out tasks that are vital to the people concerned, but that do not come within the carers' remit.
We must recognize—this is the point that I am trying to convey—that the Post Office is not simply a commercial organisation. It is a service. Places such as Blaenau Gwent, which are particularly deprived, have traditionally been more dependent than most on public services. The Communication Workers Union has made several proposals that I support because they would help the situation and help to prevent the closure programme. The proposals include one that
"The operation of the Customer Conversion Centre should cease as soon as possible. Instead customers should be allowed to open Post Office card accounts directly across the counter of their local Post Office."
It seems crazy that people can open bank accounts over the counter, but cannot open Post Office card accounts over the counter. The linked complaint that we hear is that in order to have benefits paid in the post office, people have to ring a number, but almost invariably that number does not work, or it takes a lifetime for the call to be answered. Again, that acts as a disincentive to having a vibrant post office service. The CWU says:
"Details of the Exceptions Service should be published without delay. The necessary steps must be taken to ensure that all Government Departments deliver a positive, consistent and focussed message to customers in relation to the card account. Pressure on key high street banks should be increased to ensure that their current accounts may be accessed at Post Offices."
The union demands that
"A comprehensive independent research programme should be initiated to ensure that the concerns of the central stakeholders are thoroughly investigated. A Direct Payment Forum, comprising representatives of all the key interested parties, should meet regularly to discuss the implementation of the new system and to develop policy as appropriate. All possible actions to reinforce the
6WH
viability of the Post Office network should be taken. If the Post Office is serious about consultation, it will respond positively to the voice of the people."
Everyone in our community has opposed the closure programme: the community and borough council, I as a Member of Parliament, Peter Law as the Assembly Member, 100 per cent. of the local population and 100 per cent. of the organisations that make up the communities of Blaenau Gwent. Yesterday we met the Secretary of State for Wales and the Under-Secretary of State for Wales. Both have stated, privately and publicly, on the television, in the newspapers and on the radio, that the case for withdrawing the closure programme in Blaenau Gwent is "unanswerable". They have demanded that the consultation period, which is due to finish in a few days, be extended. As I have said, it has been a sham.
Mr. David: My hon. Friend has referred to the excellent co-operation between him and Peter Law, the Assembly Member for Blaenau. Gwent. Can my hon. Friend say whether the Welsh Assembly Government have considered the situation in Blaenau Gwent and come forward with any suggestions to improve matters?
Llew Smith:I believe that there was a debate in the Assembly about a week ago. I do not think that any kind of policy statement was agreed on, but I do not know of any Assembly Member who supports the closure programme. I suspect that we have 100 per cent. support across the political parties. However, we do not want to make this a party political issue.
The only organisation with which we have problems is Postwatch. Postwatch rang me on Friday, asking me to return the call. which I did. The Postwatch representative—I think that it was Dr. Kelly Cryer—asked me whether I would like a briefing on the closure programme. I said, "Look. I don't want to be nasty; it's Friday, so let's be nice to one another. I do not wish to sound arrogant, but I am an expert on this subject, and the people whom I have the privilege to represent are even greater experts than I. We don't need a briefing paper; what we want is support." I asked Postwatch, as a body that represents the customers, what it had done, adding that I assumed that it had registered its objections to the closure programme. The representative said, "Well, no, Mr. Smith, what we are doing is conducting research". Postwatch, which is supposed to represent the customer, is still doing research even though the consultation is due to close in a few days' time. When 100 per cent. of customers oppose the closure and all the representatives from the community council to the Secretary of State oppose the closure, what have we got from Postwatch, the body that is supposed to represent customers? It is still carrying out research. I said, "Don't bother; I have got all the research and I will continue talking", but I do not think that Postwatch was particularly impressed. I had another meeting with its chairman, but things repeated themselves. Postwatch must do its job of representing the customers. If it does not, the Government should examine its role and consider abolishing it and replacing it with a body that really represents the customers.
Mr. Bill Wiggin: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on gaining this debate, which is

7WH
extremely important. As he is an expert, can he give us his opinion on why the Post Office, which was making £50 million a year profit, has during the past six and a half years moved towards this closure programme? What does he think has changed?
Llew Smith: I do not know whether that was meant to be a party-political point, but anyone who knows me knows that I do not always toe the party line. When the Government are right, I say so and vote accordingly; when they are wrong, I say so and vote accordingly. The first thing that I recognise is that post offices were closing prior to any plans from the Government. I also admit—I have said this already—that some of what the Government have done has not helped the situation. In fact, the reverse has been the case. I have no problem with telling the Government that they are wrong in certain instances. However, the problem we are discussing is the result not only of Government policy but of Post Office management. We have a Post Office management that is treating our community with utter disdain, that refuses to come to consult the community over one of our essential services, and that either does not understand the service or. if it does, treats it with disdain.
The community, like my speech today, has come to the end of the line. We shall continue to voice our protest. This afternoon at 2 o'clock, or half-past, there will be a demonstration outside the council offices in Blaenau Gwent. I am sure that our friends in radio and television will ensure that that message gets across to the people of Wales prior to the demonstration.
9.58 am
Hywel Williams: I congratulate the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Llew Smith) on securing the debate and pay tribute to his concern for his constituents and for the standard of public services in Blaenau Gwent and throughout Wales. I assure him that there is cross-party support for him and his constituents on this matter.
As we know, the hon. Gentleman's constituency suffers from intense poverty and has seen a succession of proposed post office closures. I salute the community's response of pulling together to oppose the proposals, and the eminently reasonable proposals put forward by the Communication Workers Union.
Without doubt, lack of access to good services is a major component of poverty. Securing good access is a major step in poverty relief and, hopefully, poverty eradication. That is clearly the case in rural areas, such as the one that I represent. The hon. Gentleman might not be the biggest fan of the National Assembly for Wales, but I am sure that he will join me in valuing the Assembly's commissioning of the Welsh index of multiple deprivation, which measures poverty in a much more sensitive way and includes access to services as one of its indices. As a consequence of that, the National Assembly for Wales has identified certain wards in rural areas-especially in my constituency and others in the north and west—which were previously disregarded, as
8WH
being in poverty. Access to services was one of the reasons why those wards were so identified. I hope that the change in the indices used to identify poor areas is a spur to Government action. I know that it has been to some extent in Wales, and one would hope that it might be a spur to the Post Office as well.
However, that index could be revisited in a creative manner to respond in a more sophisticated way to the geography and the social organisation of communities in the valleys. We should consider what is defined as "urban". Currently that definition applies to communities of more than 10,000 people. A post office might be just a mile away up the valley, but that valley might contain a series of villages that are physically joined, but are separate in social terms and in relation to ease of access—for example, as the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, they may be separate in terms of access by public transport. That might not be apparent to a manager sitting in an office many miles away, poring over a map.
I shall give the House an example of such geographical genius. About three years ago, when the Welsh Affairs Committee was taking evidence on social exclusion in Wales, we had a submission from one of the major banks explaining that there was a branch only four miles away from the branch that it intended to close. Indeed, as the crow flies it was four miles away, but people are not crows. In order to get to that branch, people would have had either to travel many miles down the valley—by public transport if they could find it—and many miles up the other valley, or climb over the mountain. Managers examining maps many miles away are not the greatest experts on the social organisation of valley communities.
Therefore, I ask the Minister what considerations are taken into account when a post office is scheduled for closure. Is it a purely commercial decision, or do the Government—a socialist Government—ensure that social considerations play a part? What consideration has been given to the effect of Government policies? The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent has already noted the effect of benefit payments. Are such considerations taken into account or is the decision taken by the Post Office a purely commercial one? On the evidence that I have seen in my constituency and elsewhere, the Post Office seems to be operating on a purely commercial basis.
Lembit Öpik: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that 13 million people use their local post offices to collect their pensions or benefits each year? That figure has decreased from 18 million in 2000, so 5 million customers have already been lost.
Hywel Williams: That is a highly significant fact. I am aware of the difficulties that some people face—or think that they face—in ensuring that payment is made over the counter. My colleagues in Scotland in the Scottish National party have led strong campaigns to ensure that such services are retained if that is at all possible.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe): Is it not the case that people can still claim their benefits over the counter in the post office?
Hywel Williams: In my experience, from talking to my constituents, the least simple method of acquiring

9WH
benefits these days seems to be having those benefits paid in cash over the counter. It might be a debate for another time, but some people think that it is extremely difficult to access that sort of service and they are encouraged to find other ways of accessing it.
To return to my point about commercial considerations, I would say that it is inappropriate for only such considerations to be taken into account when local post offices close. Local communities have a responsibility in that regard. How should we respond to closures? We should oppose them to the best of our ability. The people of Blaenau Gwent are clearly taking their future into their own hands and I salute them for doing that.
In my constituency, Caernarfon, very few rural post offices have closed, and none at all have closed recently. I know that local community councils and the country council in my area have done their best to ensure that that continues in the future, but we need to offer practical alternatives. In my constituency, successful local small businesses have grown around the post office due to the resourcefulness of local people. There is a post office in my constituency, the West End post office in Pwllheli, where two young people have been able to acquire sufficient capital and have shown great enterprise and vigour. They have become a vital part of the local community by dint of their very hard work.
I also draw the House's attention to the long tradition we have in Wales of co-operative enterprises. The village hall in Mynytho in my constituency was built during the darkest days of the economic depression and saluted by the poet Robert Williams Parry, even though it was built during a period of poverty. If I could beg your indulgence for a moment, Mr. O'Hara, I shall quote a brief stanza:
"Adeiladwyd gan dlodi—cariad
Nid cerrig yw' meini
Cyd-ernes yw'r coed arni
A chyd ddyheu a'i cododd hi".
That translates as:
"Built in poverty
Love is its masonry
Co-operations its timbers
Raised by our longing".
It was built at a time when the community was on its knees, but its spirit was unbroken. That is an example of the community pulling together in the most difficult of circumstances.
There are other notable examples in my constituency and in the village of Llanfrothen, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd). I draw the attention of the House to Antur Aelhaearn, which was set up as a village co-operative in the 1970s. A producer co-op that, as far as I can tell, was set up without any significant state aid, it was promoted by a local GP and provided employment and important social regeneration to the dispersed local area of Llanaelhaearn. More recently—perhaps this is more appropriate to the debate—in the village of Llithfaen a local co-op has purchased the village shop and post office and has gone on to purchase the village pub. Llithfaen has one of the few co-operatively owned village pubs in the UK—certainly in Wales—and very
10WH
good it is too. I encourage everyone to visit if they are in the area. That has been an example to the Welsh Affairs Committee, which came up to Llanfrothen and had a look at the community co-op and found it very instructive.
We have also had visits from people from south Wales. Recently, we were visited by local people from the Rhondda who were thinking of regenerating their own community and wanted to know how they could set up such co-ops in relation to their own post office and the village shop. There are positive alternatives: Welsh communities are pulling together and working with other Welsh communities. I finish by asking the Minister what steps the Government take to promote such vital community enterprises when a local post office is threatened with closure. Do we have to depend on the vision and hard work of a few local people? The Government have a responsibility.
10.8 am
Mr. Wayne David: I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Llew Smith) on securing the debate. The issue is one of tremendous importance to people throughout the length and breadth of Wales. My hon. Friend has highlighted the situation in Ebbw Vale and its surrounding area, but there is also great concern in many other communities, north and south. In Llanelli, a closure programme has caused tremendous concern to local people. At this time, consultations on closures are taking place in such places as Bangor, Wrexham, Rhyl, Cwmbran, Newport, Pontypool and Abergavenny.
In my constituency of Caerphilly a post office in the small community of Rudry has closed. Rudry is a very small village, which is relatively prosperous, but its post office was a vital part of a small, relatively isolated community. Many elderly people have great difficulty in travelling to another post office, whether it is in Caerphilly, Newport or wherever, and undoubtedly the closure has undermined the quality of life of people in that small hamlet. Again in my constituency, there is concern about the post office in Ystrad Mynach, which was temporarily closed. Fortunately, because of the local postmaster's acumen and pressure from local people, it has reopened, and I am glad that that community service continues. None the less, there is tremendous concern the length and breadth of my constituency that perhaps we are seeing just the tip of the iceberg, that things will get progressively worse and that more post offices will close in the next few months and years.
I have been in contact and have had long discussions with Mrs. Ehrenzeller, who is the postmistress of my local post office in Trethomas. She has written to me at length about her view of the situation. She has pointed out that Trethomas is a fairly typical south Wales former mining village. It is a small community with an ageing population, and people are concerned about the breakdown of community spirit and the increase in antisocial behaviour. As my hon. Friend said, post offices are a vital part of the community in such villages. Elderly people especially like to pop out to meet their friends, have a chat and socialise. Irreparable harm would be caused to the area if the post office were to close. Also, let us not forget that there is, inevitably, a knock-on effect if a post office closes. Not only are jobs

11WH
lost in the post office itself but other businesses go to the wall. In Trethomas, as Mrs. Ehrenzeller has pointed out, the butcher up the road would close, as would the betting shop and the newsagent. In other words, the heart of a small community would be decimated. We are considering not only post office closures but the wellbeing of small communities everywhere.
Post offices undoubtedly face several serious problems, but I am told that part of the difficulty that they all face is the move towards direct benefit payments. On average, 40 per cent. of a post office's income comes from benefit payments and the transactions around them. There is a great deal of concern that a change promoted by the Government as part of their modernisation process is causing real difficulty for postmasters and postmistresses. In Trethomas, Mrs. Ehrenzeller said that she is not against change and that she recognises that modernisation must happen. Her concern is that post offices are not operating on a level playing field and that preference is given to banks and building societies rather than to individuals opening a Post Office card account. She would like assurances from the Minister that that is not the case and that, for example, when her customers ring the Post Office call centre for advice on which account they should have, objective information will be given to them about what would be best for them, rather than there being some hidden agenda to encourage investments via banks and building societies.
On that point, I would appreciate the Minister's assurance that there is in fact a level playing field and that if people wish to continue to receive payments in the way that they have always received them, or if they wish to open a Post Office card account, every facility will be provided for that to happen.
Mr. Sutcliffe: Let me answer that point, as there may not be time at the end of the debate. More than 1.5 million people have opened Post Office card accounts, and the Government believe that that number will increase. I assure my hon. Friend that the Government are assisting with Post Office card accounts.
Mr. David: I thank my hon. Friend for that assurance. It is important that that message is conveyed to the country, because there is a great deal of concern and some misapprehension. I welcome his assurance and shall certainly do my bit to ensure that the message comes across clearly.
In conclusion, the future of post offices is absolutely vital. The people who run post offices and their customers raise current cases with me, but there is also concern about the future—concern that is expressed by elderly people in particular. It is important that clear guidelines are issued to the Post Office to ensure that it does things properly, that any consultation is proper consultation and that every effort is made to ensure that such a vital part of our communities is sustained. We must also ensure that there is close co-ordination with the devolved institutions that are in play in Scotland and in Wales so that they are able to work with central Government to ensure that post offices continue to operate for the benefit of our constituents.
10.16 am
Lembit Öpik: Back in 1909, the Liberal party and that great Welshman, David Lloyd George, introduced pensions to the British public. Therefore, I feel that my party has a particular duty as guardian of the interests of the elderly and of the methods by which they get their pensions and other benefit payments. It is for that reason that Welsh Liberal Democrats are especially concerned about the threat to post office outlets across Wales and, indeed, the United Kingdom. It seems that the restructuring programme will result in 2,000 to 3,000 post office branch closures in the UK during the next three years. As has already been mentioned, the in Wales Post Office proposes to close 154 sub-post offices out of a network of 440 branches, or one in three outlets. That is a really shocking cut in this important service.
The number of post office branches has been declining for some time. In 2001–02, 74 per cent. of closures took place in rural areas—four times as many as in urban areas. The Cabinet Office performance and innovation unit estimated that only 40 per cent. of rural branches generated enough income to break even, and that 56 per cent. of rural post offices were serving fewer than 70 customers a week, but that is the language of the accountant, not the language of a caring Government. The fact that the post office is often the only service left in rural settlements gives it a special, even unique, place in community life in rural Wales. Post offices often keep the last village outlet open—in fact, 80 per cent. of rural post offices run alongside a shop. The social support that they provide to the community and to vulnerable groups cannot be compared with the behaviour and the responsibilities of many other outlets. The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Llew Smith) made that very point. My colleague Jenny Randerson, the Assembly Member for Cardiff Central, said in a debate on 8 October 2003 in the Welsh Assembly that the matter is of very serious concern. Welsh Liberal Democrats certainly take it seriously. The hon. Gentleman and I belong to different parties, but, as he rightly said, this is a far more important matter than simply an opportunity to have a pop at the Government. For that reason, we all implore the Minister to think again about whether the Government's strategy is right.
We must remember that the Post Office remains a company that is wholly owned by the Government. It has not been privatised, but it is treated as though it has been. If they wanted to, the Government could halt the closure process tomorrow simply by treating the Post Office not only as a commercial operation but as a service to the public. That service provides not only stamps and parcels, but pensions and benefit payments to some of the most vulnerable people in society. It is not only in rural areas but across all of Wales and the UK that post offices and their staff provide a kind of unofficial community centre for regular clients. For example, staff in urban areas also check on elderly people who fail to collect their pensions. I am sure that there are examples from all constituencies of a postmaster or a member of post office staff who has literally saved the life of one of their customers.

13WH
The Government have changed payment methods for pensions and benefits under the banner of modernisation. That is not the main focus of our debate, but it is clearly connected. In so changing, or modernising, the payment method the Government have taken many steps to discourage people from collecting their money from the post office. All the Government literature insists on promoting bank accounts rather than post office accounts. People who are concerned about the high-pressure tactics that may be applied by banks have come to me, and I, too, am concerned that many new bank customers are on limited incomes and do not feel comfortable about the change. In Wales, a higher than average number of people still collect their pensions and benefits directly from the post office, and those people will be badly hit by post office closures.
Mr. Sutcliffe: The hon. Gentleman will accept that people can still claim their benefits over the post office counter. That has not changed in the sense that people still have that option.
Lembit Öpik: I will talk about the Minister later, so I do not want to dwell on that point at the moment. I will have some kind words for him as an individual later.
The Post Office proclaims that 95 per cent. of people will still live within one mile of a post office. However, the other 5 per cent. consists of hundreds of thousands of people around the country, many thousands in Wales alone. A mile is a long way for a pensioner. My mother is not blessed with great mobility and she lives in the countryside; to expect her to travel a considerable distance would be an unreasonable burden. My party accepts that change is needed and that people may find it more convenient to have their pensions paid into their bank account, but that is not the issue. The issue for us is the sheer scale of the destruction of the post office network in Wales. We think that that is the unacceptable difficulty in the strategy that the Government are allowing to be implemented.
The Minister said that members of the public can still have benefits paid to them across the counter. Here come the kind words: I have a lot of respect for the Minister and I do not hold him personally responsible for the Government's misguided approach to post office closures. I see him as the potential solution to the problem, because if there is one Minister who is willing genuinely to listen in the big conversation that the Government have started, it is he. The difficulty for me is not the Minister who is present here today, but the fact that I have not heard any Minister assure us that the big conversation involves listening as well as talking. The Minister has a chance to prove that we can be optimistic about the big conversation by responding in his winding-up speech to the many requests for a more open approach towards dialogue when it comes to closures.
On payment methods, the Minister is technically correct about people still being able to get money across the counter, but let us be honest: the Government certainly have not made the process of applying for the Post Office card account particularly easy. The process involves eight steps and requires the customer to make a telephone call to the Department for Work and
14WH
Pensions, fill in two different forms and make two trips to the post office branch. The Post Office agrees that the process involves more steps than opening an ordinary bank account and says that the procedure was set down by the Department for Work and Pensions. It says that a simpler system could be established, involving opening a card account in one transaction at a post office, but that has not been instituted, so the complexity remains for many people, who will be naturally put off by having to take all those steps.
My next point is still more worrying. Others Members may have received a letter from the Communication Workers Union with a copy of a Department for Work and Pensions document that it has obtained. That document explicitly states the Government's true concerns It states that in the past, due to political and commercial constraints, many "soft" messages were issued, but that the Government are now making it clear that they want nine out of 10 customers to have payments paid into bank accounts, for which the cost is 1p, rather than Post Office card accounts, for which the cost is at least 30 times greater. The document goes on to list a number of messages that emphasise that Post Office card accounts are not the best option for customers. A person does not have to be a genius to appreciate the consequence of the pressure to move to the accounts. Money will be taken out of the direct incomes of post offices and that will make it much more difficult for them to sustain their economic viability. In fact, the move to direct payments will mean that many post offices could lose up to 40 per cent. of their income. Post Office Ltd. will no longer receive more than £400 million of income annually from the Benefits Agency—some of which is used for sub-postmaters' salaries and for the costs of central support.
It is not only that Post Office card accounts are not the best option for customers—they are not even the best option for Government, because they incur costs for every Post Office card account opened, although, admittedly, the lower the take-up, the lower the cost. Paying benefits into a Post Office card account costs 30 times more than paying them into a bank account. However, if the Government's motivation involves taking the social consequences of closures into account, they should recognise that the money that goes into post offices and is used for the salaries of post office staff is in a sense a social payment and a benefit to the whole community. It seems, however, that the Government's true motivation for not promoting the Post Office card account is to reduce Government expenditure, rather than the desire to meet the basic financial needs of benefits recipients and to take account of the social consequences of closures.
My party is also concerned about the consultation process. We heard a brief, but dramatic, history from the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent, whom I congratulate on having secured the debate. He illustrated how hard it has been for Assembly Members and Westminster MPs to become involved in the process. Many have discovered to their horror that the consultation is not about whether a branch is to be closed, because that decision has already been made, but about the details of the closure. That is completely inappropriate and disrespectful to the democratic institutions of our country. In addition, the process

15WH
involves sub-postmasters volunteering their branches for closure in return for a slice of compensation. We cannot blame people for making economic decisions. Again, we return to the point that the Government have the alternative of employing a different strategy, one that takes accounts of social consequences.
The Government deny the problem. The Secretary of State for Wales, in his capacity as Leader of the House of Commons, said that
"the phenomenon has being going on for decades; it is not particular to our Government, and is the outcome of many different factors."—[Official Report, 30 October 2003; Vol. 412, c. 441.]
However, in its first annual report on the network, Postcomm, the industry regulator, said that in 2000–01 there was a faster rate of decline in the number of post offices than ever before. In the 1990s, under Conservative Governments, approximately 200 UK post offices per year closed; in 1999–2000, under the Labour Government, there were 380 closures; and in the first nine months alone of 2000–01, there were 434 closures. Closures in Wales closely mirror the national picture. In March 1999 there were 1,501 Welsh post offices, and by March 2000 there were 1,459, and so it goes on. That is a rate of 50 post office closures in Wales every six months. I challenge the Minister to give an assurance that he acknowledges that the rate of closures has increased in the past few years.
On the promotion of Post Office card accounts and other services intended to generate income for post offices, as set out in the performance and innovation unit's report "Counter Revolution", the Government say that they are promoting those things, but they are not. My plea to the Minister is to recognise that, in the face of such cross-party concern on this issue, perhaps some alarm bells should be ringing. Perhaps the Government should be listening and pick up on the fact that, although we have had words of reassurance from the Secretary of State for Wales and others, that reassurance falls on stony ground at the point at which customers see their services decreasing.
I ask the Government to recognise that even the Assembly has been trying to stave off some of the impact of the financial pressures that are causing closures, and I ask them to be sympathetic to the need to support the economic drive to support post offices. More fundamentally, I appeal to the Minister to take heed of campaigns—such as the one in my area, which involves the County Times & Express newspapers—that aim to protect the use of pension books and other methods that local people regard as a genuinely effective way of ensuring that people go into their local post offices. Will the Minister indicate that he is willing to listen to the concerns of County Times & Express readers and the organisers of such campaigns about the importance of ensuring that the services that remain are sufficient to ensure that post offices remain open? We have heard much about the big conversation, but true conversation is a dialogue. The voice of local people in rural areas says no to closures. I know that the people of Wales do not feel comfortable about the closure rate of local post offices, and its acceleration. I will wait to see whether the Government really are listening, and, in that context, I look forward to the Minister's reply.
10.29 am
Mr. Bill Wiggin: The Government's move to direct payments of benefits and pensions in their automated credit transfer policy has resulted in a loss of £400 million to total Post Office income. The Government's threat to the financial viability of our post offices has been backed up with failing and unhelpful subsidy programmes. They are providing £350 million over three years, but the Post Office is losing £400 million a year.
Rural post offices are most important, as they comprise 70 per cent. of the post office network in Wales. They play an important role in each small community, as residents depend on them for not only stamps and letters, but pensions and benefits. It is also a place where they can pick up shopping at the same time. The proposed closure of the Blaenau Gwent post office will massively affect the ageing population and the high numbers of disabled people and young mothers. There are poor or non-existent levels of public transport, and low levels of car ownership in the area, so many people will have to spend money on taxi fares simply to collect their pensions or benefits. Post offices in rural communities such as those in Wales serve multiple purposes and are a central force in the community.
The payment of pensions and benefits is a necessary post office function, making up 40 per cent. of branch income, but the Government have taken that away. Their response to the large income gap is insufficient, and it has a minimal impact on post office regeneration and survival.
Mr. Sutcliffe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Wiggin: If the Minister is going to tell me that it is the people's fault, I will happily give way.
Mr. Sutcliffe: I will certainly not do that. I am sorry to intervene so early in the hon. Gentleman's speech, but I wanted an answer to the question of whether he is against people being able to choose to have their benefits paid into the bank.
Mr. Wiggin: I do not believe that the Minister noticed that I was careful to point out that the level of subsidy provided by the Government in their sticking-plaster solution to the problem is inadequate. It is not a question of customer choice, and that is why I challenged him when he sought to intervene. He did not answer that question, but perhaps he will think about it and include it in his winding-up speech.
On 15 November, the Government announced the Post office development fund, which is a £150 million-ayear package of subsidies for rural post offices up to 2006. The Welsh Assembly made £2.5 million available for the fund until 2005. That was to sweeten the bitter pill of the announcement by the Post Office at the start of the year that 150 out of 1,355 post office branches across Wales will be closed over the next three years. The fund, which was to help the most isolated and deprived rural post offices in Wales, has been suspended by the Welsh Assembly until next year, in what the Labour party claims is a period of reflection

17WH
Post offices could have applied for grants of up to £50,000 for refurbishment, investment and staff security in order to secure their business viability. The Assembly has put the grants on hold until January. That means that many post offices that have applied for grants will not receive a decision until the new year and receipt of the money will take months longer. Glyn Davies, AM, said:
"This is a shambolic situation. Why is this so-called stocktake taking place now, a year into the scheme? Why weren't things resolved before it was launched?"
Even if £450 million is to be spent over the next three years, it does not explain how those businesses are to be made viable in the longer term. My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) said:
"Labour's promised solution will not make these businesses viable, it will not allow benefit recipients to receive payments in cash, it will, however, spend £450m of public money in an attempt to cover up the consequences of Government mistakes."
Let us not forget the Government's 2000 rural White Paper "Our Countryside: The Future—A Fair Deal for Rural England", which promised to prevent any avoidable closures of rural post offices. In the following year, there was the fastest rate of decline in the number of post offices ever seen, with four times more closures in rural areas than urban areas. Rural post offices in Wales and across the UK are closing because they are hit hardest by a 40 per cent. loss in their income through the loss of revenue from paying pensions and benefits, but if we consider urban branches in Wales, we see that, despite the promises, the rot has set in there too. For urban branches, the Government have set aside £30 million for the reinvention of urban networks to make them "bigger, brighter, better". However, set aside is the operative phrase, as only £1 million of the £30 million earmarked for "bigger, brighter, better" has been committed, and we are currently halfway through the scheme. It is a closure programme, not a reinvention programme.
In theory, following public consultation with Postwatch, the Post Office makes a commercial judgment about the offices with the best and worst prospects. Using a device called brokering, the idea is to optimise coverage and access to branches with the best commercial future. It helps to decide between volunteering closures and those that must stay open for coverage, or those that must close because they are too weak. In practice, there is no brokering mechanism in place; instead, post offices that are volunteering to shut are driving the closure programme. The programme is not as strategic as it should be, and that concerns Postwatch. The problem is that the Post Office is immediately closing those post offices whose sub-postmasters go voluntarily and receive compensation, whereas often that branch is not the one that needs to close. There needs to be proper consultation, in which sub-postmasters who are not going voluntarily but who are in a weak office move into branches that are voluntarily closing but are more socially and financially viable.
The Post Office is cutting corners in order to achieve as many closures as possible without proper consultation. A programme generated by those volunteering to close at the taxpayer's expense is compromising consumer needs that are based on an optimised network. The concept of reinvention is
18WH
instead a straight closure programme. That unsatisfactory flaw has seriously threatened the credibility of the so-called reinvention programme. It is neither open nor fair, and the consultation process is unacceptable. In order to remedy the credibility of the Government's bodged closure programme, we suggest that they do not automatically allow sub-postmasters who go voluntarily to determine that their branch will close. Some offices that volunteer for closure should be kept open to ensure proper coverage. It is vital to introduce a proper brokering mechanism. The Post Office must engage in earlier consultation with politicians and local authorities in order to act upon their concerns.
The Government's contradictory aims, statements and actions highlight the true extent of their threat to post offices in Wales and across the UK. The Government's response to the Trade and Industry Committee's 11th report on "People, Pensions and Post Offices: the impact of 'Direct Payment' on post offices and their customers"—I note that there is to be a debate on that subject on Thursday—states that they believe that the Department for Work and Pensions is providing sufficient information about Post Office card accounts and that there is no evidence that customers are being put off from applying for Post Office card accounts. If that is the case, why does a recently published Department for Work and Pensions document entitled "Direct Payments" boldly emphasise that Post Office card accounts are
"probably not the best option for customers"?
Why does that document clearly state that its aim is to get nine out of 10 new claimants immediately on to direct payments in order to meet business case requirements? It completely contradicts the Government's response and it is exactly what they promised they would not do. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Őpik) mentioned that in his speech.
The Department for Work and Pensions document underlines the significant difference between the Government's declared position on direct payments in relation to post office closures, and the reality of the implementation of policy by the Department. I believe that it reflects the Government's decision bluntly to ignore the fact that accounts at post offices generate essential income for sub-postmasters. It is ironic that the Labour party accuses Conservative Governments of having threatened rural post offices, given that its compulsory automated credit transfer policy introduced in April 2003 has dramatically increased the closure of sub-post offices.
Between March and September, 37 post offices were closed in Wales. Closures involved 25 urban and 18 rural post offices. Across the whole of the UK within the same six-month period, 547 post offices were closed, with 484 closures under the urban reinvention programme. The Government's policy is failing. They are throwing subsidies at it to hide their mistakes, but the truth is that their policy presents a clear threat to the survival of post offices in Wales.
10.38 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry(Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Llew Smith) on securing the debate on the post office network in Wales. He has described the issues that affect the post offices throughout Wales and the importance that communities attach to access to post office services. The issues that have been raised are relevant to every Member of Parliament, and I welcome the opportunity to respond to the points that he and other hon. Members have raised.
I congratulate the hon. Members for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams), for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Őpik), and for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) and my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) on their contributions to what is an important debate, judging by the strength of feeling that it generates. I acknowledge the work done in his community by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent. He is solidly behind his constituents and I shall deal with his concerns in my speech.
I assure my hon. Friend that the Government are committed to maintaining a viable nationwide network of post offices. We fully recognise their importance as a focal point for local communities, particularly for elderly and less mobile customers. I am also pleased to reassure hon. Members that we are committed to ensuring that benefits recipients can continue to collect their entitlement in cash from the post office if they wish. I shall come on to specific points about the post office branches in my hon. Friend's constituency in a moment, but I wish first to explain that the recommendations of the performance and innovation unit's 2000 report form the basis of the Government's policy for the post office network.
The performance and innovation unit's report was an in-depth study of the state of the Post Office and made 24 recommendations on how the network can be sustained. It was widely welcomed, particularly by the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters and the consumer watchdog, Postwatch. We accepted all the recommendations that were made, which included that, if the Post Office decided that fewer offices were needed in some urban areas, the Government should consider providing funding to ensure that those sub-postmasters who were affected could be compensated adequately for the loss of their business. Last November, following parliamentary approval of the funding, Post Office Ltd. initiated its urban network reinvention programme.
Many hon. Members voted in support of the Government's funding of the Post Office's programme under the terms currently proposed by the company, which is to close the seven urban offices to which my hon. Friend referred. He has been diligent in representing the views of his constituents and those who will be most affected by the closures if they go ahead. However, it is important for hon. Members to recognise the difficult conditions that the Post Office faces. We shall need to work constructively with the company to ensure that we can achieve the aim of ensuring a viable network for the future. In the past financial year, Post Office Ltd. made losses of £194 million before exceptionals; in the preceding year, losses were £163 million. The Post Office has again reported significant
20WH
losses of £91 million in its recently published half-year results. During the years of Conservative Government, 3,500 post offices were closed, so it was increasingly necessary to take decisive and urgent action.
At present, the network of post offices is made up of 16,500 branches, which is more than all the banks and building societies in the country put together. More than 1,000 urban sub-post offices have at least 10 other post offices within a mile. Sub-postmasters have been finding it increasingly difficult to earn a reasonable income from their businesses and have been leaving the network. Without rationalisation of parts of the network to improve its sustainability, there will be an unmanaged decline as individual postmasters continue to shut down and leave. That would bring on the real prospect of serious gaps in provision opening up, which would be much more damaging to the interests of communities and to the viability of the network as a whole than the current managed process.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent referred to Mr. Dave Barrett, who, I must put on the record, is the Post Office area manager for Wales and has responsibility for decisions and closures. He leads a team of staff who draw up the proposals. He has visited local communities, but I accept the point raised by my hon. Friend about his ability to speak to Mr. Barrett.
Llew Smith: Mr. Barrett addressed a demonstration yesterday. He was asked whether he had visited each post office in Blaenau Gwent, to which he replied, "Definitely, yes." Another constituent asked, "Well, if you visited the community and each and every one of the post offices, can you tell me the position in Garnlydan?". Mr. Barrett replied, "Ah, I haven't visited there." Some of the people on the demonstration were angry, but I said that we must thank Mr. Barrett because at least he admitted that he is a liar.
Mr. Sutcliffe: I note the points raised by my hon. Friend. Clearly, the matter is of concern and I shall return to it in my speech.
A serious contraction in the customer base has affected Post Office Ltd. and the financial standing of the business of the individual sub-postmaster and sub-postmistress. The company has been slow to develop new income streams and offices have become over-dependent on making benefit payments. More than 43 per cent. of benefit recipients already choose to access their benefit payments via bank accounts rather than by order books, compared with 26 per cent. in 1996.
It is essential for the post office network to adapt to changing lifestyles, changes in people's preferences and new ways of doing business. With profitability in the network as a whole declining, the ability of sub-postmasters to sell on their businesses—the way in which people have moved on in the past—has taken a severe knock. Without a managed programme, there is a great danger that haphazard closures brought about by sub-postmasters choosing to leave, or by Post Office Ltd. not being able to attract a suitable replacement when a sub-postmaster had left, would continue.
Lembit Öpik: I am sure that the Minister will come to my more detailed points later, but he said that it is important that the Post Office adapts to people's

21WH
preferences. Unquestionably, one of those preferences is to maintain the pension book. Is he saying that, being sympathetic to that wish, post offices should be allowed to maintain them?
Mr. Sutcliffe: I said that people should have such a choice and continue to do so. That has been set out in the various announcements made by the Government through the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department of Trade and Industry.
I turn now to the urban reinvention programme. Initially, closure proposals under the Post Office Ltd. urban reinvention programme were focused on single offices known to be most at risk of closure because of poor viability, in order to minimise the possibility of unplanned closures occurring. The company accepted that there was much uncertainty about the future shape of the network and has now undertaken to produce its proposals on an area-by-area basis, using each parliamentary constituency or geographical groupings of them. In its recently published report on the post office network, the regulator, Postcomm, commended Post Office Ltd. for its constructive response and welcomed the more co-ordinated approach, as did the Trade and Industry Committee, whose report we shall be discussing on the Floor of the House on Thursday.
Producing an area-wide plan of post office provision in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent brings the benefit of giving a clear view of the level and location of service provision at the end of the urban reinvention programme in a given area. We will know what the position is, but I take note of the points raised by my hon. Friend, especially his comments about consultation. It is vital that the views of Members of Parliament and local authorities about the wider plans are taken into account. That is important in ensuring that the offices in my hon. Friend's constituency are sustainable and are in the right locations for his constituents. In addition, such a process helps to reassure sub-postmasters about their prospects and should therefore help guard against further unplanned closures. I understand that, to minimise further uncertainty, Post Office Ltd. will also bring the programme forward by a year with the aim of completing all public consultations by the end of December.
I recognise what my hon. Friend said about the comments of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales. I am concerned that no frank consultation is taking place, so I shall speak to my right hon. Friend about his remarks and give any support that I can to ensure that full and proper consultation takes place.
Llew Smith: I assume that the Minister is aware that the time in which to take such action is limited, given that the consultation process ends in a few days. Until now, there has not been any consultation or dialogue.
Mr. Sutcliffe: That contradicts my information. I understand the answerable case to which my hon. Friend referred. However, for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales to be so clear about his views, he must have concerns, given that he received representations from my hon. Friend and others
22WH
yesterday. There must be some doubt about the detail of the consultation process. If that cannot be completed within the time limit, which I understand is 16 December, I expect an extension to be made. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will make recommendations based on the information that he received yesterday.
It is important to note that, in accordance with the code of practice on branch closures, every proposal is supposed to be subject to public consultation. The consumer watchdog, Postwatch, has a key role in the process. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent was critical of the role of Postwatch, but it is looking at the situation nationally and will be making representations to Post Office Ltd. at the end of consultation period. That is why we are considering the research and Postwatch's views in respect of the consumer and how it should respond to the plans of Post Office Ltd.
Llew Smith: I accept that Postwatch has to carry out the necessary research, but the people in the community have the information. When I said that I was an expert and that people in the community are even greater experts, I meant not to sound arrogant, but to reflect the fact that we are part of the community. While we expect Postwatch to do the research, we must realise that the consultation comes to an end in a few days and that the research will not be completed because there will have been no opportunity to respond to local people. There is a time problem.
Mr. Sutcliffe: I understand that, but there will be an opportunity for Postwatch to respond on a national basis to the national closure programme and to have a view about that. Within the consultation period, Postwatch managed to get Post Office Ltd. to extend the consultation period from four weeks to six weeks. I support the way in which my hon. Friend has addressed the consultation process. I acknowledge that he does not believe that it has been a frank process, but the fact that he is supporting his community and that other colleagues are raising issues in the way that they are means that the concerns that people have raised should get across to Postwatch and Post Office Ltd.
I acknowledge my hon. Friend's description of his constituency and of the wider problems facing it. He knows about the plans for the offices in his constituency because he is heavily involved in that, but I am sure that he will forgive me for not naming each of those offices—[HON. MEMBERS: "Go on!"] I am forced to have a crack at naming them: Badmington grove, Beaufort hill, Cefn Golau, Garnlydan, Rassau, Waunlwyd and Willowtown. As my hon. Friend said, these proposals have generated great local interest, as is evidenced by the public demonstrations outside the Ebbw Vale office last Thursday and yesterday and by the petition that I understand was presented to the local Post Office area manager.
The Post Office says that it entered into public consultation on its proposals for my hon. Friend's constituency on 5 November, with a closing date for representations on 16 December. The Government do not normally play a role in such decision-making processes. It has been the policy of successive

23WH
Governments that decisions relating to individual branches are operational matters for Post Office Ltd. However, I will tell the Secretary of State about my hon. Friend's concerns. During the consultation, important points were raised by my hon. Friend, the customers who use the offices concerned, and Postwatch. They will have to be given due consideration by the management of Post Office Ltd. before decisions are made.
It is important to note that once decisions on the proposals have been reached, Post Office Ltd. has no intention of returning to my hon. Friend's constituency with any further proposals. The company maintains that if the proposed changes go ahead, it will have fulfilled its objectives by ensuring that there is the right level of service in the area for the level of custom. Those decisions are an operational matter for Post Office Ltd.
Llew SmithIf I heard the Minister correctly, Post Office Ltd. does not intend to return to my constituency and bring about another closure programme. That is diametrically opposed to its warning in its consultation document. I do not think that Mr. Barrett has read that document—although I pay him the compliment of saying that he can probably read—but I have read it, I know what it says, and I have repeated its comments.
Mr. Sutcliffe: I acknowledge my hon. Friend's point. The point that I am making is that Post Office Ltd. is saying that if its proposals go through, it will not come back for a second bite. It is clear that my hon. Friend does not agree with that, and that he will pursue the consultation in the way that has been outlined today.
Mr. Wiggin: Will the Minister say what the time scale will be?
Mr. Sutcliffe: That is difficult. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales met a delegation from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent, who stridently stated that there is an unanswerable case for these offices not to be closed. Therefore, I expect that it would be difficult to get through the necessary frank discussions by December 16—which is the current time scale—as it is now 9 December. However, I cannot second-guess what my right hon. Friend will say to me, or how he will pass his message on to me, as a result of yesterday's meeting. I will wait to hear his comments. I have had an informal chat with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, who has described concerns about his own constituency with regard to the proposals.
These decisions are best left as operational matters for the Post Office. It would be neither practical nor appropriate for the Government to become involved in the process itself. It is important that Postwatch acts as an effective customer champion in this programme. The Government have ensured that Postwatch receives sufficient funding to carry out its important role in examining each proposal and monitoring the programme.
An additional element of the urban reinvention programme is the £30 million that the Government have provided for modernisation and for adapting those
24WH
offices which remain in the network. The key to improving standards in those offices will be the increased volume of business that they can expect, but the grants of up to £10,000 for each office that expects to take on a significant number of additional customers—to be matched by the same sum from the sub-postmaster—will be an important boost, too. I understand that if the current proposals for the offices in the Blaenau Gwent constituency go ahead, there will be an investment of more than £30,000 in the offices that are expected to receive an increase in custom as a consequence of a nearby closure. The Post Office will generally require the receiving offices to improve their facilities and to extend their opening hours so that, increasingly, sub-post offices will maintain the same hours as the associated retail businesses that run alongside them, thereby improving their service to customers. I should make the point that that is the first ever programme of Government investment in urban sub-post offices and that it is an additional measure to those recommended in the performance and innovation unit's report, which started the whole process.
In agreeing to fund compensation payments to sub-postmasters whose offices are closed under the urban reinvention programme, we have asked Post Office Ltd. to ensure that after the programme 95 per cent. of the urban population will still be within a mile of their nearest post office. We have also asked the company to ensure that, except in exceptional circumstances, its urban reinvention proposals do not include offices in the most deprived 10 per cent. of urban wards where there is no other post office within half a mile. That may affect my hon. Friend's constituency.
In accordance with another of the recommendations of the performance and innovation unit's report, the Government have made available support for post offices in the most deprived urban areas that are at risk of closure. In England, a £15 million deprived urban post office fund operates in the most deprived urban areas and is administered by the neighbourhood renewal unit of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
In November 2002, the Welsh Assembly announced an equivalent scheme with the aim of supporting a viable post office network across Wales. The Welsh Assembly scheme is structured more flexibly in its coverage to accommodate some of the particular considerations to which my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent has referred in order to include isolated offices as well as those in deprived urban areas, but the support that is available takes the same form as that introduced for England by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Some £2.5 million has been allocated to provide for grants of up to £50,000 to develop and improve post office and associated retail facilities. I understand that under this scheme a grant of just over £28,000 has been awarded to the Llanhilleth post office in my hon. Friend's constituency. The grant will be used to improve and renovate the shop frontage, including a ramp allowing for disabled access, the refurbishment of the post office area and the installation of a new security counter.
I am aware that I have not answered every question that has been raised. Hon. Members made detailed comments, and I will write to them to ensure that their

25WH
points are properly addressed. However, given the time that remains, it is important to reflect on what my hon. Friend has said about the position in his constituency and in Wales. I acknowledge and take note of the views of the Welsh Assembly. Post offices are important to our communities for the reasons that I have described. I would like to make sure that appropriate consultation takes place—that people fully understand the reasons behind the post office proposals and that they are included fully in any consultation that takes place. It is important that the Government make sure that people have the right to choose whether they want benefits to be paid across the counter or into their bank accounts, and it is important that Members of Parliament who make representations on behalf of their constituents are fully involved in the consultation process. If that does not happen, Post Office Ltd. will have made a mistake. I hope that Post Office Ltd. and Postwatch will examine our debate and ensure that they learn from the exceptional contributions that have been made by hon. Members who feel that the post office network needs to be sustainable and viable and that it must meet the needs of local communities.

