Sitting of 8 January 2003

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

    11-plus
    Mr. David Chaytor: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the future of the 11-plus in Northern Ireland. [89176]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy): The decision to end transfer tests was announced by my predecessor, the former Education Minister, Martin McGuinness, on 11 October last year, and I will be working to abolish them as soon as is practicable. Whatever arrangements are made to achieve progress with the education system, I can assure the House that the guiding principle will be the best interests of all the children of Northern Ireland.
    In that context, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the whole House will join me in condemning Monday's pipe bomb attack on Holy Cross primary school. Those who carried out the attack must be brought to justice, and I call on anyone who has information to give it to the police. Every child has the right to learn in a safe and secure environment, and it is everyone's responsibility to guard and maintain that right.
    Mr. Chaytor: I thank my hon. Friend for her reply. Does she feel that her predecessor's decision was the right decision for Northern Ireland?
    Jane Kennedy: The former Minister's decision was based on the outcome of the consultation on responses to the Burns report. The House will be aware that I am continuing detailed consultation on the responses to that report. The meetings have been very fruitful—we are looking to develop a consensus on the way forward and, as hon. Members will be aware, decisions on what will replace the current transfer tests have yet to be taken.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: On behalf of my party and colleagues, I condemn and deplore the criminal act of putting a pipe bomb near a school. However, the
    154
    Minister should pay more attention to the clearly expressed will of the people of Northern Ireland. Does she not accept that the pupils of Northern Ireland continue to do better than their counterparts in England and Wales in achieving higher qualifications? That is partly due to the effectiveness of our present selection procedure, so will she seek to retain a transfer procedure that commands the widespread respect and support of the people of Northern Ireland?
    Jane Kennedy: I have no problem—I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman's last point. The proportion of young people achieving top-grade GCSEs in Northern Ireland is among the highest in the UK, but many young people, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds, are leaving school with low qualifications. The objective of the post-primary review, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is to raise standards for all pupils and build a modern and fair education system that enables all children in Northern Ireland to achieve their full potential.

    Devolved Institutions
    Helen Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions he has held with Northern Ireland party leaders about the future of the devolved institutions. [89177]
    Mr. Mark Hendrick: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions he has had on the prospects for re-establishing the Northern Ireland Assembly. [89182]
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Paul Murphy): We had intensive discussions before Christmas with the main political parties in Northern Ireland with a view to restoring the stable and inclusive operation of the Belfast agreement on an exclusively democratic and peaceful basis. We plan further urgent discussions, with a view to reaching agreement before the Assembly elections on 1 May.
    Helen Jackson: I welcome my right hon. Friend's response. I am sure that he agrees that devolution encourages all the Northern Ireland political parties to talk together about the ordinary political issues that affect their everyday lives. Will he expand on the process that he envisages to enable further discussions between now and, we hope, the elections in May? In particular, how will the Government of the Republic be brought into the discussions?
    Mr. Murphy: I thank my hon. Friend for her comments—she is quite right about the restoration of devolution in Northern Ireland. I believe that every party in Northern Ireland, irrespective of its background, heritage and traditions, wants the restoration of devolution. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has just referred to education, which is properly a matter for Northern Ireland politicians, as opposed to us in Westminster. I hope that we shall reach that position as soon as possible.

    155
    My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) will be aware that I met the Irish Government before Christmas and that yesterday the leader of the Ulster Unionist party, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), met the Prime Minister and me. Today, the Prime Minister is meeting Sinn Fein, and tomorrow the Social Democratic and Labour party. Further meetings will be held in Belfast next week, which the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne), will attend, and I plan further meetings over the next two weeks.
    Mr. Hendrick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that since the dissolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly there has been no effective medium for discussion between the main political parties and that, to some extent, that has fuelled sectarian violence? There is a clear need to get that dialogue back on track, and I am pleased to hear about the efforts that are being made at the moment. Is he confident that sufficient dialogue will have taken place by May to enable the elections to go ahead peacefully and the Northern Ireland Assembly to be reconstituted fairly soon?
    Mr. Murphy: It is certainly my hope that there will be elections on 1 May to the Northern Ireland Assembly, so that devolution and the other institutions can be restored. I also welcome meetings, for example, between the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and the president of Sinn Fein, and other meetings between political parties in Northern Ireland. Everybody involved in the political process in Northern Ireland is making an intensive effort to ensure that we restore the institutions, but I do not underestimate the difficulties that lie ahead of us. There are important issues at stake, the central one of which, of course, is to ensure that we engage in politics in Northern Ireland through exclusively peaceful means.
    Mr. Nigel Dodds: In the context of restoring devolution, will the Secretary of State join in condemning the association of the Sinn Fein lord mayor of Belfast, Alex Maskey, and two Sinn Fein Members of the House with a calendar that glorifies and promotes IRA activity and that is currently on sale in Northern Ireland? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that illustrates the links between Sinn Fein politicians and IRA terrorists, exposes the hypocrisy of Sinn Fein, which talks about peace but is happy to be linked with terror and violence, and proves once again that it is unfit for government in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that there is no place for violence in Northern Ireland right across the political spectrum. One of the most important issues that we will address this week and next week is how to ensure that political parties are exclusively peaceful and exclusively democratic. As regards the calendar, that is a matter for Belfast council.
    Mr. David Trimble: I assume that the Secretary of State will be at the meeting to be held this afternoon with the leadership of the republican movement. Will he point out to them that a party that is committed or claims to be committed to exclusively
    156
    democratic means—the standard set out in the Belfast agreement—does not maintain a private army, does not collude with international terrorism and does not operate a spy ring at the heart of government? Will he tell them clearly and unequivocally that all those activities must end before the restoration of devolution can take place?
    Mr. Murphy: I understand what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. It is the collapse of trust and confidence that has led to the suspension of the Assembly and the institutions. I repeat what the Prime Minister has said: we want a commitment to exclusively peaceful means—real, total and permanent—and a cessation of any sort of paramilitary activity.
    Mr. Seamus Mallon: The Secretary of State knows that many of us would regard the devolution of policing and justice powers as the most fundamental step in the political process. Does he agree that, for that to happen, there will have to be a proven period of stability and maturity within the political institutions? Does he further agree that, in the present impasse, that issue should not become a bargaining chip with any political party, or between any political party and the Government?
    Mr. Murphy: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. It is important that we ensure the stability of the institutions and of the general situation in Northern Ireland before we embark on the devolution of policing and justice. He will, of course, remember, as will many other hon. Members in the Chamber, that the principle of the devolution of justice and policing was enshrined in the Belfast agreement. The principle is right; as to the timing, I agree that the matter should not be a political football, but should be agreed by all the political parties.
    Mr. Alistair Carmichael: Why have the Government chosen to pursue the practice of bilateral meetings between the Prime Minister and certain party leaders from Northern Ireland, instead of convening the review group, which is open to the Government under the terms of the agreement? In particular, does the Secretary of State agree that the review group will be needed to resolve the problem of designations, which has been outstanding since November 2001?
    Mr. Murphy: May I, first, welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new position in the House? I look forward to working with him in the months ahead.
    Two paragraphs of the agreement refer to a review. Paragraph 7, of course, is the paragraph under which we are currently talking in Northern Ireland. The paragraph 8 review is the more general review required under the agreement and will take place four years after it took effect. Therefore, in about autumn this year, there will probably be a major review under the terms of the agreement.

    157
    On the hon. Gentleman's points about bilateral meetings, my view is that the more meetings the better, in whatever form. We have to deal with these matters and resolve the difficulties as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Tom Harris: I welcome any moves by the Government to discuss with Northern Ireland political parties the re-establishment of the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the House has a role to play in building confidence among the different parties, if only they were all represented here in the House of Commons? In the discussions, have Sinn Fein Members indicated any increase in willingness to come here and do the job that they were elected to do—represent their constituents in the House of Commons?
    Mr. Murphy: I shall have the opportunity later to talk to Sinn Fein about various issues. I will raise that issue, but I suggest to my hon. Friend that he may not get an immediate response.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: May I wholeheartedly endorse the Minister of State's condemnation of the appalling attack on Holy Cross school—a wonderful school that I have visited on many occasions? May I also express my hope, which I believe will be felt throughout the House, that the parents of children in that school and everybody else there will be united in their determination to ensure that such intimidation will not succeed in destroying a wonderful educational institution?
    Does the right hon. Gentleman share the assessment of the Irish Department of Foreign Affairs, which has now been leaked throughout the press on both sides of the Irish sea, that the IRA remains active and
    "remains involved in recruitment, training and intelligence gathering"?
    Mr. Murphy: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's words about Holy Cross school. We find what happened yesterday wholly and totally repugnant. I hope that things will get back to normal as quickly as possible.
    The Prime Minister has made it absolutely clear, as have I, that there is still activity on the part of the IRA. Indeed, there is activity on the part of paramilitaries across the political spectrum in Northern Ireland. Of course, that does not mean that the ceasefire has been broken, but, as the Prime Minister also said, it is not simply a question of the breaking of a ceasefire, but one of ensuring proper trust and confidence among parties so that they go back into the institutions and the devolved Administration in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Davies: May I make it absolutely plain that the Opposition expect the Government to live up to the brave declarations of the Prime Minister in Belfast in November and to take specific action when there is evidence of continuing breaches, instead of, as before, all too often simply turning a blind eye—a policy that led us to the current crisis?
    On a separate matter, will the right hon. Gentleman now establish a public inquiry into the Claudy atrocity in 1972, given that Assistant Chief Constable Sam Kinkaid is reported to have stated that documents exist
    158
    that provide direct evidence of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice by the then Government and the Northern Ireland Office?
    Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman and I, and everyone else in the House who is aware of what happened at Claudy, regard it as one of the most heinous bombings and crimes of the past 30 years. It was a terrible business. On the question of a public inquiry, he will be aware that that the police investigation is not yet complete. The Government are co-operating fully with that investigation and it would not be appropriate for me to comment any further until it is complete.
    Mr. Davies: It is a fact that the atrocity took place 30 years ago, so we hope that the police investigations will be completed reasonably soon and will not take another 30 years. However, may I have the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that, if there is evidence of any sort of cover-up or collusion involving Ministers or the Northern Ireland Office, there will be a public inquiry? [Interruption.] I have to say to him that his Back Benchers, who are suggesting that because a Conservative Government were in power—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman does not have to say anything to a Back Bencher. He is putting a question to the Minister.
    Mr. Davies: I want to make it clear that Conservative Members believe that the truth should come out, irrespective of who may have been involved in any cover-up, without fear or favour. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it would be thoroughly deplorable if anything were done that would confirm the sad impression that has already been created that, when an atrocity or a cover-up involves victims from the nationalist community, the Government are prepared to spend any amount of time or money to get at the facts, but when the atrocity involves victims of the Unionist community, they will not bestir themselves.
    Mr. Murphy: We make no distinction between the victims of crimes in the troubles over the past three decades: both sides of the community in Northern Ireland have suffered appallingly. I will await the result of the investigation, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this should be dealt with as speedily as possible. I also agree that there should be no cover-up, as he puts it, in uncovering the truth. It is extremely important that we get to the bottom of this matter, but we have to await the results of the police investigation.

    Criminal Justice
    Mr. John Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he is taking to help the victims of crime in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [89179]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Desmond Browne): The Government remain committed to improving access to justice for victims of crime in Northern Ireland. A key part of that is the implementation of the 16 criminal justice review recommendations on victims, which are

    159
    currently being implemented. I intend to publish a renewed and revised criminal justice implementation plan soon.
    Mr. Smith: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that one of the ways to heal the terrible scars of the troubles in Northern Ireland over the last 30 years is to do all that we can to assist and support the victims of terrible crimes? Will he tell me how much the Government have allocated to fund initiatives that specifically support and assist victims?
    Mr. Browne: My hon. Friend is right to point out that we are the first Government to prioritise victims of the troubles in particular, but there has been a long-standing Government policy to support victims in Northern Ireland, certainly financially. He is also right to point out that resources are important in this regard. Not all the recommendations of the criminal justice review require resources, but I am pleased to tell the House that resources have been secured for those that do. For example, we have secured £1.6 million for Victim Support—which provides, among other things, a court witness service for witnesses and young people across Northern Ireland—and a grant of more than £150,000 to Nexus, a charity that works with victims of abuse. The House should also note that all this is in addition to the Compensation Agency's payments of compensation to victims, which amount to more than £45 million in this financial year alone.
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: Would not the best help that the Government could give to victims of crime be to ensure that terrorist crimes in Northern Ireland do not happen again? Is the Minister confident that bending over backwards to accommodate the IRA, which is inextricably linked to Sinn Fein, as the Government did before the last election by releasing all prisoners, is the best way to ensure that no more terrorist acts take place, particularly in the light of the spy ring identified at Stormont last year?
    Mr. Browne: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question, because it gives me the opportunity to confirm the Government's commitment to the very objective that he sets out—sustained peace and stability in Northern Ireland. He concentrates on but one issue, that of the release of prisoners. He will, of course, know that that was part of the Good Friday or Belfast agreement, which I understand he supports. There are difficulties involved with the implementation of that at the moment, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware of what the Government are doing because it is being done in a transparent fashion. I am sure that he supports the Government in the current discussions.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: Some of the continuing victims of crime are those who have been forced out of Northern Ireland and into exile by paramilitary groups. Will the discussions with Sinn Fein provide an opportunity to ensure that its members put pressure on the Provisional IRA to end those practices? I hope that that can also be extended to the loyalist community.
    Mr. Browne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question and I would like to take this opportunity to pay
    160
    tribute to him for his consistency on an issue that has been a blight on the community of Northern Ireland for three decades. He has been unstinting in his support for those who have been exiled and for those who support them, and he has been able to help me, the Government and the organisations involved. He can rest assured that the issue will be discussed with all parties in the context of the talks. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call the next question, the House must come to order.

    Weston Park Conference
    Mr. Andrew Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on recent progress on decisions taken at the Weston Park conference. [89181]
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Paul Murphy): On 5 December, the Government introduced legislation in another place to give effect to the commitments set out in the updated Patten implementation plan published following the Weston Park discussions.
    Mr. Turner: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, but will he confirm that bilateral discussions have been going on with all the parties and that indications have been given to some of them that there may be an amnesty for terrorists on the run? Will he confirm that there is to be no such amnesty?
    Mr. Murphy: Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman that no such undertakings have been given. As he will be aware, the UK and Irish Governments said at the Weston Park talks in summer 2001 that they would take steps to resolve the issue of terrorists on the run who would, if convicted, stand to benefit from the early release scheme, but that has also to be set against the Prime Minister's recent comments that the Government would contemplate steps on such issues only in the context of acts of completion.
    David Burnside: I wish our new Secretary of State a happy new year and good luck in conducting his important responsibilities in Northern Ireland. Will he perhaps learn from the mistake made by his predecessor at Weston Park, where the Ulster Unionist party agreed nothing, yet deals were done behind the scenes with Sinn Fein? Will he give the House a commitment that no Weston Park-style behind-the-scenes deals will take place under his stewardship of the Northern Ireland Office?
    Mr. Murphy: I reciprocate the hon. Gentleman's good wishes for the new year. It is important that we make the discussions over the next number of weeks as transparent as possible so that people are aware of exactly what is being discussed and negotiated. That is why I very much favour the round-table talks in Northern Ireland, but, of course, talks between the parties and the Governments are also extremely important. As he knows, we will not be able to resolve our difficulties unless all parties, including his, agree with the final outcomes of those discussions.

    Decommissioning
    Mr. John Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the decommissioning of arms and explosives by paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland. [89183]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy): The IRA has engaged in two acts of decommissioning. It must now resume its contact with the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning and all paramilitary organisations must now, as the Prime Minister has said, complete the transition to exclusively peaceful means.
    Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the Minister for that helpful answer. Will she confirm that there can be no question whatever of any party serving in a reconstituted Executive unless it has first discharged its obligations to disband militarily and to decommission all arms and explosives?
    Jane Kennedy: Broadly, yes. Although we continue to judge that the ceasefire is intact, there is no doubt whatever that the Provisional IRA remains an active paramilitary organisation. That is precisely why the Prime Minister sent the very strong message in his Belfast speech in October that it can no longer remain half in and half out of the process of normalising Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson: The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) told us that the devolution of policing must not be a political football. Will the Minister give a commitment that the security of the people of Northern Ireland will not become a political football and that so-called normalisation, or the dismantling of security towers in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, will not be bartered for some token gesture on decommissioning?
    Jane Kennedy: The security of the people of Northern Ireland remains of paramount importance to the Government. I know that the hon. Gentleman will agree that we regularly demonstrate our commitment to delivering that security and to ensuring that the security services in Northern Ireland have all the resources that they need, as shown by our recent commitment of new funding. The vast majority of the rest of what he said is rhetoric and does not need to be responded to.

    Northern Ireland Assembly
    Mr. Bill Tynan: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions he has had on the prospects for re-establishing the Northern Ireland Assembly. [89185]
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Paul Murphy): I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson).
    Mr. Tynan: I thank my right hon. Friend for that response. Does he accept that violence in Northern
    162
    Ireland is growing, and that that growth could be due to the suspension of the Assembly? Will he redouble his efforts to make sure that we get an agreement that will eliminate violence and restore the Assembly as soon as possible?
    Mr. Murphy: I agree that the stability of the institutions is an important factor in ensuring that the stability of society as a whole in Northern Ireland is as good as we can achieve. I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the recent problems with loyalist paramilitaries in Northern Ireland. The Chief Constable is exercising a great deal of authority on these issues and cracking down on such crime, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that all of us who are involved in the Northern Ireland peace process must redouble our efforts to resolve the difficulties that we face.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. James Gray: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 8 January.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in the House I will have further such meetings later today.
    Mr. Gray: The appalling tragedy in Zimbabwe continues, but does the Prime Minister agree that it should be for statesmen and not cricketers to decide whether the world cup goes ahead? What steps will he take to try to have the world cup moved to Kenya or South Africa? If it cannot be moved, should the England team still attend?
    The Prime Minister: We have to distinguish very carefully between an ability to order people not to go, and to express our view as to whether they should go. We have expressed our view very clearly that they should not go, but as with the decision on the 1980 Olympics, it is not within our power or ability to order people not to go. However, we have made it quite clear to the cricket authorities that we believe that it is wrong that they should go, and I hope that they take account of that advice. Whether they do so is a matter for them.
    Mr. Jim Cousins: The difficult year set out for us by the Prime Minister has clearly begun. [HON. MEMBERS: "More!"] There will be more. Is it his purpose in his policy towards Iraq to secure a democratic Iraq, a settled middle east free of all its weapons of mass destruction, and a safer Britain with new and willing partners against terror? It is by consequences, and not by hopes, that policies in the end will be judged.
    The Prime Minister: First, I thank my hon. Friend for the opening part of his remarks—it is always good to be proved right so early in the new year. Secondly, we

    163
    believe that Iraq must comply with the United Nations resolutions, and must be disarmed of all weapons of mass destruction. They have a choice: they can do that willingly and abide by the UN's will, or, if they refuse to do it willingly, it will have to be done by force. However, I hope very much that, in times to come—whatever happens in the immediate future in relation to Iraq—we can move to a more stable position in the middle east whereby we resolve the long-running issue between the Israelis and the Palestinians, and all people in the middle east gain the opportunity for greater democratic stability, human rights and liberty.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Was the Prime Minister's Foreign Secretary right to say that the prospects of military action in Iraq are 60:40 against?
    The Prime Minister: What is 100 per cent. certain is that Saddam must be disarmed of weapons of mass destruction. That is in accordance with the UN resolution, and that resolution must be abided by. As to whether we will have military action in Iraq, that depends on the choice of Saddam. We can speculate on that, but the fact is that it is his choice: he has to decide whether he disarms peacefully, or is disarmed by force.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: I notice that the Prime Minister did not answer the question that was posed to him. The Defence Secretary has contradicted the Foreign Secretary. He said yesterday:
    "I don't believe that it helps to make these kind of comments at this stage."
    Who is right: the Foreign Secretary or the Defence Secretary?
    The Prime Minister: I have just set out what I believe to be the position. I can do so again for the right hon. Gentleman, but I think that he has understood it very clearly. In the end, it is for Saddam to decide whether disarmament happens as a matter of peace through the UN, or as a matter of conflict. The choice is his.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Our armed forces personnel, whose lives might soon be at risk, are entitled to a clear lead from the Government. I am sure that they will have told the Prime Minister that, however much one wants peace—and everyone here wants peace—one cannot half prepare for war. Not for the first time, the Government are sending different messages to different audiences, and Cabinet Ministers are in open disagreement. How can the Prime Minister convince the British people that war may be necessary if he cannot convince his Cabinet?
    The Prime Minister: The position is as I set it out a moment ago, but I shall elaborate on what I said to the right hon. Gentleman. We have made every preparation that we should make. That is the reason for yesterday's statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. It is completely wrong to say that British troops are half prepared for any action. That is nonsense. However, whether or not we have conflict depends on the circumstances that I have set out. There is a UN resolution, which Saddam must abide by. If he
    164
    does not, he will be disarmed by force. That is the Government's position. I should have thought that it was absolutely clear, even to the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware of the grave anxieties that many people have about an impending war in Iraq, but does he think that this is a good time to make the US President aware of his wider social and environmental responsibilities towards the rest of the world? Might not this be a good opportunity to raise issues such as Kyoto and trade tariffs, about which we disagree with the US?
    The Prime Minister: As I made clear in my speech yesterday, we raise these issues constantly, and it is important that we do so. My hon. Friend is right to say that people have anxieties about the possibility of conflict in Iraq. Of course they do, as we should never put British troops into action unless it is necessary to do so. However, I believe passionately that the issue of weapons of mass destruction and the related issue of international terrorism are the key security threats facing our country and our world today. I believe also that it is only a matter of time before those issues come together. When there is a clear view among the international community that a country—namely Iraq—must be disarmed of weapons of mass destruction, it is essential for the fight against those weapons and international terrorism that the will of the UN is obeyed. That is why, although we have given Saddam the chance to disarm peacefully, we shall—reluctantly—have to disarm him by force if he refuses to do so.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: Given what the Prime Minister has just said, if the UN weapons inspectorate does not produce concrete evidence of weapons of mass destruction but the US nonetheless decides to go ahead with military conflict against Iraq, will Britain be involved?
    The Prime Minister: I am not going to speculate on the circumstances that might arise. Both Britain and the US have made it clear that we seek to resolve the matter through the UN. The weapons inspectors are in Iraq to discover whether there has been a breach of the UN resolution. They should be allowed to do their work, and I am sure that they will be.
    Mr. Kennedy: The Liberal Democrats have been fully supportive throughout of the role of the UN in this issue. That must remain the case. However, will the Prime Minister be more specific, because, as he rightly acknowledges, people in this country are deeply concerned? Under what circumstances would the US take military action against Iraq that our country would not choose to support?
    The Prime Minister: I have made clear the circumstances in which we do support military action. A UN resolution has been passed that states specifically that Saddam must disarm himself of weapons of mass destruction. If there is a breach of that resolution, we will support military action to make sure that the will of the UN is enforced. However, the choice is Saddam's, as

    165
    I said a moment ago. He could disarm willingly. I understand the right hon. Gentleman to be saying that, if there is a breach of UN resolutions, the Liberal Democrat party will support us in the action that we have to take. I am glad that we have cleared that up.
    Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: The Saddam Hussein dossier presented to this House last year stated that Iraqi Kurds were still being persecuted. However, when they apply for asylum in this country, the majority of applications are turned down. When that happens, any benefits they receive are stopped immediately and they are left destitute while they wait to be deported, although we will not deport them back to Baghdad at this time for understandable reasons. Many of them therefore have to turn to charity or crime, hence the 27 people in Walton jail who cost the taxpayer £35,000 a year. Will my right hon. Friend find some way to accommodate this group and recover our reputation as a humane and tolerant society?
    The Prime Minister: First, I entirely accept the problem that my hon. Friend raises, but let me explain our difficulty in dealing with it. It is not the case that all people in Iraq, particularly parts of Kurdish Iraq, are suffering persecution. Therefore, it does not necessarily mean that simply because someone originates from Iraq, they are entitled to asylum in this country. So we still have to go through a process of deciding who are suitable asylum claimants. For those who are not, we are exploring safe transit routes to return them to parts of Kurdish Iraq where they would not be subject to persecution. It is difficult to resolve this, because if we were to say that anybody from Iraq who claims asylum can automatically be given asylum, that would lead us into considerable problems. We are trying to resolve this difficult situation by ensuring that we distinguish properly between genuine asylum claimants and those who are not genuine and then to find safe transit routes for those who are not genuine back to Kurdish Iraq.
    Mrs. Patsy Calton: In common, I am sure, with other right hon. and hon. Members, I have received hundreds of communications from constituents expressing their concern about the intended action in Iraq. Is the Prime Minister engaging in dangerous brinkmanship with Saddam Hussein or is he seriously telling us that he intends to commit British troops when an overwhelming majority of the public are against this?
    The Prime Minister: It is my duty to explain to people why I think it is necessary, in certain circumstances, to commit British troops to war. Let me put this point to the hon. Lady: the United Nations has made its will and its intention very clear that Saddam must be disarmed of these weapons of mass destruction. If, in those circumstances, he was in breach of the United Nations' will and we refused to act as an international community, we would be doing two things: we would send a signal to Saddam that we would do nothing to prevent him from building up weapons of mass destruction—and he, uniquely, is a leader who has used such weapons against his own people as well as others—and we would also send a signal that we were not serious about the issue of weapons of mass destruction.
    166
    I understand why people feel that this is a very distant threat. If someone had said in August 2001 that al-Qaeda was a real danger to our country and that Afghanistan was harbouring its members, I suppose that people would have been sceptical about whether we needed to act, but in retrospect, it would have been better if we had. The reason we are taking this position is not some dangerous piece of brinkmanship. What is dangerous is to allow Saddam to develop these weapons in breach of UN resolutions and do nothing about it, because we will rue the consequences of that weakness later.
    Mr. John Hume: Given the enormous damage that the drugs industry has done to young people and the huge increase in crime that it is creating across the world, should it not be the priority of every Government to come together and act internationally to end that industry? As it also funds terrorist organisations across the world, international action should be taken to wipe it out and deal with the countries where the drugs are produced.
    The Prime Minister: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We are doing two things. Within the European Union, we are working co-operatively across national frontiers to deal with this problem, particularly with how the drugs are imported into the EU from neighbouring states. It is part of the accession agreements and negotiations with each of the new countries entering the European Union that they act on this issue.
    The second thing that we are doing—specifically in relation to Afghanistan and, from the United States, in relation to Colombia—is to try to deal with the sources and origins of drug production. The hon. Gentleman is entirely right to say that there is a link. The expression "narcoterrorism" describes the link between drugs and terrorism and it is a very active link.
    Mr. Lain Duncan Smith: Does the Prime Minister agree that burglars who are caught and convicted should go to jail?
    The Prime Minister: In appropriate circumstances, of course.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: But the Lord Chief Justice has issued guidance to the courts that burglars should not normally go to jail and the Prime Minister's Lord Chancellor has said that he agrees with the Lord Chief Justice. The guidance stands, regardless of what the Prime Minister's spokesman said on his behalf yesterday. The message from the two highest law officers in the land is that burglars should not fear jail. Can the Prime Minister answer this question? Four years ago, the Government said that all third-time burglars would get mandatory sentences of at least three years: how many such sentences have actually been given?
    The Prime Minister: First, let me correct the right hon. Gentleman about what the Lord Chief Justice said. Burglary is a serious offence that causes enormous distress to people; courts have, and should have, the power in appropriate circumstances—to which I shall come in a moment—to send even first-time offenders to prison. What the Lord Chief Justice actually said was

    167
    that there may be circumstances in which first-time offenders, if, for example, they had a drugs problem, should be given a community sentence with drug rehabilitation rather than being sent directly to prison.
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: Soft.
    The Prime Minister: Someone mentioned the word "soft", so let me point out that I have before me the figures for first-time offenders sent to prison under the Labour Government. Almost half as many again first-time offenders are sent to prison under the Government as five years ago. What is more, I also point out to the right hon. Gentleman that according to the British crime survey—he knows the figures almost as well as I do—burglary under the Labour Government has fallen by almost 40 per cent. since we came to office.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: What the Prime Minister fails to tell us is that the Lord Chief Justice's letter, following his guidance, states clearly that the purpose of the guidance is to reduce the numbers going to prison. But the Prime Minister did not answer the question about his "Three strikes and you're out." The answer is that of those third-time burglars, only six received any such sentence, so from this Government we have had "Tough on crime", "Three strikes and you're out", on-the-spot fines, night courts, drug tsars, no fewer than 12 criminal justice Bills and countless pieces of meaningless drivel. Is not the Prime Minister's real policy on law and order just a combination of gimmicks and hot air?
    The Prime Minister: Let us deal with the two facts that the right hon. Gentleman has stated. He says that we are being soft on first-time offenders going to prison, yet I have just pointed out that half as many again first-time offenders are going to prison as five years ago. What is more, in appropriate circumstances, as the Lord Chief Justice himself said, it is right that even first-time burglars go to prison. Actually, what has happened is that over the past five to six years, there has been—according not to the Government but to the British crime survey—a 40 per cent. cut in burglary. Compare that with a doubling of crime under the Government of whom the right hon. Gentleman was a member.
    Mr. Khalid Mahmood: I am sure that my right hon. Friend and the whole House will join me in expressing our condolences to the families of Latisha Shakespear and Charlene Ellis, the two teenage girls so cruelly murdered in my constituency in the early hours of 2 January. We also send our best wishes for the full recovery of Sophie Ellis and Cheryl Shaw who, thankfully, survived the tragic shooting. Those events in my constituency were appalling and have affected and shocked the whole community. I hope that my right hon. Friend agrees that we should take action against the supply and availability of firearms, and that we should look into the root causes of the disaffection that leads young people to that lifestyle.
    The Prime Minister: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend said. I offer my most sincere and heartfelt sympathy to the families and friends of the victims of that terrible recent crime in Birmingham—as I am sure the whole House does, too. My hon. Friend is also right
    168
    to say that we should look carefully at the measures that we take in relation to that. The matter was first raised a couple of months ago at the street crime meeting by senior police officers, when we undertook to consider the possibility of a mandatory five-year sentence for illegal possession of a firearm. We intend to amend the Criminal Justice Bill to bring that into effect, and I hope that the House will support it.
    My hon. Friend is also right that we must tackle some of the underlying causes of this problem, which is one reason why we are committing such substantial sums to inner city regeneration over the next few years. People should be left in no doubt that this is a serious issue that we intend to tackle, and I hope that the House will support us in doing so.
    Mr. Peter Luff: When the Worcestershire royal hospital opened last year—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading!"] I will be reading later but I am not reading now. When the Worcestershire royal hospital opened last year, the Prime Minister said that it would have teething problems. Every day since, it has been operating at capacity, and it has been on red alert regularly, with patients waiting outside in ambulances, putting a huge strain on its hard-working doctors and nurses. Are those just teething problems or do they provide compelling evidence that the head of the Prime Minister's delivery unit was right to warn that
    "there has not been enough forethought and planning"
    by the Department of Health, and that much of the extra taxpayer's money being made available to the NHS is being wasted?
    The Prime Minister: The money is not being wasted. The extra money going into the national health service is providing new buildings, new equipment, more nurses and more doctors, which means that every single national in-patient waiting indicator is below what it was in 1997. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman that the delivery unit does not say that the position is worse in the national health service; it says rightly that we must make sure that the extra money that we are putting in is used well and wisely. It is being so used. The reason why the Tories want to run down the national health service is that they are opposed to the extra money going in. They will get that every time one of them asks a question on health or education from now until election day. They are not just opposed to the extra money going in: their leader has just committed them to a 20 per cent. cut across the board in public services. The hon. Gentleman can go back to his constituents in Worcestershire and tell them how the health service would be affected by a 20 per cent. reduction in funding.
    Mr. Terry Davis: Who is better placed to decide whether Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction: President Bush or Hans Blix?
    The Prime Minister: A process is set out in the UN resolution, whereby the inspectors go into Iraq. Saddam Hussein has made his declaration of 8 December, and everyone is deeply sceptical about the contents of that. It is for the inspectors to examine whether there is evidence of weapons of mass destruction. If there is such

    169
    evidence, that is a breach of the UN resolution. A combination of the judgment of the UN inspectors and the judgment of the international community is involved.
    Mr. Charles Hendry: The Prime Minister will recall his meeting in Downing street on 22 January 2001, when he pledged to the leader of Wealden district council and others that the Government would take action to ensure that the devastating floods of October 2000 would not happen again—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should allow the hon. Gentleman to put his question.
    Mr. Hendry: Even the Prime Minister did not promise to stop the rain, but he did promise to stop the villages being affected. Is he aware that, while he was away over Christmas and the new year, Uckfield in my constituency nearly faced devastating flooding again, and Buxted was flooded? Not only has no project to prevent flooding been proposed but no action has even remotely been suggested. Does he understand why people in Wealden feel so betrayed? For all his fine words and pledges, their houses are at as much risk today as they were two years ago.
    The Prime Minister: I had better be clear as to what I did promise a couple of years ago. I said that we would increase significantly the amount of money going into flood defences, and we have. I extend the deepest sympathy to the hon. Gentleman's constituents whose homes have been flooded. However, investment in flood defence schemes has worked, and without the extra investment over the past couple of years, about 5,000 more homes would have been flooded. We also have much better warning of floods. I shall, of course, look into the situation that the hon. Gentleman described, but I have to say to him that we have done our level best over the last two years to give us better flood defences, and on the whole, although obviously not in every case, they have improved the situation.
    Mr. Patrick Hall: In the first week of the new year, three significant items were reported in the Bedford and Kempston area, and they are worth listening to. First, Bedford hospital is the most improved hospital in the country. Secondly, successful action has been taken to stop children bunking off school. Thirdly, record numbers of officers have been recruited by Bedfordshire police. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, contrary to claims made by one or two narrow interest groups about his new year message, he has absolutely no need to divert attention from the Government's domestic achievements?
    The Prime Minister: I agree. I wish that I myself had studied those press reports in detail. My hon. Friend outlines the extra investment that is going into every constituency. We now have the absolute dividing line between the two political parties, because extra police officers require investment, and there is extra investment
    170
    in schools and hospitals. We are committed to that investment, and the Conservatives want to make a 20 per cent. cut in each and every area of it.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: The Prime Minister's Lord Chancellor said that the public would understand why burglars convicted for a second time should not necessarily go to prison. As the Lord Chancellor was once the Prime Minister's pupil master and head of chambers, surely the right hon. Gentleman should now take the lead in that arrangement and dismiss the Lord Chancellor, because he is evidently out of touch with the electorate and the wider public.
    The Prime Minister: I have already addressed this point, but I point out again that there are now more first-time offenders going to prison than there were a few years ago.
    Laura Moffatt: Tomorrow, the primary care trust in Crawley will be making a decision about the future health care needs of my town. Will my right hon. Friend assess what a 20 per cent. cut in the magnificent capital investment of over £30 billion will mean to the trust if it is unable to make a decision about a new build hospital for Crawley? Will he explain to the people of the town what the Opposition would do to our health service funding?
    The Prime Minister: I will explain what we will do. We shall make sure that the record investment in the health service is maintained. It is important that people understand that in every constituency in the country—certainly in mine and in that of my hon. Friend—that extra investment is paying dividends. When the Conservatives say that nothing is happening in the health system, that is simply wrong, but they have to say it to substantiate the 20 per cent. cut that they want to make. They have to say that the investment makes no difference. However, my hon. Friend's constituency, and almost every constituency in the country, show that although investment in schools and hospitals is not all that is needed, because we need reforms too, it is a precondition for ensuring that our health and education systems improve.
    Mr. Mark Prisk: Perhaps the Prime Minister could clarify what, under the Government's latest law and order proposals, he thinks a first-time burglar should get for carrying a gun.
    The Prime Minister: Actually, under the proposals set out by the Lord Chief Justice, that would plainly be a case in which the person would immediately go to prison. [HON. MEMBERS: "For five years?"] The five-year mandatory sentence is not yet law, but we want it to be law, and of course it would apply to such a person. I hope very much therefore that, when we introduce such a provision, we get support from the Conservative party. What usually happens on law-and-order issues with the Conservative party is that it says that they are very important but opposes in the House the measures necessary to deal with them.
    James Purnell: May I welcome the visit tomorrow of Amram Mitzna,

    171
    the new leader of the Israeli Labour party? That shows Britain's continuing commitment to the peace process in the middle east. However, following the murder of 22 more civilians in Israel at the weekend, will my right hon. Friend remind the Palestinians that the only way to the viable state that they so richly deserve is through peaceful negotiations and not through violence?
    The Prime Minister: What my hon. Friend says is entirely right. First, we should all express our sympathy at the appalling carnage and barbarous and wicked murder of innocent Israeli civilians. What I said yesterday and repeat today, however, is that the only way of bringing to an end the carnage of innocent Israelis and the appalling suffering of the Palestinians,
    172
    which is also acute, is to get a proper peace process under way. We have a situation in which the dreadful and tragic irony is that there is agreement in the international community that the only viable solution is a two-state solution—an Israeli state and a viable Palestinian state—so the longer that we delay the process of getting back into peace negotiations, the more fraught the situation becomes.
    I look forward to welcoming the new leader of the Israeli Labour party here, and I also point out that it is my practice to meet opposition politicians—whether they are Labour or conservative—from different countries. That is in accordance with normal practice. I believe that it is important that we continue to engage with Israeli politicians from every level and from every political party.

Iraq
12.31 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 24, to debate an important matter that requires specific and urgent consideration, namely
"the urgent need for a House of Commons debate, with a substantive vote, before any more British servicemen and servicewomen are committed to the Gulf."
This three-minute application is certainly not the occasion to parade my own passionately held views. Instead, it reflects requests yesterday from Members in all parts of the House, including the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) at column 27 and my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) at column 31, that the House of Commons should have an opportunity seriously to consider the many important issues that were mentioned by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister today and the Secretary of State for Defence yesterday.
For example, we should consider the whole issue of the threat to neighbours by Iraq and the whole issue of effects on the wider Islamic world. We may rue the consequences of going to war, which may be as rueful as those suggested by Ministers in other contexts. We should consider the whole issue of international law and the moral basis on which forces are being sent. We should consider the role of the International Atomic Energy Agency and precisely what the position of a report from the inspectors will amount to.
We should also consider what is meant by non-compliance at any time. For example, we should consider the effect on world oil prices and the whole
174
issue of the requirement for reserves. Indeed, we should consider the issues raised by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) of the effect on hospitals and the health service of taking doctors as reserves. That is only one of many, many questions.
I come to the crucial issues. Let us suppose that British and American armour gets to Baghdad, what will happen then? Is it contemplated that a regime will be set up under General Tommy Franks along the lines of that set up under Douglas MacArthur all those years ago in Japan?
I have only three minutes to make my point, but we should consider the very crucial question that was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Lyons) yesterday. If the United Nations decides to take no military action against Iraq, will British troops join American troops in invading Iraq? The House of Commons needs to explore such issues.
I passionately believe that if we send British troops to risk their lives, they are entitled to know that it is the settled and overwhelming conviction of their countrymen that their cause is just and that they are doing something that is urgent for Britain. That settled conviction does not exist at the moment; only by a Commons debate can such a conviction be arrived at.
Mr. Speaker: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman and I have to give my decision without stating any reasons. I am afraid that I do not consider that the matter that he raises is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 24. I cannot therefore submit the application to the House.

Point of Order
12.35 pm
Mr. Crispin Blunt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On 1 February last year I wrote to the Secretary of State for Health requesting his assistance with handling constituency issues. I asked whether the Department of Health had a diagram or spreadsheet to show what was happening with health service reforms, who was responsible for each aspect of health care and to whom we should address any problems on behalf of our constituents. I said that such a document would be helpful for us all. In December, I received a reply from the Under-Secretary of State for Health, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, dated 25 November 2002, a considerable time after I first wrote. I will not reprise for the benefit of the House the stream of verbiage in the Under-Secretary's letter, although you, Mr. Speaker, will have seen it. There was no response to my specific request for assistance, not only for me, but for all Members of the House.
There are two specific issues on which I would be grateful for your advice, Mr. Speaker. Is it acceptable for the Department of Health to take such an inordinate length of time to reply to hon. Members? Is it frankly acceptable for requests for assistance in how we manage complaints on behalf of our constituents to be dealt with in such a contemptuous manner, as you have seen in the terms of the letter?
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order and for showing me the correspondence to which he refers. Members are entitled to prompt replies from Ministers that address the issues raised. In this case, the hon. Gentleman is entitled to feel disappointed on both counts. I have asked the Secretary of State to review the correspondence. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] Order.

BILL PRESENTED
  HEALTH AND SAFETY AT WORK (OFFENCES)
  Lawrie Quinn, supported by Mr. Tony Lloyd, Mr. Michael Clapham, Mr. Roy Beggs, Mr. Frank Doran, Mr. Richard Allan, Mr. Bob Laxton, Ian Stewart, Mr. Malcolm Savidge, Rob Marris, Mr. Andrew Dismore and Judy Mallaber, presented a Bill to make provision about the prosecution and punishment of offences which are, or are treated as being, offences under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 or the Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 31 January, and to be printed. [Bill 37].
Opposition Day
[1ST ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Foundation Hospitals
  Mr. Speaker: I must inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  12.38 pm
  Dr. Liam Fox: I beg to move,
  That this House welcomes the principle of Foundation Hospitals as a means of improving and enhancing patient care and giving hospitals the opportunity to operate free from political and ministerial interference; regrets the timidity of the Government, which is restricting applications for Foundation status solely to those hospitals enjoying 3-star status; fears that this restriction will create a two-tier health service, to the detriment of patients and staff, and therefore urges the Government to allow all hospitals to bid for Foundation status; calls for clarification of contradictions between ministerial statements and guidance contained in the Department of Health's 'A Guide to NHS Foundation Trusts, December 2002' about how Foundation Hospitals are intended to operate; and further calls on the Government to resolve widely publicised ministerial differences, which are likely to deter hospitals from seeking Foundation status.
  If anyone had any doubts about the rising panic inside the Government because of their failure to deliver on health, they only had to read the report by Michael Barber, the head of the Prime Minister's delivery unit, in this morning's Financial Times. It says:
  "the most urgent task is to establish local plans that can take advantage of the unprecedented three-year spending settlement given to primary care trusts…This, the document says, is 'being managed to a very tight timetable…we are…concerned that there has not been enough forethought and planning [by the health department] for this one-off opportunity…the risk is immense."'
  It goes on to say that the report
  "raises concerns about the health department itself, which it says needs 'to get the right people into the right jobs faster"'.
  Most of us would drink to that.
  There can be no clearer evidence of a split in the Government than to contrast Mr. Barber's report with early-day motion 351. He says that the report
  "displays Downing Street impatience with the speed at which Mr Milburn and the health department have pursued the 'choice and diversity' agenda—aimed at bringing in more help from the private sector and giving patients who wait more than six months a choice over where they are treated."
  Contrast that with early-day motion 351, which states:
  "This House notes with concern the intention by Government to introduce foundation hospitals, which would create a two tier NHS system".
  It is signed, by 109 Labour Members. The only real omission from the list is the person who is most in sympathy with those objections and most able to block the policy: the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has put obstructions in the way at every possible point.
  The background to today's debate is what Labour promised before it was elected, and what it has done since. Three questions need to be asked. Have Labour's policies actually worked? Is the approach behind the policies correct? What needs to be done to address the

  177
  situation? Everyone inside and outside the House will remember hearing, before 1997, Labour's great slogan, "24 hours to save the NHS"—but I doubt that any thinking member of the Labour party, or even the Prime Minister in his embryonic rampant egomania, believed that the NHS could be changed within 24 hours. What they meant was: when they were in office, those wicked Tories starved the NHS of money, and if we only throw more money at the system, everything will be all right.
  The Labour Government have spent a lot of money—there is no doubt about that. In the past two years, real-terms spending on the NHS has increased by more than 20 per cent.—but there has been an increase of only 1.6 per cent. in finished consultant episodes, which is one of the main ways in which we measure hospital activity, and last year there was a 0.5 per cent. fall in the number of hospital admissions. The Prime Minister says that schools and hospitals are the priority, but if such a sum has gone into the NHS and activity levels have risen by only a fraction, what has gone wrong?
  Mr. Stephen McCabe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Chris Pond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Fox: I look forward to hearing the answer to my question, but not from the Parliamentary Private Secretary.
  Mr. McCabe: Given the hon. Gentleman's concern about health spending, will he tell us what proportion of the Tories' proposed 20 per cent. cut should, in his judgment, be inflicted on the health service?
  Dr. Fox: I think that any party that wants to improve health care in this country must first decide what reforms to the system are required; once that has been done, it is prudent to decide what expenditure is required to deliver those reforms. The problem is that the current Government decided how much money they were going to spend before they had the foggiest idea how they would spend it. They have simply thrown money into a black hole, and they are raising taxes to do so, with all the implications that that has for the economy, but nothing is coming out on the other side.
  Dr. Howard Stoate rose—
  Mr. Pond rose—
  Mr. Tom Harris rose—
  Dr. Fox: I will take further interventions in a moment.
  The Government's excuse is that they have been working not only within hospitals, but outside them, for example, in general practice—yet there is a record number of closed practice lists, so patients cannot get to see a GP; the waiting time to see a GP is lengthening; and there is a disaster in recruitment to general practice. Simply to meet the Government's target of staying where they were within the national plan, an extra 2,000 GPs had to be recruited between 2000 and 2004. How many were recruited in 2000? Eighteen. How many in
  178
  2001? Eighteen. How on earth do they propose to meet their targets when they cannot recruit the basic staff to the health service to do those jobs? The NHS plan is being turned into nothing more than a glorified wish list.
  Dr. Stoate: The number of GPs currently practising is at record levels. As for the hon. Gentleman's point about the number of admissions falling in the past year, much of that is due to GPs now having many alternatives to admitting patients to hospital, such as patients being looked after in their home, or being referred to social services or care in the community. The fact that hospital admissions are falling is not necessarily a bad thing—it is a good thing.
  Dr. Fox: There is nothing better in a debate than an own goal. As the Labour party constantly points out, it has been in office for six years. It takes nine years to train a GP, so if there is now a record number of GPs, it must be because they began training under the last Conservative Government.
  Mr. Henry Bellingham: Is my hon. Friend aware that a few years ago in my constituency, in the town of Hunstanton, one used to be able to see one's GP the following day, whereas it now takes up to three weeks? There is a crisis in primary care in my constituency.
  Dr. Fox: That is a serious issue of great concern to our constituents, who, in the real world rather than the virtual NHS that Ministers talk about, are finding it much more difficult to see their GP when they want to, at short notice. That shows how extremely difficult things are in general practice now. We are finding it difficult to recruit GPs, and many are about to retire, which will make the situation worse. The increasing pressure on GPs, not least the huge burden of paperwork that they now face, is making it increasingly difficult for them to spend time with their patients, as opposed to dealing with the red tape.
  Apart from the failures in primary care that my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) mentioned, there are many other areas of policy delivery in which the Government have failed, despite what we all agree is a very large increase in spending. The mixed-sex wards, which were to be abolished, are still with us, and hospital-acquired infections are at a record level: 5,000 people died as a result of a hospital-acquired infection last year; that represents 1 per cent. of all deaths. That is a record, and we are out of line with what is happening in other countries. It is an absolute scandal. The number of hospital beds has fallen since Labour came to power, despite what it said it would do, yet the number of administrators has gone up.
  The £280 million earmarked for cancer went to clearing NHS debts, and a further £255 million earmarked for cancer did not get through to the front line. The number of patients starting radiotherapy treatment within the Government's four-week target has fallen from 68 per cent. in 1998 to just 32 per cent. in 2000. There are 60,000 fewer care home beds. Last year there were 77,000 cancelled operations—a 54 per cent. increase since the year that the Government came to office.