Midwifery
11 am
Mr. Kerry Pollard: I am grateful for the opportunity to debate the very important subject of maternity services. I shall focus in particular on the role of midwives.
I have seven children, five of whom were born at home with the help and support of our local midwife, so my family are big fans of midwives. I was recently honoured by being appointed as a fellow of the Royal College of Midwives. That is an honour that I greatly prize, although perhaps it should have been awarded to my wife.
The Select Committee on Health has taken a keen interest in midwifery. It has made several important pronouncements that it considers helpful to potential mothers and to the health service generally, which have the full support of the Royal College of Midwives. The Select Committee believes that midwifery is still too medicalised and based in the acute sector, and that it needs to be brought into a community setting. My family experience fully supports that contention, and a low-risk birthing unit at St. Albans city hospital, like the one at Edgeware, would be an ideal way of delivering that.
The Select Committee also suggested making midwives, instead of GPs, the first point of contact. That would establish at the beginning of the pregnancy the important relationship between the mother-to-be and the midwife. It would also remove an additional burden from the GP, and would recognise the midwife as a professional in her own right. It has the added benefit of making midwifery a much more attractive career option.
A big problem with midwifery, as with other caring professions, is the shortage of qualified practitioners. The Select Committee has noted that, and the Secretary of State for Health has singled it out as an issue of concern for the Government. The average age of midwives is going up. As midwives retire, they are not being replaced by younger midwives. The average entrant to midwifery tends to be older: often a mother returning to work after having children of her own. Strategies need to be developed to attract more people into midwifery. I look forward to hearing any thoughts that my hon. Friend the Minister has in that regard.
I want to focus on our local situation, in which we have a first-rate team of midwives. Two years ago, our special care baby unit had to be shut down due to lack of staff—not because of funding problems as used to be the case in years gone by. There was an inability to recruit, so the unit was transferred to an expanded unit in nearby Watford hospital. Many of us worked hard to re-establish the closed unit, and none worked harder than my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter). I am pleased to say that about nine months later we had the privilege of welcoming Dame Karlene Davis, general secretary of the Royal College of Midwives, to open a brand new, low-risk birthing unit, which is now operating well.
I would like to see an equivalent unit opened in our own St. Albans city hospital to complement our other excellent units, such as the minor injuries unit run by

27WH
Sister Rita Dunkerley, the day surgery unit run by Sister Eileen Kent and all the other services run for our local community by dedicated professionals. Our local primary care trust is doing sterling work, and it is my hope that before too long it can make a foundation status bid for St. Albans city hospital, which can then be run by local people for the benefit of local people—a winning combination.
We were grateful for a recent visit from my hon. Friend the Minister to St. Albans city hospital. He was fact finding and getting to know his new regional responsibilities. He was well received, and all the staff were grateful for his visit. Only two weeks ago, the Secretary of State for Health also visited St. Albans city hospital. He met many members of our team of professional health workers—consultants, sisters, nurses and ancillary workers—and he spent more time talking to them than doing anything else. He also toured our hospital and chatted to Sean, who was having a splinter removed from under his thumbnail in our minor injuries unit.
While he was with us, the Secretary of State opened a brand new orthopaedic operating theatre. We now have five fully functioning theatres, with supporting wards, that are able to perform many more routine operations, thus reducing waiting lists and leaving the acute hospitals to carry out more complex operations. A figure approaching £1 million has been spent on those new facilities. That is in addition to a new hydrotherapy pool and other rehabilitation facilities for those recovering from strokes. Facilities are much improved, and more are to follow.
Recently, a full consultation exercise was undertaken by the strategic health authority on the future of our acute services throughout Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire. I am pleased to say that there was a big majority in favour of option two: the provision of a new acute hospital to serve south-west Hertfordshire, which would be situated adjacent to my constituency. I am also pleased to report to my hon. Friend that every PCT in the two counties except one voted for option two. I hope that the Secretary of State for Health will approve option two, so that I can look forward—in a few years time to his opening our new hospital linked to a medical school at the nearby university of Hertfordshire.
11.5 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health(Dr. Stephen Ladyman): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard) on securing this debate, and on the work that he has done on behalf of midwives and maternity services. I had not appreciated that he was a fellow of the Royal College of Midwives, which is a considerable honour given by an impressive organisation. On hearing that he has seven children, I wondered whether it was given as a loyalty bonus to one of its best customers.
We all know that midwives are key members of the maternity service team, and that they play an important role in the provision of high-quality maternity care in the national health service. They are key to ensuring that women and their families receive appropriate
28WH
information to help them to make choices during their pregnancy and childbirth. Midwives are rising to the challenges that we have set to tackle health inequalities, and to modernise NHS maternity services. I would like to express my personal gratitude to them for the wonderful work that they do.
In recent years, there has been an increase in the number of midwives working in the national health service, and we hope to encourage 500 midwives to return to practice during 2003–04. So far this year, 173 midwives have returned or are returning to the NHS.
My hon. Friend raised some concerns about the recruitment and retention of midwives. I frankly acknowledge that progress in increasing the number of midwives has been slower than we had hoped. By no stretch of the imagination am I ignoring that. Indeed, just a couple of weeks ago, Sarah Mullally, chief nursing officer, hosted a summit with key stakeholders, including representatives from the Royal College of Midwives, NHS managers, midwives themselves, obstetricians and users of maternity services. The purpose of the summit was to explore the main barriers to increasing midwife numbers in the NHS, and to identify what needs to be done to tackle that.
I attended the summit, and I made it clear that progress was not acceptable and that radical and ambitious thinking was needed. I also threatened them by saying that if the proposals that came out of the summit did not work, I would keep calling them back until they came up with plans that would work. In the event, the team developed a package of measures that will help considerably. I am grateful to those who took part in discussions for their assistance and commitment to continuing to work with the Department of Health and the Government to ensure that we get more midwives into the NHS, and keep them there. I am particularly pleased to tell my hon. Friend that the Royal College of Midwives has given its commitment to work with us directly to take the action required.
The summit produced a six-point action plan. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing today's debate because it gives me the first opportunity to place the action plan in the public domain. First, the summit identified the issue of leadership. We know that good midwifery leadership is crucial to our being able to modernise maternity services and midwifery care, and to ensuring that midwifery in the NHS is an attractive option. We have asked the leadership centre to ensure that there are appropriate leadership programmes for all midwives, and that appropriate succession planning is in place.
Secondly, we want to examine the geographical variations. We know that areas around the country find it difficult to recruit and retain midwives, but we also know that there are trusts within those work force hot spots with fewer difficulties. We will take action to share good practice, explore further what attracts midwives to those units and learn from organisations where work force issues have been resolved.
Thirdly, we must raise the profile of midwifery. The action plan includes a national recruitment campaign and a conference to highlight the midwifery profession and the contribution of midwives to the NHS. We will also use the commitment and leadership of the Royal College of Midwives to market the midwifery

29WH
profession, and we will try to harness the input of every midwife in the NHS to ensure that their skills and expertise are recognised by those contemplating training or returning to the NHS.
Fourthly, we must do more to improve midwives' working lives. At the summit, we heard about the importance that midwives place on how, where and when they practise. We heard that some feel frustrated by the constraints of organisational structures, and that that leads them to leave. Midwives want flexibility, and they want to provide models of care that meet the needs of women and families, but in a way that meets their own needs for job satisfaction and family life. We will work with NHS trusts to ensure that all aspects of improving working lives are encompassed and implemented in maternity services, and we will issue a good practice guide for maternity services by spring next year.
Fifthly, we must do more to encourage a return to the practice of midwifery. We heard from midwives at the summit that returning to midwifery practice was often a tortuous and off-putting process. To increase and maximise the potential for return to the midwifery profession, we will work with work force development confederations and NHS trusts to streamline the process for midwife returners.
Sixthly, we must address education and training issues. The number of training places for midwives has increased: there are 450 more places than in 1996–97, which is an increase of 28 per cent. However, students attending the summit told us of their financial difficulties, and about the problems that they face during their clinical placements. They want their education programmes to prepare them to practise midwifery in the NHS, and they want role models to nurture and support them. We will work with representatives of higher education institutes and the Nursing and Midwifery Council to ensure that education programmes and clinical experience are appropriate and meet the needs of future midwives, and that student midwives are confident and competent to take up their role in the NHS.
Those six action points emerged from the summit, but they are in addition to actions already taken. For example, we allocated almost £1 million to focus on recruitment and retention and return to midwifery practice. The money is being used to fund a package of initiatives, including a full-time post to lead on recruitment, retention and return to practice for midwives. Also, an allocation of £750,000 was made to work force development confederations in 2003–04 to fund 500 return-to-practice places.
We have also worked in collaboration with the Royal College of Midwives and the Open university to develop a distance learning pack to assist those midwives who may find it difficult to access full-time courses to return to practice. The first midwives to use it are currently returning to the NHS.
To ensure that we really understand what prevents midwives from returning to work, we are funding a research project on why midwives stay in the NHS and why they return. It is being carried out by Dr. Mavis Kirkham, a well-respected midwife researcher. That will provide follow-up data to her previous work, "Why Midwives Leave", and will give us an insight into what
30WH
keeps midwives in the NHS. We are confident that there will be transferable practices that can be applied across the NHS.
Of course, pay is an important issue, and I was encouraged by the strong support of the Royal College of Midwives for "Agenda for Change". We are testing the new pay system in 12 early implementer sites to ensure that it delivers the intended benefits for staff and patients. Those sites began to implement "Agenda for Change" in June 2003. What is learned in the early implementation phase will be used to inform the national roll-out, which is planned for October 2004.
My hon. Friend also raised issues relating to the training of midwives. Health care professional students, including midwives, are crucial to the future of the health service, and I recognise the challenges that they face while undertaking demanding programmes of education and training. We want, and students are entitled to expect, a system that ensures that as many students as possible qualify and go on to work in the service, as well as one that provides the widest possible access to the health care professions.
Following devolution, it was acknowledged that there were differences in student support arrangements across the United Kingdom. For students, including student midwives, undertaking health professional training at colleges in England, the Department of Health keeps the support arrangements provided by the NHS bursary scheme under review. That ensures that the scheme continues to support the Government's plans for the expansion of the health professional work force and the modernisation of the service.
Mr. David Drew: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard) on securing the debate. Does my hon. Friend the Minister accept that one of the problems with midwives' training is that there is now an obvious shortage of midwife-led units, because many have been closed down? I am pleased that this Government have ended that process. We have a midwife-led unit in Stroud, which was recently described in a book written by two of my friends, Tracy Spiers and Diane Harris. That book shows the love that the community has for that unit.
We have been bedevilled by the many reviews looking into the maternity-led unit's efficiency, and its role within the modern health service. It is almost a case of death by review. Will my hon. Friend the Minister assure me that we now value such institutions? Can we end the continual review cycle that saps the energy of all who love that place?
Dr. Ladyman: I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. I have visited several midwife-led units, including the one to which my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans referred. I found the standard of care and the atmosphere of calm and professionalism that pervades those places inspiring. If I were ever to have a baby, I would want to go to a midwife-led unit, so I understand why such units would be the first choice of many women.
There have been differences of opinion. There are obstetricians across the country who do not think that midwife-led units other than those co-located with

31WH
obstetrician-led units are safe. However, midwife-led units are increasingly being developed away from such centres, and they are proving safe and effective, so long as proper careful decision-making is made in the run-up to labour. As long as women are being given the proper information, and know whether there is any particular risk from their birth, they can make the right choice about whether they want to go to a midwife or obstetrician-led unit.
I strongly support the development of more midwife-led units. We allocated £100 million of capital to the development and refurbishment of maternity services across the country. I am pleased to say that in quite a few places people chose to use that £100 million for the development of those maternity-led services. I certainly want more such units to be developed where local services identify that there is a benefit to be gained from them.
We have increased the support provided through the NHS bursary scheme, both by the basic bursary and other elements of the package. Bursary rates have increased every year since 1998, and by 10.4 per cent.—well above inflation—since September 2001. Moreover, NHS-funded students are eligible for a tuition fee contribution, worth £1,125 for this academic year, without means-testing.
The Government believe that, overall, the NHS bursary scheme, supported by the further improvements that we have made, continues to provide effective support for students, as evidenced by the increasing numbers of students embarking on health professional training programmes, including midwifery. However, we are keeping the matter under review.
I now come to maternity services, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans for describing his aspirations for a midwife-led unit in his constituency. I am sure that he would not expect me to comment on that specifically, because it is a matter for the local health organisations. I am sure that his views are well known. I have now expressed my support for such midwife-led units and, from my visit to the midwife-led unit in Hemel Hempstead, I know that the high-quality care provided there, and the benefits to the users who deliver there, will be well known in the local health community. The lessons will be learned by those who will make decisions about whether a midwife-led unit should be built in my hon. Friend's constituency.
Like my hon. Friend, I want health communities throughout the country to give consideration to this model of care. Midwife-led care should be considered as one of a range of options available to women when they are choosing where to give birth. Having a range of care allows people a meaningful choice. As my hon. Friend knows, choice is central to our plans to reform health services across the country. Today we published a document called "Building on the Best; Choice, Responsiveness and Equity in the NHS", which sets out the main themes emerging from the consultation that we conducted during the autumn. The consultation reached 110,000 people—the biggest response since the NHS plan.
Clear and consistent themes emerged from the consultation. Patients want to be more involved in decisions about their health care. They want more and
32WH
better information to help them to make decisions and choices about their care and treatment, they want services to be shaped around their needs, instead of being expected to fit the system, and they want choice to be genuinely available to everyone. Those themes are just as important in maternity services. We will be asking local services to publicise details of how women can access midwives directly, as my hon. Friend requested in his speech. We will promote the use of birth plans, which record women's preferences for the birth of their child. We will also ensure that the response to the consultation, including the task group recommendations for maternity services, are taken into account in the development of the national service framework for children, which we plan to publish in 2004.
The children's NSF, including the section on maternity services, will be a key statement on the way in which we expect maternity services to develop in future. I look forward to discussing the children's NSF with my hon. Friend and the Royal College of Midwives when it is published—and I particularly look forward to his, and its, support in implementing it.
Mr. Drew: I thank my hon. Friend for his generosity in giving way. He mentioned earlier the view of some consultant obstetricians. Would he also accept that it is vital that we continue to engage with general practitioners, because more often than not they are the person whom a pregnant woman would contact for professional advice? The GP's role is to offer a degree of choice, at least, when that is sensible. It is sometimes put to me that GPs tend to be rather conservative in their recommendations to women about where they should have their children. Perhaps that is not necessarily the best way of putting things.
Dr. Ladyman: My hon. Friend is right. We must ensure that GPs are fully aware of the options available to women, and can give them proper counsel and advice. As I have just announced, we will try to make it possible for women to go directly to midwives in future, if that is what they want, and to get advice from a midwife's perspective. However, my hon. Friend is right. I suspect that pregnant women will, more often than not, contact their GP first. If we are to ensure that there is a comprehensive, high-quality information service, without which choice is just a figment of the imagination, and make it available, we must make sure that all the professionals women can contact, including GPs and midwives, have a full range of quality information and the time to provide the support and advice that women need to make choices.
In addition to setting that out in the national service framework for maternity services, and setting the standards that we want to achieve in maternity, other work will be going on at the same time—including the National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidelines, which are in development. We already have a number of clinical guidelines from NICE on antenatal care, induction of labour and the use of electronic foetal monitoring. We are awaiting further guidelines on caesarian sections, which will be published next year. I have no doubt that those will lead to a further improvement in clinical care in the NHS for women during pregnancy. These guidelines will complement the

33WH
national standards that will be set out in the national service framework. It is still intended that the national service framework for children will be published in spring 2004.
Just over 600,000 babies are born in the UK each year. The NHS spends around £1 billion a year on maternity services. That area of the NHS has not been afraid to modernise and respond to the needs of users. Improvements are needed in many areas, but maternity services represent one of the success stories of the NHS. That is due in no small part to the contribution made by midwives. Over the past 50 years childbirth has become much safer for both mother and baby. The latest confidential inquiries into maternal deaths report covering the years 1997–99 found that the overall maternal mortality rate was down. There were 11.4 deaths per 100,000 maternities, which is a decrease from the 12.2 per 100,000 maternities in the previous report.
There have been similar improvements for babies. The perinatal mortality rate—still births and deaths within seven days of birth—was just under 40 per 1,000 births during the period 1946–50, and has reduced to fewer than eight per 1,000 births in 2001. There is clear evidence that pregnancy is far safer today that it has ever been, and much of that improvement is due to the excellent care provided in the NHS. There is also a much greater range of choice in maternity services. As I announced today, the Government intend to extend that range of choice even further with the help of midwives and professionals throughout the NHS.
We can all be proud of the maternity care that is provided for women in this country. It is a prime example of partnership between the midwives and doctors who provide the service and the women and their families who use it. The Government will continue to keep maternity services high on our agenda, and will ensure that we have the right number of skilled personnel to maintain a high quality service.
Once again I congratulate my hon. Friend on his endeavours in this area, and I look forward to further opportunities to debate these matters with him in the coming months.
11.27 am
Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.

Affordable Housing
2.10 pm
Mr. Edward O'Hara:I apologise to the House for the delay in starting the debate; I had a domestic emergency.
Andrew George: I am pleased to have the opportunity to lead the debate on affordable housing. I was becoming concerned that Members on the Government Benches were so worried about the case that I was going to make that they nobbled you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to disable us from going ahead. Once I had secured the debate, I apologised in advance to the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Hope), in case I need to attend the fisheries debate in the main Chamber later, although I hope that that circumstance will not arise.
The purpose of the debate is to address perhaps the greatest social crisis facing communities in constituencies in many, albeit not all, parts of the country. My constituency in west Cornwall is certainly affected, as are the Isles of Scilly. Some 10 or 15 years ago, the issue would undoubtedly have been high unemployment. There has always been the residual problem of a large mismatch between earnings and house prices in the area owing to high second home ownership and low private and rented sector accommodation, but that has never been the case to the current extent.
To be fair, the Government are not in complete control of the way in which the housing market operates; that is not in their gift, but they can pull on some fiscal and policy levers to influence how the market works and the private rented sector operates to ensure the availability of social public rented accommodation.
I want to raise several issues, but I know that many other hon. Members want to contribute, so I shall try to be brief. The first issue is housing need and how it is assessed. The second—high levels of second home ownership—has a significant impact on my area. I will then talk about some of the initiatives that have been introduced in recent years, and their impact on housing availability.
I am aware that the Government considered housing need and, through their starter home initiative for key workers, which was announced in September 2001, identified housing need in the south-east of England as their primary concern. A three-year, £250 million programme was announced, 63 per cent. of which money was to be spent in London and 28 per cent. in the south-east with the remaining 9 per cent. to be divided between the eastern and south-western Government zones. In September 2002, the right hon. Lord Rooker announced the challenge fund—a fund of £200 million-which is intended to deliver 4,000 new homes for rented and low-cost ownership in the southeast.
I am in no way diminishing the very serious housing problems in London and the south-east, but there are equally severe housing problems in many communities in other parts of the country. The impression is that the Government have been blinkered; they have focused largely on the south-east of England and seem to have

35WH
turned their back on some of the serious problems affecting many other parts of the country, particularly the rest of the south of Britain where house prices are very high.
The housing problems in my constituency are as severe as ever. There is a significant mismatch between very low earnings—people in my constituency have been
on the bottom of the earnings ladder pretty much since records began— and very high house prices. The arrangements are clearly inadequate for families in my area whom public authorities cannot house. I appreciate that the Government have targets for ending the practice of putting people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation next April, but such families will inevitably live often in very cramped and entirely inadequate temporary accommodation, away from where the main income earner works and where the children go to school.
Mr. David Drew: The hon. Gentleman and I have discussed housing numerous times. Does he accept that one way of dealing with the problem is to examine the structure of housing? Older people often live in houses that are larger than they want. We seem to have lost sight of the fact that the market no longer wants to build bungalows or appropriate accommodation for older people. If such accommodation were provided, however, that could free up family housing in our communities.
Andrew George: That is true. The hon. Gentleman takes great interest in the issue, and I am grateful to him for making that important point. Incentives can be provided, particularly in the public sector. Some housing associations and local authorities try to use incentives to attract single, older people out of very large family housing that is no longer appropriate to them and into single-person bungalow accommodation with one or two bedrooms, where available. Such properties need to be available.
My part of the world has seen high rises in house prices in the past seven or eight years, as exposed in recent editions of the Western Morning News. One study showed that in the past eight years, house prices in many communities in Cornwall have risen by more than 250 per cent.—faster than they have in London during the same period. Many people in London and the south-east complain about, and are shocked by, the house prices and the rate at which they have increased. However, house prices have increased at a much faster rate in Cornwall, and most properties on the market are simply well out of the reach of local people on local wages. In addition, we must recognise that the proportion of public sector housing in Cornwall has historically been very low—between 10 and 12 per cent., depending on the district. In most urban and metropolitan areas, the proportion is significantly higher—in the upper teens and even over 20 per cent. The public rented sector is also significantly lower; it is sometimes as low as 8 to 14 per cent. in many districts, although, again, the proportion is much higher in many urban areas.
There is a very large waiting list on the Isles of Scilly, in Kerrier and in Penwith. Penwith has 28,500 homes, but 1,359 households are registered as being in need,
36WH
which is close to 5 per cent. of households in that district. Many people have taken a strange view of house price increases. For example, yesterday, a Cheltenham and Gloucester press release entitled, "How Much Have You Made?" celebrated the fact that house prices are still increasing. If one is moving between properties, the money is toy-town money, but in many areas the bottom rung of the ladder is being taken away from local people.
I said that I would mention second home ownership. It is at a high level in my part of Cornwall, and it seems to be increasing as a proportion of stock ownership. That is understandable: partly because of the failure of many pensions schemes, those who have spare cash want to invest in an appreciating asset, which gives them a recreational benefit and, whether or not they stick entirely to the 120-day rule for letting, can make them a tidy annual rental income as well. One can see the attraction for those with the money of buying a second home in west Cornwall or the Isles of Scilly. In Penwith alone, 10 per cent. of the housing stock is second homes, and in the Isles of Scilly the figure is above 25 per cent. All the indications are that those proportions are growing.
With 1,300 or more families in need on waiting lists, that level of second home ownership and the fact that the opportunity to buy second homes in the west of Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly is celebrated and promoted in the Sunday supplements of some of the heavier newspapers are seen by many as an obscenity. They are deeply offended by it.
To be fair to the Government, when I was elected in 1997, I brought to their attention the arguments against the use of taxpayers' money to subsidise the second homes of the wealthy. Even now, 50 per cent. of the council tax of those with second homes is met by the taxpayer, so those people are subsidised to enjoy the advantage of the income and investment and the recreational benefit of their second homes. Various parliamentary questions have demonstrated that although it is difficult to identify the exact —sum perhaps the Minister can advise us—if we extract those properties that are used as second homes, as opposed to charitable and other uses that are entitled to 50 per cent. subsidy. some £200 million of taxpayers' money is used to subsidise wealthy people's ownership of second homes, while many thousands of people on very low incomes in areas such as mine cannot afford to have a first home. I argued that point with various Ministers, by letter and in meetings and debates, and I am pleased to say that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), who was the responsible Minister at the time, accepted in a debate on 9 February 2000 that the situation was no longer acceptable, and agreed to review it. To the credit of the Government, they produced the rural White Paper and have, in the Local Government Bill, introduced measures to reduce the subsidy by 40 percentage points or more.
That is welcome, but there is a great deal more to do. Certainly, the Government should do a great deal more than they are doing about the 40 per cent. additional council tax that local authorities can levy from second home owners. In my area, the district councils have clearly made the case—as I did with Ministers-that the main consequence of high levels of second home

37WH
ownership is lack of affordable housing for local people. If local authorities are to take advantage of their ability to levy further council tax, they should use the majority of the money that they raise to address that problem, so that local people can benefit. The problem is that in places such as Cornwall, the levying bodies-the district councils—receive only 14 or 15 per cent. of council tax income. They are arguing with the higher-tier authorities—the county councils-that they should receive a higher proportion. It would be helpful to have an indication of the Government's view. When I have asked Ministers previously, they have refused to intervene and have left it to local authorities to sort themselves out. At the moment we are close to a squabble between the district councils and county councils. I hope that they can resolve the issue amicably, but some kind of intervention from the Minister would be welcome.
Mr. Simon Thomas: As the hon. Gentleman knows, in Wales, council tax has been levied at 100 per cent. on second homes for a long time. He has fought valiantly for a similar arrangement in England. Would he go even further and support what is being talked about in Wales, where it is acknowledged that, as he has just said, second homes not only receive a subsidy if they are not charged 100 per cent. council tax but are a cost to the community in that they make communities less sustainable in terms of schools, shops, post offices and so forth? He has made an argument for using some of that money for housing; we would suggest that there is also an argument for empowering local authorities to increase council tax beyond 100 per cent. on second homes, rather than fixing it at the 90 per cent. or 100 per cent. that he has long advocated.
Andrew George: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising an interesting point. It is one of the arguments that the county council in Cornwall is constructing. The lack of people living in some of its communities during many of the autumn, winter and spring months undermines the viability of a number of rural services, such as schools, shops and village halls, so one could make a case for using some of that income for other purposes.
The primary result of the high level of second home ownership is the lack of affordable housing for local people. I have made proposals to previous Ministers, and I hope that this Minister will listen to me, as his predecessor did, on the issue of council tax and second home ownership. I do not believe that just because I have been rebuffed once by a Minister, I will always be so rebuffed on the possibility of using the order on planning use classes to define the distinction between permanent residents and non-permanent residential use. Local planning authorities should be given the tools not to outlaw all second homes but to outlaw excessive second home ownership in many parts of the country. I am thinking of communities in west Cornwall such as Helford, Cadgwith, Sennen, Mousehole, St. Ives and Porthleven, where levels of second home ownership sometimes exceed 50 per cent. I would like local planning authorities to be given the power to stipulate
38WH
the number of second homes that they are prepared to tolerate in the local community, thus constraining people's ability to purchase second homes there.
Mr. John Hayes: It is unusual for me to have the opportunity to be more liberal than the hon Gentleman—I do not really have a liberal bone in my body. Is he suggesting that we tell people whether they can sell their house to the person of their choice or buy a house in the place of their choice? That would require an extraordinary imposition on people's freedom and choice, things in which I thought the Liberal Democrats at least pretended to believe. While the hon. Gentleman is talking about such issues, perhaps he can comment on the idea of local income tax, which his party advocates. If a young couple were to buy a small house to get on the housing ladder, they might pay considerably more in local income tax than they would in council tax.
AndrewGeorge: I shall resist the temptation to extend the debate and talk about the clear, strong case for local income tax, although perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) will take that up later.
The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) says that my proposal would constrain people's liberties. However, local people on low incomes are already having their liberties and choices constrained, and it is their liberties and opportunities that we should address. Of course anyone can sell any property to anyone, and they would continue to be able to do so under the change in the use of planning orders that I have suggested. The use to which a property is put is the important thing. In other words, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings could come down and buy a property, but if he rented it to local people, he would benefit from the investment in that property, local people would use it and a local need would thereby be met. That is not the same as using a property for recreational purposes, which is a significantly different use of a valuable resource. Such properties are a limited commodity in areas such as mine. The planning system cannot allow properties to be built absolutely everywhere or the very landscape and environment that many people come down to enjoy will be spoilt. The supply is limited, so there must inevitably be rationing. The question is how we provide it.
Mr. Edward Davey: If I have understood my hon. Friend's argument correctly, he is talking about the notion of saturation in the planning use order system. I note that New York uses such a concept with respect to excess licensed premises, for instance. Has my hon. Friend considered whether we as legislators could play with the concept of saturation to develop planning use orders in that regard?
Andrew George: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I do not say that people should not have second homes. My point is simply that the relevant mechanism should be available to local authorities that can prove to the Government that using it would be a prudent and appropriate way of tackling high levels of housing need.

39WH
In some communities, the rate of second home ownership would be so high as to be beyond saturation. That needs to be addressed.
The Minister's predecessor, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), responded to me following an offer that the local authority on the Isles of Scilly made to test the initiative there. Within the existing legislation, the Minister could pilot a new planning policy on the Isles of Scilly, establishing a use class order for second homes, without setting a precedent for anywhere else in the country. I urge the Minister to consider that offer carefully. On many of the islands, the rate of second home ownership is at least 20 per cent., and sometimes 25 per cent. or more. Allowing the authority to implement the policy would demonstrate whether it works. The policy could then be rolled out across the country—a favourite Government expression, I believe.
I realise that time is marching on, so I should like to make some brief general points about the planning system. Many people see the planning system as a means of delivering private wealth rather than public goods. To be fair to the Government, there is a debate in the Chamber today about matters relating to PPG3 exception sites and so on. However, the Government could further strengthen policy by enabling registered social landlords to bring forward exception sites in rural areas, or even market towns, where the planning policy has been drawn up tightly and the planning committee sticks to it tightly. In those circumstances, an exception could be made on the edge of the town or village to meet a local housing need, which, in many cases, would he managed by a registered social landlord in the long term. That would help to deliver land at significantly below market value, which is essential to develop affordable housing for local people. Otherwise, registered social landlords end up buying land at £500,000 or more an acre, which puts affordable housing out of reach.
There should be support from the Government for developing a new intermediate market, particularly for shared equity and leasehold properties. Intermediate markets are necessary in rural areas such as mine, which have low wages and high house prices. People on local incomes recognise that the availability of rented accommodation is limited. Shared equity accommodation should be developed and perhaps managed by registered social landlords. At present, however, people who want to move on from a property where they own, say, 50 per cent., cannot take advantage of other shared equity properties, because there is an insufficient supply. Also, many people who purchase such properties have difficulties raising mortgages, so intervention from the Government on that would be helpful as well.
In previous debates the Government said that they had established regional housing boards, which are quangos and are established over surreal planning areas. Although the boards are supposed to match planning priorities with housing priorities, they have prioritised principal urban areas in the south-west Government zone. The secondary areas relate to Government targets to deliver rural housing in
40WH
communities of less than 3,000. Many small market towns have been left out altogether, which is a matter of concern.
Time is moving on, so I shall not take up any more of it. I have written to the Minister with questions that I have not had a chance to raise today. I look forward to the rest of the debate.
2.39 pm
Ms Oonaking:
I am pleased to contribute to such an important debate. I want to raise two key issues: how we deal with overcrowding as part of the Government's strategy both to create more affordable housing units and to reach the decent homes standard, and how we free up more units for affordable housing. I would also like to consider the future of council housing, which in many areas will be through stock transfer.
In my constituency, the council has carried out a detailed review of its housing stock, using PricewaterhouseCoopers to do an option appraisal. In trying to determine how best to bring our housing stock up to a decent standard, the council has determined that the only realistic way forward is through partial stock transfer. However, the problem is that, although money is attached to the other means available to councils to bring their stock up to standard—such as arm's length management companies and the private funding initiative—there is no clarity as yet about how we would deal with gap funding to bring houses up to a decent standard. Might the Minister be able to talk briefly about how we can deal with that problem?
Many tenants in Tower Hamlets have backed a review and further consideration of stock transfer. However, if registered social landlords are unable to engage in the programme because the risk appears too great, we will obviously not be able to move that programme forward. We will be unable either to bring our housing stock up to a decent standard or to guarantee the numbers of affordable housing units that we would wish to see reaching that standard.
I am pleased that we have reversed the £19 billion backlog on housing in the affordable housing sector since we came to power, and that some authorities will be able to reach the decent homes target when dealing with their affordable housing stock through their own resources. That is not the case, however, in areas with significant negative values. Tower Hamlets is one of those areas. Following a recent intervention in a debate on overcrowding, I was pleased that the Minister undertook to write to me about the moves that the Government will make to deal with the issue.
I am glad that the Government have decided to undertake research into overcrowding. It is a huge problem in Tower Hamlets, and it affects everything about a child's upbringing. It affects their health, education and employment prospects. Research by Shelter has shown, as one would expect, that if a child is brought up in overcrowded accommodation, they are more likely to have respiratory tract infections. There are other simple consequences; they are more likely to be prone to accidents and less likely to do well in their education.

41WH
On a personal note, I see many families every week who are either unable to access decent homes or feel that they cannot afford to enter the private market to look to access decent homes there.
Mr. Andrew Love:
I apologise for arriving late for this important debate. Does my hon. Friend agree that since the Government have set a standard of halving child poverty within the next 10 years, not addressing overcrowding would make it much more difficult to achieve that target?
Ms King: I agree wholeheartedly. That is why I raised the issue of overcrowding within the scope of the Government's target on the decent homes standard. The definition of decent homes should be widened to include overcrowding and the issues that local people in areas such as my own get upset about, such as lack of security and maintenance of communal areas. If we do not expand that definition, we will risk missing an opportunity of achieving the target that my hon. Friend mentioned. Reducing the numbers of children living in poverty is a key plank of Government policy.
Specifically, will the Minister say whether the new regional housing boards will be directed to take the problem of overcrowding into account, especially when determining how they are going to allocate their resources? Supplementary to that, and to the issue of child poverty, we should recognise that the 2001 census showed that 1.5 million children live in overcrowded conditions. The vast majority of those live in families under the poverty threshold. I know that everybody assumes that the streets of London are paved with gold, and Londoners are not the first to win sympathy when we talk about problems relating to poverty. However, 48 per cent. of the children in England who live beneath the poverty threshold live in inner London—children whose lives are crippled by poverty. I would be particularly grateful if the Minister might elaborate on what the Government will do to ensure that overcrowding, which affects £1.5 million of the poorest children, is dealt with.
I will end by returning to stock transfer. It is important that tenants understand what the process involves. They need to be engaged in the decisions and options. It is important that they understand that housing transfer is not privatisation and that if stock is transferred to registered social landlords, at least one third of the housing association board members would have to be tenants. Could the Minister outline what other assurances residents can have about stock transfer? I was speaking to someone recently, for example, who wanted to know what the worst-case scenario was, and what would happen if the RSLs went bankrupt. I explained that that was not a likely scenario, and that I was unaware of any circumstances in which it had taken place in the past. However, I could be wrong and would be grateful if the Minister could outline the pitfalls as the Government see them?
I hope that the Government will continue to ensure that increasing the number of affordable housing units is at the top of their agenda and that money follows housing need.
Mr. Edward O'Hara:Order. For clarification, the debate will last a full one and a half hours and the wind-up speeches will start at ten past three.
2.49 pm
Mr. Mark Hoban:I congratulate the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) on securing this debate. We have heard from him and from the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) about the housing issues that affect their parts of the country.
I want to talk about affordable housing in the context of my own constituency, which is on the south coast of England. There is a lack of social housing, because of the structure of the housing stock in the constituency. Even a relatively small one or two-bedroom flat will cost a six-figure sum. With an average wage across the country of £24,000, that sort of flat becomes difficult for a single person to afford. In the constituency, because of the relative expense of private housing stock, there is a relatively small and expensive private rental sector.
When I talk to constituents about trying to find private rented housing, they often tell me that they cannot afford it in their circumstances. Consequently, affordable housing in Fareham tends to be social housing. That is the main source of properties in that category. Fareham district council has 2,450 council houses and has nomination rights to 900 housing association properties across its area and just outside it. At the end of September, the housing waiting list, which includes people waiting for a transfer to a larger property, was more than 2,100. In the last year, only 170 vacancies arose from the total housing stock of 3,500—taking into account he properties for which the council has a nomination right.
There are 123 families in temporary accommodation, 23 of whom are in bed-and-breakfast properties. The council is well aware that its priority over the next few months is to reduce to zero the number of families in bed and breakfasts. However, it also expects that by the end of March 2004, some 25 families will become homeless and will end up in bed and breakfasts, and that they too will need permanent accommodation. Therefore, it needs to rehouse just under 60 families and move them out of bed-and-breakfast accommodation in order to meet the Government's deadline.
The council is taking steps to tackle the issue. It is considering leasing properties from the private sector in Fareham and adjacent areas to house some of those homeless families. It provides rent deposits and rent guarantees to help families find accommodation in the private rented sector, but the expense of such housing makes it difficult for those families to afford that. Some 18 units, which are being built by the Portsmouth housing association, will come on stream in March 2004. The priority for nomination rights for those properties will go to those families who are currently homeless.
The council is making progress towards tackling the bed-and-breakfast problem, but it considers it a difficult issue and is looking at how other forms of social housing can be provided. It identified a scheme to create more social housing on the site of an existing homeless shelter in Fareham, but the application for funds for the replacement shelter was turned down by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister for three reasons. The first reason was that the site was privately owned, although that was rectified in 2002. The second reason was that the commercial occupants were still in residence, but

43WH
they moved out in December 2002 and the site is now clear. Thirdly, the ODPM said that the scheme did not have planning permission and that there were likely to be local objections. Indeed, there were local objections, but they have been resolved, and the planning committee has voted to accept the homelessness scheme. Of course, there has still been no money from the ODPM, so the existing homeless shelter, which I have visited and which is in dire need of replacement, is still there, occupying a site that could be used for social housing, and the site for the new shelter remains vacant. That site is being cleared, but the money to fund the new shelter is not available. I ask the Minister to consider that scheme in particular. I have corresponded with his colleague, the Minister for Housing and Planning, and I await a further response from him. We need long-term imaginative schemes such as that to tackle the shortage of affordable housing in my constituency.
I now move on to the role of the development of large sites in resolving some of the social housing problems in my area. Fareham has undergone rapid expansion in recent years. Where there is large-scale development, there is benefit to the local community, given that the developer will contribute towards the building of social housing. However, the Department's guidance of recent years, which has focused development on brownfield sites—in Fareham that means focusing development on relatively small brownfield sites— has meant that that dividend does not emerge any more. Very few new houses are built on large sites, so relatively little social housing is being funded through planning gain. Applications for development on greenfield sites have often been called in by the ODPM. As a consequence of the call-in process and the wait for a response from the inspector, provision of social housing has been further delayed. Where sites have been identified for social housing, the size of those sites and the number of dwellings to be built that have been forced on those sites is an issue.
A scheme is currently proposed for Laburnum road in the centre of Fareham, in the midst of a residential area where there are many two-storey houses. In order to try to accommodate the number of people on the housing waiting list, the developer, Portsmouth housing association, has been forced to consider building a three-storey block of flats Flats are not ideal for families, and I would rather that families could be accommodated in houses with a garden, but I appreciate that the pressure on land and finances is such that they sometimes have to be accommodated in flats. The scale of the development in relation to the surrounding housing has caused a great deal of concern among local people.
Underpinning a lot of this issue is the funding available from central Government for affordable housing in my constituency. The council is concerned that the abolition of local authority social housing grants and the transfer: resources to the regional housing board will penalise places such as Fareham, where there is moderate affluence but pockets of deprivation. It believes that resources will be sent either to older urban areas or to the new housing developments that are projected for Ashford and places such as Milton Keynes.
44WH
Will places such as Fareham receive a fair allocation of the moneys that are being made available to the regional housing board by the Department? I would welcome the Minister's assurance that places such as Fareham will not miss out on a share of those funds, because it is difficult to see how the council will continue to meet the Government's housing targets without those funds, or how it will meet the deadline for the clearance of families from bed-and breakfast accommodation by the end of March 2004.
Fareham district council has made tremendous strides towards coping with the problem of homelessness and affordable housing in my constituency, but it is aware—as am I—that there is much to do to tackle the problem. I hope that the Government will think again about the impact of their policies on development and on the funding of social housing in areas such as mine, and that they will consider what contribution they can make to resolve some of the problems that affect my community and those of hon. Members who have spoken today.
2.58 pm
Ms Candy Atherton:I congratulate the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) on securing this debate, and I remind him that we have the honour of sharing west Cornwall.
As I am unsure how long I have to speak, I will speak briefly on an issue relating to my constituency. When it comes to affordable housing, money is important. I welcome press reports that the Chancellor may make housing a priority in tomorrow's pre-Budget report. Imbalances in the housing market need to be addressed, and money helps. I am glad about restrictions on the right to buy and that the Government are tackling the much maligned second homes council tax discount.
As the hon. Member for St. Ives said, there are more second homes than first homes in some parts of Cornwall. Recently, I asked local town and parish councils if they wanted money gained from the abolition of the second homes discount to be earmarked specifically for affordable housing. Every single one that replied said that it did. I ask the Minister to send a strong message to Cornwall and to the town and parish councils that the Government strongly support their corner and that the county council should not use the money that it raises from the abolition of the discount for other parts of its budget, but to put the money back into affordable housing to tackle that great problem.
Getting rid of the discount is not the answer to the problem; it is one answer, but it is not the complete answer. Those who can afford a second home can usually pay the tax, and it will be interesting to explore ways to influence the market. Perhaps we could think about utility bills and higher standing charges for people with second homes. If they can afford a second home, they can afford to pay a higher charge. Currently, the rest of the community subsidises them.
We all know the age-old problem of the nimby. In the Camborne, Poole and Redruth area, there is an urban regeneration company. We are planning for 2,000 homes of mixed tenure, but we need Government support. I do not have time to explore this issue as I wanted to, but I hope that Ministers come and see our plans, because we have brownfield sites, and we can

45WH
build on them. There is no nimby factor. The attitude is, "Yes—in our backyard", because we need the housing: 1,500 people are on the housing list in the Camborne, Poole and Redruth area alone. I strongly urge my hon. Friend the Minister to come and see what we are doing and give us a hand, because our area has a "Yes, can do" attitude.
3.1 pm
Mr. Edward Davey:I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) on securing the debate and on the way in which he has championed in Parliament the policy of removing council tax discounts for second homes. I do not think that the Government would have taken such a measure were it not for his dogged persistence and determination. Although he was modest enough to praise the Government, he, too, should take hon. Members' praise for the work that he has done for his constituents in Cornwall and for the rest of the country.
This is a timely debate, not least because it is taking place on the eve of publication of the interim report of Professor Barker's review of the supply of housing, which was commissioned by Her Majesty's Treasury. There is a bizarre aspect to housing in this country. We have high house prices, but often the market does not respond to them quickly by producing new houses. That is why the Government set up the review, and many of us are waiting to see Kate Barker's conclusions.
According to various stories in the press, there will be changes to the planning system. It is rather ironic that the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill is taking an awfully long time to go through Parliament. Whether the new ideas that we are about to hear will run counter to current ideas or build on them, we have yet to see.
One idea that has been leaked in the press—whether the Barker review will come up with it, we do not know-is that we should adopt the proposal from the review by Lord Rogers several years ago for equalisation between VAT on repairing existing homes or homes that are in disrepair, and VAT on new build. Currently, no VAT is paid in respect of houses on greenfield sites. Liberal Democrat Members have argued that there should be equalisation between VAT on new build and VAT on repair, not to generate extra revenue for the Treasury, but to remove the perverse distortion against reusing and recycling existing homes. It will be interesting to see whether the Barker review makes that proposal.
When one considers the numbers, one wonders whether the Treasury was right to focus so much on this issue. Let us consider the numbers being produced by the private sector in respect of new build. Over several decades, the numbers have been pretty constant. There has not been a massive increase or a massive trough in private sector house building at any time over that period. The reduction in the number of new homes being built really comes from the social sector and the fact that Governments of differing political hues have taken a lot of money out of that sector over a number of years. I simply question whether the Barker review will be able to find a solution, given the true macro picture of funding of that sector.
I hope that the review will consider real reforms on the planning side. Local authorities must be far more proactive in the way in which they use the planning
46WH
system. They must encourage developers to build more homes that are affordable for people in their communities. We need to consider pre-application consultation, so that developers learn about the community's needs from the community. There is no reason why the private sector will not meet those needs. Sometimes the issue is poor
communication
Lembit Öpik:Is my hon. Friend aware of the work of Mick Bates, a Liberal Democrat Member of the Welsh Assembly? He has been promoting four things: a definition of affordability; accurate assessment of housing needs; greater rural exemptions where appropriate; and community housing trusts. That ensures that there is joined-up thinking about supplying affordable housing, especially in rural areas.
Mr. Davey: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I was not aware of the excellent work being done by our colleague, but I will certainly get hold of a paper on it.
When we consider affordable housing—perhaps this is similar to the work happening in Wales—we decide that one size does not fit all in respect of the needs of different areas and communities and of different groups of people. Many of the key workers in London whom we are discussing are young professionals who want to rent only for a time. They want affordable rents for high-quality, well maintained apartment blocks—one might call them condominiums. If we can encourage that type of building, the private sector will go into that market, because it can make a commercial return on it, and we will be able to deliver the types of property that those key workers want. Once they have saved enough to move on and buy their own home, they can meet their own needs, so we must try to persuade the private developers to consider the needs of particular groups.
Mr. Love: The hon. Gentleman mentions professional groups in the private rented sector, but I argue about whether that is affordable according to the current definition. He also mentioned owner occupation and the social sector. Of course, the private rented sector has a great role to play. Does he expect the Barker review to say something about how the private rented sector can provide affordable accommodation for those in need?
Mr. Davey: I certainly hope that it will. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not misunderstand my use of the word "professionals". I was talking about health care professionals, police officers and teachers. They are professional people who need housing, but because of the current structure of the private rented sector—certainly in my constituency, arid I imagine that the same is true in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, given that he is a London Member—sometimes they cannot afford private sector rents. The proposal that I was trying to back, which comes from research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, says that if we think about the issue more imaginatively than developers have done in the past, we can meet that need through the market, but pointers and encouragement are needed from Government.
The really difficult sector in terms of affordable housing is those very low-income workers who will never move on. They may be elderly. They may be in

47WH
jobs that mean they will never move up the scale. The Government need to produce subsidies in that area, as is currently the case, through housing associations and housing authorities.
One issue on which the Government have been dragging their feet and could take immediate action is empty homes. There are many empty homes in the public and private sectors in areas of high housing demand. In London, more than 100,000 properties have been empty for a considerable time, 83 per cent. of which are in the private sector.
In my constituency, several streets have empty homes that have been sitting idle, unused and unoccupied, for years. If one goes off the A3 at the Hook junction to Gladstone road, Haycroft road and Brook road, one will find 29 family properties that have been empty for more than a year. Indeed, some have been empty for several years. I have been working with the local councils to see whether we can persuade the owner of those properties to bring them back on to the market. The gentleman happens to be very elderly and seems not to take the advice of some of his advisers, so there are difficult problems. However, when more than 1,000 families are in temporary accommodation in the royal borough of Kingston while 29 large family homes sit empty, people can see the need to act on this issue.
What have the Government done? In a debate in Westminster Hall on 19 June, I urged them to have a consultation on new compulsory leasing powers for local authorities. The Government reacted to that and, just before the summer recess, or perhaps during it, they published a consultation paper, which I welcome. The problem is that they are being slow on the consultation. The Housing Bill contains provisions for orders that will allow local authorities to make quite severe interventions in their local communities to try to ensure that some of their problems are dealt with. However, the Government are not minded at the moment to bring into the Housing Bill some of the empty property management orders in the consultation paper.
When will the Government get another chance to legislate on the issue? Given that the Select Committee was sympathetic to the proposal, I hope that the Minister will give us some explanation of why the Government are failing to act, even though they have the chance to do so and the ideas are ready to go. I hope that they will consider that again.
Time is short, so I will bring my remarks to a close. The Government have been slow to react to the affordable housing crisis. In previous parliamentary Sessions, my hon. Friends and I, particularly those with constituencies in London, have talked about the problem time and again. The Liberal Democrats have warned the Government that they are undermining their public service reform agenda because of the skills shortage in public services in London and elsewhere. I am glad that they are addressing it at long last, but they must be far more imaginative and ambitious if they are going to make an immediate impact.
3.10 pm
Mr. John Hayes:This has been a wide-ranging and useful debate, and I hope that the Minister will draw on all his expertise to deal with it in as wide ranging a response.
It is important to note that a broad-minded approach is required. The issue of affordable homes is not just about the simple matter of outright home ownership, but about the possibilities of shared or part ownership and the rented sector. Affording to rent, let alone being able to afford to buy, is a big issue for many of our countrymen. In large parts of Britain, people cannot get on to the first rung of the housing ladder even though they want to.
Addressing the problem requires the kind of innovative schemes mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban), who talked about some of the experiences of his constituency, and the Government need to reflect that in their policy approach. We need to be more creative in bringing affordability back into the marketplace, and we hope that the Barker report and the proposals that will follow from it will reflect a broad-minded approach.
The problem is not universal. It is felt strongly in particular areas—certain types of areas and certain parts of the country. In rural communities, affordability is a massive problem, as I know from my constituency. It is profoundly felt since many young people are unable to stay in the communities in which they were born and bred and in which they work because of the prices of local housing and the lack of rented housing from either local authorities, housing associations or the private sector. That is driving them into having to travel long distances to see their families, go to work and engage in all the normal things that people do in their social lives. It is fragmenting communities in an unacceptable way.
There are also problems in particular parts of the country. We know that there are massive problems for key workers and people who need to live close to their work, especially in the south of England. Ironically, in some other parts of the country, supply outstrips demand. That irony lies at the heart of the debate, and it must be addressed by a policy that is sufficiently targeted to tackle differing problems in different parts of the country and in different types of area.
As we know from what has already been said, the Barker review will undoubtedly focus heavily on that. Before I came to the debate, I was looking at the Chartered Institute of Housing submission to that review. It tries to answer the question posed by the review, which is why the private housing sector has not expanded to replace the provision of social housing. That is partly about housing for rent, but also about the building of private housing at prices that people can afford. The Government can do something about that, and I shall shortly ask the Minister some specific questions to elicit the Government's intentions.
The Chartered Institute of Housing submission suggests that there are real problems concerning the demographic profile of tenants. It states that there is strong evidence that young social housing tenants often aspire to leave the sector at some point to become private home owners or private tenants but cannot because of a series of problems. One problem is mortgage eligibility, as people have problems getting on

49WH
the ladder because they cannot afford to borrow. The second is that the mismatch between supply and demand means that people often want to buy a house where they can least afford to do so. There are also concerns about housing benefit rules and the private rented sector, to which the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) referred. Problems of security of tenure also particularly affect young people.
As well as the Barker review, it would be remiss of me not to pay attention to both the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, which is being debated in the main Chamber as we speak, and the Housing Bill, which was published yesterday. There are worries that the changes to section 106 agreements in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill may make the building of affordable housing even less likely. Much of the affordable housing now available, especially the social housing, has been built through planning gain and as a result of negotiations that have taken place around section 106 agreements when a developer applies for planning permission from his local council. If the changes in the regime prevent sufficient opportunity to insist on specific types of developments, they may dry up the supply of affordable housing to an even greater degree. I will be interested to hear the Minister's comments on that.
On the Housing Bill, will the Minister comment on the effect of the seller's pack on the market? Some groups, including estate agents, representative bodies and, to a lesser extent, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, claim that the seller's pack will slow down the market and reduce the number of houses on it at any one time. That would affect the people who want to get on to the ladder, move into a house for the first time and fulfil their dream of becoming home owners.
We must also consider the standard of housing, which the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) rightly mentioned. That will be covered in the Housing Bill, and we will have more chance to debate it at length at a later stage, but it should not be ignored in debates about affordable housing or policy for it. It is no use taking an approach on affordable housing if we do not simultaneously look at its quality. I am sure that the Government will want to pay proper attention to that when the Bill comes before the House.
Given the necessity for brevity, I will sum up by posing a series of questions to the Minister. What aspects of mortgage eligibility have the Government examined, and how do they fit into future policy? What role will changes to and Government influence on mortgage eligibility play in making housing more affordable, particularly for young people?
What planning guidance have the Government considered for mixed developments? They have said that they are in favour of mixed developments, but one problem is that the instruments that local authorities have to bring that to bear are relatively slight. They have to rely on housing needs assessments, which are not always specific enough in terms of the sites that might be considered for mixed development and affordable housing.
What will the Government do for the special needs of disabled people in relation to affordable housing? That point has not been raised today, and time does not permit me to elaborate, but it is an important issue.
50WH
What specific ideas do the Government have on shared and part ownership? One important way of making progress on affordable housing would be to be much more creative in considering the ways that people can get on to the ladder through shared or part ownership, perhaps working with a housing association or local authority.
What is the Government's strategy for empty homes? It is nonsense that there are 720.000 empty homes throughout England and Wales yet that resource is not being developed. Those empty homes provide an opportunity for many people to afford a home for the first time, but there is no financial incentive to encourage it. Local authorities do not fully understand their powers and have not had sufficient training for their role as financial institutions. The housing benefit proposals may do even more damage. The Government's empty homes strategy will be critical and I want to hear from the Minister precisely how he intends to take it forward.
3.21 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister(Phil Hope): We have had a stimulating and full debate this afternoon and during the nine or 10 minutes remaining, I may not be able to do justice to all the contributions that have been made.
Andrew George: On a point of order, Mr. O'Hara. I seek your guidance on whether the debate will finish at 3.40 pm because of the late start.
Mr. Deputy speaker:I stand corrected. The debate will finish at 3.30 pm, which is why I advanced the windup speeches to start at 3 pm.
Phil Hope: My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King), the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) and my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) raised concerns that came from the heart. Different concerns were raised by Members from the furthest parts of the south-west, Wales, London and the south-east. We have had a tour of the country's housing needs and problems and some good debate on the solutions with interventions from the hon. Members for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) and for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) —I apologise if I pronounced that wrongly-and my hon. Friends the Members for Edmonton (Mr. Love) and for Stroud (Mr. Drew).
A major aim of Government policy is to tackle social exclusion and to provide increased quality of life. The provision of good-quality housing is a key element in that, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow said, it is about the impact on people's health and educational attainment.
We have made good progress. Public funding to address the problem is, inevitably, limited and difficult choices must be made, but around £4 billion has been allocated for mainstream housing investment in 2003–04. That is well over twice the amount allocated in 1997–98. Having inherited a £19 billion backlog in housing repairs when we came to office in 1997, our release of a huge amount of capital receipts to improve social housing has been an important part of our programme.