  179
  One third of all new nursing graduates and a quarter of medical graduates are now failing to practise, and last year the number of nurses choosing to leave the United Kingdom and work abroad was at a 10-year high —hardly a vote of confidence.
  Mr. Tom Harris: On 20 December, The Daily Telegraph said that the Conservatives had to choose between two aspirations—one was the best possible health service whatever the cost, and the other was the best possible health service given a context of tax cuts—but they could not have both. Which one would the hon. Gentleman prefer?
  Dr. Fox: There is not a country in the world that does not have limits on what it can spend on health care. The problem for all western countries is how to get the best value health provision out of a given budget. In the United Kingdom we have quite a divergent range of experience. In England, for example, expenditure has generally been well below the European average, and we have seen the problems related to that. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have considerably higher expenditure, yet do not have higher outputs or better clinical outcomes; in fact, in some of the other parts of the United Kingdom the waiting lists are rising faster.
  That raises questions not simply about the amounts of money but about the process. That is what the debate should focus on, and what I want to talk about in the substantive part of the debate is how the Government's plans for foundation hospitals will move the process forward so that we do not simply throw money at the system without substantial reform. I would say to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) that without substantial reform we will simply raise taxes and spend more money, but we will get no delivery, and he will get no thanks from the electorate.
  Mr. Richard Bacon: My hon. Friend mentioned hospital-acquired infections. Is he aware that the rate of death from hospital-acquired infections is higher in this country than in the former Soviet Union? What does that say about the relationship between expenditure and performance?
  Dr. Fox: I am not sure that is says a huge amount about the relationship between expenditure and performance, but it says a great deal about process, about the culture within the service, and about the way in which we allocate the available funding in our health care budget to preventive treatment, and basic cleanliness and hygiene. As I have said before, that is largely a matter of culture. It does not cost money or require a handout from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to wash one's hands between patients; it requires a particular approach to clinical care.
  We have to ask why in this country the levels of hospital-acquired infection are so much higher than those in other countries. I have heard Labour Members say that that is because we contract out our cleaning—but that is one of the most preposterous ideas I have heard in my life. In Germany recently, when I was with a consultant, someone from the BBC said, "This
  180
  hospital is so clean, you must have in-house cleaning." The consultant replied, "Of course we don't have in-house cleaning. We contract out our cleaning." The BBC representative said, "But we've contracted out our cleaning, and our hospitals are filthy." The consultant replied, "If you've contracted out your cleaning and your hospitals are filthy, why do you pay the contractors?" We should ask that question far more in this country than we do at present.
  The policy is not working because basically the Government have failed to tackle the No.1 problem in health delivery in this country—we have a centralised, bureaucratic and monolithic Whitehall-controlled system. The Government have made matters worse by piling on to that system a ludicrous, almost pathologically obsessive target culture, in contradiction to their rhetoric. They talk about devolving power within the NHS, and the Secretary of State has talked about the fact that primary care trusts can now spend 75 per cent. of the NHS budget. They can handle 75 per cent. of the NHS budget, but they do not have the discretion to decide how they spend it, which limits what they can do in their own locality and their freedom to do what they think necessary for their own health population. Consequently, the Secretary of State is still in control of the entire system, which is a big problem. That approach leads to deprofessionalisation—professionals on the front line, whether medical, nursing, administrative or managerial, with the skills to make appropriate decisions, are prevented from doing so by people in Whitehall who think that they always know best.
  That is a recipe for demoralisation and makes recruitment and retention difficult, as we now see. It is also a recipe for distortion and dishonesty. Recently, one in eight hospital managers admitted to distorting figures to fit Government targets. One manager said:
  "All chief executives in the region contrived to make the same 100 per cent. return to the Department of Health on the absence of waits in A and E. This was done with the encouragement of the regional director because we all agreed the requirement was meaningless".
  What basis is that for running a health service?
  Mr. Hilton Dawson: Has the hon. Gentleman not missed the point about the most important issue in health? Surely, the biggest issue underlying acute health needs across the country is prevention, and the key matter in prevention is poverty. Do the Conservatives recognise poverty as a cause of ill health or, if we ever had the misfortune of them getting back into power, would they continue to ignore it?
  Dr. Fox: There is no doubt that there is at least some truth in what the hon. Gentleman says. Poverty is a contributory factor to a number of disease processes, but in the western world we are also seeing for the first time the morbidity of affluence, such as the huge increase in obesity and type 2 diabetes in this country, which will force us to change our mindset on preventive health care. We must start to weigh those things up, but I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman chose preventive health and public health policy as a means of attempting to attack the Conservative party. Under the Government, there has been a virtual abandonment of public health policy—there has been no proper response

  181
  to the huge growth of HIV, TB or the burgeoning cost on the system of type 2 diabetes. Public health has been systematically downgraded by the Government. A Conservative Government would put public health as well as mental health at the top of the agenda, but sadly they have been moved too far down by the present Government.
  I like to be fair in these debates when talking about the Government's promises so I should say that it is not long since the Secretary of State told the House that Britain has a monopoly supplier in the NHS. As long as Labour is in power, he said, that is how it would stay. There has certainly been a change in his position, rhetoric and policy in recent months. The best analogy is the programme "Blockbusters". I am sure you know the one I mean, Mr. Speaker—we could, for example, take a "t" and see what it stands for. Let us take a "p". What "p" would describe a Conservative policy to use the private finance initiative exclusively to fund private capital projects; sign a concordat for greater co-operation with the private sector; buy the exclusive use of a private BUPA hospital for patients; bring in private management to run NHS hospitals; give PCTs powers to buy private provision for their patients; and give NHS trusts the ability to borrow private money outside Government limits? What "p" would the Labour party use to describe that Conservative policy? The answer is privatisation.
  I do not object to any of the policies that I already have laid out, which are entirely in line with what the Conservative party would like. It is the hypocrisy of the Government's approach, pretending to do one thing, but in fact doing another, that I find offensive and which, I am sure, lies behind the 109 signatures to early-day motion 351, which was tabled recently.
  Mr. Andrew Turner: On the subject of hypocrisy, a concordat for co-operation was signed with the private sector. However, at the same time King Edward VII hospital in Midhurst, which served many of my constituents who needed cardiac surgery, is in danger of closing because the health service no longer sends patients there. What does my hon. Friend say about that?
  Dr. Fox: Double-thinking is part of new Labour: it has an Orwellian nature, and the fact that it says one thing and does exactly the opposite should come as no surprise to anyone after six years. However, any loss of capacity in the area of clinical care described by my hon. Friend is tragic when we still have huge waiting lists, notwithstanding the fact that the Government have been throwing money at the health service as if there were no tomorrow.
  However, it is only fair that when we support a policy, we should say so. We can take some comfort in the Government's proposals on foundation hospitals. An incoming Conservative Government would feel comfortable with the direction that the Labour Government are taking, as they are moving towards the sort of policies that we want—a dramatic decentralisation of the NHS and a reduction in politicisation. If the proposals are implemented properly, people on the front line would get more freedom and patients would get more choice. However, there must be action, not just rhetoric.
  182
  When the Secretary of State made a statement on the foundation proposals, I asked a number of questions. I took note of your comments, Mr. Speaker, to my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) about the delay in answering questions. Since the Secretary of State's statement, I have tabled more than 50 questions on foundation hospitals, to which I have had no reply, which is staggering. Foundation hospitals are one of the Government's flagship health policies, but Ministers are unable to answer some basic questions. I therefore thought that I might take advantage of our Opposition day debate, and use the rare opportunity of getting the Secretary of State to respond by putting some of my questions to him again.
  My questions fall into a number of categories. What freedoms will foundation hospitals have? Will NHS foundation trusts be able to carry out work for private patients through the medium of subsidiary companies and public-private partnership arrangements? Will they have the freedom to vary pay and conditions for clinical conditions outside the "agenda for change" arrangements announced by the Secretary of State? Will they be required to charge standard tariffs for each area of activity? Those are important questions about the running of foundation hospitals.
  On finance, will borrowing by NHS foundation trusts from the private sector be guaranteed by the Secretary of State, strategic health authorities, PCTs or other NHS bodies? Such a basic question has not yet been answered. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the willingness of the private sector to lend money for capital projects to NHS foundation trusts in the absence of security on related assets? Will NHS foundation trusts be able to transfer their existing assets as part of a private finance initiative transaction, and can they invest surplus financial assets as they wish? What consultation has the Secretary of State had with the Office for National Statistics about the classification of NHS foundation trusts in the national accounts, and what advice has he received? It is a crucial question whether NHS foundation trusts are truly part of the state sector or not, yet on that fundamental issue there is still radio silence from the Secretary of State.
  On the board of governors and management, will the board of governors of an NHS foundation trust be able to remove members of a management board? Will local authorities be able to appoint members to the board of governors of an NHS foundation trust? What provision will there be for election to boards of governors of NHS foundation trusts? There is no answer.
  On the regulator—one of the stipulations that the Chancellor made to ensure that there was not profligacy—we have asked in what ways the independent regulator will be independent of the Secretary of State; what freedom the independent regulator will have to interpret the terms "NHS standards" and "NHS values" when deciding to issue and monitor foundation trust licences; and whether the Secretary of State will have the power of direction over the independent regulator for foundation trusts.
  On the application, what policy will primary care trusts need to have towards a foundation trust application to allow such an application to go forward? Which PCTs will be entitled to have their views considered? As I pointed out in our last exchange, in my constituency, we have no acute hospital. Will our PCT

  183
  therefore have a right to be consulted, and will my constituents, who are not patients in a constituency where there happens to be an acute hospital, have the right to be consulted? What evidence will be required to demonstrate that local people support an application for foundation status?
  As he did in his statement, the Secretary of State will no doubt wrap all that up in public ownership terms and speak of the great progress for the co-operative movement, but ownership implies a financial stake and independence. There will be no financial stake, and the Secretary of State will be able to take back foundation status at will. That is not ownership, in my book.
  Mr. John Redwood: Does my hon. Friend agree that if those hospitals are to have true freedom, they must have the freedom to buy and sell assets as they see fit in pursuance of their medical and clinical aims, and they need to be free to borrow on the private markets with or without a Government guarantee?
  Dr. Fox: There are a number of basic freedoms that have to be defined to make foundation hospitals genuinely independent. We need to hear clearly from the Secretary of State how far the Government are willing to extend such freedoms or, as my right hon. Friend correctly pointed out, the whole exercise will be a complete sham. There is danger in the Government deciding what the prescription ought to be, but being unable to deliver it, for a number of primarily political reasons.
  As well as the unanswered questions, there are several enormous contradictions in the prospectus that the Government have issued on foundation hospitals. They have sent a huge number of confused messages. The prospectus claims that the foundation trusts will be free. It states that
  "he new regime will be clearly defined in legislation, independent of the Secretary of State and designed to give NHS Foundation Trusts maximum freedom to operate."
  However, as the prospectus also makes clear, the trusts will be restricted in a number of ways—for example, in relation to which patients they can treat. Under paragraph 1.30, the licence will restrict the number of private patients that foundation trusts can treat. Paragraph 1.34 will restrict the services that they can provide. Long-term legally binding service agreements with primary care trusts will restrict the types of services that foundation trusts can provide. That is not freedom.
  Whom will foundation trusts be able to employ? The prospectus claims in paragraph 1.37 that an NHS foundation trust will be free to recruit and employ its own staff. However, it also states that
  "an NHS Foundation Trust will be expected to use these new freedoms in a way that fits with key NHS principles and does not undermine the ability of other providers in the local health economy to meet their NHS obligations."
  In the real world, does that mean that NHS foundation trusts are free to recruit the staff that they want, or that they are not free to do so? The Secretary of State said in his last statement that they would not be able to poach staff from other NHS bodies. Who will define that? Who
  184
  on earth will make that legally binding? Either they have the freedom to employ the staff that they want, or they have not.
  How competitive will foundation trusts be? The national pricing structure will guarantee that NHS foundation trusts will be unable to undercut other NHS providers, according to paragraph 1.34. What is the point of giving them freedom to become more efficient if they are not able to lower their costs and thereby undercut other providers? What is the point of the entire exercise if we restrict what they can do, whom they can treat and the cost at which they can do that? The whole thing smacks of being made up as it goes along. It smacks of a panic response by the Government, who think that they must produce reform because the No. 10 policy unit is extremely unhappy with what the Department of Health is doing.
  Sadly for the Secretary of State, it is the Chancellor who is slowing down the process. He is the one who put the restrictions on the regulator. He is the one who wanted long-term binding agreements to make sure that foundation trusts cannot operate in a way that is fundamentally different from the way in which the NHS currently operates. It reflects a fundamental split within the Government between those who believe that they must deliver at any cost and those who believe that the means of delivery is still one of the most important things in the Labour party's creed. That is the debate that will no doubt take place on the Government Benches today.
  As I have said on many occasions—although the Secretary of State thinks that he and the Daily Mirror have an exclusive on this—the NHS as it is currently constructed and run is not working and will not work, irrespective of how much money is thrown at the system. The one question that needs to be answered is this: if the present NHS model is such a great model, why has it not been adopted by any other country in the world? The Government have at least been clear in laying out their prescription. Whether they can deliver it is another matter.
  The Liberal Democrats have four hon. Members on their Benches and have not yet intervened in the debate. The House will be interested to know that in the Register of Members' Interests, the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) tells us that the Liberal party literature in his constituency is sponsored by Denplan. That might explain why the Liberals have such an odd view of private medicine. However, the House would all agree that there is a logical link between the Liberals being sponsored by Denplan and the content of their literature. Most of that is designed for them to lie through their teeth, so I suppose it is only logical that they would want to look after them.
  We in the House need to look at what has happened in other countries and where success has come from. I suggest that where there is a genuine mix of public and private provision and public and private finance, the record of health care is better than it is in this country. The Government may be moving towards more mixed provision in their current proposals, but as long as health care is provided irrespective of the ability to pay and free at the point of use, both of which the Conservative party supports, we need have no fear of diversity. Diversity provides innovation, and innovation provides excellence.

  185
  Foundation hospitals begin that process of diversity, the break-up of the monolith and the beginning of the end of a centralised national health service. No doubt the Secretary of State will dip liberally into the lexicon of the left when describing his policy today. That is no less than we would expect from a Minister in his position when facing the opposition of his own Back Benchers. However, his real test is not today. If he can keep his nerve and see his policy through without dilution, he just might begin to make a difference in the process of providing better health care in this country, and he would have the support of the Conservative party. It is a direction with which we are comfortable. If he knows what needs to be done, but he does not have the power within the Government or the courage to do so, the patients and the voters of this country will not be forgiving.
  1.8 pm
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "welcomes the principle of NHS Foundation Trusts as part of the Government's wider programme to improve services for NHS patients; believes that NHS Foundation Trusts must be part of the National Health Service providing care to NHS patients according to NHS principles and subject to NHS standards and inspection; further believes that there should be no arbitrary cap on the numbers of NHS Foundation Trusts and that all NHS hospitals should get the help, support or intervention they need to improve; recognises that extra resources for the health service are delivering improved services for NHS patients and have to be matched with reforms so that standards in the NHS are national but control is local; supports the Government's efforts to devolve power to frontline services and to strengthen accountability to local communities; and rejects any proposal to introduce top-up vouchers for private treatment, tax subsidies for private medical insurance or cuts in public spending of 20 per cent. in view of the inevitable impact that such policies would have on NHS patients including those treated in NHS Foundation Trusts."
  The Government's programme of improvement for the health service, including our proposals for NHS foundation hospitals—
  Mr. Bacon: Has failed.
  Mr. Milburn: We have not quite got NHS foundation hospitals yet. I know that it is early in the new year, but the Opposition should give us a month or two. Our programme of improvement sets out how best we can get resources and reforms working in tandem to deliver better health care for patients. That is not why the Opposition called the debate today. They are not interested in supporting reform of the national health service, because the Conservatives, as the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) confirmed today, are no longer interested in keeping the national health service. That is why the hon. Gentleman, in his little secret speech to the Conservative party conference in Harrogate last year—at his fringe meeting, where he thought that no one was listening—set out the Conservative strategy, which he described as threefold. Its aims were to persuade the public, first, that the NHS is not working; secondly, that it has never worked before; and thirdly, that it will never work. That strategy is not his alone, but that of the whole Conservative party. Presumably, that is why, according to the 28 December edition of The Independent, the Leader of
  186
  the Opposition has told colleagues to search out another case similar to that of Mrs. Addis, which was raised last year, to prove that the NHS is failing. Whatever our differences of opinion about health care and health services, NHS patients are there to be treated, not used. Frankly, seeking to use NHS patients in such a way is the lowest form of political discourse.
  Mr. Andrew Turner: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition does not have to ask us to search out such cases, because the people affected come to our constituency surgeries every week. They include the resident in my constituency who had to wait 26 weeks for radiotherapy following a mastectomy. There is also the fact that everyone in my constituency who wants to get on to an NHS dental list has to travel to the mainland, despite the promises made by the Prime Minister to the Labour party conference in 1999 that within two years everyone would be able to get a dentist. While the Secretary of State is throwing so much money at the health service, why is he still making promises that he cannot deliver?
  Mr. Milburn: I should like to make two points in response to the hon. Gentleman. First, I understand his concerns about his constituents, which are shared in all parts of the House. Of course, there are many problems today in the national health service. That is absolutely true. Indeed, when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced the NHS plan from the Dispatch Box, there was much criticism and some mirth about the fact that it was a 10-year plan. It was a 10-year plan because it will take 10 years to put right the national health service and we should be candid and honest about that. There are problems in the national health service, but progress is under way, and he would do well to acknowledge the progress that has been made, not least because it has been brought about by hardworking members of staff not only in his area, but in all parts of the country.
  Secondly, if the hon. Gentleman genuinely believes that there are problems in the national health service, perhaps he could explain to his constituents why he believes that cutting public spending on it would improve matters. Conservative Members must be the only people in the country who think that they can get more out of the national health service by putting less in.
  Mr. Kevan Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one way of not improving the health service is to propose, as those on the Opposition Front Bench now do, to cut expenditure on health by 20 per cent.?
  Mr. Milburn: I do.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: Tell it again.
  Mr. Milburn: I will tell my hon. Friend, the hon. Gentleman and the House, as will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, until they are sick and tired of hearing it, that public spending cuts cannot deliver public service improvement. We had 18 years of cuts in the national health service and five years between 1992 and 1997 in which capital spending on its buildings and

  187
  equipment was cut every year, not only in cash terms, but in real terms. Why do we have today the biggest hospital-building programme that the national health service has ever seen? It is there for a simple reason: we have made the PFI work and we are putting extra investment into the NHS.
  Dr. Evan Harris: The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the use of individual cases to attack the NHS. He will accept that Opposition parties will do that, as his party did very effectively when it was in opposition to show that the NHS was not working. Are not two issues important in that context? First, there should be clear knowledge that the consent of the patient who is cited has been sought. Secondly, it must be recognised that individual patients' experiences tell us nothing much even about the hospital in question, let alone much about the health service. We rely on the provision of adequate statistics in which we can have faith. I hope that he will address the concerns expressed by the National Audit Office and others that statistics are systematically falsified in an attempt to meet his targets.
  Mr. Milburn: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's points about individual cases. I think that both his party and mine responded positively to the British Medical Association's invitation last year, following the Rose Addis case, that we exercise some discretion in relation to such individual cases. I am not sure that that is true of the Conservative party, but if the hon. Member for Woodspring wishes to confirm from the Dispatch Box that he is prepared to exercise such discretion, I am sure that the BMA would, like me, be delighted to hear him do so.
  On statistics, it is obviously important that there is integrity in the collection and presentation of figures. We have done much in that regard. For example, there is more open publication of information about NHS performance than ever before. That includes information about the individual performance of hospitals, primary care trusts and GPs' surgeries and better assessment than ever before of how performance is improving or changing across the national health service. To ensure that that is possible, we have introduced independent inspection through the Commission for Health Improvement, and we hope to strengthen that through the new Commission for Health Care Audit and Inspection. I do not think that it is reasonable to say that we have somehow not introduced precisely the safeguards for which the hon. Gentleman asks.
  Mr. Tom Harris: My right hon. Friend may have read over Christmas an article by the Leader of the Opposition in which he said that the Conservative party's aim was to make it completely irrelevant whether a hospital was publicly or privately owned. Does he agree that that might go some way towards explaining why the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) has described the Conservative party's chances of winning the next election as about high as those of finding an Eskimo in the desert?
  Mr. Milburn: I shall come to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) later in my speech, which has
  188
  a special section that is dedicated purely to him and some of his important utterances. I read his interview, but not the article written by the Leader of the Opposition.
  Dr. Fox: To get back to reality for a moment, if the Secretary of State needs to answer any question today, it is as follows. The Labour party has now been in office for six years. Health spending has risen by more than 20 per cent. in the past two years. The Prime Minister says that health care is about hospitals, which are the priority. How can it be that a 21.5 per cent. increase in funding in the health service has been translated in the hospital service into an increase in activity of only 1.6 per cent., as measured by the standard measure of finished consultant episodes, and that the number of admissions fell last year? How can those things be?
  Mr. Milburn: That is simply not true—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends give me a moment or two, I shall explain why. He is citing hospital episode statistics or HES figures, which count certain forms of activity, but not all. They include elective activity, but they do not count, for example, the procedures carried out nowadays with out-patients or primary care that used to be carried out with in-patients.
  I know that the continual refrain from the hon. Gentleman and Opposition Members, for self-evident reasons, is that money never works or never gets to the right place in the national health service, so investment simply is not worthwhile. We know why they say that—they must justify their 20 per cent. programme of public spending cuts. However, I ask them to tell that to the 250 million patients being seen in primary care each year, more than 80 per cent. of whom now get appointments within two days, although many used to have to wait for weeks. They should tell it to the extra 750,000 people who get hospital operations each year, the 500,000 cancer patients who are now being seen within two weeks, although many used to have to wait months to see a hospital specialist, or the 30,000 cancer patients who are now eligible for the best and latest cancer drugs while there used to be a lottery in care in cancer drug treatment. Perhaps most importantly, they should tell it to the patients who are waiting for a heart operation and will, by April this year, have seen maximum waiting times halve from 18 months—the position that we inherited from his Government—to nine months, which is the position that will be reached in a few months.
  How on earth does the hon. Gentleman think that those improvements have happened? Does he think that they have happened through the invisible hand of the free market, to which he and his hon. Friends are so deeply attached? They have happened not through the free market, but precisely because of the extra resources that the Government voted for and the Opposition voted against.
  Dr. Stoate: It is puzzling to hear claims from the Opposition that hospital treatment is not improving when I can tell my right hon. Friend that in the Dartford and Gravesham NHS trust, the Darent Valley hospital has just been awarded a diagnostic and treatment centre worth £9 million and there is expansion in the A and E department. The chief executive wrote to me this week to say that the trust had hit every single target that the

  189
  Government had set and that it was very proud of the achievements that it had managed to produce. How can that square with the Opposition's claim that hospital treatment is failing?
  Mr. Milburn: Because the Opposition have a story to tell. The story that they want to tell is that investment never works, that the public services can never deliver, and that it is not worth putting extra investment and resources into, or reforming, the national health service. The hon. Member for Woodspring was candid enough to admit in his speech that he does not believe that the NHS has ever worked or can ever work. The Conservatives therefore have to justify their attacks on the NHS and their policy, as set out by the Leader of the Opposition, of a 20 per cent. cut in public spending, not just in the other public services but in the national health service, too.
  Dr. Fox: I would like to clarify for the House what I said before, because the Secretary of State will otherwise be misleading us in his interpretation of it. I said that the way that the NHS is currently constructed and run is not working and could not work. That is absolutely true and it is why the Prime Minister is demanding reform. In its current form, the system will result in money being sucked in and nothing coming out the other side.
  Mr. Milburn: That is not what the hon. Gentleman said to the Conservative party conference, unless the Daily Mirror is wrong. I have not yet seen a letter of objection from the hon. Gentleman in the letters column of that newspaper. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asks whether it has a letters column; he should do a bit more reading. It would be good for his soul and get a bit of breadth into his life. He told the Conservative party conference—this was faithfully reproduced by the Daily Mirror—that his strategy was to persuade the public that the NHS is not working and has never worked before. That is the policy of today's Conservative party.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Milburn: I give way to the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie).
  Mr. Andrew Tyrie: The Minister has said that the NHS is working, but does he not realise that there are some extraordinary absurdities in the way in which funds are currently allocated? The King Edward VII hospital in my constituency is facing closure because primary care trusts are unable to fund the operations and the work that has been carried out there. Is the Secretary of State aware that many people in my constituency are being sent abroad for orthopaedic treatment when they could perfectly well be treated up the road at King Edward VII? They cannot be treated there because of the absurd budgetary arrangements operating in the NHS today.
  Mr. Milburn: As I have said to the hon. Gentleman when he has raised this issue with me privately, I shall be very happy to look into it. He has written to me about it today, and I have his letter with me. I shall respond as soon as I can. I would, however, sound a note of caution. If he believes, as he does, that his local private
  190
  hospital needs extra resources from the local primary care trust to secure its future and better to secure services for NHS patients—I accept that there will be a relationship between those two equations—he has to be able to answer one difficult but important question. Does he believe that the extra investment that the Labour party voted for and that his party voted against is necessary—yes or no? I know that when he had the opportunity to answer that question, he voted against the extra resources.
  Sir Nicholas Winterton: Will the Secretary of State answer one specific question? I am sure that he will agree that the hospice movement is a vital and excellent part of health care in this country. Will he tell me whether it is sensible for four beds in a 15-bed hospice in my constituency—the East Cheshire hospice—to be closed because it cannot fund the staff to man them, when there is a growing need for remedial and other care in hospices? Are the foundation hospitals going to be able to enter into contracts with hospices to enable them to run efficiently, and to provide the beds that are desperately needed?
  Mr. Milburn: On the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, that will be a matter for the NHS foundation hospital to determine. It will be determined locally, not nationally. The hon. Member for Woodspring has been urging me to see that as the right way forward. On the hospice movement and palliative care services more generally, I want to associate myself absolutely with the remarks of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton). Hospices do a sterling job, which is why the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears), who has responsibility for public health, has announced extra resources over the last few weeks specifically for palliative care services, including for hospices not only in the hon. Gentleman's constituency but in constituencies up and down the country.
  Ms Julia Drown: I have no doubt that the extra investment in the NHS is needed or that it is having a significant impact in my constituency. We have NHS dentistry back in Swindon, and we have a walk-in centre, a new hospital, and much more besides. The Opposition are wrong to suggest that 20 per cent. extra money should produce 20 per cent. more activity. If we are going to make up for the supposed efficiency improvements that were in fact cuts after cuts in the Tory years, and if we want to relieve the huge pressure on staff, we need money without a corresponding increase in patient care. This debate is about foundation hospitals, however—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has not asked a question. She must now stop.
  Mr. Milburn: I agree with that part of what my hon. Friend was saying. I am not sure that would have agreed with the second part, but there we are.
  I want to set out, as the Government amendment does, how our proposals for NHS foundation trusts fit into the wider programme of NHS improvement and reform. Today the national health service is the fastest-growing health service of any major country in Europe.

  191
  Six years ago, under the Conservatives, NHS budgets were falling in real terms. By 2008, they will have doubled in real terms. That is the difference between a Labour party committed to a policy of investment in the health service and a Conservative party committed to a policy of cuts in the health service—a policy that would lead not to reform in the NHS but only to its abandonment.
  In a world in which health care can do more, but costs more, than ever before, it is an enormous source of strength for our country that we have an NHS based on the right values, namely of health care that is free at the point of use, because none of us knows when we will get ill, how long it will last or what it will cost. There has never been a time when these NHS values have been more relevant. Today's world of medical advances and technological changes occurring almost by the week positively calls for health care based on the scale of a patient's need, not the size of their wallet. And yet, for all its great strengths—most notably its staff and their ethos of public service—the NHS has major weaknesses too.
  For more than 50 years, uniformity in health provision has not guaranteed equality of outcome. Indeed, it is sad to say that, over those 50 years, health inequalities have widened rather than narrowed. Most hon. Members know from their own constituency experience that, too often, the poorest services are in the poorest communities. Top-down Whitehall control has tended to stifle local innovation. It has too often ignored the differing needs of different local communities. It is not surprising, therefore, that staff sometimes feel disempowered, local communities are disengaged, and patients have traditionally had little say and precious little choice. Our reform programme—indeed, any reform programme—for the health service should be about addressing these weaknesses so that we can build on the NHS's great strengths.
  The idea that the Conservatives support our reform programme is laughable. They are against national standards, even though equity in health care demands precisely those national standards of care. I am proud to have served in a Government who have, for the first time, established national standards of care to tackle the country's big killers—cancer and heart disease. As a consequence, in the last few years, death rates from cancer have fallen by 6 per cent. and from heart disease by 14 per cent.
  So, national standards make a difference. That is also why we have targets to reduce waiting times, and why there is more open publication of information about NHS performance, as I mentioned to the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris). That is also why we have introduced independent inspection to guarantee those standards. We reject the internal market idea that NHS hospitals should simply be left to sink or swim as part of a free-market competitive environment. Every hospital—every part of the national health service—needs help, support and, where necessary, intervention to raise standards, whether it is the best performing hospital or the worst.
  However, all the national standards and national systems of inspection in the world cannot by themselves deliver improvements. Sustained improvements in local
  192
  services can happen only when staff feel involved, when local communities are better engaged, and when improvement is something done by local people, not just done to them. That is why devolution is at the heart of the Government's reform programme, and why the new primary care trusts are so important. PCTs are about shifting the balance of power in the health service so that, while standards are national, control is increasingly local. That is why we are now seeking to reconnect local hospitals to the local communities that they serve.
  Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: I welcome what the Government have done on NHS funding, but there is still a problem as between primary care trusts and the hospice movement. For example, Derian House children's hospice works very broadly—way beyond the north-west-yet there is no contribution from primary care trusts, so the hospice is the poor relation when it comes to funding. What help and support can my right hon. Friend give to ensure that the hospice movement gets its fair share of money and that we in Chorley do not suffer?
  Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend makes an important point, not just for his local hospice, which I know he is passionately committed to, but for hospices in many constituencies up and down the country that are in a similar position. As he knows, a hospice often serves not just one constituency or area, but a broader region, and it may also specialise nationally in particular conditions.
  My hon. Friend is right to say that there is a fault line in the system whereby a hospice runs the risk of losing out if decisions are left to local PCTs. That is why one of the proposals that we are taking forward through the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, who has responsibility for public health, aims to ensure that there is a national partnership group involving the national hospice associations precisely to address such problems. I hope that that benefits not just the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle), but the hospice movement nationally.
  I want to set out the facts on NHS foundation trusts. I also want to deal with some specific issues raised today by the hon. Member for Woodspring, as well as issues that he raised in response to my statement to the House on 11 December. First, those NHS foundation trusts will be part and parcel of the NHS. They will provide NHS services to NHS patients according to NHS principles. They will be subject to NHS standards, NHS star ratings and NHS systems of inspection. It is that which the hon. Gentleman completely fails to understand. [Interruption.] I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon, who speaks for the Liberals, fails to understand, because he fails to understand most things.
  Dr. Evan Harris rose—
  Mr. Milburn: No, the hon. Gentleman will get a chance in a moment or two.
  Indeed, the comments made on 11 December by the hon. Member for Woodspring at column 274 of Hansard not only suggest that he is mystified that we

  193
  could have foundation hospitals within the NHS, but signal a completely different vision for the future of health care in our country. He says that he wants foundation hospitals, but he will not say that he wants them in the NHS. Indeed, the Conservative motion is striking for the very absence of the words "national health service".
  As the hon. Gentleman seemed to indicate on 11 December, he wants hospitals to become free-standing privately run shareholder-led organisations, presumably because he regards the precedent of organisations such as Railtrack as an unmitigated success story, when everyone else in the country knows what an unmitigated disaster that failed Tory privatisation really was.
  The hon. Gentleman may want NHS hospitals to be privatised. We want them to remain in public ownership. Indeed, part of the purpose of our NHS foundation trust policy is to usher in a new era of public ownership in which local communities control and own their local hospitals. The legal owners, who will elect the hospital governors of those NHS foundation trusts, will be local people, local members of staff and those representing key local organisations such as the PCTs. So in place of central state ownership there will be genuine local public ownership. That is no more a Tory policy for the health service than the minimum wage is a Tory policy on low pay; nor, indeed, is the Tory party the party of the vulnerable. To paraphrase the hon. Member for Buckingham on the Tories' electoral prospects, that is as believable as finding Eskimos in the desert.
  Mr. John Bercow: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way, although his badinage is a little more down market than I had confidently anticipated. It might add to the gaiety of the nation, but it does not improve the quality of his argument. May I put a simple proposition to him? Given that there has been a 28 per cent. real-terms increase in health expenditure in Scotland since 1997, but that that increase has been accompanied by a 25 per cent. rise in average waiting times, does he not recognise that it is grossly complacent of him to delay for two years the introduction of the new audit and inspection arrangements following the announcement of the money for which we need to know we are getting decent value?
  Mr. Milburn: I always listen extremely carefully to what the hon. Gentleman says, and I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition does too. I know that they have a warm and meaningful relationship, or at least they used to until very recently.
  To answer the hon. Gentleman's points, we shall introduce legislation as soon as we are able to establish the new health care audit and inspection commission. I hope that he feels able to support the establishment of that new Commission for Health Improvement, because it will be an important safeguard to enable members of the public and members of staff working in the NHS to know how well local health services are performing.
  On the hon. Gentleman's point about investment, he frequently hears from me and from the Prime Minister that investment must be accompanied by reforms. If we
  194
  are to get the best value from the money, we have to have both. The problem for him and his party is that he wants only one of those. He talks about reform, but he is not terribly interested in investment.
  Mr. Bercow: I am.
  Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman may be, but the problem for him is Opposition Front Benchers and, in particular, the Opposition leadership. This is a Labour policy steeped in Labour traditions of mutualism, community empowerment and the history—[Interruption.] As far as I am aware as a former student of history, those were never closely associated with the Conservative party, either in the last century or in this. The policy is steeped in the history of co-operation that gave birth first to the Labour party and then to our proudest creation, the national health service.
  Mr. Mark Francois: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Milburn: No. Putting staff and public in charge of those NHS hospitals will give them the freedom to innovate and develop services better suited to the needs of different local communities. NHS foundation trusts will be free from Whitehall direction and control so that we can genuinely unleash the spirit of public service enterprise, which so many NHS staff share. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Woodspring asked a series of specific questions, which I am going to answer. Those hospitals will be free to borrow, either from the public sector or from the private.
  On those hospitals borrowing against their assets and our discussions with private sector lending organisations, we do not believe that it would be right to allow borrowing against assets, as they are needed to continue to provide NHS services to the local community and to local patients in all circumstances. Indeed, an important point is made by the private sector: it is not sure, either, that they would necessarily want to borrow against those assets. The borrowing will be against the revenue streams that NHS foundation trusts earn if they successfully negotiate agreements with local PCTs.
  On classification, I have not had a discussion with the Office for National Statistics, nor would it be appropriate for me to do so. I do not make decisions on public or private sector classification, nor does any Cabinet Minister or any other Minister. The ONS is properly independent; the decision is for the ONS to take.
  Dr. Fox rose—
  Mr. Milburn: I am running through the questions that the hon. Gentleman raised. He asked the questions; I am giving him the answers. [Interruption.] I may not be giving the hon. Gentleman the answers that he wants, but I am giving the answers that I want to give.
  These hospitals will be free to retain any surpluses and any proceeds from the more efficient use of their assets where that is for the benefit of NHS patients. They will have freedom to recruit and employ their own staff. However, as I told the House on 11 December,

  195
  safeguards will rightly balance those freedoms to ensure that NHS foundation trusts always act in the public interest for the benefit of NHS patients. They will operate according to a licence issued and monitored by an independent regulator, accountable to Parliament. [Interruption.] No. They will be subject to no direction from me or from any other Minister. That will guarantee NHS standards and NHS values.
  Those hospitals will be bound by a statutory duty of partnership to work in concert with other local NHS organisations. The proportion of private patient work undertaken by any NHS foundation trust will be strictly capped to its existing level. They will not be able to compete for patients by undercutting other NHS hospitals. Also, to prevent any demutualisation or any future Government's seeking privatisation, there will be a legal lock on the assets of NHS foundation trusts and on the purpose for which they can be used.
  Mr. Dawson: In concentrating on his speech, my right hon. Friend has obviously not noticed the eloquent facial expressions of the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox). Every time the values and principles of the NHS are mentioned by my right hon. Friend, the hon. Gentleman pulls a face. That shows the difference—the Opposition do not understand the values and principles of the national health service.
  Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I was about to say that perhaps I am not sorry to hear of the hon. Gentleman's pain, but as it is early in the new year I shall be generous and say that I am very sorry to hear that he is in some pain.
  So I say to my hon. Friends: do not be fooled by the hon. Gentleman's argument that NHS foundation trusts further the Tories' agenda—
  Helen Jones: If my right hon. Friend's aim in setting up foundation trusts is to give more power back to the local community, why are we not creating a system in which everyone on the electoral register in the locality is automatically a member of the foundation trust? Why is there an opt-in provision? Who will the electorate be for a regional hospital like Christie hospital, or Walton hospital's neurosurgery unit?
  Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend makes two very important points. First, automatic entitlement on the basis of the electoral register is an option in terms of becoming a member of an NHS foundation trust. Since people need to demonstrate positive involvement with their national health service, my own preference is that they apply for membership. However, there are two different, although not necessarily competing, ways of doing that, and to tell the truth I have a relatively open mind on the issue.
  On the second point about membership that my hon. Friend raises, as we tried to explain in the guide published on 11 December, different hospitals are in different positions. Some serve one town or even approximately one constituency, and others such as the neurosurgery centre at Walton hospital and the Christie
  196
  hospital serve a broader span of patients. I can think of hospitals in this city, such as the Royal Marsden hospital, which are not really local hospitals at all, but national tertiary centres. In those cases we need a slightly different form of governance, and perhaps people from the local community can apply if they want to become members of an NHS foundation trust. However, in most situations it must be right for the patients who have used those hospitals—they often have a very deep attachment to them, and a long-standing relationship with them—to formalise that relationship through membership. The important point is that principles will underpin our assessment of governance proposals from NHS foundation trusts, but there must also be some flexibility, given the very differing positions that NHS hospitals are in.
  Dr. Andrew Murrison: I wonder whether the Secretary of State can help me. I am struggling with his concept of an opt-in electorate for foundation hospital boards. His party is always railing against the sharp elbow of the middle classes. How on earth does he expect an opt-in electorate to work? Surely that will increase the power of a small part of the electorate, rather than giving a broad spread of influence to the people whom I think he is trying to help.
  Mr. Milburn: Frankly, that is absolute and patronising nonsense of the highest order, and it speaks volumes about the perspective of the hon. Gentleman and his party. Some people managed to join even the Conservative party, so I have heard, and people certainly managed to join the Labour party. If people are passionately committed to an organisation, they tend to want to join it. That is the tradition of mutualism and co-operation that underpins NHS foundation trusts, and it is a perfectly good principle.
  So I say to those of my hon. Friends who are concerned about this issue: do not be fooled by the argument of the hon. Member for Woodspring that foundation trusts somehow advance the Tories' agenda, because the reverse is the case. Their agenda is self-evident: to make patients pay in a privatised system of care, and to pass NHS hospitals out of public ownership and into private ownership.
  NHS foundation trusts would frustrate both of those Tory ambitions. Any future Conservative Government would not only have to pass an Act of Parliament to dismantle the NHS; they would have to legislate to take away direct ownership from the local communities in which it has been vested. NHS foundation trusts are a means not of weakening public ownership, but of strengthening it.
  The hon. Gentleman now says that all hospitals should become foundation hospitals, and in time that may be a laudable enough ambition, but today, as he well knows, NHS trusts have very different starting points. Some would benefit from more freedom, and others from more support; frankly, a few need more central intervention.
  As we set out in the NHS plan, the more performance improves among local health services, the more autonomy will be earned. That is why we plan that the first round of NHS foundation hospitals will be drawn from trusts that are rated "three star" next summer. As

  197
  more NHS trusts improve, more will be eligible to gain foundation status. There will be no arbitrary cap on the n umber of NHS foundation trusts.
  Over time, NHS foundation trust status will become the norm for many—perhaps most—hospitals in the national health service. These are radical reforms and it is right they be taken step by step.
  Mr. Dawson: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Milburn: No, I want to make progress and wind up, because I know that other hon. Members want to get in. It would be folly to believe that reforms can be delivered without resources, and it is self-evident that the NHS needs both. No party can claim with credibility as a reformer of public services if it is not also an investor in public services. The problem for the Liberal Democrat party is that it wants the investment but does not want the reform. The problem for the Conservative party is that it says that it wants reform, but it will not commit to investment. In fact, it is becoming increasingly clear that today's Conservative party appears hellbent not on reform of the health service, but on its wholesale abandonment. What other interpretation can be placed on its twists and turns on tax and spending during the Christmas period?
  On the first day of this Tory turmoil—the morning of 22 December—the Leader of the Opposition was reported in The Sunday Times as saying that the Tories were going to talk more in 2003 about cutting spending. On the afternoon of the same day, the shadow Chancellor contradicted the Leader of the Opposition in an interview on the BBC. Six days later, the shadow Chief Secretary contradicted the shadow Chancellor with a proposal of a 20 per cent. cut in public services. On 31 December, the Leader of the Opposition contradicted the shadow Chancellor by supporting the position on spending cuts taken by the shadow Chief Secretary, who had himself contradicted the shadow Chancellor only a week before. Simultaneously, the Leader of the Opposition contradicted the shadow Chief Secretary by saying that the Conservatives are
  "looking at the target of 20 per cent. savings across the board",
  including, therefore, in health and education.
  The hon. Member for Woodspring has the nerve to stand at the Disptach Box and talk about policy debates within the Government. There were more episodes of this Tory soap opera over the Christmas holidays than there were of "EastEnders". So where exactly does the hon. Gentleman stand? Does he back the 20 per cent. cuts or not? He is prepared to welcome Labour policy on foundation hospitals, but is he prepared to welcome the Conservative policy of 20 per cent. cuts in all NHS hospitals?
  The Conservatives must be the only people in the country who believe that the best way to get more out of the health service is to put less into it. So this "changed" and "modernised" Conservative party—the self-proclaimed caring, sharing party of the vulnerable—offers us nothing but the oldest Tory policy in the book: cut back on public services, force more people to pay privately, provide tax perks for those who need them least, and offer poorer public services for those that need them most. The way forward for the NHS is a programme of investment and reform: high and
  198
  sustained investment, and bold and radical reform. The Conservatives' programme is cutback and closure, Labour's is investment plus reform. It is our programme that will deliver improvement in the NHS.
  1.49 pm
  Dr. Evan Harris: The internal Government memo leaked to the Financial Times said that there was an "immense risk" that the Government's NHS investment might be squandered. It said that the Department had to do more, that there has not been enough forethought and planning, that there is weakness in the primary care trusts and strategic health authorities set up by the Secretary of State, that the Department needs to get the right people into the right jobs faster—perhaps chilling words for the right hon. Gentleman—and that the Department was understaffed. Downing street has apparently responded saying that that was a sign of the Department's strength. That is a bizarre interpretation of the Department's criticism of itself.
  There is no doubt that the NHS needs reform. The Secretary of State has an endearing way of saying that everyone with whom he disagrees is stupid and also that he is the way and the light, so that the only path to reform is through him. He is probably wrong on the former count, and certainly wrong on the latter. The Liberal Democrats have a specific programme of reform. The last time we debated these matters I invited the right hon. Gentleman to read up on the policy. I know that he is a busy man, and he may not be very interested, but he should not say that my party has no reform proposals until he has made the effort to read about them. No doubt he will want to criticise them, but ours is the only party with a clear and rational approach to delivering an accountable and efficient NHS. We want national targets to be abolished and funding, purchasing and strategic decision making to be radically decentralised to the regions and to local NHS bodies that are democratically accountable to people on normal local electoral rolls.
  Mr. Milburn: On that basis, does the hon. Gentleman's party support foundation trusts?
  Dr. Harris: I am talking about the commissioning side, which is where the power lies. We need democratically accountable decision making and commissioning, delivered through democratically elected local and regional bodies. We believe that NHS funding should be guaranteed through an earmarked NHS contribution that would replace national insurance contributions. The Secretary of State may disagree with those reform proposals, but he should not say that they do not exist.
  Dr. Fox: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Harris: In a moment, as I am coming to a matter on which the hon. Gentleman may want to respond.
  My party has also proposed that there should be a diversity of providers. I can assure the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) that we do not describe as privatisation his calls for a diversity of providers of NHS services. It is not who provides the service that matters,

  199
  but who pays for it. Equity is delivered best when a service is free at the point of delivery, but the Conservatives are going wrong in two respects. They have called for more self pay, and even for subsidy for more self pay, but that would mean that people with few resources who rely wholly on the NHS having to subsidise people who are well off or people who have at least some resources that they could put towards private health care.
  If the better off are to be subsidised by resources that could be used for the least well-off, as the Conservatives propose, that would not be equitable. That is why we are worried about the creeping privatisation of the NHS that the Conservatives have proposed.
  The hon. Member for Woodspring also demonstrated his failure to understand equity and health inequality in the way that he described health funding in Scotland. He has said consistently that he supports an increased focus on public health, but that assertion is preposterous unless he accepts that some areas of the country suffer from greater health need and inequality than others. That requires differential funding. The claim that Scotland and Wales receive more funding as a proportion of national wealth than France yet achieve worse outcomes is not reasonable.
  Scotland and Wales should properly be compared with the least well-off areas of Frances that have the greatest health need. Every country has pockets of deprivation that have greater health needs and require more resources. In addition, there is always a time lag between making resources available and achieving results. That is why the improvements in cancer survival are due less to the efforts and best intentions of the Government than to changes in lifestyle instigated many years ago. Some of those changes even began under a Conservative Government.
  Dr. Fox: I accept that there is always a time gap between investment or change and the outcomes that might be achieved. We have a problem with the standardised methodology for determining outcomes, but my point was that it says something about the process when there is a huge increase in expenditure and also an increase in waiting lists and times. The hon. Gentleman said that his party's policy was to introduce a hypothecated health tax. Which tax would he like to have hypothecated, or would he like a new tax to be levied? If the latter, which tax would that replace? Would it be set at a level that would provide higher or lower funding than the Government are providing at present, according to their own estimates?
  Dr. Harris: That is a fair question, and I am grateful for the chance to respond briefly in what is a Conservative Opposition day debate. We propose that existing national insurance contributions should be earmarked for the health service, and that the funding from general taxation currently used for the health service would cover what is currently paid for by national insurance contributions. The proposed levels are in line with current Government spending proposals. If the NHS needs more resources for specific matters, our next election manifesto will describe how they will be made available. In addition, we propose that
  200
  the national health contribution could vary according to region. People in each region could vote democratically to raise or lower that contribution. Moreover, our proposed system of local income taxation would be fairer than the council tax system and be more directly related to people's ability to pay. It would mean that the health and social care budgets, which we would merge at local level, could be increased—or, conceivably, decreased—through local demand at the ballot box.
  Dr. Fox: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way a second time. The problem with national insurance is that one of the largest NHS user groups is made up of pensioners, who do not pay national insurance. Would he extend the new tax to pensioners?
  Dr. Harris: The proposal is to modify existing taxation. Pensioners do not pay national insurance contributions, and they would not pay the proposed national health contribution. We do not believe that the people who use the health service should necessarily be the ones who have to pay for it. The Conservative party's psychology is that only those who use the NHS must pay for it sooner or later, directly or indirectly. It is a sign of civilisation that people who are better off should pay more, proportionately, even if they use the NHS less.
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Harris: No, I want to make progress.
  The problem with the Government's funding measures is one of delay, not with their global level overall. The Government must accept that they could have reached the targets set for five years into their 10-year plan if they had put the significantly increased resources that they are now putting in five years ago. They made the political decision not to tax better-off people more and to let patients wait longer. The elderly have been left to suffer and to linger in hospital beds when that was not necessary. Those patients have paid the price, as has today's health service. A huge amount of resources has been wasted on false economies. For example, agency nurses are paid three times over the odds to bring then back into a health service that they have left. Also, elderly people are kept unnecessarily in hospital beds. That is bad for their health and prevents other people from using the beds. Resources are wasted in many other ways, because the NHS has not been resourced properly.
  Earlier, the hon. Member for Woodspring teased me about Denplan. It is a fair point, although he may have taken an opportunity to give that organisation a free advert, as I understand that it is partially based in his constituency. Clearly, that was only a malicious rumour, but he must understand that the Liberal Democrat party is not against private companies. We favour the free market and private enterprise, but we oppose private companies and private provision being supported at the expense of people who are not able to use them. We agree that people who can afford it should have the right to use private health care—and private education—but that right should not come at the expense of people who are less well off. That is the problem with the way the previous Conservative

  201
  Government eroded NHS dental care. It led to the growth of private dental plans and dental insurance that the poorest people in our society could never afford.
  I have a series of questions about foundation hospitals for the Government. Many of these were rehearsed in an excellent debate secured by the hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) yesterday in Westminster Hall. I hope that we have an opportunity to hear more from her today.
  One of our concerns is that the Government seem to believe that a financial incentive will motivate the NHS to do more. They seem to think that nurses and doctors enter their training and careers, with the long hours involved, in the belief that if their hospital were offered more cash prizes, they would work harder. That simply is not the case, and the right hon. Gentleman and the Government fundamentally misunderstand, in a counter-productive way, the motivation of people who work in the NHS and in public services generally. There is a series of paragraphs in his prospectus about cash payments by results. Bidding for cash prizes is another of his gimmicky policies. Not only does that simply smear the money around in a different way, it undermines morale in the health service. Its workers do not want to chase cash; they want to treat people on the basis of clinical priority.
  The right hon. Gentleman talked about the supposed freedom of foundation hospitals, but that freedom is only for the few, not the many. Why should not such freedom—if it exists, and it certainly should not exist on the model of the foundation hospitals—be available to all?
  The right hon. Gentleman chooses the lucky few to have what he considers to be this worthy status on the basis of the star rating system. It is hard to think of a worse basis upon which to choose—he would do better drawing lots. Those in the health service recognise that star ratings merely measure the ability of the NHS trust to jump through Government hoops, not their ability to treat patients well.
  Siobhain McDonagh: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that St. Helier hospital, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) obtained no stars in the first star rating? That was of great benefit to my constituents as, for the first time in years, it was acknowledged that their local hospital was not up to standard and needed to be improved. It was not a question of jumping through hoops but of nobody being able to get that point through to the people who ran the trust at the time.
  Dr. Harris: If the hon. Lady looks at the history of the trust, she will see that it was subject to several ratings—the Government's flawed star rating system, which means very little, and, more worth while, a Commission for Health Improvement report which identified significant failures. Unfortunately, the Secretary of State is like a man with three watches. The Dr. Foster performance tables say one thing, the Commission for Health Improvement will say another, while the star rating systems will give an entirely different view. In the midlands and the London area, different ratings have been provided by each mechanism. The correct one,
  202
  according to the right hon. Gentleman, takes away as much blame as possible from himself and directs it towards the trust.
  Mr. Milburn: Which would the hon. Gentleman choose?
  Dr. Harris: I would choose the Commission for Health Improvement's in-depth studies. [Interruption.] However, unfortunately, the Secretary of State has subverted the commission's studies by forcing it to inspect against his star rating system so even when he had a quality programme of inspection in which the health service could have confidence, he subverted it because of political priorities. The Commission for Health Improvement and the people who work in the health service recognise that as long as they are inspected against his political targets, standards are not being properly measured.
  The Oxford Radcliffe NHS trust, which services my area, does not have worse doctors and nurses or poorer outcomes than anywhere else, but it did not achieve any stars. This was specifically because it was unable to admit patients as the local social services could not place people who were ready to leave and because some 120 beds were closed because of an inability to recruit nurses at the wages for which the Government are responsible. Simply to use the people working in the hospitals as a scapegoat misses the point.
  Mr. Kevan Jones: Is the hon. Gentleman really suggesting that the people who carry out inspections are under political control? If so, could he give an example of where that has happened?
  Dr. Harris: In the latest Bill—and, I suspect in the new Bill—the Commission for Health Improvement will be forced to inspect according to priorities and targets set by the Department of Health. The Secretary of State is not disagreeing with me. The targets will not be set according to public health indicators of general health outcomes—they will be ridiculous, such as the number of people waiting for procedures. That is a measure of activity and of the number of people using the service. It is not a measure of the amount of time that people wait, which is critical.
  Furthermore, it is clear that foundation hospitals will not be free from Whitehall control. They will still be subject to Commission for Health Improvement inspections based on the targets and the star ratings. They should be inspected by the commission but should design their own rational, evidence-based and patient-centered outcomes rather than having to use the Government's politically centred and target-based outcomes.
  Foundation hospitals will also be subject to performance management by commissioners. That is right and proper, but the commissioners are forced to measure the trust's performance against the Government's star rating targets.
  The Secretary of State will have the power to remove foundation hospital status. That Damoclean sword hanging over the trusts gives the Secretary of State yet more power, so even when the right hon. Gentleman talks about freedom, he is not talking about genuine

  203
  freedom. Why has he not talked about devolving and decentralising power to the commissioning side of the NHS? The real power in a service with a commissioning-providing split should be with the commissioning side. Yet, as the hon. Member for Woodspring said, the right hon. Gentleman has refused to give any responsibility other than handling money—not decision making—to the primary care trust. He has failed to provide any democratic accountability even of the sham kind that he is proposing for foundation hospitals to that side of the commissioning-providing split.
  Mr. Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Harris: No, I would like to make progress, and the hon. Gentleman has had a go.
  Is it right that foundation hospitals should be free to sell land—land that they have not bought but happen to have through serendipity, which really belongs to the entire NHS and therefore the public purse? Why should those foundation hospitals be given specific advantages to sell off land to use in their area?
  The other inconsistency surrounds local pay. The Government said that there will be local pay flexibility but that there can and will be no poaching. How will that work? The Secretary of State has never given a satisfactory answer to me. Conservative Front Benchers or his own Back Benchers. Will people have to sign an affidavit when they change jobs for the perks that are available through local pay flexibility that they have not left another NHS employer or that if they have, they are not doing it for the purpose of benefiting from local pay flexibility?
  I turn now to the good things about the Government's proposal—well, the good thing about the Government's proposal. [Interruption.] There is only one good thing about this proposal—the restriction on pay beds in these hospitals. The problem with pay beds in the NHS when NHS capacity is limited is that part of the capacity is thereby restricted solely to those who can afford to pay. There may be an argument when there is spare capacity for allowing people with resources to choose to have their private treatment in the NHS. It also helps to keep consultants in the NHS, if the Government are unable to get them to stick to their job plans. However, pay beds simply allow people to buy their way in ahead of the queue at the expense of those whose need is more urgent but who cannot afford to pay. Pay beds do not even bring in the extra resources that the Government claim they do.
  Mr. Mark Simmonds: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the ability of foundation or other hospitals to treat private patients would generate revenue that could then be transferred to the treatment of additional national health service patients?
  Dr. Harris: I have just said that that is not the case. When I asked a hospital in my area what proportion of its operations were given over to paying patients in its private wing, the answer was 20 per cent. I asked what the net income to the hospital was. It is very difficult to
  204
  find that out from answers to parliamentary questions; if the Government are going to stick to a baseline, they have to publish it sooner rather than later. The hospital said that the net income to the hospital was 6 per cent. So it is sacrificing 20 per cent. of its NHS capacity for 6 per cent. of its income. That does not make sense, even in Conservativeland.
  In the Barber memo, the Government state that a productivity improvement of about 15 per cent. is needed. Will the Secretary of State explain the difference between the 15 per cent. efficiency gain per pound spent, currently being demanded by Labour masters, and the efficiency gains that he decried when he was in opposition?
  In conclusion, the Government seek, as new Labour always does, to have it both ways—to be all things to all people—[Interruption.] I am glad that Conservative Front-Bench Members agree.
  On democratic accountability, the Government are choosing weird electorates, based on an opt-in process, instead of using existing democratically accountable local authorities or regional bodies. The Government claim to be devolving, but they are not offering true freedom—they are simply devolving the blame. They are giving new status to the provider side, but they are not decentralising decision making or giving freedom to the commissioning side. On flexibility, they say that, yes, there will be local pay, yet there will be no poaching.
  On the one hand, the Government say that these new beasts will be free from Whitehall control while, on the other, they will still be subject to targets and star ratings through the CHI and commissioning performance management. The more that the Secretary of State describes his policy on foundation hospitals, the more muddled and inconsistent it becomes. In trying to please the right-wing free marketeers in 10 Downing street while appeasing Labour rebels loyal to 11 Downing street, the right hon. Gentleman is trying to have it both ways and will end up satisfying no one but himself—and he looks very satisfied.
  The fundamental problem is that foundation hospitals are neither truly free nor locally accountable and that, to the extent that they have flexibility, they are divisive. In the light of the memo from Michael Barber expressing concern about the potential failure to deliver on health targets, we can see what a failure the policy on foundation hospitals is: flawed proposals, inadequately defended by a rattled and increasingly desperate Secretary of State.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. May I remind the House that there is a 15-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches, which operates from now?
  2.12 pm
  Mr. Frank Dobson: As we debate this Tory motion, it is worth reminding the House that the national health service is by a long distance the most popular institution in the country. It is certainly at least twice as popular as the Tory party. Indeed, it is more popular at present than the Tory party ever was—even at the height of its popularity. That is why the Tories have two problems when they are talking

  205
  about the NHS. First, most people do not believe what the Tories say and, secondly, most people remember their record.
  For a start, the Tories opposed the establishment of the NHS. Then, because it proved so successful and popular, they could never dare make a frontal attack on it and resorted, over decades, to a policy of malign interference. The Tories left the national health service short of money, short of staff, short of beds and short of modern equipment. Almost the only thing the NHS was not short of under the Tories was reorganisation, reform and modernisation. The Tories delivered reorganisation to the health service by the bucketload: endless rounds of structural change that achieved little or nothing while consuming resources and distracting staff from the priority of treating patients.
  That placed a huge burden on the staff. They became—and remain—sick to death of structural change for the sake of it. The whole country owes NHS staff a huge debt of gratitude, because the health service was kept alive during the Tory years only by the commitment of its staff, their dedication to the public service ethic and their resistance to the Tory introduction of competition.
  Now, the Tories are at it again. Not content with a double whammy—as invented by a former chair of the Tory party—they have come up with a triple whammy. They want to cut NHS funding by 20 per cent. They want to go over to a funding system that is more expensive and less cost-effective than the present one and to break up the NHS in preparation for privatisation.
  Where do the Tories' ideas come from? They say that we should imitate Europe. That really takes the biscuit. The most anti-European party of modern times, the knee-jerk Eurosceptics, are saying that we must imitate Europe. Apparently, they claim to have been on a European study tour. It is clear that rather more touring than studying went on, because they appear to have missed the fact that while they were in government investment in health care in Europe was far higher than it was in this country.
  The Tories have also missed the fact that the level of tax in Britain is lower than it is in most European countries. Never mind that, they say. Spend less on the NHS, they say. British people pay too much tax, they say. Let us force the British people to pay tax and also take out private medical insurance, they say—and they say it as though private medical insurance came free. However, private medical insurance does not come free; it costs money. What people do not pay on the taxation swings, they have to pay on the private insurance roundabout.
  The Tories have come up with a real gem of a popular policy for the British people: pay tax and top it up by paying for private health care—in other words, top-up fees for the NHS. What the Tories are talking about means more money being spent on the bureaucracy of insurance cover; an extra burden on business as firms feel obliged to pay insurance cover for their employees, thus eliminating one of our advantages as a centre of attraction for inward investment; and people's health cover being dependent on private insurers—presumably such as Equitable Life or Britannic Assurance.
  206
  On top of that, the Tories have seized on the idea for foundation hospitals because they see it as leading to the introduction of competition in the health service and the break-up of the NHS. They see the establishment of foundation hospitals as a big step down their road of privatisation.
  That is no surprise, of course, because the Tories want to privatise the NHS. They stand for competition, elitism and privilege. They always have and they always will. However, what surprises and, indeed, saddens me is that it is our Labour Government who are proposing foundation hospitals—a system in which some hospitals will deliberately be given advantages over neighbouring ones, inevitably leading to a two-tier service.
  Some of the articles and speeches in favour of foundation hospitals state that they represent traditional socialist values in a modern setting—not just new Labour but new socialism. Some of those articles note that the Tories will not oppose foundation hospitals, which has certainly been confirmed today. The House may call me old-fashioned, but it has never occurred to me that Tory support for an idea was a touchstone of its socialist nature.
  I freely admit that part of my objection to foundation hospitals is ideological. That is one reason that my views are shared by most people in the Labour party and, of course, why they are not shared by the Tory party. However, most of my case against foundation hospitals—
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Dobson: No, not for a moment—partly because Wales is not yet threatened with foundation hospitals and my hon. Friend would be talking about theory while we are talking about something that may in practice damage our constituents.
  Mr. Jones: In that case, may I again ask my right hon. Friend to give way?
  Mr. Dobson: No, I shall not give way.
  Most of my case against foundation hospitals is not ideological but strictly practical. That is why that case is shared by most people working in the NHS and opposed by the Tories.
  The starting point for any discussion of the future of the NHS must be the recognition that two decades of Tory failure to train enough doctors, nurses, midwives and therapists means that those skilled professionals will be in short supply for many years to come. That is unavoidable. For as long as that shortage exists, to give financial and other advantages to some hospitals can only be at the expense of neighbouring hospitals, because there is no surplus. For example, the chief executive of University College hospital in my constituency is desperate that it should become a foundation trust. If that comes about and the hospital can consequently offer better pay and working conditions, it will inevitably attract scarce staff from neighbouring hospitals that also serve my constituency—perhaps from the Royal Free, the Whittington, Barts or Great Ormond Street. The same will apply in every part of the country in which a

  207
  foundation hospital is established. The best may get better as a result, but that can only be at the expense of the rest.
  Ms Drown: One of the unanswered questions put in the debate in Westminster Hall yesterday related to extra pay being given to foundation trust staff. Does my right hon. Friend think that it would be appropriate for all the neighbouring trusts to have to sign off any differences from the national pay structure to ensure that staff were not pinched by other trusts?
  Mr. Dobson: I must admit that that had not occurred to me, but it seems that that is very difficult territory. Let us suppose that University College hospital had a vacancy. I cannot see how, in employment law, someone who wanted to apply for that vacancy could be stopped from doing so, irrespective of whom they were working for. As to the effect of the pay deal, I will need to think about that.
  There is a danger that the foundation hospitals will reintroduce competition into the national health service and set hospital against hospital. That is what we promised to get rid of, which we have done. It would not even be fair competition, however, as it would be a handicap race in which the least favoured horses carried the heaviest handicaps, which would be contrary to Jockey Club rules. That cannot be right, which is why I cannot support it.
  Besides getting extra funding, the Secretary of State says rightly that foundation hospitals should be free from central direction and control, with fewer Government targets, less interference and less earmarking of extra funds. I agree with that, and I must plead guilty that some of that interference started when I was Secretary of State for Health. I was becoming a little dubious about some of that by the time I resigned, although I must say, from observation, that there has been rather more of it since. My point to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—he is my friend—is that interference and central direction is not just a burden for the best hospitals; it is a burden for all of them. The argument must therefore be to ease up on all of them, except for perhaps one or two desperate cases. Above all, we should try to let them get on with their job, give them a chance to settle down with the changes that have been made so far, and allow them to concentrate on dealing with patients.
  The NHS needs change, but it does not need more structural change; it is sick to death of that. We need local, practical changes to help the clinical staff to do their job that include new and better ways of running clinics and dealing with out-patients; help in reducing cross-infections; relieving clinical staff of necessary clerical work, which the Tories forced on to them when they got rid of legions of clerks in the health service; reducing assaults on staff; and providing what the Tories singularly failed to provide—a modern IT system that serves the needs of patients and staff. Those are vital, local, long-term improvements. Greatly to his credit, my right hon. Friend is getting on with many of those things, and he and all his officials should be concentrating on that. He should ignore the anonymous
  208
  advisers who have an obsession with continuous change. They are like a collection of Maoists driven by the concept of continuous revolution.
  Mr. Milburn: Trotskyists.
  Mr. Dobson: I thought that, too. Perhaps the Secretary of State knows more about Trotsky than I do, but I was told that it was Mao who devised that theory. Whoever is the source of that influence, it is out of place among Downing street advisers.
  One of the problems with the constant effort towards change is that we are seeing doubts growing about the Government's overall intentions. Foundation hospitals are being linked in the minds of sensible people with the franchising-out of national health service hospitals that are in trouble, or the franchising-out of new diagnostic and treatment centres. That is beginning to look like ending the commitment to a national service and a move towards a mixed economy in health care, blurring what has up to now been a clear distinction between the Labour party and the Tories.
  There is no logic in the Tories' position. They say that the present system is fundamentally wrong, but if the best hospitals are doing really well under the existing system, that shows that it is not fundamentally wrong, as it can produce first-rate performances. The Government apparently accept that, but they are saying that they will give new status to the successful while expecting the unsuccessful to catch up using the existing system. It seems to me, therefore, that the Government are placing even more faith in the existing system than anybody else has done hitherto. If they have faith in the existing system, surely we should stick to it.
  Many of the problems that we face spring from the adherence to the concept of choice and diversity. There can only be a real choice for everybody if there is a surplus, but there is no surplus of staff or beds. Most patients are not looking for choice. As I have said before, someone who lives in Leicester wants one of the hospitals in Leicester to provide first-rate care; they do not want the choice of going to a foundation hospital in Nottingham.
  Mr. Dawson: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Dobson: No. I do not have much time, and I want to make progress.
  In addition, the establishment of foundation hospitals will cause great trouble for general practitioners, who will be faced with patients who say, "I do not want to go to the local hospital, I want to go to the foundation hospital down the road." That will not be of overall benefit. I come back to the point that we ought to let people in the NHS get on with their jobs, and ignore the anonymous, Maoist—or Trotskyist—advisers at No. 10. They have not even learned the lessons of the waste of time and money when the Tories were in charge, and of constant, repeated reorganisation on top of reorganisation. They should learn lessons from the Tories, not repeat their mistakes.
  I urge my right hon. Friend to carry on with the practical measures that he is introducing, which go right across the board in an effort to improve our health system, and to ignore the option of individualised,

  209
  specialised treatment for a limited number of privileged hospitals. Whether he intends it or not, the latter option is bound to bring about a two-tier service, which will damage the national health service and blur the distinction between our party and its wonderful record on the health service and the Tories and their abominable record.
  2.17 pm
  Mr. Stephen Dorrell: I hope that the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) will not misunderstand me if I say that his speech had an air of familiarity about it. It is fair to say that he and I have exchanged arguments on similar subjects across the Floor of the House of Commons for more than decade; in truth, we have argued about exactly this policy for more than a decade. What has changed this afternoon is that the Secretary of State has swapped sides in the argument.
  The right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras has been as consistent as I have been; he has argued against the establishment of, first, NHS trusts and, now, foundation hospitals. I have argued, first, for the establishment of NHS trusts, and I shall go on to argue in support of the principle of foundation hospitals today. In doing so, I shall take the opportunity to welcome the Secretary of State as a turncoat from the arguments that have just been advanced by the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, to the arguments that were first advanced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) when he was Secretary of State in 1989.
  The reality is that the analysis that has led the Secretary of State to advance the policy of foundation hospitals is exactly the same as that which led my right hon. and learned Friend to advance essentially the same policy through the NHS reforms of 1990. The right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras understands that, as does the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), the Chairman of the Select Committee, who has made clear his opposition to the Secretary of State's policy. What is also clear, although the Secretary of State was less explicit about it this afternoon, is that he understands it.
  When the right hon. Gentleman was speaking to a meeting of health service representatives on 22 May last year, he described the NHS trust policy of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe as "a halfway house". If that is the case, the obvious question is what it is halfway between. The truth is that the Secretary of State is being more ambitious in espousing the arguments that led to the establishment of NHS trusts than were the Government of whom I was a member, and I plead guilty to that charge.
  The Secretary of State's critique of NHS trusts is that they are not sufficiently free from external centralised control. The system that we set up, which was freer from those controls than the system that went before, is now dismissed as a halfway house. I offer him the thought that the challenge that he should embrace is to show, when he has completed the delivery and implementation of his policy, not that trusts were a halfway house but that they were short of being a halfway house. Let him be more bold. Let him try to get more than double the distance away from the policy as it was before trusts were established.
  210
  In short, I agree with the Secretary of State's analysis, and I congratulate him on it, of one of the key problems on what we used to call the provider side of the NHS. It is that one of the major failings of the health service, pre-and post-trusts, is that the degree of central control stifles innovation and the efficient use of resources. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that that is true not only of big acute hospital trusts but of the whole delivery of health care within the NHS, including community trusts, mental health care and care for those with learning disabilities. We must not be seduced by the big-budget acute hospitals.
  Mr. Dobson: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a huge amount of innovation throughout the health service, and that the biggest problem is identifying good innovation and getting other people to take it up?
  Mr. Dorrell: I agree that there is a huge amount of innovation in the health service, but I share with the Secretary of State the ambition to see more innovation because I do not believe that the health service is changing fast enough to keep up with the opportunities that exist in the delivery of modern health care.
  From his speeches, the Secretary of State seems to believe that we need a freer regime in the delivery of health care. He understands that that reflects European experience. The right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras was dismissive of that, but it is an important, powerful argument that while almost all other west European countries accept, as we do, the objective of delivering health care on the basis of clinical need without regard to ability to pay, they are better at delivering that policy. The Secretary of State has noticed that and is trying to apply those lessons here. He has a long way to go, but he has started, and I welcome that.
  Angela Eagle: Since the right hon. Gentleman is praying in aid Europe, does he agree that European systems have a much higher tax base and spend more money? Does he therefore agree with his Front-Bench colleagues who want to make a 20 per cent. cut in health spending?
  Mr. Dorrell: I strongly agree with the proposition that every continental European system spends a larger share of national income on health care than we do. The part of the lesson that the Secretary of State, wherever he is—he has a national health service to run—has not yet learned is that European systems can teach us how to liberalise not only the provision of health care but the demand side of the service, so as to get more resources into health care.
  My focus this afternoon is on those parts of the Government's policy on foundation hospitals with which I agree. The Secretary of State has learned from the European experience and from the basic principle that is evident in the management of large organisations the world over: the more that one delegates and gives people responsibility for the services that they deliver, the more innovation and efficient use of resources one gets.
  The Secretary of State is also committing himself to the reform of the public sector that the Prime Minister described as one of the most difficult challenges that his

  211
  Government faces. He said, and this must have been two years ago, that his back already bore the scars inflicted by the opponents of public sector reform. One result of the Secretary of State's policy is that the Prime Minister can now at least see who his enemies are—the enemies of public sector reform. They are the 109 Labour MPs who do not accept the logic of the Government's policy.
  Those Members are a small minority in the rest of the community, because for most people who are interested in the delivery of health care in this country and the rest of the world, the arguments that the Secretary of State has now accepted have been a commonplace for well over a decade. However, there are still 109 Labour MPs who do not accept them. The right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras and the hon. Member for Wakefield have already made clear their opposition, and we are led to believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not persuaded by those arguments. The Prime Minister can now at least know who his enemies are—those to whom he referred as having already inflicted scars on his back.
  Moving from the broad strategy to the detail, because the devil is in the detail of this policy, I want to focus on what I believe is the key question that will determine whether the Secretary of State's logic for greater devolution and greater freedoms for NHS foundation trusts will be carried through in practice. The key question at the heart of the policy is whether what we will be asked to introduce is, in the end, simply a different way of running state hospitals or whether it is a genuine commitment to introduce a new type of institution.
  The Secretary of State's speech last May, to which I have already referred, is ambiguous on that subject. He said:
  "In particular there has been a growing interest in recent years in developing the concept of a public interest company—a middle ground within public services between state-run public and shareholder-led private structures."
  How far down the road to a genuinely new type of institution are the Government prepared to go? I strongly believe that the Government need to be bold and to go as far as possible. That is the test that will need to be applied to the legislation when it is published.
  The accountability for the new foundation hospitals has to be seen to operate through the commissioning process and to apply to people who are close to the patient, rather than through the bureaucracy and the command and control system inherited from the old health service. Ministers have to ask themselves, and they must have a crystal-clear answer, what is the core activity of the NHS. I am very clear about what I believe it ought to be. It ought to be the delivery to patients of care on the basis of clinical need. The NHS ought to be a commissioning-led service. Frankly, the management of hospitals and of the delivery of health care, including community-based care, is a secondary consideration. If the NHS is to deliver its promise of equitable access to health care, it is the commissioning and the provision of access that is key, not the management of hospitals. That is why hospital management needs to be seen to be freer from the command and control system.
  It is still totally unclear where the balance of this argument will ultimately come to lie. The Government's latest publication on the issue was published in
  212
  December and is entitled "A Guide to NHS Foundation Trusts", and it says that four clear principles will be set out in legislation. I strongly agree with the principles that there should be
  "a primary purpose of providing health and related services for the benefit of NHS patients and the community"
  and that the foundation trusts should
  "act in accordance with NHS values."
  Other activities should be limited
  "to those that are conducive to and not detrimental to achievement of the primary purpose",
  and we should ensure that
  "assets, and any surpluses an NHS Foundation Trust makes, are applied solely to the primary purpose."
  Those are four good, strong simple principles with which I strongly agree.
  However, we must understand how the balance between those principles and commissioning is affected by the licensing process that the Government are introducing in the middle. The role of the independent regulator can easily undermine to the point of destruction the Government's objectives as stated in their policy. On that point, the December document gives cause for concern.
  The first item that the Government have seen fit to identify as being a function of the licensing system is the
  "limits on the provision of services to private patients."
  We can all agree that it is a statistical fact that private patients are a relatively small part of NHS activity, but I take no comfort whatever from the fact that that is the first bullet point and the first objective listed for the licensing system. I do not understand why that is part of the licensing function at all when one of the basic principles that I have already mentioned says that other activities can be carried on only if they
  "are conducive to and are not detrimental to"
  the primary purpose of the foundation. Any further limit on the services to private patients is otiose.
  The second bullet point is perhaps more fundamental in terms of the concerns that it raises. The licensing system will also deal with the clinical services that the foundation
  "must provide to the local community".
  If the independent regulator has carte blanche to address all the questions of what is the right type of clinical service to provide to a local community, what is the purpose of the commissioning system? That is what commissioning must be about. I agree with very little of what the Liberal Democrats' spokesman said, but I strongly agreed with him on the point that the key to success of the policy is strong commissioning. He advocated strong commissioning, and I would add that that is the natural partner of greater freedoms for the delivery of health care. The Government need to develop and publish clear thinking about the role of the independent regulator. The policy will be successful in direct proportion to the strength of commissioning and the relatively limited nature of the licensing system.
  I am not arguing that no licensing system is necessary, but that the commissioning system, and not the licensing system, must be the principal focus of decision making. That extends to all the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) made about borrowing limits and poaching.

  213
  It is not a coincidence that there is a big debate in the Labour party about the introduction of foundation hospitals at the same time as there is a debate about the future evolution of university policy. The freedoms that the Secretary of State has rightly identified as necessary for the delivery of health care in the health service are exactly the same freedoms that need to be introduced in the schools system—indeed, we introduced them into that system through the grant-maintained schools idea—and that need to be developed in the university sector to allow the universities proper freedoms in the use of resources and the delivery of services to their client groups.
  The Government must undertake a bold new reform of the delivery of services across the public sector. The gold standard—to use a phrase from the educational world—that the Department of Health should expect is no less freedom for an NHS foundation than the freedom that is accorded to the universities with which many of the foundation hospitals are closely associated through medical schools. I hope that, when the policy is finally implemented, universities and big NHS trusts—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  2.45 pm
  Mr. David Hinchliffe: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), who always makes an interesting speech. I did not agree with much of what he said, but he is one of the declining number of Tory Members who believe in the basic principles of the NHS. His time in the Department showed his concern for the health service, and I appreciate that. I recall many happy hours arguing with him about the internal market.
  This is an Opposition day debate, but it is worth remarking on the fact that six Conservative Back Benchers are present and three of them are possibly here because they wish to make leadership bids. I wonder what Tory Members do with their time. It is their debate, so I would have expected far more interest in it from them.
  Dr. Stoate: They are still at lunch.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: They may have had a good lunch. It is not quite 3 o'clock, so they are probably still at lunch. [Interruption.] I will get on with it. Conservatives might be embarrassed by the fact that they have to defend their party when it is committed to a 20 per cent. cut in resources.
  Mr. Simon Burns indicated dissent.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: The hon. Gentleman might try to contradict me, but, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out, it is pretty clear from the comments that were made over Christmas that the Conservative party is looking at significant savings in the public sector. I listened with interest to the comments of the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox). He referred to seeing the NHS dismantled. [Interruption.] He used the term "dismantled" in his
  214
  speech, so it is interesting that this debate gives us an opportunity to consider where the Tories would go on the NHS.
  I start with the basic belief that the NHS was the finest social policy achievement in this country in the 20th century. It established basic principles that are at the core of a decent society. They relate to how we treat the sick, and the NHS was the Labour party's greatest achievement. It is one reason why many of us on these Benches are members of the Labour party. I am proud to be a member of the party that created the NHS.
  However, 54 years on from the NHS's introduction, it is worth reflecting on some of its positive and negative aspects. I accept that we have faced problems in those 54 years, and we must consider where we are now. First—this is relevant to the current debate—there has always been a democratic deficit in the NHS and the ownership issue is worthy of debate, even in the context of foundation proposals with which I am not entirely happy. There have been unforeseen medical advances and, consequently, costs and expectations have risen. Another problem that I have mentioned constantly and with which I have bored some of my colleagues to death is the failure to integrate health and social care. That is a factor in continuing difficulties with our health care system.
  There has also been a failure to exploit the immense potential of primary care. It is worth remembering that, in the 1940s when the NHS was introduced, health centres were viewed as a key element of bringing the service together locally. We have never managed to deliver on that all these years later. I am delighted that, in my area and elsewhere, that concept is gradually, at long last, coming together.
  Throughout the 54 years, one of the problems has been the dominance of the hospital sector. It saddens me that today's entire debate is geared to the hospital sector. We must understand that one of the fundamental failings of our health care system has been the way in which we have allowed ourselves to be drummed into believing that health is about hospitals. The picture goes much wider than that, and it saddens me that the Opposition's motion focuses solely on the hospital sector. That is evidence of a very narrow view of what health is all about.
  It is incredible that the motion accuses the Government of creating a two-tier NHS. Talk about brass neck, as they say in my part of the world. The Conservatives are, of course, experts on two-tierism. It was a key concern in some of the debates that I had with the right hon. Member for Charnwood when the internal market was introduced. I compared the treatment available to my constituents in Wakefield with the treatment available in Leeds when we had postcode prescribing. The Government are trying to move away from that and they have achieved a number of successes.
  I remember being phoned by a non-fundholding GP. She was concerned because when her patients rang the hospital to find out when they would be admitted, they were asked, "Are you a patient of a fundholding GP or a non-fundholding GP?" The simple fact was that patients of fundholding GPs, with more resources than

  215
  the health authority, were admitted in advance of their next-door neighbours with similar conditions. So the Tories know all about two-tierism.
  Dr. Stoate: On fundholding GPs, before I came to the House I had a patient who was seriously ill with an acute form of leukaemia. When I phoned the hospital to get that person admitted as an emergency, I was asked whether I was a fundholding GP. As I was not, I was told that there would at the very least be severe complications in getting that person treated that day.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: My hon. Friend must therefore understand why some of us are concerned never to replicate the experience of two-tierism that we had under the Conservative party. We do not want to return to a situation in which there is competition between NHS providers.
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Hinchliffe: No. My hon. Friend is from Wales and has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue because there will be no foundation hospitals—
  Mr. Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that the Bill is an England-Wales Bill—[Interruption.] It is an England-Wales debate, and as such every hon. Member has an equal right to speak.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, we are not dealing with a Bill. This is an Opposition motion with a Government amendment. If he waits his turn, he may catch the eye of the occupant of the Chair.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: I mean no disrespect to my hon. Friend, but it has been made clear that foundation hospitals will not be introduced in Wales. If a foundation hospital in Bristol takes staff from his hospital in Cardiff, he might understand our concerns. However, if we were debating rugby in Wales, I would be happy to assist him with some of its current problems.
  I welcome the serious steps taken by the Government to address the two-tierism that they inherited from the Conservatives. I welcome the advent of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence and its ability to ' consider the merits of treatment. It also ensures that there is consistency in prescription and the offering of treatments to individual patients. I welcome what is happening with primary care trusts, the collaboration between GPs at local level and the emphasis on primary care. which arises directly from the introduction of the trusts. I welcome the statutory duty of co-operation. My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) mentioned that. It is exactly what the health service should be about. I also welcome the emphasis on quality, which interestingly has not been mentioned. The Government have taken serious steps to deal with quality problems in the NHS. The Health Committee picks up on quality issues and I appreciate the Government's attempts to deal with some of the difficulties.
  216
  There are a number of concerns about foundation hospitals. I am attracted to the discussion on placing NHS governance in the hands of local communities. I have argued for that for many years. If it is okay for foundation hospitals, why not for PCTs? The principle surely applies elsewhere in the health service. We should consider that. NHS governance and the foundation model are two separate issues. I am attracted to one but, frankly, not to the other. The foundation model is inconsistent with the positive broad direction of Government policy, which is travelling towards primary and community care. It is moving away from the dominance and power of the hospital sector towards the grassroots health workers in the community who know what patients want because they are nearer to them. The other direction of travel has been towards co-operation and collaboration and away from the internal market. It strikes me that a Conservative idea has emerged in the Red Box of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in Richmond house.
  The Health Committee went to Sweden a couple of weeks ago. We saw its foundation model, which was introduced after a Conservative county council election victory. I should tell the House that the county councils in Sweden run the hospital sector. The foundation hospital was working in isolation and the links that I would expect from the acute sector in this country were not present. The hon. Member for Woodspring welcomed the foundation concept before Christmas. He said that it was
  "laying the groundwork for the model which a future Conservative Government would like to see…it was a more market orientated approach."
  It strikes me as something of a Trojan horse if it is a future Tory market model of health care. I am worried because the NHS began after the second world war, during a time of great reform and concerns about what the country had gone through. At the time, Britain recognised that a market system could never deliver basic decent principles of health care on the basis of need.
  The Health Committee has agreed to undertake an inquiry into foundation hospitals. There will certainly be marked differences of opinion among Committee members who approach the problem from different perspectives. There are several key issues. The first is the apparent inconsistency with wider Government policy, most of which I strongly support and commend. The second is the impact on the wider NHS. My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras illustrated that for London, and I can say the same for west Yorkshire. It is highly likely that the three-star Bradford hospital will become a foundation hospital. That will have an impact on Leeds, Huddersfield, Wakefield and all surrounding areas. We should be concerned about that, especially in relation to staffing. I also fear the impact of the freedoms proposed. They will result in relative deprivation for some areas. I do not expect that from a Labour Government.
  The Government do listen to concerns. I can think of many examples of the health team commendably listening to Back Benchers. I hope that they listen to the serious concerns within the parliamentary Labour party and to the outcome of the Health Committee's inquiry.
  2.57 pm
  Mr. John Redwood: I have declared my interests in the register.
  The test I apply to a health policy is this: will it be good for my constituents? I am a strong supporter of the NHS and its principles. I want all my constituents who need health care to get access to it in a timely way. I want them to receive high-quality care that is free at the point of need and use. I regret the way in which such debates are characterised by Labour Members, who make futile and inaccurate attacks on the Conservatives. Many of us are children of the NHS. We have received our care and attention from the NHS when we have needed it. The Conservatives have a long record in government of increasing money to the NHS year after year. We never privatised it or attacked it in the way that Labour Members claim, yet they are still peddling the same old nonsense.
  Nor is it the case that Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen are wedded to 20 per cent. cuts across the board. I have seen a comment by the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who would not be doing his job if he were not looking for ways to improve and reduce spending, that he would like to find examples of wasteful spending that he could cut by 20 per cent. I am happy to recommend one to him from my area. I should like him to get rid of more than 20 per cent. of the regional government that is being foisted upon us. It is totally unnecessary and completely wasteful. I would rather have more nurses and doctors than more bureaucrats in Guildford misrepresenting our views and getting in our way.
  I am delighted that the Royal Berkshire hospital, which serves my constituency and adjacent ones, received substantially larger sums in successive years under Conservative Administrations and has received more money under the Labour Administration. I am confident that when a Conservative Government are elected, they will not cut the amount of money going to that hospital, but that they will accept the budgets they inherit and see the need to continue to increase them, as they always did in the past. I wish that that were common ground between the parties.
  Caroline Flint: The right hon. Gentleman says that the 20 per cent. cut in public services proposed by his party over Christmas would not affect the health service. What does he say to the member of the shadow Cabinet quoted in The Sunday Telegraph—
  Mr. Burns: It says here.
  Caroline Flint: Yes, it does say here, in The Sunday Telegraph of 29 December:
  "It is a question of credibility. It is simply not believable to say that we can cut spending by 20 per cent. simply by removing waste and bureaucracy."
  Does not that suggest that some of the 20 per cent. cut will attack public services, including the health service?
  Mr. Redwood: No, it does not suggest that at all. I repeat my firm promise and expectation that the policy, when announced in the run-up to the election, will not include a single cut to a hospital such as the Royal
  218
  Berkshire hospital, and that our pledge to increase the number of nurses, doctors and other important medical staff in hospitals will need to be renewed. I am sure that we will want to employ all those whom we inherit, and I am equally sure that we will discover that there are not enough. That is because almost six years into a Labour Government—a Government who came to power pledged to save the NHS—we discover that the Royal Berkshire hospital is still chronically short of beds, consultants and nurses, waiting times are unacceptably long, and sometimes even the quality of care suffers because of the pressures the medical staff are under. I would dearly love the Government to sort that problem out. I thought that the one thing that a Labour Government might do for my local area was get enough money into the hospital to enable it to hire the staff needed, but, unfortunately, they have not done so.
  When evaluating foundation hospitals, I ask myself whether they might be the answer. I find that difficult to judge yet, because of the paucity of information and the complexity of and imperfections in the details that have so far come before us. Sometimes, I wake up thinking, yes, foundation hospitals could be the answer—they could be real reform, providing the freedom we need to manage our hospital locally and the opportunity to raise money from private sources if we cannot get enough from public sources. On other occasions, when I hear Labour Ministers and spokesmen and read the conflicting details that emerge, I think that foundation hospitals will he merely an expensive charade.
  What is needed to make the policy work? First, I would like my hospital and others like it to be eligible, regardless of star ratings. If it makes sense to free good hospitals, would it not make sense to free hospitals that are not doing well within the current structure, to see whether local management would be better than highly centralised management? I would like foundation status to be available to any group that wanted to improve the hospital and to exercise freedoms, whatever their current star rating.
  Secondly, I would like genuine freedom to be given to those that gain foundation hospital status to borrow against their assets as well as against their revenue stream. An artificial distinction has been drawn. Today, we heard the Secretary of State say that it would be quite wrong to allow foundation hospitals to borrow against their assets, because the wicked capitalists might, in certain circumstances, then take the assets away, but it is perfectly reasonable to let them borrow against their revenue stream. I cannot see how that type of technical nitpicking will work in practice.
  Dr. Stoate: The right hon. Gentleman believes that all hospitals should be given the opportunity to become foundation hospitals. Is he suggesting that even hospitals that are manifestly failing to deliver a reasonable service should be given those freedoms, without any sorts of checks and balances to prevent their failing their local communities even more than some are doing currently?
  Mr. Redwood: I do not think that they would fail their communities more. I think that they would fail them less if they had more freedom. Much of the failure derives from central control, direction, intervention and bureaucracy, which is well above the heads of local

  219
  management. That must be the Secretary of State's view, because he now wishes to trust local management more.
  Next, I want real democracy to surround the idea of members of a foundation hospital. Some Labour Members are on to that real difficulty in the Government's position, and I am sure that they will not be satisfied by the Secretary of State's argument, which is that people should have to volunteer to be members of the hospital. That would mean that small groups of people who are motivated in a certain way—not necessarily by the public interest or the interests of everyone else—could take over a foundation hospital and, through the lethargy and inertia of everyone else, gain control over extremely important assets.
  If we are to take the democratic route—there is much to recommend doing so—it must be done as a democracy of all the people in the area served by the hospital. That surely means using the electoral roll and having elections to the board of those institutions. I suggest, for cost reasons, holding them at the same time and in parallel with elections to the local council, so that the normal democratic apparatus can be used without much being added to the cost burden.
  It would be far more democratic to provide the chance to cast a vote when making important choices about people who will offer guidance in an important sector of public service, and thus influence the lives of those who need health care, to the electorate as a whole than to give it only to self-selecting and self-interested groups of people. I do not want my local hospital to become a foundation hospital based on a limited number of people who expressed an interest because they happened to be in the right place on the right day to see an advertisement in the newspaper. I want democratic involvement to be extended far more broadly, to all the electors in the area, who are, after all, the paymasters of the organisation because they pay the taxes.
  Mr. Dawson: How would the right hon. Gentleman achieve the involvement of my constituents who live in the rural Over Wyre area, who have a great allegiance to and need to use the services of the excellent Blackpool Victoria hospital, but who do not live within its immediate area?
  Mr. Redwood: That is an interesting complexity, but I would be democratically generous and give them a vote in the affairs of any foundation hospital that served their area. That might mean their having a vote in respect of more than one foundation hospital, which brings me neatly to my third important point.
  In some of the Government's rhetoric I have noted words and phrases that I find a little surprising, but welcome—those attacking what they call "the monolith". When, before I became a Minister, I wrote a pamphlet setting out why I thought the NHS monolith had many defects and was rather old-fashioned, Labour was horrified. Now, we discover that that is language that both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Health are happy to use, but they must think through what they are saying, which is that it is the monopoly elements of the NHS that are serving patients badly. I agree with that.
  220
  One of my disappointments is that amalgamations, mergers and closures under Governments of both parties over the past 20 years have resulted in my area having, in effect, only one hospital offering services. I would prefer a variety of hospitals of different shapes, sizes and styles offering different choices. I deeply regret the closure of many of the smaller hospitals, maternity hospitals and accident and emergency centres. Under Governments of both parties, the argument ran that the health service needed to specialise, concentrate and create those large monopolies, but monopolies are not the normal mode of operation in other sectors of public service. I therefore want the Government to extend their dislike of monoliths and to understand that what we need are foundation hospitals of a variety of styles and sizes serving local communities—a plurality of foundation hospitals.
  The Government have not gone that far, because doing so would get them into ideological dispute with many of their supporters. Labour Back Benchers believe that a command-and-control system, with monopoly hospitals guided from the centre and the Secretary of State being responsible for every bedpan, is the way to run the health service, and they are extremely unhappy about the freedoms that are now being offered to local hospitals through this potentially interesting scheme. The Government will not go the distance because they will find it difficult to persuade their supporters that offering real choice—having smaller hospitals as well as bigger ones, and having more than one hospital in an area and a contrast of styles—is a good idea.
  I can understand the dilemma. The Labour party desperately wants to create common standards across the country so that everyone has access to treatment that is of the highest possible quality. So do I—if only. However, I happen to think that choice drives that system better than monolithic and central control. Labour Members who are most critical of the Government fear that foundation hospitals will introduce a two-tier health service, but do they not realise that we already have a multi-tier health service? We have a great deal of postcode rationing: certain treatments can be obtained in some places, but not in others, and in others still a long wait is required. Even the distribution of medicines, despite the intervention of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, has an element of local differentiation.
  The Labour party has to accept that if it chooses the route of localism there will be variations and diversity—but its document on foundation hospitals does not deal with that central dilemma. The Government say that they want both diversity and common high national standards, both strong central regulation and freedom for individuals to make local decisions. My point is that the Government have to choose; they must decide whether they really believe that a system of diversity and choice delivers the best average results—that is my view—or that a bit more money, or a bit more command and control, will deliver better results. If the latter, they should choose that route.
  The danger is that the foundation hospital will fall between two stools, and be neither one thing nor the other. It could end up as an expensive charade. It could spend a lot of money on recruiting members and appointing the board and the new management team, only to discover that it does not have all the powers that

  221
  it needs to pledge the assets and borrow the money to negotiate the right contracts and deals, to sell its assets and buy different ones that might be better for its purposes, or to hire the staff that it wants.
  Other hon. Members have pointed out the awful contradiction between local terms and conditions of employment, which I strongly welcome and recommend in my local area, and the idea that there must not be any poaching or movement of staff around the former NHS system. Again the Government are demonstrating muddle, and they must make up their mind. I strongly recommend that they go for more choice and diversity and more local determination.
  That means foundation hospitals based on a full democratic electorate, with full power to borrow and to pledge their assets. It means allowing foundation hospitals to sell and buy assets as they see fit, in pursuance of their duty to provide health care for their areas. It means allowing them to choose not only the staff they wish to employ but the way in which they remunerate them. Yes, that does mean allowing them the right to attract staff from other health institutions. Where else are health staff likely to come from? That will be good for the staff because it means new ideas and new people spread around—and of course, the better staff will be paid more under that system, which I also happen to think is a rather good idea, which will help innovation and drive higher quality.
  My fear is that the Government will do few of those things, and we will end up with another expensive bureaucracy and there will be a multi-tier health service. Foundation hospitals will be given not only greater freedoms but more money to try to make them work, to create a favourable impression. That will leave other hospitals, such as my local hospital, struggling. I would like to see a system open for all and free for all the patients, with many more freedoms for the managers, based on proper local democratic mandates.
  3.12 pm
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Thank you for calling me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have often sat on these Benches frustrated by my inability to take part in a debate when I wanted to do so, but I have never before found that that had anything to do with my nationality. I am pleased to be able to take part in the debate on foundation hospitals. Although it is true that for the time being the First Minister of Wales has said that he does not wish to introduce foundation hospitals in Wales, their introduction, and their success or otherwise in the rest of the United Kingdom, is bound to have an influence on my constituents.
  As a former Health Minister for Wales, I can claim to have some experience of the problems of health service management, and as a Member whose constituents suffer the longest waiting lists not only in the United Kingdom but in Europe, I understand something of the frustration that they feel about the present provision of services. As I represent those people, I may say that the impression that has sometimes been given in the debate, that the present system does not involve more than one tier of provision, is completely erroneous. We have a wide disparity of provision within the United Kingdom, and the present system does not appear to be eroding that disparity—or at least, not at any great pace.
  222
  Momentous decisions were taken when the Prime Minister was convinced by a Member of the other place that money needed to be invested in the health service at a great rate, as happens in the rest of Europe, and the Wanless report was commissioned. That report said that the most efficient mechanism for paying for services would be through general taxation, rather than introducing some of the more disparate funding mechanisms used in the rest of Europe. It would also be much less destructive to fund the health service out of general taxation. However, the Wanless report also recognised that there was a downside to that, in that there would be less accountability and choice, and less competition, in the model that we were choosing. To make up for that, the extended audit system, which has yet to be put in place, was recommended, so that the taxpayers could be assured that they were receiving value for money in exchange for the considerable increase in spending on the health service.
  If we compare the activity rates of the present health service with the rate of increase in spending, we see that there is a fairly wide gap. That point has been made by the Opposition—for political reasons, and also maybe for better ones. The defence against that argument—I think it is a substantial one—is that there is bound to be a lag between the time when we start putting in the investment and the time when we begin to achieve the full benefit of that investment. The underinvestment that went on for several decades under Conservative Governments will take a considerable time to undo. I agree that that is a substantial defence, and that we should not expect to see in the short term rapid increases in activity rates commensurate with the extra spending.
  Nevertheless, hon. Members will acknowledge—it is difficult to prove this, but it will be backed up by the many anecdotes that will be told them in their surgeries—that there are problems inherent in our system that are not simply a matter of investment. I shall tell the House one anecdote that made me think about structures. It is not to do with my constituents; it is about my family.
  About a year ago, I had a call at 5 o'clock in the morning from a close elderly relative who was in an accident and emergency unit in a major hospital in south Wales. He had a life-threatening condition and had not seen a doctor. I drove straight to the hospital, and was most distressed. He had not seen a doctor because of a lack of resources, which are now being put in. However, another reason for his distress was the condition of the waiting room he was in and the filthy toilets alongside. Knowing that he was possibly about to have a lifesaving operation, he did not have overwhelming confidence in the institution he was in. When he went on to the ward, he received excellent service, and he began to feel far better. On my way out, I went into the toilet next to the lift which had probably not been cleaned for a year.
  I was most distressed by my elderly relative's condition. That evening, I had to attend a party meeting in a junior school, and was thinking about what I would tell the party members. I looked at the hall floor, and noticed that it was spotless. I spoke to the caretaker, and told him of my experience. He took me to the toilets, which were also spotless. I thought, "There is no way we are investing money and resources to ensure that the schools are kept cleaner than hospitals. It is not a matter

  223
  of resources." If the school floors and toilets were as dirty as that hospital, the governors would not put up with it. The parent governors in particular have such an investment in the school that they would not tolerate it. However, even if they did, parents have a choice, albeit limited, about which school their children attend, and they would choose not to send them to that school.
  That accountability did not exist for my elderly relative in hospital—there is no equivalent of the parent governor there. He had no choice about where he would go. Somehow, we must introduce systems that provide greater accountability, transparency and choice. If we do not, the service will not be as responsive as we wish, never mind the resources that we put in. The right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) mentioned grant-maintained schools, of which there are none, I am glad to say, in my constituency. However, local management of schools was a good idea introduced by his party. Something like the local management of hospitals would improve the service that is provided.
  Mr. Redwood: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman remembers that when I was Secretary of State for Wales I diverted money from elsewhere in the budget to put extra into the health service. I found that with all the command and control that a Secretary of State is meant to have, it was extremely difficult to get the health service to spend that money on the extra nurses and doctors whom I thought it needed.
  Mr. Jones: I well remember the right hon. Gentleman's time as Secretary of State for Wales, about which I have mixed views. However, our debates were open, he was always prepared to debate his point of view and was supportive of local hospitals.
  I am prepared to welcome the idea of foundation hospitals. I do not think that they will necessarily provide all the solutions, but they are an experiment that we need to look at. However, I am wary of suddenly expanding that experiment without any testing, as the Opposition seem to be suggesting. I urge my hon. Friends, who are reluctant to look at foundation hospitals for understandable reasons, to see the ideological position that needs to be defended—public services, including the provision of health care, must be successful and must be seen to be successful. As a Government, we must successfully deliver good-quality health care. If we fail, that will provide a true opportunity for the Opposition. If we are not prepared to look at the reform of our health service, we will fail.
  3.24 pm
  Mr. Richard Page: Although I usually speak on the trade and industry and manufacturing sector, which has severe problems of its own, I am delighted to be able to contribute to the debate, because of the serious situation that faces the hospitals in my constituency. If those hospitals are facing difficult situations, it means that my constituents are suffering. The complaint ratios coming in over the past three years or so are more severe than for the previous 20 or 30 years. I am not surprised. We are led by a Government whose experience is limited to what I
  224
  have described as sucking on the hind teat of political experience, rather than knowledge and experience in the real world.
  I have a terrible mixture of anger and sadness—anger because I remember vividly the criticisms made by the party now in government when we were in government. We heard how they would make things so much better, and how dreadful we were—24 hours to save the NHS. What have we got now? We have a list of complaints as long as one's arm. I am saddened by the stories that I hear from my constituents. What do I say to a widow who comes to see me and tells me, "My husband was a year on the waiting list for heart surgery, and he died as they were preparing him for surgery, having waited a year"?
  What do I say to my constituent who came to my surgery a month or so ago, saying, "I can't get the diabetic treatment in Hertfordshire, although I can get it in Buckinghamshire"? What do I say to the old boy who told me, "I went in for some tests, and I saw how dirty it was under the bed, so I put a £1 coin under the bed. I had my tests and they took a week, and when I left, I bent down and picked up my £1 coin and took it away again"? What do I say to the man who had a stroke and did not receive any physiotherapy for four months? We all know how necessary it is to have physiotherapy immediately. I had a case in this morning of a poor lady who had suffered a stroke, and had already had three bouts of infection from hospital. The list can go on and on.
  Dr. Stoate rose—
  Mr. Page: Of course I give way, as that gives me another minute or so.
  Dr. Stoate: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not tell constituents who have those problems that the way to solve them is to cut public expenditure and reduce the amount of money going into the health service. He must tell his constituents that the only way to solve the problems is more investment and the reform needed to make that investment work, so that his constituents can look forward to increased rather than reduced health care.
  Mr. Page: The hon. Gentleman must stop writing the script for the Labour party and stop starting to believe it. I shall deal with his point in a moment.
  I welcome the concept of foundation hospitals. They could be a means of improving the health care of my constituents, but what of the hundreds of other hospitals that are not given foundation status and foundation opportunities? What will happen to the Hemel Hempsteads and the Watfords of this world? The hon. Gentleman speaks of money. The Government muddle up money and management. My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox)—I hope that he will shortly be my right hon. Friend—commented that more than 20 per cent. more money went in, but there was only a 1.6 per cent. increase in treatment.
  I have to smile when I find that there is agreement between my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney)—a sort of

  225
  unholy alliance—when they ask how the Government's scheme is to be rolled out for the rest of the acute hospitals. There is a huge gap between the cost and the achievement, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) pointed out. How true that is. We must examine more effectively the level of efficiency that is being achieved. The Government think that if they throw money at a problem, it will go away. I remind them of their experience with the dome. How many hundred millions of public money were thrown at the dome, and what do we have? A tatty example, instead of a shining example, of what Britain is really like.
  Nothing brings things home to people more than personal experience. Just over a couple of years ago, one of my larger four-footed friends deposited me on the ground at a fairly high rate of knots. Being old and unfit and not bouncing like I used to, I hit the ground more with a splat than with the youthful enthusiasm that I had in the past. The ambulance arrived and the staff did their job remarkably effectively. I was taken to a hospital, but the process turned out to be almost an Ealing-type comedy. My total treatment time was about 20 minutes, but I was at the hospital for more than 10 hours.
  I had heard that there were now more administrators than beds in the health service, but I did not see my personal administrator standing beside my bed to look after my needs. When one is lying in pain, feeling waves of pain washing over, one is not that interested in the technicalities of funding national health provision or in whether it is private or public or whether the nurses are regular nurses or agency ones. One is looking only for treatment. The staff discovered that I had broken a shoulder, my collarbone and rib or two, and I can tell hon. Members—I can see concern in every face—that I have made a full and happy recovery.
  I came away thinking, "Surely we can run our national health service better than this?" I waited 10 hours for 20 minutes' treatment. I cannot see that we will achieve anything else by conducting review upon review and counter-review. In my constituency, shortly before the general election, we had another review of the Watford and Hemel Hempstead general hospitals. Surprise, surprise: the decision was made to keep them both open. Immediately after the election, however, the Government announced the decision to close Harefield and the reviews started again. Interestingly, the decision to close Harefield, a well-known international heart hospital, was made even before planning permission was gained for the move down to the Paddington basin. A leaked report completed a few months ago asked for about £5 million or £6 million more to be spent on Harefield to keep it going for another five years, so some more operations could be carried out there, as delays were occurring in Paddington. I have encountered such trouble in my constituency, where we have spent more and more money on project after project and building after building, only for the projects to be reversed and the buildings knocked down, so that we have to start again.
  The hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) commented on Conservative party policy, as did the Secretary of State, who also wrote the policy according to his own lights. I share the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham, as I would be appalled if we cut the money that is currently going into our national health service, but I would like us to
  226
  achieve a higher rate of efficiency. The money should not be wasted and we should not spend 20 per cent. more to achieve only a 1.6 per cent. increase in clinical episodes.
  Although the Opposition have been accused of confusion, it is not unknown in the Labour party. I was greatly impressed by the comments of right the hon. Member for Makerfield in The Guardian on 2 December. He argued that the creation of foundation trusts represented an example of the "rebirth of popular socialism"—a contradiction in terms if ever I heard one. He had obviously not been listening to the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who I thought spoke sensibly and eloquently in this debate. I disagreed with him, but I thought that he made a logical point. He went on record in The Guardian of 5 November last year as describing the proposals for creating foundation hospitals as an attempt to "establish…a Tory consensus". The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) expressed her belief that the plans
  "will crystallise the deep unease many Labour MPs have about a Government which appears to have no moral core".
  It is transparently clear from the fact that 100-plus Members have signed the early-day motion on foundation hospitals that there is deep concern that we are creating a two-tier system.
  I find myself on the horns of a dilemma. I want to see these foundation hospitals up and running; they seem to be the way to go. The new system will retain them within the national health service while giving them greater freedom for individual expressions of management and control. But what about the hundreds of other hospitals that will be left outside, unable to catch up? The Labour party said that there were 24 hours to save the NHS. Suddenly that became 10 years. When did that 10 years start? Was it in 1997? Did it start a year or so ago? Has it started now? When is this 10-year plan going to come to fruition? When will the hospitals in Hertfordshire—in Hemel Hempstead and Watford, and at Mount Vernon—have the chance to take advantage of the opportunities that are being given to the foundation hospitals? When will my constituents have the chance to obtain a better level of service? I have already outlined my concerns about the quality of service being given to my constituents, and I could spend hours going through them, time and again, to the House. We have all had experience of cases in our surgeries; every one of us has a tale of horror burned into us.
  We must ensure that we improve our national health service. While supporting the move towards foundation hospitals, I would like to hear from the Minister what is to happen to all the other hospitals that are going to be left out in the cold. What about the Watfords, the Hemel Hempsteads and the Mount Vernons of our society?
  3.36 pm
  Siobhain McDonagh: I welcome the debate about foundation hospitals. Perhaps because some part of me is a latent Trotskyist, I believe that every public organisation—including the one that we hold most dear—has to be subject to considerations of how it should be organised and structured. When we are in a position to put large amounts of money into the national health service over the next 10 years, we must consider how best that money should be spent and in which ways.