51WH
The hon. Member for St. Ives gave a graphic description of the housing problems in his constituency, many of which I recognise. We understand the need and the problems, not just in his constituency, but in other parts of the south-west and the rest of the country. We know that sometimes the attractive chocolate-box exterior of some rural communities hides serious problems of rural deprivation.
Mr. Drew: Before coming to the Chamber, I attended the Calor Gas village of the year lunch. I hope that my village of Coaley wins, but I do not yet know if it has. The point was made—Stephen Wright, who represents Gloucestershire community council, has made the same point-that the Government should understand that they do not want changes to the exceptions rule or the raising of the minimum level of a community from 3,000 to 10,000 because that would make a huge difference in small rural villages. I hope that the Minister will pass that comment on.
Phil Hope: I am sure that when my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning reads the debate he will take account of that contribution.
I am pleased to say that real progress is being made in Cornwall. The West Cornwall Together partnership is taking a real step forward in tackling problems in the constituency. Some £6.5 million of neighbourhood renewal funding has supported people with problems in those neighbourhoods and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne, who referred to the urban regeneration company. I have an urban regeneration company in my constituency and know the value of such partnerships in bringing together different players in district and county councils, local redevelopment agencies, English Partnerships and other private sector players into a partnership to bring about progress. I shall consider her comments about the importance of taking that forward.
The hon. Member for St. Ives asked about second homes and was right to do so. He acknowledged the change that has been made to the council tax rules to reduce the 50 per cent. discount for second homes. The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members who referred to the matter would like Government intervention to tell district and county councils how to use the proceeds, but he probably knows that the Local Government Association wants more freedom and flexibility for local government to make decisions. [Interruption.] I was not going to point out the contradiction that that is also Liberal Democrat policy, but my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton made that point well from a sedentary position. I understand the difficulties, but we believe that it is for local authorities to decide how to use additional income raised in the light of local needs and priorities. In areas such as St. Ives where there is a shortage of housing, we expect careful consideration to be given to the use of funds to provide additional affordable housing.
52WH
The hon. Member for St. Ives said that building more homes might reduce house price inflation and thereby solve the problem with changes in the market. To reduce house price inflation to zero would involve a level of provision not seen in this country for some time. There are huge problems of environmental constraints and pressure on achieving such provision. We must make choices, prioritise needs and plan carefully to meet those needs if we are to make real progress.
The Government recognise the need for affordable housing, and we are endeavouring to deal with the problem in different ways in different areas. We are spending more money specifically on affordable housing and have given no less than a 30 per cent. increase in funding under the main approved development programme for social housing amounting to £20 million extra for housing in the south-west. That brings the total to £81 million and will deliver 2,000 new, affordable homes for the region in this financial year. We also aim to deliver 350 new affordable homes in villages in the south-west in this financial year and increase that on average to more than 380 a year during the following two years.
The hon. Member for Fareham asked about local authority social housing grant. I understand his concern, but we believe that as that money has been fairly taken, put into a central pot and distributed to regional housing pots, it is important that the regional housing boards should assess housing needs in their region—that is part of the Government's devolution policy—and then reflect action to respond to those housing needs in their funding proposals. Devolving that decision and providing those extra resources means that the provision can meet local needs as defined by local people.
In the brief time available to me, I want to mention PPG3, which is an important piece of planning guidance that addresses one of the issues also raised by the hon. Member for St. Ives about the need for a better mix of housing. PPG3 will give local planning authorities the ability to reject housing developments that do not broaden housing choice. We do not want large housing developments of one sort or another. We want a mix of size, type and affordability. We shall give local authorities the tools to deliver that and will back those local authorities in that direction when necessary.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow raised a number of different problems in her area in London. We recognise that gap funding for negative value transfers or partial transfers is a significant issue for authorities such as hers. The regional housing boards must consider the need to fund those if their overall regional strategies are to work effectively. The local authority and the regional housing board must address that issue.
On assurances for council tenants who are transferring to housing associations, the transfer process requires a statement of the services and investment that will be provided by the new landlord on transfer. The transfer can take place only when tenants are happy with what will be provided. No transfer associations have gone bust, and surveys show that tenant satisfaction rises after transfers.

NHS Management
3.30 pm
Mr. Archie NormanFirst, I should like to draw Members' attention to my declaration in the Register of Members' Interests. Secondly, I thank the Minister for making time available to respond to the debate. I have a high regard for his expertise, and he has a reputation for being one of the less partisan Ministers. I hope that he can respond to my remarks in the spirit in which they are made, and can perhaps cast away his pre-prepared script and respond directly to my points.
Management in the health service need not be a party political issue, because it concerns how we can deliver effective results for patients. In 1983, Sir Roy Griffiths stated in his landmark study of management in the NHS:
"One of our most impressive observations is the lack of a clearly defined management function throughout the NHS. The NHS requires enormous resources…it demands top class management."
The world has moved on since then, and the NHS has moved on substantially. With larger NHS trusts the challenge is greater than ever. We have aggregated groups of hospitals into single trusts, which are more complex and technologically advanced than before and are under intense financial pressure. They are complex people-management organisations that depend on the attitudes, motivation and good will of the nurses, doctors, administrators and others who work in them for their success.
That people-management challenge has also moved on in the outside world. People's attitude to employment, whether it is within public or private service, is different from that of 20 years ago. The days when people went to work to earn a daily crust and hung up their brains at the door when they arrived are gone. People are no longer motivated regardless of how they are treated, and they expect their bosses to show them respect.
The world of employment has moved on substantially, but it is not clear whether it has moved on commensurately within the NHS. The Government's policy on the health service is clear: simply put, there has been a substantial increase in funding. In order to get value out of the funding, the Government have sought to retain accountability through a network of targets.
3.33 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
3.43 pm
On resuming—
Mr. Norman: The Government's model for delivering value from the new investment in the health service has been built around a network of targets and performance measures, which are designed to ensure that patients and the taxpayer get value for money. However, it has been motivationally blind. The emphasis has been on mechanics and finance. There has been relatively little emphasis on the motivation of people and the need to attract talent for what is an increasingly demanding task.
54WH
The results are well publicised and are a matter of fact. Hospital chief executives now have 420 different targets. According to my research, which uses answers to parliamentary questions, there are 151 different performance indicators, which is up from 86 last year. There has been an enormous increase in administrators and senior managements, which is not necessarily a bad thing in itself, but the scale is out of proportion with what must be delivered. Between 1995 and 2001, there was a 48 per cent. increase in senior managers and only a 7.8 per cent. increase in nursing staff over that period. The increase in senior managers and middle managers has continued since that date
Dr. Ian Bogle, the British Medical Association chairman, has said:
"We now have a healthcare system driven not by the need of individual patients but by spreadsheets and tick boxes."
Nobody would criticise the Government for making sure that we get value for money by measuring outcomes. The question is the management culture created within the health service and the productivity that it delivers. All the evidence shows that the productivity outcome is depressing.
Between 1999 and 2001, we spent 21 per cent. more on health care for a 1.6 per cent. increase in completed operations. The Minister may say that that is not the whole story, but the challenge is not to spend taxpayers' money—anybody can do that—it is to achieve successful outcomes and to create a health service that is more capable in the long term. I fear that we have put a donkey into the Derby. When the Government came to power, the management structure was not capable, but they invested with money rather than investing in people. Having put the donkey into the Derby, they attached performance targets to it and wondered why it did not go fast enough. The charge facing the Government is not whether they invested in health care but whether they invested in the people with leadership and motivational characteristics to deliver a worthwhile outcome for the money invested.
The evidence shows that there are few more demotivated and demoralised institutions in Britain today than our struggling NHS trusts. A recent MORI poll sought the views of NHS chief executives. The Minister will know the results: 62 per cent. of chief executives think that their role is becoming increasingly unattractive and that it is harder to recruit people into the profession. Some 66 per cent. of them—two thirds—
think that the NHS risks losing its best leaders, and 69 per cent. think that negative perceptions of the NHS make it hard to attract clinicians into management and leadership roles.
The Minister will know that the models of success elsewhere are very different from the model that the Government have pursued, and I shall give three primary examples. First, successful hospitals the world over tend to have fewer administrators and clearer management accountability. Research by Solutient in the United States shows that the 100 best US hospitals employ on average 25 per cent. fewer managers and administrators per hospital, yet they deliver better health care by US standards—let alone by our standards.
Studies in the private sector conducted both over here and elsewhere also show the need for absolute clarity of accountability. Obviously, private sector hospitals in

55WH
the UK tend to be much less complex and are less likely to have acute services, such as accident and emergency, than hospitals in the NHS, but none the less the point is clear—it is not only a question of resources. National health service chief executives are unusual by world standards in being bereft of the powers to manage. A conspicuous example of that is their inability to move staff who have underperformed in their duties out of the hospital. They also cannot manage and deploy their own team of consultants.
Last week's announcement of the new methicillinresistant Staphylococcus aureus tsars in every NHS trust shows how little the Government have changed. It must have been greeted with a groan by every chief executive up and down the country, all of whom will be hoping that it is just another shallow political initiative and not something that will impose extra costs and extra administrators on them. The management of MRSA is centrally a line management responsibility, and not something that can be dealt with by sticking on an elastoplast in the form of an extra administrator.
We should collapse the 420 targets into six or seven rounded measures of performance, which would give an effective audit while allowing chief executives the discretion to manage and interpret which of those targets they can exceed and beat and to focus on local clinical priorities.
A characteristic of successful health care models all over the world is the deep clinical involvement in management. In the United Kingdom, the best performing hospitals typically have a shared clinical vision between doctors, consultants and administrators, which they work hard to achieve. That is true in Great Ormond Street hospital in this country and in the John Hopkins University hospital in the United States. That common clinical vision depends on the intense involvement of clinicians and consultants in management, and on their understanding management pressures.
The British Medical Journal study of the Kaiser Permanente network in California, published in January 2002, demonstrated the same point: it delivers better care at the same costs partly through superior integration of clinical management. That study found:
"Today, the mutual commitment to an exclusive partnership between the physicians and management is deeply ingrained in the organisation. Many factors may be credited for this success, but three stand out."
Those are joint leadership between administrators and clinicians, alignment of objectives and management training for physicians—all characteristics on which this country lags seriously behind.
Worse than that, the culture of targets and the stress that that places on local priorities and on chief executives drives a wedge between consultants and clinicians, and administrators. That is why there is a serious problem, creating huge resentment among clinicians. They do not like the sight of large amounts of money being spent on administration and additional staff, particularly as many consultants are extremely highly qualified and very able people, often with views on management. Some are much more capable than we would allow of moving in and contributing to the management process.
56WH
I refer again to the British Medical Journal article of 22 March, which studies the attitude of clinicians to management and chief executives to clinicians. It cites just short of 60 per cent. of clinical directors as disagreeing with the statement:
"Doctors have confidence in management leadership capabilities".
I do not have time to go through all that survey, but it is very clear that in this country there is a growing divorce between clinicians and management, which is exactly the opposite of what we need. Commission for Health Improvement reports show time and again that the most frequent causes of failing hospitals or serious service failures—where there is the highest correlation—are
poor team working among clinicians, lack of clinical leadership and poor doctor-manager relationships. Those are CHI's words, not mine.
The Government have not invested substantially in the development of management talent in the NHS. I know that latterly, in 2001, we had a new initiative in the NHS leadership centre, apparently costing £150 million. It is not easy to discover exactly what goes on in the leadership centre for our 1£150 million, but I am sure that some of it is welcome. However, we are aware that, of nine skill development courses for chief executives, five are essentially to do with public services and politics, including relationships with the media, Government, Whitehall and Westminster, rather than with the management and involvement of clinicians and the management of the hospital.
We know that what chief executives say is very disillusioning. The recent Centre for Policy Studies report quotes one chief executive as saying:
"More and more I realise what my job is really about is politics. We are an extension of the civil service".
That is not very encouraging. So little interest have Ministers shown in how we are attracting people into management, and what their quality and backgrounds are, that, as my parliamentary questions reveal, they do not even know the background of most of our chief executives or what qualifications they have for the job.
According to the answers that I have received, we have no data on the career background of 60 per cent. of chief executives. If that were the slightest priority for the Government, one would have thought that they would at least be tracking the small, elite group of chief executives to see if we are getting the quality that we need. However, they do not even know where 60 per cent. of' those chief executives have come from, what degrees they have and whether they have clinical qualifications or outside experience. Of the 40 per cent. on whom the Government do have information— which is pretty depressing—only 1.5 per cent. have any medical background, and 3 per cent. come only from the private sector. That shows what a narrow career path this must be. It is very introverted, with very little attempt to bring in people from outside and very little emphasis on the quality and calibre of leadership being introduced.
Furthermore, according to parliamentary answers, Ministers have no information on career progression, turnover and wastage rates, and no systematic tracking of career succession. The Minister may want to correct me, but whatever he has to say, it appears that to all intents and purposes the Government have negligible interest in the quality of management that is developing. Yet a stated objective in the 2001 NHS plan was:

57WH
"To deliver a step change in the calibre of leadership."
Since then, it is evident that nothing has been done to follow that through.
Many other issues are involved in NHS management, which I do not have time to address, including the fact that many of the wrong things are centralised or decentralised. However, there are also some welcome developments. If I had time I would discuss the new investment in information technology systems. I know that that has attracted some criticism from some of my colleagues but I think that, generally speaking, it is a welcome development.
The major NHS trusts are complex, intensely pressured organisations that depend fundamentally on people. We have not moved on with management culture, and given managers the ability and power to make things happen, within a framework of decentralisation. A very different culture and approach are required. We must move with the times and enable hospitals to create a collegiate organisation with clarity of responsibility and the freedom to deliver the real changes in people and approach that are needed.
We need substantial reduction of administrative costs and redeployment of resources to the front line. We need clarity over what is decentralised and what chief executives are entitled to do. We need some job security, because according to Hoggett Bowers, most chief executives have a life expectancy of 700 days in their job, which means that many are so insecure that they cannot make the bold moves that are needed. We need a strong emphasis on people, motivation and attitude, all of which should be measured regularly in every NHS trust and reported back. If there is one measure of leadership, surely it is the attitude and motivation of the people who work in the team. NHS trusts must be protected by a firewall against the corrosive interests of capricious political initiatives, which simply cut across their powers and degrade and erode morale throughout the health service.
3.57 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): First, I warmly thank the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) for his kind words at the beginning of his speech. He described me as the least partisan Minister in the Government; I am not sure whether that will help me at all, but I thank him very much for it.
I shall probably discard most of my notes, but not all of them because I do not want to make a mistake on the substantive issues that the hon. Gentleman raised. All the issues that he raised are substantive. At the risk of embarrassing him, may I say that I thought that the thrust of his remarks was constructive and that I agreed with a great deal of what he said on the importance of good management in the national health service, not as an end in itself but as a means to an end? The end, as I am sure that he would agree, is a better health service, which can deliver for the people of our country—his constituents and mine—the sort of service that we are entitled to expect in the fourth largest economy in the world. Clearly, we have much work to do in that regard.
For the record, I want to contest one or two assertions that the hon. Gentleman made. The first is his claim at the end of his remarks that the Government have a
58WH
negligible interest in the quality of national health service leadership. I strongly take issue with him on that. Improving the quality of leadership, including the motivational skills of senior managers, is of the utmost importance to the NHS. I agree that the problems and challenges that the NHS faces are not entirely down to resources but are about how those resources are used, how we motivate key staff at all levels in the organisation and how we constantly strive to make our services more responsive and to give patients in England more choice over what their NHS is capable of delivering for them locally
Much of that is, of course, dependent on the overall amount of resources available to the service locally and nationally but a great deal, in my experience over many years in the Department, comes down to good management at local level and good performance management at the level above that. The hon. Gentleman has extensive experience in all those regards—much more extensive than mine. The Government would be remiss if they failed to take into account some of his constructive remarks today, and I shall say later how I intend to go about that.
Given the long list of initiatives that we have taken, I disagree strongly with the hon. Gentleman's claim that we have negligible interest. I shall go through those, although perhaps I could deal with that point by writing to him instead. Some of those initiatives emerge from the leadership centre, some from other parts of the Department and some locally, from primary care trusts and NHS trusts themselves, which is a good thing. Not everything has to be dictated and managed from the centre. There is a great deal of activity going on.
I would say to the hon. Gentleman and critics of NHS managers and management that we have a better framework for improving the quality of NHS management now than at any time in the history of the NHS. The hon. Gentleman will probably say that that is not saying very much because we started from a low base. I agree about that, but it would be remiss of him, in the spirit of fairness and balance that characterised most of his remarks, not to at least nod in the direction of the fact that the Government have spent a significant amount of time—not just money because I agree that that is not the main issue—focusing the efforts of the local NHS and strategic health authorities on that issue.
Based on my own experience—I hope that the hon. Gentleman's experience will confirm this—I sincerely believe that the NHS has some of the best managers in the country. I agree with hint strongly that NHS organisations such as acute trusts and primary care trusts are highly complicated organisations to run. They have large numbers of staff and high turnover, and they operate in an environment of intense public scrutiny and accountability, which, to be fair, is not directly analogous to the private sector. It is an intense and robust environment in which we expect a lot from the NHS and we demand a lot from local managers.
It is a sad tradition in this place—it has become something of the folklore—that the first people we bash around the head in relation to such issues are NHS managers. There are times when NHS management fails the service and we need to act robustly to deal with that failure. The attempts we have made in NHS franchising where poor management is simply shipped out and new managers—some from the private sector—are brought

59WH
in to replace failing managers is part of the right response to the problem. The growing portfolio of initiatives and courses in the leadership centre will help deal with that, and there are other initiatives, which I shall go through quickly.
My view is that NHS managers do a tremendously difficult job and many of them do it brilliantly, but the performance of some NHS managers is not good enough. The challenge for any Government, and Ministers of this Government in particular, is not to pass the buck on that. For too long in the NHS, we have not acted when we should have done to correct failing management. The result may have been a quiet time, but it led to a poor service for our constituents, which is not acceptable. It goes with the territory of being in Government that one cannot avoid making some difficult decisions about intervening on, and replacing, failing management.
The main focus should not be on remedial measures, but on how we can constructively engage with the many thousands of committed, able, talented and skilled brilliant young men and women who will be the next generation of managers in the NHS. We need to improve the performance at the very top of the organisation and I shall set out in a moment how we intend to do that. I take great comfort from the fact that the NHS management graduate scheme is the most popular of its kind in the country. It has been voted as such by university graduates, and our financial management scheme was the fourth most popular management training scheme operated by any employer in this country. The signs are that people see NHS management as a constructive career, which contradicts the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's argument that people are worn out, burnt out and want to quit. I do not think that that is a fair or accurate description of most NHS managers.
I would be the first to acknowledge that things are difficult for many managers because the pace of change in the NHS has increased. We are often criticised by Opposition Members for not reforming the NHS enough. If one put that point to any NHS manager, one would quickly get a brush-off. Most NHS managers to whom I have talked complain about the process and the pace of change—the depth, breadth and scale of the changes that have taken place in the NHS. I shall give one example of that to the hon. Gentleman because he mentioned repeatedly the issues of motivational leadership and human resource management. That has been an issue on which the NHS has not been as effective as I would have liked for many years, and we are trying to make progress on that.
There have been expansions in capacity, an effort to make the NHS more responsive so that people have more choice and efforts to improve the health of the poorest at the fastest possible rate and raise the quality of care. If all of those were not sufficiently large management challenges, on top of them, during the next 18 months, the NHS is to introduce three major new contracts regulating the employment of its staff covering general practitioners and primary care, hospital consultants and doctors, and every other group of staff—from nurses to porters, from cooks to cleaners, and managers. In any organisation— suspect the same
60WH
would hold true for Asda—one would think, "Goodness me. That is an awfully tall agenda." We are redesigning every aspect of the service during a very short period of time and we are asking a relatively small number of managers to do that.
The hon. Gentleman drew an analogy between the NHS and health care in the United States. We could argue the toss about that; all the evidence I have seen suggests that in the United States the overall cost and burden of administration in the health service is significantly higher than it is here. The burden of the cost of management to the NHS is falling as a percentage of the overall NHS budget, not rising. One might have thought that the hon. Gentleman was saying that the costs were going up as a proportion of the overall budget. Those costs stood at 5 per cent. when we came to office, and they are about 3.9 per cent. now. Most people would regard that as a sign of progress in any well-run organisation.
The motivational side of human resource management is very important, and we have an opportunity through the contract modernisation to engage some of the skills of NHS managers in trying to turn that around. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need to place more emphasis on motivational management. I would take issue with his comments about productivity and how we measure it in the NHS because, as he knows all too well, the number of operations in the service is simply one measurement of that. We are dealing much more with health prevention— people are seeing their GPs more quickly and receiving treatment in accident and emergency departments more quickly. We are treating more patients according to every objective measurement, which is a result of the investment going in.
I shall make my last general point about the hon. Gentleman's remarks before I move on to the substantive comments that I have to make in the last two or three minutes. I agree with him that we should learn, and be prepared to learn, about best management practice from other countries, including the United States. I have been to California and talked to senior managers in Kaiser Permanente, and I have no doubt whatever that the NHS can learn from some of their management approaches, particularly in the area of chronic disease management, which is one of the biggest health care challenges that the NHS faces. We have to up our game in relation to chronic disease management, and there is plenty of evidence to suggest that Kaiser Permanente has some of the solutions to that problem.
I want to draw attention in the substance of my remarks to the following points. A huge amount of change is going on in the NHS at the moment, and in relation to management those changes can best be described as taking place on two levels. First, there is organisational change of a substantive nature to ensure that the management function adds value at all levels of the service. Secondly, there is a systematic drive under way to raise management standards in order to deliver all aspects of the NHS reform programme. In organisational terms—I do not intend to spend a lot of time on those today—the Department is changing the way that it manages the NHS.
We are halfway through an 18-month programme to change radically the way in which the Department works. It is moving the institution away from attempts

61WH
to manage the NHS daily—the hon. Gentleman described that as not being a terribly good idea—and towards providing effective leadership in a much more devolved health and social care system. In future, the job of the centre should be to set the overall direction, ensure national standards are set, ensure the appropriate resources and best value are in place and oversee major investment decisions. However, I do not think that we should be in the business of micro-managing the NHS. As a result, we shall be losing about 1,400 posts from the centre by October next year. That is a major change by anyone's standard.
Management at trust level is focused on service delivery. Managers are working side by side with clinicians to improve the services provided to patients, and in the process ensure effective levels of patient safety. By way of an illustration to the hon. Gentleman, let me point out that in the past 13 months we have introduced new programmes to attract middle and senior management levels. We have introduced the first career development and succession planning scheme called "NHS Leaders". The hon. Gentleman said that we were not doing enough about that; I would acknowledge that we have not done so in the past, but we are attempting to remedy that.
Incidentally, the NHS Leaders programme is tracking the progress of all of our chief executives. The hon. Gentleman said that we had no effective tracking mechanisms; I do not think that that is true, but perhaps I should write to him and set out the position in more detail, if that would be helpful. That tracking is linked to a more systematic executive search function. We have
62WH
also introduced the first national performance review scheme for chief executives, a new programme to draw on management talent from black and minority ethnic backgrounds, and a range of programmes where clinicians and managers work together to deliver improved services.
I do not think that good management is just about those at the top. The NHS leadership centre, with the Modernisation Agency, is working to develop effective leadership and management skills at all levels in the service. Our priority has been to strengthen managerial and clinical leadership in all NHS organisations to improve patient care. We are doing that and involving not just managerial grades. as many people would have thought, but also nurses, allied health professionals and doctors, all of whom are involved in the programme.
The popularity of graduate recruitment programmes in the NHS, to which I have already referred, is an encouraging sign. I also said that it is important to learn from other parts of the public sector and, indeed, the private sector in developing future strategy. The new gateway to leadership programme was developed to do that by attracting good managers from other sectors, and the NHS has recruited significant numbers from the private sector.
I have not been able to respond to all the hon. Gentleman's points. In the time that has been available to me, I have tried to point to areas on which I believe he and I probably could reach agreement and to assure him that it is our intention to invest in NHS management.

Teesside Centre of Excellence and Cancer Research
4.11 pm
Dr. Ashok Kumar:I have been trying to secure this debate for a year and a half. It has taken a long time, on and off, but I have finally secured it. I am happy to have the opportunity to debate such an important issue, and I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Minister is in her place. She is familiar with Teesside, which she has visited many times on the campaign trail and at other times post-election, so the issues that I shall raise today will be no surprise to her.
This is my second debate in the House on the subject. I first spoke about it in January 2001 during a debate on the Science and Technology Committee's report "Cancer Research: A Fresh Look". My comments today will follow on from the spirit of what I said then, but I shall try to extend the debate in two ways. First, I shall spell out the sheer depth of the problem of cancer on Teesside. Secondly, I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to what I have to say and will examine the case for setting up a new centre of excellence based in Teesside for the research and treatment of cancer.
Cancer is one of the greatest, if not the greatest, scourges of our times. It has yet to be eradicated. One person in four will at some time be diagnosed as suffering from a cancerous condition, so every family in this country will almost certainly experience the loss of a close member from cancer. One third of all cancer sufferers will die of the disease.
The disease has no natural borders of class, race, country or gender. However, it affects some groups more than others; for example, women, people who have worked in polluting industries, people who live in areas with significant levels of deprivation and poorer people who live in areas neat industrial processes. Those last three factors make up much of the social demography of urban. Teesside. Teesside itself is set within the north-east region of England, which has the highest premature death rite in the country for all cancers.
Tragically, the incidence of cancer in my area is very high. I wish to cite a few figures provided to me by the County Durham and Tees Valley public health network. They show that in 1999 and 2001, the number of deaths due to cancers of all types was well above the national averages. In those two years, 3,164 people from a population of 0.5 million died on Teesside. That is equivalent to the entire population of one of the villages in my constituency or one of Teesside's council estates.
The standardised mortality ratio figures, for which 100 is the national average, show the divergence between urban Teesside and the rest of the country. SMRs for all cancers are 128 for Hartlepool, 123 for North Tees and 129 for Middlesbrough. The gap is even wider for specific forms of cancer. For lung cancer among women, North Tees has a staggering SMR of 205, Middlesbrough 162, Hartlepool 169 and Langbaurgh 114. I am told by the South Tees Hospitals trust that one figure—deaths from lung cancer for women under 50— is particularly frightening. For that group, the SMR is 350. That means that the chance of
64WH
dying from lung cancer for a woman in that age group who lives on Teesside is three and a half times the national average.
The figures continue remorselessly. For female stomach cancer, Langbaurgh has an SMR of 154 and Middlesbrough 121. The SMR for cancer of the cervix among females in the Langbaurgh PCT area is 169, and in Hartlepool it is 165. In neighbouring Middlesbrough, it is 184. Only in five isolated instances across all Teesside's PCT areas and across all the spectra of cancers are the figures below the national averages.
Dr. Mark Reilly, the strategic health authority's epidemiologist, tells me that the figures, bad as they are, are not totally representative of the real level of suffering in the area, as they measure only deaths. The number of new cancers now being detected and treated significantly outweighs the deaths. Although they will not register on the SMR index, they represent a tidal wave of suffering, prolonged hospitalisation, treatments that are sometimes painful and family grief.
Ms Dari Taylor: The figures that my hon. Friend has given are frightening for the people whom we both represent. When he considers the details, does he believe that one cause of the stark figures is the lack of research on Teesside? We spend about 3 per cent. of the research finance that is available, whereas Oxford, Cambridge and London spend more than 60 per cent. of it. Does he believe that with greater finances and research we would have greater competence to handle the problems that he is outlining?
Dr. Kumar: My hon. Friend makes a very good point, which I shall address a little later. I concur with her analysis that the issue is very important in the debate about the setting up of such a centre. I am thankful to her for drawing attention to the subject.
The link between poverty and illness is also graphically shown in the geography of Teesside, which includes areas of comparative wealth and social mobility and areas of high social deprivation. The index of multiple deprivation shows that there are sharp differences in the domains of deprivation. Eleven wards in the Tees valley are in the top 100 of the overall index of multiple deprivation, and 25 are in the top 300. It is in those wards that the majority of cancers are found.
There are, of course, personal as well as social and ecological reasons for the high incidence of cancer on Teesside. Smoking and drinking, particularly so-called binge drinking, play their part. Moreover, people from poorer areas have a poorer diet. A consumer culture in which people rely on street corner, eight-till-late mini-supermarkets and convenience foods sold from local delivery vans does not bring about a balanced diet. Sugar and salt intakes are high, and there is no real balance because of the lack of fresh vegetables and fruit. Housing standards in some areas of Teesside are poor, which leads to ill health. We have a high incidence of estates with a large number of void properties, and a large number of old, Victorian terraces. We have homes that are substandard, and estates and neighbourhoods in which there are few social and health-related amenities such as clinics and GP surgeries. It is therefore no surprise that we have a cancer problem.

65WH
So far I have tried to highlight the magnitude of the problem, but I want to move on to the centre of excellence. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, from listening to my arguments, realises that there is a need for a new centre of excellence for cancer research and treatment in my area—a centre that can back up the work of local cancer charities and organisations. A well-developed network of cancer trusts and charities is working in the wider Teesside area, and I pay tribute to the work of those organisations. I have met many of those groups, and they wholeheartedly and strongly support my call for a new centre of excellence.
Where could such a centre be based? Crucially, the South Tees area has one of the most modern hospitals in the UK, if not the most modern: Middlesbrough's James Cook University hospital. It was due to the excellent planning of the officers and members of the South Tees Hospitals NHS Trust that that hospital was conceived.
4.22 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
4.33 pm
On resuming: —
Dr. Kumar: It was due to the excellent planning of the officers and members of the South Tees Hospitals NHS trust that the James Cook University hospital was conceived and built with a physical research centre. The centre's standing is high. It is a division of the hospital in its own right, and it has equal footing with the clinical groupings and equal representation on the hospital's management committee. It is staffed by a multidisciplinary team whose work now pervades the whole trust.
From the outset, the hospital was also designed to have links with universities in the north-east, and most notably with the new Stockton campus of the university of Durham. The campus houses the Wolfson research institute, which is home to the Northern and Yorkshire public health observatory and to a wide range of medical specialisms, such as the north-east's health development agency.
I have spoken on several occasions to Professor Rob Wilson, director of research at the James Cook University hospital. He passionately believes that more could be done to make the hospital and its research facilities a centre of excellence for cancer treatment and investigation in the UK. However, as my hon. Friend said, he has also observed that there are massive disparities in funding in cancer research and treatment.
At its inception, the South Tees research base was allocated £192,000 of research income. Other centres get far more. As a former member of the Science and Technology Committee, I recall working on a report on cancer research and treatment in 2000. In that report, the Committee called for a greater spread of funding across the nation and for 12 new centres of excellence. That call is still valid, nearly three years on. As much as 60 per cent. of cancer research funding is spent in London, Oxford and Cambridge, but the area between
66WH
Leeds and Newcastle gets hardly any direct funding. Those disparities mean that talented people may not get the best backing for their competencies.
The South Tees trust employs some 270 consultants, and although only between 10 and 12 have a research element in their job description, many of the others have done academic and applied research and could easily do so again. They are willing to face the challenge. It was the only European recruiter to run trials on behalf of the United States national cancer institute. It now collaborates with the regional universities of Newcastle, Durham and Teesside on a large number of key research areas, including cancer and cell biology.
A mark of the esteem in which those consultants are held is shown by the fact that they have recently won £4 million from academic sources to build an extension to their clinical academic centre. That will allow the teaching of an increased number of medical students, and it will incorporate new purpose-built laboratories. I believe that that track record, that talent and that expertise could become a base for a regional cancer research centre for the north-east. It could also be part of a wider regional partnership.
As well as the universities, we also have new projects such as the Newcastle-based international centre for life. There is no reason why that centre should not have a Teesside presence. For instance, it could work with James Cook University hospital in cutting-edge research in the entire field of life sciences, which includes cell research—something that could ultimately benefit cancer sufferers and the medical profession.
The work with regional universities would expand naturally and organically if more funding were in place. That work would complement what is being done now, and could provide high-quality research focused on the needs of a community, as argued for in the NHS plan. I guarantee that any Department of Health funding made available for that purpose would attract other funding, and would be matched pound for pound. Properly applied, it could grow to be a major source of investment.
Quite simply, if a centre were built on Teesside it would have immense symbolic importance. It would be entirely fitting for such a centre to be based in an area where the killer condition is at its worst. The work of the centre, visible to the community and supported by a proud region, would also be a tremendous instrument for health awareness and education. It would be a focus for civic pride, and it would improve the health of local people.
The time has come for the establishment of a centre of excellence, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's reactions to the proposal. I wish to take the matter further, and I hope that this debate represents the beginning of a dialogue between the people of Teesside and the Department of Health. Such a dialogue would be of immense benefit to the people of Teesside, as more people would live longer, healthier and more satisfying lives. It would be a hard task, but believe me it would be well worth attempting.
4.40 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Ms Rosie Winterton): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and Cleveland, East

67WH
(Dr. Kumar) on securing the debate, especially as he has been trying to do so for a year and a half. His background in research at Imperial college London and British Steel makes him especially well placed to talk about research issues. I also congratulate him on the passion and eloquence with which he talked about social deprivation and its impact on health. We need to get that point across much more clearly, so that people understand that several factors may contribute to poor health. That is very important if local communities are to engage in the process of examining how they spend their resources on alleviating health problems. He spoke about the devastating effect of cancer on the lives of people in Teesside.
My hon. Friend will be aware that we published the NHS cancer plan in 2000, and produced a three-year progress report this October, which showed that cancer remains a top priority for the Government. We are making great improvements. Prevention, screening, diagnosis, treatment and care are all improving due, I must say, to the hard work done by staff in the NHS and elsewhere, which has been backed up by millions of pounds of new investment. As a result, death rates have fallen by more than 10 per cent., which is halfway to our 2010 target. Lives are being saved and patients are receiving better care.
My hon. Friend highlighted the dreadful mortality rate for lung cancer in Teesside. especially among younger women. I am pleased to report that NHS smoking cessation services have been especially effective in the north-east. The figures will be of interest to hon. Members. The highest proportion of people in England who have successfully given up smoking through those services is in the north-east. Some 740 people per 100,000 in the northeast quit in 2002–03 compared with 312 per 100,000 nationally. Last year in Middlesbrough, 1,049 people successfully quit through an NHS smoking cessation service. Those figures are incredibly impressive.
We are also making real progress on research, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) highlighted. I should add that the national cancer research network is designed to bring the benefits delivered to patients participating in research to all parts of the country. The amount of funding allocated to Teesside, South Durham and North Yorkshire per head of population is the same as that allocated in other areas, but I take her point on board.
In the past three years we have managed to double the number of patients entering clinical trials. The cancer plan identified two key weaknesses in cancer research: insufficient high-level strategic planning and co-ordination between different funders, and an inadequate infrastructure for clinical research. We have made major steps forward in both those areas with the establishment of the National Cancer Research Institute, the National Cancer Research Network and the National Translational Cancer Research Network.
68WH
The National Cancer Research Institute was launched on 1 April 2001. It brings together the major funders of research, including the Government, the voluntary sector, which my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East mentioned, and industry, together with cancer patient representatives, to ensure that we have a national strategic approach to identifying and supporting cancer research. The NCRI oversees two research networks, both funded by the Department of Health: NCRN, which provides infrastructure for larger, multi-centre clinical trials; and NTRAC, which leads on translational research.
The NCRN is already achieving its aim to provide a world-class base for the conduct of clinical trials. The percentage of cancer patients participating in trials in England is now twice that in the United States of America. Teesside has played its full part in that success. The Cancer Care Alliance of Teesside, South Durham and North Yorkshire joined NCRN in October 2001. Its clinical lead for research is Professor Robert Wilson, to whom my hon. Friend referred. This year, Department of Health funding to that research network is £250,000, and the network has put it to very good use: last year, only 3 per cent. of cancer patients in Teesside, South Durham and North Yorkshire were entered into clinical trials of new cancer therapies, but this year the figure has doubled to 6 per cent. That is an impressive achievement.
With regard to translational research, NTRAC was established in May 2001 to help to improve the quality of cancer care by speeding up the process for bringing scientific breakthroughs from the laboratory bench to the patient's bedside. It will ensure that a greater number of patients are able to take part in early clinical trials of the newest diagnostic agents and treatments.
That was the national picture, but I should like to consider in more detail the contribution that is being made to cancer research in my hon. Friend's area. He highlighted the track record of the local NHS and academic organisations in cancer research, and made particular mention of the work of South Tees Hospitals NHS trust in collaboration with the universities of Durham and Newcastle. The trust receives £368,000 per year in NHS research and development funding from the Department of Health, of which £120,000 is used to support its ongoing programme of research on cancer cell biology. The programme is led, as has been said, by Professor Robert Wilson. I was pleased to note that the trust has attracted a further £200,000 of research funding from other sources, including Cancer Research UK.
I know that the programme based at James Cook University hospital in Middlesbrough is making progress in the fields of colorectal, ovarian and prostate cancer, and my hon. Friend also mentioned the Queen's campus at Stockton, which is the focus for Durham university's new school for health and the home of the Wolfson research institute. Professor Pali Hungin, whose clinical practice is based in Teesside and who has been active in NHS research and development for many years, has been appointed dean of medicine at Durham university.

69WH
My hon. Friend suggested that Teesside should become a centre of excellence for research into and treatment of cancer. I reiterate that the contribution that Teeside has made—and continues to make—is incredibly impressive. I hope that, through the debate, we have acknowledged the strides that have been made. We congratulate those in the area on their hard work and encourage them to continue to build, in collaboration with near neighbours, towards a centre of excellence such as my hon. Friend described. We will watch developments with interest. Both my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland,
70WH
East and my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South made particular mention of the voluntary organisations that work so hard in the area. It has been impressive that many organisations have come together and have been able to access funding.
I shall ensure that my ministerial colleagues are fully apprised of all the points that have been made today, particularly the comments about the centre of excellence and the progress that is being made, of which we are all very proud.
It being nine minutes to Five o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

HEALTH

  Building on the Best
  The Secretary of State for Health (Dr. John Reid)
  The Department's document "Building on the Best—Choice, Responsiveness and Equity in the NHS", Cm 6079, has been published today. Copies have been placed in the Library.

TRANSPORT

  Private Hire Vehicles (Dogs)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty)
  I am pleased to announce that, from 31 March 2004, all private hire vehicle operators and licensed private hire vehicle drivers will be under a duty to carry guide, hearing and other prescribed assistance dogs and to do so without additional charge under Section 37A of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

  From 31 December 2004, local licensing authorities will be able to consider applications from private hire vehicle drivers and to issue certificates of exemption to those who they consider merit an exemption from the duty on medical grounds. There is no exemption for operators.

  I have today laid before the House the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (Private Hire Vehicles) (Carriage of Guide Dogs etc.) (England and Wales) Regulations 2003. The regulations prescribe three additional categories of dog to which these duties will also apply and deals with the notice of exemption that must be displayed by private hire vehicle drivers who are exempt from these duties on medical grounds.

  Full guidance is being sent to all licensing authorities and a leaflet is available for operators and drivers informing them of the new duties and the arrangements for medical exemption. Copies of these documents will be placed in the House Library. The regulations cover England and Wales. Scotland and Northern Ireland will be introducing similar requirements in due course.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Citizenship Ceremonies
  The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes)
  The White Paper, "Secure Borders, Safe Haven: Integration with Diversity in Modern Britain" published in February 2002, set out the Government's proposals for enhancing the significance of the acquisition of British citizenship. The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 duly 78WS
  included provisions which, when brought into force at the start of 2004, will require all adult applicants for British citizenship to take an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty The Queen and pledge of loyalty to the United Kingdom at a citizenship ceremony.

  On 25 July we published a consultation document which set out the Government's provisional views on the form and content of that citizenship ceremony. The 12-week period of consultation closed on 17 October and 145 responses were received.

  Broadly, the responses supported the proposal that national symbols such as the Union flag and national anthem should feature in ceremonies throughout the United Kingdom and that these should be augmented with local features and symbols. A small minority of responses did not support the idea. The Government remain strongly of the view that it would be right for these United Kingdom symbols to be used, given that the citizenship being bestowed is that of the United Kingdom as a whole. Other countries such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand certainly believe it appropriate to display national symbols at these events. We would encourage those who disagree to reflect further and to consider this issue from the viewpoint of the new citizens and what they might reasonably expect of a British citizenship ceremony, rather than impose their own views on what is appropriate.

  There was a positive response to the suggestion that local authorities might wish to impart their own flavour on ceremonies taking place in their area, and to the notion that prominent and recognised members of the local community might take part in ceremonies and formally welcome new citizens to their area. The suggestions on what form this local flavour might take recognised the importance of local adaptations not detracting from the dignified, celebratory and meaningful nature that the Government intend for citizenship ceremonies. Many areas proposed that they would involve local schools and community groups in their ceremonies.

  In terms of the musical content of ceremonies, the majority supported the playing of the national anthem immediately after the taking of the oath and pledge. Many areas said that they also intended to play recognised and appropriate pieces of music as new citizens entered and left the ceremony. A list will be given in the guidance for local authorities and registrars.

  The consultation document proposed a form of words for the ceremony welcome speech and for the address given by the local dignitary. The majority of responses supported the notion of standardisation of the main portions of these addresses, but said that they would ensure that any local additions did not detract from the formal welcome to both the UK and the local area.

  In terms of a commemorative gift, most thought that a commemorative certificate bearing that area's coat of arms or logo would be most appropriate. There was a unanimous view that any gift given must be meaningful of the event. A small percentage of respondents took the view that there was no need for a gift as such in that the grant of citizenship was in itself a gift.

  The Government are grateful to all of those individuals and organisation who took the time to read and respond to this document. The nature of the

  79WS
  comments give us reason to believe that our proposals carry general support. We shall therefore proceed broadly in line with the format set out in the consultation document. The cost of the ceremonies will be included in an increased nationality fee, the details of which have been included in a statutory instrument to be laid today, which will mean no additional charge to the taxpayer. Details are in the table:

  Type of Provision

  Currrent Fee

  Proposed 01/01/04

  Ceremony Fee

  Total 01/01/04

  6(1)Single

  £150.00

  £150.00

  £68.00

  £218.00

  6(1)Joint

  £150.00

  £150.00

  £136.00

  £286.00

  6(2)

  £120.00

  £146.00

  £68.00

  £214.00

  Reg. Adult

  £120.00

  £85.00

  £68.00

  £153.00

  Reg. Minor Single

  £120.00

  £144.00

  £144.00

  Reg.Minor Multiple

  £120.00

  £144,00

  £144.00

  Renunciation

  £20.00

  £81.00

  £81.00

TREASURY

  Mortgage Market
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown)
  Professor David Miles' interim report, "The UK Mortgage Market: Taking a Longer-term View", is published today. Copies are available in the Vote Office.

  Health Statistics
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly)
  The report "Key Statistics for health areas in England and Wales", containing results from the 2001 Census, was laid before Parliament and published on 31 July 2003. Since this date, the Office for National Statistics has discovered errors that resulted in incorrect statistics being published in this report for a small number of Health Areas. The report has been reprinted to correct these errors, and the revised version is being published and laid before Parliament today, replacing the original laid document.

  Further details can be found on the National Statistics website.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Mechanically Propelled Vehicles
  The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael)
  I have become acutely aware of the growing concerns about problems caused by the use of mechanically propelled vehicles on 80WS
  rights of way. This can clearly be a real problem in some areas, and I have seen a number of examples during visits to different regions of the country.

  In response to these concerns, I have reviewed the Government's policy on the use of vehicles in the countryside and am pleased to say that I am today publishing a public consultation paper; "Use of mechanically propelled vehicles on rights of way".

  In this paper I offer new proposals that are intended to address what many have come to view as the inappropriate and unsustainable way in which vehicular rights are acquired and claimed on rights of way.

  At present, historic evidence of use by horse drawn vehicles or dedications for vehicular use at a time before the internal combustion engine existed, can give rise to rights to use modern mechanically propelled vehicles.

  The consultation paper proposes that any historic evidence or use dating from a time when it could not have been envisaged that the way would be used by the sort of mechanically propelled vehicles we have today should only enable that way to be recorded as a right of way for vehicles that are not mechanically propelled. We believe the new category of "restricted byway" provides this opportunity. These proposals go directly to the heart of issues that have been highlighted by EDMs 1589 and 1589A.

  In addition, I want to promote better enforcement of the offences available to deal with illegal or inappropriate use of vehicles on rights of way. I have reexamined the many offences already available, including those under the Road Traffic Act 1988, and the new powers under sections 59 and 60 of the Police Reform Act 2002. These provisions appear to be under-utilised and I propose to better inform enforcement authorities on their use and point to examples of good practice in applying these provisions.

  I also have to announce that we will not be implementing new section 34A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 as we have met with a human rights difficulty that cannot be overcome. Section 34A sought to limit, except in narrowly defined circumstances, the availability of a defence when charged with driving on certain categories of rights of way under section 34 of the Road Traffic Act. On further consideration, we have concluded it is not possible to implement the provision in a way which will not contravene Article 6(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights, which requires the presumption of innocence in criminal trials until guilt is proven. But I believe the new proposals in the consultation paper go more directly to the root of the vehicular problem so I hope that any disappointment that section 34A is not being implemented will be outweighed by our new proposals.

  Copies of the consultation paper have been deposited in the House Library. The closing date for consultation responses is 19 March 2004.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Salisbury.