  227
  I am encouraged by this debate because these measures are about increasing public involvement in our cherished institution, and anyone here who has ever been in a constituency in which a hospital is threatened knows just how fervent the support for the NHS is. Anyone who has ever attempted to get a petition together in such circumstances knows how easy it is to get members of the public to sign it and become involved in their local NHS.
  There will be an opportunity within foundation hospitals to allow them more clearly to reflect the needs of the community in which they are based. Uniformity does not guarantee equality. We have a multi-layered and multi-standard NHS. All our constituents know how good or bad their local hospitals are. There is already competition between the teaching hospital and the local district general, for example. Where do people want to go if they have a complicated ailment? There is also competition in terms of how we view hospitals with old or new buildings. The idea that we all believe that everything is equal and the same across the NHS is simply not true. Our constituents do not believe that to be the case either.
  I find the idea of diversity exciting. It offers the prospect of real innovation. My feelings about diversity and the opportunities that it presents stem from my experience in my work before I came to the House. I worked in the most exciting, vibrant and innovative part of the voluntary sector in the country: I worked for a housing association. In fact, I worked for both a local authority housing department and a housing association. If people really want to provide more, better housing in exciting ways, housing associations are the place to be. They have core principles, just like the NHS. One core principle is to house those in need, but they do it in many different ways depending on which part of the country they are based in. They represent different ethnic groups and they are formed out of the needs of the local community.
  I have read the Department of Health briefing document on foundation hospitals and, for me, it reflects what could be and what is good in housing associations as well as how that might be introduced to the NHS. Housing associations, not local authority housing departments, are at the cutting edge of providing services for the most vulnerable and the most difficult to house. Due to their freedom, housing associations can consider and tackle the needs of groups that local authorities often shy away from.
  I understand and fully appreciate why people are concerned about changes in structure, because, for 17 years under the Conservative Government, we fought for the continued existence of the NHS. Any threat or any change to that institution makes us concerned that perhaps it is being undermined, but diversity is not about sacrificing standards, and the Commission for Health Improvement and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence are fundamental in ensuring that we have national standards, although those could be provided in different ways across the country.
  Giving foundation status to some will not impoverish the rest. The proposal will provide an opportunity as well as an expression of how and why we can improve.
  228
  It is not about money, as the Liberal spokesperson suggested. It is about the room to manoeuvre as well as the room to have a good idea and seeing it happen.
  Mr. Kevan Jones: Will my hon. Friend explain this example to me? My constituency is in the north-east. If Sunderland general hospital, which is a three-star trust, goes down the foundation route and attracts better staff and if people feel that it is better than the excellent University Hospital of North Durham, how could North Durham and neighbouring hospitals not be affected by that?
  Siobhain McDonagh: People already have a perception of which they believe to be the better hospital. My constituency is served by St. Helier, which is a local district hospital that I mentioned earlier, and St. George's, which is a teaching hospital. People already have perceptions. They do not need the word "foundation" to be included to make them have certain feelings about those hospitals.
  Equally, it is patently not the case that there are not already different incentives for staff to work in certain hospitals. Staff at St. Helier get outer-London weighting while those at St. George's get inner-London weighting. Those hospitals are a mile and a half apart. Staff at St. Helier get a really good crèche for their children while that is not the case at other hospitals. There are already incentives built into the system to attract staff. I understand the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), but we do not perceive the NHS as our constituents already perceive it.
  The proposal is not about assisting a few; it is for the many. The document suggests that every hospital, should it achieve three-star status, will have the opportunity to go for foundation status. That is the key. What we are discussing is not like grant-maintained status for schools, which could only ever be accessed by a few. Foundation status is a possibility for all those hospitals.
  Mr. Simmonds: Will the hon. Lady consider the possibility of a hospital that has achieved two-star status being given foundation status as a way to raise its standards and achieve three stars?
  Siobhain McDonagh: It seems reasonable that the best standard—three stars—should be achieved before that freedom is given. I cannot understand why no-star or one-star hospitals should have the prospect of more freedom when they are clearly unable to address some of their basic problems. The logic of that is there for me.
  The proposal is not about recreating an internal market, because it is clear that different hospitals will not offer different prices for different operations when the NHS reference costs are introduced. I know that there are difficulties there, because the reference costs are quite bizarre at the moment, but if we can get to a stage at which we know the cost of an operation in a particular region we shall achieve much more clarity and openness over contracts with the PCT.
  I firmly believe that the NHS is under threat in the long term not from Labour Members or people of my age and older, but because younger people—those in

  229
  their 20s and early 30s—will not put up with the system as it is, even when we get the full benefits of the investment. They live in a society and a world in which they enjoy international access within seconds. They want treatment now, and they want to be involved in a system that allows them some control over the services provided for them.
  I completely understand why people are concerned about change to a system that we cherish desperately. However, we must ask whether we cherish it because of the way that it is currently structured, or because, based on everything that made us become members of the Labour party and stand for election, we believe that people should have the very best treatment when they need it, at no cost. That is our fundamental belief, and if we need to change the system in some way to ensure that that the wider community continues to cherish that goal, we should consider doing so.
  3.45 pm
  Mr. David Tredinnick: During his first Parliament as Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Gentleman was obsessed by central control and central planning, and ran the health service in an almost Stalinist style. Some way into his second Parliament as Secretary of State, he is finally taking on board some of the policies of choice and diversity that are truly Conservative ones. According to the leaked memo that is doing the rounds of the newspapers, we hear that extra billions may not sort out the NHS. In other words, throwing money at the problem will not necessarily lead to a solution.
  In one particular way—it has already been touched on—the proposal for foundation hospitals is unbelievably divisive. As it stands, it excludes all hospitals in Leicestershire because all of them have two-star status. In other words, the great Leicester royal infirmary, Glenfield hospital and others will be excluded. There is a very strong case for using this proposal as an incentive, certainly in a county such as mine, where not a single hospital has three-star status.
  It is perhaps no surprise that more than 100 Labour Members have signed an early-day motion that opposes these proposals. In fact, they are founded on Conservative policies and derive from the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. As originally passed, that Act gave NHS trusts the freedom to determine staff terms and conditions. Furthermore, the notion of some financial control independent of Government was proposed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) when he was Secretary of State for Health. No financial control was given—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) seems to be trying to intervene—I hope that he is agreeing with me. He is beyond the white lines, so he is out of court and cannot speak. The fact is that my right hon. and learned Friend's proposals did not get past the then Chancellor because the then Opposition complained that they were all about privatisation. So this really is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
  The proposals put much store on governance arrangements giving local stakeholders, patients and people in the local community far greater control. There will be real opportunities for local people through the
  230
  management proposals, and I certainly welcome that because it is in line with our party's policy. During yesterday's debate in Westminster Hall, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears) said that we want are new ways of doing things and new governance arrangements. Indeed, according to a press release from the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy), there will be a
  "new era in patient and public involvement in the NHS".
  He said that the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health will not just promote but
  "champion…the involvement of the public".
  Well, that is great news, because one question that the Government must address is what these new people—the local people who will get control, not the apparatchiks or central control freaks from Richmond house—will ask for. What will they ask for? They will ask for services that many already use.
  Andy Burnham: Complementary medicine.
  Mr. Tredinnick: The hon. Gentleman has it in one. He should be promoted.
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith)indicated assent.
  Mr. Tredinnick: The Minister clearly agrees. Foundation hospitals should be required to move to an integrated delivery of service, which should include the main complementary therapies—osteopathy, chiropractic, homeopathy, acupuncture and herbal medicine. I served on the Standing Committees scrutinising the Bills in the 1987 and 1992 Parliaments that put provision of chiropractic and osteopathy on the statute book; then many doctors still considered them to be beyond the pale. The fact that they are pretty much mainstream now is to be welcomed.
  I have always believed that I represent two constituencies in the House. I have been lucky enough to represent Bosworth, a constituency in the middle of England, for 15 years. I have also tried to represent the interests of minority groups who practise complementary and alternative medicine for about 14 years. In that time, there has been a sea change in the House's approach to such matters.
  In Bosworth, I have 80,000 constituents. My other constituency consists of 10 million people—the number of people using complementary and alternative medicines every year. Recent surveys report that 4.5 million people see a complementary therapist every year. A BBC poll in August 1999 estimated that 20 per cent. of the public used complementary therapies, double the number of 10 years earlier. I shall not bore the House with statistics, but it also showed that 80 per cent. were satisfied with the treatment that they received.
  I checked the Library this morning and found that the country now has a population of 59.1 million. Of that total, between 25 to 35 per cent. of people now buy remedies, such as simple homeopathic preparations, from chemists. The market is expanding exponentially, as is interest. Whenever I ask colleagues in the House to sign a motion, they always tell me—although they sometimes ask me not to quote them by name—that

  231
  they have, for example, relatives who take various remedies for their ills. In fact, the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), went on the record in a debate on complementary medicines in the summer as saying that he used, I think it was, reflexology.
  The Government have been on the road to Damascus and now want people to have more choice. They have a wonderful opportunity. In 1981, there were only 13,500 therapists in the complementary sector, but there are now 40,000. That is because of a rise in demand for their services. However, those services are not supplied through NHS hospitals very much. The complementary sector remains the preserve of the middle classes. If the Minister wants a social cause to promote, she should get the range of treatments on offer firmly embedded in the public sector.
  Many people come to me on these matters, and I shall cite some reasons why the NHS should embrace complementary therapies. For people undergoing chemotherapy for prostate cancer and other problems, an amazingly effective treatment is the use of Chinese herbs and acupuncture. The chemotherapy is rendered much less painful, and recovery periods are much reduced.
  A year or so ago, I was giving awards at the Royal Free hospital to doctors who had studied complementary medicine. A nurse told me that she was not allowed to use acupuncture on transplant patients, even though fewer transplanted organs would be lost if she were given the opportunity to change patients' energy meridians. I do not want to alarm the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), but powerful steroids are used to treat skin conditions, when there are many ways to treat those conditions with homeopathic or herbal medicine techniques. Simple problems such as tinnitus or the difficulties currently treated with grommets are also susceptible to that approach.
  There is phenomenal, exponential demand in the health service for such therapies, yet many people do not have the opportunity for treatment. The Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness, has done quite a lot of work on this and the Government are coming round to the view that these therapies should be incorporated in the health service. I pay tribute to them for getting Professor Pitillo to work on regulating herbal medicine and Professor Chan on acupuncture. These disciplines will soon be regulated; they will have the stamps in the passport that the doctors want. The march of integrated health care will not be stopped. The Minister of State, the hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), should grasp the nettle now.
  David Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Tredinnick: I give way to my colleague from Leicestershire.
  David Taylor: I am fascinated to hear my neighbour's contribution to the debate. However, I would be pleased to know where the motion or amendment contains any
  232
  reference to herbal medicine. I see references to hospital management but not to herbal medicine. Do I have the wrong Order Paper?
  Mr. Tredinnick: It may not be on the Order Paper but it is very germane because the way in which we run these hospitals will affect the treatment that they provide. That is obvious.
  The Marylebone health centre has produced guidance. I have no interest to declare, other than the fact that I went to the launch. It has produced guidelines on integrated health—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. First, let me remind the hon. Gentleman that visual aids are not encouraged in the Chamber. Secondly, he should relate his remarks to foundation hospitals, if he can manage to do so.
  Mr. Tredinnick: I have no intention of being ruled out of order in the little time left. I want to see the book entitled "Integrating Complementary Therapies in Primary Care" used in foundation hospitals—the subject of this debate. I can say with some pride that it is a good few years since I have been ruled out of order in the Chamber, but I would not want to excite your interest in keeping me in order too much, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, the guidelines in the book contain policies that I would like to see adopted in foundation hospitals, and explain exactly how conventional managers can integrate and introduce these disciplines and make them work. Many doctors want integrated therapies to be introduced; they cannot cope with conventional treatments. Many surgeons in foundation hospitals would benefit from having osteopaths and chiropractors working alongside them. It is important for the new hospitals that we take the practical steps of integrating complementary therapies into mainstream care.
  Doctors are, by and large, keen to have a better understanding of complementary therapies. There are new courses available at the training colleges and universities, but I am afraid that some doctors are still, to say the least, patronising and ill informed about some aspects of these therapies. They resent them, and their attitude is based on fear and insecurity.
  The Government should push ahead as fast as they can on two fronts. They should ensure that there is voluntary self-regulation for all disciplines, including aromatherapy, and not just acupuncture and herbal medicine. They should also make it possible for doctors to learn, if they want to, how these therapies work. In that way, the Government will reduce the burden on the health service, make the foundation hospitals more effective and improve the health of the nation.
  3.58 pm
  Mr. Tony Colman: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick). Although I do not agree with everything he says, I believe that there is a case for alternative medicines in foundation hospitals and, indeed, all hospitals. I am very pleased that my son is retraining to specialise in chiropractic, acupuncture and Chinese medicine.

  233
  I strongly support the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. I thank him for his announcement on 11 December last year of a 30 per cent. increase in funding for the Wandsworth primary care trust over the next three years. An extra £77 million will go straight to the primary care trust, which is very good news for my constituents.
  Furthermore, I am pleased that we are carrying out the final contract negotiations for the new Queen Mary's hospital in my constituency. The contract is due to be signed next summer and the hospital is scheduled to open in new buildings in 2005. The capital spend for the project amounts to about £45 million.
  Recently, the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) and, earlier in the debate, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) cast some doubt over the utterances of the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury—who was formerly one of my constituents in Putney—on the 20 per cent. cuts. I am sure that when the hon. Gentleman made his comments during the recess he meant what he said about the cuts, so I am warning my constituents about what might happen in the future should there be a Conservative Government.
  We need to look to the past and remember the 1990s when NHS funding declined every year. My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) made a strong indictment of that. The death warrant for Queen Mary's district general hospital was signed in December 1996, in the dying days of the last Conservative Government, but now we see the hospital's resurrection, phoenix-like, under the Labour Government.
  I welcome the principle of NHS foundation trusts. I emphasise my reference to the principle; in a sense, we are talking about work in progress. It is important to move from Whitehall micro-management to management through regulation and inspection of the best performing hospitals. We already have a two-tier national health service; indeed, some people would say that there are more than two tiers. There is certainly not a single tier at present and it is extremely important to level up all hospitals to the best.
  I want to comment on the principles. It is essential that the central management of the NHS concentrate their time on the worst performing hospitals, leaving the best to manage within the regulatory framework. The worst performing hospitals should receive more money than the best, not less. The foundation hospitals should certainly be able to borrow, but that should be on the balance sheet. However, we must ensure that hospitals, such as Kingston hospital and St. George's hospital, which serve my constituents, are not left in a situation where the total pot of money has been diminished because money has been drawn down by foundation hospitals ahead of those that do not yet have a three-star rating.
  I was especially pleased to read the words of the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears) in yesterday's debate in Westminster Hall. She said:
  "Organisations that are not yet at the level of the best need extra help. We want to be able to concentrate on supporting them in order to bring everyone up to the standards of the best. Our policy
  234
  is about promoting excellence for everybody, not about setting hospital against hospital."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 7 January 2003; Vol. 397, c. 22WH.]
  I say, "Hear, hear" to that.
  We need to listen to the unions as we go forward with the proposals. Some unions have expressed concern, although others have not yet made their views known. I was pleased that the views of Unison were taken into account when adapting the private finance initiative contract for Queen Mary's hospital so as to ensure that NHS staff remained NHS employees under the PFI. It is important to reassure the unions that the proposals are not divisive and that they will not set work force against work force. Now that we have negotiated the agenda for change policy, we need to build on it so that the situation does not fall apart.
  The last and most important point on which I want to concentrate is that of governance, to which many hon. Members have returned. I am particularly eager that local patients should elect the boards of their hospitals. I do not wish to see a return to the cronyism under the last Conservative Government in terms of appointments to NHS boards. I very much welcomed the appointment of Sir William Wells as chair of the NHS Appointments Commission. Many excellent people have been appointed as chairs and non-executive directors of trusts over recent years, but they are accountable to only one person—the Secretary of State. I very much want to see a move towards wider accountability to the community.
  I share the strong views of my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) in terms of wanting the NHS and social services to come together with local authorities. In fact, that is one of the few matters on which I agree with Edward Lister, the leader of Wandsworth council, in whose area my constituency lies. I have proposed and supported that cause over the past 15 years, but it was not on the agenda for the previous Government, and it is not on the agenda for this Government. It is important to recognise that what is now on the agenda is a level of local accountability to local electors that has not existed previously.
  I was pleased to hear the response of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to questions about the nature of the electoral basis of foundation hospitals. He had taken account of the situation that exists in my constituency, where there is not an acute hospital. As a result, my constituents are served by both Kingston hospital and St. George's hospital, and it is important that the electoral roll for voting for governors of such hospitals should include all those within the catchment area. That is something to be expanded and developed. I recognise, too, the caveat in relation to specialist hospitals that cover very large areas, which require an electoral basis that relates to the patients rather than to the whole of London, as that would plainly be absurd.
  I support the proposals for election and accountability of governors, chairs of boards and non-executive directors. I particularly like the idea of the

  235
  two-tier board, which takes us back to many of the discussions that the Labour party had in the 1970s about new methods and new ways forward.
  Mr. Eric Martlew: Going back to the 1970s, can my hon. Friend remember a time when councils had the right to nominate an elected councillor to sit on such boards? Would not that be a better way forward?
  Mr. Colman: I would certainly like more nomination rights in relation to all hospitals for local authority representatives. Currently, a basis exists on which it is presumed that the cabinet member for social services for the area in which a primary care trust operates should serve on that primary care trust. I would certainly like more representatives of local councils on an interim basis. What attracts me to the proposal, however, is that the majority of the governors for a foundation hospital would be locally elected. That would be the first time in the NHS that power has gone to the people and the patients and moved away from the clinicians, the bureaucrats and everyone else working within the NHS. That is an important initial move.
  I support the amendment, but I want to quickly set out my four points. First, management should be freed up within foundation hospitals that have improved themselves, with the key caveat that extra support should go to those that have not. Secondly, there must be more money for the worst performers, but for foundation hospitals there must be less restraint and speedier access to finance. However, that should not drain the pool of resources so that other hospitals lose out. Thirdly, the NHS must work with the unions, as Queen Mary's hospital has done. All good companies and successful organisations work with the unions, and it is important that Health Ministers adopt that practice. Lastly, we must establish a local election process with local accountability within national standards and regulatory frameworks.
  I return to the comment with which I started. I warn the people of Putney that the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury is putting under threat the 30 per cent. increase in funding announced last December. If he had his way, there would be a 20 per cent. cut in funding for public services.
  4.10 pm
  Dr. Richard Taylor: You are being very generous, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in allowing us a certain amount of freedom, and I would like first to make one comment to the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick). He must know that many conventionally trained NHS anaesthetists are already undertaking acupuncture in NHS pain relief clinics.
  Turning to the main subject, I welcome very much the Secretary of State's admission that there are still problems in the NHS and that they will take some years to solve. There are still major weaknesses and health inequalities in the service, but I pay tribute to the improvements in cancer care and cardiac care. It is a shame that a meeting of the parliamentary health forum just before Christmas was so badly attended—I think that only four or five MPs were present—because the tsar of cardiac services told us how waiting lists for cardiac surgery are improving.
  236
  The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) said that there is one good point about foundation hospitals, and I agree. That one extremely good point is devolution. Most hon. Members want much more power to be given to local people. I was interested in a recent intervention in the debate because my memory goes back to the 1970s and 1980s and to the old local district health authorities, which in some cases were extremely efficient. They had elected members in that a proportion of their members were councillors. I welcome devolution and the Secretary of State's suggestion that the number of foundation hospitals could increase dramatically in the future. However, the one good point about the policy does not disarm my criticisms.
  My first and biggest criticism is the one that has been so ably expressed by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and which was addressed yesterday by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). I am referring to the two-tier system. My memory of the NHS does not go back to 1948 but it does go back to 1956, when I was training in London, half a mile from here, and we still had many patients coming to London from far afield. There was then a gradual change as medical schools throughout the rest of the country improved tremendously, and the quality of district general hospitals improved.
  That happened because the basic tenet of the NHS is that all staff should be on the same pay scale. That means that it is attractive for a high-powered senior registrar from a teaching hospital to apply to a district general hospital if that is where he wants to work. Parity of staff through parity of pay is crucial to fighting for, and maintaining, equality throughout the health service. That point also applies to managers and more and more to nurses, particularly given the proposed extension of their role. That is my first and biggest criticism.
  I find it hard to understand one section in the Government's document. Paragraph 1.13 refers to
  "inspection to guard against two-tier health care."
  I would very much like clarification of that when the Minister replies to the debate.
  My next criticism relates to the method of selection. If the policy is implemented and if, as one hopes, the range of foundation hospitals increases over time, their method of selection will be less important. However, as other hon. Members have pointed out, basing selection on the star-rating system would have serious flaws. The star-rating system depends on just a number of key targets, and, as far as I can see, patient opinion points have been disregarded. There are six such points in the ratings, and the no-star trusts scored from seven out of 30 at the lowest to 24 out of 30 at the highest. That covers a wide range. The three lowest of the three-star trusts on the crucial points of patient understanding and perception scored nine out of 30, 10 out of 30 and 11 out of 30. That sums up why I do not have much confidence in the current star-rating system. I hope that the Commission for Health Improvement, under its new name, will be able to improve the value of the ratings considerably.
  My next criticism is that the proposal risks a tremendously damaging split between primary and secondary care, which one would like to come together much more. I note that a representative of the primary care trust will be on the board of governors, and I

  237
  welcome that. It is a small improvement on the current position in which there does not appear to be any cross-representation between primary care trusts and acute trust boards. I hope that such representation can be increased, because certain conditions, which are not mentioned in the document, depend on better management across the whole system. In particular, I refer to chronic care and to palliative care, which involve a partnership between secondary and primary care.
  My next criticism refers to the services to be provided. Paragraph 1.30 on page 11 of the document is obviously fairly vague about that. It states:
  "The licence for an NHS Foundation Trust will detail…the clinical services which it must provide to the local community".
  That is as far as it goes. The document is full of the aim of focusing on outputs. It is relatively easy to have outputs for elective work, but it is far more difficult to have them for emergency work. Emergency work is not mentioned sufficiently in the document. The work of a trust is covered by the blanket phrase,
  "the clinical services that it must provide to the local community".
  It is easy to run elective services, but not easy to run emergency services. Is there the risk that foundation hospitals will be able to cherry-pick? I can imagine the scene in a big town in which there is a foundation hospital that picks up all the elective work and leaves the neighbouring and probably second-class district general hospital with all the emergency work. I am fully in favour of the separation of elective and emergency work provided that it is done in partnership. If elective work is done entirely in a foundation hospital that is not in partnership with anyone else and that does not provide emergency services, the surgeons, in particular, will be deskilled when it comes to working with emergencies. That is my string of criticisms of the foundation trust idea in its present form. I hope that the Minister will respond to some of them.
  The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) said that the NHS will not work if it continues to be constructed and run in the same way. I have a severe criticism of the Tory party. The way in which the NHS runs stems from the internal market and the purchaser-provider split that it introduced. That was one of the big disasters for the health service. However, I support the Tories in one way. As an independent Member without party allegiance, I am getting fed up with Labour Members' continual attacks on the Tory party purely and simply on the matter of money for public services. Labour Members hide behind the criticism rather than answering questions. There was an example of that in Prime Minister's questions today. An hon. Member asked a legitimate question about the disastrous services in parts of Worcestershire, but the concerns were not addressed.
  I finish with an appeal. I agree that freedom for local people to run their services is crucial. I want the integration of primary and secondary care. Most of all, however, I appeal for the retention of common pay scales because otherwise we will have a two-tier system.
  4.22 pm
  Ms Dari Taylor: For Labour Members, the NHS is especially important as an ideal. It is an expression of our values and an enduring legacy of the reforming and modernising Attlee Government.
  238
  We are very proud of that period and will always state that in the House. The idea that something as vital as health provision should be available equally to all fellow citizens on the basis of need, not on the basis of wealth or power, is central to social democracy. For my generation, the operation of the national health service represented social democracy in action. I was four when the NHS was created. [HON. MEMBERS: "Surely not!"] Hon. Members are right: I agree that I do not look that old.
  Mr. Andrew Love: That is one of the benefits of the health service.
  Ms Taylor: Absolutely. I say it only as it is.
  The creation of the NHS was a joy in my family and a joy to the community in which we lived. I am absolutely committed to the NHS, but I am also keen to stress that we must be careful not to mistake a legacy for a monument. There is a crucial difference between them. A monument is a fixed and unchangeable moment in a country's life, important though it may be. A legacy offers us the opportunity to innovate, develop, refresh and reinvigorate. The NHS is a legacy that will always require a high level of reinvigoration and refreshing. It needs new ideas. I do not believe, as many hon. Members do, that there have been enough changes in the NHS. Like all other services that respond to an ever changing community and society, the NHS will always have to change so that it increases its capability of serving people. That is my starting point.
  I believe strongly that that process of change will require substantial funding, but although I believe equally strongly that my Government have provided that funding, it is clear that many reforms remain to be achieved. There is a culture of management and control, of delivery of health or illness, and that culture is highly resistant to change. It is incumbent on all Members of Parliament on both sides of the House to persuade and encourage that change to take place.
  In that context, I regard foundation hospitals as an important part of a changing approach to the ever-changing needs of our communities. Change must come in response to the problems. Many people say that our health service is good, but it could be better. My belief is that there is no one reform on which we can hang our coat, but many reforms. Foundation hospitals are one part of an enormously complex policy that will be discussed throughout this Parliament. The foundation hospitals policy is valuable, because it will achieve for local hospitals freedom from central direction in the management of their affairs.
  Foundation hospitals will be subject to a considerable degree of local accountability. I was unhappy—albeit not surprised—to hear the Opposition health spokesman pour cynicism on the idea of local accountability. The hon. Gentleman misunderstands and underestimates the value of owning a problem. Invariably, those who have ownership of a problem are the ones who drive the solution. Ownership and management of illness, and being central to deciding what change is needed, is important in terms of educative capability and sharing of responsibility. I believe it also ensures good policy.
  I strongly support involving local people in the management of hospitals. That is crucial, and I cannot understand why it has not been seen as part of our

  239
  approach to hospitals in the past. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) said that councils used to make nominations to local hoards. As one of those who were nominated, I can tell him that we were invariably controlled by the consultants who sat on the hospital board. We had no real power. I hope that ordinary local people will have real power under these proposals, because that is what is required.
  Whatever Opposition Members say, there is widespread recognition of the fact that the NHS—
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: Will the hon. Lady allow me to intervene?
  Ms Taylor: I think it will be taken from my time—[HON. MEMBERS: "No it will not."] In that case, I give way.
  Mr. Lansley: The hon. Lady talks about local accountability. Does she not agree that, in reality, the issue is not simply governance arrangements that involve local people, but the degree of freedom—the power of which she speaks—to change services, develop services and introduce flexible services according to local decisions? Can she tell me where those freedoms are? I have looked hard for them. Which freedoms does she think local people will have, independent of the regulator, the commission, and the Secretary of State and all his data requirements?
  Ms Taylor: That is an important intervention and I shall do as the hon. Gentleman asks.
  I have spoken with the chief executive of my local trust. I thought it was important to do so, because although many of us here would argue in favour of the proposals from a position of principle, I wanted to know how those who will—or might—deliver the policy felt. She told me that discussions had taken place between trust board members, staff and medics, but that no decision had been taken. I want to make that clear. I would not want anyone to believe that a decision has been taken in respect of the North Tees university hospital; it has not.
  The chief executive told me that a number of concerns had been raised, but that, to date, a number of opportunities had been outlined and identified as well. Medics—doctors and other members of staff—said that they would value a formal structure of involvement with local people. They believe that that would persuasively change the environment for the management of illness, and establish an open relationship in which difficult questions about new procedures and services could be discussed in a quiet and controlled environment, as opposed to being exposed in a newspaper, which makes people more likely take sides. They believe that there would be a balanced relationship between professionals and people in the community, and that once people understood and accepted the problems, their dynamism and involvement would support achievement.
  The chief executive said to me that she had a space problem—a buildings problem—and that investment from capital would be valuable to her. She knows what the local needs are and how she can deliver the services, but she needs capital to do that.
  240
  One can be cynical about what that chief executive is saying, or one can choose not to be. I happen to want to believe what she, the trade unionists, the medics and the other staff are saying. They have achieved three-star status and, starting from a very difficult position in 1997, an excellent hospital has developed. The chief executive believes that the best could now lead the rest, and I support that statement. I hope that I have answered the question asked by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley). I have used what the chief executive of North Tees university hospital said to try to persuade him—although I rather doubt whether I have done so.
  My concern is that the innovation of establishing a foundation hospital could be seen as a way of opening the door to privatisation. Again and again the concern has been expressed that more private operators will move in and the service will be less and less nationally owned and delivered. However, unless I am reading the information that has been given to us to date incorrectly, and am not hearing correctly what the Minister says, I am right in saying that according to the papers, new foundation trusts cannot be taken out of the public service. Indeed, there will be a legal lock on their assets to protect national health foundation trusts from the sort of demutualisation that has taken place in the building society sector. That reassures me, but I would still like to hear again from the Minister the assurance that foundation trusts will remain for all time within the public sector, owned by the local staff and local people who comprise the membership community.
  The concept of a membership community—the idea of local accountability—is perfectly compatible with social democracy. The old state system was only ever one model of social democracy, and arguably it came to predominance in the Labour party only as a result of the experience of the first world war. Other models have always existed and have always been attractive. Municipalisation, co-operatives and foundations all bring accountability closer to people. That model, with its ability to shepherd, to change and to help a service evolve, should be embraced by all of us.
  I recognise the dangers. We have all heard clearly what my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has said. He was right to warn us that the middle classes have sharp elbows, and we know that the middle classes are more able to work systems, especially health and education systems, than those in the poorer socio-economic groups who often need the services more. I am looking for assurances from the Secretary of State that the elected bodies will not be socially self-selecting.
  There is also a fear that the introduction of foundation hospitals will introduce a two-tier system. My local hospital, North Tees university hospital, was definitely a second-tier hospital in 1997, but our investment in it has made it a first-tier hospital. I would like every hospital in the country to adopt the same structure of control and service delivery. None of us wants to duck such concerns—the problem is not the status or names of hospitals, but the shortage of doctors and medical specialists, about whom which we have legitimate worries. Staff shortages are the problem, not changes in hospital structure, which could be positive, innovative and valuable to our communities.

  241
  There are also concerns that a two-tier system could be introduced because foundation hospitals have capital borrowing rights. I am seeking assurances that that will not be so. I have read statements by the Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the funding of foundation and non-foundation hospitals will not become imbalanced. I want reassurance about that. We have all heard worries expressed in the Chamber, and none of us wants any hospital to receive less financial support.
  The one critical question that we must answer is: "Are we delivering the best health service to all people all the time?" While we are delivering the best health service to many people much of the time, some people are left outside. While finance and investment are crucial, it is important to acknowledge that other reforms need to be made so that we can achieve the best for everyone at all times.
  To conclude, involving staff and local people in the management of hospitals is appropriate, as is freeing up the delivery of service so that it can respond to local needs. We must encourage local innovation and regard doctors and medics as natural entrepreneurs, which many of them are, and give them the opportunity to explore and develop service in their own way. I believe that foundation hospitals will achieve various changes and reforms, and we will see a refreshed and reinvigorated legacy in the NHS which will command public support.
  4.37 pm
  Mrs. Patsy Calton: The Liberal Democrats have been engaged in a lengthy and detailed internal debate and consultation about the future of the public services since just after the 2001 general election. Our membership debated and voted on the policy paper, "Quality, Innovation, Choice" last September, and I was concerned to hear that the Secretary of State and others have not read it—they would find it a very good read indeed. Many recommendations made by Labour Back Benchers and Conservative Members today can be found within it, so I commend it to the House. It was overwhelmingly passed by our membership and starts:
  "Public services in this country do not deliver the high standard of service that people expect and deserve. They also fail by comparison with services in many of our European partners."
  It gives four main reasons—a lack of guaranteed long—term funding; lack of access and choice about services; Whitehall making decisions that can best be made locally; and politicians interfering for political purposes in decisions that should be made by trained professionals.
  Liberal Democrats believe that the Government's proposals for foundation hospitals must be measured against those problems, which are at the core of frustrations shared by the public and professionals alike. Before anyone claims that I am anti-health service or the people who work for it, may I say that I am profoundly pro-NHS—I was one of the first babies born in the health service? I pay tribute to the part of the health service that my family needed over the Christmas holiday. On Christmas eve, my daughter mentioned that she could not see properly. Our local optician, Harry Cooke, saw her within minutes and spent more than an hour with her. He referred her to an eye clinic at
  242
  Stepping Hill hospital in Stockport, where she was seen later that day. She was admitted to the Manchester royal eye hospital on Boxing day and had her retina repaired early the next morning. I cannot speak too highly of the excellence of the care at every stage, the quality of the explanations, the nursing staff and their care, the cleanliness of the hospital, and the aftercare, which is ongoing.
  The Liberal Democrats are fully committed to the national health service. Sadly, the streamlined emergency approach that we experienced is not available for all serious conditions everywhere, as numbers of my constituents tell me regularly, as we heard from the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page), and as the House will hear in the Adjournment debate this evening.
  Will the Government's proposals for foundation hospitals make the difference and produce the sort of highly motivated care that we received? I think not, for they fail to address the issues that the Liberal Democrats believe are central to the problems faced by the NHS. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) said, we want a decentralised health service where decisions are made at local level, with a guaranteed income and local accountability. We would give all hospitals the opportunity to become public benefit organisations if they wished—a bottom-up approach, rather than the top-down approach of the Government's proposals. Sadly, the Government's proposals do not go far enough and continue the authoritarian Whitehall-knows-best attitude that we have come to expect, particularly from the Department of Health.
  The Liberal Democrats will guarantee funding for the health service and hospitals for the long term and make it work. We will do that by earmarking national insurance for the national health service as the people's NHS contribution. We would improve choice, quality and access to health services. There should be greater accountability and transparency, and a diversity of options for provision to put maximum pressure on regional and local politicians and public service managers to deliver efficiently.
  The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) mentioned that the health and social care services need to come together at local level, operating from the same budget. We would support that. We need local people to make decisions about local matters.
  Mr. Lansley: Can the hon. Lady explain an apparent paradox in her remarks? She speaks of guaranteed funding for the NHS as a Liberal Democrat policy, yet she says that that would be hypothecated from national insurance revenues. However, national insurance revenues are not guaranteed for the next 20 or 25 years. They can vary according to economic circumstances. How does the hon. Lady reconcile those two things?
  Mrs. Calton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. National insurance contributions are less likely to be a roller-coaster than the roller-coaster produced by politically induced funding. I strongly recommend that he read our document, which sets out the full reasons. He should check the figures.
  We want democratically accountable regions to take strategic decisions at regional level, and local authorities and local communities to be involved in the governance

  243
  of hospitals and PCTs, as the hon. Member for Wakefield described. Whitehall's role should be limited to information gathering, dissemination and persuasion. There needs to be a simplified, comprehensive and authoritative system of inspection that puts the focus on meaningful information for users, voters and local policymakers. We would stop Government interference by limiting their role to functions including public health, regulation, medical research and medical, nursing and other professional training, and allow front-line doctors and nurses to take front-line responsibility. To ensure value for money, we need to make service providers and commissioners locally accountable.
  Labour's health service has become a bit of a dog's breakfast of pilots, trials, centrally driven targets, discredited star-rating systems, staff driven to distraction by bureaucracy and patchy provision. I fear that the proposals that the Government are making for foundation hospitals will fail to deliver the service improvements that we need everywhere. Only the Liberal Democrat proposals will set clinicians free everywhere to drive the change forward and place a proper emphasis on prevention in public health measures.
  Yesterday, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears), in winding up the Westminster Hall debate on foundation hospitals, asked the rhetorical question of whether the reform was coming at the right time. I do not think that any hon. Member is saying that reform is not necessary. The question should have been whether it is the right reform. Before I saw the detail of "A Guide to NHS Foundation Trusts", I thought that the Secretary of State had at last seen the light, was interested and wanted devolution. However, the proposals do not go nearly as far as they should.
  The Government's proposals are distinctly unclear, as several hon. Members have pointed out, in a number of areas. What will the freedoms be? How could tariff setting and payment by results work? Will they not produce a distortion of clinical practice in which high value-added, fast-throughput operations and so on are likely to be carried out at the expense of rather slower results, patient time and money? Why should there be only a few foundation hospitals? Hon. Members in all parts of the House have said that they do not understand why foundation hospitals cannot be made available to everybody if they are such a good thing.
  The Liberal Democrats are very concerned about the concept of the electorate and who they will be. We believe that it is perfectly possible that the electorate will end up as a very small self-selected group. I echo what the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) said in his eloquent remarks about the need for a broad electorate and not allowing a takeover by a small, self-selected group. The hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) said that the only good thing about the proposals was devolution. That is certainly the case, but as I said, it has not gone far enough.
  The ability of some hospitals to pay staff more on the basis that they are foundation hospitals will lead to poaching and inequalities, and will definitely lead to a two-tier system.
  4.45 pm
  Andy Burnham: It is a pleasure to follow a fellow Greater Manchester MP. I often agree with a lot of what the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) says, but if she does not mind, I shall pass on the Liberal Democrat health paper.
  David Taylor: My hon. Friend said that he endorsed much of what the hon. Lady has said in the past, but does he agree with her comment just now that foundation hospitals would be freer to pay at local rates? Does he agree that trusts have had that power to negotiate local pay for more than a decade, but only a handful have done so, and that some of those have hacked off because of the difficulties? Was that not a flaw in her otherwise quite good speech?
  Andy Burnham: My hon. Friend is right that trusts have that flexibility and that few have used it.
  Mrs. Calton: The point about the ability to pay more is that it was not there in the past. It will be there in foundation hospitals, as the money will be available.
  Andy Burnham: I thank the hon. Lady, but I shall now get on with my speech.
  An altogether more important document than the Liberal Democrat health paper is "A Guide to NHS Foundation Trusts", which was published shortly before Christmas. Having read that document, I find the Conservative party's motion more than a little surprising. Do the Conservatives really now support the creation of a community ownership mechanism in the NHS that will rule out future privatisation and the selling off of assets, unless the members of that new society vote for it? Is that what Conservative Members are saying? Do they also really support local communities owning and controlling their health services? Finally, do they also support NHS staff—porters, cleaners, nurses, the entire hospital staff—being voting members of the organisation in which they work, and being able to influence its policy and leadership? That is precisely what that document proposes.
  If the Conservatives do support those things, I suggest that we are witnessing something of a Damascene conversion on the Conservative Front Bench to some of the oldest principles of the Labour movement, namely community and mutual ownership. I do not know whether there is an ulterior motive here—there often is with the Conservative party. Perhaps the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), who is shaking his head, is seeking sponsorship from the Co-operative party. Perhaps he is not doing that, however, and perhaps the Conservatives' support for these measures is misplaced, because I do not think that they truly understand the full impact of what is being proposed by the Secretary of State.
  As a member of the Co-operative party and a strong believer in the virtues of community ownership, I genuinely believe that these reforms have the potential to be among the most revitalising ever introduced in the NHS. Members of our party are proud that we founded the NHS, a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). Many members of our party have long complained about the democratic deficit

  245
  in the NHS, although they love almost everything else about it. They are absolutely right to complain about that. The NHS's lack of accountability and responsiveness to public and patients has always been its Achilles' heel. Because of the way in which the NHS is structured, NHS bodies have always looked up to Whitehall for accountability, rather than downwards to patients and the wider public. The result is that, even today, there persists in parts of the NHS a like-it-or-lump-it culture in the services that are provided to people.
  At the creation of the NHS, Bevan trumpeted as one of its chief benefits Whitehall's ability to monitor dropped bedpans. That has now become one of its main weaknesses. It was right in its day, because of the chaotic nature of pre-war health care. That control was necessary in those days, but today it is more and more of a problem. All of us hear that health professionals are finding things more and more difficult, and that they want more local flexibility. As a party, we have to respond to that.
  People who can remember pre-NHS health care put up with the like-it-or-lump-it aspect of the national health service, because it is infinitely better than what they had before. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) mentioned people in their early 30s. I am happy to confirm that I turned 33 yesterday, so I can probably scrape into that group. People of my generation will certainly not have the same forbearance towards the NHS as the generations before them. For the NHS to survive and thrive in a consumer society, it needs to get better at customer care.
  The NHS also needs to get better at listening to local opinion. Ever since it was established, there have been countless examples in all parts of the country—dare I say it, in every constituency represented in the House—of proposed changes in service provision being fiercely resisted by local communities. My colleague, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor)—a fellow member of the Select Committee on Health—is perhaps a living embodiment and constant reminder of the NHS's failure to listen and to involve the community in the way in which health services are delivered. Dare I say that the NHS has not always got it right when it has proposed service change, and that, on occasion, perhaps the community has been right instead?
  These reforms are radical for the simple reason that they invert the traditional power relationship that has hitherto existed in the NHS. If the proposals in the document finally become legislation, and if assets are genuinely transferred to democratic mutual organisations, the members of those organisations will overnight become more important to trust managers than Ministers are now. That has to be a good thing. To me, that is the key argument for the Government's proposals. It is vital that that ownership and that democratic control be not token but genuine mechanisms that the local community can use.
  That key test was rightly highlighted by the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell). He was wrong, however, about the recreation of the NHS internal market and the proposals being an attempt to recreate the Conservatives' NHS trusts policy. The issue needs to be carefully considered, and we must think about how
  246
  the introduction of foundation trusts will affect health care provision and whether it will lead to a two-tier service.
  The difference between these proposals and those described by the right hon. Gentleman is the question of GP fundholding. The reforms introduced by the Conservative party were pernicious, because how quickly people received treatment was decided on an entirely arbitrary basis. That point was extremely well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield. What counted when people were admitted to hospital was whether they were patients of fundholding or non-fundholding GPs. Access to treatment was determined not by clinical need, but by the negotiating power of the purchaser. That was entirely wrong, and I see no evidence to suggest that any of it is being recreated by the proposals before us.
  People claim that the proposals will create a two-tier NHS, but they fail properly to realise that, even today, the NHS is multi-tiered. The quality of service offered by different NHS providers varies widely from trust to trust, but under the current system there is little that patients can do if they live in an area where the trust is underperforming.
  As well as offering local, democratic control, the reforms are about creating a much needed improvement mechanism and a culture of improvement in the NHS. I do not see why our party should be opposed to allowing the good to get better or why we should have any ideological problem with that. What really counts is that we help those who need to improve most to reach a level that we would consider acceptable. That is the explicit aim of the policy—allow the good ones to get on with the job that they are doing and give more targeted help to the ones who need it.
  Mr. Simmonds: Has the hon. Gentleman considered the possibility of extending foundation hospital trust status to hospitals that do not have three stars? I put that point to the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), as it may be a way to improve the performance of hospitals with two or fewer stars.
  Andy Burnham: That is a reasonable point. My guess is that the Government are starting with three-star hospitals because the initiative is taking the form of a pilot. Such hospitals are perhaps best placed to go forward with what is, effectively, a new structure. Wigan and Leigh NHS trust in my constituency has two stars and I would very much like it to be able to graduate towards foundation status in due course. I hear the point that the hon. Gentleman makes.
  With all respect to my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), I do not see how the policy is being introduced at the expense of the rest. I do not see that it will take anything from the rest. In fact, all it will do is create a system under which they may aspire to do something that they do not do at the moment. I do not see how it will impoverish them in any way.
  My main concern echoes the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield—I agree fundamentally with a lot of what he said. Welcome changes have been made in the NHS with the creation of primary care trusts and a shift of resources to

  247
  community level, but I have a small concern that those changes will reassert the primacy of the acute trust in the local health economy. That would risk undoing some welcome progress that has been made in this regard. I wholeheartedly endorse the principle that more and more of the NHS cake should be spent at community and primary care level.
  Some—including, I believe, the NHS Confederation—have suggested that foundation status might be applied to a local health system and not just the acute trusts. There is something in that idea that might be worth investigating. Will the Minister touch on that in his remarks?
  I want to comment on the rise of mutualism not just in the NHS, but in social policy generally. We have heard a lot of talk in the past few years about the search for a third way, but I strongly believe that community and mutual ownership is the closest that people can ever get to that. We are seeing a welcome revival in the co-operative sector, for the simple reason that it offers solutions to some of today's social problems. I am thinking in particular of estates, for which crucial public services are simply not provided sufficiently well by current providers. Mutual solutions can offer an answer to these gaps in the market.
  One example is nursing homes. Conservative Front Benchers go on at great length about nursing home capacity and the quality of care in nursing homes. The option introduced by the Conservatives failed local communities, and the previous system was not particularly good either. The Conservative option failed because it allowed a private nursing home, on which a community can be dependent, to up sticks at will and go, leaving that community high and dry. The lack of sufficient safeguards to maintain the service within a community was a real flaw in the changes introduced by the Conservatives in the early 1990s. The nursing care sector is crying out for a mutual solution whereby people become members of a scheme that they pay into, and which will look after them in old age. Perhaps the Minister and the Government should look into that.
  If we get right the planned reforms in respect of foundation hospitals, they could set an exciting precedent in the introduction of community involvement and ownership across the public sector. I chair an organisation called Supporters Direct, which was set up by the Government to promote supporter and community ownership of football clubs. Its aim is simply to help supporters' groups to set up mutual trusts as a vehicle for raising funds, purchasing shares and gaining influence in the clubs that they love. To date, it has helped to set up more than 70 supporters' trusts in England and Scotland, the vast majority of which are mutual societies and industrial and provident societies. They have a range of influences; some have a very small shareholding in a club, others own a club—I am thinking of Lincoln City and Chesterfield—outright.
  As hon. Members know, I always try to get the conversation on to football as quickly as I can, but there is a genuine parallel to be drawn here. Football clubs and hospitals are linked. People feel emotional about them; they are a source of civic pride and civic identity. People care about them, and they want to see them thrive and improve. People wring their hands about
  248
  declining participation in the democratic process, but at launch meetings for supporters' trusts, some 800 to 1,000 people—including young people—are engaged in a community endeavour. I see no reason why that enthusiasm cannot be introduced to the NHS and the provision of hospitals and health services. People would like more involvement in the way that their services are provided.
  This must not be a token, paper exercise whereby someone has a vote in a mutual society but they never use it; it must be a genuine, democratic process. I agree with the Secretary of State that people need to opt into the process of becoming a member of a trust; simply giving them membership is not enough. Mutual societies work when there is a groundswell of emotion, and people want to do something about a service that they care about. I urge the Government to keep that principle as part of the forthcoming legislation. I also ask them to look at the industrial and provident society ownership model as a way forward for foundation hospitals. It is a truly democratic, transparent and accountable system, and an excellent vehicle that could be applied to foundation hospitals.
  I understand Members' reservations about this policy, and a whippersnapper like me would do well to listen to the likes of my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras. Their concerns are genuine and need to be thought through, but they should not stand in the way of a potentially exciting reform and a new era for the national health service.
  5.4 pm
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: I appreciated the speech by the hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), who was going well until he got onto football. I want to use as my starting point the speech made by the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor), who was kind enough to allow me to intervene on her. She and I both have a three-star hospital in our constituencies: in fact, I have two—Addenbrooke's and Papworth, one a teaching hospital, the other a specialist trust.
  I gathered from her speech that the hon. Member for Stockton, South will encourage the University hospital of North Tees to seek foundation hospital status, and I shall encourage Addenbrooke's to do the same. I spoke to that hospital's new chief executive on Monday, and I want to use my speech to influence the Government's policy, as I want Addenbrooke's to have the freedoms that go with foundation status. I want it to be able to respond more effectively to the demands and needs of NHS patients. However, unlike the hon. Lady, I do not believe that the policy has been developed to the point where hospitals have the sort of freedoms that they should have in an NHS that is going to meet patient need.
  Addenbrooke's has expressed a broad commitment to apply for foundation status. It wants to expand community engagement and take further its already excellent relationships with local people. Although foundation status will offer local people the chance to engage in hospital governance, I believe that the hospital could achieve much of what is intended to be achieved by means of foundation status without actually securing that status. However, if that is what is required, that is fine.