NHS Treatment Charges for Overseas Visitors
Baroness Boothroydasked Her Majesty's Government:
How they intend to strengthen the charging regulations for overseas tourists who unlawfully obtain free medical treatment from the National Health Service; and who is involved in the consultation on this issue.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner): My Lords, the recent public consultation involved a wide range of organisations and individuals, including NHS interests. More than 100 responses have been received and the Government are considering a number of possible changes to tighten the arrangements for charging overseas visitors for NHS hospital treatment.
Baroness Boothroyd: My Lords, I appreciate the Minister's response. Does he agree that as well as strengthening the charging regulations for tourists using the NHS, debt recovery must also be considered? Is he aware of the document produced by CCI legal services, which estimates that,
"£50–200 million is lost to the NHS every year through under or non-recovery of NHS charges applicable to overseas visitors"?
What action is the noble Lord's department able to take to recover some of that huge outstanding debt?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I am aware of that document, but we do not necessarily agree with the figures in it. The noble Baroness must also understand that collecting debt has a cost. The cost of collecting debt must be proportionate to the debt to be collected.
Lord Renton: My Lords, have the Government managed to estimate how many people from overseas come here simply to obtain medical treatment?
Lord Warner: My Lords, it is, and has been since the beginning of the NHS, the responsibility of local health services to decide whether or not someone is exempt from NHS costs. It is for the overseas visitor manager to
624
collect those costs locally. As successive governments have devolved that authority to the local level, we do not collect data on it centrally.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, do the Government intend to extend our reciprocal agreements with any of the new entrants to the European Community?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I do not presently have the details of countries with which we have reciprocal agreements, but I am happy to make inquiries and write to my noble friend.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, is the Minister aware of recent research that shows that in HIV clinics in parts of the country—London and Manchester, I think—those who arrived to be tested had fallen ill, been discovered to be HIV-positive when they became pregnant, or were those whose partners had died? I should add that none of those people was an illegal immigrant. What light does that throw on the accusation that people are coming in as illegal immigrants from various countries where serious diseases are rife to use our services and endanger our public? Do the Government intend to test those who legally enter this country from countries where HIV or TB, for example, are rife? Would that fall within the bounds of the Human Rights Act 1998?
Lord Warner: My Lords, the Government are currently reviewing imported infections and immigration into the UK. That review is being conducted by the Cabinet Office. I cannot throw any more light on the issue until the report is available, but I understand the points made by the noble Baroness.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, is not a little help on the margins for those in need from abroad a small price to pay when we are prepared to strip much of the underdeveloped world of its best doctors?
Lord Warner: My Lords, we have always made clear that where urgent treatment is needed either to save life or to prevent the condition becoming life-threatening such treatment should not be refused or delayed simply because there are doubts about whether the patient is chargeable. The NHS remains a humanitarian service.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, if the noble Lord does not accept the figure of £200 million cited by the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, what figure for the cost is acceptable to the Government?
Lord Warner: My Lords, the Government have kept inflation under control; the noble Lord's figure seems to have quadrupled since the noble Baroness asked her supplementary question. I ask him to consider that.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, is it not a credit to this country and a comfort to overseas tourists who come here as genuine tourists and do not deliberately fall ill

625
that we provide healthcare for them should they fall ill? Is that not also a help to our tourist industry, which at present is in deficit in terms of overseas tourists coming into the country compared with those who leave to go as tourists to other countries within the European Union?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I thank my noble friend, who introduces a sense of proportion to the issue. As my noble friend Lord Taylor said, we have reciprocal arrangements with many countries through which British tourists also benefit when they fall ill abroad.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, does the Minister understand that his answer to my noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy was a marvellous example of what an answer ought not to be?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I thought that it was not bad, given that it was on the spur of the moment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that there is a risk: either one introduces a wholly bureaucratic process whereby everyone using the NHS must prove their entitlement to treatment, or NHS staff use very subjective judgments, including race and language, which could lead to problems of people who are legitimately entitled to NHS treatment being challenged? Surely we should be very careful before we go down that route.
Lord Warner: My Lords, my noble friend is right. We acknowledge that there are loopholes; that is why we have had this consultation exercise. But it is very easy to exaggerate the number of loopholes and make the exercise over-bureaucratic. I am grateful to my noble friend for his balanced observations.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, when the Minister replied to the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, about the debt of £50 million to £100 million—I shall not over-exaggerate it—he said that the Government did not "necessarily agree" with the document. Do they not necessarily agree because they thought that the data in the document were fallacious, or did they just not like the message?
Lord Warner: My Lords, we are always interested to hear messages, however unpalatable. This is a listening Government, as I have said previously. But we had questions about the methodology in that piece of work.
Earl Howe: My Lords, will the Government publish the responses to the consultation before any further regulations on the subject are laid?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I am sure that the Government will make known the drift of those comments and observations during the consultation process when they make known their decisions on the exercise itself.

Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy
2.45 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Iltonasked Her Majesty's Government:
When they will introduce a strategy to tackle alcohol-related problems.
Lord Warner: My Lords, the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit has already published an interim report on the evidence that it has examined relating to the development of an alcohol harm reduction strategy for England. A cross-government strategy involving a wide range of interests will be published in 2004, when implementation will commence in line with the NHS Plan.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. Is he aware that, because there has been for some time a drugs strategy, it has been a great problem to treat people with severe alcohol problems, particularly in prisons? Does he agree with me that joined-up government is needed, because alcohol abuse covers so many different departments, including the Home Office and those responsible for health, education, sport, roads and many others?
Lord Warner: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right. That is why the alcohol harm reduction strategy is being conducted through the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit, which has great expertise in cross-governmental issues and problems.
Baroness Goudie: My Lords, we are aware of the cost to the health service of alcohol-related illnesses. Will the Government's strategy team consider making the same restrictions on alcohol advertising as on smoking advertising?
Lord Warner: My Lords, the role of alcohol advertising in harmful consumption was highlighted by a number of respondents to the joint Department of Health/Strategy Unit consultation. That issue will be carefully examined as part of the Strategy Unit's work to develop a strategy.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind that such solutions will not come cheaply, and will he beware of the quick fix that happens so often, whereby someone abusing alcohol is taken in, dried out, patted on the back and sent out into the same environment? One needs services such as Charis, a drug and alcohol dependency unit on the Mile End Road. It spends time and money, from the local authority and others, but there will be no quick fix in dealing with the problem.
Lord Warner: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right; there are no quick fixes, and we must ensure that the strategy is fit for its purpose. It is worth reminding my noble friend that, although the changes may have

627
price tags, so does alcohol misuse. Up to £1.7 billion a year, for example, is spent by the NHS on alcohol-related problems.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, when will we have an opportunity to debate the statutory guidance notes that were supposed to be issued, and whose publication we have awaited for some time, as a result of the Licensing Act 2003? Many noble Lords debated at length their concerns about the deregulation of licensing laws. We were assured that much of what should have been contained in the legislation would be in the statutory guidance notes to help local authorities to manage some of the many problems that may result from deregulating licensing laws.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I do not have the answer to that question, but I shall write to the noble Baroness.
Lord Peston: My Lords, has my noble friend's department given any attention—
A Noble Lord: My Lords, the other side.
Lord Peston: No, my Lords, a speaker from the other side has just asked a question—or that is what it looked like to me. Has my noble friend's department given any attention to the difference between alcohol consumption and cigarette smoking? Cigarette smoking is poisonous from the very first puff. What is important about alcohol is that it is excessive amounts of it that are dangerous. In the context of the strategy, therefore, is he not as appalled as I am that, at this time of year, alcohol companies are pouring out advertising on television with the message that the more you drink, the better? If we are to stop anything, we must look at the nature of such advertising.
Lord Warner: My Lords, as I said to my noble friend Lady Goudie, we are looking into the issue of advertising as part of the Strategy Unit's work. As my noble friend Lord Peston said, there is a Fundamental difference. For many people, alcohol is widely associated with pleasure. What we are dealing with is misuse of alcohol and excessive consumption. Tobacco is an extremely dangerous substance in its own right.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, do the Government agree with the research that shows that the level of alcohol harm is directly related to the national volume of consumption? If that is the case, will the Government set a good example to others by reducing the amount of alcohol they serve at their own entertainments?
Lord Warner: My Lords, if the noble Lord has some information about that amount increasing or changing, perhaps he will let me know so that I can look into the matter.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that under-age drinking is increasing
628
and that drink is coming into schools? What is the Government's policy on teachers and pupils drinking in schools?
Lord Warner: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right. We know that, although only a quarter of children in the 11 to 15 age group drinks on a regular basis, the average weekly amount that they consume has risen from 5.3 units in 1990 to 10.2 units in 2002, which is an area of concern. I am sure that my noble friends in the Department for Education and Skills are addressing this issue in the guidance that they give to schools and teachers.

Dental Fraud
2.52 p.m.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I must tell the House that AMTAC Laboratories, which carried out some of the tests, is associated with AMTAC accreditation services, with which I have a small interest.
The Question was as follows:
To ask her Majesty's Government what have been the savings to the National Health Service arising from the inquiry by the Counter Fraud and Security Management Service into fraud related to the supply of imitation gold fillings in dentistry.
Lord Warner: My Lords, the National Health Service Counter Fraud and Security Management Service was established in 1998 and investigates all matters of fraud and corruption in the NHS. Its dental fraud team has had a growing impact on fraud involving dental services, but I cannot comment on individual investigations that are currently in progress.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is an absolute scandal that patients should be ripped off in such a way, when some fillings contain only 2 per cent gold? At a time when the media try to criticise the NHS, should we not praise the NHS's counter fraud service, which has been in operation for only four years but has saved the NHS millions of pounds and reduced fraud in the NHS by 36 per cent?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend's observations. He is quite right that the new counter fraud service has achieved a huge reduction of 25 per cent in dental fraud by patients. He is also right that it is scandalous that some dentists have been charging the NHS for gold inlays that contain non-precious metals. The dental fraud team is investigating that practice in relation to about 90 dentists.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, says, the counter fraud service should be congratulated. Indeed, it has saved some £295 million

629
over the past few years. If the Minister cannot comment on individual investigations, in the case of the campaign to combat fraud in agency nursing, how many prosecutions has the CFS arranged over the past few months?
Lord Warner: My Lords, my papers are very strong on dental fraud at the moment, but not so strong on nursing agencies, because I had quite a heavy burden to carry here this afternoon. Of course, I will look into the matter and write to the noble Lord.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, when the fee per item of service system is abolished in April 2005, will the new fee structure, which is not yet finalised, make recommendations about the use of precious, semi-precious or non-precious metals, each of which has different uses in different situations?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord's contribution in bringing into being a new dental contract arrangement. I am not sure whether the contract itself will deal with the particular problem that he has identified, but I will certainly look into whether there will be new guidance following on the kind of work being done by the counter fraud service, as I mentioned in my Answer to my noble friend Lord Hoyle.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, could toothpaste manufacturers carry the legend on their boxes that "all that glisters is not gold"?
Lord Warner: Yes, my Lords, and so should some of the inlay material being supplied to some dentists.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, although my noble friend the Minister cannot comment on individual cases, will he assure us that the Government will take every possible measure to stamp out this practice?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I can certainly give that assurance to my noble friend.

Brain Injuries: Rehabilitation
2.56 p.m.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In so doing, I declare an interest as vice-president of Rehab UK, an honour that I share with my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether representations have been made by Rehab UK on the rehabilitation and training of people with brain injuries to assist them back to work; and, if so, what was their response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, we are in regular contact with Rehab UK. We recently received its progress report, to which my honourable friend Des Browne, the Minister for Work, replied at the end of October. That was followed up by a very helpful meeting with officials on 11 th November.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that encouraging reply. Will she confirm that 74 in every 100 people who complete a year-long rehabilitation course at a Rehab brain injury centre go into paid employment, training or further education, or voluntary work often leading to employment? Will she acknowledge that the £15,000 cost of the course is recouped within the first two years of employment from benefits not claimed? Is that not excellent value for money that should be expanded and encouraged better to help those 100,000 people a year left with residual problems of brain injury?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes, my Lords. I suspect that my noble friend's case is even stronger. Young men experience accidents, sports injuries, assaults and industrial accidents, and head injuries are one of the main reasons for disability for young men between 15 and 30. Given the level of effective intervention described by my noble friend, such young men have all their lives ahead of them.
On the bigger point, all of us used to think that the best way to help disabled people was to support them through disability benefits. What we are now doing as a government—and I am sure that we have support throughout the House—is to bring to the foreground the need for rehabilitation, health and safety at work and similar strategies to prevent people becoming disabled and to rehabilitate disabled people. That is why I am so pleased to remind the House about the publication last Thursday of the Government's Review of Employers' Liability Compulsory Insurance, which features vocational rehabilitation. The Government are drawing up a new strategic framework, which we expect to publish in late summer 2004. Rehab UK has been one of those urging such an approach.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, in the Government's response to the Health Select Committee report on head injury rehabilitation, which the Government produced in July 2001, they said:
"Getting people back to functional independence following illness or injury is a high priority for the NHS. This year, with the Department for Work and Pensions, we are planning Job Retention and Rehabilitation Pilots to test the best ways of helping people with prolonged illness or disability to remain in their jobs".
In the light of that, why has it taken so long to get the pilots off the ground?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I think that we are doing quite well. We have a collective budget of something like £50 million. My department has contributed about £8 million or £9 million. Much of

631
that money—perhaps three-quarters—goes to people with learning difficulties and mental health problems, some to people with visual and hearing impairments and some for brain injury. One of the purposes of the pilots is to show which modules—if I can use that language—are generic, such as those involving self-esteem and confidence building, and which are specific to the age and type of disability. So far, all my information suggests that things are going well.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that there appears to considerable uncertainty about which is the lead department on such issues in ensuring that there is co-operation between departments? As the noble Baroness is replying to the Question, would I be right to assume that it is the Department for Work and Pensions?
Is the Minister aware that Rehab UK has complained that the statutory funders responsible for its financing have not met their obligations? Will she say what those statutory funders are and whether she shares the view that they have not met their obligations?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lord?, Rehab UK is one of the major charities, and two of my noble friends are associated with it in significant ways. It has been saying, as have many charities, that one of its difficulties is the existence of several different flows of finance. That is not peculiar to Rehab UK. There is no charity that I am aware of to which it does not apply.
In this case, my understanding is that, probably, the local authorities are among the major funders. In addition, there are, as I have said, resources available from DWP, the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Skills. Also, something like a quarter of their money comes from the EU. It is a complex matter for charities such as Rehab UK to juggle those streams of finance, co-ordinate the flow and make sure that they can take in referrals who will benefit most from rehabilitation.
We are considering the issues. One of the functions of the strategic review is to address the problem raised by the noble Lord. He is right.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I share my noble friend's appreciation of the response to his Question by my noble friend Lady Hollis of Heigham. Would she agree that, while her department has been increasingly supportive and encouraging of Rehab UK's humane leadership in this policy area, some local social services authorities could do much more to get new schemes off the ground and that, while they drag their feet, crucially important rehabilitation is delayed and people stricken by traumatic brain injury suffer? Is there any further action she and her colleagues can take?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, my noble friend will understand that it would be inappropriate for me to comment on individual local authorities, although I know that there is a troubled history in
632
some areas. Obviously, behind-the-scenes discussions are pursued at official level to see how the problems can be resolved.
The document came out only on Thursday. A framework for vocational rehabilitation that defines the scope, develops a framework for intervention, provides an overview of the work and seeks to integrate the work of various bodies will, I hope, address the issues raised in your Lordships' House today.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, does the Minister share my concern about the number of people employed by Remploy, many of them, as the Minister described, young men with head injuries caused by motorcycle accidents? Can she reassure the House that Remploy is still required to provide opportunities to those with head injuries, to help them back into regular employment?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Viscount's concern is about the funding that Remploy has for that task. I look to him for help on that.
It is certainly the case that Remploy has two main pathways for helping people back into work. One is their sheltered workshops, and that grant has been frozen for a number of years. Increasingly, however, disabled people are being encouraged back into supported employment with what I would call mainstream employers. For that, the Remploy grant has gone up from £95 million in 1999 to £119 million this year. That is an increase of £24 million in three years. In that sense, Remploy should have the resources to do the work.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, does the Minister agree that early intervention after trauma is the greatest indicator that successful rehabilitation can take place? I know that she is not a Minister for the Department of Health, but will she encourage her colleagues in that department to take note of the cost-benefit analysis provided by the noble Lord, Lord Corbett of Castle Vale, and encourage health professionals to send cases that arrive as accidents to the post-traumatic treatment centres as soon as possible rather than depriving those useful units of their livelihood? There is one such unit in my home town, Dorking.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I share the noble Baroness's perspective. One of the difficulties— the House will understand what I mean by that—is that the Department of Health must give priority to clinical need. My department is more concerned with the cost-benefit. That is, perhaps, a cold way of putting it, but we are concerned with the capacity to help people to return to the labour market. Sometimes, those things are in conflict. However, given the effective outcomes produced by Rehab UK—over

633
70 per cent back into employment or education—we should be able to get our act together in dealing with young men with head injuries.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, I recognise that there are difficulties with cross-departmental responsibilities, but will the framework to which the Minister referred build on existing services? How will those services be identified?
I declare an interest, as president of John Grooms, which recently produced a futures report on the needs of disabled people and runs a special brain injuries unit. We discovered that that unit does not fit into any registration programme—the National Care Standards Commission or the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection. How will such services be identified and properly enmeshed in the new framework?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, one of the motives for having the review is to present an overview of the work currently being done. I give a particular assurance that we will check that John Grooms and other organisations have access to input, but I would be very surprised if, following today's discussion— triggered by my noble friend's Question—the organisations were not aware of the review. I suspect that major players such as John Grooms and Rehab UK will be quick to give us their views. We will need views not just from disability organisations but from employers, trade unions, local authorities and other players.

Wheat
3.7 p.m.
Baroness Byfordasked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the consequences of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs's estimate of the English wheat area grown.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the revised estimates indicate that the English wheat area has fallen by 8 per cent between June 2002 and June 2003, rather than by 5 per cent, as previously estimated. That will mean that the final figure for production is likely to be lower than previously expected, but the market effect is likely to be small and short term.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, in thanking the Minister for that reply, I remind the House of my family's farming interests.
The Minister must be concerned that, because of Defra's failure to keep correct figures, £50 million may be lost to wheat producers in the UK. Does he take that seriously and accept the remarks made by Steve Langton, who was in charge of the June census? He admitted that there was a need to review the methodology.
634
As the IACS payments are available to the Government in May, the actual amount of wheat grown is known. How are the mistakes made? Is the Minister concerned that many farmers who sold their wheat in advance have lost £5 a tonne? That is a large loss, when multiplied.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I regret the error. In using the IACS basis to augment the census basis, the mistake was made of mixing up holdings and businesses. It was a simple mistake, which had this effect.
I cannot accept the figure of £50 million that has been quoted—the noble Baroness quoted it too—for the loss to farmers arising from the mistake. When the initial figures were announced, it had virtually no discernible effect on the market price, which rose steadily before and after that date until the revised figures were produced. Although there was a momentary rise after the revised figures, it has since come down again by significantly more than half, and things are more or less on trend. I do not think that the accurate figure is anything like £50 million.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I declare an interest as an arable farmer who is incensed at Defra's bungling. Bearing in mind that wheat prices went up only £5 per tonne, does the Minister think it justifiable that milling prices are reported to have gone up from £25 to £34 per tonne? Does he think that that is being fairly passed to the consumer by the millers?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, wheat prices, in total, have gone up dramatically this year, largely due to the poor harvest in Europe. They have increased in both the feed and the milling markets. Largely, the benefit has gone to arable farmers. The issue that we are discussing now has had little effect on that. As regards the price benefit being passed on to consumers, clearly, the price that millers pay for the wheat means that consumers pay a higher price.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, does the Minister know how much the price of a loaf of bread has risen this year on average?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not sure that I can give an average price increase. The price of wheat has almost doubled; the price of bread has nothing like doubled. Principally, that is because most bread is sold in supermarkets where, often, it is a loss leader. Therefore, the full price increase has not been passed on to consumers, but some of it has been passed on. If there are more accurate figures, I shall supply them to the noble Baroness.
Lord Grantchester: My Lords, I declare an interest as a dairy fanner. We all take seriously the use of price-sensitive information on share prices in the City. Bearing in mind how the market has reacted to the information, can my noble friend clarify what

635
procedures exist to detect and guard against the misuse of price-sensitive information from government agricultural statistics?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, that was an error. There is no case of which I am aware where price-sensitive statistics have been leaked from the department before their normal issue. Frequently, the final figures are different from the initial figures. In this case, the error was not discovered until after the normal date of final figures.
My point to the noble Baroness was that this had a minimal effect on the price. Effectively, we are price takers in this country. The difference in production is likely to be about half a million tonnes in a world market of 580 million tonnes. Therefore, it is unlikely to have had a dramatic sustained effect on prices, although, momentarily, there was the increase in the UK price —to which the noble Baroness referred—but that rapidly returned to trend.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the Minister said that he thought that the price had not gone up, but he was not too certain of the figures. Is he aware—I think that I am correct—that for every £1 spent on a loaf of bread, eight pence is accruable to wheat? Therefore, it is unsurprising that the increased cost of wheat has not affected the price of a loaf of bread.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, my figures are not quite as low as that. Nevertheless, the noble Earl is correct: only a small part of the total price of a loaf of bread goes to the farmer.
Earl Peel: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the real difficulty is in trying to establish why the mistakes occurred in the first place? I have been informed— as have others— that it was largely due to a lack of resources. If that is the case, can the Minister give an assurance to the House that necessary funds will be made available to ensure that that kind of mistake does not occur again?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, clearly, the lessons need to be learnt by the department; in particular, the manner in which we conducted the census and used material that originated for another purpose—the IACS purpose—in the census. However, the mistake cannot be put down to lack of resources. It was a clear and systematic error in using IACS information and mistaking the definition of holding for the definition of business. It was extremely unfortunate, but it cannot be put down to resources.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, would the Minister agree that much of the problem stems from the fact that all the forms are incredibly complicated? Having slaved over them for several nights with my poor wife, who is the farmer, I can attest to that fact Perhaps the whole thing could be simplified, particularly as the department has access to digital maps but the farmer does not. Perhaps there could be more help in this area.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in effect, part of this problem arose through trying to use information
636
supplied just once by the farmer for other purposes and, therefore, to relieve the burden on the farmer. I am well aware of the complexity of many of the forms that farmers fill in and the frequency with which they have to do it. That is why the department is in the process of developing whole-farm plans whereby information provided for one purpose can be used for other purposes. In that particular case, there was an error in transposing from one to the other. Ideally, we should be able to use the same information a number of times for several regulatory and information purposes.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, does the Minister feel encouraged that the forces of nature are far more influential on the lives of farmers and, indeed, on the lives of everyone than the forces of government?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am always happy to agree with the noble Lord about the importance of the forces of nature. Henceforth, I assume that we shall not have any interventions from him blaming either the British Government or European regulations for the plight of certain farmers. Both are important. Essentially, the changes in wheat prices this year are due to the climate, not to any of us.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, is it not correct that earlier in the season the Government offered UK wheat at discounted prices because the price was estimated on what they thought the yield would be? Although the Minister said that it did not have much effect, I urge him to think differently. It had a huge effect.
Lord Whitty: No, my Lords. I do not think that it can have had a huge effect. Clearly, there is a surplus of wheat here and there is a market for that surplus. The surplus is somewhat less—by 500,000 tonnes—than it would otherwise have been. But it is not true that the price taken earlier in the season is affected by the error. The price earlier in the season was significantly lower than the price now and later in the season, immediately prior to the error being discovered and announced. I do not think that the noble Baroness is correct in that respect.

Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, Abuja
3.17 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos):
My Lords, I would like to repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, which took place in Abuja, Nigeria, from 5th to 8th December. Copies of the communique and declaration have been placed in the Library of the House.

637
"Her Majesty The Queen attended the meeting in her role as head of the Commonwealth and also paid a state visit to Nigeria. She was warmly welcomed by the Nigerian people. The outgoing Commonwealth Chairman in Office, Prime Minister John Howard of Australia, paid tribute on behalf of all Commonwealth members to the Queen's dedication and commitment to the Commonwealth. I know that the whole House will wish to join me in echoing that tribute.
"Nigeria itself returned to the Commonwealth only in 1999, after a turbulent period of military rule. The Queen's visit, and the holding of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting there, underlines the progress made since then in rebuilding a democratic and prosperous Nigeria. Britain is committed to supporting the reform programme led by President Obasanjo, on whose chairmanship of the summit I gave sincere congratulations. In a difficult situation he managed matters with great skill.
"Commonwealth Heads of Government last met in Coolum, Australia, in March 2002. At Abuja, we reviewed developments since then. We agreed on the urgent need to relaunch the world trade talks which stalled at Cancun in September, and underlined our collective commitment to a successful Doha Development Round.
"That commitment is significant. The Commonwealth represents one-third of the world's population; developing and developed countries; large and small states; and agricultural, service and manufacturing-based economies. All have different perspectives and interests. The fact that all of us agreed on the need to relaunch the Doha Development Round, and on the need for all parties to show flexibility in the search for agreement, shows that a global deal is possible. Everyone will gain if the talks succeed, but the biggest winners will be the world's poor; and if the talks fail, they will be the biggest losers too.
"We discussed other development issues. Heads of Government agreed on the need to accelerate progress to meet the millennium development goals, which aim to halve the proportion of people living in poverty by 2015. I reaffirmed the UK's own strong commitment to that goal.
"Heads of Government also underlined their concern at the spread of HIV/AIDS. It now threatens not only Africa, but increasingly Asia and other parts of the world. Three million people will die of the virus this year alone. Two in three people infected live in Commonwealth countries. It poses one of the gravest threats to sustainable development.
"We agreed on the need to redouble our efforts to fight this threat. Britain is playing its full part, including through our own "Call for Action" on World AIDS Day, and we are now the second largest bilateral donor in the world on HIV/AIDS after the United States of America. Our bilateral aid
638
amounted to more than £270 million in 2002–03 alone, a real demonstration of commitment on behalf of the people and Government of Britain.
"The last Commonwealth summit was postponed following the terrorist attacks of 11 th September 2001. Since then the terrorists have continued their indiscriminate campaign. We agreed in Abuja that terrorism threatens everyone, regardless of nationality or faith; and that all Commonwealth members would stand together to meet and defeat this challenge.
"The meeting considered the situation in the two countries that have been suspended from the councils of the Commonwealth: Pakistan and Zimbabwe. On Pakistan, Heads of Government welcomed the progress made back towards democratic governance. They expressed the hope that the Pakistan Parliament would soon pass the necessary measures to allow the lifting of Pakistan's suspension.
"Where Pakistan has moved forward since Commonwealth leaders last met, Zimbabwe has gone backwards. The country was suspended from the Commonwealth in March 2002, shortly after elections, which the Commonwealth's own observers concluded were neither free nor fair.
"Since then there has been more violence and intimidation against the opposition MDC; against lawyers and human rights activists; indeed, against anyone speaking up against President Mugabe's oppressive policies. Zimbabwe's only independent daily newspaper, the Daily News, has been closed down, despite court orders in its favour.
"Meanwhile, ZANU-PF's ruinous economic policies are driving the country further and further into chaos. Inflation is more than 500 per cent. Zimbabwe's GDP has halved in five years. The IMF decided last week to begin procedures to expel Zimbabwe due to its appalling economic policies. Half of the population now needs food aid. Britain remains the leading cash donor for the UN's humanitarian programmes in Zimbabwe. Over the past two years, we have given 100 million dollars in food aid.
"In those circumstances, I and others argue that it was inconceivable that Zimbabwe should be readmitted to the councils of the Commonwealth and that, on the contrary, it should remain suspended until we saw concrete evidence of a return to democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law—the very principles on which the Commonwealth was founded.
"I am glad to say that this approach was agreed. It was decided that Zimbabwe should indeed remain suspended from the Councils of the Commonwealth; that President Obasanjo as Chairman in Office, together with the Commonwealth Secretary-General, will seek to facilitate progress inside Zimbabwe; and that if sufficient progress is made on the issues of concern he will report, via a representative group of six Commonwealth members, to Heads of Government. Heads will revisit the issue in the light of that report, and take any decision on the lifting of the suspension by consensus.

639
"This is the outcome we wanted. It is also the outcome that President Mugabe worked assiduously to avoid. It gives the lie to one of his most outrageous claims—that the Commonwealth's approach to Zimbabwe is a white conspiracy led by the UK against black Africans. The fact is that every single Commonwealth member signed up to the Abuja statement on Zimbabwe—including the other 19 African members of the Commonwealth, despite the strongly held doubts of some of those countries. Nor did any African member of the Commonwealth take up Mr Mugabe's invitation to boycott the summit meeting. The outcome in Abuja was hard fought, but in the end was a victory for Commonwealth values.
"Mr Mugabe's reaction—to withdraw Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth—shows clearly that he does not accept Commonwealth principles. It was a decision taken without regard for the wishes or well-being of the Zimbabwean people. ZANU-PF's isolation will be increased. But the strong bonds that exist between the Zimbabwean people and the rest of the Commonwealth remain. There will always be a place for a democratic Zimbabwe in the Commonwealth.
"The summit also re-elected the present Commonwealth Secretary-General, Don McKinnon, for a second and final four-year term. We welcome that outcome. The Secretary-General has done an excellent job in his first term. He will continue to have our full support in his second.
"Finally, I participated at the Commonwealth sports breakfast. We looked back to Manchester's successful hosting of the last Commonwealth Games in 2002, and forward to the next in Melbourne in 2006. 1 highlighted the UK's future sporting priorities.
"At this Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, a group of more than 50 countries came together to discuss the issues that matter most to their peoples—prosperity, security, sustainable development, the fight against terror—and agreed a common approach on all, in the interests of all.
"They discussed more controversial issues such as Zimbabwe, where it is no secret that there were and remain a range of differing views among member states. But here, too, through serious discussion and debate, the Commonwealth was able to reach a consensus on the way forward. I commend the outcome to the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.26 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. Perhaps I may also take this opportunity to reaffirm the powerful support that Members on these Benches have always given and will continue to give to the Commonwealth. It is a unique international organisation, bringing together nations of all continents, of all creeds and races, united—most of them, at least—by the values that we in this House
640
stand for: a hatred of tyranny and racism, and a common commitment to freedom, equality for all, democracy and the rule of law.
I was interested to see that the conference also underlined the importance of maintaining the independence of the judiciary, so I hope very much that the noble Baroness will take this opportunity to send a copy of paragraph 8 of the communique to her noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, whose plans have aroused such widespread fears for judicial independence.
In the communique and in the Prime Minister's Statement, there were strong signals pointing to lifting the suspension of Pakistan from the Commonwealth. Can the noble Baroness tell the House what obstacles, if any, she sees to what would be a welcome return by Pakistan?
Perhaps I may welcome something that was not mentioned in the Statement: the support for the United Nations programme of action on the illicit trade in small arms. Can the noble Baroness explain what review mechanism the Government have put in place to monitor compliance?
Perhaps I may also welcome the depth and clarity of the Commonwealth condemnation of terrorism. I am sure that the noble Baroness will join us in expressing her conviction of the quality of the international leadership of President Bush, Prime Minister Howard and, of course, her right honourable friend the Prime Minister, on this issue.
The Statement did not report to the House the concerns expressed by some countries, and reflected in paragraph 35 of the communique, about travel advisories. Will the noble Baroness give the House an unequivocal assurance that the Government never have been and never will be deflected by diplomatic niceties from issuing advice for the protection of British citizens?
We agree that much more needs to be done on multi-lateral trade to help to relieve the poverty of too many Commonwealth members, and to push forward the Doha development round. Is not the noble Baroness, as I am, dismayed by the wretched record of the protectionist European Union in this respect? Does this not underline the scale of the failure of our efforts at Cancùn? Why are the Government not doing far more to secure a lowering of the EU tariffs that hurt small and poor countries?
I also welcome the commitment to combating corruption, something that has impoverished too many nations in the past. Can the noble Baroness tell the House how many Commonwealth countries have so far signed and ratified the UN convention against corruption?
I also note that the 2007 Heads of Government meeting will take place in Uganda. Are the Government satisfied that the Ugandan Government fulfil all the terms of the Harare declaration?

641
Can the Minister explain to the House the basis of the opposition from some countries to the re-election of Secretary-General McKinnon?
We welcome the strong and realistic statement on the tragic and appalling scourge represented by the spread of HIV/AIDS. Are the Government aware that we on this side support strongly action taken by the Government to support effective action against AIDS in Commonwealth countries and outside?
Finally, I turn to the question of Zimbabwe, which under Mugabe has become a ghastly scar on the face of Africa. In March 2002, the noble Baroness told the House that,
"the decision that was taken not to suspend Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth undermines the credibility of the Commonwealth".—[Official Report, 19/3/02; col. 1231.]
Does she agree that the actions of some nations in seeking to lift the suspension of Zimbabwe undermine the credibility of the Commonwealth, and that those nations have some very hard soul-searching to do about the reasons for their stand?
Before the recent promotion of the Leader of the House, she managed this country's policy towards Zimbabwe. Time and again, she stood at the Dispatch Box and told the House that she was talking with international colleagues about possible action, insisting that quiet diplomacy would solve the problem. In the past two years, I have heard more than 30 Starred Questions on Zimbabwe. This House has not been backward in showing its concern in calling for more determined and effective action from her Government. On our Front Benches, my noble friends Lord Howell of Guildford, Lord Astor of Hever, and Lady Rawlings, and, on our Back Benches, my noble friends Lord Blaker and Lady Park of Monmouth, and many others around the House, have been tireless in their efforts to persuade the noble Baroness to take firmer, faster and crisper action against the Mugabe regime.
For all the fine words in the Prime Minister's Statement today, there is an abiding sense that too little was done too late. The result of the policy that has been pursued, which showed too much tolerance to Mugabe until his predictable crimes turned into predictable reality, is that today in Zimbabwe there is more violence, murder, insecurity, starvation, corruption and tyranny than even three years ago. The British Government's policy of moving only at the slowest rate allowed by international organisations has been a failure.
Many noble Lords will find it baffling for some Commonwealth leaders, even now, to be calling for constructive engagement with Mugabe. Can the noble Baroness tell them, in the light of the failure of the policy of weakening Mugabe, that this is the last time to be softening the stance against him? Appeasement of dictators has never succeeded, and it will not do so now. I hope that the noble Baroness will at least agree with that.
3.33 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement on the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. We on these Benches strongly agree that the Commonwealth is a unique and important association. In that context, it is of course troubling that the staff of the Commonwealth Secretariat has dropped by nearly a third in the past 20 years and that the amount of money available to the Commonwealth to use for aid has also dropped significantly. Today it is only about £20 million, which means that the association lacks the clout that it had perhaps a generation ago. That may be a tragedy, because it is one of the very few associations of developed and developing countries in the world.
I echo what the noble Baroness said about the significant role of the President of Nigeria, who deserves considerable praise for the way in which he handled a very difficult Commonwealth Heads of Government conference, and the whole of the Zimbabwe question. It is important that he has emerged as one of the figures in Africa most willing to stand up for democracy and the rule of law in a country where that is not easy to do. In that context, can the noble Baroness tell us anything about the continual request from the Nigerian Government for co-operation from the British Government in the pursuit of money laundered out of Nigeria, which amounts to many billions of dollars? The Nigerian Government have repeatedly said that they are not getting the co-operation that they believe that they deserve from our country. That seems to go against the claim of Commonwealth co-operation that was made so strongly in the Statement.
I agree with the Leader of the Official Opposition that the position of western countries on Doha is absolutely central. He mentioned the EU, and we would certainly not defend the common agricultural policy; but he could also have mentioned the recent very substantial increase in agricultural subsidies by the United States. The western world must recognise that it bears a major responsibility for the imbalance of world trade and, in World Trade Association discussions, a very unfair measure of agricultural protection, which harms Africa and the developing countries above all. Until it does so, we are not in a very strong position to sing of the beauties of freer world trade, since we ourselves are very much part of the problem.
I turn briefly to three particular cases. First, can the noble Baroness tell us how much practical help the Commonwealth Secretariat is now able to give on the AIDS problem in terms of health structures in the Commonwealth? As we all know, while the question of the provision of less expensive drugs is being addressed, that is only a small part of the problem. The solution depends heavily on the health structure of paramedics and others who can ensure that the drugs are properly used, without which money spent on drugs can to some extent be money down the drain.
Secondly, the noble Baroness mentioned that there was a probability or possibility that if Pakistan continues to extend democratic measures, which it has started by

643
holding local government elections, it might be welcomed back into the Commonwealth. Many of us would welcome that. However, is the Commonwealth assuring itself that measures are being taken to cease to train a substantial number of infiltrators and terrorists in Pakistan? I recognise that President Musharraf has limited powers in the tribal areas, but the country is a great source of major terrorism in the area, which has to be tackled sooner or later.
Lastly, with regard to Zimbabwe, the leader of the Conservative Party was rather hard on the Leader of the House. There is a real problem with the solidarity felt among many African countries with a man who was at one time a hero of the liberation movement. We may regard that as foolish or sentimental, but it is a real fact of life. It carries with it too much solidarity, but the Leader of the House in her other capacity has had to deal with it. We should be realistic; it is questionable whether through the Commonwealth or the United Nations we could carry a majority of developing countries with regard to much tougher action against Zimbabwe.
I refer finally to one area in which we in the United Kingdom carry a substantial responsibility. Can the noble Baroness assure the House that those who are perceived to fight for democracy, freedom of expression and the rule of law—including Zimbabwe's judges, the brave editor of the Daily News and his staff and many other people who are active in trying to bring democracy to Zimbabwe—will cease to be deported back to Zimbabwe if they escape and seek asylum in this country? Is the noble Baroness assured that the Home Office is aware that that kind of deportation is contrary to the efforts that all of us want to see to bring Zimbabwe back to democracy?
3.38 p.m.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, for their welcoming of the Statement. I shall seek to address their points.
I am slightly surprised by the initial question asked by the noble Lord with respect to the independence of the judiciary. It seemed like a rather desperate attempt to bring in the debate that we are going to have in this House with respect to constitutional reform. The noble Lord is well aware that the Government remain committed to the independence of the judiciary. That has always been our position, and it has been the touchstone of the reforms that are proposed.
As for the other points raised by the noble Lord, the Commonwealth members welcomed the progress that has been made on Pakistan. In particular, they welcomed the holding of elections and the formation of national and provincial assemblies, and noted in particular the role of women and of minorities in the legislature. A timetable was not given for Pakistan's re-admittance to the Councils of the Commonwealth, but further progress in those areas and greater democratisation are required from Pakistan and Pakistan is clear about that.
644
On the illicit trade in small arms, the noble Lord may be aware that a conference in the UK looked at those issues. A mechanism has been put in place to ensure that there is international support on that issue, but if I am able to find any further information for the noble Lord, I will happily write to him.
The noble Lord will be aware that our travel advice is focused solely on the need to provide timely information to our citizens. That will continue to be the main aim of our travel advice.
On trade, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, referred to the failure of Cancun and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, spoke about the disappointing progress on the trade agenda. Noble Lords will recall that we strove hard to reach agreement at Cancun and were disappointed not to be able to do so, particularly as we had thought that the reform of the common agricultural policy would be the basis for an agreement. We remain committed to the Doha development agenda. As noble Lords may recall, the European Union had dropped its commitment to two of the four new issues on the trade agenda. One important agreement to be reached at the Commonwealth meeting was that the Commonwealth would send a group of Ministers around key capitals to stress the importance for both developing and developed countries of an early resumption of the round. We will continue to work within the European Union and in the wider international community for improvements on trade. I entirely agree with the points that were made about the differentials in trade between the developed and the developing world.
I do not have an answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, about corruption. If I can find a figure, I shall write to him.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will know that concerns have been expressed about the need for Uganda to move swiftly to multi-party democracy. The United Kingdom will continue to press for that. The Secretary-General was re-elected by a majority at the meeting.
On Zimbabwe, I should point out to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that the outcome of the Commonwealth meeting was significant. There were clear differences of opinion, but the noble Lord is well aware that the Commonwealth works ultimately by consensus. That means that all countries signed up to the declaration and to the communique, which is important for the values and principles that underlie the Commonwealth.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, that Zimbabwe is viewed in very different ways by some countries in Africa. The role that Robert Mugabe played in the independence movement stirs emotions, as does the issue of land reform in Zimbabwe. Many Africans feel that the United Kingdom paid no attention to historical injustices and woke up to the issue only recently, when a black government came into power. We have taken strong action. We were the first country to put an arms embargo in place. We worked hard for EU sanctions; we worked hard for Zimbabwe's suspension from the Commonwealth last year. I do not agree with the noble Lord that we

645
showed tolerance to Zimbabwe. It is significant that the United Kingdom has been singled out by Robert Mugabe for vilification. Our High Commissioner and his staff in Harare have had to put up with a great deal of abuse. The noble Lord will know that all members of the British Government are banned from going to Zimbabwe, so I do not accept the noble Lord's point on that. Nor do I agree that our policy has been one of appeasement. I have asked noble Lords opposite on many occasions from this Dispatch Box what they suggest that we should do that we have not done. The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, wrote to me on that point and I answered every point that he raised.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said that President Obasanjo deserves praise. I agree with that. It has undoubtedly been a difficult CHOGM and he handled the meeting with considerable skill and sensitivity.
We have tried to do all we can to assist the Nigerian Government's pursuit of money launderers. I know that from my own meetings with the president this year, but he has also discussed the issue with my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. Officials have discussed ways of taking the matter forward. The issue is a great deal more complex than it appears. That became clear when our officials began their talks earlier this year. However, there has been constant contact between them.
On support for health structures, particularly in relation to HIV/AIDS, the Commonwealth is able to offer technical assistance and to share people and expertise. Through its bilateral development assistance programmes, the UK is able to help countries strengthen their fragile health systems. We have paid particular attention to that matter, because there is no point in putting money into drugs if the health systems are not in place.
The issue of terrorism remains very important for Commonwealth members. It was agreed that the Commonwealth would continue to give countries greater support, particularly smaller countries that do not have the resources and expertise to put anti-terrorist measures in place. In response to the noble Baroness's question about Zimbabwe and deportations, I shall write to her so that I can give her the latest information.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords—
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords—
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, there is plenty of time for everybody.
3.48 p.m.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness not only for the Statement but also for the comprehensive competence with which she has answered every one of the points raised from the two Front Benches. I also endorse the points made both by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde and by the noble
646
Baroness, Lady Williams. I shall try to draw them a little closer to each other by saying that the common agricultural policy, which was condemned so robustly by my noble friend, and the misbehaviour in that field by the United States, require parity of contempt. They both deserve to be treated with equal vigour and lack of enthusiasm.
Perhaps I may join noble Lords also in congratulating President Obasanjo on his management of the conference and in welcoming the fact that the next conference is to take place in Uganda, where President Museveni, it should be remembered, has brought that country back from the brink following the chaos to which it had been reduced by President Obote and President Amin. If we wanted to be critical, we may all have modest criticisms of both President Obasanjo and President Museveni, but both deserve commendation— President Museveni for his achievements in Uganda and President Obasanjo for having restored democracy in his own country. The latter deserves to be commended also for the role that he played in the combined Commonwealth onslaught on apartheid in South Africa. He was a member of the Eminent Persons Group there.
Does the noble Baroness accept—I am sure that she will—that the most important aspect of these CHOG meetings is the unique candour with which the Heads of Government from this immense diversity of nations are able to speak to each other, quite unlike anything to be found in any other international meeting? It is that quality that enables them to achieve a surprising degree of unity, as they have done at the end of this conference. Will she therefore encourage that candour to be maintained and sustained?
Surely the crucial pressure to bring about change in Zimbabwe will ultimately have to come from those front-line states led by Ministers such as President Museveni and President Obasanjo. The interesting parallel is that, at the end of the day, probably the most decisive voice in pushing South Africa toward the ending of apartheid was that of my noble friend Lady Thatcher. The shock of hearing the candour with which she was finally condemning apartheid, joined with all the other efforts that had been sustained over the years, was one of the key factors that made the difference.
So will the Minister give us the assurance that our Government will continue, candidly as always, to press the leaders of the front-line African states to address this question as vigorously as she knows they must? She has done well so far. Will she please ensure that the effort is maintained with the utmost vigour?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, for his comments. He has, of course, a great deal of experience in these areas and I know that the House will have listened to his words of wisdom. I entirely agree with him about the need to support the work of Presidents Obasanjo and Museveni. In Nigeria we saw for the very first time since independence the successful transition from one civilian administration to another. We really must recognise that. I agree with the noble and learned Lord about the role that President Obasanjo

647
played in that transition. President Museveni, in the leadership role that he has played, has not only brought Uganda back from the brink; he has played an absolutely critical role in ensuring that the HIV/AIDS infection levels in Uganda have fallen dramatically.
I agree with the noble and learned Lord about the importance of Commonwealth meetings. They are the only international meetings of leaders from such diverse countries in which they work by consensus and each has an equal voice and where candour, as the noble and learned Lord said, is an important ingredient. We have argued consistently that, after the people of Zimbabwe themselves, it is Zimbabwe's neighbours—particularly in SADC, which includes the previous front-line states—that will have the major impact on bringing about change in Zimbabwe.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, if I may, I should like to reiterate the fact that although so many African countries took a different view from ours and were able to argue their case very vigorously, ultimately they were able to reach a unanimous decision on the suspension of Zimbabwe. That is a tribute to the strength of the Commonwealth and indeed a vindication of the Government's policy on this matter. However, can the Minister say whether Zimbabwe has actually left the Commonwealth? We have heard that it is leaving, but has it left? For my part, I take no joy, exhilaration, vindication or satisfaction in the fact that Zimbabwe is leaving the Commonwealth. One wonders whether the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has a view on the matter. He seems to suggest that if we had acted quicker or done more, Zimbabwe would have left earlier. I am not quite sure whether that is the Opposition's policy.
If Zimbabwe has left the Commonwealth, what happens now? What happens to the remit of President Obasanjo and his group of six who are to look at the situation? Is that now a dead letter? Who is to try to take the matter forward? Is the whole matter to be left in limbo? Like many other noble Lords, I am sure, I do not think that it is a question of who is in or out of the Commonwealth—the important point is what happens to the Zimbabwean people. If the situation gets even worse as a result of President Mugabe leaving the Commonwealth, there is no reason to be satisfied. Can the Minister please tell us what will happen? Which aid programmes will be affected by Zimbabwe's departure? Does she agree that it is extremely serious? Does she agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, that we must impress on the African states—whose view we must understand; we cannot simply ignore their deeply held views—that they must do their bit as well to bring this situation to a resolution?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, my noble friend, as always, gets to the heart of the matter. Has Zimbabwe left the Commonwealth? Mugabe says that Zimbabwe has, but the Secretary-General has not yet received a letter informing him that Zimbabwe has done so. Once Zimbabwe formally leaves the Commonwealth a number of practical implications will have to be addressed. My noble friend asks, for example, about
648
aid programmes. Although Zimbabwe would no longer have a right to technical assistance through the Commonwealth, the type of humanitarian aid programme that the British Government are giving to Zimbabwe would continue. Our development programmes are not only with Commonwealth countries.
As for what happens now, assuming that that letter arrives, and I have no doubt that it will, there will be no remit for the group of six, because Zimbabwe will no longer be in the Commonwealth. However, President Obasanjo has made it clear that he intends to visit Zimbabwe, not necessarily wearing that Commonwealth hat but as a concerned African leader. I think that it will have to be African countries which take this matter forward. I entirely agree with my noble friend. I regret that Mugabe has chosen to take this action because it further isolates Zimbabwe. At the heart of it, it hurts the people of Zimbabwe, not the ruling elite of Zimbabwe.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I was in Kenya last week and saw for myself the devastating effect that the advisory travel bans have had and are having on the important tourist industry in that country? Does she agree that that is particularly unfortunate at a time when the new democratic government of Kenya are striving to put the economy back on a sound footing? Does she also agree that if she were an American citizen she would be a lot safer in the middle of the Masai Mara than in the streets of Washington or New York at the present time? More to the point as regards government responsibility, is she aware—because I certainly was not—that although the British travel ban was lifted some time ago, British insurance companies are still not granting travel insurance to people wanting to visit that country? Will she get the appropriate government department to speak to the British insurance association to ensure that we do not have private travel bans in addition to the government ones which have a still more devastating effect on those economies?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I recognise that our travel advice can have a devastating impact on countries that have fragile economies. I have seen it myself, not only in Kenya, but in Tanzania, particularly the impact on Zanzibar. I saw it when I visited Bali last year. However, as I said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, we need to provide timely information to our citizens and to take on board the information that we receive. It is a very difficult balance to get right. Noble Lords will recall that the Government were accused of not taking information seriously enough in relation to Bali. When I was consular Minister, I had very many families in my office making accusations that the British Government were not telling them the truth. We have to give information that is as clear and accessible as possible while recognising the possible wider economic impact.