  249
  The Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), is on the Front Bench at present, and he and I have debated elsewhere the "agenda for change" proposals in the NHS. I want to help Addenbrooke's hospital in its aim of accelerating that rate of change, and to that end I shall focus on two important matters—real local accountability, and freedom and financial flexibility.
  I listened with care to the speech by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). He asked what was wrong with the current system that required the introduction of foundation hospital status. I shall give an example of the way in which the present system is not delivering. Addenbrooke's is a highly successful teaching hospital with an international reputation, and also a district general hospital to which doctors want to refer patients. To be most efficient in operational terms, bed occupancy should be between 82 and 85 per cent., but it is currently running at 98 per cent.
  The NHS has rising real resources and rising demand, but constrained supply. That is where the system needs to be changed. We need greater productivity and efficiency from the capacity that exists in the NHS, and we must ensure that increases in capacity respond more effectively to patient demands, as expressed through patients' relationships with clinicians.
  I turn now to the issues of local accountability and of freedom and financial flexibility. I am worried that local accountability will remain limited in two respects. First, the Government say that the centre will give up control to people in local areas. The Secretary of State was careful to talk about control from Whitehall, but control does not have to be traceable to Richmond house to qualify as central control. The independent regulator will still be a central control over the activities of foundation hospitals. The proposed Commission for Health Care Audit and Inspection will be a form of central control. As the NHS Confederation has pointed out, the data collection requirements will also be a form of central control. The purchasing relationship with primary care trusts and other commissioners, in so far as they are subject to NHS central guidance, is a form of central control.
  All these forms of central control will, in their way, limit local accountability. Only to the extent that those controls can be progressively reduced over time in response to the increasing standards of the NHS foundation hospitals, as one would hope to expect, would one achieve the local accountability that matters.
  The second problem with local accountability is structural, and it brings me back to PCTs and purchasing. My right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) made the point that if we want to allow local people to change the shape of services and develop innovative, enhanced services in the way that they wish, the most immediate and direct way to do that is to give them more effective control over primary care trusts, because they are the commissioners of services. The implication of the question of the hon. Member for Leigh about foundation status for a locality is in effect that locality commissioning, which was provided for in the legislation before the 1997 election, is a means by which, if local people are involved sufficiently effectively, services that respond to local needs can be delivered.
  250
  The other means of delivering such services is to respond to patient choice. It will not surprise right hon. and hon. Members to know that that is the way I wish to go. Instead of setting up a bureaucratic mechanism for providing local interpretation of patient needs, we should allow patients to do that more directly through the reintroduction and extension of patient choice. That is where I think, structurally speaking, there is a large lacuna in the philosophy underlying foundation status.
  On freedoms and financial flexibility, Addenbrooke's quite rightly pointed in its document to the opportunity to retain proceeds from asset disposals, to retain any operating surpluses and to access capital from public and private sector sources. That reflects the language of the Government's document published in early December. However, retaining proceeds from asset disposals is an interesting concept for a hospital that is on a constrained site where every bit of land should be used for a medical or biomedical purpose and considering that the Government put a lock on assets so that they cannot be disposed of. Quite what freedom that means for Addenbrooke's, I do not know.
  Retaining any operating surpluses is a curious concept. Under the current financial system, although the work load at Addenbrooke's has risen dramatically and it is operating at capacity, it is still running operating deficits. Perhaps the so-called payment by results system and money following the patient will deliver operating surpluses. If so, that is a worthwhile benefit. However, the borrowing proposal is not as obvious a benefit as it looks. My interpretation is that undertaking a private finance initiative investment project with a 25-year profile of repayments and involving the private sector may mean that a five or seven-year long-term agreement with a primary care trust will not suffice for the private sector investor's purposes. That investor will still require the Secretary of State's guarantee in some form. Perhaps a letter of comfort will be provided whenever the foundation hospital receives the assent of the independent regulator to forward business plans. None the less, the money on offer is still essentially public sector underwritten investment for the future and the foundation hospital will be locked into it.
  The financial freedoms do not seem as great as they should be unless the revenue—and this is where borrowing is intended to be secured—is sufficiently responsive to the performance and capacity growth of the foundation hospital. If a foundation hospital improves its efficiency, it ought to be able to attract additional activity. If it improves its quality, it ought to be able to attract an additional premium on its price. I do not want to introduce a dogmatic, ideological note but I am worried that, because the Government rail against the so-called internal market, they have, as a matter of ideological conviction, decided that there should be a national tariff with regional variation. In effect, that means that commissioning can only be undertaken on the basis of cost and volume with no discount for efficiency or premium for quality.
  Mr. Simmonds: I am taking careful note of my hon. Friend's structured arguments. Has he considered the possibility of money following the patient? If that does not happen, a successful foundation hospital could suck in patients from elsewhere because it provides services

  251
  that are not offered by other hospitals. Will foundation hospitals have to use the same financial cake to provide more services to a greater number of patients?
  Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. His point is exact: money ought to follow patients. That is how the system should work. But how much money should there be for each case? The Government's proposals for payments by results ought to work in that direction, but if they are allied to a national tariff that is, in effect, dictated from the centre, even with regional variations, that will remove any possibility that spare NHS capacity can take up the slack, because of pricing at the margin, or that hospitals, such as Addenbrooke's, which can provide additional quality, can meet the cost of providing additional capacity because of the premium they can attract. Such hospitals could demonstrate to the private sector—like a business—that their advantaged position in the general ecology of health care would allow them to secure demand for the foreseeable future. They would not base their case on the Secretary of State's guarantee, but on their own performance, quality and ability to attract patients.
  The two essential problems are that if local accountability is not reflected in patient choice and if price cannot also reflect some of the changes in efficiency and quality advantage that foundation hospitals are able to make, the hospitals will not be able to exercise those freedoms to provide both additional capacity and innovative and improving services.
  I am in favour of foundation hospitals and share with my colleagues the desire that they should not only start with hospitals with three-star status, such as Addenbrooke's, which received three stars in both the performance ratings that have been carried out, or Papworth. To jog back to the comments of the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), I am not quite sure on what basis the Radcliffe did not receive its stars as it seems to be very similar to Addenbrooke's. Papworth has demonstrated a three-star performance, allied to a Commission for Health Improvement report that is as good as for any hospital in the country.
  Those hospitals should lead the new system because they have the clinical and corporate governance that is more likely to deliver innovation and to influence policy in the right direction. However, their performance cannot influence the policy unless the basic structure of the policy is right. The structure needs to reflect patient choice and financial flexibility—including price—and it needs an independent regulator who not only focuses on high quality and standards but also has a duty to deliver increasing freedom to NHS institutions over time.
  5.19 pm
  Mrs. Janet Dean: I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate, which gives the House the chance to discuss the concept of foundation trusts as well as the future of the health service.
  Both the motion and the amendment welcome the principle of NHS foundation trusts and hospitals. That might seem to be rare agreement between the Government and the Opposition, yet we know that
  252
  there has never been a greater gap between the philosophies of the two main parties on the future of our universally available health service, free at the point of use.
  The Conservatives have made it clear that they would reduce public spending and encourage private treatment, paid for by the individual patient or by private medical insurance subsidised by the taxpayer—[Interruption.] I think that they have made that clear. That would lead to two-tier health provision, in which those who have the money or the insurance cover would have easy access to treatment. Those who are less well off would have to take their turn in what would soon be seen as a second-class service. The Tories' belief that private health insurance is the right way forward is both immoral and flawed. Insurance companies, by their nature, are mainly interested in covering low risks. If one is young and fit, it is easy to insure oneself. If one is elderly or has a chronic disease, the cost of insurance is likely to be prohibitive, or the main chronic condition will be excluded from cover.
  I am proud that the Labour party, which founded our national health service, is determined that the principles of a health service free at the point of use should continue. I welcome the changes that have been made over the past five years. The setting up of primary care trusts has brought decision making to a local level. At the same time, the establishment of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence has begun to address the problems of postcode prescribing. The Commission for Health Improvement is helping to raise standards within our health service, and the Labour Government have shown their commitment to the health service by making available an unprecedented level of extra investment, bringing in extra doctors, nurses and other health care staff.
  For our health service to have public confidence, we need to be able to offer rapid treatment when it is needed. We need to look at innovative ways to reduce waiting lists and times, and I am pleased that the Queen's hospital in Burton was successful in being chosen as the site for a new £20 million diagnosis and treatment centre. That DTC will be developed alongside the new cancer and endoscopy unit, which is being funded both by Government and by local people through the Queen's hospital cancer appeal. I would like to pay tribute to everyone who has supported that appeal, which has raised nearly £1.5 million. There is already much good will for our local hospitals and for the NHS in general, not only from the general public who are always happy to support such appeals but in terms of the amount of volunteering activity that enhances the well-being of patients. Dozens of my constituents are involved in helping to make the stay of patients in the Queen's hospital more bearable. Nor must we forget the paid staff of the health service: doctors, nurses and all hospital staff work under tremendous pressure, and we should always make sure that they know that they are greatly valued.
  Change is not new to the NHS. In the past 20 years, we first saw the health authorities that directly ran the services in their area reduced in size. In my area, the Staffordshire health service was broken up into three health authorities in the early 1980s. As other hon. Members have mentioned, that was a time when local councillors were nominated to serve on those health

  253
  bodies, and I served on the south-east Staffordshire health authority at that time. In the early 1990s, health providers were separated from health authorities and trusts were formed, and the internal market was created with its associated divisiveness. I am pleased that the Labour Government dispensed with that internal market and looked to health trusts and providers to co-operate and to spread best practice. I do not wish that co-operation to be jeopardised by the creation of foundation trusts, although I would support greater democracy for all our NHS trusts.
  Although my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State provided some reassurances, I am concerned that foundation hospitals may prove to be divisive, creating a two-tier system in which some hospitals, able to pay higher salaries, could poach staff and, ultimately, patients from other hospitals. While we should not follow a pattern of rewarding failure in our NHS by bailing out inefficient trusts, neither should we abandon health providers, as they need the expertise to reform and improve. If the creation of foundation hospitals increases the divide between providers and causes hospitals to close, local people will lose out.
  The proposal in the Conservative motion that all trusts should be allowed to bid for foundation status is not practical because it is clear that trusts that are struggling would not be able to go it alone. I am concerned that those trusts with a three-star rating, which will be eligible to become foundation hospitals, may not always remain of three-star quality. If their star rating falls, how will help be given to independent foundation trusts?
  Foundation hospitals will not produce more trained staff; only the Government's investment will do that. We need to give that investment and the changes that we have introduced time to bring about the improvements that all Labour Members want. The Secretary of State talked of the progress that has already been made. The NHS should be allowed a period without the further change that foundation trusts would bring. I hope that Ministers will consider delaying the proposals so that there can be further consideration and consolidation.
  5.26 pm
  Mr. Adrian Flook: As the debate has made clear, Conservative Members welcome the principle of foundation hospitals. I rise to support the motion in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends. We support that principle because it would give control to individual hospitals, and I reject the remarks of the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor), who is no longer in her seat, who was attempting to say otherwise.
  The Conservatives' philosophy is dramatically different from that of the Government. The Labour party appears to have borrowed our language, and it has not delivered the substance. It recognises what needs to be done but fails to implement a policy that will deliver on that aim. In his announcement on 11 December, which appears to have been rushed and poorly thought through, the Secretary of State said that he was giving hospitals independence, but is it true independence according to what he believes?
  A non-executive member of a health authority told me that the 11 December announcement was nothing more than a political game. It reminded him of the
  254
  Government's response to the Conservatives' proposals for independence for local health care, which we made just before the last election. The Government rushed to implement strategic health authorities as a panacea. It was an attempt to counter the Conservative party's rather good idea of decentralising power from Richmond house and giving it to local areas, thereby getting rid of regional health authorities.
  No one denies that extra money is going into the NHS, and that is good. However, there are two sides to the way in which the Government are raising taxes and then spending. How much one spends is not an indicator of how much one cares. In every other area Labour has raised taxes to increase public spending and imposed national targets with ever increasing interference and centralisation.
  I remember in the previous Parliament a senior non-executive member of a health authority telling me that one Monday the authority received a call from on high—from Richmond house—saying that the Minister was demanding a certain amount of information for a meeting on the Friday. The health authority had to approach the Taunton and Somerset NHS Hospital Trust and demand the information that the Minister wanted. That meant that all Tuesday and Wednesday, the hospital's central management staff were involved in trying to compile that information. They delivered it to the health authority on Wednesday evening, as they had promised.
  On Thursday morning, the health authority discussed how it would present those figures to the Minister at the meeting on Friday. On Thursday afternoon, the Minister's secretary rang up to cancel the meeting. For four days, Somerset's health authority ground to a halt because central interference meant that figures were demanded that the Minister ultimately did not want. We have heard too much of such interference by central Government, and it has continued.
  Mr. Lansley: By way of illustration of the way in which expenditure and quality are not necessarily related, I refer to the fact that the NHS is incurring hundreds of millions of pounds of expenditure as a consequence of the implementation of the working time directive. That will take place, first, for non-medical and then for medical staff. That does not deliver of itself any improvements in the service provided to patients, but it counts as NHS expenditure. If one were simply counting money, one would think that an increase in expenditure would lead to an increase in NHS standards, but it does not do that at all.
  Mr. Flook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making such an important point. No doubt, in April, there will be a consequential rise in the health bill for hospitals and GP surgeries when they have to pay ever higher national insurance charges. It would be a shame for the Government to say that they were putting more money into the health service if that allowed the general population to gain the impression that greater health care was being delivered. That is patently not happening.
  The Government see higher taxes and higher spending as a sort of social obligation or as a common morality of citizenship, as they call it. As the leader of

  255
  the Conservative party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) wrote recently, Conservatives do not believe that the Government have a moral entitlement to other people's money. It is still their own, and the Government have only been entrusted with it. That is why any Government must spend that money wisely and why the Government will fail to meet their 2005 targets, as many of us, including Labour Members, will have read in today's Financial Times.
  Careful stewardship is the key, and Conservative Members see that stewardship having a twin aim when it comes to reforming public services. We need not just to improve public services. My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) rightly alluded to the fact that there has been a 20 per cent. increase in funding, but he did not go on to say that that funding has delivered only a 2 per cent. increase in the number of treatments. That means that much work needs to be done.
  Mr. Simmonds: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. In Scotland, there has been an even greater increase in public expenditure on the health service, but the service, as measured in waiting list terms, has deteriorated significantly irrespective of the amount of money going into it.
  Mr. Flook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am also told that the situation is not much better in Wales. It is lamentable that there are 25,000 more administrators in the NHS than there are now beds in the system—225,000 administrators as opposed to not quite 200,000 beds. That is a particular shame. We need to cut the enormous waste that currently occurs in the NHS so that individuals and families can choose where they spend their money. That point applies not to the NHS but to other Departments of state.
  In retrospect, I suppose we should welcome an attempt to mimic Tory philosophy with this attempt to create foundation hospitals. Labour Members have spoken much about co-operatives, and the hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) spoke fondly about how keen he is on the notion of the co-operative societies and how they work. However, Conservative Members also see foundation hospitals as agreeing with our base philosophy.
  The problem is that the Government do not fully understand the foundation hospitals that they are trying to introduce. They do not understand how to make hospitals locally accountable. From the prospectus that Ministers have published and from the Secretary of State's response to my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring, we do not know whether enough people will be willing to come forward to serve as members of the foundation trusts. Local elections are approaching and we all know that it is quite difficult to find enough local councillors to serve on local councils, and the Government have not yet told us how we will find enough suitably qualified to be members of the foundation trusts. What does "local" mean? Does it depend on a travel-to-work basis, as is currently the case with people who work for local authorities? We do not yet know. Some 3,500 people work in Taunton's
  256
  hospital and 50,000 people live in the town, but the hospital serves thousands of people beyond Taunton Deane.
  I also represent part of West Somerset, which is a different local authority area. The local authority mainly looks to Minehead, but for its acute hospital services it very much looks to Taunton and, to some extent, Tiverton. Will people who live in Dulverton and Withypool in West Somerset look to serve on trusts in Tiverton or Taunton? We do not know. My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring said that there is no acute hospital in Woodspring and everyone has to travel to Weston-super-Mare or Bristol. We have yet to find out what the Government think. I quite like the idea espoused by the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) that there should be a catchment area for membership of the foundation hospital trust.
  The situation in Taunton is intriguing. The trust is well regarded by many local people. Taunton and Somerset hospital, commonly known as Musgrove Park, was built during the war. The old building, which still stands, has corridors wide enough for jeeps to go down because it was built by the American forces to look after expected casualties following the D-day landings. Fortunately, the hospital had massive infrastructure spends in the 1980s and the mid-1990s which to a large extent matched the population growth in the area. However, there has been a big lull since 1994. I am pleased that recently there has been much talk of spending tens of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money in upgrading the old building, which has structural problems and cannot deliver the needs of modern surgery as well as a new building. Parking is also a problem. Local people, especially the Member of Parliament, strongly welcome the planned investment to match the bigger and now growing population. A cancer unit is on its way. That is welcome but not before time. There is only a small "p" promise of a tertiary cardio-thoracic unit. Somerset residents have been paying for those improvements for some time in ever-rising amounts of tax, but we still have not got that big "P" promise for the cardio-thoracic unit and the huge amount of spending that we need.
  How does that relate to foundation hospitals? The Taunton and Somerset NHS Hospital Trust was awarded three stars in the original round when stars were given out, to some extent like confetti. Sadly, it now has only two stars. There are a number of reasons for that and the chief executive is confident that he can rectify the situation. The staff and all his management team are working on that. They consider the trust a rising two star because of their hard work and good management. However, that cannot detract from the fact that the star system is flawed, as the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) explained so eloquently.
  Where does that leave Taunton's fairly important hospital in the bigger scheme of things if it is trying to get that large infrastructure spend? Its increased needs and expected increased financing means that it must consider whether to go for foundation trust status as spelt out by the Government. A local senior NHS manager described going for foundation trust status as not dissimilar to Dumbo's magic ears. As far as he was concerned, setting up foundation hospitals would provide the same confidence that made Dumbo think that his ears could make him fly. To put it another way,

  257
  he meant to say that the foundation trusts are not dissimilar to the original aims of the NHS trusts at the beginning of the 1990s, in which greater clarity and identity is given to the hospital and its local management capability so that there is more delegation, greater responsibility and sharper accountability to the taxpayers who fund it and the local people.
  However, there are still too many unanswered questions on whether the hospital could go for foundation trust status and, at the same time, be hopeful that it will get all the money it needs, especially as it will not be in the first wave of hospitals to qualify because it has two stars.
  We do not yet know whether the Secretary of State will guarantee any borrowing, or whether the Somerset and Dorset strategic health authority will do so if the hospital achieves foundation trust status. Perhaps the Taunton Deane primary care trust will do so. We do not know whether the private sector will lend to foundation hospitals. We know that the private finance initiative might work for the large building programme, but we do not know whether foundation hospitals will be acceptable to the City. How will the loans be treated in the national accounts? That is not especially relevant to the management of Taunton hospital, but it is relevant to the SHA and, in turn, to the Government.
  There are other concerns about foundation hospitals. Taunton hospital has a well regarded private wing, Parkside. It is very small, accounting for only 1 per cent. of the hospital's total activity, and it has to compete with the nearby Nuffield hospital. According to the prospectus—the hastily drawn up plans for foundation hospitals—the licence to become a foundation hospital will restrict the number of private patients a trust can treat. Paragraph 3.16 states that the Government would be keen to see applications that propose to convert NHS facilities wholly used for paying patients. Is that the Government's real wish? We are not sure, but suspect that that is more likely to be mere spin, designed to assuage the concern of sceptics on the Labour Benches, who are, it seems, having to be asked not to speak in this debate.
  Mr. Barber's paper, carefully leaked to today's Financial Times, states that No. 10 appears to be impatient at the speed with which the Secretary of State and the Department of Health are pursuing choice and diversity. Has the Department just come up with the concept of foundation hospitals, which was poorly thought through and rushed out on 11 December; or are the Government, as they did in the announcements in the summer and on 11 December, borrowing the language, but not delivering the substance? The Government recognise what needs to be done, but have failed to implement a policy that will deliver the aim.
  5.42 pm
  Dr. Howard Stoate: It is always a great pleasure to me to take part in health debates—as one of the few medically qualified Members, I follow with interest issues surrounding health delivery—but I feel that we might be having the wrong debate this afternoon. When constituents visit my surgeries, write to me or send me an e-mail, it is normally to ask what the Government can do to continue to improve health services in the local hospital, or to ensure that there are
  258
  more GPs in the area and that social services have adequate long-term care facilities for elderly relatives. It is unusual that someone raises issues about who runs the facilities, unless something goes wrong. Most of the time, people are content to see the health service develop and services improve. They are not worried about who is delivering the service—unless something goes radically wrong, in which case they become very interested indeed. If services continue to improve, they are generally happy.
  I believe that the debate should focus on how we deliver health care in our society and how we get the best health gain for the money we put in. All hon. Members on both sides of the House have said that there has been a 20 per cent. real-terms increase in health spending in this country and that that is welcome. The important thing is to ensure that that money is spent to the best possible effect and that we get the best possible health delivery and health gain from it.
  Broadly speaking, there are two ways in which that money can be used to improve health care. First, it can be used to improve delivery of services. There has been significant improvement in my local hospital, Darent Valley hospital in Dartford, which is part of the Dartford and Gravesham acute NHS trust. The hospital went from no stars to one star now. It has just obtained agreement for a diagnostic and treatment centre to be a built—a £9 million investment that will enable an extra 3,000 elective surgery operations to be carried out each year. Accident and emergency facilities are improving and expanding. This week, the chief executive wrote to tell me that the hospital is now on track to achieve the two-week cancer target, and is well on the way to reaching the targets for both out-patient and in-patient waiting times. In other words, the hospital is making significant improvements in service delivery.
  Dr. Evan Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Stoate: No. There is little time and other hon. Members still want to speak.
  This afternoon, hon. Members have asked about those trusts that are left out—that are not able to become foundation hospitals. It has been suggested that hospitals with one or two stars will not get a look-in and will somehow miss out. I take issue with that. In my area, where the hospital has one star, it is getting very significant improvements in its facilities, its management structure and its outcomes. It should not be assumed that just because a hospital is ineligible to apply for foundation status, it is automatically at a disadvantage.
  In general practice we have the PMS pilots—for personal medical services—and advanced access, whereby patients will be able to see a nurse within 24 hours, or a doctor within 48 hours, of when they wish. That too is a significant improvement. The new GP contract, which I gather will be released sometime next month, will show how GPs can improve their facilities and their patient care, and develop their practices.
  All that will, of course, have a major impact on the local health economy. I am pleased to announce that this morning my local hospital trust had a 14.5 per cent. increase in its capital allocation over the next three years, which will significantly increase its ability to improve health care services.

  259
  I would like to focus on a radical rethink about the way in which we deliver health care, and how we view it. I want to look closely at what we really mean by the terms health, illness and disease. The World Health Organisation's 1968 definition of what constitutes health is about the complete physical, psychological and social well-being, not just the absence of disease. That definition will, I hope, encompass the vast majority of people in this country.
  What constitutes illness behaviour? It was defined by Mechanic in 1962 as the actions taken by someone when they perceive themselves to be ill. According to some of the early work done on that idea, most people, when they perceive themselves to be ill, do not go to a doctor or a hospital casualty department; they do other things. They might go to a chemist or speak to their neighbours or their friends, and they will probably wait for a week or two to see what happens. Most people do not automatically rely on the NHS.
  Only a relatively small number of people with disease—defined as an abnormality in structure or function of tissues or organs—need the acute services of the NHS. We have an obsession about the health service being synonymous with acute, expensive high-tech care. In fact, acute high-tech care is only one very small part of care delivery. The vast majority of people use informal methods; they go to the chemist, or their friends and family. Only a relatively small number of people use the acute care sector, and it is only a tiny part of the NHS—yet debate after debate in the House focuses on extremely expensive high-tech delivery as if that were the NHS.
  NHS figures show that more than 90 per cent. of episodes of illness, as perceived by patients and as taken to medical professionals, are dealt with by GPs, practice nurses and other health professionals in the primary care setting.
  Dr. Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Stoate: Only if it is a very short intervention, because I do not have much time.
  Dr. Harris: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the slogan "Schools and hospitals first" helps or hinders his attempts to educate his colleagues about the importance of primary health care?
  Dr. Stoate: I knew that the Liberal Democrat spokesman would have to score political points, because that is what he does. I am trying to widen the debate away from party politics. I am trying to use the debate to widen the subject as far as possible and to consider other aspects of health care.
  As I was saying, more than 90 per cent. of episodes of health delivery are given in the primary care setting; that is where the bulk of health care takes place.
  Public health is a subject that we do not debate often, but the biggest cause of ill health in this country is poverty, including relative poverty, which causes diseases such as obesity, diabetes, heart disease and cancer. In 1911 the Registrar General, Stephenson, set up the disease classification by social class, and even as
  260
  long ago as that, he made it clear that virtually all diseases are related to social class. In those days social class was a good measure, but these days we tend to use socio-economic status, because that is a fairer measure of the way society is now.
  Every disease that I can think of, apart from malignant melanoma, is actually a disease of poverty and low socio-economic status. That is where the really big debate needs to take place. Almost all diseases—certainly obesity, diabetes, which is a major drain on the NHS, and heart disease and cancer, which are both major killers—are diseases of relative poverty in this country.
  Things are so bad that a child born in some parts of Manchester is likely to live 10 years less than a child born to a similar family in Devon. We should all be concerned about that. What should we do about it? That should be the really big health debate—public health care and what we do about delivering public health in our society. During the recess I was fortunate enough to have a pamphlet about public health in children, which I wrote with my researcher, Bryan Jones, published by the Fabian Society. We looked hard at what constitutes good public health measures for children and young people so that we could try to avoid a major epidemic of obesity in young people. Obesity among children has doubled in the past 10 years and has now reached epidemic proportions. The figures are similar to those in America, where it is becoming a major public health issue. In the pamphlet, we looked at what we should do about food in schools; advertising sweets, crisps and so on to children; what we should do to educate parents to give their children better nutritional advice; what we should do about food poverty; and children and exercise.
  The House should look more widely at what we should do as a nation about public health issues, including obesity reduction measures, ways of teaching kids to eat more healthily, teaching schools to provide better nutritional facilities and helping them to provide better sports facilities; and making sure that parents are properly educated about delivering good nutritional advice to their children. In the pamphlet, for example, we suggest tax breaks for shops in food-poor areas to encourage the setting-up of shops in rural or inner-city areas where it is more difficult to make ends meet. We believe that such changes could make a significant improvement to the health of the nation.
  In the few remaining minutes, I want to widen our debate. Health care is critical, but we must not focus purely on the high-tech end of the market and assume that it is a marker of the failure or success of Government policy. We must look at the issue far more broadly. I am pleased that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears), who has ministerial responsibility for public health, is on the Front Bench, because she is instrumental in the Government's policies to deliver high-quality public health. It should not be forgotten that this Government are the first to have a Minister with specific responsibility for public health, which is extremely welcome.
  We should widen the debate and look at public health in its entirety to make sure that children, the next generation of society, are treated in the best possible way and are given the best possible start in life, as well as the

  261
  best educational and sports facilities. That does not necessarily cost a fortune. In fact, if the next generation is brought up to be healthier, stronger, fitter and more able to care for itself, spending on expensive, acute and high-tech hospitals would be reduced. There is a genuine risk that if we do not do something about obesity in children now, they will pre-decease their parents in significant numbers, which should concern us all. I am pleased to have had a chance to contribute to our debate, and I hope that other Members will have a chance to make their contributions.
  5.52 pm
  Mr. Mark Simmonds: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate), who always speaks with great enthusiasm and passion about health, although I am not sure that his remarks today were pertinent to the motion or the amendment.
  I am delighted to be able to take part in this important debate. Foundation hospitals are an essential way forward for the provision of health care, particularly in England. It was slightly cheeky of the Secretary of State to try to persuade the House, even though he did so with a smirk, that the provision of foundation trusts and hospitals fitted comfortably with socialist ideals and the history of the NHS going back to Keir Hardie and others who formulated the ideals of the health service. That was duplicitous and disingenuous, to say the least.
  I agree with the principle of setting up foundation trusts and hospitals. I shall come on to specific questions later, but any positive decentralising move that severs Whitehall control and creates greater local control, ownership and accountability must be encouraged. Any positive move to reduce the politicisation of the NHS and devolve decision-making power to people with knowledge of the requirements and priorities of a particular locality is to be encouraged, as is increasing democratisation and democratic control. In my constituency, where I have two hospitals—Pilgrim hospital in Boston and the Skegness and District hospital, of which the former is by far the more significant—there would be definite advantages in allowing much more local control and decision making to determine where money is spent and which services are given top priority.
  Before I discuss the detail of the foundation hospital and foundation trust proposals, I want to put on record my admiration for the enormous amount of hard work done by all those who work in the health service, from the top clinicians, through the doctors, the nurses, to the ancillary staff—those who work in the kitchens, and cleaning staff—particularly those in my constituency. I have taken the trouble to spend quite a lot of time in the hospitals in my constituency, and have done a night shift at Pilgrim hospital in Boston, which gave me a far greater understanding of the pressures faced by many hospital staff.
  There seems to be a considerable dichotomy between the Government's view of the state of the NHS and the view of most Members of Parliament, who receive in their postbag a great deal of correspondence about the health service. If Labour Members were more honest and were not simply supporting their Government, I expect that they would acknowledge that there are severe problems in the health service. The Secretary of State admitted as much in his comments earlier today.
  262
  To my mind, the problems are systemic. It is not possible to provide a successful and flexible service that is controlled from the centre. The Government are right to examine ways of improving the quantity and quality of health care provision, but that can be achieved only by removing central control, which creates a large, unwieldy bureaucracy that cannot cope or react to local priorities. For the sake of making the argument, I shall repeat the two stark statistics that have been quoted by other hon. Members: there are 24,000 to 25,000 more administrators than beds for patients. That is an extraordinary statistic. As was mentioned, I think, by my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) and my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook), despite the 20 to 22 per cent. increase in funding that has occurred over the past couple of years, hospital treatments are up by only 1.6 per cent. and admissions are down by 0.5 per cent. or 55,000. In Scotland, there has been a 28 per cent. increase in funding and a 25 per cent. increase in waiting lists.
  Those statistics demonstrate clearly that money alone is not enough to improve the provision of health care. I do not represent a particularly affluent area of the country. It is rural Lincolnshire, and many people in my constituency are economically challenged. I know of people on benefit who are so desperate for treatment that they are going private by borrowing money from neighbours next door, which they can never hope to pay hack. If the health service allows that to happen and does not look after the worst-off and most vulnerable people in our society, it is clear that there is something fundamentally wrong with the system that is currently in operation. It is right that we look at ways to improve it.
  Despite the splits at the most senior level of Government between the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, through to the Back Benches, as we have seen in the debate today and through the early-day motion that has been signed by more than 100 Labour Members of Parliament, the main criticism seems to be that the creation of foundation trusts and foundation hospitals would produce a two-tier system. As other hon. Members have pointed out, we not only have a two-tier system already: we have a multi-tier system.
  When I asked my local representatives of various trade unions and the British Medical Association, they made the same point. With reference to the creation of foundation hospitals, the chairman of the BMA said:
  "These freedoms ought to be available to all hospitals. Our prime concern must be to avoid creating a two-tier service in which patients who live near to Foundation Hospitals or are vocal and assertive in pressing to be referred to them, receive better services than those who are treated in other hospitals."
  That problem can be overcome only by increasing the number of foundation trusts and hospitals, not by picking and selecting the best.
  Mr. Lansley: Does my hon. Friend recall that during the debate, a number of Labour and Liberal Democrat Members referred disparagingly to the experience of GP fundholders? They said that that created two-tier status. Does not that suggest that there should be a larger number of hospitals with foundation status at an early stage, so that there are not some hospitals with that

  263
  status and some without? The greater freedom would be in the collective interest of the NHS, and everybody should aspire to that at an early stage.
  Mr. Simmonds: I thank my hon. Friend for that pertinent intervention. He is absolutely right to highlight that issue. However, the question involves not only controls on the finances of foundation hospitals, of which there should be more, but democratic control, which does not exist as it perhaps should—a point that I shall deal with later.
  It is not necessarily important who owns the hospitals, but we should consider every possible way of maximising the beneficial outputs and improving health care provision in totality. Diversity, by its very nature, leads to innovation, so why will so few hospitals benefit from the freedom of foundation status? Surely, if the motivation is to improve the quality of health care, foundation hospitals and trusts should be used as a route to improve hospitals that are already improving. They should be used as an extra incentive, without the best merely being selected in terms of those that have three stars. That would be a major way of improving the service that is already being provided on the ground. One of the main bodies that deals with health care is the King's Fund. Julia Neuberger says:
  "foundation status should not be limited to those trusts with three stars. Real power should be devolved to the local NHS and not just superficial autonomy from every central directive."
  I intervened to question the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), who did not seem to grasp the view that I was trying to convey, and the hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), who did. I pointed out that the main problem holding back the development of many hospitals is the centralised bureaucracy that is determining the way in which they operate. Freeing them from that bureaucracy will give them greater opportunity and ability to improve the services that they are giving to patients and the public at large.
  One of my greatest concerns—I hope that the Minister will deal with it—is that there will be a tremendous challenge, bearing in mind the volatility of the star system, in trying to maintain a three-star system year on year while also trying to bed down the complexities that will be involved in the transferral to foundation status. What will happen if a hospital loses its three stars because it is trying to move to foundation trust status? Will it lose the opportunity to become a foundation hospital? If that were the case, it would be an enormous waste of time and resources.
  Are there problems with guaranteed service provision? There are great concerns that, when the funding is devolved, foundation hospitals will have the ability to decide which service provision to make a priority, so there may be opportunities for them to drop services that are not particularly popular or well used. That point was eloquently made by the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) and I do not think that it has been sufficiently dealt with.
  Will the argument about population shifts be built into the funding formula calculations? Lincolnshire, especially in my constituency, has an ever-expanding
  264
  population driven by the many people who are rightly retiring to the beauties of the county. Funding needs to be addressed to take account of that. Many of those who are retiring to Skegness come from the ex-coal-mining areas in the midlands and some of them have serious health problems that rightly need to be addressed. I want to ensure that the funding is available so that foundation-status trusts can cope with that.
  I want to deal with two main issues before my time is up. The first relates to the independent nature of foundation hospitals. How can a hospital be independent when it must still meet Government targets, even if there are fewer of them? What happens if there is a clash in which the foundation hospital does not think that it is a priority to meet the Government targets that are still set down? Will that be an excuse for the Secretary of State to withdraw foundation status?
  I had a brief exchange earlier with the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) about private patients. They represent a way in which a hospital can generate additional income and use up surplus capacity, thereby also generating income. They may, in extreme circumstances, stave off the closure of part of a hospital. Why are provisions for private patients limited? What would happen if a foundation trust or hospital decided to circumvent the Secretary of State's specifications on this point? Would that be another reason to withdraw the hospital's status?
  Will primary care trusts be able to decide which foundation hospital to put their funds into, or will there be detailed contracts drawn up for a period of years? I have heard five or seven years being mentioned. Would that not limit the hospital's decision-making processes and service provision capabilities?
  Mr Flook: Does my hon. Friend agree that if such contracts were seven years long, they might arch over the four or five year period of office of the elected membership of the trust, and therefore tie those people in without giving them any flexibility to change any management practices?
  Mr. Simmonds: That point had not occurred to me, but it is an extremely good one. I would be interested to know whether the ministerial team has thought through those issues.
  How will the issue of not poaching staff be enforced? The right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) made a good point about this; it was the only point he made with which I agreed. He said that we cannot stop people applying for jobs in different hospitals. There do not seem to have been many thought processes devoted to that point.
  I totally and wholeheartedly agree that there should be more local accountability and democratic control of foundation hospital trusts, and I believe that that should be extended beyond the levels proposed in the forthcoming Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) made a very eloquent speech on this matter. So many facets have not been explained yet. In my constituency, the Pilgrim hospital in Boston covers an enormous area, not only in my constituency but beyond: north towards Louth, over towards Grantham and south towards Peterborough. There are crossovers: some people go to Peterborough

  265
  hospital, some go to the Pilgrim hospital in Boston, some go to Lincoln or Nottingham. What will happen in those circumstances? Who will get a vote? Who will be elected on to the boards? Will people who live in Boston be able to sit on boards in Nottingham or Leicester, if they use facilities there? I would like the ministerial team to explain that.
  The foundation hospitals will get into enormous difficulties unless a detailed policy is introduced on how the funding will be allocated when the hospitals gather more and more patients as the services improve over time. Will they all be sharing the same cake? How will the contracts operate, not only with the primary care trusts but with the other primary organisations within a particular geographical location that feed into the hospital? Will they be long-term contracts? Will they be flexible? Will the trusts be able to break them if they prefer to use facilities at another hospital, if indeed there is another foundation hospital that they can transfer to?
  While I agree with foundation hospitals, I do not think that the Labour Government are in a position to change the national health service sufficiently. They have too much baggage, both philosophical and ideological, and too many interests in the trade union movement—their friends and paymasters there have an entrenched and self-centred belief that things should stay the same—and, ultimately, there are too many left-wing Members of Parliament who do not want to see even the first foundation hospital come to fruition, never mind seeing the scheme rolled out across the whole United Kingdom.
  6.9 pm
  Roger Casale: I welcome the debate and the opportunity to contribute, but I must say that when I saw it listed on the Order Paper I was a little surprised that the Conservative party had picked the national health service as its chosen topic for an Opposition day. I am sure that a lot of my constituents in Wimbledon, if they have been listening or tuning in, will share my curiosity at some of the things that have been said.
  I understand that the Opposition are keen to depoliticise the issue of the NHS and to pick individual topics such as foundation hospitals, on which they feel that they may be in some agreement with us, but if they are in agreement with us, it is for the wrong reasons. I shall return to that point.
  Most people in my constituency and, I am sure, around the country would recognise that the NHS is probably one of the issues, if not the leading issue, of the day that separates the two parties, as the differences are so stark.
  Although the debate has at times had the tone and feeling of a Second Reading due to the development of a cosy consensus around a proposal that everybody favours, we should remember that the Opposition introduced the subject. They should be challenging the Government, and Parliament would not do its job properly if it did not use Opposition day debates to emphasise the differences between us, of which there are many.
  My constituents will be surprised that the Conservatives have picked the NHS as the subject for the debate, because, like me, they know that, with few exceptions, Conservative Members no longer believe in
  266
  its founding values and principles. Those who do are a dwindling number and ever more at the margins of today's Conservative party.
  Mr. Lansley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Roger Casale: Not at the moment. The hon. Gentleman has had an opportunity to put his thoughts about the NHS on the record.
  I do not say that there are no Conservative Members who see a future for the NHS, but let us not forget that the Conservatives opposed its establishment 50 years ago. We know that many leading Conservatives—perhaps the hon. Gentleman numbers himself among them—including the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), want to dismantle the NHS. There is a big debate to be had on the future of the NHS, but, in terms of where the public stand, I believe that the Conservatives are on the wrong side of that debate.
  Mr. Lansley: The hon. Gentleman perpetuates a myth that the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) also sought to perpetuate, which is that we in the Conservative party do not believe in the NHS. The day before the NHS was founded, my father worked for London county council. He then worked for the NHS for 34 years, including the day it was born, and ran a laboratory at East Ham memorial hospital. I was brought up by someone who worked in the NHS. I have always used it and I shall continue to do so. Why is the hon. Gentleman trying to distort and misrepresent the motives of Conservative Members?
  Roger Casale: I said that a few Conservative Members believe in the NHS—perhaps the hon. Gentleman numbers himself among them—but I also said that they are a dwindling number and ever more marginal in terms of influence. I do not want to embarrass him, but perhaps he numbers himself in that group as well.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Roger Casale: If I may, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall finish dealing with one intervention before giving way to take another. I would like to make a little progress, although I am glad to see that I have excited some reaction from the Opposition and nudged them out of their complacent consensus.
  If there is to be a future for the NHS, there needs to be an ambitious, imaginative and radical reform programme as outlined in the NHS plan. That comes at a price, which is sustained investment in the NHS—the investment that the Government are putting in, not the 20 per cent. cuts that the shadow Chief Secretary has on offer.
  I can only assume that the Conservatives have chosen to debate foundation hospitals because they want to engage in point scoring. They know that a debate is going on in the Labour party, and rightly so, about whether foundation hospitals and the other reforms that we are putting forward are a good thing or a bad thing.
  However, so far as I can tell there is no division within the Labour party about the fundamental principles and values of the national health service, about the need to

  267
  invest in it, or about the need to reform it if we are to safeguard it for future generations. Nor is there division within the party about the need to rebuild the NHS as part of the political mission that people, including my constituents, elected Labour Members of Parliament to undertake.
  By focusing on an important measure that they actually agree with—although important, it is just part of an overall strategy and package of reforms—perhaps the Conservatives hope that people will think that we agree on everything else as well. However, nothing could be further from the truth. We certainly do not agree with Conservative plans for the national health service, and this proposal is not the first step down the road that they would like to take us down. There are two very different approaches at stake here. The fact that both Labour and Conservative Members think that the current proposal for foundation hospitals may be a good thing does not mean that we both approach it from the same direction. A foundation hospital is not some kind of shareholder-led, privately owned, market-driven hospital. Foundation hospitals are a new experiment in community-led, but still very much public, ownership. The proposal to establish foundation hospitals must be set in a much wider context than our overall strategy to reform and rebuild the national health service, important though that is. It must be set in the context of the changing balance between public and private that we need in today's world to secure and safeguard the public good.
  These debates can sometimes seem rather sterile, in part because of the temptation to engage in inaccurate stereotyping, which we have had plenty of today from the Opposition. Apparently, we are all Stalinists because we believe in some form of central monitoring and standards for the national health service. However, let us not forget that it was this Government who introduced national standards for the NHS in 1997, and that in 18 years of Conservative Government we had no national standards of any kind. Is introducing such standards Stalinist? There has to be some form of central monitoring and control.
  We should not engage in such sterile and inaccurate stereotyping of each other's positions, and I am not going to give hon. Members the chance to do so again.
  However, the idea that state ownership and state control always equates with the public good, and that individual input into health and other public services is always bad—or indeed, vice versa—is no longer the most valid way to think about these issues, and we need to recognise that. The potential importance of this innovative proposal for foundation hospitals is that there may be ways of better balancing local accountability with national standards, innovation and public enterprise to serve the public good. We must think afresh about how we define the public good in relation to public services. There must he ways of safeguarding the public good, and some of the strongest proposals relating to foundation hospitals are those for an independent regulator, for important local and democratic input, and for regular inspections. The
  268
  national framework and national standards will remain, along with—I hope—a great deal of national and local democratic control.
  If the Conservatives think that foundation hospitals are a good thing because they will be completely free from any mechanism or framework of national control and inspection, or if they think that this is a step towards privatisation, they are going to be disappointed. I also hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson)—he is indeed my friend—will take on board those remarks, and that they will help to cheer him up. He made some important points, and we would be wise to listen to what he says. He articulated fears and apprehensions felt by many people in the party and outside it about the new proposals.
  One can oppose the proposals for ideological reasons, but I am not sure that that is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras opposes them. He raised many practical objections to the proposals, and that is where the core of the debate now lies. However, how can it be contrary to the public interest and good to allow a system to develop that is more flexible in terms of delivery, that can give more choice to the user—although I take his point that there needs to be a surplus capacity—and that helps to liberate the talent, energy and innovative potential of the people who work for the public good in the NHS?
  Mr. Dobson: If the proposals are going to liberate people, why is there such a lack of enthusiasm for them among those who represent doctors, nurses, midwives and therapists?
  Roger Casale: My right hon. Friend is a former Secretary of State for Health, and is in regular contact with his local hospitals. I am in very regular contact with my local hospitals and with the people who work in them. I take issue with him as to whether there is a lack of interest in the proposals. I believe that people are keen to take on more responsibility. We must recognise that there has been a great deal of change in the NHS, and the way in which we manage change is very important.
  St. Helier hospital in my constituency got a no-star rating two years ago. It appointed a new chairman and new chief executive and was given the resources that it needed, with the result that this year it achieved a two-star rating. All the staff in the organisation were involved and believed in the need for change. We must win the hearts and minds of people in the NHS. We cannot work against them. They have to work with us. If we can get them to do that, we can really transform things, as I have seen happen with St. Helier hospital.
  Angela Eagle: Will my hon. Friend admit that people who are worried about whether foundation trusts are the right answer to what is a very effective analysis of some of the difficulties in the NHS are also afraid that the proposals will lead to the unleashing of competition and fragmentation in the system, despite the assurances about co-operation? There is a danger that that will be the result of the reforms, to the detriment of the NHS as a whole.
  Roger Casale: I agree that that danger exists, and it is a valid and fair apprehension for people to have. We

  269
  must deal with it, but our priority must be to create levers to improve the quality and standard of the health service as a whole. No one says that that will be easy, or that other problems will not arise. My hon. Friend has highlighted the very important difficulties that will be encountered when we implement the policy, but I believe that, on balance, it is right to go down this route.
  I believe that allowing hospitals to be foundation hospitals will accelerate the development of excellence in the provision of their services. The key is how that is linked into everything else and how the improvements are spread around. For example, the Sutton and Merton primary care trust in my constituency was one of the first to be set up. It is an example of best practice and I am in very regular contact with the staff there. The PCT has received extra resources and is doing very well. I always ask staff what they are doing to stimulate, support and help other trusts. As with beacon schools, for instance, it is no good for people to rest on their laurels and say, "We are the best, everyone should come to us." Staff must recognise that they have a duty and responsibility to spread best practice around.
  We have to start somewhere, and it is right to start with the three-star hospital trusts. They are the best, and will be the easiest to deal with. However, there is a special responsibility on those hospital trusts and on the Government to do everything possible to improve standards in the NHS. They are simply not high enough today.
  Caroline Flint: My hon. Friend will be aware that the Government have recently passed legislation to allow the best performing schools to have greater freedoms. Local authorities were recently assessed by the Audit Commission, and those found to be of good standard will also be given greater freedoms. Why should we not be able to consider reforms to the NHS similar to those that have helped to improve education and local government?
  Roger Casale: I agree with my hon. Friend—I think that we can learn from successful approaches in other parts of the public services. We cannot automatically transfer such approaches, but we can be encouraged by the success of beacon schools and spreading best practice around. We should do everything we can to ensure that if we go ahead with this proposal of foundation hospitals, we share best practice in the health service as well.
  These are valid fears and apprehensions, but that is what they are—fears and apprehensions. With the money that is being invested, we have a historic opportunity to be much more bold, ambitious and imaginative. Of course we must avoid having a two-tier system. If the Conservative party were returned to Government, we would have not a two-tier system but a no-tier system.
  We do not want a system that produces inequality; we want one in which there is both greater equality and quality. Three hospitals serve my constituency—Kingston is in the more prosperous, middle-class area, St. Helier is in a poorer area and St. George's in Tooting, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) referred, is in more of a mixed area. When the star rating system was introduced,
  270
  Kingston had two stars, St. George's had one and St. Helier had none. Many have asked me why there is a superior level of service in Kingston compared with St. Helier. As a result of our reform package, our investment and the changes in St. Helier that I have talked about, St. Helier, Kingston and St. George's all had two stars this year. I believe that we can uprate the service, improve quality and bring everybody up to the same level, but we have to start somewhere, and we need the levers to do it. I believe that that is what the foundation hospitals proposal will provide.
  The Labour party set up the national health service—that is our proudest achievement. We are rebuilding it today because we want it to be there tomorrow. We are determined to succeed and I believe that radical proposals such as foundation hospitals will allow us to do so.
  6.27 pm
  Mr. Simon Burns: I am not sure whether it is the third way or the new way forward in a new year, but it will not have escaped the notice of the House that the Opposition have chosen a debate in which we welcome the principle of the Government's policy of introducing foundation hospitals. I shall elaborate on that welcome in greater detail later in my remarks.
  We have had an extremely good debate, to which eight of my right hon. and hon. Friends contributed. My right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), with his experience as a former Secretary of State for Health, gave an extremely lucid and interesting speech on the concept of foundation hospitals and how they can improve and enhance patient care. I strongly recommend any hon. Member who was not in the Chamber to read his speech at their leisure.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) also gave an extremely good and thought-provoking speech. He reiterated an abiding principle, which I wholeheartedly agree with, of a national health service free at the point of use for all.
  My hon. Friends the Members for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) and for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) highlighted, in their different ways, problems in their constituencies in Hertfordshire and Leicestershire. My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth asked why hospitals in his county could not seek foundation status from the outset and also gave us the benefit of his knowledge of complementary medicine.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) spoke eloquently about local accountability and patient choice. My hon. Friends the Members for Taunton (Mr. Flook) and for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds) both raised valid points with regard to their constituencies and spoke about the benefits of improving and enhancing the national health service through the independence of foundation hospitals.
  My right hon. and hon. Friends had the pleasure—I suppose that it could be described as such—of listening to classic Liberal speeches. At one point, the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) had the audacity to complain that the Government were

  271
  trying to have things both ways. For a party that wants first one thing and then something else, I found his gall and nerve staggering.
  We now turn to the Labour party. In his Fabian Society speech last year, the Secretary of State said:
  "Nye Bevan's shadow hangs over every Health Secretary, especially Labour Health Secretaries."
  What would Nye Bevan have thought of the contributions from the Government Benches? Throughout the whole debate, notwithstanding the keenness of the Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Foreign Office, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale), the spectre of old Labour has been lurking with menace on the Labour Back Benches.
  The Secretary of State already had an inkling of what he could expect as he has no doubt seen early-day motion 351, which was signed by more than 100 of his right hon. and hon. Friends. That early-day motion includes some interesting names; not only the usual suspects—to use Whips' parlance—but 13 former Ministers, including two former Secretaries of State, one of whom was Secretary of State for Health and the boss of the current Secretary of State. Amazingly, the list includes the name of a former Deputy Chief Whip, which suggests that the gamekeeper has finally turned poacher.
  What is the cause of so many problems to a quarter of the parliamentary Labour party? The early-day motion notes
  "with concern the intention by Government to introduce foundation hospitals, which would create a two-tier…system".
  That is a significant accusation, especially as the Secretary of State himself—in his speech to the Fabian Society—stated:
  "A one nation Britain cannot be built on two-tier health care."
  Sadly, the Government's proposals set the framework for a two-tier system, although not for the reasons given by those who signed the early-day motion, but because they would allow only a small group of 34 three-star hospitals to apply for foundation status, rather than all hospitals. By that act, the Secretary of State will indeed set hospital against hospital and will create the two-tier system that so many of his hon. Friends do not want.
  The contributions of Labour Members were interesting. I give credit to the Government Whips Office. There were speeches in support of the Government. I was interested, albeit slightly perplexed, when I heard the contribution made by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh). She spoke from her brief—adequately. I was not convinced that she fully understood what she was saying but she did the business.
  Rather like Nelson turning his blind eye to the telescope, the hon. Member for Wimbledon—a loyal PPS—had the audacity to reassure the House that there was no validity in the claims that the Labour party was divided on the issue. The hon. Gentleman cannot have been reading the newspapers or early-day motions, or listening to the remarks made by some of his right hon. and hon. Friends during the past month.
  Roger Casale: I said that there was a debate and that it is right that there should be such a debate, but that
  272
  there was no division about the fundamental values and principles of the NHS, by contrast with the clear divisions in the Tory party.
  Mr. Burns: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman; that intervention really has clarified the situation.
  The hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) supports the Government, but if the narrow party political points are stripped from his speech, I give him credit for an extremely interesting and positive contribution on the whole subject of foundation hospitals. The House will have benefited from that, and I look forward to working with him on the Health Committee when we consider the whole issue of foundation hospitals.
  The hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) gave what can best be described as grudging support for the proposal, but support it was. Finally, the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) made an excellent and classic speech of opposition to a policy. I did not agree with the points that he made, but I respected his clarity and his commitment to his point of view. What particularly interested me, given that, just over two years ago, he was a senior member of the Government, was that he had the courage to accuse this Government and No. 10 of being Maoist. He was wrong, because, immediately, the Secretary of State—I am surprised that he is so knowledgeable, or I was before the matter was researched further—claimed that the correct description was Trotskyist, not Maoist. I wondered why he had such an intimate knowledge of the matter, until I realised that, in the early 1980s, before he joined the Labour party in 1983, he shared a house with local members of the International Marxist Group—of which he was not a member, I hasten to add, so as not to slander him—and he was active in Newcastle in a left-wing bookshop called "Days of Hope". I am sure that he will be able to tell the House the pseudonym of that shop. We then heard the contribution of the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), who remained a trenchant critic of the Government's proposals.
  Those Members are the tip of the iceberg of their more than 100 colleagues who are wedded to the idea that what is best for the improvement and enhancement of the national health service should not go ahead, because they are locked in a time warp of an ideology and philosophy and an archaic realisation of needs. Society has moved on, as have the demands of the national service. As my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) said at the beginning of the debate, we welcome the principle of foundation hospitals. That principle will provide freedom and diversity in the provision of health care, and will significantly advance patient care. While we favour the principle of foundation hospitals, we believe that freedoms for hospitals to borrow and set their own priorities should be given to all hospitals and not simply to a chosen few at the outset. That is the way forward, and that is the way in which the Government should move forward. The principle should be universal.
  The Secretary of State and the Prime Minister should have the courage of their convictions:
  "At our best when at our boldest."
  That was what the Prime Minister proudly proclaimed at the Labour party conference last year. If the Government really wish to be bold, they should not seek

  273
  to limit the number of foundation hospitals or the principles underpinning them. That is not boldness but timidity and weakness. I would have hoped that the message would strike a chord with the Secretary of State. In a speech to the new health network a year ago, he said:
  "For patient choice to thrive it needs a different environment. One in which there is greater diversity and plurality in local services which have the freedom to innovate and respond to patients needs."
  He went on to say that he would be the man who would redefine the national health service,
  "changing it from a monolithic, centrally run, monopoly provider of services to a values based system"
  with
  "different health care providers in the public, private and voluntary sectors."
  I suspect that I am more in agreement with the Secretary of State than are many of his colleagues.
  To take the Secretary of State's rhetoric to its logical conclusion, he should not pass up the opportunity to be bold, as the Prime Minister so proudly proclaimed. He should allow all hospitals to seek foundation status from the outset. The trouble is that his announcements so far smack of fudge surrounded by confusion. Sadly, the publication of "A Guide to NHS Foundation Trusts" has added little clarity.
  We have found during this debate, starting with the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring and continuing with the remarks of almost every Conservative Member who has spoken, as well as some Labour Members, that there is confusion about exactly what the Government intend to do. The framework and guidelines that have been provided are full of glib expressions and do not give details about how free hospital trusts will be. What powers will they have? What will they be able to do with their money and with the funds that they borrow? We must have greater clarity and detail on those matters before we can be expected to sign up to a principle to which we are not opposed.
  I urge the Secretary of State to make available as soon as possible, preferably before the Committee stage of any legislation that emanates from his Department, the details that have been requested during the debate, so that we know exactly what the Government are doing. We need to know whether the reality of what they are planning will live up to their rhetoric. For that reason, I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to join me in the Lobby tonight in support of the motion tabled by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and other colleagues.
  6.42 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): I warmly congratulate all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken in what the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) was right to describe as a very good debate. We have heard excellent speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber, all of them certainly delivered with passion and conviction.
  There have been strong speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), for
  274
  Putney (Mr. Colman), for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor), for Leigh (Andy Burnham), for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) and for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) in support of the Government's intention to create NHS foundation trusts, and I welcome that support. A number of perfectly fair and reasonable concerns have also been raised by some of my right hon. and hon. Friends. Those concerns are valid; I understand them, and I shall deal with them in a moment.
  Our debate started with the contribution from the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox). It was his usual dismal diatribe of doom and gloom, which has become familiar to all of us in the House because we have come to know what his real objectives are. They are, first, to undermine the NHS rather than to support it and, secondly, to characterise the brilliant work done by staff, day in day out, as failure rather than success. It was clear to us all that the hon. Gentleman was too embarrassed to talk about his party's policies on the NHS because he knows just how unsavoury the British public will find them.
  The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) also made a familiar contribution. It was genuinely hard to see what reforms his party favours that would genuinely help to improve NHS performance. With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, I have to say that I found his contribution utterly incoherent, and it was one of his better ones. He has come to propagate an excuse culture, not a problem-solving one. He has nothing to say of any relevance.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) made a very effective speech. He will know that I have huge respect for him, and I enjoyed enormously the time that I spent working with him as one of his junior Ministers. However, I have to say to him and to the House that I think that he is fundamentally wrong in his view of foundation trusts and about our intention behind introducing these proposals. I shall return to his comments and to those of my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean) in a few moments.
  The right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) is a distinguished former Secretary of State for Health and he made a skilful and careful speech. However, I would be interested to hear his views about his party's policies on health. As they have emerged over the past few weeks, I cannot bring myself to believe that he has any support whatever for the varied contributions that we have heard from those on the Opposition Front Bench recently. I assure him that foundation trusts will be a new type of institution and not another vehicle for state ownership.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) will not mind my saying this, but I listened to his speech and I genuinely feel that he might be open to persuasion about the merits of foundation NHS trusts. I very much look forward to working on him—or rather with him—to convert that indication of implicit support into more concrete support in the future.
  Although this point was made by a number of right hon. and hon. Members, I do not believe that the establishment of NHS foundation trusts will or should undermine primary care or the role of primary care