649
On the issue of insurance companies, of course it is a commercial decision. However, I shall pass on the noble Lord's concerns. We have ongoing discussions with insurance companies and I shall ensure that his concerns are recognised.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the last time a state left the Commonwealth was when Hendrik Verwoerd took South Africa out in 1961—company that Mr Mugabe may not relish being associated with? Does she also agree that Mugabe could hardly be less amenable to persuasion after he has left the Commonwealth than he has been up until now? While we all welcome the news that President Obasanjo will shortly visit Harare, that will not be a substitute for mechanisms that will bring additional pressure to bear on Mugabe. What mechanisms has the Commonwealth for oversight of any moves that Mugabe or ZANU-PF may make in the future towards democracy, because surely if the supposition is that African countries will bring additional pressure to bear on the Zimbabwe regime, we shall need to know about it and we shall need to have people on the spot who can report back to us and tell the Commonwealth Secretariat what news it can convey to member states?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that it is extremely difficult to budge Mugabe. We have followed the situation in Zimbabwe and have become more and more concerned about it. It is clear that this is a president and a government who do not care about what is happening to their own people. They leave it to the United Kingdom and the United States to try to halt the terrible famine that will occur in Zimbabwe next year. At the same time, they roundly abuse both countries.
As regards mechanisms and oversight, a set of bench-marks were developed by the Commonwealth Secretariat against which to judge Zimbabwe. I have no doubt that those bench-marks still exist. Once Zimbabwe withdraws from the Commonwealth, Commonwealth countries will have embassies rather than high commissions there. I am sure that human rights organisations and others will continue to monitor the situation very carefully indeed, as they are doing at present.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, in welcoming the comments made on the fight against terrorism and the important contribution that the Commonwealth can make in that area, can I take it from the noble Baroness the Leader of the House that particular recognition is given to the fact that a number of Commonwealth countries have a particularly valuable role to play in the whole intelligence challenge that is faced in the fight against terrorism at the present time?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am afraid that I did not catch the actual question in the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord King.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, do the Commonwealth Heads of Government recognise
650
the value of an area which may not have been so important to the Commonwealth in earlier times; namely, the sharing of intelligence and working together in the fight against terrorism, which is now crucially important? Do they also recognise that certain members of the Commonwealth that have not perhaps been closely involved before in the intelligence field now have a particularly valuable role to play?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord King, for that clarification. The Heads of Government made it absolutely clear that it was vital that all Commonwealth members ratify and implement the conventions covering terrorism. Some Commonwealth countries already share intelligence. We are doing that increasingly, particularly with respect to the implications this has, for example, for travel advice. I have no doubt that this is an area where co-operation will continue. The UK is also increasing our bilateral counter-terrorism assistance to key countries in the Commonwealth, and the Commonwealth Secretariat is helping other countries with counter-terrorism legislation. Therefore, a number of measures are being implemented, some related to intelligence sharing but some more broadly linked to the broad international counter-terrorism agenda.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, turning away for a moment from the divisive problems created for the Commonwealth by President Mugabe's Zimbabwe, will the Minister say what consideration was given at CHOGM to the Commonwealth education Ministers' education action programme for the Commonwealth that was conceived at the recent conference in Edinburgh, and what reference may there be in the communiqué—which I have not yet seen—to the degree of acceptance there was for those proposals?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I recall that the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, asked that education should feature in the communique. In fact, it features strongly in the declaration. There is an affirmation that education, whether formal or informal, is central to development in any society. There is also a reference in the communique to the Commonwealth education Ministers' conference and the initiative that came from that. Commonwealth Heads of Government clearly listened to the noble Lord.

Science and Politics
4.5 p.m.
Baroness Greenfieldrose to call attention to mechanisms to improve communication between scientists and politicians with a view to better public understanding of scientific policies; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the astronomer Carl Sagan once said that it was suicide to live in a society dependent on science and technology, where hardly anyone knew anything about science and

651
technology. It is now some three-and-a-half years since the publication of the House of Lords Select Committee report, Science and Society. That committee was chaired by the noble Lord. Lord Jenkin of Roding.
In addition, the excellent work of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology continues to provide balanced and objective analysis of science and technology issues to both Houses. Then there is the Royal Society's MP/scientist pairing scheme, a reassuring example of dialogue between the two communities even though the beneficiaries may be only a handful of scientists and MPs each year.
Since the Jenkin report, a thousand flowers have been blooming—in books, TV programmes, science centres and, indeed, events and fora such as those that we are proud to host at the Royal Institution, where I am the director. Indeed, within the past year, we have held two debates at the Royal Institution to address specifically the problem of communication between scientists and politicians, especially the communication they have on the record, in the eye of the media. In our most recent debate on 20th November, everyone pooled their ideas: scientists, politicians, along with some representatives of the media and, most importantly, the general public. We attempted not only to tease out the specific issues but to see whether there was any way in which we could resolve them.
The number of noble Lords wishing to speak in this debate is surely testimony to an inescapable issue: that there is still insufficient dialogue between politicians and scientists, and a lack of understanding of their respective agendas. Only a few weeks ago the "Today" programme, and indeed "PM" on Radio 4 at the end of the day, covered the important story of how, in the words of the political correspondent of The Times,
"More than 100 leading scientists have made a once-in-a-generation appeal to Tony Blair to save British science from a tide of neglect and abuse that is driving the brightest young brains abroad".
This letter arose from an initiative "Sense about Science" organised by the noble Lord, Lord Taverne. I shall leave him to amplify, as he wishes, its background and content.
This lack of adequate communication between politicians and scientists impacts on a public who remain confused about where the scientists' role ends, and where that of the politicians begins, and vice versa. Small wonder then that the public are not comforted by the efforts of scientists and politicians to handle crises encompassing science and technology such as the MMR vaccine, mobile phones, GM foods and BSE.
For example, in the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips, into the BSE crisis, three major themes were drawn out as contributing to the disaster. First, decisions were apparently being made for political expediency rather than with a premium on public health. Secondly, all the decisions were made in secret with no transparency. Thirdly, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips, described a "culture of sedation": one where false reassurances of certainty were given, where certainty did not exist.
652
At the moment each side, the politicians and the scientists, tends to approach the other with the attitude, "Here is a problem; you solve it". Politicians expect a simple answer from the experts, while the experts expect politicians to solve the problem for society that their far-from-simple answer generates. This two-way shifting of the buck sends out signals to the general public that politicians and scientists are not working together as seamlessly and effectively as they might. I suggest that this bottleneck in communication between scientists and politicians—or lack of it—lies not only in the absence of opportunity, but in a discrepancy of agenda.
For example, scientists will tend to take a long-term view, embarking on studies that may extend over some five or 10 years, or even more. Politicians, on the other hand, with their limited tenure of office, need answers quickly and have a time scale of three years or usually much less.
Scientists are often portrayed, and sometimes even portray themselves, as the guardians of a codified fixed body of knowledge. But that knowledge is constantly being re-examined: it evolves, and is often transformed, through time.
Scientists are used to admitting to uncertainty, and are most comfortable painting in shades of grey. Issues are not proved categorically or disproven overnight; rather there are endless iterations on a subject with different opinions, interpretations, redefinitions and further experimentation, so that gradually a truth will emerge. But it is always a provisional truth, always open and vulnerable to the next finding. One topical example comes from Professor Simon Murch, who had recently subscribed to the view that the MMR vaccine might be linked to autism. In the light of further studies, he now considers it safe. Some quarters of the media attempted to portray him as going back on his word, but he was accurately reflecting the way in which scientific opinion is driven by data and can change as those data accumulate.
Politicians, on the other hand, are under sometimes understandable pressure from their electorate to demand an immediate yes/no answer. For them, there should be no uncertainty in interpretation of what has happened to date, and no element of risk regarding the future. Indeed, one might even think of politicians, especially those in government along with the Civil Service, as being in the business of minimising risk, whereas, for the scientist, every experiment involves the risk of their hypothesis being wrong. If there were no risk, there would be no point in doing the experiment.
Scientists will use the tools of experimentation to reach a solution. Meanwhile, politicians tend to the audit, the consultation and the focus group, and are driven by difficulties arising from an undesirable situation. The agenda for scientists in its purest form is mainly curiosity-driven—to be proactive rather than reactive to an existing crisis.
Another important difference is that scientists usually think of themselves as specialists, whereas the politician has to be a generalist. Scientists are indeed accountable

653
to other colleagues only within their relatively narrow specialist area, whereas politicians answer to the general public. That is one reason why the issue of communication of science to the general public still sits very uneasily with many scientists, yet is high on the agenda for politicians. As a result, scientists will communicate in seemingly idiosyncratic terminology and jargon, which means that they and their work are not easily tractable to the agenda of politicians, who in turn reach for easily understandable answers and soundbites, particularly those that can play out well in the media. Such soundbites can appear in turn as gross oversimplifications to scientists.
On top of those fundamental discrepancies in agenda and mindset, there is then the problem of actual opportunity for dialogue or communication. For example, speaking at the debate last month at the Royal Institution, Professor John Lawton, the chief executive of the National Environment Research Council—NERC—drew a comparison between his current position and when he was the chairman of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. In that latter capacity, he had access to a Minister allegedly whenever he liked, and he regularly took advantage of that conduit. In contrast, as chief executive of NERC, he revealed that he had never been invited to speak to a Minister, even though he now has a much wider grasp of a whole host of environmental issues.
Professor Lawton's experience surely indicates that Ministers are more interested in speaking to powerful lobby groups than to scientific bodies. Now imagine the plight of a grass-root scientist who is not the head of a formal organisation, and who would therefore find it even harder to access or influence government thinking. For example, imagine a scheme—one that I have mused on myself—for promoting the democratisation of science through universities. The idea, which I must confess that I have not ventilated until now, would be to make maximal use of the vacant lecture theatres in evenings and weekends within each university, to host the local community in a scenario that would enable them to meet their local scientists and join together in talks, panel discussions and debates.
The whole point of such a scheme would be that the scientist would gain valuable experience in communicating with the general public and, in turn, the public would no longer regard universities as remote ivory towers, but rather, as they should be, key features of the community landscape.
By fostering a nationwide local and regional dialogue between the general public and the scientist at each university throughout the country, much of the fear and paranoia of science might start to dissolve. Science would acquire, literally and metaphorically, a human face; science itself would be truly mainstreamed in society. The dream would be that a science event could be as exciting and interesting as going to the cinema or a concert.
But suppose that I, as a grass-root scientist, had had such an idea. Where would I turn? Perhaps to the Department of Trade and Industry, or would it be the Department for Education and Skills or the Department for Culture, Media and Sport? After all, surely it is that
654
latter department that would be the most obvious source of funding to subsidise overtime or teaching remission of university scientists participating in such an outreach scheme to the public. It would not help me, of course, and I might be baffled, standing remote from the machinery of government and the political world, that none of the departments had "science" in the title. And even were I to approach one of the three departments at random, how could I be assured that there was active communication between them to expedite a project that might well fall in the purlieu of them all?
At the moment, the best for which a scientist might hope is to be available on standby, in response mode, if and when approached. Indeed, I have experienced helping in the production of two government reports, one on creative and cultural education, and the other on women in science. As a result, I realise just how important and effective such initiatives can be, and am sure that many other scientists would relish the chance to suggest further topics where they perceive a need. How would the scientists themselves set in train any new initiative? Where and what is the procedural machinery? If it is in place already, it is not part of the science community culture, and is not a familiar reference point in coffee-time conversation in university departments.
Meanwhile, the problem for politicians is different, in that for the most part their lack of a science background means that they need to trust the experts utterly and unconditionally. But surely a grasp of the basic concepts of scientific method, agenda and some key facts would enable them to delegate more appropriately and effectively. As it stands, the ensuing disconnection between power and responsibility is as dangerous as it is undesirable. The more politicians and scientists talk to each other, the more the culture, constraints and concepts of science—and, by the same token, of politics—will rub off, and become respectively familiar territory.
A further difficulty, however, is that such an agenda does not fit well with party politics. It is notable that there was no mention of science in the Queen's Speech. The Government presumably do not want to debate issues that cut across traditional political ideologies and would be most appropriate to a large number of free votes. Cloning, fertility and end-of-life issues will become debates of conscience, and are therefore much more difficult for maintaining a party line. Because such debates are often not held until there is a crisis, legislation is often brought in too late, and based on a less than optimal familiarity with the subject. That situation is further aggravated by a temptation, one fuelled by the media, for opposition parties simply to criticise the Government in order to get coverage rather than to establish the scientific truth.
The critical issue is that politicians and government, in this instance, should not be the followers of public opinion, which in turn bases its knowledge of science on journalists who in many cases cannot lay claim to any expertise in the area. Instead, surely it is the scientists who should be playing a more proactive and central role. Of course, scientists cannot become politicians or tell

655
politicians what to do, any more than those who sit full-time in Parliament could be card-carrying experts on the sophisticated and fast-moving developments in information technology, biotechnology, and nanotechnology. But only by the previously disparate constituencies joining together can beneficial and informed decisions be made.
The Government have made some great strides recently, not least the University Challenge scheme, and the science and engineering ambassadors scheme, which enables scientists to go into the classrooms and inspire and be role models to schoolchildren. Of course, the increase in science funding and infrastructure has made a huge difference, not only to scientific research but in helping to lift scientists' morale. Although those are very impressive moves, there is none the less still the central issue of how to integrate science more fully into the mainstream of society, and hence into the politicians' mindset and policy toolkit. As the Jenkin report acknowledged, there is a lack of trust in science still, especially when associated with government or industry. What we need now is to think of schemes that will expedite more interaction, and as widely as possible.
The situation is pressing. We urgently need to seek ways in which knowledge is transferred into innovation and wealth. That topic is explored in the Lambert review, and indeed, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has pointed out, might also help to alleviate the vexed issue of university funding. We might well look to other countries. In India, for example, scientists and technologists are held in great esteem, and that country is beginning to reap tremendous benefits. Similarly in America, the culture of technology transfer and the mainstreaming and understanding of science in universities is generating serious income. The annual licensing survey of the Association of University Technology Managers shows that total university income in the USA from patents increased from 699 million dollars in 1997 to 1.07 billion dollars in 2001.
In the UK, however, universities are also increasingly exploiting their scientific discoveries commercially. The recent report by Nottingham University Business School on technology transfer in universities for 2002–03 describes a significant increase in staffing numbers, of spin-outs financed through the University Challenge scheme, invention disclosures, patents issued and licences executed. Licensing income is still at some £22.4 million. In addition, high-tech and biotech industries are realising that people are the only sustainable asset. Although those industries make investments in university research partly because of tax credits, they do so primarily because of the quality of the talent base. Such a talent base will flourish only—indeed, income to universities from IP will grow only—in a society that is not just sympathetic to but actively supportive of science.
Accordingly, three possible ideas come immediately to mind. The first might be a government-organised website targeted at any scientist in a university-based department, enabling them to send in any bright ideas or thoughts where they know there would be a one-stop shop to the government departments. Such a website, one might hope, could also act as a forum whereby the
656
suggestions would be open for other scientists to comment, and one could start a virtual debate between anyone who felt interested. That dialogue, of course, should and could be completely transparent. Ideally, there could even be just one governmental website for science that also brings together all the science Select Committee reports, Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology reports and commissioned reports.
A second idea would be to develop a scheme whereby the local scientists, again in the universities, have regular meetings with their respective MPs. Perhaps that happens already but, to the best of my knowledge, not on a systematic or nation-wide basis. An MP could pay a monthly visit to a different science department in turn in his or her university and/or each university could appoint an MP liaison officer or a science policy committee. Perhaps one of the outcomes of such communication could be the organisation of joint events for the local community, such as I outlined earlier.
Thirdly, from time to time, perhaps the Government would even subsidise, or at least look kindly upon, events such as those that we organise at the Royal Institution or which are organised elsewhere, where panels of scientists and politicians could debate with each other and the general public could be present, with no holds barred and on neutral territory.
Those are some thoughts simply to illustrate that it is possible to offer constructive ideas. Above all, it is important not simply to shake one's head in resignation at a difficult situation. The situation is difficult because we are entering a new era; one where science is central to our lives as never before. This new era requires a change. I am not suggesting that we transform the respective agendas of scientists and politicians; but let us establish a way of maximising the overlap between those agendas for the public good, and do so in a way that the public can appreciate. I beg to move for Papers.
4.21 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on initiating this important debate on an issue which she and I have been discussing for some time. Our dialogue began when we were both at an international conference where two parallel strands of discussion—one on science and one on politics—were brought together in the hope of stimulating productive debate. In fact, there were heated and acrimonious exchanges between the two teams, with the noble Baroness and I on opposing sides. Each side blamed the other for public misunderstanding of whatever were the scientific hot topics of the day. It was a bruising encounter with little understanding of the difficulties encountered in either the political or the scientific spheres.
Since then the noble Baroness has, as she described, been a powerful figure in leading and creating détente between the two groups. Her various initiatives at the Royal Institution, in which she has been kind enough to include me, have been promoting the kind of productive dialogue which was the main aim of the original

657
conference. I say as a complete layman with some diffidence in this distinguished list of speakers, since I struggled with GCE level biology, I strongly believe that we must improve trust and communication between scientists and politicians so that we do not end up living in a 21st-century version of a Luddite society. That would be a society where scientific discovery was automatically greeted by public fear and suspicion to the detriment of not only our excellent science base, but to the quality of life for us all.
My main experience has been in health policy. In that area, there have been some good examples of appropriate co-operation between medical science and the legislators and regulators—in vitro fertilisation is one that springs to mind. Another, in which your Lordships more recently played a positive role, was the development of a statutory framework for stem cell research in which UK scientists were again at the forefront of potentially life-changing discoveries. We parliamentarians have helped them negotiate a working environment which in general is accepted by the public.
However, despite those positive examples and similar ones in other fields, recent surveys now show that more than half the public think that scientists are experimenting without adequately assessing the risks of their work. In other words, science is seen as moving too fast for public comfort and politicians stand accused perhaps of dishonesty or inefficiency in trying to regulate it. How do we address that?
First, the scientists and the politicians, as the noble Baroness said, must learn to trust each other more—both in communicating with each other and what is said severally or together to a wider audience. We must try to respect each others' priorities and foibles. I am aware of the point raised by the noble Baroness on the political desire for speedy results and cast-iron certainty. Equally, I ask the scientists to be tolerant of politicians' ignorance even when, as in my case, ignorance is not compounded by hostility. I vividly remember that, shortly after I became a Minister of Health in 1997, my right honourable friend Alan Milburn, who later became Secretary of State, and I had a meeting with an extremely senior scientific adviser to the Government. He told us in no uncertain terms that as we were both arts graduates it was unlikely that we would understand the fundamentals of many of the science-based policies which he and colleagues might be promoting, let alone be able to represent them adequately to Parliament and the public.
If I had drawn breath more quickly, I should have responded that it was a major part of his responsibility, as a government scientific adviser, to make sure that we did understand, and that it was at least part of his responsibility to communicate directly with the public and not to shelter behind us inadequate politicians. Of course there are many distinguished scientists, and many of them are taking part in this debate, who are excellent communicators. But perhaps even they would acknowledge that the first instinct of many of their colleagues is to shelter behind the walls of academe when faced with controversy.
658
The matter is all about risk—my second salient concept after trust—the immediate risk to any individual's reputation and, more dangerously, the public risk of trying to communicate uncertainty to a fearful and sceptical audience who are often stirred up by an alarmist media. I call this, at its crudest, the "Today" programme trap. The distinguished scientist is asked: "Can you guarantee there is no risk?"—to which there is not a categorical yes or no answer. The expert then appears to be communicating only frightening uncertainty, and the policymaker who has to act on that uncertainty appears yet again to be shifty and unreliable.
I am not suggesting that either politicians or scientists should be falsely didactic, still less promote unreliable reassurance. But it is in all our interests to develop a united and coherent strategy about how we communicate risk. Recently I have been encouraged to read a monograph based on a lecture by Dr Philip Campbell, the editor-in-chief of Nature, called Connecting People to Science, whose top-line message was that everybody should be more open and direct about the uncertainties. He also offers readily understood scientific tools for describing and assessing uncertainty—for example tabulating a range of views on any topic so that, to quote Dr Campbell,
"this can be a way that one can see on a scale of dealing with public discussion about scientists who are out on a limb by putting them demonstrably in the context of their peers".
In my inexpert judgment, that would be a useful way to handle some of the extreme views on, for example, the MMR vaccine.
This is a short debate and I must draw my remarks to a conclusion. But I find that that kind of cool application of objective tools to potentially misunderstood uncertainties both helpful and easy to understand. That is why today's debate is so important. If popular concerns that scientists are taking too many risks distorts policy decisions and valuable progress, we shall all lose.
4.28 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, for introducing what is clearly, judging by the number of speakers, a very hot topic. The opening speech from the noble Baroness gave a good indication of the ground about which she has been thinking deeply for some time. I am grateful for her comments on science and society and I shall return to that. I also welcome her endorsement of POST—the Parliamentary Office for Science and Technology. It produces a stream of valuable, informative papers for politicians and others. Furthermore, the Science Media Centre is playing an important role in bridging the gulf between journalists and scientists and the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, played a key role in setting that up.
I see two separate questions. First, how does advice from scientists reach Ministers? Are new mechanisms necessary, as called for by the Motion? Secondly, how do Ministers respond to that advice. Regarding the first question, although Ministers have many sources of

659
advice, a great deal depends on the standing and authority of the Government's principal scientific advisers—especially that of the Chief Scientific Adviser. Taking part in the debate is a former CSA, the noble Lord, Lord May of Oxford, and I warmly endorse the appointment of his successor, Sir David King
However, I share the view, as stated by my noble friend Lord Waldegrave when we debated the report Science and Society, that a mistake was made 10 years ago in moving the office of the OST out of the Cabinet Office and into the DTI. When it was in the Cabinet Office, the CSA was directly responsible to the Prime Minister. I believe, for example, that the problems we experienced with foot and mouth disease would not have occurred if the CSA had been in his previous position.
The issue is doubly important now in that we have a second senior person at the DTI—the chairman of Research Councils UK. I welcome the appointment of Sir Keith O'Nions to that post, but I see difficulty in terms of the tensions and differences ahead if both senior roles remain closeted within the DTI. It is right for RCUK, but I believe that the decision should be taken to return the OST to the Prime Minister's department.
The second issue concerns the other end of the question. What are the political pressures, on Ministers that seem to make it so difficult for them to take a supportive line on scientific advice which may be controversial? The noble Baroness drew attention to the remarkable letter signed by 114 prominent research scientists, who complained bitterly about their sense of betrayal and the lack of support for their research, particularly in the area of GM crops. Last year, the Prime Minister made a highly publicised speech at the Royal Society. Half the hall was filled by the media and it attracted wide attention. But what have we heard since then? The answer is: almost total silence. The result was that in October an article appeared in the Times Educational Supplement headlined:
"The CM debate cut down by threats and abuse".
Of course, the issue of GM is not alone. The list of scientific controversies is a long one.
Therefore, I believe that one must ask: what are the pressures on Ministers? The answer is that the public remain fearful, as the noble Lord said. Here, I return to the subject of Science and Society, in which we argued that the lack of trust or understanding between the public and scientists—it is a question of scientists understanding the public as much as the other way round—lies at the heart of the problem. It is there that we must direct our attention.
I believe that the real answer lies in schools. The teaching of science over many decades has contributed to the problem rather than helped to solve it. I want to draw the House's attention to the new syllabus— "Science for the 21st Century"—now being produced for 13 to 16 year-olds, in which an entirely new approach is being adopted. It is currently being piloted and I believe that it will turn out to be the long-term solution to the problem that we are addressing.
4.33 p.m.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, I start by declaring an interest as chairman of Sense About Science—an organisation set up to promote the evidence-based approach to scientific issues.
The noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, as did the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, mentioned in her excellent and most stimulating speech the letter from the 114 scientists, which we helped to organise. They protested about the silence of the Government in the face of blatant misrepresentation of the results of the field-scale evaluation trials and mentioned that morale was low. I do not presume to speak for them. If I did, the noble Lords, Lord Winston and Lord Turnberg, who signed the letter, would immediately put me right. However, perhaps I may give my personal opinion as to why morale is low, despite the fact that we have an excellent science Minister and the Government have considerably increased the science budget.
What is wrong is the Government's concern to appease the anti-science lobby groups. I shall give two examples. First, recently, the government chief scientist, for whom I have immense admiration, wrote to the press, obviously reflecting official policy, saying that the Government were neither for nor against genetic modification. Why is that so? Not a single leading plant biologist has any doubts that it is a technology that offers great potential benefits. GM cotton, for example, already benefits 5 million small third-world farmers. If he had said that the Government were neither for nor against particular applications, that would have been understandable. Whether an application is beneficial or harmful depends entirely on the circumstances, as, indeed, the trials have shown. However, to be neutral about the technology is like being neither for nor against science. Science, too, can be misapplied.
I turn to the second example. The Government set up the AEBC—the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission. Whom did they appoint as the lay members of the council? The answer is: the chair of Greenpeace; the chair of the Soil Association: another representative from Genewatch, a clone of Greenpeace; and another dedicated opponent of GM crops. They are supposed to represent the public when, in fact, they represent highly political lobby groups, ideologically opposed to GM, which do not give a hoot about evidence. No wonder the consultation exercise was such a fiasco. It is no help to scientists to bring dedicated opponents of science into the heart of policy-making. Appeasement simply strengthens the opposition.
I want to make one more point, not related to the subject matter of the letter. Scientists have been told that science should be more democratic, that they must take more notice of public fears and communicate better. I believe that that current conventional wisdom is at least partly misconceived. Science is not a

661
democratic activity any more than is art. Galileo once famously said of Church interference with the pursuit of truth:
"Why, this would be as if an absolute despot, being neither a physician nor an architect but knowing himself free to command, should undertake to administer medicines and erect buildings according to his whim—at grave peril of his poor patients' lives, and the speedy collapse of his edifices".
The same would be true if the demos were substituted for the despot.
As for public misunderstandings, to blame scientists is largely to misinterpret their role. Of course scientists should be as open as possible. It is wonderful when someone such as the late Peter Medawar or, to put it in present terms, people such as Richard Dawkins or Robert Winston enthuse the public about science. But communication is not the primary job of scientists. That is to do good science. Einstein was not a worse scientist because he did not speak like Demosthenes or write like Jane Austin. The way in which the public learn about science is, and will always primarily be, through the media. Scares about GM food, pesticides, the MMR vaccine and mobile phone masts are not the fault of scientists but of the media.
4.38 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, I join the expressions of gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, for initiating this debate. We were undergraduate scientists together at the University of Oxford in the early 1970s. I do not believe that we met, although there was a well worn path between Merton and St Hilda's in those days. While the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, went on to be one of the foremost scientists of her generation, my science remained largely at the equivalent level of the amoeba or the speck of plankton as I wandered off into the outer darkness which some, at least, associate with theology.
The point that I wish to make concerns the impact of science on modern western culture and, increasingly, on our global culture. The historian John Roberts once identified three key features which have shaped modern western culture. The first, he said, was science and technology; the second, the idea of the individual; and the third, simply the sheer power of modern western culture—a power which derives its main economic, technological and military strength from science itself.
Of those three shaping features, two are centrally concerned with science. Whether or not we recognise it—I agree that most people do not—to echo the comments of the noble Baroness, science is mainstream in our society. We easily forget that modern experimental science is a relatively recent arrival on the stage of history in 16th and 17th century Europe. Paradoxically, it seems to have required a break from ecclesiastical authority—one thinks, indeed, of Galileo. It also drew strength from a revised doctrine of creation, which freed itself from the rationalism and sacramentalism of the mediaeval view and emphasised, in Judaeo-Christian terms, that
662
creation was rational but, because it was the product of God's free will, it had to be investigated. One could not predict what one would find.
As such, science had to break free from some well established habits of thinking. For example, for 2,000 years astronomers assumed that the motion of the planets must be circular because, a priori, circular motion was the most natural and regular until Kepler came along, puzzling over some discrepancies in the data for the movement of Mars, and realised that an elliptical orbit would account for the facts. He wrote about that using mystical phrases of great rapture as he reflected upon the mystery of the Creator's hands, laid bare by human inquiry.
If we are to improve the public standing and understanding of science we need to start by recapturing something of that sense of celebration of science on its own terms, as a public good in its own right, just as we admire great art or, indeed, great sporting success. Science is not there just to supply the fuel of economic or military might or to help us live longer—God help us. It is a human achievement of the first order which shapes and transforms our culture. It gives a slightly odd impression that the Minister responsible is located in the DTI—I realise that there are many questions over where the Minister should be located—which can feed that rather over-pragmatic view of science.
That leads to the view that science should not be over-regulated. That, indeed, tends to kill the true spirit of scientific discovery as it did in Soviet Russia. There needs to be a broad public debate about science policies and the implications of scientific advance, particularly in sensitive areas such as genetic research. With hindsight, feeding animal remains to herbivores should have raised more debate before the disaster of BSE was upon us. Patience and caution with GM foods seems sensible, if frustrating for some, until we know more, although it needs to be considered case by case.
However, let us not reinforce by unnecessary suspicion what C.P. Snow used to call "the two cultures", with science and broader culture hardly in conversation. That conversation needs to have two partners. In a democracy there is a need to listen openly to what voters and taxpayers think. For example, although I agree that the lay voice in determining resource allocation should be strictly limited, it seems to me that scientific communities should not be too reluctant to encourage research into areas upon which mainstream science can tend to look down. Wider society has a growing interest in alternative medicine and complementary therapies, for example. If the head of Glaxo is correctly reported as believing that up to half the recipients of conventional drugs do not benefit from them, it does at least strengthen the case for research into a full range of possible treatments. That is not necessarily to pander to the politicised groups to which the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, rightly referred. Perhaps the Minister might remark on that in his reply.

663
The importance of giving science and the scientific community a clearer and more prominent place in society in whatever way can be devised—including, therefore, in our political life—is greater than ever. In some respects, not least in the media, we seem to be sinking into a world where perceptions matter more than truth, a world which Groucho Marx memorably captured when he said, "Are you going to believe what you see or what I am telling you?"
Science educates our eyes and minds and has brought great benefits to our lives. We should celebrate its achievements and, as a society, take great pride in them. That is the beginning of the wisdom on this subject.
4.44 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, in her excellent speech the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, spoke about the differences in outlook between scientists and politicians. I agree that by their very nature scientists tend to take a long-term, more expert view and politicians a shorter-term view. But it was ever thus. It is inherent in the nature of democracy.
However, there is a more basic problem relating to communication between scientists and politicians, which needs addressing; that is, neither science nor politics speaks with a single voice. On virtually every science issue there are competing claims and different views, not only on questions of science. There are diverse views on related matters such as ethics, the environment, ecology, finance, social considerations, and sometimes there is just plain personal prejudice. That does not apply only to scientists. Politicians are equally at odds with each other. As noble Lords know, it is possible that the Government may not have a single view on a scientific issue despite all the efforts at joined-up government.
So the communication problem is not only between scientists and politicians but between scientist and scientist and politician and politician. We need look no further than the MMR vaccine dispute. Some of us may want scientific matters to be decided by scientists and political matters to be decided by politicians. But life does not fit into those neat compartments. Science and politics have become intermingled because of the perceived risks. The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, spoke of that.
At the end of the day decisions and choices have to be made. A politician or a scientist has to decide. They have to assess and judge the competing claims and choose. That is what they were elected or appointed to do and that is what they are paid to do.
It is in that process of assessing, choosing and deciding between those often opposing views that all the various organisations which have been set up to inform, facilitate and help make those choices, are so valuable. The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST), the Foundation for Science and Technology, the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, the British Association, the Royal Institution, Dr King's office, the scientific advisers and
664
the Select Committees of both Houses all play a valuable role in helping scientists and politicians assess competing claims and make a choice.
But there is more to be done. Winning the argument is not enough. Not only do you have to win the argument; you have to win the hearts and minds. That is where the 1,000 blooms mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, do invaluable work. Winning hearts and minds involves tricky and difficult matters such as trust, being perceived as honest, working for the public interest rather than private or vested interests, keeping promises and learning from mistakes.
An enormous amount of work goes into achieving that. Work also goes into assessing the different views of scientist and scientist and politician and politician. I hope that the Minister will agree that all that work must be an instrument for good because it provides a mechanism for improved communication between scientists and politicians. It is an instrument which will help to win the hearts and minds of the public, resulting in more public confidence and trust in the scientific policies and the decisions made on the public's behalf. I think that that is the whole purpose of the question asked by the noble Baroness.
4.48 p.m.
Lord Chan: My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lady Greenfield on securing this important debate and being the catalyst in bringing together scientists and politicians.
The UK is one of the world's leading countries in science and scientific research, as evidenced by the impressive number of Nobel prizes awarded to our scientists in the past and particularly this year. The difficulties between scientists and politicians have been expertly outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield. The excellence of our scientists has not been translated into large-scale manufacture of scientific inventions in the UK. Too often our innovative scientific discoveries, such as the computer and computerised scanning machines used in medical diagnosis, have been manufactured abroad with little or no economic benefit to the nation. The Lambert report has outlined some solutions. But one cause of this discrepancy lies in the inadequate communication between research scientists and politicians as well as the different interests of the two groups.
The language of scientists is technical and difficult for the non-scientist to understand. As most politicians are lawyers, it is not surprising that communication between scientists and politicians is at best limited, particularly in the light of the ethos of science and the strategy of politicians to gain support from the public, especially those who would exercise their vote through the ballot box.
I shall draw on the experience of communication between medical scientists and other professionals, including politicians, to illustrate an increasingly effective communications strategy that can be adopted by research scientists in non-medical fields. Of course, I admit that health, and in particular the NHS, attracts

665
public attention easily because it affects the lives of people more overtly than basic scientific research. But that perception can be improved, as the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, has outlined.
In the NHS, medical and scientific terms are kept to the essential minimum in written reports and in discussions between clinical medical and non-medical managerial staff. Awareness of significant issues in medical science when applied to patient care has clearly improved over the past six years. The dissemination of these reports on easily accessible computer websites such as those of the Department of Health, the Royal Colleges and the professional associations, has made it easy for the public to read them. As a result, questions are asked by constituents of their local MP and newspapers also focus on issues relating to diagnostic tests, treatment regimes and the outcomes of treatment. Whether these websites influence a better understanding of scientific policy is debatable, but they are useful for getting the public to consider scientific advances that affect their lives and well-being.
Next, local Members of Parliament meet regularly with NHS primary care trust chairs and chief executives in Merseyside. These meetings focus on the implementation of improvements for the benefit of patients. MPs are very supportive of the work done by PCTs and demonstrate their commitment by asking questions of health Ministers in Parliament, such as on cigarette advertising and smoking in public places.
The parallel to this type of contact and communication in basic science would involve heads of science departments in universities meeting their local MPs in order to explain their work and to emphasise important issues that can be pursued in Parliament. The noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, focused on that aspect. Apart from the usual concerns, these meetings could focus on the findings of scientific research done locally. The application of such research would be of interest to all informed people, including MPs.
The positive results of this level of involvement are clearly seen in Parliament. New Peers from the world of scientific research appointed to the House of Lords would strengthen links between Parliament and politicians and scientists. The Science and Technology Committees of both Houses of Parliament would no doubt respond positively when contacted with proposals for discussion on scientific policies by universities, scientific academies and the Royal Society.
Finally, the proliferation of all-parliamentary groups on various medically related issues should serve as an encouragement to scientists and science-related charities as well as august scientific bodies to lobby MPs and Peers.
I look forward to the Minister giving his view on how some of these lines of communication can be beneficial to a better understanding between scientists and politicians.
4.54 p.m.
Lord Waldegrave of North Hill: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I congratulate and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, for the debate.
I start by picking up one point made by the noble Lord, Lord Chan—and thoroughly agreeing with it; namely, if we are to have an appointed House of Lords, surely an ideal way to bring forward leading scientists and technologies is by strengthening the already powerful voices already in the Chamber. In my five minutes I want to make two points: one institutional point and one anecdotal.
I shall deal with my institutional point first. I have the honour to be the president of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee. My role is exactly as described by my title: I preside while others do the work. Mr Richard Page MP has recently taken over as chairman from Mr Ian Gibson MP, who has been absolutely admirable for the past three or four years. I am sure that Richard Page will do an equally good job. I would like to mention Alan Whitehouse and Annabel Lloyd who do the day-to-day work. Among other things, they produce the excellent magazine, Science in Parliament. That enables me to make my first point.
If we look in Science in Parliament, on page 64 we find in the Science Diary a plethora of very good organisations in this country, which do excellent work, with lists of admirable meetings bringing politicians, scientists, engineers and academics together. There is the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee itself, the Royal Society and the National Institution, over which the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, presides.
So my first message is that we should not invent more institutions or reinvent the wheel, but that we should put new tyres, if necessary, on the wheels we have. These are excellent institutions. The meetings listed on these back pages go right across the spectrum of what any intelligent group of people would want to see discussed between politicians, scientists and technologists. So if there is more money to be found and more energy to be expended, let us use it in revitalising those institutions which already carry great loyalties and have great achievements behind them.
The second of my interests, or hats that I wear today, is as chairman of the Trustees of the National Museum of Science and Industry, known to most people as the Science Museum. I believe, as the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, said, that, fundamentally, politicians respond to an educated population in these areas. No more powerful institution exists in this country for the education of the population in science and technology than the Science Museum, with its great family of museums: in York—the railway museum; and in Bradford, the photographic, film and television museum.
However, we have a problem. I must mention it in passing. We are presently funded by the Government on the basis that we would get, after pre-entry, about 1.8 million more visitors. In total, we have about 3 million visitors, which is a success for the Government's policy, but it means that there is a

667
tremendous strain on all the modern interactive exhibits and functions we have in those museums which are targeted at introducing children. We have 1.5 million children passing through the museum every year. The exhibits and so on are getting worn out. I welcome the fact that we are overwhelmed with people, but we must be funded for the level of success that the Government's own policy has produced.
I pass on quickly before we get into trouble with the Treasury. But the point is a real one: the Science Museum's origins were in helping science teachers to teach science in schools. They used to come to the Science Museum and borrow exhibits to take to the classroom. We do it in rather more modern ways now. We have millions of hits on our websites and so on. The power of that institution for good in educating the population in science is still very great.
I turn to my anecdotal evidence. The Chief Scientific Adviser, who has rightly been referred to. should in my view amuse himself by developing a code for Ministers on how to interact with science. The first thing he should say to Ministers dealing with science is, "Pay no attention to me as chief scientist, distinguished though I am—even if I am the noble Lord, Lord May of Oxford—because I am now a former scientist. I am your adviser, so I am not practising science".
Secondly, he should say, "You should pay a great deal of attention to me in finding the scientists to whom you should listen. Do not allow your generalist civil servants or me to mediate. Go out and listen to them yourselves". Then he should say, "Find the troublesome ones. Find the outlier, who all the chaps and chapesses in the Royal Society say is a little potty", because just every now and then he or she turns out to be right. It is quite a good idea to listen to them. Sometimes they are potty, but often they are not. Frequently they are like Galileo, who was wrong about most things, but was right about one very important thing. So, it is very important, not to over-listen to outliers, but to listen to them.
One should then seek to protect oneself—as one will always want to as a politician—not in the bogus authority of a single scientific view which never exists, but by laying an open audit trail of how one would reach the rational decision. That is the best protection one can have. Remember never to talk about "100 per cent", "total certainty", or to say that anything is "totally safe". Finally, remember that one cannot get the scientists to take the decision; that is your job.
5 p.m.
Lord May of Oxford: My Lords, applications of advances in scientific understanding have offered and continue to offer many possibilities for making life better in both developed and developing countries. But, as the past century has shown, they also run the risk of unintended adverse consequences, of which climate change and diminishing biological diversity are but two among several. So the real question is how do we learn to do a better job of asking which doors to open and which doors to leave closed?
668
In all such decisions, scientific facts and scientific uncertainties set the stage, putting constraints on the possible choices. Ideally, a drama of public debate and democratic choice is then played out on that stage. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, that science has a special role in framing the stage. But science has no special voice in making the choices, which usually rest on values, beliefs and feelings.
I take a more up-beat view than many of the previous speakers in the debate in that I believe the UK public—or, to be more accurate, the many different UK publics—and the present UK Government, including our excellent science Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, have done rather well in framing and openly conducting recent debates, for example, on stem cell research, on aspects of new methods of genetic modification of crops and much else. Lapsing into my characteristic mode of academic patronising utterance, I would give them an A-/B +. That has to be read against the fact that I am not a victim of grade inflation and that I would give most other countries a C or a D or, in some notable cases, a resounding F.
Indeed, pausing for a commercial while at the same time confessing an interest, I believe that the Royal Society in particular has played an active—and sometimes an aggressive and energetic—part in some of these debates. Even so, the best such debates remain clouded by at least three kinds of misunderstanding.
The first misunderstanding is that the public do not trust scientists. People have always distrusted "the new", but in earlier times they expressed their distrust in a greatly more draconian manner—for instance, in the burning of Bruno. Galileo, who has been referred to repeatedly in the debate, merely got shut in his house and was asked to mumble the truth under his breath. A couple of centuries ago there were riots in the streets when vaccination first appeared.
Many recent polls show that the general public believe that,
"scientists and engineers make a valuable contribution to society"—
84 per cent according to one poll—and that,
"scientists want to make life better for the average person"—
64 per cent according to the same poll. But, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, reminded the House, the same people worry that the pace of scientific advice today is too fast for the Government to keep up with effective oversight and regulation. That is a worry that strikes me as sensible.
The second misunderstanding is that people would worry less if only they knew more about science. In fact, polls—especially polls in different countries of the European Union—show that the more the general citizenry know about science the more they worry. As I am sometimes misunderstood, I hasten to add that I am not advocating that we therefore educate people less in science; quite the contrary. The finding makes a great deal of sense. The more you know about science, the more you worry about unintended consequences.

669
The third and most difficult misunderstanding was touched upon by the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, at the outset—that is, the widely held feeling that science is about certainty. After all, that is how we meet it in school; mostly in university; certainly on quiz shows. You cannot run a quiz show without there being a lack of ambiguity in the answers. But, in its essence, science is much more about asking questions than about certain answers.
That is not to say that the result of many past questions, systematically pursued through fact-based observations and experiments, is knowledge that today is effectively certain—the second law of thermodynamics; the inverse square law of gravitation; that HIV causes AIDS. The problem is that many of the contemporary issues that bear upon us—should we worry about mobile phones; will GM crops further intensify agriculture and harm the environment; can adult cells deliver the benefits we look to from embryonic stem cells?—lie at or beyond the frontiers of knowledge. Here it is vital that we are clear about what is known, what questions remain open and how we are seeking to address them.
The problem is not helped by people—many of them well intentioned—who derive absolute certainty from fixed ideological positions that override any experimental fact. But it is on this cluttered, messy stage that the debates of choice must be conducted. I believe that the world will be a better place for all of us by advancing such debates in an open and committed manner.
5.6 p.m.
Lord Stone of Blackheath: My Lords, the seminal Science and Society report also revealed something quite sinister. It recognised that if scientists continue to be vilified in the media and by pressure groups, people would eventually lose faith in science and we would lose an invaluable aid to government decision making.
Since then I have had the privilege of working with the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, helping the Royal Institution to set up its high-quality science media centre. As has been said, it has continued effectively to equip the public with the tools necessary to comprehend the frameworks which guide scientists in their work and, in doing so, dramatically to improve the understanding of how science interacts with politics.
The Scientific Alliance is another young organisation that has been doing just this within environmental politics. Working with it has brought two things into focus for me. First, that people should know that science does not purport to be an ineluctable set of truths. They should know this but know how scientists advise politicians and how politicians try to act upon that advice to the wider benefit of society. Secondly, as an entrepreneur, I realise that I have something to say on the risk and risk avoidance that the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, said was at the heart of today's debate. We should accept that sometimes there is an even greater risk in not taking a risk.
670
So as regards "risk", it is the responsibility of politicians, with the advice of scientists, to communicate the level of risk to the public on issues. Scientists are guided by risk assessment in their work and I believe that politicians should apply this notion as well.
But politicians, faced with emotional arguments from lobby groups and the media, have turned to the precautionary principle too often and too strongly. Sensationalist media suggest that because scientists cannot prove something to be 100 per cent safe one must assume that it is positively dangerous. Consequently, the public start to lose trust in the science itself.
In defence, scientists desperately try to balance the debate but often they lack the specialist skills and the huge resources available to lobby groups. Scientists are taught to be tentative and most do not talk in "sound-bites", but science is the best mechanism we have to provide us with a balanced version of the risks and opportunities. If we try to apply the precautionary approach to all advances, we shall cease to exist as a modern society.
I am no scientist—in fact, I was banned for life from the school biology lab for a transgression—but, in my own field of retailing, to create billions of pounds each year of innovative consumer products we must take risks. Fashion is fickle and, in textiles and foods, a new product cannot be tested to death. We have to rely on forward-looking designers for appearance and applied science from experienced technologists for performance. Neither can give a 100 per cent guarantee. You take their best advice and then you make the best decision and take the risk. Making the wrong decision can cause a set-back, but even worse damage can be done by not taking the decision at all or simply going for the safest option. That can bring down the whole company. If we want to make progress, risk cannot be avoided or evaded.
In medical health—as an example of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Chan—I am chairman of a ground-breaking charitable project called DIPEx, which stands for "direct personal experience of illness". We use science to help to talk about risks so that the public can make informed choices. DIPEx allows people who have been diagnosed with a life-threatening condition or illness to see other patients' experiences on video. That helps them to understand the risks when making very hard decisions at critical times and how to live with their conditions. Our site is now accessed by 300,000 people a month. The science and technology involved is highly sophisticated, but the site lets people understand it in their own terms.
Finally, we have mentioned schools and universities. Our education system also has a role to play in enabling understanding of scientific method. We must shift how we teach our children about science. When we teach English literature or history in schools, we do not expect all pupils to become novelists or historians. Instead, we teach everyone about the methodology underlying literary criticism or historical investigation, so that they can appreciate those paradigms and how they fit with society.