  275
  trusts as the commissioners of local health care services. Exactly the opposite can be the case. I shall refer to that again in a second.
  The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) believes heroically and against all the odds and evidence that the Tories would stick to this Government's health budgets if they ever returned to office. Of course, that is a pledge that none of his Front-Bench spokesmen has been able or willing to make. I suspect that we will wait long and hard before we hear such a commitment from anyone who speaks for the Tories on health. The right hon. Gentleman talked about his commitment to ensuring maximum democratic involvement in the local NHS, and I welcome that support. The only problem that we have with that comment is that I can never recall him doing anything about it when he had the opportunity to do so in all his long years in government. I suspect that we will therefore probably treat his support with a hefty pinch of salt.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central made local accountability the main theme of his speech. I welcome his comments on that. He graciously said in relation to the speech of the right hon. Member for Wokingham that he remembered the time that the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State for Wales. I remember it too. I hate to bring it up—the right hon. Gentleman probably cringes every time this is referred to—but I remember his singing the Welsh national anthem. I have to be honest and say that I have no idea what the words are, but it was probably not a pleasant experience for him or for the rest of us. Let us not dwell on that any longer.
  The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) made an impassioned speech. By his own admission, it was a rare foray into our debates in the House on health. I will not say anything more about that, but his support for his local NHS would probably count for a lot more if he were prepared to support the extra investment that the Government are putting into it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden made an excellent speech, and I congratulate her on her ambition for the NHS. It is one that we share in government. My hon. Friend the Member for Putney also made a very useful contribution, emphasising the need for the Department to continue to deal with the performance of poorly performing hospitals. We will certainly continue to do that.
  The hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) made a contribution that was essentially a long string of criticisms, so no change there. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South made a powerful speech and I warmly congratulate her on her contribution. In a telling phrase about the NHS, she said that we should not mistake a legacy for a monument. She is absolutely right. If that is her own comment, I shall quickly grab the copyright because I want to use that phrase in some of my speeches.
  The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) talked at length about internal health policy documents that had been produced by the Liberal Democrats. She helpfully proceeded to read most of them out. In the process, she did not really have anyone listening to her.
  276
  Her contribution and those of the hon. Members for Taunton (Mr. Flook) and for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds) showed that none of them had actually read the Government's proposal to establish NHS foundation trusts. They raised a number of questions. I shall simply send them the document so that they can find the answers for themselves.
  Labour Members are agreed on the need for extra investment in the NHS so that we build up the capacity of our public health care system, putting right decades of neglect, as many of my hon. Friends said. As a result of the action that we are taking, the NHS is the fastest growing health care system in Europe. By contrast, the Opposition oppose the investment in the NHS. They prefer the route of subsidising private health insurance, of top-up vouchers for those who can afford to go private and, we now discover, of 20 per cent. across-the-board cuts in public expenditure.
  Mr. Burns: Before the Minister continues to perpetuate a myth, the 20 per cent. cut relates to cuts in administrators, bureaucrats, spin doctors, clerical staff and public relations managers so that the money is spent on health care.
  Mr. Hutton: What a load of cobblers. The people the hon. Gentleman describes as managers are cooks, cleaners and porters. If he wants to sack those people from the NHS, it will be interesting to hear his proposition expounded.
  Six years in opposition and all we get is the old Thatcherite agenda. No wonder there is talk among sensible Conservatives—there are still one or two of them—about getting rid of the Leader of the Opposition. Labour Members agree on the need for the Department of Health to continue to take action to deal with poor performance and poor management in NHS hospitals. We do that because we are absolutely committed to a universal and comprehensive health care system. We will not tolerate or make excuses, as others would, for poor performance anywhere in the NHS. By contrast, the Tories and the Liberals are opposed to that intervention. They have opposed the national standards that we have established, they have complained about the new inspectorate to monitor performance and the Tories opposed the establishment of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, which has helped to tackle the postcode lottery that we inherited.
  Dr. Fox: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Hutton: No.
  The Opposition are wrong on the great issue of principle that should govern the debate about health care in our country, and so they are wrong on the detail of the reforms that are needed to improve the NHS. That is the Tory record on health and it is how we should judge their performance today.
  The Tories have nothing sensible to say about the future of the NHS. That should not come as a surprise to Labour Members. The truth is that under the Tories, the NHS does not have a future. That is clear from everything they said today and what the hon. Member for Woodspring spelt out last year. The Government, however, believe in the NHS. It can become the service

  277
  that we want it to be, offering more choice to patients over where and when they are treated, greater access to higher quality care and faster, more convenient treatment.
  Mr. Andrew Turner: If the Minister is in favour of those things, will he explain why my constituents who need cardiac treatment were told a year ago that they could not go to King Edward VII hospital, Midhurst, which would treat them quickly? Instead, they were sent to Brighton, which delays their treatment and takes longer. Indeed, Brighton is now sending them back to Midhurst after a six-month wait. Is not that an absurdity?
  Mr. Hutton: What is absurd is the fact that the hon. Gentleman complains about the shortage of capacity in the NHS, but will not vote for the means to redress those problems. Until he does, we are not interested in anything he has to say.
  Three basic concerns have been raised about foundation trusts. Some hon. Members argued for no more change in the NHS. They thought that we should maintain uniformity across the NHS, in terms of both structures and performance and operation. That is very much the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras made. Some hon. Members argued that unless there is such uniformity, there will be competition rather than co-operation across the NHS and ultimately a two-tier health care system. They drew attention in particular to staff recruitment, financial freedoms and the commissioning process. Others, however, put forward a different argument. They were not opposed to the principle of NHS foundation trusts and wanted the freedoms intended for them extended to all NHS trusts at the same time. Several Conservative Members made that point.
  Finally, concerns have been expressed that the freedoms we are proposing for NHS foundation trusts are not extensive enough, and that the Government should be prepared to go even further than they have already proposed to do.
  In relation to the first of those three main areas of concern, it is important that all my right hon. and hon. Friends bear it in mind that NHS foundation trusts will be an integral part of the NHS. They will be set up to provide NHS services according to NHS principles and NHS standards. They will work under a clear statutory duty of partnership with other NHS organisations. NHS care will remain free at the point of use. As for pay and the terms and conditions under which staff will work, all the candidates for NHS foundation trust status will be signed up to implement the new NHS pay system.
  Borrowing can be fairly and properly managed through the new prudential borrowing code, which will be operated by the independent regulator. That will prevent any explosion in unsustainable borrowing, or any unfair redistribution of capital borrowing across the system. In addition, we will establish proper safeguards around the use of public assets to protect the public interest.
  The details will be set out in the forthcoming Bill, but our intention is crystal clear. NHS foundation trusts will be an addition to the NHS family, not a subtraction
  278
  from it. They will strengthen public ownership, not weaken it. They will help to encourage local delivery of high-quality services by giving greater power and responsibility to local staff and local people. In doing all those things, NHS foundation trusts will help to sustain public support for NHS values and NHS principles.
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has repeatedly made clear, establishing NHS foundation trusts will not diminish our efforts to support poorly performing hospitals to improve their performance. On the contrary, we remain absolutely committed to improving the services provided in every NHS hospital at the fastest possible rate. Establishing NHS foundation trusts will not deflect us from that objective. No NHS hospital in any part of the country will simply be left to sink or swim—that is the Tory approach. Action will be taken to improve standards where that is necessary, but where standards are already high, Whitehall should be prepared to stand back and let local staff and management get on with the job at hand. That is the principle that underlies our approach.
  That is the right approach, but it is equally right that we should look again at the historical model of public ownership in health. Why should public ownership be synonymous with state control? A model that was right for 1948 cannot, for that reason alone, continue to command unquestioning support today. It is right that we aim to design a new model that can genuinely enhance the concept of public ownership, the values of public service and the principle of democratic accountability. That is what NHS foundation trusts are designed to do.
  That is precisely why we have made our proposals. We can carry them out in a way that will entrench and deepen the concept of public ownership in our society, not undermine it in the way that some have suggested. In my view, a model of public ownership in which the public feel they do not own anything at all, which is our present model, does more to undermine the concept of public property and public service than anything else, and makes it easier for the privatisers on the Conservative Benches, if they ever get into power again, to realise their aspiration to sell off the NHS. We can and should look to other models of public ownership, drawing on the experience of mutual and co-operative societies as a way forward. Those are good Labour traditions and I believe that we can apply them successfully to the NHS.
  Let me make three brief comments on the second argument advanced today. First, we should begin the reforms in the right place and we should start them carefully. There is a judgment call to be made—I accept that—but I think it sensible to consider the best performing hospitals as the first possible candidates for NHS foundation trust status. They have an established track record of outstanding performance, so they are the logical and prudent starting point for the reforms—but others can follow. There will be no arbitrary limit on the number of trusts that can become an NHS foundation trust—the more, the better.
  Secondly, to separate the proposed new ownership model from the freedoms that we propose should accompany it would create a formula for confusion.

  279
  With our proposed new model of ownership for NHS foundation trusts should come new responsibility. If poorly performing hospitals—
  David Maclean rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Mr. Speaker: Is the Minister finished?
  Mr. Hutton indicated assent.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 144, Noes 381.

  Division No. 42]

  [6:59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Flook, Adrian

  Amess, David

  Fox, Dr. Liam

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Garnier, Edward

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Bacon, Richard

  Goodman, Paul

  Baldry, Tony

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Barker, Gregory

  Grayling, Chris

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Greenway, John

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Bellingham, Henry

  Gummer, rh John

  Bercow, John

  Hague, rh William

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Hammond, Philip

  Blunt, Crispin

  Hawkins, Nick

  Boswell, Tim

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Heald, Oliver

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Hendry, Charles

  Brady, Graham

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Burns, Simon

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Burnside, David

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Burt, Alistair

  Hunter, Andrew

  Butterfill, John

  Jack, rh Michael

  Cameron, David

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Cash, William

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Chope, Christopher

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Clappison, James

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Leigh, Edward

  Collins, Tim

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Conway, Derek

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Curry, rh David

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

  Lidington, David

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Mclntosh, Miss Anne

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Dorrell, rh Stephen

  Maclean, rh David

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Duncan Smith, rh lain

  Maples, John

  Evans, Nigel

  Mates, Michael

  Fabricant, Michael

  Maude, rh Francis

  Fallon, Michael

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Flight, Howard

  Moss, Malcolm

  280

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Norman, Archie

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Spring, Richard

  Page, Richard

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Paice, James

  Streeter, Gary

  Paterson, Owen

  Swayne, Desmond

  Pickles, Eric

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Syms, Robert

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Randall, John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Redwood, rh John

  Tredinnick, David

  Robathan, Andrew

  Trend, Michael

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Viggers, Peter

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Watkinson, Angela

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Whittingdale, John

  Ruffley, David

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Wiggin, Bill

  Selous, Andrew

  Willetts, David

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Shepherd, Richard

  Young, rh Sir George

  Simmonds, Mark

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Mr. Mark Francois and

  Soames, Nicholas

  Mr. David Wilshire

  NOES

  Abbott Ms Diane

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Burden, Richard

  Ainger, Nick

  Burgon, Colin

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Burnham, Andy

  Alexander, Douglas

  Burstow, Paul

  Allan, Richard

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Allen, Graham

  Cairns, David

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Caplin, Ivor

  Austin, John

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Bailey, Adrian

  Casale, Roger

  Baird, Vera

  Caton, Martin

  Barnes, Harry

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Barrett, John

  Challen, Colin

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Battle, John

  Chidgey, David

  Bayley, Hugh

  Clapham, Michael

  Beard, Nigel

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Bell, Stuart

  Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

  Benn, Hilary

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Bennett, Andrew

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Clelland, David

  Berry, Roger

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Best, Harold

  Coaker, Vernon

  Betts, Clive

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Blackman, Liz

  Cohen, Harry

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Colman, Tony

  Blizzard, Bob

  Connarty, Michael

  Borrow, David

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Corston, Jean

  Breed, Colin

  Cotter, Brian

  Brennan, Kevin

  Cousins, Jim

  Brown, rh Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Cox, Tom (Tooting)

  Cranston, hon. Ross

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Crausby, David

  Browne, Desmond

  Cruddas, Jon

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Bryant, Chris

  Cummings, John

  281

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

  Heyes, David

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Hodge, Margaret

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Holmes, Paul

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  David, Wayne

  Davidson, Ian

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Denham, rh John

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Hutton, rh John

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Illsley, Eric

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Doran, Frank

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

  Doughty, Sue

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Jamieson, David

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Jenkins, Brian

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Edwards, Huw

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Efford, Clive

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Fisher, Mark

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Flint, Caroline

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Follett, Barbara

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Foster, rh Derek

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Gapies, Mike (llford S)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Khabra, Piara S.

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Kidney, David

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Gilroy, Linda

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Godsiff, Roger

  Lamb, Norman

  Goggins, Paul

  Lammy, David

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Grogan, John

  Lepper, David

  Hain, rh Peter

  Leslie, Christopher

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Linton, Martin

  Hancock, Mike

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Hanson, David

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  Love, Andrew

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Harvey, Nick

  McCabe, Stephen

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  McCafferty, Chris

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Healey, John

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Heath, David

  McDonnell, John

  Hendrick, Mark

  MacDougall, John

  Hepburn, Stephen

  McFall, John

  Heppell, John

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Hermon, Lady

  Mclsaac, Shona

  282

  McKechin, Ann

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McNulty, Tony

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  MacShane, Denis

  Ruddock, Joan

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  McWilliam, John

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Mallaber, Judy

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Salter, Martin

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Sheridan, Jim

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Martlew, Eric

  Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

  Michael, rh Alun

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Skinner, Dennis

  Miliband, David

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Miller, Andrew

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Mole, Chris

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Moore, Michael

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Morgan, Julie

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau G went)

  Morley, Elliot

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

  Morris, rh Estelle

  Mountford, Kali

  Soley, Clive

  Mudie, George

  Southworth, Helen

  Mullin, Chris

  Spellar, rh John

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Squire, Rachel

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Olner, Bill

  Stunell, Andrew

  O'Neill, Martin

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Owen, Albert

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Picking, Anne

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Plaskitt, James

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Timms, Stephen

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Trickett, Jon

  Prescott, rh John

  Truswell, Paul

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Purchase, Ken

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Purnell, James

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Rammell, Bill

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Watts, David

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  White, Brian

  Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N & Bellshill)

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Rendel, David

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Willis, Phil

  283

  Wills, Michael

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Winnick, David

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Woodward, Shaun

  Woolas, Phil

  Worthington, Tony

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

  Mr. Jim Murphy and

  Charlotte Atkins

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—
  The House divided: Ayes 282, Noes 150.

  Division No. 43]

  [7:14 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Ainger, Nick

  Clelland, David

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Alexander, Douglas

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Allen, Graham

  Cohen, Harry

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Colman, Tony

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Corston, Jean

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Cousins, Jim

  Austin, John

  Cox, Tom (Tooting)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Cranston, hon. Ross

  Baird, Vera

  Crausby, David

  Barnes, Harry

  Cruddas, Jon

  Barren, rh Kevin

  Cummings, John

  Battle, John

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Beard, Nigel

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Bell, Stuart

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Benn, Hilary

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Bennett, Andrew

  David, Wayne

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Davidson, Ian

  Berry, Roger

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Betts, Clive

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Blackman, Liz

  Dawson, Hilton

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Denham, rh John

  Blizzard, Bob

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Borrow, David

  Dismore, Andrew

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Doran, Frank

  Brennan, Kevin

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Brown, rh Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Edwards, Huw

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Browne, Desmond

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Bryant, Chris

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Flint, Caroline

  Burden, Richard

  Follett, Barbara

  Burnham, Andy

  Foster, rh Derek

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Cairns, David

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Gardiner, Barry

  Casale, Roger

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  Caton, Martin

  Gilroy, Linda

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Challen, Colin

  Goggins, Paul

  Chapman, Ben (WirralS)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Grogan, John

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hain, rh Peter

  Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  284

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Hanson, David

  Martlew, Eric

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  Michael, rh Alun

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Healey, John

  Miliband, David

  Hendrick, Mark

  Miller, Andrew

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Heppell, John

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hermon, Lady

  Mole, Chris

  Heyes, David

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Morgan, Julie

  Hodge, Margaret

  Morley, Elliot

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Morris, rh Estelle

  Mountford, Kali

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Mullin, Chris

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

  Hutton, rh John

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Illsley, Eric

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jamieson, David

  Olner, Bill

  Jenkins, Brian

  O'Neill, Martin

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Plaskitt, James

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Prescott, rh John

  Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Kemp, Fraser

  Purchase, Ken

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Purnell, James

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Kidney, David

  Quinn, Lawrie

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Rammell, Bill

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N & Bellshill)

  Lammy, David

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  Lepper, David

  Leslie, Christopher

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Ruddock, Joan

  Linton, Martin

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

  Love, Andrew

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Salter, Martin

  McCabe, Stephen

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Shaw, Jonathan

  MacDougall, John

  Sheerman, Barry

  McFall, John

  Sheridan, Jim

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

  McKechin, Ann

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

  McNulty, Tony

  MacShane, Denis

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  McWilliam, John

  Soley, Clive

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Southworth, Helen

  Mallaber, Judy

  Spellar, rh John

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Squire, Rachel

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  285

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  White, Brian

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Wills, Michael

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Winnick, David

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Timms, Stephen

  Woodward, Shaun

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Woolas, Phil

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Worthington, Tony

  Trickett, Jon

  Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Mr. Jim Murphy and

  Watts, David

  Charlotte Atkins

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Amess, David

  Goodman, Paul

  An cram, rh Michael

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Grayling, Chris

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Greenway, John

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Bacon, Richard

  Gummer, rh John

  Baldry, Tony

  Hague, rh William

  Barker, Gregory

  Hammond, Philip

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Hancock, Mike

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Belllingham, Henry

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Bercow, John

  Heald, Oliver

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Blunt, Crispin

  Hendry, Charles

  Boswell, Tim

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Brady, Graham

  Hunter, Andrew

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Jack, rh Michael

  Burns, Simon

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Burnside, David

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Burt, Alistair

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Butterfill, John

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Carneron, David

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Cash, William

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Leigh, Edward

  Chope, Christopher

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Clappison, James

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Lidington, David

  Collins, Tim

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Conway, Derek

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Curry, rh David

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

  Mclntosh, Miss Anne

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Maclean, rh David

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Maples, John

  Dorrell, rh Stephen

  Mates, Michael

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Maude, rh Francis

  Duncan Smith, rh lain

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Evans, Nigel

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Fallon, Michael

  Moss, Malcolm

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Norman, Archie

  Flight, Howard

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Flook, Adrian

  Ottaway, Richard

  Fox, Dr. Liam

  Page, Richard

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Paice, James

  Garnier, Edward

  Paterson, Owen

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Pickles, Eric

  286

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Streeter, Gary

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Syms, Robert

  Randall, John

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Redwood, rh John

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Tredinnick, David

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Trend, Michael

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Ruffley, David

  Viggers, Peter

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Waterson, Nigel

  Selous, Andrew

  Watkinson, Angela

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Whittingdale, John

  Shepherd, Richard

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Simmonds, Mark

  Wiggin, Bill

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Willetts, David

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Young, rh Sir George

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Spring, Richard

  Mr. David Wilshire and

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Mr. Mark Francois

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House welcomes the principle of NHS Foundation Trusts as part of the Government's wider programme to improve services for NHS patients; believes that NHS Foundation Trusts must be part of the National Health Service providing care to NHS patients according to NHS principles and subject to NHS standards and inspection; further believes that there should be no arbitrary cap on the numbers of NHS Foundation Trusts and that all NHS hospitals should get the help, support or intervention they need to improve; recognises that extra resources for the health service are delivering improved services for NHS patients and have to be matched with reforms so that standards in the NHS are national but control is local; supports the Government's efforts to devolve power to frontline services and to strengthen accountability to local communities; and rejects any proposal to introduce top-up vouchers for private treatment, tax subsidies for private medical insurance or cuts in public spending of 20 per cent. in view of the inevitable impact that such policies would have on NHS patients including those treated in NHS Foundation Trusts.

  PETITION

    Natural Health Products
    7.27 pm
    Mr. Patrick Hall: I have pleasure in presenting a petition signed by 320 people on behalf of my constituent, Isabel Wood-Ayub, proprietor of the Pumpernickel health food store in Bedford.
    The petition states:
    To the House of Commons
    The petition of Consumers for Health Choice and its supporters declares that consumers in the United Kingdom have for many years maintained good health by choosing to take safe vitamin and mineral supplements and herbal remedies; and fears that the European Food Supplements Directive and the Proposed European Directive on Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products would severely restrict the number and range of such products on general sale in the future.

    287
    The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons requires that the Secretary of State for Health does all in his power to protect the rights of UK consumers by ensuring that such European legislation does not unnecessarily and unacceptably restrict the availability of natural health products.
    And The Petitioners Remain, Etc.
    To lie upon the Table.

    Autism Services
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Joan Ryan.]
    7.28 pm
    Mrs. Patsy Calton: I am grateful for the opportunity to bring this issue to the House so soon after the end of international autism awareness year. Important contributions have been made by speakers in earlier debates, and I have read the remarks of the hon. Members for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), for Ilford, North (Linda Perham), for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) and for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), who is chairman of the all-party group. Although I fully recognise the advances made last year, the guidelines on good practice, the good practice in many places and the Government's increased disability funding, there are still families who have extreme difficulty in accessing and obtaining the services that they need.
    Autism is more usually referred to these days as ASD—autistic spectrum disorders—and that term covers a number of conditions. People with ASD range from those who may have a learning disability, to those with average or above average intelligence. The condition may be linked to other disabilities and conditions. Despite their wide-ranging differences, everyone with ASD has difficulty with social interaction, social communication and imagination. It is estimated to affect more than 500,000 families in the United Kingdom. One in 86 children are thought to have ASD, but only one in 152 schoolchildren have had a formal diagnosis.
    There is little understanding about what causes ASD, but it is likely that genetic predisposition and environmental factors are both involved. No medication can correct the condition, but there is evidence that dietary changes can assist in some cases. It may be that biochemical differences, based on fatty acid metabolism or sulphate levels, provide a partial scientific explanation for differences in membranes and chemical transmitters involved in neural functioning. Interesting articles on the subject may be found in The Nutrition Practitioner, volume 3.3, dated November 2001, and in the You! edition of 25 February 2001.
    The National Autistic Society provides services, support and information to its 11,000 members. I am grateful for the briefing that it provided to me, and for the many references to the "ignored or ineligible", which were also kindly sent to me by the all-party group. A common theme mentioned by the NAS and other organisations is that although the conditions are increasingly being diagnosed, the provision of any sort of diagnosis depends on where one lives. Moreover, services after diagnosis are patchy, incomplete or non-existent.
    The NAS says:
    "Unfortunately, the likelihood of a child obtaining a diagnosis of autism is very much dependent on where they live…Without an accurate early diagnosis, children with ASD are likely to receive inadequate provision, leaving their special needs unmet. It is vital for families to receive early support from outside as soon as possible. This reduces stress within the family and enables them to understand and support the needs of their child."
    I would add that that is particularly important in cases where parents themselves may be undiagnosed with ASD. The national initiative for autism screening and

    289
    assessment—shortened to NIASA—consists of a panel of health and education professionals who aim to address the challenge of screening diagnosis and early intervention for children with autism. The NAS says that it is crucial that the Government fully support NIASA, and that they ensure that it is rolled out to benefit all children with autism, wherever they live.
    There are sound economic reasons for the country to take this condition seriously. Health economists have estimated an average lifetime cost to the state of £2.93 million per person with autism. The rising numbers being identified make a compelling financial argument for the provision of services to facilitate employment and independent living for this group.
    On Monday of this week, I visited a resource school in my constituency. The head teacher described how a young boy with ASD had had his potential "unlocked" with appropriate teaching. The NAS says that LEAs should plan to train all teachers, assistants and specialist professionals in the awareness and understanding of autism, as part of the accessibility planning duty introduced by the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001. However, teaching with trained teachers and assistants, important as it is, is not enough. Families will often need ongoing health care and social care support, and it is rare to find this offered as a streamlined service. They will need transition planning as their children start school, when they move to secondary school, and as they leave school.
    I want to pay tribute to a constituent of mine, Mr. Carroll, who has fought every inch of the way to gain appropriate provision for his seven-year-old son, and support for his family. He is not there yet. I asked for this debate because he brought this condition to my attention, because I know how difficult things are for him and his family, and because I know how difficult things will be for others, some of whom will lack Mr. Carroll's determination.
    I want to quote from a letter that I received from Mr. Carroll. I cannot quote all of it, as it runs to four pages, even though it covers only the six months from June last year. Mr. Carroll has written many letters and been in communication with many people, and is simply unable to access the services that his son needs.
    The letter begins by referring to letters written in 2002, dated 13 June, 16 October, 6 November, 18 November, 18 December, 19 December, and 23 December. That indicates how much Mr. Carroll and his family are having to do. He talks about the difficulty of obtaining specialist health service appointments, and says that he has not been able to get an appointment since June. He writes:
    "To clarify our situation we would like to, again, list our child's, and our, difficulties.
    Alexander is the second child of 3"—
    the family actually has a new baby as well—
    "and suffers from severe autism. The difficulties we have are associated with his autism and health".
    Those difficulties are:
    "Very poor sleep. Alex disturbs the family sleeping, he is hard work to get to sleep."
    290
    Mr. Carroll goes on to describe a range of typical behaviours associated with severe autism, and a range of other related problems:
    "Alexander needs a very high level of care to keep himself clean…but we his parents need help and advice on how to manage his behaviour, health, sleep patterns etc.
    We currently get no help with this.
    Also, although we now have a Social Worker for Alex (after a battle) we and Alex have not yet obtained any services for him ie outreach, referrals, respite, etc."
    Alexander was described on 12 June 2002 by his consultant as having "severe autism" and "difficulties of poor sleep." Mr. Carroll says:
    "the family are worn out."
    There then followed difficulties because Alexander was not being properly followed up with a range of medications. The medications do not work but Mr. Carroll has not able to access the people with whom he needs to speak because the medication—Melatonin—can be prescribed only by a consultant. If the consultant cannot be accessed, the medication cannot be changed. The letter contains a page of problems to do with the medication.
    Mr. Carroll says that the family by chance heard of sleep clinics through the health centre. This was mentioned to the GP, who said that Alexander had to be referred to a child psychiatrist to access the service. He has not been able to get to a child psychiatrist, so he has not been able to access the service.
    Mr. Carroll writes that he needs immediate help from a psychiatrist or psychologist
    "to help us and Alexander to manage his problems and to discuss our difficulties with."
    Mr. Carroll goes on to say that he has been referred to another hospital in Manchester, but has been told that that hospital cannot treat Alexander because he should be treated by his home hospital. That home hospital then wrote another letter to say that the Manchester hospital might be willing to see Alexander if a referral was made. That shows how the matter is being sent backwards and forwards all the time.
    Mr. Carroll says that he has written to ask how he can get in touch with a child psychiatrist as he needs
    "help and advice and referrals to appropriate clinics/consultants ie sleep clinics, gene specialists, hormone specialists etc. This help is needed now and our son and family should not be denied the services we require!"
    The family has received a leaflet from Alexander's school about the Treehouse centre in Stockport. Their GP made a referral, but the family has heard nothing yet. Mr. Carroll says:
    "We are very disappointed that information on this service has not been volunteered to us…Why hasn't any health professional brought this to our attention?…We are concerned about the medicines being prescribed to Alexander, as nothing seems to work, if anything they seem to have the opposite effect…We are fully aware, (as our MP…is) that there are no specific autism services in Stockport, and haven't been for some time now."
    He talks about another two letters that he has had to write. He says:
    "On that note, as Alexander already has a diagnosis why…the CAMHS team not been involved, is it because they are not aware of Alex? (he is on the database!)"

    291
    The letter is heartbreaking because it shows the sort of difficulties that the family suffer.
    Mr. David Tredinnick: The hon. Lady kindly asked me to support her in this debate, and I am happy to do so. I suggested to her and the Minister that there are three key issues here. There must be better coordination among the agencies at county level. Secondly, there needs to be better evaluation of the existing treatments, particularly dietary treatments and assessments of the effects of vitamin C, vitamin B6 and magnesium and some of the specialist treatments. Thirdly, given the hon. Lady's eloquent plea on behalf of her constituent and the work that has been done on both sides of the House, does she agree that the Government should now take a more direct interest in these problems?
    Mrs. Calton: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention. Of course I agree that the situation cannot be allowed to continue, for my constituent or for others.
    I have permission to read a letter from the constituent's general practitioner to the chief executive in Stockport. The GP says:
    "I should like to complain in the strongest terms about the apparent lack of help and advice with regard to child and adolescent psychiatry in the Stockport area. I write on behalf of my patient…who is aged 8 and suffers with Autism. (There have been several other cases that would benefit from a referral to the service, however Alex is the most severe and pressing problem.)
    For the last 3–4 years he has presented his parents with severe problems with regard to sleep disturbance and the parents are getting to the limit of their tolerance. I have referred him twice in the last 12 months to CAMHS and to the Tree House…and according to Father there have been no appointments coming forth.
    In this situation, the family and primary medical care services need help and assistance from secondary care units and it is completely unacceptable that this service is absent or lacking in the Stockport area."
    I wrote to the chief executive of the acute trust in November and received a reply just a day or so ago. He acknowledges:
    "Services for children with Autism Spectrum Disorders are probably not comprehensively co-ordinated—they are scattered throughout Health, Education, SS and Voluntary and Independent Sector."
    He says that a task group has been set up but it is still at the stage of scoping.
    Where does this lead us? First, early diagnosis is clearly needed. Secondly, support, like the Early Bird and Help services from the National Autistic Society and Portage, which is available through some local authorities, needs to be there to support and educate parents immediately the diagnosis is made. Parents need the support to help them help themselves.
    Thirdly, the family needs a named person to assist them to access the package of services required by the family. Local authorities should establish a clear route for families to access support. Services and support at an early age will increase the person's likelihood of living independently when older and contributing positively to the community.
    292
    Fourthly, the child needs to be educated in an environment that is autism-aware and responsive to the needs of individual children. There needs to be recognition that those with Asperger's syndrome who are not learning-disabled nevertheless have significant needs.
    Fifthly, transition planning should be in place in a timely fashion. All Connexions personal advisers should receive training in autism spectrum disorders. Joint Department for Education and Skills and Department of Health guidance should be issued to social services departments highlighting their responsibility to all young people with ASD during transition.
    A great deal is happening in Stockport. Some 146 young people are on the award-winning disability database. It is run by a friend of mine, Elaine Mounter, who received a "Getting the Message Across" award in the House of Lords before Christmas. That work is excellent, but she tells me that families still fear the lack of respite care and the transition to secondary and further education. Too often, they are sent out of area, which costs more and leads to the statutory agencies battling it out over who pays—while the family waits. There is too little supported housing. The voluntary agencies cannot meet all the needs for respite and short-term care. Supported leisure activities or activity-based breaks can prevent the crisis that happens when the family is worn down by the condition of autism.
    The National Autistic Society tells us that current services for disabled adults are not designed with autism in mind. People with ASD fall between learning disability and mental health teams. Only 38 per cent, of adults with ASD receive a community care assessment and of those only 45 per cent, receive the services specified as needed. People with Asperger's but without a learning disability are unlikely to receive a service.
    The NAS wants the Department of Health to produce statutory guidance on the social care needs of people with autism spectrum disorders. It wants a named senior manager in each local authority to be responsible for the commissioning and delivery of services to that group. Only 10 per cent, of adults with ASD are in paid employment, while 24 per cent, do nothing, or help around the house. The Department for Work and Pensions should provide a national employment support scheme tailored for people with ASD.
    The NAS says that there should be explicit recognition that people with ASD are eligible for the whole range of disability benefits and consideration should be given as to how they can be supported into work without risk to their benefits. Forty-nine per cent, of adults with ASD live at home with their parents. They need help with meals, housework, paying bills and personal care. Only 3 per cent, of adults with Asperger's syndrome live fully independently. The NAS wants local agencies to collaborate to provide a range of sheltered housing and supported accommodation in each local area, designed specifically for adults with autism spectrum disorders.
    I have used up more than my share of the time for the debate, but I am grateful to the House for listening with such keen attention. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that something will be done to co-ordinate the services. They are undoubtedly available in bits, but it is impossible for families to access what they need.
    7.47 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. David Lammy): I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) on raising such an extremely important issue. The debate comes shortly after a year in which all of us tried to raise awareness of autism in our constituencies. That is an indication of the importance of the issue for carers throughout the country and the hon. Lady spoke eloquently in bringing to the attention of the House the circumstances for the parents of Alexander, her constituent.
    It is likely that in the time available I shall be unable to address all the issues raised by the hon. Lady. However, if I do not deal with all her questions, I will write to her to follow them up.
    Autism is a complex and distressing condition both for those directly affected by it and for their families and carers. Children and adults with autism often lead very isolated lives. Their social and communication difficulties often put great stress on their families.
    I acknowledge the tremendous efforts made by families and carers who support children and relatives with autism. The Government are committed to giving them more support. We accept that in the past there have been frequent delays in the diagnosis and identification of the condition. There has been too little family support and services have been dogged by fragmentation. Like me, Members will know from their constituency casework that carers of autistic children and adults sometimes find themselves in a maze of different assessment processes carried out by different agencies and that they often do not know where to turn for help. The starting point must therefore be to provide services and support in ways that suit children and adults with autism and their families. Adults and children with autism want early diagnosis, intervention and support from agencies, as the hon. Lady suggests: agencies that speak to each other and that make their families' lives easier. They want straightforward, readily available information and access to local community facilities and activities.
    The Government are responding to that context and those concerns by ensuring that our policies and programmes reflect those issues. Where needed, the Government have brought in new legislation. The Health Act 1999 introduced a "duty of partnership" making it clear that co-operation between health and social services is no longer an optional extra. The Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 strengthened the support given to parents of children with special educational needs. The Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000 introduced direct payments for carers. The Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000 supports disabled young people leaving the care system. I acknowledge that we started from a poor baseline, and it will take time for those Acts to bed in and to address a patchy picture across the country. More needs to be done within the Department, and I hope that I can address that in moving forward. One of the most important aspects of that is the children's national service framework, which I hope will bring together coherently much of that to which the hon. Lady referred for children with this condition.
    294
    As the hon. Lady mentioned, one of the key issues for children with autism is to provide early intervention and early support. The evidence is that the earlier support is given, the better the long-term outcome is for the children and their families We are therefore taking a close interest in the work of the national initiative for autism screening and assessment, which she mentioned. We have appointed Dr. Gillian Baird, the secretary of NIASA, as a member of the disabled children's external working group, which is helping us develop the children's national service framework. That will build on the "duty of partnership" in the Health Act 1999 and set national standards for the health service and social services to work in partnership with education and other agencies.
    The national service framework will include exemplars setting out how the NSF should be implemented for particular groups of children. It will show how families should receive multi-agency early intervention and support based on their needs. We have already announced that one of those will be on services for children with autism. Dr. Baird is leading on this area of work and is actively involved with the interested voluntary sector groups, such as the National Autistic Society and the Parents Autism Campaign for Education. The NIASA guidance will inform that work. The bottom line is that we hope that the NSF will raise the game in this area for children and families with autism.
    The children's NSF will build on the work of the Government's "Quality Protects" programme, which focuses on improving children's social services. Under "Quality Protects", £60 million over three years has been allocated since April 2001. That has been earmarked for spending on services for disabled children and their families, which has provided more family support services, particularly home-based short-term breaks and sitting services. Nearly every single "Quality Protects" management action plan gave details of how local authorities were improving services specifically for children with autism and their families, including providing services such as the Early Bird service and Portage services that the hon. Lady mentioned. For example, Surrey, the Wirral, Reading and Windsor and Maidenhead have all introduced new Early Bird schemes to support children with autism. Sutton, Tameside and Thurrock have introduced new Portage schemes, and Somerset and Southampton are planning and developing new key worker support services.
    The "Quality Protects" money will double next year from £15 million to £30 million. However, I recognise that much more needs to be done to ensure that all autistic children and their families receive high-quality support from social services, from education and from the health service wherever they live. That is why, as I said, we will publish the children's national service framework later this year, and I hope that it will drive up standards throughout the country.
    I turn now to special educational needs. Children with autism are also benefiting from the improvements and resources that we are promoting to meet special educational needs. The hon. Lady rightly points out that, as a result of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001, local education authorities and

    295
    schools must now plan to increase accessibility to school premises and to the curriculum. The revised SEN code of practice also strengthens the guidance on identifying and meeting children's special educational needs.
    We are backing our drive to improve provision for those children with significant resources. For example, this year's SEN standards fund is supporting expenditure of £91 million. The hon. Lady mentioned in particular the training of teachers and others in autism awareness. She will be pleased to hear that in-service training is one of the main activities financed by that fund. Guidance from the Department for Education and Skills recommends autism training as an area that LEAs may want to support. We are also making available smaller grants to encourage innovative developments in special educational needs. The SEN training and development fund for 2002–03 aims to
    296
    increase in-service training and development opportunities offered by higher education institutions for teachers and others, and that includes three projects focusing on autistic spectrum disorders.
    Last July, my Department and the DFES published good practice guidance for schools and LEAs on supporting pupils with autism. The guidance is based on the key principles that underpin good provision, including early identification and intervention, family support, and partnership and co-operation with other agencies. The autism working group, which developed the guidance, included not only officials from the Department of Health and the DFES but experts and practitioners in the field, including the—
    The motion having been made after Seven o 'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at two minutes to Eight o 'clock.

Preamble
[MR. FRANK COOK in the Chair]

Marine Pollution
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
9.30 am
Mr. John Randall: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this subject and I am delighted to see other hon. Members in the Chamber. The timing of the debate was instigated by the Prestige disaster and the problems of oil spills at sea. Today is a poignant anniversary given that, 10 years ago, on 5 January, the Braer ran aground on the Shetland Isles. I am pleased to see that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) is present, and I hope that he will remind us of what that disaster meant for the local communities.
Unfortunately, there are discharges from vessels all the time as there are from oil and gas rigs. In 2001, 678 polluting discharges were registered by the Advisory Committee on Protection of the Sea. In one way that was encouraging given that there were 743 discharges in the previous year. Of the 678 discharges, 71 per cent. were from offshore oil and gas installations; 11 per cent. from fishing vessels, 5 per cent. from general cargo ships and 4 per cent. from oil and chemical tankers. Such figures put some matters in perspective, but the real problem is that when an oil tanker, in particular, has an accident, runs aground or breaks up, the ecological damage is huge. That sort of disaster comes to everyone's attention.
Ecological disasters and problems have strong safety implications. Each time a ship runs aground, lives are at risk. Marine accidents cost human lives throughout the world. There is an average annual loss of 350 seafarers. Perhaps it is a reflection of today's world that the loss of seafarers' lives does not grab as much attention as pictures of oiled sea birds and devastated fishing communities. While that will be the main thrust of my speech, it is beholden upon us to recognise the safety implications for human life and the fact that some ships should not be at sea. I am talking not only about their effect on our environment, but people's lives are put at risk by what, on land, would be called cowboy operators.
The European Union blacklisted 66 ships that face a port access ban, 26 of which fly the flag of Turkey. Twelve sail under the flag of St. Vincent and the Grenadines, nine fly the flag of Cambodia and three the flag of Algeria. Of those ships, 49 are bulk carriers, eight are chemical tankers and eight oil tankers and there is one passenger vessel. It is a fact of life that the marine environment and the marine industry are international. One reads about such vessels, although relatively few are operating. We would be less than happy if MOTs in our country were issued by a Liberian authority.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I apologise. Owing to the new timetable and the fact that the parliamentary
70WH
Labour party meets at 10 am, I cannot stay in Westminster Hall. May I record that it is a crying shame that the other place scuppered the hon. Gentleman's Bill on the marine environment? I hope that that measure will be brought back in one form or another during this Session.
Mr. Randall: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I place on the record my gratitude for the work that has been done by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and for the assurances that it has given. The Department might not be working towards all of the measures that I had hoped would be included. It might, however, even make an improvement because a private Member's Bill, by its nature, is not able to do all the things that primary legislation does. I am looking forward to that, and I shall be happy to give the Government my support.
Recent incidents have illustrated the seriousness of oil spills and the impact that those can have on a marine environment. We have seen the high-profile disaster involving the oil tanker Prestige off the Galician coast. Of course, we know that the impact of that has not only devastated that coastline—it is now finding its way up to the Atlantic coast of France. That underlines that the issue must be tackled internationally, although I hope that we in the United Kingdom will be able to implement some measures on our own.
Ports of refuge could be prepared and made available throughout the EU to mitigate the problems that we saw when the Prestige first got into difficulties, but I understand the problems in respect of ports of refuge. People might say, "That's a jolly good idea, but we don't want one near us." However, we should consider whether some of the ships in trouble could be taken to a particular place, rather than be left at sea because no one wanted to get near them.
The Prestige case had a high profile, but in the past two months there have been some less high-profile pollution problems. For example, significant numbers of oiled sea birds were washed up on the East Anglian coast in late 2002. Such incidents exemplify a more difficult problem and we need more action at both national and international levels to try to tackle it.
Many hon. Members are hoping to catch your eye, Mr. Cook, so I will not dwell for too long on the impacts on the seabird population—the facts are self-evident. We have all seen television news items of poor, wretched creatures: auks, guillemots, razorbills and some of the sea ducks, including long-tailed ducks and scoters. Birds that dive into the water or that swim on the surface are most vulnerable to oil slicks.
There is a human cost, as we have seen in Galicia, Orkney and Shetland, resulting from oil spills on fisheries. The last restrictions on fishing were lifted only a full seven years after the Braer ran aground on Shetland, so it is apparent that the impact is not only on the simple ecology, but on people's lives. As we know, fishing communities are suffering greatly. Even from the inland security of Uxbridge, I am well aware that fishing communities all around our islands are in crisis. A major oil spill may be the final straw.
Some people have suggested there should be environmental incentives such as those in the Merchant Shipping and Fishing Vessels (Port Waste Reception

71WH
Facilities) Regulations 2002 that came into force on 28 December 2002, which promote the polluter pays principle. I hope that the regulations will have an impact.
A satellite monitoring tracking system for identifying oil spills was trialled between August 2000 and August 2001 and considered a success by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. I would be pleased to hear of any new movement by the Government to make more of that trial. If oil spills could be found and tracked more quickly, it might be possible to alleviate problems earlier.
There has been much talk about single-hulled oil tankers and the need for tankers to be double-hulled. It would be great if we could get single-hulled tankers out of European Union waters, but they would only end up going somewhere else and becoming someone else's problem. The international community should seriously examine such vessels, which, from a layman's point of view, perhaps should not be at sea at all.
We must try to ensure that vessels that could cause problems are kept well away from areas of environmental sensitivity. In response to a question about when the second round of consultation on marine environment high-risk areas would take place, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport replied in a written answer that he expected
"the consultation document will be issued during February 2003"—[Official Report, 16 December 2002; Vol. 396, c. 580W.]
I am grateful for that positive development, but disappointed that it has taken so long. Lord Donaldson recommended the establishment of a network of high-risk areas in his 1994 inquiry that followed the running aground of the Braer in 1993. Vessels carrying dangerous cargoes would be routed away from the United Kingdom's most sensitive coastal sites and the most hazardous shipping areas. That brings us to another problem that we have seen recently, when a ship has gone down and other vessels, despite being given clear warning from what I have seen in the press, still manage to hit the wreckage. We should look towards getting such vessels away from our most sensitive coastal sites.
There are also questions surrounding the ratification of various international conventions, but we must ensure that these conventions work. It is one thing for them to be written down; it is another to make sure that they are implemented. Although the Government sometimes think that they can do everything and rather like to say that they can, the problem cannot be solved overnight. It must be considered internationally and from an EU position. The issue is important. The marine environment has been a Cinderella for so long that action must be taken because a major disaster on the UK coast is just a stone's throw away.
9.45 am
Dr. Brian Iddon: I am pleased to take part in the debate at short notice, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) on securing it at such a relevant time. We have seen the Prestige disaster unfold before our eyes and, more recently, the Tricolor was stranded in the channel, and is likely to stay there for a few weeks yet.
72WH
I have taken an interest in marine safety, and am the promoter of the Marine Safety Bill, a private Member's Bill, which has already been mentioned. I should like to trail that Bill, and hope that the hon. Member for Uxbridge and other hon. Members present will support it. Its Second Reading will be on 28 February, and I hope that thereafter it will be discussed in detail in Committee.
The recent sinking of the Prestige highlighted the importance of the United Kingdom being ready to respond to maritime incidents at very short notice. When a ship gets into difficulties, there is a narrow window of time in which effective action can be taken. Outside that narrow window, action is much more difficult, and terrible disasters can occur, such as those that have happened off the Spanish and French coasts.
My Bill, which I hope to take through all the parliamentary stages, will promote effective emergency action in two main ways. First, it will confer powers on the Secretary of State to give directions to owners and operators of facilities used by ships such as berths, wharfs and jetties to make those facilities available for reducing or preventing pollution and safety hazards to ships. Secondly, it will allow fire-fighting authorities to charge for activities at sea that are outside their usual area of authority.
The Department for Transport told me yesterday that, fortunately, there are now fewer incidents around British coastal waters. We should congratulate those responsible for safety at sea on that fact, which comes despite a significant increase in the volume of shipping entering British ports and harbours. Oil is the main, but not the sole, pollution problem; many ships carry other dangerous cargoes, including dangerous chemicals, and those that are not so dangerous but lead to pollution at sea.
I shall give one example of a ship in difficulty that my Bill would, I hope, have tackled. Not that long ago, a tanker coming into a private wharf had a small engine fire on board. In the opinion of British authorities, the oil cargo of that ship could have been unloaded on the jetty. We should remember that some jetties are quite a way from the coast; they stretch out to sea so that the ship can be attached by snorkel and pipeline to the coastal facility.
The company involved, which I shall not name today—I shall probably name it during our debates on the Marine Safety Bill—insisted that the ship be towed out to sea. It did so for economic reasons, namely that the ship would have tied up the jetty for perhaps several days, if not weeks, if the fire became more serious. As I have said, the fire was in the engine room, so the engine was not completely co-operative. The ship was towed out to sea in worsening weather conditions. It could be argued that that was irresponsible. If it had been towed out in very difficult weather conditions with fire fighting going on, which often involves pumping water on to a ship, the water would not have escaped. That water would have added weight to an already fully laden ship, and there could have been a serious disaster. I am told that fire fighting can often sink a ship due to the amount of water that goes on board.

73WH
The Government do not have the authority to commandeer shore operations such as wharves and jetties—or even coastline, if it is needed—to deal with a disaster in British coastal waters. That is unsatisfactory. If my Bill is enacted, it will enable the Government, through the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and the Secretary of State's representative—who is usually known as SOSREP—to commandeer such private onshore facilities when the coastguards alert them to a ship that is in trouble. Not only the British Government but all Governments should have the authority to do that. Sometimes ships are in difficult positions around our coastline, and they are not always in a harbour or close to a jetty. If we come to debate my Bill in Committee, we shall discuss many more instances of ships in trouble. As we are in London, it might be relevant to point out that all the wharves and jetties in the port of London are privately owned. This city is still a major port, and it is clear that it needs the provisions that are set out in the Bill.
The second part of my Bill addresses fire fighting. County and city brigades only have the authority to fight fires within their jurisdiction. Of course, they cross boundaries onshore, but I am told that their jurisdiction ends at the low water level. Beyond that, their authority is not the same as it is onshore. Difficulties arise from that fact and from other technical reasons for fire-fighting operators. They are less likely to fight fires because of them, and because it is hard for them to recover their costs from shipowners through their insurance companies. My Bill will make it much easier to recover costs, so that fire-fighting authorities with a lot of experience in fighting fires both onshore and offshore will continue to train their staff to a high level and be ready to deal with any ships on fire that are in British coastal waters. With the sort of experience they have, they could even be used to fight fires in the English channel, in co-operation with authorities across the channel.
My interest in ship safety arose as a result of the sinking of the MV Derbyshire in the Pacific ocean many years ago. We have now had a full inquiry into the sinking of that ship: some people believe that the first inquiry was a whitewash, but the Government reopened it and the truth about the sinking of the MV Derbyshire is now out.
The all-party group of which I am an executive member has now converted itself into an all-party group that is interested in safety at sea, and that includes pollution. I encourage Members who are not members of the group to join us. We are campaigning for improved ship safety, and I must praise the Government for doing quite a lot to improve that. In recent weeks, there have been announcements through meetings of the International Maritime Organisation and other authorities; things are beginning to move. International co-operation is needed, and those of us who are involved in politics know how difficult it is to collaborate with other countries, some of which do not share the high standards of the British Government.
I will not refer in detail to the things that would improve ship safety. One of them has been mentioned. Ships carrying dangerous cargoes—especially oil tankers and tankers carrying liquid chemicals—should be double-skinned. That is essential. All warships, of
74WH
course, have double skins. If the first skin is penetrated, the second may not be and it may be possible to preserve the cargo intact.
A "Panorama" programme a few weeks ago dealt with what seems to have sunk the Derbyshire and many other ships: heavy water cascading down on to the ship in storms and smashing the deck facilities, especially the hatch covers. Moves are now afoot to introduce international regulations to strengthen hatch covers; not only the forward hatch covers but all of them, along the length of the ship. The ships in question are extremely long and when the captain is on the bridge in a storm he cannot see what is happening all the way along the ship. The inquiry that considered the Derbyshire disaster recommended that CCTV cameras be fitted. There would still be difficulties in a storm, but fitting cameras down the length of the ship would at least make some observation possible.
Weather forecasting has improved tremendously with the use of satellites. Indeed, swarms of satellites, rather like swarms of bees, can now measure wave heights all around the world and transmit that information to national centres of weather forecasting. Navigational aids have improved, especially on the most modern ships.
Why do we fit black boxes in aircraft but not in ships? When aircraft crash we recover the black boxes and examine the information that they have recorded immediately prior to the disaster. The black box is used in a full inquiry into an air disaster. Unfortunately, that does not yet happen with shipping worldwide. The all-party group is campaigning for the fitting of black boxes, certainly to new ships, and I believe that the Government are interested in the idea. It might be difficult to retrofit black boxes to existing shipping.
I am told by friends in Liverpool who are sailors and have sailed on some of the worst shipping in the world in their time, that after about 15 years some bulk carriers—it is those vessels that we are particularly concerned about—are literally rust buckets. They should not be at sea. They should be scrapped. However, sailors tell me that these rust buckets are still floating around the world. When the decks corrode, it is common practice with some flagged-out authority shipping to put tarpaulin over the deck hull and paint it the same colour as the deck. That is entirely unacceptable. Ships like that—there are more than a few sailing today—should not be given a licence to sail.
Full investigation should take place after every shipping disaster, whether minor or major, and we should learn from disasters. The general public have seen a long list of oil tankers from the Torrey Canyon to the Prestige going down, polluting the coasts of many countries. We do not seem to learn from these disasters. Full shipping inquiries should point all countries towards improving ships' safety.
It is also important for Governments to be given the powers—I am not sure whether the British Government have such powers, but I suspect that they do—to refuse to accept dangerous ships into their waters. If all countries were given, through international agreements, powers not to accept into their ports and harbours or anywhere near their coastlines dangerous shipping of the kind to which I have referred, shipowners would have to scrap it, or at the very least improve its safety.

75WH
I have presented a small trailer to my Bill, and I urge all hon. Members to support it, because it is too important to be a missed opportunity.
9.58 am
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) on securing what he described as a timely debate; it is especially timely as viewed from my constituency. I congratulate him also on what he said. He rightly made the link between marine pollution and the standards practised, all too commonly, by the merchant shipping industry. That point was taken up also by the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), and I shall examine some aspects of that link. I shall be most interested to hear what the Minister has to say in reply to a debate that has been essentially about transport; I am sure that we all await his speech with some interest.
As the hon. Member for Uxbridge said, it is almost 10 years—the anniversary was on Monday—since the Braer ran aground off the south coast of Shetland. The devastation caused was unimaginable, given that it is difficult to gain access to the area where the ship ran aground and that a hurricane had been running for 10 days. As it happened, the hurricane solved many of the problems immediately, because the Gulfaks crude that the Braer was carrying was fairly light oil and easily dispersed in the poor weather.
The great rule that is supposed always to be applied to such cases is that the polluter should pay. Unfortunately, that has a hollow ring for a number of my constituents. A goodly number of people in the south of Shetland had roofs of asbestos tiles, which were damaged and effectively made unserviceable. I have bored this chamber at length on the subject, and I do not intend to dwell on it today, but I wish to place on record again the conduct of the International Oil Pollution Compensation funds in relation to the litigation subsequently entered into by the asbestos roof complainants.
That litigation failed because the IOPC played what I, as a lawyer, would term litigation hard ball; it refused to allow the Braer roof claimants access to the reports that had been compiled on the fund's behalf in the immediate aftermath of the Braer's grounding. Much of the information in those reports had been provided by the roof claimants themselves, but when they needed that information to substantiate their claim, the IOPC refused them access to it, which, in strict legal terms, it was entitled to do. As recently as Monday, Mr. Joe Nicholls of the IOPC was quoted in the Aberdeen Press and Journal as saying that there has been no cover-up. If he is saying to the people of Shetland, "I am from the IOPC: trust me," he will be given a fairly frosty response. Frankly, they do not; they feel that they have been badly done by. If there is no cover-up, I must ask again why the IOPC continues to refuse to put the reports into the public domain.
I should pay tribute to the fact that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), visited Shetland last year and met the asbestos roof complainants.
76WH
Unfortunately, I am not satisfied that he or his officials fully understand the legal position, inasmuch as they keep citing Lord Gill's judgment; he referred to the author of the reports, who was a witness in the case but who could not be a witness to the contents of the reports. That information remains outwith the public domain.
I intend to visit Galicia later this month, to see some of the damage that has been done and to share with the local communities some of the difficulties that my constituents experienced in coping with the aftermath of an oil spill, in particular in dealing with the IOPC. We have a saying in Scotland that one needs a long-handled spoon to sup with the devil. I think that one needs a long-handled spoon to sup with the IOPC. I shall warn the Galicians to make clear to the IOPC the basis on which any information is provided to them.
Other hon. Members have referred to the sinking of the Prestige. If I had to sum up in one word what I feel about it, that word would have to be "depressing". It is truly scandalous that 10 years after the Braer, virtually the same thing could happen again. The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East spoke about 15-year-old rust buckets. The Prestige was 26 years old. It was a single hulled tanker, owned in Greece through Liberia, registered in the Bahamas, classed in the United States of America, chartered by a Swiss-based Russian company that has offices in London and crewed by Greek and Filipino sailors. The Prestige was a floating indictment of the current state of the merchant shipping industry. The people who are feeling the adverse effects are not Greek, Liberian or Bahamian or from Switzerland, the United States, Russia or the United Kingdom. They are the people of Galicia, and my heart goes out to them when I see what they are suffering.
How do incidents such as the Braer, the Erica, the Prestige and the Torrey Canyon keep happening? They happen because they can. We tolerate on the high seas things that we would never dream of tolerating on dry land. The bottom line is that self-regulation of the maritime industry does not work. An agreed, enforceable system of international standards is needed. Owners and operators cannot be allowed to hide behind reclassifications and reflagging, as they currently do. I commend, in particular, the most recent edition of the NUMAST Telegraph, which includes a 22 or 23-point recipe for radical reform of the shipping industry.
I shall draw attention to a few of those points. The first is that there should be mandatory third-party liability insurance for merchant shipping. Some hon. Members might think it remarkable that that is not already the case. One has to have third-party liability insurance in order to take on to the street a car that might do a few hundred thousand pounds worth of damage at most, but one can take a tanker full of crude oil out on to the high seas without any such insurance.
The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East suggested measures that would improve shipping safety. I shall be more than happy to support his private Member's Bill, and I shall encourage all my Liberal Democrat colleagues to do so, although that might not be as helpful as he might wish.
One further issue is the standard and training of crews in the merchant fleet. Some agreements already exist, including International Labour Organisation convention 147. Last year, I submitted a written

77WH
parliamentary question to the Department for Transport. On 10 June, I received a fairly brief reply, which I will share with hon. Members. I asked the Secretary of State for Transport
"what assessment he has made of the UK's compliance with its obligations under the International Labour Organisation Convention 147."
When it arrived, the answer was not without information—such answers never are—but no one could accuse the Department of actually answering the question that I asked. I was told:
"The UK ratified ILO Convention Number 147 in 1980."
Well, anyone with access to the convention would know that. I was then told:
"The UK Government ratifies international conventions only when it is satisfied that measures are in place to ensure compliance."
Well, that is good news as well. Finally, I was told:
"The Government has also ratified the Protocol of 1996 to that Convention, which extends the list of other conventions with which signatory states must comply."—[Official Report, 10 June 2002; Vol. 386, c. 775W.]
There was absolutely no assessment of the UK's compliance with its obligations, which is what I had asked for. Sadly, that is often the way in which the Department for Transport answers such questions. I do not, in all sincerity, expect the Minister to answer such a specific point, which is more properly the domain of the Department for Transport. However, I would be grateful if he could ensure that my remarks are conveyed to the appropriate quarters within the Government.
We must also have proper regard to the role of flag states, such as Greece and Liberia. To draw again on the NUMAST recipe, the International Maritime Organisation and the International Labour Organisation should be given greater resources and authority to enforce and implement the standards on which their collective memberships agree. At the moment, lip service is paid to agreements, but there is no proper enforcement. That must change.
Dr. Iddon: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the NUMAST Telegraph a couple of times. This year's first edition contained a table of 66 ships that have been blacklisted by the European Union and that face port-access bans. It is significant that Turkey has flagged out 26 of them, and there is a moral in that. If Turkey is to be allowed into the EU, the UK Government and other EU Governments will be able to put an armlock on it as regards the present unsatisfactory situation.
Mr. Carmichael: That is indeed a possibility, and one hopes that the EU would do that. The hon. Gentleman raises the spectre of EU enlargement, and I got into some trouble in that respect over the Christmas recess, so I shall resist the temptation to go down that alley again.
The hon. Gentleman's point about Turkey is well made, but the problem extends even beyond the EU. My concern is that even if we fix the problem in the EU, it will emerge elsewhere. EU measures are welcome, and I was particularly pleased by those taken after the sinking of the Prestige. However, they will not be enough on their own, any more than the actions of a single nation state will be.
78WH
Flag states that fail to discharge their responsibilities under the United Nations convention on the law of the sea, and that fail to ensure effective jurisdiction and control over ships that fly their flag, should surely be identified and penalised. Ultimately— this would be a meaningful sanction—it should be open to the international community to say that it will no longer recognise the certification of ships that are flagged under nation states that do not pay proper regard to their international obligations. Another great difficulty is the attitude taken by flag states that consistently fail to investigate, or to publish the results of investigations into, accidents involving ships that use their registers. The current system of regulation lacks transparency.
The approach taken should not be very different from that taken to everything else in life; quality should be rewarded and poor standards punished. The hon. Member for Uxbridge referred to the difficulties caused by pollution to the fishing industry in Shetland. As he said, it was seven years before the restrictions on inshore fisheries in Shetland were lifted following the damage caused by the Braer. The damage that was caused continues today, because before the grounding of the Braer, Shetland salmon was highly regarded as a clean and environmentally friendly product. Sadly, however, the sinking of the Braer put an end to its reputation and the former position has never been recovered. Coastal communities generally are reliant on the promotion of a clean and healthy environment, to which shipping and marine pollution is a real threat. For that reason, I hope that the Minister will take note of what has been said today and, working with the Dept for Transport, ensure that the necessary changes are put in place.
10.17 am
Norman Baker: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) on securing the debate. His commitment to the marine environment is now well established, and that is especially laudable considering that his constituency is land-locked. He made several sensible points in his contribution, to which I hope that the Minister will respond positively. I also welcome the comments made by the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon). Certainly, I find myself in sympathy with the legislation that he proposes. I was unaware of the incident to which he referred, in which it seems that economics determined whether a potential oil incident would be treated seriously. If a business can decide that its bottom line is more important than the environment, and if the environment can be penalised to save money, that is completely wrong and anathema to most of the Government. I hope that the Minister will respond to that point.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of fire fighting in the channel and elsewhere. As my constituency borders the English channel, I am familiar with that issue. The problem is that fire fighting in the channel is a particularly expensive business and requires specially trained fire fighters. Fire at sea is extremely difficult to deal with because heat rises, so fire fighters tend to have to go in at the seat of the fire. Therefore, fire authorities must invest properly in that service to deal with the problem effectively. I suspect that our capability to deal with fires in the channel and elsewhere around our coast is not as good as it might be because fire authorities are often short of cash. The Government

79WH
should he addressing that issue in their settlements with fire authorities, perhaps by ring-fencing that capability in any settlement.
The hon. Member for Uxbridge referred in his opening comments to the Prestige tanker disaster. That is one of the sad reasons why we are here and, I imagine, one of the reasons why he felt that it was necessary to initiate the debate. It is disappointing—indeed, scandalous, to use the adjective that my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) used—that the position has not changed. There has been a depressing series of spillages into the marine environment in UK waters and elsewhere over many years. The situation appears to be improving only slowly. We need to accelerate that.
One thinks of the Exxon Valdez, which released almost 11 million gallons in. Alaska, the grounding of the Sea Empress off Wales, with 18 million gallons in 1996, the Greek tanker the Aegean Sea, with 21.5 million gallons off north-west Spain, the Braer, with 26 million gallons, and the oil tanker Erika, which sank off Brittany with 3 million gallons. Such events are monotonously regular in their occurrence. The international community should get its act together to prevent them.
Oil tankers are not the only problem. During the Gulf war, Iraq deliberately released an estimated 460 million gallons of crude oil into the Persian Gulf, showing scant regard for the environment or anybody else in the area. I hope that, when considering the position in Iraq, the Ministry of Defence will give some consideration to the environmental consequences of action by either side, though doubtless that is not top of its list.
The impact of the Prestige is well known. The incident has devastated the Iberian coast—those in Spain and Portugal are suffering, not the owners of the ship, its crew, the people who flagged it, or people sitting in offices in Geneva or anywhere else. For example, a fishing area of more than 180 square miles around the wreck has been declared off limits, and up to 90,000 livelihoods have been affected. People who went about their normal business and led normal lives have had their livelihoods disrupted in a most callous and significant way because of the failure of the international community to regulate shipping properly. We owe it to people throughout the country and around the world to prevent such preventable accidents in future.
The number of incidents in British waters is decreasing. It is worth mentioning that since 1978—I think—there have been 12,746 incidents of oil spillages in British waters, which is a huge number. The hon. Member for Uxbridge was right to say that last year the figure was 678, and it is decreasing. The Government should be given some credit for reducing the number of incidents. However, I also tell the Minister that since 1995, from those many thousands of incidents, there have been only 10 successful prosecutions for discharges, with an average fine of £20,000. It seems that polluting the marine environment is a pretty risk-free business. It is time that we got a grip on that, and ensured that those responsible are properly prosecuted for their actions. The environment should not be a freebie that one can discharge into freely.
80WH
What are the solutions? The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East and my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland suggested a number of solutions, all of which I am in considerable sympathy with. It is absolutely right that we deal with single-hulled tankers. There was an interesting piece in The Guardian, in which David Osler, industrial editor of the shipping newspaper Lloyd's List, pointed out that
"the Prestige was one of a large number of oil tankers built in Japan during the boom years of the 1970s".
He said:
"These tankers were churned out, mass produced using steel turned out to the lowest possible standard. Out of a global fleet of 1,800 oil tankers, around 300 are pre-1980, Japanese and single-hulled."
There is a time problem that dates back to the 1970s. If those ships were of a low standard then, they are of a low standard now. However, they are still carrying potentially dangerous cargoes in international waters, and are still unregulated, as far as anyone can tell. They need to be pulled out of service—scrapped, to use the word of the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East.
It is true that all oil tankers built since 1986 must have a double hull, and that is welcome; but there is a residue of single-hulled vessels built before then, and they are not going away very quickly. That issue needs to be grappled with. If we cannot get the International Maritime Organisation to take proper action, we will need to take action at UK-level, or better still at EU-level. We will need to restrict access to our ports and use persuasive methods to encourage countries operating under flags of convenience and other shipping agents to improve their performance and get rid of single-hulled ships. I hope that the EU will show more mettle than it has done so far, but that is not to underestimate its work. However, we need to accelerate the speed of improvement.
We must also consider compartmentalising ships, so that if a ship is hit, its leakage can be limited. That is standard practice in some but not in all cases, and particularly not with older ships. We also need to consider the maximum size of oil tankers allowed in EU waters. That is a matter of dispute with the Government. We cannot go on building ever larger ships. When I asked the Under-Secretary of State for Transport whether he would press for a maximum size for oil tankers, he said:
"There is no evidence that reducing the size of oil tankers would lead to an overall improvement in safety. The implication of using smaller tankers is that more voyages would be needed to carry the same volume of oil and related cargoes."—[Official Report, 3 December 2002; Vol. 395, c. 670W.]
Mr. Carmichael: My hon. Friend makes a good point. One reason why single-hulled tankers of the vintage to which he refers continue to be used is that a great deal of oil is coming out of Russia. The waters—I have forgotten the name of the stretch, but it is the narrow part between Denmark and the rest of Scandinavia—are such that smaller classes of tankers must be used, or there would be too much traffic to get through safely.
Norman Baker: I am grateful for that information, which demonstrates that my gut feeling is right: it is a sensible proposal to set a maximum limit on the size of oil tankers, not only because that is required in certain

81WH
passages of water but because, obviously, when a huge oil tanker sinks, the damage is greater than it would have been if it were caused by a smaller tanker. It is all very well to say that there would be more ships around, but less damage would he caused by one ship sinking if that ship were smaller. The Government should consider that. It is right to say that self-regulation does not work, as my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland said, and there should be mandatory third party insurance. We should consider refusing to allow dangerous shipping into EU and UK waters.
We have talked a lot about oil. It is worth mentioning that other dangerous cargoes are carried regularly around the world, often, but not always, in substandard ships. A huge number of chemicals have been lost in UK waters over the years. The last time that I raised the matter in a parliamentary question—I do not have the reference, and do not remember exactly when it was—I was told that there was no proper register of what had been lost in UK waters. I hope that the Minister will either respond to that point, or write to me about it. We now log all instances of chemicals and other potentially dangerous materials that are lost at sea in UK waters. Not so long ago a cargo of some 28 barrels of lindane, a dangerous pesticide, was lost in the English channel. That may leak out and damage the marine environment. We need to know what is going on with such incidents, and where such losses occur. I should be grateful if the Minister would address that point.
Let us not forget that a huge amount of radioactive material is being carried around in UK waters as a consequence of activities at Sellafield and elsewhere. The Government should have a policy of minimising the transportation of radioactive material for environmental and security reasons, given the international climate. Instead, the Government's answer is that what is done with that material is a matter for British Nuclear Fuels Ltd., which has contracts with Japan and sends ships half way round the world. The Government say that that is not a problem, and that it is a commercial matter for BNFL. It is not; it is a matter for the Government to regulate in order to protect the environment and to ensure that there are as few terrorist targets as possible. I know that it is an old-fashioned suggestion to make to a Labour Government, but I hope that they will consider intervening to control matters, not simply leave matters to the market.
10.29 am
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: I echo the words of other hon. Members and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) on securing such a timely debate. It is indicative of the deep and abiding interest in the maritime environment that he has shown since he was elected in 1997, and no one can gainsay the considerable work that he has done for the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds throughout the past five years.
I shall start with a plea to the Minister—a plea that my hon. Friend would echo. The south Dorset coast is a world heritage site, but such a designation does not confer protection. The area is absolutely glorious; it deserves and requires protection. One way in which to protect it is to deny international shipping access to such a delicate maritime area, and the way to do that is to designate it a particularly sensitive sea area. I must declare a particular interest in the area, in that I sail
82WH
round it fairly frequently, but if the right hon. Gentleman does that the Government will have the support of the Conservative party.
Ships can constitute a hazard to the marine environment in three ways: through deliberation action, through accidental pollution and through physical damage. Although more than 80 per cent. of marine oil spills occur within a port or harbour area, more damaging than that are the actions of those who clean out the tanks and release waste oil and chemical products at sea, most of whom get away with it.
Of the 14 successful prosecutions for discharges during 2001, 10 were related to oil pollution. However, 1,616 incident reports were received and processed. Of the total discharges in 2001, 95 per cent. were from mineral oils and 72 per cent. were in the open sea. The other cause of marine pollution is accidental, owing either to ship malfunction—thankfully, a rare occurrence—or human error. The fact that the wreck of the car carrier, the Tricolor, in the English channel has been the cause of two collisions and a near miss since it sank on 14 December calls into question the competence of some ship masters.
There are a variety of navigational aids to help work out the answers to the three key questions that we need to know at sea: where we are, what direction we are going in and what is in front of us. In addition, radar, satellite, the global positioning system and visual fixes, dead reckoning and electronic route following can be used. A new hazard in the English channel brings into play an additional set of warnings to mariners. For example, the area around the Tricolor had wreck and raycon buoys, and a guard ship was in position. Both the British and French authorities were broadcasting hourly verbal maritime hazard warnings, the text of which was carried on Navtext as well as being issued as a "Notice to Mariners".
With all those warning signs, it was absolutely incredible that the Turkish master of the Vicky, the second ship to hit the Tricolor in two weeks, was able to tell The Times:
"I had no idea it was there. I saw some light buoys but I didn't understand what it meant or why they were there because my normal charts don't show any light buoys".
Will he be prosecuted? Will he lose his ticket? Will he go to jail? We certainly need punitive sanctions to deter those who are incompetent or who flout international safety standards. Does the Minister support the European Commission's proposal for severe sanctions for parties who have caused maritime pollution by grossly negligent behaviour?
We have heard from others that the Prestige was a 26-year-old, single-hulled tanker from which it is estimated that oil will leak for the next three years. The Erika was a single-hulled tanker that sank off the coast of Brittany in late 1999 and it lost 30,000 tonnes of oil; the Braer was a single-hulled tanker that caused an 85,000 tonne oil spill off Shetland in 1993; the Aegean Sea, which grounded in almost the same Spanish waters as the Prestige a decade ago, released 74,000 tonnes of crude. Ships of a similar age and with similar problems are still trading in the world today. Last year, nearly two-thirds of the ships that were lost were more than 20 years old. Despite international agreement under the International Maritime Organisation to phase out all

83WH
single-hulled tankers by 2015 at the latest, those still make up the majority—about 60 per cent.—of the total tanker fleet. It is clear that international agreement is the only way to control a force that recognises no sovereign jurisdiction and to regulate a business that is obviously international.
We have heard tell that the Prestige was owned in Greece, registered in the Bahamas, classed in the United States and chartered by a Swiss-based Russian company with offices in London. It was crewed by Greeks and Filipinos and it was sailing from Latvia to Singapore. At the beginning of last December the Commission issued a blacklist of 66 ships that should be banned from European waters and ports and it called for a ban on the transport of heavy fuel in single-hulled vessels. The Commission also instructed states to bring forward the implementation of rules that were drawn up after the Erika disaster in 1999 and were intended to tighten the controls on vessels carrying dangerous cargoes. The Government have confirmed that at a recent Transport Council meeting they agreed
"to invite a proposal from the Commission to accelerate the timetable for phasing out single hull tankers even further, and to consider how the carriage of heavy oil in single hull tankers might be restricted, with a view to reducing the risk of a spill from a single hull tanker even more."—[Official Report, 11 December 2002; Vol. 396, c. 356W.]
May I ask the Minister what is happening? Will the deadline for the phasing out of single-hulled tankers be accelerated? How far have the Government made good their pledge made in the other place
"to ensure that all existing maritime pollution compensation and liability conventions come into force as soon as possible"?—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 November 2002; Vol. 641, c. 749.]
Another important contribution to maritime safety and, therefore, to reducing marine pollution, would be a reduction in the secrecy surrounding flags of convenience. It is often impossible definitively to establish who controls a ship. That so-called "corporate veil" means that it took several weeks before the owner of the Erika was known. There are similar problems in identifying the Greek ship-owning dynasty that controlled the Prestige and it is reported that al-Qaeda is using legal means to hide its nefarious shipping interests. Where ownership cannot be established, the law cannot be enforced effectively. What discussions has the Minister conducted with the IMO to increase transparency? What steps have the Government taken to implement the recommendations of the National Audit Office's report of June 2002 "Dealing with pollution from ships"? Will the Minister expand the provision of year-round emergency tugging vessels that are currently located at only four points around the UK coast. How far have the discussions progressed with the Irish Government on the joint provision of a fifth tug to cover the Irish sea?
Finally, I welcome the August 2000 contract between Air Atlantique, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and the Department of Trade and Industry, which offers a considerable opportunity. This particular contract allows aircraft typically to survey 32,000 square miles in a five-hour period of surveillance, as opposed to 14,000 square miles previously. Can we anticipate further
84WH
sharing of counter-pollution equipment and more commercial contracts? Will the satellite oil spills sensing trials by the MCA be further developed?
The Government have committed themselves to an ecosystem-based approach and integrated stewardship of our marine environment. As a token of their devotion yet another consultation paper has been launched. It is grandly called "The Seas of Change". According to my records, this is the 83rd consultation undertaken by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs since June 2001. It has consultationitis. Consultation is useful but policy is what is necessary. What is needed is stewardship of our own and foreign vessels entering our waters and ports. Although accidents are often the product of human fallibility and error, measures can be taken to limit the likelihood of their occurrence and to mitigate the environmental consequences, and incompetence and neglect should always be dealt with swiftly and severely. Global thinking, allied to effective national and local implementation, is the recipe for safer seas and the protection of our marine environment. I urge the Government to echo that point in policy.
10.41 am
The Minister for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael): I congratulate the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) on securing this important debate and the manner in which he introduced the topic. I should also like to congratulate the other Members who took part in what has been a wide-ranging and constructive debate.
With regard to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), I look forward to seeing his private Member's Bill making progress through the House. It is eminently sensible. I hope that it will receive support from the Opposition as well as the Government, and that it will reach the statute book very quickly. I congratulate him on the work his group has produced on the findings of the Derbyshire inquiry, which are most important. I understand that the work on bulk carrier safety has now, as a consequence, been taken forward by the IMO.
The points made by the hon. Members for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), for Lewes (Norman Baker) and for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) were constructive contributions to a very important, although not easy, issue.
The hon. Member for Uxbridge has a personal commitment to marine conservation. I share his disappointment and that of other Members, referred to, in particular, by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), that his Marine Wildlife Conservation Bill did not find support in another place.
I was puzzled as to what the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland wanted from this debate. He made the point, quite tellingly, that there are many issues that are matters for the Minister with responsibility for shipping. If the debate had been flagged in a different way, he would be responding to the debate and would have been able to go into more detail on some specific issues. I am very interested in some of the issues on maritime safety that the hon. Gentleman raised at the beginning of his intervention, representing, as I do, Cardiff, a port with maritime traditions. I share his interest in those issues, but they are matters for the Department for Transport.

85WH
It is unfortunate that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), who deals with marine issues, is unavailable today, as is the Minister for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher), who deals with pollution issues. I shall do my best to respond to and follow up any detailed and technical issues in writing, as some Members have asked.
The title of the report goes rather wider than the debate itself. Pollution that finds its way into our seas comes from a number of different sources. Globally, about 80 per cent. is the result of land-based activities, such as industry and farming, and 12 or 13 per cent. comes from maritime transport, including deliberate and accidental oil spills; the remainder is the result of illegal discharges or dumping from land.
In recent years, much has been achieved in tackling marine pollution. During the past 15 years, we have cut the amount of mercury going into the North sea by 70 per cent. We have also stopped dumping radioactive waste, sewage sludge and munitions at sea, and we have improved standards for sewage treatment.
In opening the debate, the hon. Member for Uxbridge focused on oil pollution, and he is right to say that our oceans are still under threat from that. As the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire made clear, international solutions are required if we are to tackle these issues effectively. The sinking of the Prestige last November reminded us of the environmental, social and economic consequences of marine pollution. More needs to be done to better manage and protect our seas and the unique forms of life that they support.
As has been said, the oil from the Prestige is having a considerable effect; it is coming ashore on the western coast of France between La Rochelle and Hendaye. The French authorities were prepared, but they were hampered by bad weather when they tried to deal with the immediate problem. This matter is raising controversy in Spain, and it is worth placing on the record that we offered help of a scientific and environmental nature—including the loan of tugs—either directly or through the European Union.
The positive use of places of refuge when vessels are in difficulty is a major international issue. It is the subject of live debate in the EU, and the UK is fully engaged in that. The UK's experience is that judicious provision of shelter in a place of refuge or sheltered waters can significantly help in averting marine pollution incidents. We believe that it is unwise pre-emptively to rule in or out a particular location as a place of refuge. The need for a place of refuge and its location will be driven by events and specific data: the prevailing weather, the forecasted weather, the whereabouts of the incident, the consequences of not rendering assistance, and the type of threat that is posed by the ship seeking refuge and its cargo will all be key factors in the decision-making process—which will need to be geared up to be speedy.
As part of their contingency planning for pollutions incidents, the Government are asking harbour authorities to give consideration to granting refuge, having regard to the particular conditions pertaining at their ports, such as access to safe moorings, berths and jetties, availability of tugs, counter-pollution equipment
86WH
and offloading and repair facilities, and environmental considerations including local tides, currents and fishing activities. I think that everybody would accept that there is not an instant solution to these issues, but I can assure the hon. Member for Uxbridge—who raised them in a positive and constructive way—that we are seeking to tackle them urgently.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of substandard shipping flying flags of convenience. The main problem with substandard shipping and pollution from ships is not the result of inadequate international standards but of the failure of some owners in flag states to fulfil their responsibilities under agreed conventions. In 1997, the UK played a leading role in launching the quality shipping campaign at the IMO and in the EU. That engages all those involved in shipping ventures—owners, flag states, brokers, charterers and insurers—with a view to rewarding the responsible in the industry and increasingly marginalizing substandard ships, their owners and flags, and that initiative certainly needs to be continued.
It is worth noting that the United Kingdom is a party to the Paris memorandum of understanding on port state control. The UK's port state control regime is one of the most vigorous in the Paris MOU area, and we continue to exceed the target given in the port state control directive for inspecting foreign flagged vessels calling at UK ports. It is clear that all those hon. Members present strongly support continuing with enthusiasm down that road. The hon. Gentleman spoke also about satellite monitoring. The situation is still as he indicated; it is proceeding on a trial basis, but it is obviously something in which we are interested.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East raised the subject of black boxes. The Government support the installation of voyage data recorders in new vessels. That is stipulated in the revised chapter 5 of the international convention for the safety of life at sea. We are interested in work that is proceeding in the IMO with regard to retrofitting black boxes in existing vessels, but I am sure that all hon. Members accept that it is a more contentious and difficult issue to tackle. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend was right to raise it.
A number of hon. Members referred to the Braer incident in 1993, not least the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. In many ways, that incident marked a defining moment in our efforts to address pollution and its consequences. The Braer still ranks as the world's 12th largest oil spill. A pollution incident of such magnitude will inevitably have caused major hardships for many, and I recognise the impact that the hon. Gentleman outlined. It is a tribute to the resilience of the Shetlanders that they coped so well with the traumatic consequences, which were devastating for such a small community.
Many lessons had to be learned, and some lessons could not be learned nor could the solutions be implemented in a short time, but as a result of the Braer and the Sea Empress disasters, as well as other major spills, a number of steps have been taken. The UK has played a leading role in developing the many measures that have substantially improved the situation internationally, regionally and nationally, and I shall return to some of those in a moment.

87WH
The establishing of marine environment high risk areas was touched on. That is a particularly important development, to which the Government are strongly committed, although I accept that it has taken some time to get where we are now and I agree that we need to move as quickly as possible. That was one of the recommendations of the Donaldson report, and officials have worked very hard on the idea in recent years. However, I am sure that hon. Members would accept that it is important not only to implement the proposal but to get it right. We hope to announce the identified areas shortly; there will be some 30 areas, covering 10 per cent. of our coastline.
The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire asked, in relation to the Dorset coast, whether the UK would seek to designate all or some of its waters as PSSAs once that concept has been put in place. We take the view that all of our coastline merits protection from marine pollution, and once we have established the marine environment high risk areas we will monitor their effectiveness and assess whether further protective measures are required, such as the PSSA designation to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
The hon. Gentleman referred also to the Comptroller and Auditor General's report entitled "Dealing with Pollution from Ships". It was a soundly based, balanced and well-rounded report that recognised the substantial achievements of the Department for Transport and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency in minimising the risk of pollution of the marine environment from ships and, where pollution occurs, in minimising the impact of that pollution on UK waters, coastlines and economic interests. The report has much to say that is positive, while highlighting areas in which it was perceived that more work has to be done. The Department for Transport and the MCA are working to take forward those recommendations. The hon. Gentleman almost seemed to ridicule the amount of consultation that DEFRA has undertaken. That consultation reflects its extremely wide-ranging and complex areas of responsibility, and the partnership approach that it takes to working with interest groups, often groups that have to be reconciled, rather than single interest groups with a clear aim. That is combined with the commitment of Ministers to action and to solving the extensive list of problems covered by our portfolio.
The Government's first marine stewardship report "Safeguarding our Seas" shows the way forward. Published last May, it sets out our strategy for the conservation and sustainable development of our marine environment, and outlines our ecosystem approach to achieving our vision of clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse oceans and seas. Tackling marine pollution is a key element of that strategy.
Mr. Sayeed: The Minister mentioned that the debate is cross-departmental. I understand that he does not have specific knowledge of all the areas under discussion. On that basis, and because some important points have been made, will he confirm that he will bring
88WH
to the attention of other interested Ministers the points that have not been adequately covered, so that they can write to hon. Members?
Alun Michael: I mentioned that at the beginning, because the hon. Member for Uxbridge had the choice of targeting the Department for Transport or DEFRA. Some of the issues are very important, and are lead issues for DEFRA, but many of the matters that have been raised are primarily for the Department for Transport. I said at the start that, for that reason, I would either reply on behalf of the two Departments or seek a response from my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for shipping on matters on which I was unable to respond in detail. I am happy to reinforce that point.
Tackling marine pollution is a key element of our strategy. We are working closely with EU member states, the OSPAR convention for the protection of the marine environment of the north-east Atlantic and other international forums to turn our vision into reality.
A range of OSPAR decisions and recommendations, together with EU directives, not least the integrated pollution preventative control directive and the water framework directive, have sharply reduced discharges of hazardous chemicals into the north-east Atlantic. I am sure that hon. Members from all parties would accept that a lot of those boring-sounding and technical titles reflect an enormous amount of work that is done internationally, making a positive contribution to the future of the environment. That concerns all of us.
Action is also being taken through the EU and OSPAR to tackle eutrophication, which can be a problem in some coastal waters. We reduced direct inputs of nitrogen into marine waters by 30 per cent. during the 1990s and further reductions will be achieved through action plans under the nitrates directive and the urban waste water directive. I refer to those issues because they are complementary to the issues of maritime pollution and oil pollution, which have been mentioned. We need to look at the whole environment as it affects the maritime situation, including the contributions that are made from land within the UK.
Norman Baker: Will the Minister comment on the fact that the MCA has managed to prosecute only 10 ships, with an average fine of £20,000 since 1995? For all the Government's good work, there are no prosecutions and no teeth.
Alun Michael: That falls within the areas on which I do not have direct knowledge and on which I have said that I will respond to colleagues after discussing them with the Minister with responsibility for shipping. I return to the point that the debate was focused on DEFRA responsibilities. However, most of the debate has been on the responsibilities of the Department for Transport. We work closely across Departments, but it would be unwise for me to go outside my specific knowledge in debate. A debate should be focused differently if technical responses from the Department for Transport are required. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will approach the matter again from a second angle.

89WH
The debate has certainly shown the need for cross-Department co-operation. There is a high level of such co-operation; I am very pleased with the way in which officials in my Department, and those at the Department for Transport, co-operate.
Mr. Frank Cook (in the Chair): Order. I ask hon. Members not participating in the debate on air quality in market towns to leave quietly and calmly.

Air Quality (Market Towns)
11 am
Dr. Andrew Morrison: I am grateful for the opportunity for this debate on a matter of great concern to many people in my constituency. Transport Ministers have now pretty well admitted that the Deputy Prime Minister's 10-year transport plan will fail to meet its targets by 2010. That is a great pity, because, of the 120 air quality management areas in England, two happen to lie in small towns in my rural constituency. Had the plan been on course, I might not have felt it necessary to ask for the debate, and we could all have been outside making snowmen in the ever-increasing snow falling around the House.
Last year we remembered the London smog of 1952. Overall since then things have, mercifully, improved. However, two things have happened at the same time, relating to the consideration of air quality in smaller centres. Our insight into the likely health effects of levels of atmospheric pollution that are, by historic standards, low, has improved dramatically. Also, the contribution to air pollution by industry has of course been eclipsed by that made by road traffic.
Unfortunately, the improvement evident in cities has not necessarily been matched elsewhere. Indeed, when air quality assessments were carried out by local authorities from the mid-1990s onwards, people in the field were, it is probably true to say, caught rather on the back foot by the extent of the problem in unexpected locations. In Wiltshire there are six air quality management areas—one in Bradford-on-Avon, one in Westbury and four in Salisbury. None are in Swindon, which is by far the biggest conurbation in Wiltshire.
We expect pollution in our big industrial cities and alongside motorways, and by and large we find it there. However, we do not necessarily associate it with pretty market towns and pocket cathedral cities such as Salisbury; but it appears that we are finding it in those places too. Consequently, a national air quality strategy that anticipated having to deal exclusively with cities must now attend to the special needs of smaller centres.
Market towns are pathetically ill-equipped to deal with 21st century traffic. Traffic is forced to wind through ancient trackways, competing all the time with the needs of pedestrians. Workable solutions are devilishly difficult and planners have little room for manoeuvre. Not only do they struggle to marry the competing needs of residents, businesses, motorists and pedestrians, but they must deal with historic buildings that are blackened by traffic effluent. Air pollution does not respect anyone, including politicians. An acidic sandstone leprosy has eaten away at the rather handsome face of my constituency office. That building is not unique in west Wiltshire and the small towns that I represent have a wealth of historic buildings that are gradually being spoiled by traffic effluent.
Alarming though such effects are for the townscape, my chief concern is for the well-being of people who live along major through routes in Bradford-on-Avon and Westbury. One of the defining characteristics of market towns is that residents' front doors often give directly on to major thoroughfares. In gentler times, when all that passed by one's front door was a coach and horses, that perhaps was not a problem. However, when the road

91WH
has evolved into the A350 through Westbury, a road that Ministers are seriously considering as a south coast to Bristol and Bath super-highway, it is a different matter entirely. We know that pollutants fall away the further one gets from traffic, but when the exhaust-to-sofa distance is measured in inches, there is a problem. That applies in larger centres also; however, in many cities the traffic is not juxtaposed with vehicles in quite the same way as it is in many historic market towns. People would not plan to live so close to traffic these days as those who live in small towns that were built hundreds of years ago.
Most authorities that need to put in place air-quality improvement plans will rightly try to avoid the difficult option of building themselves out of difficulty. However, for the Westbury bypass, as a local scheme that is independent of the south coast to Bristol and Bath study, a road is the only realistic solution. There is no other way that decent air quality can be delivered to my constituents who live in the middle of the town. I commend the bypass to the Minister, although I realise that his powers are limited in that respect. I hope that, in the next few months, his Government will think again about the stop that they put on the Westbury bypass at the tail-end of 2001.
Although air pollution in smaller towns is predominantly the result of traffic, industry also surprisingly features. Indeed, the Westbury cement works presents an additional challenge for the town. Blue Circle has taken to burning tyres with the Environment Agency's support. The Environment Agency has more than simply the welfare of my constituents in mind as it works towards the EU-driven landfill directive.
To meet the terms of the directive, the Government appear to be going for the easy option of energy recovery, which is hardly carbon-neutral, over retreading and recycling, which are. That may be good news for the cement industry, but many of my constituents who live in the lee of the Blue Circle chimney are yet to be convinced that what comes out of the stack does them any good. It is sad that our Government do little to support tyre-recycling, apart from sponsoring a bit of research. They might like to consider the United States, where the recycling of tyres is more actively promoted. In the States there is a statutory minimum recycled content for road surfacings that must be derived from old tyres. I hope that the Minister will comment on that and also reconsider my request for a meeting to discuss air pollution in Westbury.
Anyone who doubts the challenges facing market towns should visit hilly, mediaeval Bradford-on-Avon, which is a quintessentially beautiful small town. If it were snowing there—my wife tells me that it is not snowing in Wiltshire at the moment—the town would be particularly attractive. I recommend that the Minister pay a visit at any time, but particularly to look at the problem that I describe today. Were he to take his life into his hands, he could walk up Mason's lane in Bradford-on-Avon. There, fumes from traffic that climbs a steep incline are retained by high structures on either side that produce a canyon effect. That road,
92WH
which is in the middle of one of the most delightful towns in England, has one of the poorest air qualities in the country.
To get an idea of local opinion in Bradford on remedial measures, I personally delivered more than 400 letters to residents and businesses in the middle of the town during the festive period. The response has been impressive.
One of my chief concerns is that a planned development at a redundant industrial site called Kingston mill should be disallowed in its current form. The site is plumb in the middle of Bradford, and the developer is no doubt relishing ministerial diktat on housing density that is promoting the shoehorning into the site of 127 de-luxe dwellings, no affordable housing and a quantity of commercial premises. The effect that that will have on traffic and air quality in Bradford in the 3 to 4-year construction phase and in the long term is blindingly obvious.
Any proposals that Wiltshire county council might come up with to re-route, to slow down and, in a myriad clever ways, to alter traffic behaviour would almost certainly be eclipsed by such an application. My constituents have lost no time in pointing that out. They are rightly calling for a holistic approach to air quality management in the town. I hope that Ministers will allow latitude in planning guidance to ensure that the special nature of settlements such as Bradford-on-Avon is recognised.
Many of my Bradford correspondents are calling for a bypass to lift their misery. Realistically, that is a distant prospect, but it would be nice to have reliable data on which to base relief measures. Unfortunately, according to their own advisers, the Government are using wrongly computed data to project future pollution from car usage. Last month, the advisory committee on business and the environment said that the Government had substantially underestimated the reduction in road transport emissions that would be achieved by the end of the decade. It is important to sort that out quickly, because it would be unfortunate if structure plans were drafted and road schemes hatched on the basis of shoddy data. I hope that the Minister can offer the appropriate assurances in that regard.
Last year, DEFRA published revised draft guidance with its proposals for rolling air quality reviews and annual reports. The guidance makes it clear that Ministers want to get a tighter central grip on local air quality management. That is fine, and the proposal is no doubt driven by the Government's need to meet EU directives. However, local air quality management suddenly looks like no more than local air quality monitoring, with most of the management being done centrally.
The evidence base for the health effects of historically low levels of pollution is not firm. Guidance based on levels will encourage a deterministic approach, when a stochastic one might be more appropriate. Clearly, further research is needed into the effects of pollutants and particularly into the toxicology of particulates, given the emerging evidence on lung cancer and circulatory disease. I hope that the Minister will see such research as a potentially fruitful area for Government funding.

93WH
Ministers must take the lead in promoting cleaner, more sustainable fuels through suitable abatements in vehicle excise duty and by adjusting duty on alternative fuels to reflect the EU minimum rate. I welcome what the cleaner vehicles task force and Powershift have done so far, but alternatively powered vehicles are still marginal. The Government must further increase the fuel duty differential in favour of alternatives such as liquefied petroleum gas, compressed natural gas, biodiesel, and electricity and hydrogen cells. We must also support research and development.
I welcome the enforcement of MOT and roadside emission checks, and I am intrigued by the possibility that the low-emission zones enforced in European towns might also be applied in towns here. However, such strategies are financially regressive, and much of my constituency lies in a low-wage economy. The less well-off tend to own older, less efficient vehicles, and I would be interested to know what assessment the Minister has made of the possible impact of the initiatives on such people.
I am sure that the Minister is aware that a car is no luxury for people in the countryside, where public transport is often not an option. I hope that Ministers will be true to their word in rural-proofing any policies that they come up with for improving air quality, so that my rural constituents are not disproportionately disadvantaged.
In their worthy market towns initiative, the Government have at least been good enough to nod in the direction of such towns, and that is welcome. No one expects the scheme to turn the fortunes of small towns around—much less that it will greatly improve the road traffic situation. However, I hope that it Indicates a willingness on the part of Ministers to recognise that market towns have distinct problems, as well as difficulties, such as poor air quality, that are traditionally associated with large conurbations.
11.13 am
The Minister for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) for raising a wide range of important issues and for the constructive and well-informed way in which he debated them.
It is worth saying at the beginning that there have been real improvements in air quality over the past decade and, indeed, the past 50 years. In that respect, we should recall that we marked the 50th anniversary of the great smog of London only a few weeks ago. That improvement in air quality applies in market towns just as much as it does in larger cities. That is a tribute to the improvements that have been made in vehicles and fuels, as well as to the reduction in industrial and domestic emissions.
However, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that the issue is important and that the problems have not gone away. There are still areas with unacceptably high levels of pollution, and we must address that problem, not least because of the health impact of exposure to air pollution. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman referred to the need for further research into those health effects, and I agree with his point. I am therefore pleased that the Department of Health recently announced £1 million worth of new research projects.
94WH
The committee on the medical effects of air pollutants has been asked to advise the Government as soon as possible on new evidence that is emerging from research. With his medical background, the hon. Gentleman will be familiar with many of the impacts of air pollution, for example its links with asthma, cancer and reduced life expectancy. That underlines the importance of the issue that he raised this morning.
I certainly agree that, in smaller towns, increasing volumes of traffic cause particular problems, some of which the hon. Gentleman described eloquently, although I suspect that some pollution problems were caused by the coaches and horses that used to pass through Wiltshire towns in earlier days. We are all familiar with the problems of narrow streets, which were never designed to cope with the volume of traffic that goes through those towns today. I agree that those problems need to be tackled, but it is also important to get the balance right.
Towards the end of his remarks, the hon. Gentleman made one important point. We need to improve air quality but we also need to improve transport links—a key issue not only for market towns but for the rural hinterland. It is important to improve transport for people in rural areas, as well as for the rural economy, in which communications play a crucial role. That is especially true as the economy becomes more diversified and we try to maintain the standard of life in rural communities. That is an important part of my work and that of DEFRA, which is focusing, for the first time ever, on rural issues in that way.
The problem is that there is no one-size-fits-all policy to deal with all the issues. That is why the Government have introduced the system of local air quality management, the purpose of which is to allow local authorities to identify pollution hotspots and to put in place local measures to deal with them. We also have a system of local transport plans, under which local authorities are able to bid for new capital funding for local transport measures. Many authorities have successfully bid for schemes to alleviate local pollution problems. It is something of a quiet revolution that that is becoming such an accepted part of a progressive approach towards improving the environment.
In Wiltshire, funding for integrated transport measures is being increased from just over £350,000 in 1998–99 to nearly £4 million in 2002–03. I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman mentioned the possibility of a bypass. Indeed, I believe that he referred to that possibility in connection with two locations. I am sure that he is aware of the importance of the Bristol/Bath to south coast study, which is examining how best to manage traffic flows in the area. The consultants are creating a strategic traffic model, which will allow options to be tested. We might reasonably expect the study to address the issues associated with the possibility of a bypass for Westbury, which would improve air quality there. It would not be right to speculate on the outcome of the study before it is published because the issues are complex and need to be addressed in the round. I can tell the hon. Gentleman, however, that the consultants have been asked to complete the study by the summer in time to allow Wiltshire county council to apply for funding as a supplementary local transport bid, if the study's findings support that approach.

95WH
The hon. Gentleman said, rightly, that levels of pollution at the roadside can be high, and some properties are built far closer to the road than would now be acceptable as a construction standard. That poses a problem in several market towns. Local authorities have a variety of powers at their disposal to tackle that, and the problem must be addressed locally, sometimes by taking the strategic approach that a bypass implies and sometimes with other more local approaches.
In trying to deal with local air pollution problems in the way that I have described, several local authorities have identified considerable air pollution problems in smaller market towns. Levels of pollution at the roadside in those market towns can sometimes be high enough to cause real concern, and clearly must be dealt with. In trying to improve air quality, the hon. Gentleman is right to point out that the air is no respecter of artificial boundaries. For that reason, national and local measurements have a role to play. Local measures are the most direct effective way of dealing with local air pollution problems. Local authorities are best placed to decide what will work in their areas, whether it be new traffic management systems, parking restrictions, or partnerships with bus and freight operators.
Where levels of air pollution are high, we have also given local authorities new powers and new funding to carry out roadside emission testing, which can be an effective way of encouraging motorists to behave responsibly—by getting their vehicles tuned, for example. Several powers are now available to local authorities because of the increased importance that we place on the issue. What works in one town, however, might not in another, and local authorities are best placed to decide what will and will not work well in their areas.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the recycling of tyres and it is important that we deal with the problem of used tyres in the United Kingdom. I cannot comment about the local issue that he raised in detail, but a cement works would be regulated by the Environment Agency, which considers all emissions when it sets the pollution permit conditions. If he has not already done so, the hon. Gentleman should examine the particular circumstances and the Environment Agency's approach in his area. I would be happy to help if that would be of any use to him.
We take the issue of air quality very seriously. There are air pollution problems in some market towns just as there are localised problems in our bigger towns and
96WH
cities. Local measures have a key role to play in dealing with those problems. The Government will continue to support local authorities financially and through the provision of policy and technical guidance.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the link between air pollution and land use planning, which I agree is of the utmost importance. Planning authorities must be alive to the impact of new developments on air quality, but each case should be examined on its merits. As with so many things, the specific issue must be seen in the context of the wider economic, social and environmental effects. The point of sustainable development is to ensure that each of those three elements is properly balanced when reaching individual decisions. The guiding principals must be those of sustainable development.
I do not wish to comment on particular planning applications—it is not appropriate for Ministers to do so—but it is worth touching on a few broad principles. First, air quality can be what planners term a material consideration in any application. Whether it actually is, and the weight to be attached to it relative to other material considerations, are matters for the local planning authority in each case. For example, a planning authority may decide that it is worth accepting a slight deterioration in overall air quality if the economic or social gains of a particular development outweigh it. In other cases, the authority may decide that the impact on air quality is likely to be so significant that the development should not go ahead. What is important is that the issue is dealt with appropriately in the planning process.
Secondly, we cannot totally rule out developments in areas where the local authority has identified an air pollution problem, but in such areas, air quality is more likely to be a material consideration in the planning process. Local planning authorities may also consider whether to request developers to put in place mitigation measures, through planning conditions or other agreements with the developer.
Finally, we have encouraged local planning authorities to bear in mind air quality in their development plans for an area. When they set out the long-term blueprint for future developments, they must ensure that they do not create new pollution hot spots or worsen old ones. Such a balanced approach should be pursued. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is reassured about the way in which the Government are taking such issues seriously that he raised in the debate.
11.24 am
Sitting suspended.

Consumer Rights in the EU
2 pm
Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: I am delighted to have secured this Adjournment debate—it seems to be somewhat amplified—on consumer rights in the European Union. I sought a debate because European institutions and member states are currently discussing several major consumer rights issues. Their decisions will have significant implications for consumers throughout the EU, including in the United Kingdom, and it is vital that the right decisions are taken.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: On a point of order, Mr. Cook. Something strange is happening with the microphones. There is quite a lot of feedback, and I would suggest that it is too loud for anyone.
Mr. Frank Cook (in the Chair): It may make things easier if the control room turned off the two additional live microphones—the Opposition spokesman's and mine.
Mr. Lazarowicz: Thank you, Mr. Cook. I am not sure whether that has improved matters. Do you wish me to continue?
Mr. Cook: Please continue.
Mr. Lazarowicz: It is vital that the right decisions are taken as a result of the ongoing discussions in the EU and member states. I shall highlight the most important aspects of those discussions, and suggest some of the measures that need to be implemented in the EU. I hope that our Government will support such measures in the European institutions, and that the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson), can give some indication of the line that the Government are taking and of how matters stand in the European debate.
In drafting my comments, I have drawn on the ideas of several consumer organisations, arid I thank those that have provided me and other hon. Members with useful briefing material. In particular, I thank Citizens Advice and the Consumers Association.
This debate is important because the EU is developing significant consumer protection proposals. It is worth remembering that it has been the major shaper of much of our recent consumer protection legislation. Until the Enterprise Act 2002 was enacted a few weeks ago, most of our homegrown consumer rights legislation derived from the 1970s. Otherwise, most of the initiatives that have resulted in new rights for UK consumers have come from the EU. Those include protection against unfair terms in consumer contracts, and rights for those who purchase package holidays, timeshares and items at home, over the telephone and on the internet. It might even be said that those new rights are some of the most obvious and direct benefits that individuals in this country enjoy as a result of our EU membership. Most recently, the stop now regulations, which had previously
98WH
been brought into play, were incorporated into the Enterprise Act. They originated in EU legislation, and I pay tribute to the Government and to the Minister for setting such great store by those stop now regulations, which will be an important weapon for the consumer in the fight against unfair trading practices.
One of the important debates taking place in the European Union is whether the various measures to protect consumers' interests should be complemented by placing businesses under a general duty to trade fairly with consumers. I am sure that hon. Members are aware that the European Union is consulting on such proposals. The introduction of such a general duty is supported by a wide range of consumer organisations, and I urge the Government to support such a general duty through European regulations.
Citizens Advice, in arguing for such a duty, has told me that its bureaux regularly report inquiries about shoddy and overpriced goods, delivery of substandard services, the use of misleading information, oppressive behaviour and high-pressure selling methods. Many of those complaints clearly involve unfair trading practices, but they cannot readily be addressed under present consumer protection legislation.
I was particularly struck by one example publicised by Citizens Advice in its recent report on doorstep selling. It gave the example of a single parent who was receiving working families tax credit and who was persuaded to sign a £6,000 contract to purchase solar panels. The salesperson had been in her home for five hours, the woman had not eaten and her child was desperate to go to bed, and she signed a contract for solar panels. She had responded to a sales leaflet that had come through her door, and because of that she was held to have solicited the visit from the salesperson. As a result, she had no cancellation rights under the regulations governing doorstep selling. When she tried to cancel the contract the company threatened her with breach of contract.
Such problems occur because under the implementation in the United Kingdom of European regulations on doorstep selling a consumer who signs a contract agreed to during a solicited visit to their home has no right to cancel that contract. A general duty against unfair trading would provide that such a practice could be challenged and that contracts entered into as a result of such unfair practice could be set aside. It has also been suggested that a fair trading duty could be a very powerful weapon in dealing with the many scandals of fuel mis-selling that have been the subject of many debates in the House.
The argument for such a general duty to trade fairly is that it would fill a gap in consumer law between specific rights and business practices that are unfair and are to the detriment of consumers but which may not easily be defined as unlawful practices. This gap exists, as legislation can fail to capture new trends and developments in a market. Unscrupulous traders have always tried to find ways around legislation, and a general duty to trade fairly would enable enforcement agencies to act much more quickly to deal with unfair trading practices. It is important to protect the interests of honest traders while preventing dishonest traders from engaging in unfair trading practices.