671
We need the same approach to science education. New science will prepare all children with the tools to appreciate what methods science uses and what that can do for society. We must also, as the organisation Enquiring Minds suggests, allow students to perform their own experiments outside the laboratory and let them understand that results in science are not always black and white, but sometimes fuzzy.
In conclusion, within my five minutes, we should take the informed, balanced and expert advice that only science can provide, not ask scientists to decide on policy or blame them when things go wrong. We should help scientists to clarify their message in the public sphere and make clear that scientific interpretations change over time. Finally, as politicians, we should be sufficiently confident in the public to share with them the risks attached to new medicine and technologies and to engage in reasoned debate on the risks that we need to take as a society. Society's future depends on that.
5.12 p.m.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, as a non-scientist, I add my warm congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, and other speakers, all eminent and many specialists in the field. I also join the noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave, in paying tribute to Dr Ian Gibson, a Member of another place. He is a rare example of someone who successfully combines party politics and science, which is one reason why he is much in demand in the media, like the Minister and others joining in today's debate. It is vital to tackle communication breakdown between academia in general, but science and medicine in particular, and the wider general public, including politicians and policy makers. Otherwise, that can lead to errors that, as we know, sometimes have serious or tragic results.
For that to happen, trust and transparency are essential. We know that the public do not trust either scientists or politicians after the many recent scares— BSE, MMR, the US Navy ships to be broken up here, and so on. There are many such examples. But the fault is often as much with scientists as with anyone else. They must learn to communicate with politicians: to speak their language when selling new ideas and discoveries to their customers, which is what the politicians are.
We have not yet really learned the lessons from the misunderstandings of science after such recent scares. One obvious example of what can go wrong is when clinical trials exclude certain sectors of the population—for example, people over 65. Those people may well benefit most from the treatment being tested, but we do not get a chance to know that. By the same token, they can suffer by being treated in the same way as younger people, with harmful results.
I echo other noble Lords in mentioning the role of the media, which is critical. Evan Davis, the BBC economics editor, spoke recently about trust at the most recent meeting of the All-Party Group on Corporate Social Responsibility, which I am privileged to chair. His point, made about journalists,
672
also applies to politicians. They must trust the information that they are given; they must know that it is accurate and balanced. In other words, they need to know the other side of the story if they are to be able to give an informed view.
Along with the noble Lord, Lord Stone, I welcome the initiative of the Science Media Centre, involving the Royal Institution, where great efforts are made to raise the level of debate in the media about scientific issues, so that they are not always reported hysterically or in an unbalanced way, as has happened too many times. A good example is the work of Palab Ghosh, the BBC's science correspondent, who makes science come to life and meaningful to a wide audience.
Related to the issue of trust and balance is the accountability of non-governmental organisations. They have a right to put their case to the media and the wider public, but that must be based on accurate information given to relevant journalists and must acknowledge the other side of the story. I here follow the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Taverns. It is difficult for scientists and politicians to know how to handle powerful campaigning and lobby groups that are trusted more than themselves and which, as we know, can hype up a cause with no direct responsibility for the wider impact of their campaign. I speak here as the former head of a campaigning charity and an international NGO.
As well as the media, NGOs and the public, I agree that it is not just politicians but their civil servants, advisers, researchers and so on who need to understand the basic aims and methods of science and their context. That starts in schools, where many young people still drop science too early, especially between 14 and 16, although that is set to improve greatly, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, so eloquently stated. As Ian Gibson has put it, it is important to recognise the "dual purpose" of science education: obviously, to further specific scientific study; but also to enhance society's wider scientific literacy. That must help to remove the hostility and suspicion of science among the general public.
There are some interesting lessons to learn from the conclusions of the inquiry on science education of the Science and Technology Select Committee in another place in the previous Session. I hope that we will hear from the Minister how that report has been followed up since its publication.
Lastly, I mention higher education. Is it too much to suggest that we might again build up the role of the new universities—the old polys—as the primary resource and centre for excellence for applied science and technology for vocational careers, giving the best of them the status of some of the great polytechnics across the Channel?
This debate is important because science and technology are central to our lives. It could equally have centred on many other areas of life where better understanding and interpretation are needed so that we can restore authority and respect to those who have the power to shape our future—both as scientists and as politicians.
5.18 p.m.
Lord Winston: My Lords, we all owe the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, a debt for introducing this important debate. There is no doubt that something of a crisis is affecting trust in science, the advice given by scientists and, indeed, the recruitment of scientists to university.
My noble friend Lady Jay mentioned stem cell and embryo research as being two outliers that do not follow the normal pattern in that they have been accepted by the public. I suspect that that is partly because government were largely uninvolved in those debates and partly because the public well understood that that research was potentially of great benefit. That was an example of genuine dialogue—a matter to which I shall return shortly.
However, as many speakers, especially the noble Lord, Lord May, said, communication is only the tip of the iceberg. As he said, it seems that the more knowledge, the more distrust—something to which he referred in his Royal Society presidential speech last year and again today. We scientists have to learn something that will be difficult and take a considerable time. It was addressed in the Science and Society report so able chaired by my noble colleague—may I call him a friend?—Lord Jenkin.
First, we scientists will have to show much greater sensitivity to ethics and ethical attitudes—that will be clear. Secondly, we must reinforce public ownership of science, which will be even more difficult. With all due respect to the Minister, my noble friend Lord Sainsbury, it is not right to say that the Government were generous with their science funding. We are extremely grateful to the Minister, but the Government are spending the taxpayers' money, so it is the public who support science. As scientists, we are servants of society, not primarily servants of government. We need to keep a distance from government, which will be a very difficult act. It will be even more difficult for us to demonstrate that sometimes the public will take views that we do not share because they want to have ownership of science. I argue, therefore, that we need to retain independence of government.
As mentioned, we must recognise that science is not certain. The problem is that the Government and Ministers want black and white, another reason for our being wary of being too much in the government pocket. We must also avoid exaggeration and over-confidence. Ministers want that, and we are too ready to ascribe to it, because funds may chase that exaggeration, but we should be very wary. With all due respect to my friend the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, in some ways I regret signing the letter about genetically modified foods because, as scientists, we showed a degree of arrogance and a failure to recognise that we need to indulge in much greater dialogue.
Another reason to be careful of government is that, above all, we must beware of commercial concerns, which increasingly drive science. Not unreasonably, the Government, and future governments, will wish to stimulate commerce, because it is one way of driving universities. But it is a danger for us. One of the clear
674
reasons why GM foods received such a disastrous scientific assessment by the public was that they saw no value to them but saw the risk of commerciality.
As my friend Professor Kathy Sykes of Bristol University has said, it is important to engage in dialogue. Recently, in her inaugural lecture, she said that we should not underestimate the public—my goodness, that is right. It would be good to see more universities such as Bristol University indulge actively in that activity, helping to identify concerns and issues and trying to get proper representation of the public, not merely pressure groups.
There are certain things that we should be doing. First, we should advance ethical debate. We need to establish informal links between scientists and Members of Parliaments, as the Royal Society has already started to, which might be done in many ways. We must train scientists, who are not ready to express themselves and do not readily listen to the public. We need more university investment in engagement. Perhaps we should revisit the research assessment exercise, which inhibits many who might engage with the public from doing so. As has been said, we as scientists must understand the nature of science. So often we do not understand it; we present it as black and white.
Finally, we must listen; we must recognise that other members of the public may not share our view and that we may have to abandon some advances, even though we think that they are right to pursue. Above all, we must allow time. That is not an easy exercise and it will take considerable time to get the public to see that we have good faith in what we are doing. One thing that we are doing badly is failing to recognise where scientific problems and issues may lie in the future and getting ahead of the game.
5.24 p.m.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, forgive me for focusing my remarks on medical science in my noble friend's important and timely debate. There is good and bad science. Just because a result is statistically significant does not mean that it is biologically important. Scientific evidence is different from legally admissible evidence; it is a pity that the same word is used to describe very different concepts. Good science may defend policy or explain policy change.
The peer review system for looking at results is not perfect, but it is the best that we have. Many medical journals, such as the Lancet, have fast-track quality control for important results. During the SARS outbreak, that system was evident.
How can scientists and politicians communicate in a common language? The strength of research evidence can be graded, from level I—the randomised controlled trial at best—to level IV, at weakest. Some therapies have a powerful placebo effect, which is probably mediated by the dopaminergic reward mechanisms in the human brain, and relate to the expectation of clinical benefit, explaining why people feel better when taking something although the purported effect is absent. Level II evidence is often

675
the only practical way in which to collect data. Dramatic results in uncontrolled experiments, such as the introduction of penicillin treatment in the 1940s, could be regarded as that type of evidence; it should not be discounted. Politicians often receive expert opinion, or level III evidence. Level IV evidence, the anecdote, may mislead.
Guidance can be graded from A—strong supporting evidence—to C, when the jury is out. Grades D and E highlight fair to good evidence to support rejecting something.
As well as interpreting and weighting evidence, the major challenge is how to communicate risk to politicians and thence to the public, a topic highlighted by several noble Lords. Palab Ghosh recommended the establishment of a dedicated hotline for journalists to speak directly to a scientific adviser when there was a threat to the nation's health. A fast-moving, breaking story has far more media impact than scientific papers. Websites are inadequate in a crisis because they get jammed. People trust anecdotes from friends and family and, to an extent, they trust their doctors and the media, but they mistrust messages from politicians. The trusted unscientific anecdote from family and friends may be due to chance but it forms a powerful message.
Several noble Lords have highlighted that risk information must be presented in an understandable format. A community risk scale may help to link to the power of the anecdote. In the scale, the risk magnitudes are anchored via a community cluster classification. The verbal risk scale "one per street", "one per town", "one per country" has its numeric equivalent based on the underlying probabilities. The Richter scale for earthquakes is logarithmic, so the concept of gradient is broadly understood, as it is the only scale in common use—even though the logarithmic basis is not understood by many people.
The numeric scale can be translated into a community concept as follows: one in 10 is one person in a family affected; one in 100 is one person in a street; one in 1,000 is one person in a village; one in 100,000 is one person in a large town; one in 3 million is about one person in Wales; and one in 50 million is about one person in England.
The community risk scale shows, for example, that in any year in Britain you can expect that around one person in your street will die; one person in your nearest large town will be murdered; and one person in a whole region, or five in England—one in 10 million—will be killed by lightning. Claims of a doubling of risk are beloved of reporters, headline writers and sometimes fundraisers but they help no one, as they do not contextualise the risk. Reports of cures can be singularly irresponsible; sometimes they are simply a chance variation in a spectrum, yet they are hailed as a miracle. A unified format of risk scale such as the community scale may help to convey complex messages.
Sir Kenneth Caiman described working with the media to convey information as having three phases. The first is the anticipatory phase, in which it is not
676
clear whether there is a problem. The next is looking at whether evidence about a problem has built up. Lastly, the audit phase—the one often forgotten—means looking back to ask whether the process could have been handled better. Good communication is a two-way process: it entails the giving of information, the understanding of that information and then feedback. Perhaps scientists and politicians would do well to try to develop a common language of risk.
5.29 p.m.
Lord Oxburgh: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lady Greenfield for initiating this debate and for opening it in such a stimulating manner.
At the very broadest level, science policy-making has two broad strands. The Government have to consult as they see fit and propose policy. Then they have to get people, Parliament and the electorate to accept it. It is at that second stage that a whole swathe of interested parties become publicly involved— NGOs, experts of differing degrees of expertise, industrial or other lobbying groups, and, of course, radio and television. Unfortunately, what sells newspapers and draws audiences is confrontation, and the temptation to stir up a controversy, even if one does not really exist, can be irresistible.
At least in part, the ill-informed level of public debate that we sometimes experience today is the consequence of unrealistic expectations of science. Those disappointed expectations arise less from an ignorance of science than from a misunderstanding of what science can provide.
Science and mathematics are increasingly lonely in the school curriculum as subjects in which answers may be right or wrong. This may make them unattractive to study but, more seriously, it can leave pupils with an impression, which remains with them for life, that, because the tools of science are rigorous, science, if it is done properly, can give clear answers. That thought is commonly implicit in the approach of the popular media to science today. It can lead to the conclusion that, when scientists do not give clear answers, they are either devious or incompetent, which is not always the case.
Science depends on making careful observations and collating them in a systematic way. They then form a common ground on which conclusions may be based. The conclusions reflect the knowledge and experience of the person deriving them and sometimes there is plenty of room for differences of interpretation. This is the stuff of science and of scientific argument and debate. Debate often leads to consensus or near-consensus. However, such is the passion or sometimes arrogance of some members of the scientific community that, having failed to convince their peers, they appeal to the media. The crusaders appear. The media love it—I am mindful of the debate surrounding MMR and mobile phones—and it becomes a matter of black and white certainties, and adversarial debates with sound bites on the "Today" programme, and an audience that is left more worried than ever about who to believe.

677
What should be done? As noble Lords have pointed out, a great deal of the responsibility rests with the scientific community itself, but in the limited time available I shall not address that. There is a plethora of organisations seeking to improve the quality of public debate. I shall mention only two in connection with which I must declare an interest; namely, POST and SETNET. POST, the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, is an independent advisory body with a small permanent staff and a transient population of students and post-doctoral workers. It works by producing short briefing notes in non-specialist language on technical matters that may bear on policy. They are available on the web and aim to be clear, authoritative, independent, timely and above all brief.
In my experience, parliamentarians are invariably short of time and the number of references to POST in Hansard, especially in the other place, attests to its value. POST has built a truly enviable reputation and has served as a model for similar offices in other parliaments.
At the other end of the spectrum we have to think about science in schools. A reasonable understanding of what science can and cannot do should be part of the education of all. SETNET tries to help with this. It is an organisation supported by government, industry, charities and all the main engineering and scientific institutions. It provides practical support for teachers by making possible a wide range of extra-curricular STEM activities, particularly in collaboration with local industry. In their different ways, both POST and SETNET make their contributions to improving the quality of the STEM debate, a need that is shared by all developed countries. It really amounts to recognising that, as in many walks of life, asking the right questions is more than half way to getting the right answers.
5.36 p.m.
Lord Turnberg: My Lords, I am also most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, for raising this important question. I must admit that I am a little sceptical about whether the answer to all our problems lies in better communication between scientists and politicians. One of the major dilemmas facing politicians is that they have to try to sell seemingly unpopular policies and, let us face it, science is not always popular. As politicians always have to have at least one eye on the ballot box, there is a calculation to be made about the impact of their policies on public opinion.
Unfortunately, there are enough divisive policies around—on the euro, the Iraq war and so forth—for governments to be wary of taking on any more. The GM crop issue may seem relatively small beer in a politician's grand scheme of things. However, at the end of the day, that approach is bad—bad for the public, for science, for UK plc and for government.
A few weeks ago, an enormous amount of misinformation and nonsense was put out by the anti-GM lobby in the wake of a report on GM crops, which
678
had briefly emerged only to sink below the surface again. In fact, anyone who actually read the report might have come to a quite different conclusion from the view that was publicised so widely. The Government's response has been somewhat muted. However, this is an example of how a vocal, well organised minority pressure group, putting out vast amounts of propaganda, can convince the public that an important scientific advance, with many implications for worldwide nutrition, is dangerous, when all the evidence gathered thus far that can stand up to critical scrutiny points to it being potentially good.
That example is one of many in which important public policy is being blocked. Nuclear fuel is probably the safest and most eco-friendly source of energy, but "nuclear anything" receives such a poor press that progress on policy in that area is so cautious as to be imperceptible. Now we are faced with anti-science groups focusing on nanotechnology and genetic research. Although there are entirely legitimate and reasoned debates to be had on all these scientific developments—about safety, benefits and utility, they are being hijacked by unreason and opinion rather than by fact and evidence.
In my noble friend Lord Sainsbury, we must have one of the most effective and knowledgeable science Ministers we have ever had. We do not need better methods of communicating with him: he is in daily contact with scientists and is doing a marvellous job, as we have heard, in getting more money for research. Perhaps we need better ways of communicating with other Ministers, but, much more importantly, scientists need to consider how best to help politicians with their dilemma of selling science policy to a sceptical public.
Other noble Lords have spoken of trust. Whenever there is a poll of public opinion about who the public trusts, politicians come next to the bottom—just above journalists. A MORI poll showed that only 23 per cent of the public trust politicians to tell the truth, and 15 per cent of the public trust journalists to tell the truth. Scientists do little better; something like 63 per cent trust them to tell the truth. Politicians and scientists need better advocates.
In medical science, I am always struck by how effective patients and their carers are as advocates for medical research. As scientific adviser to the Association of Medical Research Charities, I have attended many meetings at which scientists, politicians and patients have sat together on the platform. No matter how unused to speaking in public the patients are, they are far and away the most convincing promoters of medical research. The message is that, if we want to convince an audience, we should take along a patient. Politicians and scientists in fields other than medicine need better advocates. Perhaps, those supporting GM crops need potential beneficiaries, preferably from the third world.
Being my usual helpful self to the Minister and given my sense of the interesting question raised by the noble Baroness, I believe that scientists should seek the

679
potential beneficiaries of scientific advances to help politicians and scientists through the dilemmas of selling scientific policy.
5.41 p.m.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, I come to this fascinating debate as neither a scientist nor a politician. I am sure that having a degree in natural sciences from Cambridge does not qualify me as a scientist—it certainly should not. Nor, for that matter, does being a hereditary Peer qualify me for being a politician, and I would not wish it to. On the other hand, I served on several science and technology sub-committees of your Lordships' House in the 1980s, and I am a great enthusiast for science and technology—especially the geographical sciences, social and physical—so I was tempted to speak this afternoon, albeit that I am conscious that I speak in a superior league and that much of what I wanted to say has already been gone over.
I want to talk about the dialogue between scientists and politicians, specifically about the venues, which are one of the mechanisms to which the Motion refers. I think immediately of the House itself and of the extraordinarily high quality of some of our debates, including perhaps this afternoon's. Going back a little—perhaps too far—I think especially of the memorable sequence of debates on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill in 1990. I think of the quality of some of the interventions, notably those of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Habgood, who was Archbishop of York and, of course, a professionally distinguished scientist in his own right. It is hard to think of another parliamentary chamber that could have brought such a range of expertise— scientific and ethical—to bear on that sensitive issue.
There is also the Select Committee on Science and Technology, which has produced a wide range of reports in the past 25 years. In the early days, it had important influence, notably in its first report, Science and Government, and it probably still has. I acknowledge the marvellous report produced by the sub-committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, Science and Society. I certainly hope that the Select Committee has influence, but I am not sufficiently au fait nowadays to know. I suggest—I address my remarks to my noble friend Lord Oxburgh—that it might be interesting to research the committee's influence and see how it has changed over the years and how it works, to see whether there are any useful lessons to be learnt.
There is also the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, which is an admirable body. My noble friend Lord Oxburgh referred to it. I also draw attention, as others have done, to the invaluable work of the extra-parliamentary bodies, such as the long-established Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave of North Hill, and the Foundation for Science and Technology, which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, chairs so admirably. I must also mention the recent innovation of dinner discussion sessions on public policy issues at the Royal Geographical Society.
680
All those bodies directly involve scientists and civil servants, as well as parliamentarians from both Houses. They are invaluable and are an important part of the process of dialogue. However, I must raise a question. I have the impression that the rate of attendance and participation by Peers is superior to that of MPs. Having said that, I recognise that there are some notable exceptions. It was nice to see Ian Gibson standing at the Bar at the beginning of the debate. I say it with some trepidation and diffidence, but it is possible that constituency affairs tend to bear down too heavily on MPs. Perhaps, they attract a particular sort of person to becoming an MP. That may be nonsense, but it would be interesting to test the hypothesis. If there is something in it, it would underscore the importance of having a healthy proportion of independents in a reformed House. I shall not pursue that line.
That observation brings me to my final thought: do we have enough scientists in the House? Are they of the right mix? The answer to the second point is that the scientific discipline of a Member does not matter: what matters is that the scientists who come here should have time to be active in what I call the political process, in its various forms. I would be happy to see a few more scientists and, perhaps, one or two professional geographers. On that note, I had better conclude.
5.46 p.m.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, like others far more expert and eloquent than I, I congratulate the noble Baroness on securing this important debate. My purpose is to give technology, as distinct from science, a bit of a look-in. In that context, it is said that politics is the art of the possible. A cynic might conclude that, in an age of massive technological advance, that could translate into a temptation among policy makers and politicians to see how much they can, as it were, get away with, before public consciousness catches up with what is being done in the public's name.
By their very nature, science and technology are catalysts of change. They tend to challenge society's ethical and moral boundaries. Yet, there is an identifiable sense in which public opinion about and understanding of a particular technological development or scientific discovery lags behind the establishment of the policy for it. Increasingly, a subjective approach is adopted by policy makers and politicians: that is to say that a policy objective is formulated which, in turn, drives the technological development, instead of policy being derived seamlessly and coherently from the innovation. It is almost as if research and its results—I include the process of consultation—are geared towards proving the pre-ordained policy aim, rather than informing the development of policy from its infancy and any ensuing debate about the nature of its formulation. Perhaps, that "unrealistic expectation"—to borrow the phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh—can be deemed a mute witness to the autocratic approach that, many would suggest, is in tune with the age in which we live.

681
Importantly and inevitably, such an approach runs the risk of alienating the general public and provoking distrust and scepticism about the wider benefits that technological innovation can provide. It may even go some way towards explaining what the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, referred to as the hostility in the relationship between scientists and politicians. It may explain why the independence of scientists and technologists from government, to which the noble Lord, Lord Winston, referred, is so important.
By way of example, that proposition can be applied to the information and communications technology sector. No one would disagree that ICT has the potential to deliver huge benefits to society, not least in terms of law enforcement, delivery of services and so forth. Indeed, much of government policy is predicated on that basis. At the same time, a great deal of public policy is geared towards the benefit of IT to the state alone, rather than its citizenry as a whole. Perhaps the best way to express that is to say that what could be called "the ethical baseline" of IT has not been established in public policy terms.
In so far as it is simply a medium of communication—a natural progression from letter writing and the telephone and, as such, to be perceived in much the same way as those media—the right of the general public to "ownership" of it has yet to be properly quantified. Accordingly, in that semi-vacuum, the state is afforded—in many respects, has grasped—the opportunity to suborn ICT to its own ends; that is, to treat it as its plaything. The problem here is that that can, and does, have very real and very grave consequences in terms of eroding essential freedoms and civil liberties. Our debates on the RIPA and data retention orders last month exposed that.
In conclusion, I endorse the premise of the noble Baroness's Motion, and the more so if it is geared towards establishing a meaningful dialogue with the general public. To state the obvious, it is essential that policies emanating from scientific and technological discovery are workable and fit-for-purpose. But—in many respects more importantly—such policies can compromise not only the moral sense of society, but also its liberties and freedoms. That makes it all the more crucial that the policies carry the people with them and not leave them trailing in their wake.
5.51 p.m.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, first, I should like to thank my noble friend Lady Greenfield for the opportunity to say a few words about risk. I am on the board of POST; I should like to reinforce the comments made by my noble friend Lord Oxburgh about the excellent work it does in an area of increasing importance. Basic science is not understood by a great number of people. In the debate about antennae, many people did not realise that power decays not lineally with distance from the antenna, but as a square or a cube law. Therefore, it is better to have a great number of low-power antennae than to have one high power antenna. But I shall not go into that.
682
I shall concentrate on the perception of risk because it influences our priorities, as well as those of the media, which distorts the message. It can mean that the public ignore a perfectly sensible message because they intuitively know that the message is exaggerated, to which I shall turn later. We are regulating people's lives more; we are removing the discretion for them to make their own decisions. We think that we know better. Many regulations are based on weighing up the balance of probabilities of some harm occurring to people. I am not sure that we always look at all sides of the equation.
When I take the Tube, I am struck to see escalators boarded up for months on end and to watch poor people stagger down stairs with heavy suitcases. I do not know whether the risk is greater of people dying in a fire because work is being carried out on an escalator during the day or whether more people die through stress and heart attacks because they are struggling up and down stairs when there is no escalator. Someone should do a cost-benefit analysis on that.
It is the expression of probability that is very interesting. I have noticed three areas in particular. First, there is the expression of probability and how it is expressed; that is, relative risk and percentage terms versus natural frequencies, to which I shall turn in a moment. Secondly, there is the illusion of certainty, which is sometimes expressed. Thirdly, there is emotive language, which can influence matters greatly.
We are about to spend money on wonderful new ideas. Taking an example which falls within the IT area, we probably are about to pass laws which will allow the Government and the police to keep DNA fingerprints of everyone. First, I turn to the emotive word "fingerprints", which implies certainty. We are used to it; we think it is guaranteed. But what is the certainty of a match? I am told that it is 99.99998 per cent probable, which sounds like an absolute certainty. But that is a means of expressing a one in 6 million chance, which still sounds a certainty. But, for me, a one in 6 million chance means that there are 10 people who have a DNA match with me in the UK; there are 80 people in the European Union. I would be a little worried about whether I am the right person if that is the main evidence to prosecute me, to chase me or whatever.
Secondly, there is issue of false positives, about which people do not worry. Research was carried out in the O J Simpson trial where some of the laboratories investigated were found to do a one in 200 chance only of producing a false positive. Put like that, any other chances are outweighed altogether. Therefore, certainties must be looked at in a completely different way. Therefore, if certainties are that uncertain, will the risks of uncertainty outweigh the costs that we put into the projects?
I also want to turn to the competition for money. The poor scientists have to exaggerate in order to obtain funding to pay bills and to keep their families happy because they have to compete for money against medical treatments, research and so forth. It is often said that "such and such kills". I notice that

683
around 650,000 people die in the UK every year. Over the long term, that percentage will stay about the same. Otherwise, the population will live longer and longer; that cannot go on ad infinitum. The number of people who die each year will stay roughly the same.
What can be tampered with is the age profile and the cause of death. As my noble friend Lady Finlay pointed out, using relative risk to establish a case is dangerous when competing for money. One might say that there is a 25 per cent reduction in deaths from something. But if there are only four deaths in 100,000 people, saving one person or lengthening their life for a short period at a huge cost may not be cost effective. It may be better to apply money elsewhere.
By nature, I am a risk taker; I have always been like that. Therefore, I prefer to enjoy myself more now and to die younger. That is my personal choice. I eat chocolate; it is full of vitamins and energy. I eat crisps; they keep me awake on long car journeys and I enjoy them as a snack. 1 am married to a chain smoker who would probably die of stress if she gave up—or kill me in fury or something like that. We ate beef throughout the BSE outbreak because the epidemiology did not suggest that we would die instantly, which has been well proven.
I could go on to a great number of other matters, but I was cheered up when I looked at the report,Securing Good Health for the Whole Population. In fact, the main reason why I shall not live to the age of 75 is "others", which is 33 per cent of the reason why my life will be shorter. It is not due to CHD or anything else.
To conclude, a complex network of people who are making individual judgments cannot be controlled by the use of the processes and rules applied to simple systems and we should not expect to predict the outcome. It is important to realise that. We must drop over-regulation, stop exaggerating dangers and allow some creativity to flourish.
5.57 p.m.
Lord Mitchell: My Lords, I, too, must express my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, for introducing the debate. The subject is clear; that is, to examine the mechanisms to improve communication between scientists and politicians with a view to a better understanding of scientific policies. We are privileged that in the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, we have our own living mechanism. The noble Baroness, through her books, her television appearances and, most of all, her brilliant work at the Royal Institution, has done much to give the general public a much better understanding of science.
Since he is in his place, I must also say the same about the noble Lord, Lord Winston, who also captivates the nation with his gripping television programmes. We in this House and the scientific community in general must count ourselves lucky to have such first-class communicators.
Without being too party political, it is fair to say that this Government are well on track to restoring the country's connection to science. For too many years, governments of both parties have relegated science to
684
the bottom of the pile, with the inevitable results; that is, lack of funding, poor salaries and, in particular, lack of vision. For many years, the result was the infamous brain drain. Scientists left for more sympathetic climes, particularly the United States. It is somewhat reassuring that "brain drain" is an expression that one hears less and less. I am not saying that everything in the garden is rosy, but simply that it is getting better.
Today, in conjunction with the regional development authorities, funding is going into science-based industries. The RDAs have taken the lead in ensuring that their regions are encouraging state-of-the art development. Again, it is early days, but the pointers are all in the right direction. Companies— particularly small enterprises—are being encouraged to invest in research and development through the availability of attractive tax incentives. Today, our largest companies—I cite Pharmaceuticals, chemicals, aerospace and petrochemicals—are up there with the world's best.
Big science has also been reinvigorated. Once again, our scientists are able to pursue conceptual science at the very frontiers of knowledge. Particle science, astrophysics and investigation into the nature of matter are areas which for many years have been all but denied to us due to the short-sightedness of all governments. We may not be the world-beaters in all spheres, but the UK is certainly back in business. For this, much of the credit must go to my noble friend the Minister on the Front Bench who, as others have said, as the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science and Technology, has championed this country's scientific excellence.
The essence of this debate is about communication between scientists and politicians and there are many ways in which such communication can take place. Other noble Lords have referred to committees and other formal structures. I should like to consider communication more in terms of being an informal and, indeed, a social activity. In the venture capital community, the benefits of the informal gathering are well known. I am associated with an organisation called the Chemistry Club. It is a monthly gathering of venture capitalists, entrepreneurs and high technology businessmen with, sometimes, the odd Secretary of State thrown in. The venue is a first-class restaurant where the wine is good and the food excellent. The "chemistry" describes how people meet people. The list of attendees is circulated prior to the meeting and each person indicates whom he or she wants to meet. As the evening moves on, the staff make sure that everyone is networked. Such is the way of business: meeting, talking and deciding whether there is anything to pursue. It is my guess that many new alliances are formed on such occasions.
So why not have the same kind of arrangement for scientists to meet politicians and businessmen? Once we get people talking, anything might happen, and certainly such informal meetings allow the juices to flow and ideas to be generated. Most of all, relationships are formed.

685
Much has been written about the excellent review published last week by Richard Lambert. In examining the collaborative relationship between universities and business, Mr Lambert and his committee have painted a picture that is in certain parts upbeat, but in others highlights our lack of achievement, in particular in the area of research and development. However, in my opinion, the most telling point he made is that American universities now acknowledge that their reason for engaging in technology transfer is to serve the public good. For me, that puts it all into perspective: universities with their feet on the ground, involved in their communities and with local business. Bringing public good from the ivory tower into the local community strikes me as a noble cause.
I am currently chairing an investigation on behalf of the Science and Technology Committee of your Lordships' House. We are looking at international treaties which have a high scientific component, concentrating in particular on climate control, biodiversity, whaling, fisheries and the Antarctic and, of course, referring to the treaties and protocols that govern those areas. We are looking at the process of treaties and something that is of specific interest to me: what makes some treaties work and others fail? At this stage we are still making calls for evidence, but we hope to submit our report to your Lordships' House in the early summer. We shall do our best to ensure that our conclusions are clearly communicated to the politicians.
6.3 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, for introducing this extraordinarily interesting debate. I should also declare my interests as a vice-president of the Save British Science society, as a long-term academic in the area of science policy and as a continuing Visiting Fellow of the Science Policy Research Unit at the University of Sussex.
I found the debate very interesting because its focus is, on the one hand, on communication between scientists and politicians, while on the other hand it seeks to address the public understanding not of science itself, but of scientific policies. As a result, I was not quite sure what would be the focus of the debate. In the event, the debate has concentrated on the interaction between scientists and the public while, in a sense, politicians have come out as the piggies in the middle. I agree very much with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord May, that science does not make choices; it merely sets the stage on which Ministers can make those choices.
Turning to the politicians, Ministers are the people who ultimately have to take decisions and make the choices, and they are advised by a plethora of scientific advisers. They are influenced by pressure groups and the general public. My noble friend Lord Taverne observed that the public are very much influenced by the media, although it is notable that none of the media has been present during this debate.
686
The subject of the public understanding of science has come to the fore over the past 10 years or so, in part because—others may hold different views—today science is pushing into the centre many of the issues which, in earlier times, were at the periphery. They were regarded as being ethical issues on which small groups of experts would take a view, but which were not centre stage. Today, however, when we consider issues such as genetic engineering, then we must acknowledge that science turns almost into God; perhaps we shall be able to create people. Therefore scientific issues such as genetic manipulation, in vitro fertilisation and stem cell research have become central questions of scientific policy.
Here I echo the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, who complimented the quality of debate that takes place on such issues in this House. I was not here in the 1980s when the questions surrounding in vitro fertilisation were considered. The guidelines that emerged from those debates, overseen by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, set this country above others in this area. However, I was here for our electric debate on stem cell research. It marked a highlight of my five years in this House.
I am interested in two different aspects of the question of making scientific policy. First, we must address the question of policy making with regard to scientific issues. Here I refer to policies on foot and mouth disease, BSE, in vitro fertilisation and stem cell research. However, the second aspect is one just mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, in his contribution: the Government's policies with regard to the promotion of science; that is, the policies pursued by the Government in order to promote science and technology because of the links between science, technology and innovation and the further link between innovation and competitiveness that was considered in the Lambert report. I could not agree more with the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, that it is an excellent report, although I was slightly depressed about the degree to which our media have portrayed it as being, once again, a question of scientists having to go out and sell their ideas to entrepreneurs, whereas what Richard Lambert seeks to do in his report is to put his finger on the failure of industrialists to pick up and develop those ideas.
I would argue, as did the noble Lords, Lord Jenkin and Lord Waldegrave, that there is no lack of mechanisms for communication between scientists and politicians. As regards scientific policy making, we have a large number of advisory committees of one kind or another—in the main where scientists advise Ministers. Similarly, Parliament is served by parliamentary scientific committees, the Foundation for Science and Technology, the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology—POST—the Royal Society and the Royal Institution, among others. A plethora of organisations seeks to influence politics and politicians. However, I would pose the question of whether that dialogue is getting through.
Let us look at who is in the Chamber today. The noble Lords present comprise largely scientists talking to scientists. One feature that I have noticed in

687
attending the Foundation for Science and Technology, which I much enjoy, or the parliamentary scientific committee, is that there are few politicians there. There are quite a large number of scientific politicians in this House-many of whom are Cross-Benchers and would not say that they were politicians—but relatively few Members of Parliament.
In science policy, we have developed a term, which is not very attractive but picks up what I was saying about the Lambert report. It is called the "absorptive capacity". One problem that we have with British industry is that, because it does not do R&D, it does not employ scientists and engineers, so there is nobody in-house who can understand what is going on and translate it into useful things to do. The industry has to rely on outside experts, who do not always understand what is going on inside. It is a question whether there are receptors for the information as well as people who create that information. One problem is that we lack, particularly within Parliament, the receptors for that information. There are Select Committees, to whose work I pay great tribute, but does that Select Committee advice get through? Are there enough people within the broad area of government—not only Ministers and parliamentarians, but within the Civil Service?
An issue that worries me a little is the way in which we have run down the scientific Civil Service. I quote a paragraph from the cross-cutting report that appeared before the CSR last March. The report stated:
"In order to discharge their function adequately, Chief Scientific Advisers will need appropriate support from scientifically qualified staff. In the period until the 1980s when departments ran their own laboratories, they used those laboratories as a supply of scientific talent to meet their needs for scientific expertise. Most departments no longer run their own dedicated research organisations, and rely on outsiders for this function. Consequently they have lost an important source of supply of experienced scientific talent. And little effort is now made to take a systemic view on the areas of policy that need scientific input, or the critical mass of scientists needed at the science/policy interface".
That report picked up the criticisms that came through from the Phillips report on BSE and were echoed in his comments on the foot and mouth disease.
What do we want to do? First, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and others did, I suggest that we need to consider science education. Great advances have been made in science for primary schools, but there is still a very real problem about science in secondary schools—with the narrowness of the A-level curriculum and the need to broaden it, moving with Tomlinson to something like the international baccalaureate.
Secondly, I echo totally the need for open and ready consultation, debate and dialogue with everyone. I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave. We need an open and clear trail of how decisions are made. Freedom of information is a very important aspect of getting the debate out into the public and getting the public to understand and participate in it.
Thirdly, I wonder why we do not want there to be more interchange between civil servants and academia, in particular. I know that we are bringing
688
people in at chief scientific adviser level, but I should like there to be much more interchange at lower levels. Only when someone spends two to three years in a position does he actually influence decisions and understand how the organisation works; that person needs to influence the organisation as well as saying which decisions should be made.
Lastly, I pay tribute to the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology and to the Minister for Science, because we have seen great advances in developments and thinking about science, technology and innovation from this Government. However, I am extremely worried at the discontinuity between the thinking taking place about universities between the DfES and the Higher Education Funding Council, with its suggestions of concentration of research. In that case, the bodies did not listen to the scientists at all, whereas, in POST, people have been listening to them. That is extremely dangerous for the Government and I suggest that they look hard at it.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, for having initiated this important debate. Certainly, her impressive scientific background qualifies her very well to speak on this subject. That is the first point that I should like to make. In your Lordships' House, on all sides, we have a wealth of scientific expertise, which has been on show today. Indeed, among our Members there is a vast amount of knowledge and experience on every conceivable subject. Many of them have been appointed to this House for life because of the contributions that they have made to the public benefit in their chosen fields. I note what the noble Lord, Lord Chan, and my noble friend Lord Waldegrave said—that there is room still for more scientists.
I agree with the theme of the debate proposed by the noble Baroness—namely, that communication between politicians and scientists could and should be improved. In both Houses, there is a wide range of scientific interests. According to the most recent edition of Vacher's Parliamentary Companion, there are seven categories of scientific interests among Members and, within those seven categories, there are no fewer than 76 sub-categories. They cover every subject from astronomy to water, including some 42 devoted to medicine alone.
Personally, I do not believe that the problem lies— or entirely lies—in a lack of communication between scientists and parliamentarians. My postbag contains an endless supply of briefing notes, information sheets, lobbying data and invitations to attend this or that conference or meeting. I am certain that many of your Lordships, especially those with sufficient interest in scientific subjects to take part in today's debate, have the same experience.
The major problem that the scientific community has in getting a sympathetic hearing lies in ignorance— ignorance among some lay Members of both Houses but, more particularly, ignorance and superstitious prejudice among members of the public. The noble

689
Lord, Lord May, the distinguished President of the Royal Society, writing in an edition of the Parliamentary Monitor, said that science,
"has escaped from the laboratory into public consciousness".
The noble Lord, Lord Winston, speaking in the vivisection debate on 17th October referred to scientists',
"complacent belief that the mere communication of science… is adequate to persuade the public of what we are doing".—[Official Report, 17/10/03; col. 1195.]
To his credit, the noble Lord confessed to his own shortcomings in that respect, although I do not believe that anyone would agree, having seen him on the television. Today he commented on the need for scientists to engage in a dialogue with the public. I believe that most of us would agree with that.
The noble Lord, Lord May, also said in his article that,
"scientific issues are increasingly impinging on public debate".
That is perfectly true, but that public debate often generates more heat than light, to use a well worn cliche. That cannot be entirely blamed on the failure of scientists to communicate with the public adequately—one of the problems highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Winston. It also cannot entirely be blamed on plain ignorance by non-scientific members of the public.
There are a number of sources of positive misinformation or prejudiced propagandising by those with particular axes to grind. For example— without my expressing a personal view on the subject—the public's antipathy to GM foods can clearly be attributed, to a major extent, to a vociferous campaign in parts of the media, which emotively calls them "Frankenstein foods". I note with interest what the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, said on that point.
In the debate on vivisection, reference was made to the terroristic threats against Huntingdon Life Sciences and those who provide them with goods and services, including banking. As the noble Lady, Baroness Warnock, pointed out:
"It might come as a surprise to some of the public if they could be made to understand that many of the animals used suffer nothing".— [Official Report, 17/10/03; Col 1201.]
The fact is that none of those who are vigorously opposed to necessary experiments on animals, and even those who have some vague doubts about them, possibly due to a lot of the black propaganda, ever seem to hesitate to accept the medication and surgical procedures that result from them.
That debate, although on a different topic to the present one, highlighted the same problem that we are discussing today. As my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts reminded the House, your Lordships' report on science and technology in 2002 complained that, "there is a crisis of trust". The noble Lord, Lord May, repeated that today, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross.
The reason for that can partially be found in, for example, the way in which the government of the day tried to sweep the BSE crisis under the carpet, probably at the behest of the penny-pinchers at the
690
Treasury, until they were forced to come clean. The same applied to the present Government when they tried to conceal the extent of the foot and mouth crisis, no doubt with the same puppeteers pulling the purse strings. I mention at this point the reference made by my noble friend Lord Waldegrave to the excellent work of the Science Museum and its influence, which might be the reason for its problems.
To quote again my noble friend Lord Hodgson, these days,
"people are generally more questioning of authority; some Government departments and institutions still operate too much under a culture of secrecy … That all contributes to creating a public suspicion of science and scientists".
Another strong example of that is the controversy surrounding the MMR inoculations. Even the fact that Dr Murch, whose premature report on the vaccines caused that controversy, has now recanted has not allayed public concern. Seemingly, nothing that government scientists say now can overcome the objection of some parents.
On scientific matters, the Government must unequivocally and truthfully clarify the scientific evidence and separate that from the political issues on which they are entitled by their mandate to make a policy decision. The question of the relationship between scientists and politicians is not merely one of each understanding the other and getting the public to understand the issues as well. It is also a matter of the Government understanding their obligation to ensure that British scientific endeavours are fully and effectively exploited for the benefit of British industry and the British economy.
In 1963, Harold Wilson spoke to the Labour Party conference about restating socialism in the white heat of technological revolution. However, when he came to power the following year, matters remained much as they had been before and they have continued in the same way under successive governments of every hue. British scientific and technological discoveries are exported abroad for exploitation because of lack of government support here. We can all recall what happened to the hovercraft, for example.
While the DTI, the department that I shadow in this House, supports the Engineering and Technology Board, my honourable friend the Member for Lichfield pointed out in the same interesting issue of the Parliamentary Monitor that Britain has been left to follow the lead of the USA and Japan in investment and exploitation of new products. The Government's tax credits for small and medium-sized companies involved in research and development have had a disappointing take-up rate because, as Ernst & Young suggests, application for the allowances is such a complicated process.
My honourable friend's article is a powerful argument in support of nanotechnology, a subject of which many parliamentarians may have been blissfully unaware, despite our excellent debate on the subject, instigated by my noble friend Lord Wade of Chorlton on 14th March, when he asked this House to take note of the Science and Technology Select Committee's report, Chips With Everything.

691
As all your Lordships taking part in this debate know, nanotechnology is the manufacture of materials from minute components. As my honourable friend wrote in his article, it has,
"huge consequences for the environment, medicine, warfare, industry and society … and offers a potentially cleaner environment, cleaner products and cleaner processes".
Despite an investment of £28 million at Imperial College over six years, and the announcement of some further £90 million over six years announced by the Government in July, Mark Welland, Professor of Nanotechnology at Cambridge warns that the United Kingdom risks falling behind if it does not, with government and industrial assistance, adopt the right strategy. What is at stake is a global market of some £148 billion by 2010. That is just seven years away. The Labour chairman of the Science and Technology Committee in the other place complained that the Government's support is "minuscule".
The article by the noble Lord, Lord May, pointed out that scientific advancement is impeded also by the dead hand of Brussels bureaucracy, and it warned that the EU directive on good clinical practice could have serious implications for cancer patients and research in the United Kingdom as it effectively stops publicly funded trials
Similarly, although the United Kingdom Parliament has voted, after extensive public debate, to allow research on human embryonic stem cells and therapeutic cloning, a shabby procedural manoeuvre in the European Parliament puts that at risk. It seems that our scientists will have to improve their PR with the European Parliament and the Commission, as well as with the United Kingdom Parliament, the Scottish Parliament and many elements of the media.
Better communication between politicians and scientists must have the effect, first, of ensuring that politicians are better informed about issues and developments in the world of science, uninfluenced by ill informed and sometimes Luddite media campaigns.
Secondly, we must ensure that, since our industrial base is fast disappearing overseas, the Government, who are the only true source of the vast funds needed, give the necessary support to our wide pool of scientific talent to enable them to produce the new technologies and the discoveries that will be the basis of this country's economy in the future.
All noble Lords here today agree that we could not have a better advocate for that than our Science Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury. Perhaps it is the time for Harold Wilson's white heat of technological revolution to arrive at long last—just 40 years after he invented the phrase.
6.27 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, 1 too am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, for raising this important subject, which is an issue of major concern to the Government. 1 am also pleased to see that so many
692
noble Lords have participated in the debate, which does illustrate the interest in science and technology in this House.
Since taking office in 1997, the Government have placed research and innovation at the heart of their policies for securing our nation's future. We have put substantial extra funds into the science and engineering base, so that the science budget, which was £1.3 billion when we entered office, will be £3 billion by 2005–06. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Winston, that that is not our money, but that of the taxpayer. However, where politicians put their money illustrates the values that they hold and the importance that they attach to subjects. We can therefore claim that we have demonstrated how seriously we take science and technology in our society.
However, there is no doubt that if we are to reap the benefits of this extra investment, the public's positive engagement and continuing support are vital. The Prime Minister said in his unprecedented address at the Royal Society last year:
"Science is posing hard questions of moral judgement and of practical concern, which if addressed in the wrong way, can lead to prejudice against science which I believe would be hugely damaging. As a result, the benefits of science will only be exploited through a renewed compact between science and society, based on a proper understanding of what science is trying to achieve".
In responding to the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, I shall make three initial points. First, if we are to improve the dialogue between scientists and politicians, it is essential that each side understands the other better. I agree strongly with my noble friend Lady Jay on that. It is important that politicians understand the basis of scientific method and that scientists have often to work with a great deal of uncertainty and cannot give instant answers. It is equally important that scientists understand that politicians have to make decisions in response to current and urgent problems and cannot always wait for a 10-year study and that it is not always easy to give lengthy and technical explanations on the "Today" programme, assuming that one is allowed to give any explanation at all. Neither side has a monopoly of wisdom, objectivity or foresight.
Secondly, in this area as in many others, I doubt that most people want to become engaged in lengthy debates with experts. Rather what the public wants, I think, is to know that issues such as the ethical, health and environmental impacts of new technologies are properly considered by scientists, regulatory and ethical experts and by representatives of the public. They want such debates to take place in a transparent way, and to be able to take part in them if they so desire. I agree very strongly with the noble Lord, Lord May, and the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, that transparency and dialogue are absolutely critical. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Winston, that ethical debate is a key part of these issues.
Thirdly—again, in this area as in many others—I think the need is not for more initiatives but rather to make our current channels of communication and

693
forums for debate work better. I strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave, that we do not want to have new initiatives. If we want to do anything, we want to put better tyres on the wheels, and certainly not to have more institutions. I agree with him also that the Science Museum is a wonderful institution. I am sure that, in the spending review 2004, the Treasury will listen to his words on funding.
Finally on these matters, I should like to say a few words about the state of British science and public opinion. It is simply not true that there is no communication between scientists, engineers and the Government. We have the Council for Science and Technology which, if it wants, has direct access to the Prime Minister. We also have the Chief Scientific Adviser, who still reports directly to the Prime Minister and frequently sees him. We are making certain that each department has a chief scientific adviser who is involved in top policy decision-making. Now, the Chief Scientific Adviser is involved in the appointment of the chief scientific advisers of departments, to ensure that we have high-level people in those positions.
It is not necessarily true that we have no scientists in Parliament; in fact, 64 MPs have a first degree in science. The percentage of MPs with a first degree in science and technology is therefore probably slightly higher than that for the general population. I also do not think that it is true that there is a crisis in British science or in the British public's view of science. All the surveys show that although the British public remain on the whole very supportive and enthusiastic about science, they have concerns about particular technologies and particular areas. To characterise that as the British public's concern about science is to ignore their real attitude, which is to be generally positive about science while having concerns about particular areas. We need to address those areas.
I also do not accept that morale among British scientists is very low. There is clearly a problem in the field of plant science. However, I visit many research establishments and, on the whole, I think that scientists' morale is currently fairly high. The B-plus or A-minus which the noble Lord, Lord May, gave the Government's science policy was extraordinarily encouraging. I have never heard him give anyone more than that, but I have heard him give many people a much lower grade. I therefore take it as a sign of encouragement.
We used to deal with these considerations under the policy heading of "the public understanding of science". However, since the groundbreaking report published in February 2000 by your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology, our thinking and approach have shifted from that deficit model to one of positive engagement. I think that scientists need to be engaged in three equally important areas: with government, with politicians and with the general public. I shall deal first with the Government.
We are committed to the principle that policies should, wherever practical, be evidence-based. We want, therefore, to have access to the relevant scientific
694
advice and how to use that advice effectively in arriving at policy decisions. That is particularly important where there is significant scientific uncertainty, where there is a range of scientific opinion and where there are potentially significant implications for sensitive areas of public policy. In recent years we have acted systematically to put that principle into action. Nevertheless, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, that a great deal has happened in this area since the BSE problem.
Three key documents—the cross-cutting review of science and technology, the Guidelines 2000: Scientific advice and policy making and the Code of Practice for Scientific Advisory Committees—set out a number of recommendations which departments are expected to follow in managing their research to underpin policy making, as well as the rules which should apply to committees that advise government on science issues. I think that we have made good progress in implementing those recommendations. We have also set up the OST science review, a rolling programme of external scrutiny and benchmarking of the ways in which government departments use science and manage research. So, in a sense, we will be peer reviewing the quality of scientific advice given to departments and how they make use of that advice.
Those are not short-term initiatives; they will have a significant impact on the quality of policy making and decision making in both the long and short term. In addition, there is significant "horizon scanning" within government departments, especially the OST's Foresight programme which actively engages with scientists and other stakeholders to identify areas of cutting-edge science that will impact on society and on social problems where science can make a major contribution to solving them.
Parliament has also long recognised the need to engage with science and scientists and has actively sought ways to enable that to happen. The Parliamentary and Scientific Committee was established back in 1939. More recently, in 2001, Parliament awarded permanent funding to the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. POST is an outstanding organisation. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, that it does an excellent job. I would encourage all parliamentarians to make good use of POST and to work with it in considering how to strengthen the communication between scientists and politicians.
Of course, parliamentarians also have opportunities to engage with scientists through their everyday work. The Science and Technology Committees in both Houses are very active, and most other committees occasionally explore issues related to science. Similarly, many all-party groups are interested in science-based issues.
It is also important that scientists engage with the public. We know that most people get most of their information about science and technology through the media. The noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, is to be congratulated on setting up the Science Media Centre, which has been extremely successful in giving the media fast and easy access to the best information when science hits the headlines.

695
It is absolutely key to the public debate that there are forums for debate outside Parliament which can engage the public and advise the Government. That is why we set up the Human Genetics Commission and the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission, which are doing extremely useful work in controversial areas. It is not simply a case of scientists being prepared to engage in debate. Scientists must recognise that people have valid ethical, health and environmental issues with emerging technologies and should be prepared constructively to engage with the public on those issues.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg. This is not simply a question of communication; there are real issues here. However, when it comes to the issue of nuclear energy, it is simply not credible to say that the technology has no environmental impact. Clearly it does. Clearly, that has to be an area of concern. We need to come to grips with the whole issue of nuclear waste and how it is treated before we can say to the public, "This technology is entirely beneficial".
If there is one thing we have learnt in recent years, it is that we should not wait for concerns to become deeply rooted, leading to polarised and potentially destructive encounters between science and society. We need to think about these ethical, health and environmental issues upstream and to move proactively to involve the public in dialogue, to discuss the risks and benefits and respond to concerns.
The groundbreaking work of the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, in the early days of the science and technology of human fertilisation and embryology provides us with a useful precedent. UK law on embryo research has evolved over 20 years of public and parliamentary debate, beginning with the committee of inquiry that she chaired in 1982.
The UK now has one of the most comprehensive schemes of regulation in the world—I think that it is one of the best—and the careful and thoughtful approach taken over this lengthy period has enabled us to introduce the necessary regulatory change to enable stem cell research to go ahead. I very much agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that that was one of the cases where we got it right. I also agree with her that the debates we had in this House were among the finest that I have heard here.
It was with these lessons in mind that I recently commissioned the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering to look at whether nanotechnology raised any ethical, health or environmental issues which are not covered by current regulations, and whether, therefore, we need to introduce new regulations. I say in answer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Winston, that in this case we are seeking to get ahead of the public debate, to look ahead and to discuss these issues before they become ones which really affect public opinion.
We are doing exactly the same thing in other areas of the Foresight Programme. We have recently had a Foresight Programme on cognitive systems which was highly successful. Out of that has come a very clear perception that over the next 10 to 20 years basic brain
696
research will not only be an enormously exciting area of research but will also raise many considerations which, if not handled properly, could lead to a reaction on the part of the public.
As regards the research that is being carried out by the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering, a number of aspects have been built into the study in order to engage the general public, and the working group will include those with an understanding of ethical, social, consumer and regulatory issues, as well as scientists and engineers.
I turn to some of the issues that have been raised during the debate and which it is extremely important to consider. The question of risk was raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Jay and Lady Finlay, the noble Lord, Lord Stone, and the noble Earl, Lord Erroll. In contradiction to what many people believe, I do not believe that the public do not understand probabilities of risk. My experience is that the public understand that very well. They have many dealings with risk during their lives. They can judge risks very well. However, their approach to risk is strongly influenced by a number of values and beliefs. The first is whether or not they can choose to accept the risk—a point made strongly by the noble Earl, Lord Erroll. People may climb mountains. They know that that is very risky but it is their choice as opposed to being forced to accept something without having any say in the matter. Secondly, they always consider very carefully the benefits and risks of technological developments. Problems arise when the public do not consider that the benefits outweigh the risks involved. There is no problem with medical biotechnology because people see substantial benefits arising from it. The same is true of mobile telephones, even though some people rightly think that you cannot rule out risk totally in that regard. However, people have choice in the matter and regard mobile telephones as conferring major benefits. A third consideration is always whether government can do anything about a matter. If people consider that government can reduce the risk and are not doing so, not unnaturally they consider that action should be taken. We need always to put risk in that context.
The noble Lord, Lord Taverne, asked about the Government's position on science. As I say, I think that the Government have made very clear their position on science. Professor David King wrote in an article in the Guardian that it has always been made clear that the Government are neither pro nor anti-GM crops. He referred not to plant science but to GM crops, which is an application of science. He went on to say that decisions would be made on a sound scientific basis. That is the most important issue in the article.
I agree, however, with the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, that we must resist the idea that science can be treated simply on a democratic basis. I think that it is wrong to start trying to make decisions about whether a technology is good or bad. What government can rightly do is ask whether there are ethical, health, safety or environmental considerations regarding new technology. However, it should be left to individuals to make up their minds whether they want to accept a particular technology once

697
those regulatory considerations have been taken into account. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, that for government to try to take decisions about whether a technology is good or bad—where there are no ethical, health or environmental considerations—is, indeed, an infringement of the liberty of both the person discovering it and the person who makes use of it.
I was asked where the department of science and technology should be located in government. Governments across the world consider that issue continuously. We in this country have tried linking that department to education, which is one solution. We have had it in the Cabinet Office, which is another solution. It is now linked to the Department of Trade and Industry. I do not consider that that is overwhelmingly the best place in which to locate it, but it is not at all clear that any of the others are better. Perhaps in the UK's situation, where we have an outstanding science base—therefore, it is not necessary to link it so strongly with the Department for Education—but where we have a major problem of technology transfer, it makes sense to locate it alongside the Department of Trade and Industry. However, as I say, governments around the world change their mind on the matter. Probably the thing to do is not to keep changing one's mind but to keep the department where it is.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, that the Chief Scientific Adviser still reports to the Prime Minister and played a major role in dealing with the foot and mouth disease crisis. I do not think that it would have made any difference to the speed with which he was brought in to deal with that whether he was located in the Cabinet Office or in the Department of Trade and Industry.
I say to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester that I agree very strongly with him that we should celebrate science. We should celebrate the excitement and the wonder of science as well as the benefits that it can bring to our society. The more one learns about science, the more one wonders at the extraordinary way in which our world was created rather than the opposite.
I always have a problem with alternative medicines. People want alternative medicines that are deemed to have scientific validity. However, if they have scientific validity, they are no longer alternative medicines; they are just plain medicines. We can, of course, do much to improve the efficacy of drugs, which is one of the issues that will emerge from the human genome project as we begin to understand more about that.
I strongly agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, that we need to give our less research-intensive universities a clear mission with applied research as the fundamental part of that. 1 agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, that knowledge transfer is not about the funding of universities; it is simply now one of the major tasks of universities in a knowledge-driven economy and society. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, about the need to raise the level of scientific talent in departments. The cross-cutting review's comments on
698
that were extremely good—I say that partly because I wrote them. It is now firmly part of the responsibilities of the Chief Scientific Adviser that he raises the level of scientific talent in the Civil Service.
I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that it is important to get a better link between the Office of Science and Technology and DfES regarding the funding of universities. The Office of Science and Technology, through the research councils, has a major stake in that. I chair a Joint Committee which is considering how we respond to our consultations on the RAE, sustainability research and, indeed, knowledge transfer. Clearly, what the two departments do interacts very strongly in those areas.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, that we are now beginning to make progress on getting knowledge transfer right. We are now beginning to see a cultural change in the universities, as can be seen from the number of spin-offs, licences and patents. If we look back at the Harold Wilson speech on the white heat of technology, it is remarkable that that speech contained nothing about market needs, consumers or any other aspect of connecting science with the market, which is, of course, what innovation is about. We shall shortly produce an innovation report— indeed, this month. That will go into the question of how we raise our level of innovation, which is of course of critical importance in the new global economy, in which we have to compete with the emerging economies with their lower wages.
I hope that we are also getting our policy on nanotechnology right. It is a typical British story. We were among the first in the field, and indeed had a DTI programme with the National Physical Laboratory, which I think ran from 1986 to 1996. At that point— exactly the point at which every other country woke up to the importance of the subject—we said, "We've done nanotechnology", and stopped the programme. We have had a report recently that I asked for from the director-general of the research council about what our strategy should be. and we are now implementing it.
All of us—politicians, scientists, the public—have a role to play if we are to create that "renewed compact" to which the Prime Minister referred. It is clear from the debate that scientists now have great enthusiasm to engage with the public, and we are working very hard to ensure that the channels exist for them to do so effectively and in ways that will raise people's confidence that the important advances taking place in science and technology will deliver major benefits to them.
6.51 p.m.
Baroness Greenfield: My Lords, I would not presume to add anything further to the diverse insights and ideas that we have heard from so many noble Lords, representing as they do such a diverse range of expertise. Nor could I attempt to add anything substantive to the excellent winding-up speeches of the noble Baronesses, Lady Miller and Lady Sharp, and the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury. Indeed, I add my

699
voice to those of many noble Lords this evening in expressing my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, for all that he is doing as Science Minister for British science and British scientists.
Someone once said that for every complex problem there is always a simple answer, and that it is always wrong. Tonight, we have seen just how complex, diverse and, above all. important the issues that we have debated are. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 (Amendment of section 46(1) and paragraph 7(2) of Schedule 8) Order 2003
6.52 p.m.
Baroness Amosrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 27th November be approved.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, noble Lords will recall that, following debate during the passage of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 and the consultation process with a range of organisations in Northern Ireland about their inclusion within the remit of the criminal justice inspectorate, an additional eight organisations were included within the remit of the chief inspector of criminal justice by order last December. Today, we consider a further three additions to the list of organisations in the Act which are subject to inspection by the criminal justice inspectorate before it becomes operational next autumn.
The additional organisations listed in the order have all been considered appropriate for inclusion based on information provided by them and their representatives during the consultation process. They all consented to their inclusion. The basis of the decision for their inclusion is that each of the bodies has an investigatory and prosecutorial role, all operate their own police services, and the extent of their policing powers are comparable with other bodies listed, such as the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland.
The order also includes an addition to the list of organisations named in the Act to which the chief inspector may wish to delegate his functions in delivering his work programme. For those organisations currently listed in the Act, it is expected that Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation will be able to provide extensive knowledge and expertise in specific areas, which will be of benefit to the chief inspector.
When considering both those issues, noble Lords may wish to note that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments considered the order earlier today and has confirmed that it is content.
The order finalises the round of consultations resulting from previous debates, but does not necessarily finalise the lists of organisations which
700
should come within the chief inspector's remit or to which the chief inspector may delegate functions. Both lists will be kept under review. I am willing to hear further representations from all sides. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 27th November be approved.—(Baroness Amos.)
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for moving this small order so succinctly. I welcome it from these Benches, in particular as I pressed the Government to keep open the list of organisations that could come within the remit. I am delighted that 11, if my arithmetic is correct, have been accepted so far. I was also delighted to hear the noble Baroness say that the list was not closed—that it is still open to further opportunities, if it seems right for other organisations as they appear, to join the list.
That is particularly important in some ways. I have been approached about the fact that there are some difficulties between the management of Belfast International Airport Ltd and the security police. A friend of mine in the other place is also looking into the matter. It may be worth taking a little comfort from the fact that, if there is a problem, there is an inspector to oversee it. The order makes what I hope is a very small point, and I welcome it.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I, too, welcome the order. We on these Benches support it.
Lord Laird: My Lords, I very much welcome the order. My only regret is that the legislation must be considered here, in Parliament, as an Order in Council. While we are getting quite used to debating such matters here once again, and I sincerely respect the ability of Members of this House and another place to do so, I trust that we will not be doing so for much longer. The recent elections, however, have not brought us any further to the restoration of the Assembly; the situation remains unchanged and I urge the Government not to take their eye off the main issue—the failure of republicans to deliver peace and the winding-up of all paramilitary organisations.
I am very pleased to see Belfast International Airport Ltd, Belfast Harbour Commissioners and Larne Harbour Ltd on the list of organisations subject to inspection by the chief inspector of criminal justice. When a similar order was considered a year ago in another place, my colleague, Lady Hermon, expressed concern at their omission. As the whole purpose of the chief inspector of criminal justice is to ensure effectiveness and efficiency in the criminal justice system, it appears to be logical and common sense that the organisations should be included within the remit of the inspectorate. I therefore welcome the order wholeheartedly.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken for welcoming the order. I shall respond to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, on Belfast City Airport. It has not been included in the list as it

701
does not yet operate its own police service. However, its inclusion in its own right will be kept under review.
The noble Lord, Lord Laird, is aware that we are working very hard to restore effective devolved government as soon as possible for Northern Ireland. Our discussions to help to progress that will continue.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland Act 1998 (Modification) Order 2003
6.58 p.m.
Baroness Amosrose to move, That the order laid before the House on 27th November be approved.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I should like to explain the background to the order. It was clear to the Government following the recent elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly that, in the short term at least, restoration of the devolved institutions would not lead to stable and inclusive devolved government. The Government believe that it would be wrong to restore before there is a real prospect of such an administration being formed. It remains our firm wish, however, that restoration should take place as soon as possible, and to that end we will be talking to all the parties in the days and weeks ahead to explore how it can be achieved.
The order was originally laid before the House on 27th November and has the effect of amending the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Section 47(9)(a) of that Act provides that a person's membership of the Northern Ireland Assembly begins, for the purposes of remuneration and pension, on the day when he takes his seat in accordance with the Assembly's Standing Orders. Standing Order 3(3) in turn provides that Members shall take their seats by signing the Roll of Membership at the Assembly's first meeting. Therefore, unless corrective measures had been taken, the new Members of the Assembly would not have been eligible to receive pay or allowances.
This order therefore provides that, for pay and allowances purposes, membership of the Assembly began on 5th December 2003. That date was chosen as it was the latest date on which the first meeting of the Assembly could have taken place had restoration been possible on election day.
Newly elected MLAs needed to know, as soon as possible after the election, whether or not they were to be paid and, if they were, at what rate. It is not unreasonable for them to ask for some degree of financial certainty for the purposes of running constituency offices and carrying out their duties. That is why it was necessary to make this order under the urgency procedure. A draft of the order was considered earlier today by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and it confirmed that it is content.
702
I recognise that any decision to pay salary and allowances to Members of an Assembly which cannot presently meet may attract a degree of scepticism. It is clearly not right that Members should receive full salary in these unusual circumstances. However, the new MLAs have a fresh mandate and significant constituency responsibilities. Moreover, many of them will be contributing to the review of the Good Friday agreement which will begin soon. It is right that they should be paid for those activities.
We have therefore announced our intention to pay salaries at the rate of £31,817 per annum for the time being. That is what was paid following the suspension of the previous Assembly in October 2002 until its dissolution in April this year. We believe that this level of salary is appropriate, given the reduced level of the MLAs' responsibilities.
We have arranged for newly elected MLAs to receive a package of allowances to facilitate their work. We shall also expect this package of salary and allowances to cover the costs of the parties' participation in the forthcoming review. I must stress that these salary and allowance arrangements will remain under close review in the light of political developments.
I am sure that all noble Lords share the Government's hope that we shall be able to restore effective devolved government in Northern Ireland as soon as possible. I hope that noble Lords will agree that this order is a necessary response to this unusual situation. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 27th November be approved.—(Baroness Amos.)
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, once again, I thank the noble Baroness the Lord President for presenting the order to us. She has made clear that its purpose is to enable Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, elected on 26th November, to be paid for the time being at 70 per cent of the full MLA salary. We shall not oppose the order, although we feel that this situation cannot go on indefinitely.
We have this situation because, despite the elections taking place, the Assembly remains suspended—it has been since October 2002—and Members are unable to take their seats. We hope that this state of affairs will soon end. We would like to see the Assembly sit and we would like to see devolution and the Executive restored at the earliest opportunity.
Regrettably, after the elections—as before—there is still not the necessary trust and confidence between the parties for that to happen. As the Government recently pointed out, the situation now is, if anything, more difficult with the DUP and Sinn Fein the largest parties within their respective communities. The prospect of an immediate end to direct rule seems remote.
What is required now is to build that elusive trust and confidence between the parties, something which the Government have notably failed to achieve to date. Naturally, we wish the Government well in the talks that will be held with the parties next week. We believe

703
that the review, provided for in the agreement, should proceed as the Government have indicated that it will, and we sincerely hope that all parties will participate.
Yet, despite the elections having been held, the central issue still remains the same as it was before they were called—the continued existence of armed and active paramilitary organisations, republican and loyalist. There must be an end to all forms of paramilitary activity, as set out in paragraph 13 of the British and Irish Governments' Joint Declaration. And we need to be confident that the IRA's so-called war is over. We must see an end to both the IRA and the so-called loyalists as effective paramilitary organisations.
The Government, too, need to learn lessons. They have to ask themselves how a pro-agreement unionist majority has in five and a half years been turned into a clear anti-agreement unionist majority. They have to ask whether this is a consequence of too many side deals and one-sided concessions to republicans and, I regret to say, broken pledges by the Prime Minister on both weapons and prisoners.
I urge the Government to think seriously about how they are going to restore balance and fairness to this process. I urge them to consider how they are going to tackle the crisis of confidence in the political process among moderate unionists. And I urge them, along with the Irish Government, now to place all possible pressure on the republican movement to do what should have been done three and a half years ago.
It has been clearly demonstrated that the democratic process in Ireland, or anywhere else for that matter, cannot survive with political parties operating private armies.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Lord President for presenting the order. When the elections took place on 26th November, a majority of those who were elected were in favour of proceeding with the Belfast agreement. That is absolutely clear—approximately 70 per cent of those elected were in favour of pursuing the Belfast agreement. The order is about paying the people who were elected on that day. I well understand the concerns about whether the Assembly sits or not and whether people should be paid if it does not.
As the Minister indicated, there is the representative role. I am not clear about the extent to which the MLAs will be taking up that representative role. It seems to me that they could be encouraged to do so and I shall be interested to hear her view on that. The constituents of the MLAs will have all kinds of concerns and I want to be certain that the MLAs, although not sitting in an Assembly, have access to government as representatives of the people. It seems to me that they ought to have. It may well be that being involved in the real lives of their constituents may lead to people being concerned that the Assembly is not sitting and that it should do so and should work.
704
I, too, hope that the talks process will now work well and that we can get the Assembly sitting. It is important that the review takes place, not least as regards the designation of people and the silly position which the alliance had to take in allying itself with one group in order that the Assembly could sit on an earlier occasion. But if, in effect, the Assembly does not sit, how long should the order last and what further mechanisms will there be? The Assembly is supposedly to run for four years. I should hate to think that four years would elapse and that, in effect, the order would remain in place.
However, we are in uncharted territory because the election was called on the basis that there would be a devolved Assembly. I do not believe that any of us quite understands why it did not work, but the choreography was such that there was supposed to be a devolved Assembly and that is why the election was called. Let us hope that no one can now say that this group is not representative of the Northern Ireland people. The Members were elected a week or so ago under a fairly decent electoral system and therefore it should be possible for them to be seen as the people who need to get on with that job.
Therefore, from these Benches, for now we agree with the order. However, sadly, there may need to be some modification if we do not see the progress for which we all hope.
Lord Laird: My Lords, it is with a measure of frustration that we find ourselves debating such an order once again. As I said earlier, 13 months have now passed since the suspension of the Assembly and, despite the recent election, we are, frankly, no further on.
When a candidate is elected to a democratic institution—to which many in this Chamber can personally relate—he enters into a contract with the electorate. Salaries are dispensed in return for a genuine and steadfast commitment to constituency matters. A Member's salary is as much a part of the democratic infrastructure as the elections themselves.
However, it will not have escaped your Lordships' notice that the doors to Northern Ireland's democratic infrastructure—in the form of a workable Assembly— remain closed. We have had an election; we now have Assembly Members; yet, the other side of the bargain—the debating Chamber, the committees and even the corridor conversations—is not available. Your Lordships may well be aware that the Assembly door remains closed because, despite thirteen-and-a-half months of negotiations, republicans have yet to deliver the Prime Minister's "acts of completion"—the end of their so-called war.
Now, I do not wish to detract from the good work that many Members do from their respective offices, dealing with constituency matters. Yet, without the framework of the Assembly and its institutions, such work effectively falls on deaf ears. No Assembly Member has the authority to change legislation, to make or achieve concessions on issues of concern to the electorate or even to question others. It remains

705
our job, in this House and in another place, to discuss, debate and legislate on behalf of the citizens of Northern Ireland.
The current Assembly Members certainly deserve our support and, indeed, a salary, but the Government cannot ignore the growing public disquiet over what may be regarded as an unnecessary perk. People find it increasingly difficult to accept that Members of a suspended Assembly can still enjoy their salaries, and I therefore urge the Lord President of the Council to consider that such a situation cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely. We must have some kind of time-limit on how long salaries, albeit at a reduced rate, will be paid. Such a limit may even provide the necessary incentive for Members and parties to work swiftly to achieve the desired restoration of the Assembly. Is the Lord President of the Council in a position to tell us how long the Government expect Members to be entitled to remuneration under the current circumstances and whether they are now prepared to consider implementing a time-limit?
As I said while debating another Northern Ireland order a few weeks ago, there is great potential that we shall see another election to the Assembly in a few months' time. If so, we shall effectively have allowed Members to receive salaries for, say, six months, only to stop the payments while we go to the polls once again. A further election will undoubtedly bring additional changes to the list of Members. Thus, we may well see a situation where Members who have been paid not to sit in the Assembly then lose their seats—a first for a democratic process.
One effect of the suspension of the Assembly is that, once again, we in this building are responsible for scrutinising the Government's activities in Northern Ireland. One method of doing so is by tabling parliamentary Questions. I must express dissatisfaction with many of the replies which, in my view, verge on being incorrect or misleading or simply not answered. I cite the example of the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure as being guilty of such crimes. I ask the noble Baroness the Lord President of the Council to look into those matters.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, it seems that the order is largely technical and, therefore, acceptable. I hope that I shall be in order if I range slightly further afield than its text. The results of the election in Northern Ireland can hardly have been surprising to many people. It is clear to me that negotiations are likely to be quite long and arduous before any devolved government are restored.
I considered it encouraging that the Democratic Unionist Party, as currently the largest party, is reported to be talking both to the Government of the Republic of Ireland and, I believe, also to Her Majesty's Government. However, can the noble Baroness the Leader of the House give us an indication, however vague, of when, in her view, the Assembly might sit? I suggest that it could fulfil a
706
number of useful functions. It could, for example, discuss the review of the Belfast agreement. Surely it would be better to do that in an open, face-to-face, way rather than by simply circulating memoranda and perhaps having occasional conversations with Ministers. The Assembly could also discuss the numerous reports of the many quangos that exist in Northern Ireland, and I suggest that it could also question Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office on the affairs of their departments.
I very much hope that it will be possible for the Government, by means of various confidence-building measures, both to decrease the distrust which the noble Lord on the Opposition Bench mentioned and to show that practical ways can be devised of power-sharing within the existing institutions that are not suspended. I have been in correspondence with the Secretary of State on this matter and I should be grateful for whatever response the noble Baroness the Leader of the House can give us.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, on the subject of the order, I was not sure from the account given by the noble Baroness the Lord President of the Council of the precise chronology and why 5th December was the date substituted, although I entirely understood why a date had to be substituted. I thought I had heard the noble Baroness say—of course, I may have misheard—that 6th December was the last date on which the Assembly would have needed to meet. Therefore, my question is why 5th December, in particular, was chosen. I infer from the fact that it was the last date that there could have been an earlier date subsequent to the election result being declared.
I have a mild personal interest in this matter in an academic sense. In July 1989, on the Monday of a particular week, my appointment as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was announced. But it so happened that the late Lord Younger, who was the Secretary of State for Defence, was obliged to remain in that post for the whole of that week in order to take the Russian Minister of Defence—the first visit ever to this country by a Russian Minister of Defence—around the country and for the office not to be delegated to his successor, my noble friend Lord King of Bridgwater, who was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at the time. I hasten to say that I did not check my own salary over the four days but I did not kiss hands with the Secretary of State until the Friday. I assume I was paid at the lower rate during the four days. Four days is not much and only eight days, by my calculation, is the relevant gap in this particular instance. However, I am interested in the answer to this small query as to why 5th December was chosen unless, as I say, I misheard what the Minister said originally.
As regards the background to the order, I share the concerns of my noble friend Lord Glentoran. I do not want in any way to carp and I understand the path that events take in Northern Ireland. However, we may be paying a high retrospective price for the hand-written commitments that the Prime Minister gave during the 1998 referendum, a facsimile of which I continue to carry

707
on my person as I have done ever since the events. It is arguable that at least one of those commitments was not within his power to guarantee and in so far as it was, was not precisely pursued. But we are where we are and I join my noble friend in hoping that we can work our way through these matters.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for contributing to the debate. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, that the situation is difficult. We cannot allow it to continue indefinitely. That is precisely why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is engaged in intensive discussion.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, it is clear that almost 70 per cent of those who voted at the Assembly elections voted for pro-agreement parties. It is very important indeed that we bear that in mind. We shall continue in discussions with all the parties to seek a way forward. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said that it is important that we build trust and confidence. I entirely agree with him.
As regards the access that Members of the Assembly will have, I was in Northern Ireland last Friday and met four Members of the Assembly. In discussion they spoke of the importance of their constituency role and the role they would have in any review. I can confirm that newly-elected Assembly Members Will have the same rights of access to government departments in order to raise constituency concerns as they would if the Assembly were restored. Arrangements for that have been put in place.
The noble Lords, Lord Shutt and Lord Laird, both pressed me on the issue of timing, as indeed did the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. I hope that noble Lords will accept that it is very difficult for me to put any kind of time limit on this. As I said originally, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is involved in discussions which we hope will lead to a resolution as quickly as possible. However, we all recognise what a sensitive time this is.
The noble Lord, Lord Laird, raised the issue of Written Answers. I am happy to discuss that with the noble Lord in the light of his concerns about the quality of information he has received. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked about the way that Assembly Members might be able to engage in the review process. The format for review is currently under discussion. I am sure that the point raised by him will be taken on board.
As regards the final point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, I said in my speech that 5th December was chosen as it is the latest date on which the first meeting of the Assembly could have taken place. I hope I shall be able to answer the question. Under normal circumstances the Assembly must first meet within eight days of polling day including polling day and not including a weekend. That is where the eight-day time limit came from. I recognise that the noble Lord asked why we did not choose an earlier date. I think that the date was chosen on the basis that it was the last day on
708
which the Assembly could have sat. I hope that that answers the noble Lord's question. If it does not. 1 shall write to him. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Public Audit (Wales) Bill [H.L.]
7.25 p.m.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this Bill is to create a unitary public audit structure for Wales. Its provisions have been subject to pre-legislative scrutiny and public consultation. Both exercises demonstrated that the Bill has widespread support. The Welsh Affairs Select Committee gave consideration to it as did an ad hoc National Assembly scrutiny committee. The Welsh Grand Committee and the National Assembly in plenary have debated it. The Government want the Bill to be as robust as possible and I can assure noble Lords that very careful consideration will be given to their views and concerns expressed in this debate and in further stages of the Bill in this House.
The Bill seeks to achieve a unitary audit framework by extending the functions conferred on the Auditor General for Wales. Most importantly, the Auditor General will take on the majority of the functions in Wales of the Audit Commission for local government and the NHS in England and Wales. The Auditor General and his staff will be known as the Wales Audit Office in English or Y Swyddfa Archwilio Cymru in Welsh.
The Audit Commission will, however, retain its powers to undertake cross-border economy, efficiency, and effectiveness studies relating to local government on an England and Wales basis. In bringing forward this Bill the Government are supporting the National Assembly in establishing a transparent public audit framework in Wales with a single thread of accountability. It is a framework that can be readily understood by the people of Wales and that can best protect their interests in terms of the effective stewardship of public money.
The Government of Wales Act 1998 provides that the Auditor General has or can be given statutory responsibility for undertaking the statutory audit of the financial accounts of the National Assembly for Wales, the Assembly's sponsored public bodies, and certain other bodies the Assembly funds. It also gives the Auditor General statutory responsibility for undertaking examinations into the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which these bodies have used their resources. These examinations are more commonly known as value-for-money examinations or studies.
The Auditor General's power to undertake value-for-money examinations extends to the National Health Service in Wales but the Auditor General does not currently have statutory responsibility for the

709
financial audit of individual NHS bodies' accounts. Responsibility for arranging these audits currently rests with the Audit Commission.
Under the provisions of the Public Audit (Wales) Bill the Wales Audit Office will have a duty to: carry out the audit of NHS bodies' accounts in Wales—this will sit alongside the Auditor General's existing function of carrying out value-for-money examinations on such bodies; appoint auditors to audit the accounts of local government bodies in Wales—the Auditor General will not be able to appoint himself or herself in a personal capacity as auditor of a local government body; undertake or promote value-for- money studies on local government bodies in Wales; and finally, undertake the audit of Welsh local government "programme for improvement" plans and inspections under best value legislation in the Local Government Act 1999.
Clause 1 will enable the National Assembly by order to transfer to, or to ask the Auditor General to exercise on its behalf, its supervisory functions in respect of public bodies or registered social landlords in Wales. Such an order may only be made with the consent of the Auditor General, and any such order would be subject to scrutiny under the National Assembly's subordinate legislative scrutiny procedures. Examples of such functions would be the regulatory and monitoring functions the Assembly has in respect of the governance of registered social landlords and its functions of monitoring compliance with terms and conditions of grant funding by grant recipient organisations.
The Bill will also enable the Welsh audit office to undertake cross-sectoral and forward-looking value-for-money studies and studies into the provision of public sector services which can help to inform Assembly policy development. The Auditor General's existing value-for-money powers are largely retrospective in nature. They relate, first, to how a body or office has used resources and, secondly, how it has undertaken value-for-money examinations and studies into higher and further education corporations, other educational bodies and local government bodies in Wales at their request. They enable the Auditor General to appoint a member of his staff to audit the accounts of a higher or further education corporation in Wales, on request. Finally, it is agreed with the National Assembly to undertake programmes of economy, efficiency and effectiveness studies in respect of registered social landlords in Wales. Those functions are at present exercised in relation to Wales by the Audit Commission.
The Bill is a natural extension of the devolutionary process. The National Assembly has forged a distinctive way of developing and undertaking its work. The Assembly has been progressively formulating its policy and pursuing delivery of its strategic objectives through partnership working with other areas of the public sector—both local government and non-local government—the voluntary sector and the private sector in Wales.
710
Innovative programmes such as Communities First and the Wales waste strategy are excellent examples of initiatives entailing close cross-sectoral co-operation in achieving strategic goals. Such partnership working can create complex accounting arrangements that are more conducive to a single public audit framework than the existing arrangements, where responsibility is split between the Auditor General and the Audit Commission.
A unitary arrangement, with expertise "under one roof will also help the development and implementation of audit best practice across the public sector in Wales.
The Bill was first published in draft form on 3rd April this year and has been subject to both pre-legislative scrutiny by the House of Commons and the National Assembly. It has also been subject to a 12-week period of public consultation. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales and I have met with noble Lords to discuss and brief them on its provisions.
As I have mentioned, neither the pre-legislative scrutiny process nor public consultation revealed any significant concerns over the policy of the Bill. More than 200 organisations were consulted on the draft Bill and 15 responses were received. In all, 41 recommendations for change or clarification were made. Of these, 19 have been accepted. They improve consistency of practice between non-local government and local government audit arrangements; strengthen the ability of audit and regulatory bodies to co-operate; and clarify certain existing powers. I can search later documents showing the 22 points not accepted if that would be of interest to your Lordships.
A key change that has been made as a result of pre-legislative scrutiny is an alignment of the provisions in Clauses 11, 18 and 52 to ensure that auditors in both the local government and the non-local government sectors have common powers of access to documents and information. The access provisions also ensure that auditors have the right to follow the audit trail of documents to the end recipient of public sector funding.
That is consistent with the recommendations made by the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, in his report, Holding to Account: The Review of Audit and Accountability for Central Government, published in February 2001.
At pre-legislative scrutiny stage there was significant discussion on whether Clause 54 of the Bill should be deleted. Clause 54 restricts the disclosure of information obtained by an auditor of a local government body except in specified circumstances. The clause mirrors Section 49 of the Audit Commission Act 1998. Both impose criminal sanctions on a person who releases information in contravention of the legislation.
The purpose of the clause is to prevent the premature release of information that is still subject to verification and potentially prejudicial in nature. There is no such restriction on the Auditor General for Wales in relation to information concerning the Assembly or any other public body in Wales, outside the local government sector. In these cases verification and release of information is subject to protocol arrangements. The accounting officer of the National Assembly or an Assembly-sponsored public body is

711
given an opportunity to sign off draft reports prepared by the Auditor General, to indicate that he or she is content with the factual accuracy of the text prior to publication. The Assembly's audit committee can therefore be satisfied that in taking evidence on reports there is agreement on the factual content.
The Government's view is that Clause 54 should be retained. If it were deleted from the Bill, Section 49 of the Audit Commission Act would remain in force in England and there would be potential for inconsistency in the application of the criminal law between England and Wales. The Government consider that, for this reason, further consideration of disclosure matters should be on an England/Wales basis. The criminal law is not a field in which powers have been generally devolved in respect of Wales.
Against that background, the Government consider that it would be a nonsense to allow a situation in which the same conduct if committed in England would be regarded as so blameworthy as to be potentially punishable with two years' imprisonment, but if committed in Wales would not be a criminal offence.
There has been some concern expressed that the opportunity has not been taken to update certain audit and accounting terminology and practice. The Government consider that the Bill delivers significant improvements; for instance, common and enhanced access rights for auditors across the central and local government sectors in Wales; the opportunity it presents for greater co-operation and joint working; and the ability for a non-local government auditor to publish a public interest report.
The Public Audit (Wales) Bill is, however, a Wales-only Bill with the primary purpose of establishing unitary audit arrangements for Wales. The Government have been careful to avoid any changes to audit terminology that may cause confusion or uncertainty on a cross-border basis. Changes in such issues should, in the Government's view, be considered over a wider canvas.
The Government are very mindful of the importance of preserving the constitutional independence of local government in the changes they propose. I have already mentioned that the Bill does not enable the Auditor General to appoint himself or herself in a personal capacity as auditor of a local government body.
In addition, the National Assembly audit committee, which has responsibility for considering the Auditor General's annual estimate of income and expenditure, will have no power to consider or modify his or her estimates regarding local government. These will be a matter for the Auditor General and local government in Wales.
Clause 21 includes a provision for the National Assembly to set the scales of audit fees for local government bodies in Wales, but this is very much a failsafe power to be exercised only in the event of a failure to agree between the Auditor General and Welsh local government. Clause 21, in any event, mirrors a power already available to the Assembly under Section 7 of the Audit Commission Act by virtue of the National Assembly for Wales (Transfer of Functions) Order 1999.
712
Likewise, the Auditor General will not be required to lay any financial reports relating to local government before the Assembly. This will not affect the Assembly's ability to consider reports on local government matters that may be published by the Auditor General, in the same way that the Assembly can currently consider reports published by the Audit Commission.
The Welsh Local Government Association in both its evidence at pre-legislative scrutiny stage and in its response to public consultation expressed itself content with the safeguards that have been built into the Bill.
Effective public audit is essential to ensuring that the highest standards of probity and regard for obtaining value for money are observed in the spending of taxpayers' money. Improvement of public audit standards requires co-operation between audit and regulatory organisations and the free-flow of ideas and best practice. The Public Audit Forum, upon which all the major public audit bodies in the United Kingdom are represented, does extremely valuable work in this area.
It is essential that a single audit body for Wales is firmly within the mainstream of public audit development and inter-body co-operation. To this end, a key feature of the Bill is provisions that will allow the Auditor General to co-operate freely with other audit and regulatory bodies.
As I have mentioned, the Audit Commission will retain its powers under the Audit Commission Act to undertake cross-border value-for-money studies on an England and Wales basis in the local government context. The Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003 empowers the Commission for Healthcare, Audit and Inspection to undertake parallel cross-border studies on an England and Wales basis in the health sector.
As we see from the Bill, the Audit Commission, the Commission for Healthcare, Audit and Inspection and the Auditor General would be linked by a network of duties of consultation and co-operation designed to ensure that such work is undertaken in the most efficient and effective discharge of their respective functions. The Audit Commission and the Commission for Healthcare, Audit and Inspection would also be required to take account of relevant work undertaken by the Auditor General in undertaking such work.
Within Wales, the National Assembly and the Auditor General would also be under a mutual duty to co-operate where appropriate in the planning of social services and healthcare studies and inspection work.
Clause 2 of the Bill also gives the Auditor General, a wide range of accountancy bodies, public bodies and certain auditors the power to co-operate and provide assistance to each other in the exercise of their particular functions. This power would extend, for instance, to Audit Scotland and the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland.

713
Clause 2 also enables the Auditor General to enter into arrangements with any government department, any local or other public authority or the holder of any public office to exercise the functions of that body or office or to provide services to it. Furthermore, such bodies may provide services to the Auditor General. The types of services that may be provided are administrative, professional or technical services.
The consultative and co-operative provisions included in the Bill will ensure consistency of audit practice and standards across geographical boundaries and a continued basis for cross-border comparison with regard to value for money in the provision of services.
They will also ensure a more co-ordinated and focused approach to the programming and undertaking of audit work. This should reduce the administrative burden on the client organisations without diminishing the rigour of audit and inspection standards.
Joint reviews are already a feature of such works in Wales and the Government are confident that the provisions they have put in place will promote further joint working.
In conclusion, the proposals in the Public Audit (Wales) Bill have widespread support within the public sector. The principles of the Bill have the support of the Auditor General, the Audit Commission and the Welsh Local Government Association.
A single audit body will provide a straightforward, accessible and largely all-embracing public audit framework that is best suited to the inclusive nature of policy development and delivery in Wales. It will be at the forefront of the wider development and implementation of best audit practice. It will also be best equipped to assist the National Assembly in continuing to strive to maintain the highest standards of financial accountability. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Lord Evans of Temple Guiting.)
7.46 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, the whole House will be grateful to the noble Lord for taking us through the contents of the Bill with the thoroughness that we have come to expect from him and, indeed, for the preliminary discussion he arranged for interested Peers, together with his colleague, Mr. Don Touhig, the Minister responsible for the Bill in another place.
I also thank the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs in the other place for its helpful work on the draft Bill during the previous Session. I understand that the Government have yet to reply in full to its report but it has already culminated in a useful discussion in the Welsh Grand Committee on 15th July and a promise by the Government to consider some of its recommendations.
The Government may have considered but, as far as I can see, they have not changed very much in the Bill. The controversial draft Clause 50 restricting public disclosure is still in the Bill—now as Clause 54—but we shall come to that issue again at a later stage.
714
None of your Lordships would deny the importance of audit in the public and private sectors. An auditor's approval of accounts is always gratifying; an adverse qualification can strike terror in the stoutest heart. I therefore take great pride in the fact that my noble friend Lady Noakes, who reached the top of the accounting profession, is sitting beside me and will wind up the debate for the Opposition.
As we have heard from the Minister, the Bill provides, in effect, that there will be a single audit body for Wales, headed by the Auditor General for Wales, currently Sir John Bourn, who fulfils a similar role for the United Kingdom. It is a Crown appointment. The ad hoc committee established by the National Assembly to consider the draft Bill recommended that the appointment should be made after consultation with the Assembly, but I understand that that would run counter to the rule that public corporate bodies cannot appoint their own auditors.
The new Wales audit office—Swyddfa Archwilio Cymru—will be responsible for the financial and value-for-money audit of the National Assembly and the bodies that it sponsors, commonly referred to as quangos, and bodies concerned with health and local government, currently the province of the Audit Commission, and registered social housing providers.
In one sense, the Bill concentrates enormous power in the Auditor General and his new office. But it is also a consolidation measure; it replicates existing powers in earlier legislation and brings them together under the Auditor General and his Wales audit office. This makes good sense and, in principle, the Bill is to be welcomed. It will have a fair wind as far as we on this side are concerned.
I had occasion recently to read the Auditor General's report to the National Assembly on Financial Management of Partnership and Innovation and Development Projects by the National Council for Education and Training for Wales, better known by its acronym, ELWa, which in Welsh means to benefit or to profit. The report might have been alternatively titled, "The misfortunes of ELWa", because it is a sorry tale of inadequacies, deficiencies and weaknesses in the biggest quango in the Principality. I shall not rehearse the detail of what has become a public scandal, but simply assert that the whole saga proves the need for and the value of sound, independent audit examination in such circumstances.
The high quality and worth of that report was, I am sure, appreciated by the Assembly and the public. It was prepared by the Wales team of the National Audit Office for the Auditor General to present to the Assembly. I am glad to read that the Auditor General's statutory authority to report to the Assembly on the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which bodies have used their resources in discharging their functions continues and is incorporated at various points in the Bill. That is an all-important authority and carries important duties.
The Auditor General's remit has, as the Minister said, been greatly widened in the Bill and he has been given an extensive range of new functions, especially in

715
connection with health and local government. One cannot but contrast the puzzling restraints on him in the local government field with his freedom to act directly in the health sphere. For example, he cannot audit local government bodies himself: he must appoint others to audit, after consultation with the bodies concerned. Health trusts he can audit direct. We shall consider that more closely in Committee.
However, the amalgamation of powers is right, because, as the Minister said, under the devolved government arrangements in Wales and the strategies being pursued, there is considerable interplay and collaboration between the Assembly Government, its quangos, local authorities and health service bodies. Audit arrangements, including best value and performance studies, are wide in their scope and likely to widen further.
Audit must be able to follow partnership arrangements and trace the warp and weft of interactivity between authorities and beyond to contractors and sub-contractors. The Auditor General must be able to have an overall view and to cross different authority boundaries within Wales as well as outside.
Audit arrangements for local government and the health service have already been spelt out in great detail in past legislation. The Bill in effect transfers responsibility from the Audit Commission to the Auditor General. Of course, local authorities' accountability to their local electorates must be respected and preserved, but that does not mean that they must be protected if malpractice—intended or unintended—is uncovered. There have been plenty of examples of such deficiencies in the past.
Your Lordships would therefore be fully justified in revisiting past enactments relating to local government as transposed into the Bill. The same is true of legislation relating to the audit of health bodies. There is a plethora of such bodies in the NHS in Wales; that is promising territory for audit studies. We have a duty to ensure that the Auditor General and his office are not hindered or unnecessarily restricted in their ability to do such work.
The new office, headed by the Auditor General, has great potential to improve the quality of public services and government in Wales and secure better use of resources. There is currently a lot of loose talk about giving the Assembly its own tax-raising powers, but that will never be acceptable to the Welsh electorate until people are convinced that the very best use is being made of the money that it already has. The Bill will help to ensure that that objective is achieved.
Of course, there will be questions about the costs of bringing together the 45 staff of the National Audit Office and the 200 staff of the Audit Commission. We hope that that can be achieved within the Assembly's estimated—to my mind, somewhat optimistic—figure of £500,000 without building an ultra-grand Taj Mahal to house the new office. We also hope that the running costs can be paid for by fees and charges, with a minimal subvention from the Assembly. There will also be questions about the precise relationship between the new
716
office and the Assembly, its audit committee, the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection and other bodies with whom the Auditor General is obliged to co-operate and they with him.
Finally, there is more to the Bill than meets the eye, but the key to its success lies in the Auditor General's independence from unacceptable political pressures rigorously to pursue his clearly defined functions and ensure that taxpayers' money is not only properly applied but used to best advantage, within the limitations imposed by the policies themselves. There, of course, lies the rub but if the policies are wrong, audit studies will help to reveal their shortcomings. We welcome the Bill's Second Reading in the firm belief that it will benefit the people of Wales and, indeed, the United Kingdom.
7.56 p.m.
Lord Morris of Aberavon: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Evans for his characteristically careful exposition of this modest piece of legislation. 1 welcome the creation of a single public audit body for Wales. My noble friend summed it up as a natural extension of the devolution process—indeed, as the widening of the remit and independence of the Auditor General. I am also grateful for the Explanatory Notes provided.
I happen to possess a most interesting print of the building on the eastern side of New Palace Yard, dated 1808, with part of its caption stating:
"the first entrance from the Water Gate leads to the Auditor of Wales's office".
So we are today building on old foundations, although the Auditor General is housed nearer to Cardiff Bay than to the ancient Water Gate on the Thames. However, this useful measure is unlikely to set either the Thames or the Taff on fire.
Although Parliament is presently solely entrusted with enacting primary legislation for Wales, I believe that our role is severely limited—or should be. If the Assembly wants it, and the Government, as sponsors of a Bill, agree with it, the Assembly should have it. Parliament should not strain unduly—better still, not at all—to amend a Bill if it is properly prepared. Whatever our strengths on individual matters, we should not second-guess the Assembly if we can possibly help it.
We are not privy to the discussions between the two Governments, but I very much welcome my noble friend's promise that, if necessary, he will circulate the 22 points that were not accepted. That is of fundamental importance, because I wanted to ask him to what extent the measure was totally acceptable to the Welsh Assembly Government: was anything left out that they desired or put in with which they were unhappy? My noble friend most helpfully dealt with what were my concerns. Such a paper should be placed in the Library, so that all should see it.
The greatest service that the Government can provide is to ensure transparency, because if there are fundamental points of difference that calls into question the efficacy and validity of the present constitutional arrangements. Of importance also is the acceptability of

717
the proposals to the other organisations affected. I welcome very much the noble Lord's remarks regarding the Welsh Local Government Association. Similarly, to what extent are the health bodies and publicly funded bodies as content as the Welsh Local Government Association? A general memorandum of understanding on transparency would be of considerable help to the House in its role of judging future legislation.
My disappointment is that the gracious Speech contains only one measure directed specifically and solely to Wales—and a modest one at that. I know the pressures on the Government's business managers. I have attended, for my sins, Cabinet legislation committees since 1964—slightly after the ark; some would say before it—and seen many Ministers' worthy legislative proposals thrown aside for lack of time. But that is the purpose of the Secretary of State for Wales—to fight for Wales in Cabinet; he has hardly any other real functions. By any standards, this is a pretty poor reward for his efforts. The Secretary of State, in Committee discussions on the Government of Wales Bill as far back as 1998, said that the problem of the Auditor General was "not a great crowd-puller". As I am sure both Houses will confirm, this Bill is not a great crowd-puller either. The Secretary of State certainly had foresight in that respect.
My noble friend Lord Richard has provided me with a list of Welsh government Bills put in as bids for the 2003–04 legislative programme. They include an education Bill, an ombudsman Bill, a tourism registration Bill, a transport Bill and a Bill to prohibit smoking in public places. Professor Hazell, in his evidence to the Richard commission, stated that only a quarter of Welsh Bills found their place in the Government's legislative programme.
It is no good, on this issue, the Secretary of State saying that the Westminster Government prefer voluntary smoking bans to legislation. That is a failure on his part to comprehend what devolution is about. Health is a devolved matter, as the noble Lord, Lord Warner, advised the House last week. Smoking is a vital component of health. Until Primary legislation is passed, that vital part of health is outwith the powers of the Welsh Assembly. It is a quirk of the agreement that it is not within its province.
History in the long term does not seem to be the First Ministers strong point. To boast that before devolution we had only one all-Wales Bill every 10 years, and to go on to spin that the present offer is either a 1000 per cent improvement or a 500 per cent improvement, is not a particularly intellectually challenging assertion. He should take a longer view. In my five years as Secretary of State, we had a Welsh Development Agency Bill, the Development of Rural Wales Bill, a substantial part of a general Bill to create the Land Authority for Wales and the two ill-fated devolution Bills. Those were the kind of primary legislation that I believed was needed in my five years of office. However, the Welsh Assembly and the Government are to be congratulated on making good use of piggybacking by putting specific Welsh proposals into England/Wales legislation in recent
718
years. Can my noble friend tell us whether, in addition to this modest Bill, we can expect further piggybacking in this Session?
In my recent speech to Welsh lawyers in Cardiff, without in any way entering into the argument of whether there should be more powers to the Welsh Assembly, I pointed out that the greater the activity of the Assembly leading to demands for primary legislation, the greater the embarrassment when legislative slots are not found in Westminster under the present system. I went on to say that, if the position is not easy now, how much more difficult it will be should there be a colour of government in Westminster different from that in Cardiff. It may be optimistic to expect to hear tonight the Government's thoughts on that, but we should be told something of their thoughts on tackling what I regard as a legislative log jam.
8.6 p.m.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Temple Guiting, for a comprehensive and meticulous introduction to the Bill, which appears slightly dry on first reading. The noble Lord delivered his speech with his characteristic clarity, which has been helpful. Consultation on the Bill has been wide and comprehensive, so I do not wish to detain the House for long.
As eloquently expounded by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, this is one of five Bills requested by the Assembly but the only one to feature in Her Majesty's gracious Speech. As the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, said, the estimated set-up cost for the changes under this Bill is half a million pounds. I hope that the Minister can give accurate information on that and on any hidden costs, as well as accurate predictions of running costs.
The Auditor General will report to the Assembly. I hope that the report will be debated in the Assembly in plenary, prior to approval by resolution. It is important that the Auditor General is a Crown appointment to ensure independence. The Institute of Welsh Affairs has pointed out that the House of Commons has a role in vetting the Prime Minister's nomination for the post of Comptroller and Auditor General. Will the Minister clarify whether the Assembly will have the opportunity to debate the suitability of the Government's appointee, so that the Assembly may have ownership of the process from the beginning?
The Auditor General will face a huge task. Will the Minister reassure us that the office is adequately resourced with access to appropriate expertise as required? I was glad to hear the Minister say that the new office will liaise closely over cross-border issues with English and Scottish counterparts to ensure consistency of methodology and standards throughout the UK.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, referred to the importance of attention to detail in the relationship between government in England and Wales, and, I would like to add, attention to governance issues between England and Wales as well. If there is variation in the way data are collected,

719
interpreted and communicated, wide misinterpretation will occur throughout the UK. Such misinterpretations and unfounded perceptions may either conceal or exaggerate inequalities. The Bill has been generally welcomed. I add my welcome to it and look forward to seeing the list of points that were not accepted during the consultation.
8.9 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I add my thanks to the Minister for the painstaking way in which he introduced the Bill. Boring the Bill may be, but it is not modest, I respectfully say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, because it covers an important and vital function in government. To take up the noble and learned Lord's theme, this is only the third specific piece of primary legislation since the creation of the National Assembly. We have had the Children's Commissioner for Wales Act 2001 and the Health (Wales) Act 2003, which do not amount to a quarter of the Bills that have been bid for. Only three out of 16 potential measures, which have been debated in plenary sessions in March of each of the three years from 2001 to 2003, have been introduced. Those Bills cover education, land use, housing, passenger transport, tourism, an ombudsman and other areas.
The Minister himself referred to all the initiatives— such as those for community first and a Wales waste strategy —that should have a legislative framework surrounding them; crowd-pulling those initiatives are. They may not be the crowds that we can expect when Wales wins the World Cup, but those initiatives require legislative measures.
The process whereby the National Assembly secures the primary legislation that it wants is slow, cumbersome, inefficient and not particularly effective. Therefore, it is no surprise that Wales has trailed behind Scotland and Northern Ireland in unifying its audit functions.
Another aspect of this matter is that, in draft form, the Bill has been scrutinised—very fully—by the Welsh Affairs Committee, the Welsh Grand Committee and the Welsh Assembly ad hoc committee. It will now go through all of the parliamentary stages at Westminster. It reminds me of my pupil master, the brother of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, his honour Judge Eifion Roberts, who told me that, in his first three or four weeks at the Bar, he had no work and neither did anyone else in his Chambers. At the very end of that period, a brief for a guilty plea came in and was subjected to the most incredible scrutiny by four anxious, young and concerned barristers that any guilty plea has ever received. It is rather like that with the legislation that finally gets here.
How much simpler it would be if a Welsh Bill were presented to the Assembly and then, after its preliminary stages, were referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses at Parliament here in Westminster for debate and comment—although not for amendment—and then returned to the Assembly for enactment. That would be a far simpler way of dealing with the legislative processes and primary legislation than we have at the moment. I have said in this House
720
before, and I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, that the National Assembly should have the Bill it wants. It is not our job to start bringing in other considerations. I look forward to hearing from the Richard commission about proposals for granting further legislative powers to the Assembly.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, also referred to the piggy-backing way in which we try to introduce measures at the moment. I prefer to think of it differently. My grandson was born at about the time that the National Assembly came into being. A month or two ago, I was very pleased and proud to see him throw away his stabilisers and ride his bicycle on two wheels. Within a fortnight, he rode four miles along the river Dee just to show what he could do. It is time that the National Assembly threw away the stabilisers that have been imposed on it and locked on to it. It should be given its head.
We give the Bill a broad welcome. In particular, we welcome the powers in Clause 11 to extend the Auditor General's right of access to documents and the benefit of assistance, information and explanation in respect of any of these transactions. It will apply to all bodies, including local government bodies. I believe that the Bill did not initially extend to local government, so that is one of the results of the scrutiny of the draft Bill. It follows the recommendations made by my noble friend Lord Sharman of Redlynch in his report, Holding to Account, to which the Minister referred.
As the purpose of the Bill is to create a single public audit body for Wales, it is inconsistent to apply different standards of transparency. Why have the Government not followed the recommendation made by the Welsh Affairs Committee in paragraphs 33 to 35 of its report and by the Auditor General that what was Clause 50—now Clause 54—should be deleted? Why should there be a distinction between the position of the National Assembly and public bodies accountable to it and local government in the way in which a report should be publicised? Has the lobbying by the Labour dinosaurs on the Welsh Local Government Association persuaded the Government to stick with the clause? Was it a desire, as the Minister suggested, to conform to the existing provisions, which will continue to apply to England? I shall come back to that point.
Clause 54 places restrictions on the disclosure of information relating to a particular body or other person, if an audit study or inspection relating to a local authority is being carried out. I have tried to find out the rationale behind that, apart from the fact that it has been that way since 1972 in England and Wales. The rationale was set out in the evidence given to the Welsh Affairs Committee on behalf of the Welsh Local Government Association in questions 15 to 17 of the committee's report. I glean from it that the restriction on the disclosure of information is of constitutional significance. It is a special provision, which recognises that local government has a separate institutional mandate—in other words, local government members are elected separately.

721
The association argued that it was for the electorate, not an auditor, to decide whether it was satisfied with the services provided. It pointed to the tendency of the Audit Commission to condemn local councils and said that, therefore, it should be open to a local authority to refuse to consent to the publication of condemnatory reports, as a constitutional right. That is muddled thinking. The Auditor General is the guardian of the public interest, not the institution that is being inspected. It is for him to decide when and how he should publish his conclusions. Certainly, he should adopt the sort of protocol that applies to national government, which will require him to ensure that bodies or persons criticised have a right to comment on the factual accuracy of a report prior to publication, but an institution such as a local authority should not have a right to suppress publication of the details.
From time to time, there has been evidence of fraud and corruption. One can think of specific local authorities that it is not necessary to name. I agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, said about the matter: fraud should be rooted out and exposed at the earliest opportunity, to protect public funds and as a warning to others. The matter was put to Professor Colin Talbot, who gave evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee. He said that he did not think that there should be a difference between the two tiers of government—the National Assembly and local government. He said:
"My general reaction to these things is we should have disclosure rather than not. Unless there is a very good reason why information should not be disclosed it ought to be in the public domain".
Professor Colin Talbot advises the Public Administration Committee. He went on:
"For far too long in the UK we have had standards operating at national and central government levels and local government which are different from one another and in my view there is no justification for that. In my view, historically most of those have been Whitehall trying to cover its back and make sure that it is not exposed to various things. In this particular case it is a restriction on information at local government level and I do not think either should be availing themselves of those sorts of protections. If it is public money, the public ought to have a right to know where it is going".
We on these Benches fully endorse that.
When the honourable Mr Touhig spoke at the Welsh Grand Committee on 15th July, we had hoped that he would take that on board. He said:
"Local government auditors have particular responsibility to local electors. We wanted to debate the matter before considering the proper way forward … I certainly intend to consider the matter further in light of the comments made this morning and in the report".—[Official Report, Commons Welsh Grand Committee, 15/7/03; col. 17.]
We had hoped that he would take on board this consensus of view.
However, just now we heard from the Minister that the purpose of the clause is to prevent premature release of information that may be of a prejudicial nature and that it is inconsistent with what is happening in England. I rejoice that it is inconsistent with what is happening in England. If it is a good public policy for Wales, it should be adopted.
722
Perhaps I may also underline the call from the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, for the absolute independence of the Auditor General. One can understand from where the Welsh Local Government Association came; it expressed the view that the Auditor General as an individual would be too powerful. Mr Sandy Blair, who gave evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee on question 7, said:
"the legislation should require there to be a body to which the Auditor General pays attention in terms of developing the scope and culture of the organisation and the direction of activity which he or she can consult when being asked to examine new approaches and a body which itself is representative to a certain extent of the stakeholders interested in the activities of the Auditor General".
In other words, put a clamp on the Auditor General with a committee of interested parties. Rightly, that has not been adopted by the Government; I commend them for it. Nor have they adopted Councillor Russell Goodway's call for an elected Auditor General based on the American model. I can just imagine the excitement in Gresford at an election between two auditors for the Auditor General of the whole of Wales; how we would clear out the Griffin pub to ensure that everyone voted before the polls closed. What a ludicrous idea!
Perhaps I may make one final comment. I welcome the fact that the responsibility for best value compliance inspections—or "whole authority analyses", as they are called in the jargon—passes in Wales to the Auditor General. I hope that such inspections will promote the Welsh procurement initiative that has won the prestigious 2003 public sector award for procurement excellence from the Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply. There was, of course, a partnership government in being when that award was gained; namely, the partnership between those opposite and my party. The judges commented:
"The scale and innovation of the Welsh procurement initiative project, with its vision of change for the whole public sector in Wales, won over the judges in this category. The initiative's work on collaborative procurement brings together, for the first time in the UK, the procurement activities of a country's public sector".
The public sector must place its contracts in the bigger, wider context of the local economy—the Welsh economy—in which it operates. The Auditor General must see his role in best-value inspections as promoting the interests of the Welsh economy in the broadest sense. I hope that the Minister will confirm that this will be within his remit.
8.25 p.m.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, this has been a small debate in terms of the numbers contributing but that is in no way an indication of the level of the debate, which has been high throughout. I find myself a lone English person among these Welsh wizards. Certainly, I shall not attempt to say anything in Welsh, like my noble friend Lord Roberts and the Minister.
We were privileged to hear from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, who was a former Secretary of State for Wales. He spoke with considerable authority. In particular, we support his call for transparency. In that context, we look forward

723
to receiving the details of the points that were not taken on the board by the Government and incorporated in the Bill. We are grateful for the offer made by the Minister.
As my noble friend said, my experience lies in audit, in particular from a private sector professional perspective. However, I want to make it clear that I do not feel that I have any interest to declare because my professional involvement is now Firmly in the past. Indeed, nowadays I tend to see auditors from the vantage point of chairing or serving on audit committees. I can assure the House that no longer do I feel that I represent the auditor side of the table.
Let me restate the position set out so elegantly by my noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy. We welcome the Bill and shall not oppose its general direction. In particular, we support the concentration of audit resource so that when considering public money in Wales, we are clear that one supreme audit institution is involved. We believe that this is a solution which will avoid gaps and overlaps and will promote efficiency.
I have often felt that the audit arrangements for England have a rather Heath Robinson quality to them. When in government, my party invented the Audit Commission to tackle issues regarding local government finances. I have forgotten why, at that stage, a separate body was set up rather than an extension of the remit of the Comptroller and Auditor General. We then added to that by passing health audit over to the Audit Commission, despite the fact that the Comptroller and Auditor General both had and retains responsibility for reporting on the NHS overall. Since then, the current Government have both extended the remit of the Audit Commission by making it the inspection body for local government, and then cut it down again by making the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection the body responsible for national value for money studies in the NHS.
I do not believe that the end result in England is rational. It leaves the Audit Commission as a somewhat ambiguous body—so ambiguous that, while it talks at length about "strategic regulation", the first page of its website contains not a single reference to its core function of audit. By contrast, the Comptroller and Auditor General still stands proudly on his platform of public audit, which is why it is particularly appropriate that the model which has been selected for Wales focuses in on what has been achieved for the Auditor General for Wales by the Comptroller and Auditor General. I hope that the Government will take time from their rather crowded legislative timetable to look again at the end result in terms of English public sector audit. There is much of value in the proposals set out in this Bill which could be carried over to England.
Having given the Bill that welcome, I have to say that we feel that some areas of the Bill would benefit from the detailed scrutiny for which your Lordships' House is renowned. I have listened carefully to the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of
724
Gresford, about Welsh legislation, broadly to the effect that we should keep our sticky hands off legislation that comes from the Assembly. I should say that we believe that we are sticking to the current rules; that is, that a Bill in this House will be subject to the conventional levels of scrutiny. That is certainly what we plan to do.
I shall not go through today all the areas that we shall raise in Committee, but I should like to touch on one or two issues that we shall want to pursue further. The first area is that of the independence of the Auditor General for Wales. Under Clause 2, the Auditor General for Wales can enter into arrangements to carry out the functions of or to provide services to a "relevant authority". Such relevant authorities are a government department or a local or public authority. Clause 9 removes the current prohibition in relation to the Assembly. So the Bill will empower the Auditor General for Wales to become intimately involved with the bodies that he will audit.
However, that is potentially dangerous. There is a basic principle which should apply to all auditors, whether in the public or private sectors—that auditor independence must not be impaired. Auditor independence can be impaired by the provision of non-audit services, but that is what this Bill will allow. Independence can be impaired if the auditor has to judge his own work, which the Bill will also permit. So the Bill is potentially deficient because it does not limit the powers created by Clauses 2 and 9 to those situations that do not compromise auditor independence. The Explanatory Notes indicate in relation to Clause 9, and working with the Assembly, that there will be protocols that will counteract the provisions of the Bill. However, we would take some convincing that protocols would be sufficient to counteract the Bill, which potentially drives a coach and horses through auditor independence.
The second area of concern is why the Government have taken a minimalist route to transferring audit functions in relation to health and local government to the Auditor General for Wales. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, touched on some of these points. The Bill preserves the rather idiosyncratic differences between the way in which public audit is practised in relation to central and local government and health, thus embedding rather than improving the differences. The Welsh Affairs Committee in another place expressed disappointment that the opportunity had been missed to make Welsh audit a beacon of good audit practice, and we echo that sentiment.
A detailed aspect of the slavish adherence to bolting on the Audit Commission model can be found in the way in which the Auditor General must appoint persons as auditors to local government bodies and cannot himself be appointed. My noble friend Lord Roberts has already referred to that. I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether there is any rational explanation for that.
Another issue to which the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, referred is the mirror image of the Audit Commission arrangements in Clause 54, which for local

725
government audits alone sets up criminal sanctions in respect of the disclosure of information obtained during the audit of a local authority. I have heard no convincing explanation why that is required or why it has been carried over into the new Welsh public sector audit arrangements. I should have thought that was something that the Welsh would have happily left behind to the English.
The Bill contains access rights under various clauses, which represents a welcome move to the principle set out in the report of the noble Lord, Lord Sharman. I am sorry that the noble Lord, who has done much to promote public sector audit, is not able to be in his place today. We believe that the access rights are extremely important and want to ensure that they are appropriately drafted in conjunction with Clause 54, as this is a golden opportunity to get access rights right in public sector audit. We will not let that opportunity be missed.
My final topic today is the regulatory impact assessment. I often find that I am one of the few Members of your Lordships' House who reads the regulatory impact assessments in detail. However, I have been deprived of that pleasure with this Bill, because the regulatory impact assessment is far from detailed. In fact, as far as I can ascertain, there is no regulatory impact assessment on this Bill.
If one follows the Internet link referred to on page 33 of the Explanatory Notes, it reveals nothing more than the draft Bill and a regulatory assessment that was last updated on 12th April 2003. Yet Mr Touhig, the Minister in another place, said to the Welsh Grand Committee on 15th July 2003 that, in relation to the regulatory impact assessment:
"A considerable amount of work has been done and it is ongoing".—[Official Report, Commons, Welsh Grand Committee, 15/7/03; col. 5.]
It is surprising, therefore, that we do not have an updated regulatory impact assessment to accompany the Bill.
Paragraph 145 of the Explanatory Notes says that there will be set-up costs of £500,000, but it seems to assume that there will be no other additional costs from the Wales Audit Office having to set up its own administrative functions. The new body will be small relative to its former parent bodies, and it seems odd that there will be no extra costs—in particular because it will have no scale economies. Curiously, we are told in paragraph 148 that the Assembly considers that there will be no additional budgetary costs. If the £500,000 is not a budgetary cost, I am mystified as to what it is. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, also pressed the Minister on those costs and I hope that he will be able to reply.
I have laboured my point not because £500,000 is a massive sum, but because the Government have not fully complied with their obligations to provide Parliament with a coherent and accurate account of the impact of their proposed measures. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide a better explanation, if not today, then in correspondence before Committee.
726
Let me not end on a carping note. We do indeed welcome the thrust of the Bill and look forward to tackling the detail in Committee.
8.35 p.m.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, we have had a short but interesting debate on the Bill. Let me assure your Lordships that, given that the Bill has been welcomed by everybody, we will take away and consider all the points that have been raised, particularly those raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, because of her lifetime's experience and expertise in this very area. Although party politics quite often enter our deliberations, our intention to get this particular Bill absolutely right is genuine and we will look carefully at Hansard and consider all the points that have been raised before Committee.
A single audit body approach is a logical extension of devolution in Wales. Unitary arrangements have already been put in place in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Before closing our debate, I pay tribute to both the Audit Commission in Wales and to the Auditor General and the staff of the National Audit Office for the excellent work that they have done, and continue to do, in upholding and improving the high standards of public accountability in Wales.
I also welcome the way in which the National Audit Office and the Audit Commission have already worked together in helping to formulate the provisions of the Bill. It bodes well for the shared sense of identity and belonging that the Government are confident will underpin any unitary arrangements.
The Wales audit office would comprise a wide pool of expertise and experience in different aspects of public audit that could only benefit auditing standards and practice in Wales. Accountability for public audit scrutiny in Wales will be clearly ascribed by the Bill. It will rest with a single head, the Auditor General. The Bill confers on the Auditor General accounting officer responsibilities for ensuring regularity and propriety in the work of the Wales audit office and for ensuring that it represents value for money in the way in which it is structured and operates.
A number of bodies that responded to public consultation on the Bill expressed concern at what they perceive as the growing burden on them of successive audit, examination and inspection exercises. The co-operative and consultative provisions in the Bill will encourage a more strategic and inclusive approach to the forward planning and undertaking of audit, examination and inspection work.
The Bill provides the opportunity for co-ordinating the programming of such work to reduce the burden on client organisations, without in any way diminishing the standards of financial accountability and governance that are expected of them. In its report on the draft Bill, the Welsh Affairs Select Committee recommended that the Auditor General and the Audit Commission be required in all cases to co-operate in the planning and undertaking of cross-border studies relating to local government. It also recommended that the resulting reports be produced jointly by both organisations.

727
The Government have not fully accepted that recommendation because it could potentially reduce the flexibility of either body to initiate and progress work when appropriate. A duty to work jointly in all cases could have a restrictive, rather than a facilitative, effect.
However, the Bill has been amended to require the Auditor General to co-operate with the Audit Commission on cross-border value-for-money studies and statutory impact studies undertaken under Clauses 41 and 42 where appropriate for the efficient and effective discharge of his functions. The Audit Commission Act has also been amended to require the commission to co-operate with the Auditor General on the same basis.
The ancillary powers conferred on the Auditor General under Clause 2 of the Bill will enable the Wales audit office and a wide range of other bodies to collaborate and assist each other in joint working and the development of work in respect of corporate governance, better risk management and work on the consolidation of accounts. They will also enable the Auditor General to provide or receive professional, administrative and technical support; for example, payroll or personnel services or more specialist professional services such as database interrogation.
Schedule 3 of the Bill fully accepts the principle that staff of the Audit Commission and the National Audit Office who transfer to the Wales audit office should do so on terms and conditions that are no less favourable, taken as a whole, than the terms and conditions on which they were employed immediately before the transfer. The detail of the staff transfer arrangements, along with the arrangements for the transfer of property, rights and liabilities involved in the merger will be set out in statutory transfer schemes made by order. The order-making power will be exercisable by statutory instrument that will be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution by either House of Parliament.
Clarification was also sought during consultation on whether the scope of the references to "documents" in the Bill include material in digital or electronic form. The Government intend the word "documents", as used in the Bill, to include material produced in any form technologically possible at the relevant time. Very careful consideration was given in the course of the preparation of the Bill to whether further words were necessary to make this intention express. The Government decided, after that very careful consideration, that they were not, and indeed that including some form of definition of documents in the Bill could cast doubt on the scope of such terms in other audit-related legislation in which no such definition has been inserted.
I should like to deal briefly with some of the very interesting points raised in the debate, while recognising that I am not qualified or briefed to talk in great detail about some of the fascinating general points made on the legislative capability of the Welsh Assembly. It is, nevertheless, a very interesting subject.
728
In welcoming the legislation, the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, asked about the Welsh Affairs Committee. On Thursday, at two o'clock, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State will publish his reply, which will be available on the web at three o'clock. The noble Lord also mentioned the Auditor General's report on ELWa. That report was considered by the Assembly's Audit Committee on 25th September. I gather that the Audit Committee's report is expected to be published shortly. It would therefore be inappropriate for me to comment on it. However, it was a point well made. I repeat my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, for his genuine welcome for the Bill.
My noble and learned friend Lord Morris of Aberavon raised a number of interesting points. He wished to know which other organisations welcome the Bill. The Audit Commission, the Welsh Local Government Association and the Auditor General for Wales have all welcomed the Bill, as did all respondents to the consultation. The 22 recommendations which the Government did not accept are an absolutely crucial point. Those will be made available to everyone who took part in this debate and will be placed in the Library.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, wished to know which recommendations of the Assembly committee had not been accepted. I refer to three significant points. First, the committee wants Clause 54 of the Bill to be removed. I shall discuss that in a moment. The committee wants the Bill to be gender neutral in terminology and for the Assembly to have more rights than it has been given regarding the appointment of the Auditor General.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, wished to know what piggy-back Bills were expected in this Session. As in previous Sessions, a number of Bills will be brought before your Lordships in which separate provision will be made for Wales as a result of partnership between the UK Government and the National Assembly. A few examples of that are the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, which was introduced in the previous Session, the higher education Bill, the children's Bill, the civil contingencies Bill, the fire and reserve rescue services Bill and the housing Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, asked three very interesting questions. She asked whether a Wales only code of audit practice would be debated and approved by the Assembly. Clause 16 of the Bill has been amended as a result of consultation to ensure that a draft code of practice is not introduced until it has been approved by a resolution of the Assembly. The code will also be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution by either House of Parliament. The Auditor General's annual report and accounts are published by the Auditor General. Reports on accounts and audit and value for money studies that he undertakes can be, and usually are, published, and can be considered by the Assembly audit committee.

729
The noble Baroness also asked whether the Assembly would be able to debate the appointment of the Auditor General. The Auditor General will be appointed by Her Majesty. In practice the National Assembly is asked for its view on the appointment of the Auditor General. It will be open to the Assembly to debate the appointment in plenary session on a Motion as recommended as part of that process without an amendment to the Government of Wales Act.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and a number of other noble Lords asked about the set-up costs and whether they were still £500,000, as estimated. That is still the estimated cost that is being worked to. The National Audit Office, the Audit Commission and the National Assembly are at this moment working on costings. In October the Auditor General submitted a paper to the National Assembly audit committee estimating, on a provisional basis, transitional costs of £400,000, not £500,000, for the financial year 2004–05.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, raised extremely interesting points, many of which we shall have to look at, and no doubt come back to, at the next stage of the Bill. He asked about the public procurement initiative. That initiative is to be welcomed. The work of the Auditor General has focused, and will continue to focus, on securing value for money through effective procurement. The Auditor General has recently published a report on procurement in the further education sector.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and a number of other noble Lords returned to the matter of Clause 54 which I dealt with in my opening speech. Can it be deleted? Should it be deleted? Clearly, this is a matter to which we shall return. As I explained in my opening remarks, the key to the Government's decision to retain Clause 54 is their concern to preserve consistency on the criminal law between England and Wales. However, I refer noble Lords to a sentence in my opening speech; namely, that,
"The Government consider, for this reason, that further consideration of disclosure matters should be on an England and Wales basis".
That makes it fairly clear that the Government are arguing that the Bill is not the place to focus on the problem, so perhaps it should be looked at elsewhere.
I have already paid tribute to the great knowledge of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, in the area. She raised the question of whether Clause 2 left the Auditor General open to conflicts of interest. We think that Clause 2 does not inevitably lead to conflicts of interests. It will be for the Auditor General and his staff to ensure that a conflict of interest will not arise. It is not necessary to limit Clause 2 to situations that would not give rise to conflicts of interest, as that may be too restrictive.
730
The noble Baroness raised other issues that we would like to consider before Committee. I am very grateful for the support given to the principles of the Bill, although I see interesting discussions taking place in Committee on various aspects of it. It has been a very constructive debate, and I thank all noble Lords who have spoken.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Grand Committee.

Media Ownership (Local Radio and Appointed News Provider) Order 2003
8.52 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Mclntosh of Haringey)rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th November be approved [32nd Report, Session 2002–03, from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the order be approved. It is mainly concerned with ownership of local analogue and digital radio broadcasting. The draft provisions are made under powers in Part 3 of Schedule 14 to the Communications Act for the Secretary of State to impose by order new ownership rules on holding local sound broadcasting licences and providing local digital sound programme services. In my view, the provisions of the draft order are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
We believe that the ownership rules set out in the order represent a good balance between a plurality of ownership and the promotion of investment in the UK radio industry. In preparing the order, the Government held a long consultation with the Radio Authority and representatives of the radio industry, who are broadly content with the ownership rules in the order. The policy has remained the same as that announced in November last year. The order will replace the existing rules governing local radio ownership set out in Schedule 2 to the Broadcasting Act 1990.
Let me outline the provisions in the order. For analogue radio, the order introduces rules that ensure that there are at least two commercial radio operators, in addition to the BBC, in every area with a reasonable number of services. That is called the two plus one rule, the one being the BBC. In practice, that means that in every area where there are three or more commercial stations, there will be at least two commercial radio operators plus the BBC. The mechanism used to achieve that will be a local points scheme that the industry and the Radio Authority have developed together.
The effect of the rules is that an existing local sound broadcasting licence holder is prevented from acquiring a licence which overlaps with two or more overlapping licences that he already holds, if that acquisition would mean that he held licences whose points represented more than 55 per cent of the total points attributable to all the licences in the area of any

731
of his overlapping licences. I shall not go into the technical definition of points, if noble Lords will forgive me.
In summary, so far as analogue broadcasting is concerned, the order will ensure that in well developed markets there are at least two owners as well as the BBC.
Let me move on to cross-media ownership. A stricter points limit will apply to cross-media owners. Regional ITV licence-holders, or media owners who control more than 50 per cent of the local press in a radio station's covering area, will be allowed only 45 per cent of the points in that area. This rule will ensure that there are three local media owners in every well-developed market. It would apply only, however, to areas where there are three or more overlapping radio stations.
To prevent monopolies in the smallest markets, the order introduces a backstop rule that will prevent joint ownership of a radio licence, a regional ITV licence and more than 50 per cent of the newspaper market in the same local area, whatever the number of local licences. So in all cases, there will be at least two media owners in an area, plus the BBC.
A similar rule will prevent any operator providing services representing more than 55 per cent of points relating to the local digital programme services in an area. Again, this produces an outcome where there will generally be two owners in addition to the BBC in an area.
The method of calculating this rule has changed since we first announced our ownership proposals, and we have worked closely with the Commercial Radio Companies Association and the Radio Authority in developing a new solution. Whereas the original proposal calculated the 55 per cent limit for digital services per multiplex, this draft order now applies the same limit per market. In other words, where there are two or more overlapping multiplexes, the limit applies to the total number of services across that area, rather than on a multiplex-by-multiplex basis.
This method of calculating ownership limits will avoid the need for a multiplex operator to have to put his local digital sound programme services on a competitor's multiplex in the same area when there is capacity on his own multiplex. Ofcom will classify different types of service in the market depending on how regularly and for how long services are broadcast. Article 12 sets out definitions according to which Ofcom will do this.
The number of points in a market can change if significant services launch or go off air, but they will not be affected by intermittent services or minor services coming or going. The system allows for fluctuations in the market as a result of the more flexible nature of digital broadcasting. We believe that this approach will maintain standards of plurality while allowing more flexibility. It will help to support digital radio take-up, still in its early stages, and is agreed by the industry and the regulator.
732
It is important to see these changes to the radio ownership rules in the context of the overall regulatory regime. In radio, local stations will have to stick to the formats they agreed with the regulator. Whenever there is a change of ownership, Ofcom will be able to vary the licence as required to maintain the local character of the service.
Ofcom will also be given a new power to protect and promote the local nature of local radio. This strengthens the duty on Ofcom to secure that local radio stations include material that is of interest to listeners in that locality and that an appropriate amount of that material should be locally produced. It will ensure that local radio remains genuinely local.
Ofcom will review the ownership rules at least every three years and suggest further changes that it sees necessary. Ofcom will also be responsible for enforcing content regulation.
Let me briefly touch on Part 4 of the order. This part makes minor changes to the Communications Act's news provider provisions and as to the meaning of "potential audience" in the rules on holding local radio multiplex licences. These make minor amendments which do not relate to the primary topic of this order and do not represent policy changes in media ownership.
In summary, we believe that the draft order before the House still supports the principles that we set out in our media ownership consultation two years ago: that is, to retain a diversity of content from a plurality of sources; to promote competition; to provide regulatory certainty within a flexible legislative framework; to protect the localness of local radio; and to ensure that listeners get quality, creativity and innovation from those local services.
The local radio ownership rules set out in this draft order have been consulted on widely and over several years. We believe that we have put the listener at the heart of these rules and plurality of ownership and diversity of content have been central to our thinking. We want high-quality local radio and we want sufficient local news and content. At the same time, we want to allow for increased competition and investment for the UK radio industry. We believe that this order strikes the right balance. I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th November be approved [32nd Report, Session 2002–03, from the Joint Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
9 p.m.
Lord Luke: My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for his, as always, most coherent explanation of the provisions set out in this draft order.
While the introduction of a less restrictive regime for commercial radio companies should be welcomed, as they are on these Benches, I have one question which I should like the Minister to address. In the brief provided for this order by the Commercial Radio Companies Association—I thank the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, for that—the members of that

733
organisation emphasise their disappointment that the order fails to address one of the key failings, as they see it, set out in paragraph 8(1) of Schedule 14 to the Communications Act, which imposes new and tighter restrictions on the ownership of local radio multiplexes.
Previous legislation did not impose such restrictions, and the CRCA is perplexed as to why there should be a requirement for greater plurality from multiplex owners than for programme providers. Is the Minister in a position to answer that question?
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, there seems to be excessive politesse this evening. I begin by declaring an interest as chairman of the Commercial Radio Companies Association. I heartily welcome the measures set out in the order. Taken together, they presage a significant step forward for the industry and provide a firm foundation for the future relationship between the radio industry and the new regulator, Ofcom.
In particular, in Part 2 I welcome the ownership provisions for local analogue radio—the two plus one provisions. They will preserve diversity and plurality while permitting some consolidation of ownership. The result will be more investment and livelier competition for the BBC.
In Part 3, I also welcome the framework that has been agreed on the ownership criteria to be applied to local digital-sound programme services. In particular, I thank the Government for their acceptance of the Commercial Radio Companies Association's argument for a market-based criterion.
However, I am rather disappointed that there is not to be found in Part 4 any modification of the position taken in the Act on the imposition of restrictions on multiplex ownership—a point referred to by the noble Lord opposite. As the noble Lord pointed out, the restrictions imposed in the Act are more severe than those which applied before the Act came into being, when commercial radio companies were being encouraged to invest in digital multiplexes. At Third Reading, the Minister promised a consultation on these matters. Sadly, it proved to be less a consultation and more a brick wall.
Be that as it may, the Minister will recall that there are two anomalies in Kent and in Ayrshire—that is, two patterns of multiplex investment made by heritage stations which at present would contravene the terms of the Act. Normally, it would be expected that those investments would be grandfathered. However, in a letter received today from the Secretary of State to the chief executive of the Commercial Radio Companies Association, it is made clear that that will not be the case. Instead, the two anomalies will be grandfathered only while in present ownership.
It should be clear to all noble Lords that that decision imposes a serious economic penalty on the current owners, who have invested in a way that the
734
Government encouraged them to do. It is rather as though a local planner said, "Okay, we won't build a motorway through the bottom of your garden. But once you try to sell your house, we will". In his reply, will the Minister outline the terms of the compensation to be offered to the current owners of the multiplexes in Kent and Ayrshire for the economic loss that the Secretary of State's decision has imposed on them?
Finally, despite the remaining difficulties, the radio industry looks forward to working under the new Act and with the new regulator. A good relationship has already been established with Ofcom and, together, we intend to build a diverse, creative and prosperous commercial radio industry.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I deferred to the chairman of the Commercial Radio Companies Association because I wanted to hear the general tenor of his remarks. I am very pleased that, in the main, they were positive. I, too, look forward to hearing the precise figure of compensation that is to be offered in the multiplex examples cited. However, having been a member of the Puttnam committee and a strong advocate of plurality in the sector, I do not think I would go very far down the road in support of the position that the Commercial Radio Companies Association advocated in its brief.
I think that the orders get it about right. I have read the excellent brief produced by the Commercial Radio Companies Association. Indeed, it answers some accusations that I would not even dream of making against commercial radio. However, it puts into context what we are doing in the whole of this sector. It is not just what happened here in Britain that we were concerned about; the examples we have seen in other parts of the world worried us. This sector was prone to rapid consolidation to the detriment of the consumer. When we prepared the Bill we heard from Pat Mitchell, president of public service broadcasting in the United States. Interestingly, he said:
"You know the story of the canary in the coalmines; before coalminers would go down into the mines, they would send a canary down on a string. If the canary sang, it was safe for the miners to go in. If not, they stayed above.
"In many ways what has happened with radio service in the States is the media canary. With deregulation of radio in 1996, one company has gone from owning a few hundred radio stations to owning more than 1,000 and the number is growing".
Dennis Welch, a New Zealand media journalist commented on similar deregulation in New Zealand:
"given that one parent of The Radio Network, our largest radio company, is a Texas-based conglomerate with radio outlets all over the world, perhaps it's not surprising that tuning into a local station these days is the aural equivalent of eating a Big Mac".
That was the background against which many of us argued during the passage of the Bill that we wanted both the legislation and Ofcom to have powers to protect the local nature of our radio, both BBC and commercial. Although the Commercial Radio Companies Association is, quite properly, defensive of its members, there are examples of blanding, hubbing

735
and centralised scheduling, all perfectly justifiable in commercial terms but not necessarily advantageous to the local nature of radio. That is why, again, a number of us have urged on the Government greater help for community radio to balance what has been lost to a certain extent in local radio.
In case my friends—they are friends—in the commercial radio industry think that everything I say is negative, I acknowledge the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, that there has been some very brave investment in digital radio. Last night the Minister and I were both at the joint presentation by the BBC and the Commercial Radio Companies Association which showed just how exciting radio has now become as a sector. One only has to look at the advertising of goodies for Christmas to realise that digital radio has at long last made the breakthrough to become a "must have" in terms of Christmas presents.
In the McNally household it is a regular battle whether we have Karrang Radio or Xfm—the choice of my 13-year old son—or BBC Radio 7, which allows me to listen to "Round the Home" and "The Glums" once again, or Saga Radio. That is a kind of House of Lords for 1960s DJs but which plays some excellent pop music as I remember it. So I think that the mood and spirit around radio is extremely exciting.
Although I would not dream of accusing the commercial radio sector of half the accusations it defends in its brief, I do think that the Government have got the situation about right in both encouraging investment and safeguarding plurality in the order.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, is far too young for Saga Radio. I am grateful for the general support that has been expressed for the order. It has been unanimous on almost every part of the order. The only question which I have to answer is on the issue of multiplex ownership in Part 4 of the Bill.
I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Eatwell thinks that the consultation process was a brick wall rather than consultation. My understanding is that the consultation process was lengthy and well considered. It resulted in the total support of the Radio Authority and the support of the Commercial Radio Companies Association on all but one point. I would have thought that that was real consultation.
I turn to the substance of what my noble friend Lord Eatwell said. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McNally. I think that there are issues for which we must stand up. It is not true that there was no previous regulation of multiplex licences. There was no effective regulation. The regulations were not clear. They were not actually observed because they were unclear and defective. But it has never been a secret that we thought that there should be regulation of multiplex licences, just as for any other comparable service. The comparison with programme providers is not a valid comparison. There we are talking really about chalk and cheese.
736
So, if we move on from my argument that there should be regulation, what is its correct form? It was not criticised specifically, except to say correctly that in two areas—Ayrshire and Kent—there are multiplex owners who conflict with the proposed rules. We propose grandfathering for that. Grandfathering means that the existing owners of these multiplexes will be protected from the rules imposed by this order. That is what grandfathering means everywhere. There is no change from its definition here to when it is used anywhere else in the Communications Act or indeed in any other Act. If there were any extension of it, that would no longer be grandfathering, it would be a permanent exemption for the successors.
Similarly, because the change has been clearly signalled and is proportionate to the issue, which is to protect plurality, the question of compensation does not, cannot and should not arise. That leads me to my final point about plurality. Everyone who took part in the proceedings on the Communications Bill, particularly at Third Reading, will recall that this House was very passionate about the need for maintaining plurality. The order maintains plurality. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2003
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbletonrose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 1st December be approved [First Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Whitty.
The regulations set business recovery and recycling targets for packaging waste for the years 2004 to 2008. They also make other changes to the existing legislation which are designed to improve the working of the present system. Subject to approval the regulations will come into effect on 1st January 2004.
The packaging regulations have been in place since 1997 and were designed to allow the UK to meet the targets in the 1994 EC directive on packaging and packaging waste in 2001. We know already that there will be higher recovery and recycling targets to be met in 2008 and these are reflected in the regulations before us.
The regulations require businesses covered by the law to take responsibility, either individually or by joining a compliance scheme, for ensuring that target levels of recovery and recycling of packaging waste are met each year.
We have done well so far. As a result of those businesses affected meeting their recycling obligations, the United Kingdom achieved a 44 per cent recycling

737
and a 50 per cent recovery rate for packaging waste by the end of 2002. This is an increase in recycling of 17 percentage points and in recovery of 20 percentage points since the regulations came into force in 1997.
We believe that by setting future targets for the period 2004 to 2008, as requested by business and endorsed in the consultation held earlier this year, and by making improvements to the systems for the collection and recycling of packaging waste, these regulations will enable the United Kingdom to meet its future packaging directive requirements and make an important contribution to the achievement of the UK waste strategies and the sustainable development of our economy.
It would be remiss of me were I not to note how grateful we are for the work of the Advisory Committee on Packaging under its chairman, John Turner, for its valuable input into this comprehensive review. In drawing up the regulations we have accepted most of the recommendations of the ACP, which were also, for the most part, endorsed in the consultation. I commend the regulations to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 1st December be approved [First Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her clear exposition of the regulations. Would that the regulations themselves were as clear.
I am rather in the position where I am reminded of a song from my youth about 10 green bottles standing on a wall. We are now down to six—seven including the Deputy Speaker.
I am not happy about the procedures in which we are indulging ourselves. Last week we knew that these regulations were to come before the House. I could get a copy of the 1997 regulations; I could get a copy of the 2002 regulations; I could get a copy of the original EC directive. Could I get a copy of the regulations we are discussing today? I could not. It was not until yesterday that I finally received a typescript copy of these regulations and a printed copy was available today. I do not believe I was in a unique situation, but it has made it extremely difficult for us to find out what the regulations are about and to be properly briefed by those who will be affected by them. The regulations apply to industry, but if one reads them, although they are written in impeccable English, one needs an academic lawyer to interpret them, who must go through all the background to know exactly what they are all about.
Be that as it may, I accept that the purpose of the regulations is benign and I do not want to delay their implementation. However, it has certainly not been easy to find out exactly what has happened. I accept
738
that there has been consultation with the industry; but whether the regulations are on the same basis as the consultation is another matter. As far as I can make out, they are not. The percentage required to be recycled or recovered is greater than in the original consultation.
I am slightly puzzled, because the regulations are being introduced to deal with an anticipated EU directive in 2008. Why do we need to regulate now to provide for a situation that may have changed by the time we have to deal with it? I cannot help but wonder whether we are not gold-plating the provision to some degree. We know that consultation with the industry was based on 61 per cent recovery or recycling by 2004, but the regulations now demand 63 per cent. I should be grateful if the noble Baroness would explain why that change has been made.
Another small change may not be fundamental, but the industry compliance plans under the old regime, if I may put it that way, had to be submitted by 30th June. Now, under the regulations, those plans must be submitted by 31st January. The implementation date for the new regulations is 1st January 2004. Is the requirement that those plans be submitted by 31st January to apply when the regulations are implemented, or from a year later? If we are in effect giving the industry two weeks' notice of a major shift in the timing of plans being provided to the authorities, we are putting it in a difficult position.
The regulations will not be cheap for the industry. Some new offences are included that may cause problems. There is a step increase in the cost of licences, which are essential to be involved in recovery or recycling—one cannot do that without a licence. If one moves from recycling 400 tonnes to 401 tonnes, that extra tonne will cost another £2,150 on the licence. That is an interesting anomaly that does not encourage an expansive and dynamic industry.
That said, those are criticisms of procedure and of the rush with which the regulations are being introduced, because it has not been possible to receive sufficient explanation from the industry. I look forward to hearing what the noble Baroness has to say in reply.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, having arrived breathless at the last minute, without having realised that this important matter was on the Order Paper, I have been persuaded by my noble friends sitting in array on the Front Bench to say something on it. I am delighted to be able to do so, but I must confess that I have not had the opportunity to undertake the research that clearly the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has done.
Does the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, agree that there is no room for complacency in our discussion of the issue? This country does not have good recycling targets. There are honourable exceptions, but, on average, we are pretty poor at reducing waste. The explanatory note on the order refers to stimulating the recycling market. Can the noble Baroness comment on stimulating the market for products made from recycled materials? I

739
am aware of London Remade, which does good work but in an inevitably limited fashion. The memorandum also refers to the producer calculating its recovery and recycling obligations; but is the point not to reduce waste before one reaches the stage of reusing and recycling? I hope that, in working towards the targets set in this order and, no doubt, others, we remember not to lose sight of that important point.
I have difficulty in understanding the extent to which the order applies to packaging waste discarded by households. Obviously, in this context the term "domestic" refers to the UK rather than households. However, I will not be the only householder sitting in this Chamber who finds the amount of packaging that one inevitably acquires, very often as a result of buying the simplest item, quite offensive. Although one tries, one cannot always leave the shops with a brown paper bag of apples. They are packed on a polystyrene tray, possibly covered with rigid plastic or sealing plastic, for instance.
Noble Lords who have been to the Republic of Ireland recently will have been hugely impressed by the change of culture, almost overnight, as a result of the tax on plastic bags. That means not only that plastic bags no longer hang from hedgerows throughout the country, waving at you, but more importantly, a material is not being used, discarded and then disposed of in landfill sites. Many of us would like to be forced to think about taking a bag with us when we go shopping.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, arrived in time to take part in this short debate. Perhaps the Government, in full consultation with and operation alongside the industry, have got it right. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, implied that we were going too quickly, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that we were going too slowly. As it seems to be a night for declaring age, musical interests and infirmities, I find—and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, will find when he reaches my great age—that not only hankering after records of the 1950s but not even being able to open packets of biscuits becomes a problem.
I agree with reusing materials and reducing waste production. We are not gold-plating the directive; we have set business targets in the UK regulations to achieve the directive targets that we must meet in 2008. There may have been a little confusion. The 20th November business targets are different from the directive targets.
The intention of the directive and the regulations in driving recycling is also to promote greater use of recycled materials. The use of these materials by producers will result in lower costs of compliance for the industry—to answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith.
740
I note the comment made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about plastic bags. Some supermarkets now discourage the use of bags by offering reusable bags at a reasonable price. I have dealt with the issue of over-packaging. In these strategies, we have set national standards for the recycling and composting of all household waste. Those have been underpinned by challenging statutory performance standards for local authority recycling. More than half the 10 million tonnes or so of packaging waste arises in the household stream, as the noble Baroness recognises. We believe that this work in the industry plays an important role alongside that issue.
I am sorry about the problem referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, about the statutory instrument. The draft statutory instrument was laid on the 19th November and 100 copies were sent to each House. It had to be withdrawn because of a clerical error—I know that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, will remember the problem that we had when cattle and beef got mixed up in an order. In this case, it was necessary to change the word "or" to "and". However, printed copies of the replacement were available on Friday 5th December. Another statutory instrument was actually re-laid the same day that it was withdrawn.
We are aware that reprocessors are falling just below the fee threshold and could be affected, but there are only very few in this category. Recent data supplied by the Environment Agency suggest that there only seven reprocessers issuing between 400 and 500 PRNs.
We have not yet published the responses to the consultation. Our summary of the responses will be placed on the Defra website shortly. In the mean time, we have indicated in the regulatory impact assessments, especially the RIA on other changes, what percentage of responses were in favour of a particular proposal and the types of comments received.
The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, questioned the timing and procedure related to setting out targets. Targets were agreed in the common position reached by member states in September 2002. That was endorsed at second reading in the European Parliament. The targets are now legally agreed. Some other issues have been holding up agreement on the directive, but I am pleased to inform noble Lords that agreement has been formally reached in the past few days. The targets agreed to in the common position are available on the Commission's website. I also stress that we need to plan ahead, because we have to meet a target by 2008.
We expect the new regulations to come into force on 1st January and updated compliance plans will be due on 31st January 2004. Most schemes already know what their membership is likely to be next year. They will be updating an existing three-year plan, not developing a new one.

741
The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, also raised the issue of the 61 per cent recovery target being changed to a target of 63 per cent for 2004. Since publication of the consultation paper, the data that we used to calculate the targets have changed. Third quarter reprocessor data suggest that the UK is recovering more packaging waste this year than had been expected, although, to quote the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, we are not complacent. That changes
742
the starting point for the new targets. We have been informed by the industry that the amount of glass, wood and packaging waste in the waste stream is higher than previously thought. That means that a higher target is needed to achieve the required results.
I thank noble Lords for taking part in this short debate.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before ten o'clock.

  House of Lords: Peers' Motor Mileage and Bicycle Allowances
  House of Lords: Peers' Motor Mileage and Bicycle Allowances
  House of Lords: London Congestion Charge and Peers
  House of Lords: London Congestion Charge and Peers
  House of Lords: Life Peerages
  House of Lords: Life Peerages
  School Attendance Targets
  School Attendance Targets
  Disabled Children and Child Abuse: NSPCC Report
  Disabled Children and Child Abuse: NSPCC Report
  Sixth Forms: Ofsted Inspections
  Sixth Forms: Ofsted Inspections
  Post Mortems: Inter-Departmental Group
  Post Mortems: Inter-Departmental Group
  Ipswich Railway Tunnel Upgrading
  Ipswich Railway Tunnel Upgrading
  NHS: Choice, Responsiveness and Equity
  NHS: Choice, Responsiveness and Equity
  Mileage Allowances and Taxation
  Mileage Allowances and Taxation
  Mortgages
  Mortgages
  Gas Price Regulation
  Gas Price Regulation
  National Statistician
  National Statistician
  Licensing Act 2003
  Licensing Act 2003
  Sport: Drugs Policy
  Sport: Drugs Policy
  Anti-Doping Tests: Accredited Laboratories in UK
  Anti-Doping Tests: Accredited Laboratories in UK
  Voluntary Sports Clubs: VAT
  Voluntary Sports Clubs: VAT
  Sport: Taxation Revenue
  Sport: Taxation Revenue
  Hazard Industries: HSC Classifications
  Hazard Industries: HSC Classifications
  Older Workers
  Older Workers
  Health and Safety Commission and Health and Safety Executive
  Health and Safety Commission and Health and Safety Executive