99WH
The idea of such a duty is not new. Twelve years ago, the Office of Fair Trading published proposals for a flexible tool for tackling unfair, deceptive or misleading practices under proposals for an overhauled Fair Trading Act. Four years ago, the Government, in their White Paper on modernising consumer protection, declared that the current legislation did not deal effectively with traders who demonstrated their lack of regard for legislation that was aimed at protecting consumers. The Government recognised the need to tackle unfair trading practices that harmed consumers yet were legal.
I hope that the Government will support the proposals that are going through the European Union to introduce such a general duty to trade fairly. Were that to be done, it would be a major boost for consumer interest throughout the European Union, including consumers in this country.
Consumer credit has been the subject of considerable debate in the House. It is an area in which the European Union will play an increasingly significant role, both because of its duties to promote the consumer interest and because of the increasing trans-border nature of much of the financial services industry. None of the hon. Members present will need persuading that there has been major, unprecedented growth in consumer credit in this country in the past few years, and that has been paralleled in the rest of the European Union.
The Government have decided to review the law on consumer credit. The Minister is to be congratulated on announcing recently what is to be the biggest shake-up in our consumer credit laws, under the banner of 'Tackling loan sharks and more!'. That Government initiative is welcome. It is also to be welcomed that the European institutions are looking at their consumer credit rules.
Jim Sheridan: People of my age and from my era may remember that loan sharking was a big issue, especially in parts of the west of Scotland in the more traditional shipbuilding industry. Although it has been stamped out in many areas, it is still prevalent where there is low employment. I ask the Government to take whatever steps possible to encourage employers to make loan sharking in the workplace a dismissible and disciplinary offence.
Mr. Lazarowicz: My hon. Friend raises an important point. One problem is that the illegal loan shark will not be covered by consumer credit laws. However, employers still have an important role to play. As well as the measures that my hon. Friend suggests, support for workplace-based credit unions may be a positive way in which employers could deal with the problem that he outlines.
The European Commission has now published its draft consumer credit directive, and it is to be welcomed that the European Union is reviewing the Commission's proposals. However, several consumer groups in this country have expressed anxieties that the current European Union proposals for a new directive may—unintentionally—undermine much of the good work that the Government are doing to protect the interest of the consumer against the unscrupulous provider of credit.
100WH
It must be said that there is much to be welcomed, at least theoretically, in the European Union's draft directive. Consumer organisations have expressed concerns that, from a UK consumer's perspective, the directive may offer much less of the positive regulation that is enjoyed by UK consumers at present, and will be enjoyed by UK consumers if the Government's proposals on consumer credit are put into effect.
I wish to draw attention to some of the concerns expressed by consumer organisations, and I hope that the Minister will respond to some of those points at the end of the debate.
My first concern relates to licensing and regulation. As I understand it, the European Union proposals would replace the current positive licensing system for traders with a system of registration for lenders and credit intermediaries, but they do not appear to require debt collectors and debt counsellors to be registered, although they are currently required to be licensed in the UK. Those who operate credit reference agencies and hold personal data on individuals would not need to be licensed under the EU proposals, as they currently are in the UK. Clearly, if such measures were omitted from the European rules, loopholes could open up in our system of protection for borrowers.
A second concern relates to home improvement loans. As I understand it, the draft directive would exclude lending for the transformation of private heritable property or home improvement loans. Consumers who take out loans for that purpose should be protected from unfair trading practices and unfair debt recovery practices. CABs report that that area of the market is often associated with unfair trading practices, extortionate credit and high-pressure sales tactics, so it needs to be covered by the consumer credit directive, when it finally emerges.
There are concerns about extortionate credit, which the EU proposals do not seem to challenge. UK legislation contains at least some limited provisions to challenge extortionate credit rates, and I know that the Government have given some consideration to strengthening legislation in that respect. The fear is that the draft European directive could make it impossible to enforce such restrictions on extortionate credit in the UK.
There are concerns about early settlement charges. It is suggested that, under the EU proposals, there would be no prospect of member states being able to abolish extortionate charges for the early settlement of debt. CABs have often reported outrageous practices by lenders who charge extremely high rates of interest for early termination of loan contracts.
Another important concern, expressed not only by consumer organisations but by some lenders, is the proposed change to the liability of credit card issuers in the event that goods or services purchased with a credit card are substandard. The draft directive seems to offer less protection to consumers in those circumstances than the UK's Consumer Credit Act 1974. Under that Act, both the credit card issuer and the supplier of goods and services are liable, subject to certain qualifications, if those goods or services are substandard. Under the terms of the directive, however, the liability of the supplier and card issuer would apply only if the supplier of goods and services had also acted as the supplier of

101WH
credit. As I am sure hon. Members appreciate, consumers who purchase goods and services with a credit card from a supplier often do not also use the supplier as an intermediary to provide the credit. The ability to claim against the credit card provider, as well as against the supplier, for substandard goods and services has been an important fall-back right enjoyed by consumers in this country. If the directive were to remove or restrict consumers' rights to make a claim against a credit card provider, for example when the supplier had not met a claim or had gone out of business, that would be a major loss for the consumer interest. It is not only consumers organisations that have expressed concern about the matter; I received an e-mail last night from the Nationwide building society, a credit card issuer, which expressed concern about the effect of the directive on consumers' rights.
The draft directive raises many questions about the Government's intention to tighten the UK consumer credit regulations. It is important that the European Union rules should not eventually worsen the position of consumers in this country, instead of providing them with additional rights. I hope that the Government will work to ensure that the important EU proposals on consumer credit will result in the improvements for UK consumers that I have suggested.
Mr. Kerry Pollard: My hon. Friend spoke of regulation that can be applied to people in the system. The largest difficulty in my county is the black economy, where cash changes hands. Travellers come across every summer and take millions of pounds from the local economy for shoddy jobs. There is no comeback because they disappear into the ether. Has my hon. Friend given any thought to the idea of educating consumers, rather than regulating the people providing services, who can never be caught?
Mr. Lazarowicz: My hon. Friend raises an important point, because a difficulty with tightening regulations is that some people choose not to comply with any regulations, and ignore them all. The measures that the Government are introducing strongly emphasise not only the giving of rights to consumers but the provision of mechanisms to educate them about those rights. Some providers will always flout the law, so it is important that people know when that happens and when to report it to an enforcement agency.
The Government have done much to provide consumers with new rights. The opportunities for consumers that recent measures have brought about may not yet have been as widely recognised as they might be. It is essential, therefore, that the European Union framework should add to, support and strengthen the measures taken by the Government, and should not allow them to be undermined, even inadvertently. I hope that the Minister will be able to commit herself to continuing the fight within Europe to maintain a high level of consumer protection, so that consumers in this country will benefit, as well as those in other countries of the European Union.
Mr. Frank Cook (in the Chair): Order. It will be of interest to hon. Members to know that the volume level on the sound system in this Chamber has been increased in response to complaints made by colleagues before
102WH
Christmas that it was too low. However, account has been taken of our experiences this afternoon, and measures are in train to moderate the levels to somewhere between what we have now and what we had then. No expense is spared to ensure the comfort and ease of hon. Members.
2.23 pm
Ross Cranston: I hope that my contribution will be well modulated, Mr. Cook.
I have a puzzle. It began in the 1970s when I first took an interest in this matter. At that stage, this country was a leader in consumer policy and law. The Trade Descriptions Act 1968 was a model, as was the Fair Trading Act 1973, which was introduced by the Conservatives, although a great deal of the work had been done by my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) when the Labour party was in power. People in other parts of the world looked to the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. At that time, the National Consumer Council was established and high street consumer advice centres sprung up around the country.
Then we had the great freeze of the 1980s. I remember being part of a small National Consumer Council delegation to the now shadow Leader of the House, who was then at the Department of Trade and Industry. We proposed a manufacturers' guarantee bill, but although that was strongly supported by members of the Conservative party, such as Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes, it got very short shrift. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) said, it was a time when the European Community consumer protection measures came into their own. I had some difficulty with the competence of the European Community. The justification that the measures were somehow fundamental to the completion of the internal market and that they were necessary to empower consumers to shop across borders did not wash with me. However, the substance of the measures was excellent. We received directives on, for example, package holidays and time-shares and, most importantly, we had the unfair terms in consumer contract directive, leading to regulations in 1994 which have been replaced by the 1999 regulations.
That is where my puzzle comes in. Since the great freeze, the consumer measures that have been taken have been largely driven by Europe. My concern is that sometimes we are the odd one out in opposing valuable developments at a European level. In 1999, the Government published a White Paper "Modern Markets: Confident Consumers" which provides a valuable framework for policy. I commend the Government for such measures as section 11 of the Enterprise Act 2002, which introduced the system of super-complainants. There are also provisions in part 8 of the Act in relation to stop now orders, although they were largely prompted by the European Community directive on the matter and by the need, which was identified in 1976, to reform part III of the Fair Trading Act 1986.
However, we should not have needed the 1999 sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees directive to make us change our law to make manufacturers'

103WH
guarantees enforceable and to ensure that consumers were legally entitled to repairs to faulty products. We should have taken the initiative many years ago. A number of problems have been identified by my hon. Friend, such as over-indebtedness. In preparing for the debate, I asked Dudley's citizens advice bureau and trading standards department to provide me with examples of that. They cited companies that lend money door to door and encourage people to take out high-interest loans, which they cannot afford to repay, and rogue traders. In my area the phantom tarmackers have been replaced by the block pavers. I am sure that all hon. Members have received complaints about the sale of gas and electricity by various companies.
The most scandalous recent example of high pressure sales in Dudley is that of the 83-year-old widow who received an unsolicited phone call asking about her physical condition, at the end of which she was told that she had won a massage. An arrangement was made for her to receive a visit the next day. She was then pressurised to buy a £4,400 orthopaedic bed, eventually reduced to £2,700. She paid a deposit of £300. After the bed arrived she discovered that she could have bought it for £800 to £900 elsewhere, and that it was not especially helpful to her. The problem of rogue selling is being dealt with as a result of the super complaint brought by NACAB, which is now known as Citizens Advice. In response, the Office of Fair Trading agreed that there was a serious problem. The taskforce set up by the Department of Trade and Industry to tackle over-indebtedness has acknowledged that there is a problem with irresponsible lending. It sets out several practices, and draws the conclusion that
"each affects a relatively small proportion of high-risk households. But such practices do tend, quite disproportionately, to attract customers who are at a high risk of over-commitment."
In her speech to the money advice liaison group in November, my hon. Friend the Minister acknowledged that there were problems and identified the steps that the Government have taken on financial education and support for financial advice services and the steps of the regulatory agencies in relation to the sale of gas and electricity. However, we should not need a proposed directive from the European Community to tell us that we need a legal instrument to deal with responsible lending, which is what draft article 9 sets out to do.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith raised some important points about this new consumer credit directive, which I shall not repeat. The directive would create certain difficulties, such as the section 75 difficulty identified by my hon. Friend, whereby the liability of creditors for the acts of retailers might be reduced, which would certainly be a retrograde step for policy in this country.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire (Jim Sheridan) raised an interesting point about marrying employment and consumer credit law. My point is that we have problems in this country that are clearly identifiable. We should be taking action and do not need the European Community to tell us how to do things.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith raised the issue of a general duty to trade fairly. He rightly pointed out that an OFT paper was
104WH
published on the subject in February 1987. In the summer, I read a paper to the Society of European Contract Law in which I traced the issue back even further. The United States and commonwealth countries such as Australia have provisions that could easily form a basis of a general duty to trade fairly. I therefore found it disappointing that, during the passage of the Enterprise Bill, my hon. Friend the Minister made clear the Government's opposition to that duty. That opposition was confirmed by the Government's response in October 2002 to the European Commission's consultation on the follow-up communication to the Green Paper on EU consumer protection.
In the debates on the Enterprise Bill, the Minister referred to the lack of clarity of a duty to trade fairly. It appears that the experience of other countries does not support that proposition. The duty to trade fairly, or its equivalent, operates successfully in other countries. It operates in the United States under the uniform commercial code and in Australia under the Trade Practices Act to pick up problems with which specific legislative provisions do not deal. We need the general duty as a backstop to specific regulations.
The Minister also voiced the objection that the general duty would be too great a burden on business. It does not operate as a burden on business, but merely crystallises once a business acts unfairly. It has no bearing on a business until that business steps out of line.
In the paper that I presented over the summer to the Society of European Contract Law, I argued that the duty should be coupled with a provision for redress. Again, that operates successfully in other countries, so I am puzzled as to why we are not in favour of the duty and why we are not leading by example. I know that other hon. Members have contributions to make, so I shall end where I began—with a puzzle. Why is it that we were once a leader in consumer policy and law, but we are now a laggard?
2.35 pm
Jim Sheridan: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) on securing this debate on an extremely important issue. I shall concentrate on timeshare selling and its impact on many vulnerable people. Going on holiday abroad, they are subjected to attempts to sell them timeshare facilities, which cause them much pain and discomfort. Many of those people are easily identifiable by their white legs when they arrive at these sunny resorts.
Timeshare has presented a problem for consumer protection policy for a number of years. The Department of Trade and Industry has estimated that there are at least 440,000 timeshare owners in the United Kingdom, more than three quarters of whom have timeshares abroad. There are an estimated 1.14 million owners throughout the European Union, a third of whom are based in the UK. The DTI also estimates that, in the UK alone, the timeshare market is worth more than £108 million per annum.
Attracted by the certainty of holiday accommodation for years to come, consumers often find that, at best, the deal is poor, as service charges rise uncontrollably and

105WH
contracts contain restrictive covenants on resale. Worse, contracts often seem to be entered into after high-pressure and misleading sales practices. Often, contracts do not have cooling-off or cancellation rights, and obtaining redress or refunds is extremely difficult, if not impossible.
Many products on the market are designed to fall outside the specific EU consumer protection relating to timeshare, either because they are timeshare-like, such as holiday clubs that do not specify a particular property under the contract, or because the contracts are of less than 36 months' duration. Providers seem to use both those devices to avoid coming within the scope of the EU timeshare directive, which provides the right to cancel contracts.
For many years, consumer bodies have highlighted a range of significant shortcomings in the consumer protection law in this regard, so it comes as no surprise that the Office of Fair Trading reports with alarming regularity that consumer complaints about timeshare continue to increase. In 2000, the complaints totalled 4,860; now, the figure has risen to 6,218. Outside the UK, the European consumer centres report that this is the single largest subject of inquiries from consumers, who often seek help because they want to get out of a very shady deal.
It seemed that the UK Government were on top of the problem and keen to solve it. Just three years ago, the then Consumer Affairs Minister announced a crackdown on unscrupulous holiday timeshare sales techniques. Consultation was promised on a number of key changes, such as widening the scope of timeshare legislation to include holiday and vacation club schemes, floating vessels and timeshares of less than three years' duration, timeshare resales, and protection relating to money paid post sale for items such as maintenance.
At present it seems that all that is likely to materialise in the UK in the face of ongoing consumer detriment is a small change to UK consumers' rights to information about their present cooling-off and cancellation rights. Pulling back from the proposals made three years ago, the DTI only proposes to change the legislation so that instead of customers receiving a separate cancellation notice and form, the notice will be integral to the contract and have a detachable cancellation coupon. While those consumers with cancellation rights may be more likely to be aware of them, it will do nothing to allow those who purchase timeshares that do not fall within the strict limits of the present legislation to cancel after they have experienced the high-pressure sales tactics.
Across the EU, instead of moving to improve this legislation, it seems likely that nothing will happen until it becomes clear whether timeshare problems can be adequately addressed through a proposed framework directive, which will prohibit unfair trading practices but, unfortunately, could take a number of years to appear. In the interim, a self-regulatory code of practice promulgated by the Organisation for Timeshare in Europe has been issued. In fact, it is a collection of so-called codes of ethics relating to different products. Unfortunately, consumer organisations doubt whether the OTE code will ever deliver any tangible benefits.
106WH
Indeed, the ECC has provided a joint response, pointing out that the code fails consumers. It says that the code is not consumer friendly. One simple, clear code is needed. The code will only be as affective as its market coverage and enforcement mechanisms. The ECC's experience is that the most problematic firms are not currently and certainly have no intention of becoming members of the OTE. Procedures and commitments on complaint handling and compensation are absent and arrangements for supervision, monitoring and enforcement of the code are either absent or insufficiently transparent to attract confidence. For example, the codes are overseen by an ethics council, but there is no information about how that council will be constituted or whether it will have any independent representation or how cases can be brought to it.
In conclusion, the ECC is extremely unhappy about promoting the proposed code, even if the content is improved considerably, as that could be seen as minimising the extent of problems that consumers face in the market and suggests that the codes are an adequate response. It supports the view that this is a case where a code cannot substitute for effective legislation. An EU directive on timeshares is long overdue.
2.42 pm
Dr. Vincent Cable: I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) on the professional way in which he introduced his subject. It establishes a good precedent. We often deal with European legislation at its later stages, but he has taken up a subject where the issues are still being discussed. The Green Paper thinking is still open. There is no Government commitment. There is no directive, certainly on the duty to trade fairly. It is good that we have discussions in this House at this early stage. I do not know whether that was his intention, but it has certainly been the effect and it is welcome.
I share the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for putting consumer issues on the agenda. Like the hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston), I feel that the issue has stagnated in recent years. It is fair to give some credit to the Minister. The stop now provisions were a big step forward. I know that she has taken a lot of personal interest in promoting the function of the trading standards officer, which is a low-status backwater in local government that has now been given some valuable impetus and support.
The issue on which I want to focus is specifically the European element. There are good and bad reasons for wanting to introduce consumer provisions at a European level. The good reason is to make the single market work, but the bad reason is that there are people in Brussels who are underemployed and want to create a European framework even though one is not strictly called for. I met some of the people in the division in Brussels about a year ago when the policy strategy was still being drafted, and I had great doubts about whether it was necessary. This is an area of European legislation about which we should be critical and ask whether the principles of subsidiarity are being applied.
On the positive side, there is a case for having a degree of European consumer legislation to make the single market work. There are two basic reasons for that. The

107WH
first is in the interests of the consumers, so that people have the confidence to buy across national frontiers. Some useful survey work, quoted in the European Commission document, suggests that only 30 per cent. of European citizens have confidence that they will be protected if they buy across frontiers, whereas in the national domain the figure is 60 per cent. There is clearly a consumer reticence issue with which European provisions could help. Secondly, for the single market to work producers need to be confident that they can sell standard products and do not have to produce 15 different variants. That is why it is important to have a set of European safety standards for cars, so that we do not have 15 different versions of the same car, which would undermine the purpose of the single market. Therefore, some degree of European consumer protection is necessary.
The question is then whether the rules should be applied on what insiders would call the mutual recognition principle. In other words, should we accept that the standards of the country of origin should apply or do we need standardisation and harmonisation? In general, the mutual recognition approach is right. It gives producers the confidence that they can sell throughout the whole of Europe and is valuable in preserving some degree of local identity. Consumer protection rules in Germany means that two-for-the-price-of-one discount sales are illegal, whereas we would regard that as a normal and acceptable market practice. People like to hunt around for bargains, and there is no reason why we should have the same approach as the Germans. Some degree of mutual recognition of different standards is desirable, and we should work and fight for it.
However, there are matters on which it is necessary to go beyond that to maintain consumer confidence. Some have already been listed, and timeshare and package holidays are important examples, for the simple reason that many people take their holidays abroad. They are consuming products in a foreign country and will have no consumer protection unless the rules are standardised throughout Europe. In the holiday trade, it would make sense to have not only mutual recognition but some harmonisation of rules. Furthermore, in order to kick start e-commerce, which currently represents only 2 per cent. of business, there needs to be some degree of confidence that if people buy via the internet from another European country, they will have some consumer protection. Otherwise, such trade will not take off.
A market in financial services has been an EU aspiration for which the British have pushed particularly hard. If people choose to buy shares in the German stock market through a German broker or a pension through a French bank based in Paris, they should be able to enjoy the protection, albeit limited, that we enjoy through the financial ombudsman. There should be some standardisation, but there is a delicate balance to be struck between harmonisation, which is necessary in some trades such as travel, and a process that reflects different national standards in other industries. We cannot be dogmatic about this subject.
108WH
I want to link those points to the specific issue of the duty to trade fairly. The Minister will remember that when the Enterprise Act 2002 was debated in Parliament, hon. Members of all parties argued that it was a cause that the Government should take up. The hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North has already explained the reasoning behind it—the existence of many dodgy practices just on the border of legality. I wrote to the Minister recently about a lady with Alzheimer's who received one of the posted-in-Belgium letters offering her, if she sent £10, entry into a prize draw to win a Porsche. She had no idea what she was signing: she sent the cheque because she believed that she had to pay a bill. Within weeks, she was receiving 20 follow-up letters a week from people demanding money in the prize draw business. That is an example of the sort of practices being operated on the fringe of the law. It is not being policed, yet there are dozens of such operations.
It was argued in Committee at the time that, rather than try to pick off each of the individual practices through separate pieces of legislation, it would be better to legislate for an overall duty to trade fairly, but the Government rejected that.
Will the Minister explain the Government's position? Having rejected the opportunity to produce British legislation to meet our particular needs, we now run the risk of being subject to Europe-wide legislation, which is not drafted to deal with our specific problems, but incorporates the requisite principle. Will the Government accept that? How will the European move to create a duty to trade fairly sit with the strong pressures exerted in Committee to incorporate the duty into British law? I would be grateful to hear the Minister's response.
Another question about the proposed European directive is how the Government will apply what is known in the trade as the Lamfalussy doctrine? The Europeans are working towards a system in which a general duty is created at European level and subsequently left to codes of practice at a national level. The problem with national codes of practice, as the Minister will know from mortgage regulation, is that they are often applied ineffectively, requiring detailed prescriptive legislation. How will the balance be struck between a European framework and British regulation? Will the degree of delegation of subsidiarity in this sector be sufficient?
Thirdly, how far have the Government gone towards assessing the costs of regulation? We endlessly debate red tape and regulation here. It is now widely accepted that regulation has to be justified with reference to some sort of cost-benefit analysis. Feedback from retail interests with respect to the duty to trade fairly suggests that the legislation is potentially onerous, coming on top of other provisions such as the temporary workers directive. Questions are being asked about whether the EU is carrying out proper evaluation of the costs and benefits. Are the Government carrying out evaluation and how will the tests be applied?
Finally, what of enforcement? As I acknowledged at the outset, the Minister has generally played a positive role in ensuring that the trading standards profession in local government is properly supported. When the legislation is passed, whether at European or British level, it will depend ultimately on the handful of

109WH
individuals in every local authority who have the responsibility for enforcing the law. What appreciation has been done of the additional burdens of enforcement? Can the trading standards system cope with it and do the Government have any further plans to strengthen the service?
2.53 pm
Mr. Andrew Robathan: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz), who takes a particular interest in these matters, on securing the debate on consumer rights in the EU. I was unusually interested to hear the comments of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) and I agreed with almost all of them, although not his views on the duty to trade fairly. I was not a member of the Committee that considered the Enterprise Bill, but I was interested in what he had to say. I shall try not to repeat what has been said already.
EU consumer policy and rights have now moved to a central position in EU policy as a whole, largely as a result of the single market. As hon. Members will know, the single market has 370 million consumers, and the United Kingdom has £132 billion-worth of trade with the EU. The Single European Act, which came into force on 1 July 1987, introduced the notion of the consumer into the treaty, and consumer policy became part of the more general policy of completing the single market. In recent years, measures have been taken in a number of areas, some of which we heard about earlier, including toy safety, general product safety, cross-border payment, unfair contract terms, distance selling and timeshares.
Article 153 of the 1997 Amsterdam treaty stated that the
"consumer protection requirements shall be taken into account in defining and implementing other Community policies and activities."
That meant that consumer protection became a key EU objective that had to be taken into account whenever new EU laws were developed. I have mentioned the impact of that in general terms. More specifically, in relation to product safety, European rules guarantee minimum quality standards for food and other goods: a guarantee that must be welcomed by everyone. Furthermore, European rules guarantee greater and fairer competition, and the European Commission acts as a watchdog against collusive agreements between companies and abuse of monopoly position.
Car prices were briefly mentioned earlier in the debate. Hon. Members will remember that, in July last year, the Commission gave permission for car dealers to solicit or open for business anywhere in the EU. That has had a major impact on the pricing of cars in the UK, and presumably elsewhere.
On 7 May last year, the European Commission adopted a new consumer policy strategy. The objectives of that strategy were a high common level of consumer protection, effective enforcement of consumer protection rules, and the involvement of consumer organisations in EU policy.
I shall briefly mention some of the directives that have already been implemented. I was not aware, until I was briefed on this issue, that under the directive on price indications on foodstuffs and non-food products, it is an
110WH
EU requirement that every food product should carry a best date marking. EU directives also cover misleading advertising and distance selling, unfair terms and consumer contracts, and specific measures protecting purchasers of package tours and timeshares. We heard about that last issue from the hon. Member for—
Jim Sheridan: West Renfrewshire.
Mr. Robathan: The hon. Member for West Renfrewshire (Jim Sheridan).
Jim Sheridan: It is in Scotland.
Mr. Robathan: I am well aware that it is in Scotland. I am not at all sure that I did not live there for a short period, but I was only two or three-years-old at the time, so I cannot remember.
The Timeshare Regulations 1997 implemented the EU's timeshare directive. Those regulations have been useful, although, as we have heard, there have been some problems.
The Conservative party welcomes most of those directives, because we welcome anything that is concerned with good trading practice and with ensuring that consumers are appropriately protected. However, we have concerns about the EU's methods and about consumer protection as a whole. The hon. Member for Twickenham made some good points about civil servants in Brussels looking for things to do because they did not have sufficient work.
My first concern is unequal enforcement in member states. I am not sure how, with subsidiarity, enforcement can be improved. However, the aim must be equal enforcement, not just because that is why there are international agreements, but for cross-border trading. We know that, in the single market, the financial services and insurance market has not been as free as it should have been.
Interestingly, if we look at the single market scorecard, the UK has been a good implementer of directives. The first scoreboard was published in November 1997, shortly after the Government came to power, when the UK was ranked second in transposition. By the general election of 2001, we had dropped to 12th in the European Union, but by May last year we had gone up to fifth place. The UK has a reasonable record of implementing directives under Conservative and Labour Governments. There is nothing to be ashamed of: indeed, we should be proud of it, but we should beware of gold-plating legislation.
Secondly, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith said in respect of credit card users, UK regulation is often better than EU regulation. As the hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) said, the UK has had a good record in that respect in the past 30 years.
My final concern is that we should be wary of over-regulation because there is a balance between proper consumer protection and an unnecessary, onerous regulatory burden on business. Will the Minister explain the Government's position on the guarantees directive, which is probably still in her pending tray?
Mr. Lazarowicz: I think that all hon. Members oppose gold-plating or unnecessary regulations

111WH
emanating from Europe or elsewhere. Given the positive list of measures from which consumers in this country have benefited because of European initiatives, to which the hon. Gentleman referred at the start of his contribution, can he identify any gold-plating of regulations in consumer affairs by the European Union?
Mr. Robathan: That is a good question. I shall go back to my office and look for several such examples, but I cannot give any at the moment.
Small businesses are groaning under regulatory burdens, as the Minister knows from listening to representations from business organisations. It behoves us not to pile regulation on business, however good the intention may be, and to ensure that there is a proper balance between preventing sharks and cowboys taking advantage of vulnerable people and recognising the importance of business initiatives and improving economic prosperity.
I am not a lawyer, unlike the hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North, but we should all remember the old adage of caveat emptor, and exercise caution. My elderly father, who sadly died a couple of years ago, was persuaded by a cowboy to tarmac his drive, at huge cost. The tarmac broke up the week after it was laid. I tried to get the police to take an interest in the matter, but without success. My father may have been old, but his mind was not feeble and he had entered into a contract.
We welcome EU and international action to stand by consumer protection regulations that benefit business and the consumer. We would be wary of any EU directives that are unnecessary, or that reduce good consumer protection practice current in the UK. We recognise that sharks, cowboys and crooks will always try to make a quick buck, perhaps using modern technology and the internet. We should be vigilant when facing changing circumstances.
3.3 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Miss Melanie Johnson): I join hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) on securing the debate on this important subject. As the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) remarked, it gives us an opportunity to have an early debate on matters being considered by the European Union.
My hon. Friend is right to focus on European consumer issues, and I welcome the opportunity to say why my Department and I are working hard to raise the profile of consumers in Europe. One of the United Kingdom's key objectives is to put confident and protected consumers at the heart of our competition regime. Several hon. Members mentioned the role of the Enterprise Act 2002 in that respect. We have done much to create a world-class competition regime, and our aim is to complement it by creating a world-class consumer protection regime. I reassure my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) that that is our domestic objective. Of course, the two work together. Confident consumers drive innovation and promote a dynamic and productive economy.
112WH
Getting the balance right means empowering consumers as we push ahead with broader economic objectives. Whenever possible, protection needs to be EU-wide or international, because consumers increasingly purchase from overseas or from within EU boundaries, for example on the internet. That enhances competition and gives consumers access to a wider choice of suppliers, and the market will be even larger following enlargement. However, if consumers are to have the confidence to make effective use of those opportunities—the hon. Member for Twickenham commented on this—they need to know that they have appropriate rights in the event that things go wrong. That links in to practices such as alternative dispute resolution, which I shall touch on briefly in a moment.
I want to say something about our overall objectives for the new EU. The EU has made a huge contribution to consumer protection. Consumer policy has developed alongside the progressive establishment of the internal market. Indeed, it is clear from work currently being undertaken by the Commission that it is the internal market in services that is lagging behind, and there are many difficult issues with that. Consumer rights to information, education and representation are enshrined in article 153 of the treaty, and EU consumer protection directives have fleshed out some of the detail of those rights.
The development of EU consumer policy in the UK has bolstered our existing consumer protection systems, but in many countries EU-inspired legislation provides more or less the only protection that consumers have. Our stop now orders have been a big step forward in advancing consumer protection throughout Europe, and for UK consumers in particular. Since last June, the UK trading standards agencies have used stop now orders in more than 50 cases, but that underestimates the actual role of stop now orders, many of which have been used as negotiating tools to ensure that unfair or illegal practices are ended.
The EU is about to change fundamentally. New countries are joining and they will bring new markets with differing structures into the Union. We must continue to ensure high standards of consumer protection throughout the EU as the single market begins this dramatic change, which will result in it having more consumers than the US and Japan put together.
We have a clear set of objectives for consumer protection in the new Europe. We want existing regulations to be simplified and clarified. We want the consumer voice to be heard in EC policy-making, and to ensure that any changes to EC policy are based on a firm foundation of evidence. We also want those policies to be backed up by effective enforcement mechanisms. Considerable activity is taking place in Europe at the moment, and we are pleased to see that much of it is in line with UK objectives.
I want briefly to respond to the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North. He asked why we were waiting for things to be done in Europe. Obviously, for reasons that I have sketched out, many things need to be done on a Europe-wide basis, so if measures are to be effective, it is only practical to look to the EU as a vehicle for introducing some key aspects of consumer protection. That is especially relevant to timeshare.

113WH
The European Commission's consumer policy strategy for the next four years is to be welcomed. The strategy aims to integrate consumer policy into EU policy areas, such as transport, competition and the internal market. We have been advocating such joined-up working for a long time, and it reflects thinking in the UK.
The general duty to trade fairly was the first issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith raised and about which others have commented. The Commission's strategy is to achieve a higher common level of consumer protection. A key element of it is the Green Paper on consumer protection, in which the Commission suggested a new approach to EU consumer protection in the form of a wide-ranging, so-called framework directive with a general duty to trade fairly—or a general duty not to trade unfairly.
We welcome the Green Paper's objective of making existing legislation and the internal market work better for consumers and business. However, we must ensure that such a directive is justified by well-quantified evidence, that we limit the potential for adding regulation and increasing internal market barriers and, crucially, that any new rules will be properly enforceable.
The hon. Member for Twickenham and others mentioned the work that was done and the examples that were produced during consideration of the Enterprise Bill. We have carefully reviewed the dossier of case studies that the National Consumer Council and others have produced, and our impression still is that many of the cases cited are covered by existing legislation. I believe that I gave the Committee that information at the time.
We must also consider whether the problem is one of enforcement rather than a need for new legislation. There may well have been a problem in the case of the father of the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), even if he had not signed the contract or something inappropriate or improper had been done that was, in fact, covered by legislation. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North cited the case of an 83-year-old. The issue for elderly people is one of enforcement as much as failures in legislation.
The UK is one of two member states that do not have a general duty to trade fairly. However, it is easier for each member state to arrive at a definition of "fairly" than it is to agree across the EU on such a definition. That problem must be addressed.
There are also different legal and redress systems among the member states, and we must focus as much effort as we possibly can on preventing problems arising in the first place. I share the concerns of all hon. Members about the treatment of vulnerable consumers and the redress that is available to them. Such people would rather avoid the problem than have to deal with some redress mechanism when they experience unfairness or difficulty.
We have maintained our reserve on the principle of the general duty to trade fairly on the grounds that we want to produce a provision that is workable, enforceable and practical, and that provides a clear definition for businesses and genuine protection to
114WH
consumers who trade or buy across borders. The definition of "fairly" must be applied on a common basis in all member states.
Ross Cranston: I accept my hon. Friend's point that enforcement is crucial to consumer protection. Without enforcement, the laws on the statute books are absolutely worthless, although they might produce an educative effect.
The consumer contracts directive covers unfair terms. It includes a wide duty to act fairly and in good faith, and not to the detriment of consumers. That has been adopted in all member states, as it had to be. There was not the same difficulty in implementing that, although on the Minister's argument it was a vague provision, so why should there be difficulty with the duty to trade fairly?
Miss Johnson: To answer my hon. Friend's point, it is necessary to consider the issue historically. We are now in a slightly different time, with much more cross-border trading than there was a few years ago when the unfair contract terms directive came into force. There is now, too, much more buying of goods and services over the internet, which raises further issues. The duty in that directive was a very specific one, focused on contract terms. We are discussing a very general duty, and we are concerned, in this as in other fields, because it is often still quite difficult—the timeshare directive is a case in point—for provisions that are genuinely meaningful to consumers to be enforced across different member states.
For all those reasons, we want to see real, practical issues addressed in the discussions. That is the UK's position. The hon. Member for Twickenham was a little unkind in saying that the Government are opposed to the general duty. The Government's line has always been—this was my expressed view when we considered the Enterprise Bill—that we must consider what we are trying to tackle, and how it can best be tackled effectively. We are handling the negotiations on the general duty to trade fairly on that basis. Of course, we have to ensure that businesses are aware of the definitions so that they can be sure that they comply with the law, especially as many business transactions take place across various different member states, as several hon. Members have mentioned.
Turning to the consumer credit directive, I welcome the concerns that consumer organisations have raised. Our officials are in regular contact with the organisations and with representatives of the lending industry to ensure that our negotiations address the points raised. I have considerable sympathy with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith and by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North on such matters as the promotion of responsible lending and borrowing. We want to see all loans secured on property excluded from the scope of the directive, a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith made.
We also want credit unions to be exempted from the scope of the directive, and we are fighting hard to ensure that we maintain the joint and several liability protections that currently govern credit card use in the

115WH
UK. This is an example of where European legislation could be in danger of watering down current protections in the UK. We want to see a levelling up, not a levelling down, which is the basis of all the work behind our discussions.
We are certainly not prepared to see this important and valuable piece of consumer protection removed. Our aim is to get the best possible outcome, and I was delighted recently to chair a seminar for several MEPs and other interested parties in Brussels, which was attended by representatives of the credit industry and people with a particular knowledge of and concern in the matter. Some effective presentations were made about concerns such as those that hon. Members have rightly raised in this debate.
On redress, as Members have said, effective enforcement by public authorities is vital. We also encourage codes of practice and self-regulation. As part of that approach, we believe that alternative dispute resolution schemes, such as ombudsmen and arbitration, can be efficient and low-cost ways of settling contractual disputes between consumers and business. The United Kingdom is a firm supporter and leading contributor to the European Extra-Judicial Network, which covers all member states, plus Iceland and Norway. It will help consumers to access ADR schemes if they have disputes with traders in other member states. It is not yet fully operational, but the UK national clearing house, which is run by Citizens Advice, is already handling cases and has dealt with about 200 to date. Throughout Europe, some 1,100 consumer cases have been dealt with by EEJ-Net.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire (Jim Sheridan) raised issues on the timeshare directive. The directive is a good example of a popular cross-border product, and changing UK law alone would not help consumer detriment. The importance of effective cross-border legislation remains high. The Commission proposes to review the directive, and we are working closely with it to ensure that consumer protection is balanced with industry competitiveness. Meanwhile, existing legislation needs to be more effectively enforced because, as my hon. Friend said, it seems that consumers still find enforcement of their rights difficult in this area.
The stop now orders give new powers to EU enforcement authorities to tackle cross-border disputes. The Office of Fair Trading has already begun to work closely with its European counterparts to crack down on rogue timeshare traders who target UK holidaymakers. That is particularly true in Spain, and is an example of effective working with another member state's enforcement authorities to secure the protection that our consumers have every right to expect and should receive under the law.
There are limits to the extent that legislation can tackle the problems because it can quickly become outdated, which goes back to the point made by the hon. Member for Twickenham about the Lamfalussy principles, and about self-regulation and secondary legislation rather than primary legislation. The difficulty with primary legislation is that it can rapidly become outdated in today's modern world where matters move quickly and legislation does not always move as quickly.
116WH
Rogue traders, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire said, are inventive in finding ways to circumvent the law.
The timeshare industry could do a lot more with better self-regulation. That would be to its advantage and it is important to provide more information for consumers, but I am pleased that the industry has taken note and begun to introduce further codes of practice. We are examining that further. The best means of tackling rogue traders and bad practice is to have well-informed consumers, so an information campaign conducted in partnership with the Office of Fair Trading is being undertaken to get our message across to consumers and to give them as much security as can be achieved.
It is important to recognise that there are limits to the protection that legislation can provide people, because, sadly, rogues quickly invent ways of getting round those provisions. That may be a point that hon. Members want to reinforce, and I would not disagree with them about the attraction of a general duty not to trade unfairly.
I am pleased to note that regulations under the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees directive were presented to Parliament on 11 December 2002 and will come into force on 31 March 2003. The regulations make manufacturers' guarantees legally binding, although we were not aware that that was a problem in the UK. None the less, that sets the record straight.
Effective enforcement is an absolute priority for the UK, and I am pleased that it is being increasingly taken up by the Commission. We warmly welcome its focus on the mechanisms of protection, which mirrors our priorities. Those mechanisms will be relied upon more heavily to deliver protection as the EU enlarges and shopping across borders becomes ever more prevalent and popular.
The Green Paper on consumer protection set out the Commission's thinking on a possible framework for improving co-operation between EU consumer enforcement authorities. We expect that to be worked up into a separate draft regulation early this year. We look forward to that development, because there is much more o be done in improving communication and co-operation between European enforcement agencies. The UK has a strong tradition of consumer protection through public bodies, so we are in a good position actively to support the proposal, which we shall continue to do.
On the general duty to trade fairly, the Government are pressing the European Commission for an extended impact assessment on additional burdens and so-called red tape. We will also prepare our own impact assessment, which will include more on enforcement. My officials are in close touch with trading standards, which is now represented by the Local Authorities Coordinators of Regulatory Services. It has not expressed concern about additional burdens. We should demand that the EU and in particular the Commission carry out comprehensive impact assessments when they introduce legislation. Impact assessments, evidence-based policy making and effective enforcement are all key issues.
Our officials work closely with the European Commission in discussions on a proposal for a general duty. In particular, an expert group has been set up to

117WH
consider national law and how the EU regime will interact with domestic law. The European Commission has also begun a study of national systems with prominent academics, including an academic from the UK.
Before I conclude, I shall address the point about scam prize draw mail shots. Last summer, I launched a campaign warning against scam prize draws. It obtained quite a lot of media coverage, including a number of television interviews. We have now distributed tens of thousands of warning leaflets and posters via citizens advice bureaux and others. It is possible to take action by taking complaints to the Advertising Standards Authority. The ASA has also worked with the Royal Mail to curtail the activities of various companies, as has the Office of Fair Trading. It has been possible to close down quite a lot of scams, but the inventiveness of rogues will always drive things forward to the detriment of the consumer. Consumer understanding and education are as important as consumer protection.
We are working hard in Europe to push those objectives forward and to influence the agenda. As we have seen, there is much activity around consumer rights and protection, and we are keen to see that go forward. Where we are cautious, we will ensure that our reservations are well articulated and taken into account by other member states in the Commission, and that protections that the UK has enjoyed are maintained. The UK is a leader in Europe in evidence-based policy making, workable policy and the enforcement of policy. British consumers are well served by recent legislation and by the Europe-wide activities that we undertake on their behalf.
Mr. Frank Cook (in the Chair): Having concluded today's exchanges on consumer rights in the EU, we must turn our attentions to the next topic. Will those Members who are not staying to participate in the next debate leave the Chamber quietly and expeditiously?

Dewhirsts (Ashington)
3.28 pm
Mr. Denis Murphy: Thank you, Mr. Cook. I thank the House for granting me this important and timely debate.
In November last year, Dewhirsts, which is a major clothing manufacturer, announced the closure of a factory in Ashington, Northumberland, with the loss of 425 highly skilled jobs. In the next few weeks, manufacturing will cease and the machinery will be stripped out and sent to a new factory in north Africa. Since the announcement of the closure, several agencies have come together to try to save at least some of the jobs. The GMB union initially suggested that it might be possible for the company to secure public procurement contracts. Sadly, when I had a meeting with the company's board, they were pessimistic about whether public procurement could offer any realistic hope of keeping the factory open. The first workers will leave this week, and production will cease in a few weeks' time, causing much hardship to many families and dealing a further blow to a fragile local economy.
I realise that my hon. Friend the Minister may not be able to deal with all the issues that I intend to raise today, but I am sure that he will understand why I am seeking urgent Government assistance for my constituency.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Would the hon. Gentleman confirm that the closure that he describes will also have a drastic effect in neighbouring areas, such as Lynemouth in my constituency, and that any measures that Ministers are prepared to consider to help to alleviate that, in Ashington or nearby, would be beneficial to the whole area, where there is considerable unemployment and poverty?
Mr. Murphy: I certainly agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Indeed, when I met representatives of the work force, a number came from his constituency. It will have a drastic effect on those areas.
According to the latest published figures, Wansbeck has the second lowest number of new business start-ups in the United Kingdom, and there has been little new business investment in the district for several years. That partly reflects a general downturn in inward investment projects, but it is also because an enterprise zone is only five or six miles away. It should have been extended into the Wansbeck area. Although unemployment has declined in recent years, the rate of decline has been much lower than the regional and national averages. Wansbeck's unemployment rate is still two-and-a-half times the national average. The Wansbeck action team for jobs has been a welcome addition to the employment services since its introduction in 2000. During the year to October 2002, the action team helped 321 residents back into employment. Key to the success of that team have been the efforts to place people in employment in growth areas outside the district, such as Cramlington and north Tyneside. Although people moving into new jobs is always welcome, we must provide jobs in communities where people live. That will reduce dependence on the motor car and help to promote investment in town centres or edge-of-town business locations.

119WH
A recent report by Sheffield Hallam university examined the real level of unemployment, taking into account incapacity benefit recipients and those who had retired early. It estimated that unemployment in Wansbeck was 16.2 per cent. as at April 2002. On that measure, Wansbeck is one of the 30 weakest labour markets in England and Wales.
Apart from the welcome commitment from priority sites to build speculative business accommodation on the Wansbeck business park, private sector commercial and industrial investment has been extremely limited over several years. The district has been unable to bring on stream a new supply of serviced sites and premises to compete effectively for new business investment, simply because property market returns are generally unattractive to the private sector.
Deprivation levels in Wansbeck are acute. The district is ranked as 17th most deprived in the United Kingdom according to the index of multiple deprivation that was produced in 2000.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will want to look more closely at some of the problems that I have outlined, and I shall be happy to provide him with the relevant information after the debate.
I want to draw the Minister's attention to some of the issues that could play a major role in the economic recovery plan for Wansbeck. We need a commitment from the Government to maintain the Wansbeck action team for jobs beyond its current March 2004 lifespan. The team has been very successful in meeting its clients into work targets over the past two years, in difficult labour market conditions. We need reassurance that that valued local service, which makes a valuable contribution to the district's neighbourhood renewal and economic strategies, will be maintained beyond 2004. Despite the good work of the team, the district's continuing levels of unemployment show that a much longer-term commitment is required.
Much of the success of the action team has relied on finding jobs for residents outside the district in areas such as Cramlington and north Tyneside where property markets, business investment and new job opportunities have been more readily available. Plans to service and promote new investment in North Seaton business park in Ashington need to be vigorously pursued. Although the Government seem to be moving away from the idea of enterprise zones, we need a successor to that scheme.
If the Government concede that special help is still needed in areas of acute deprivation, North Seaton business park and the rest of Wansbeck's commercial and industrial sites should be considered a priority for any new scheme—or even the current scheme—being extended into Wansbeck. In the pre-Budget report in November 2002, the Government announced their intention to provide additional support for businesses in the UK's 2000 most deprived communities, which would be termed enterprise areas.
Of Wansbeck's 16 wards, 14 are in the list of 2000 most deprived wards in the UK. Given the almost universal coverage in Wansbeck, I would like to see the whole district declared an enterprise area. A specialist
120WH
enterprise team should be established and resourced, to work closely with the action team for jobs and the local strategic partnerships. Flexible budgets and local discretion have worked well under the action for jobs approach.
As a further strengthening of the enterprise area package, I would like the district council to be able to offer a much wider basis for discretionary rate relief, funded by the Government, to help safeguard local businesses and to stimulate investment in the enterprise areas. Recent announcements indicate that the Government intend to introduce several pilot initiatives to support further people who are out of work. I welcome those initiatives.
New programmes should be designed to offer intensive support in neighbourhoods with high concentrations of unemployment, and they should allow access to the new deal after only three months of unemployment. I welcome moves to streamline the various regeneration programmes. The national neighbourhood renewal strategy recognised that achieving sustained and significant progress in such areas required a 10 to 20-year perspective.
In small areas such as Wansbeck with uniformly high levels of deprivation, and where ward boundaries mean very little in delivering programmes, we need a wider commitment to neighbourhood renewal. It is essential that the Government commit to continuing funding well beyond the March 2006 limit and channel additional resources to ensure employment targets are met.
In recognition of low business formation rates and the lack of an enterprise culture, and—I am pleased to say—in line with Government policy to introduce enterprise to the high school curriculum, I request support for the planned bid to establish enterprise college status by St. Benet Biscop high school in Bedlington. Additionally, I request that the Ashington education achievement zone be considered to introduce pilot initiatives to promote enterprise in Ashington schools.
The towns of Ashington and Bedlington have undergone massive change, with huge private sector housing developments being built during the last 20 years. The district needs to continue to develop. Plans have been prepared during the past two years to achieve significant investment in Ashington town centre, in Bedlington and in Newbiggin-by-the-Sea.
Complementary plans to develop strategic new housing and recreational facilities in a village-style design have been prepared by the private sector. I request Government grant support for the district council to co-ordinate a multi-agency development team to assist key infrastructure costs for all the schemes.
The coal industry still plays an important role in the local economy. More than 400 miners still work at Ellington colliery. Were it not for the introduction nationally of the operating aid scheme, Ellington would now be closed. UK Coal now considers it to be one of its best collieries. We need to secure a long-term future for that mine. A more generous investment aid scheme would assist Ellington in accessing coal reserves that could keep the colliery open for a further 20 years. The coal industry faces a crisis nationally, with many collieries facing early closure. I realise that my hon.

121WH
Friend the Minister will not be able to address those problems here today. I simply stress how important Ellington is to the local economy.
The Government have invested much time and effort and many resources in addressing some of my constituency's problems. All that I ask today is that the current schemes should be strengthened and extended, and that extra resources, where necessary, should be invested in the area. It is fairly obvious that until the new business parks and industrial sites come on stream, people will have to travel further afield to work. The Employment Service has a team of dedicated people working in the Dewhirst factory assisting people with retraining, the preparation of new CVs and identifying available jobs.
As people will have to travel further to work, it is essential to strengthen our public transport links. There has never been a better opportunity to reopen the Ashington, Blyth and Tyne railway line to passenger services. It was one of the priorities of the south-east Northumberland-north Tyneside regeneration initiative, SENNTRI. That has identified three important transport corridors, alongside which economic development could take place: the A19, the A189—both important dual carriageways—and the reopened Ashington, Blyth and Tyne line. All three need to be supported.
The recent closure of Blyth power station was another blow to the area. It is currently being demolished, and could provide the most important development in our region for decades. It has access via a deep-water port, a dual carriageway and a railway link. If it were developed correctly, the site could eventually provide thousands of jobs in a beautiful, landscaped environment.
The quality of life for the great majority in Wansbeck is very high. We have a wide range of quality housing and live in an area of outstanding natural beauty, only 20 minutes from what will be the next European city of culture. The extra Government assistance that I am seeking is to ensure that all the local population can share that quality of life. We need to demonstrate to those working at Dewhirst that the Government want to help them to go straight into new jobs.
To that end, my final request today is for the Government to assist in the economic recovery of the area by relocating some Government offices. I understand that inquiries have been made about office accommodation in Northumberland and I urge my hon. Friend to use his good offices to press for an early positive decision. Success in that would send out all the right messages, and I am sure that, along with the measures that I have suggested, it would encourage much more private sector investment.
When I visited the Dewhirst factory in Ashington a few weeks ago, I met many highly skilled and dedicated people, all of whom want to continue working and supporting their families. I ask on their behalf that the Government do everything in their power to ensure that those people are placed in jobs as soon as possible.
3.43 pm
The Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness (Mr. Stephen Timms): Let me begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Murphy) on securing the debate, and paying tribute to
122WH
him for the hard work that he has done over a long period on the future of the Dewhirst factory in Ashington, and particularly his work with the GMB. He came to see me with the union regional secretary in November. I know that he has put a great deal of work into looking for a viable future for the Ashington factory. It is through no want of trying on his part or on the part of the GMB that it now looks certain that redundancies will be made next month.
The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) intervened earlier, and I note the presence of my hon. Friends the Members for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell), for Easington (Mr. Cummings) and for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell). That reflects the wide impact of the proposed closure at Ashington on the regional economy, and I want to put on record my sympathy for all the employees and their families who face the prospect of redundancy in the next few weeks.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck graphically described the problems faced in his area. He said how much he welcomed the comments of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the pre-Budget report last autumn, when he spoke about addressing precisely the issues that we are discussing in parts of the country that still have high unemployment, despite the reduction in unemployment nationally. On several occasions, my right hon. Friend has set out his commitment to creating a culture of enterprise in every part of the country so that people will be confident about setting up businesses, even in areas where it was assumed that one would never get a job. There will certainly be more business start-ups, as my hon. Friend suggested. I agree that the measures set out by the Chancellor hold much promise for constituencies such as his, with the characteristics that he described.
My hon. Friend also drew attention to the importance of ensuring that good transport links are in place, and I agree. It is often the case that jobs are available not far from the areas with the most severe problems. If we can match those jobs with proper transport connections—good work is now being done on that—that will offer us an attractive way forward, too.
My hon. Friend mentioned the regeneration initiative and the responsibility for specialist schools. I agree with him about the importance of enterprise status for local schools, but, as he indicated, those are matters for other Ministers. However, I shall ensure that his remarks are drawn to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends who have responsibility for those issues, so that they can take account of the telling points that he has made.
I am responding to the debate because of my responsibility at the Department of Trade and Industry for the textile industry, and I want to make several points about the Government's response to the closure that we are discussing. The Government are not in a position to intervene in the commercial decisions of individual companies, but there is much that we can and will do to help those who face redundancy as a result of the closure in Ashington. As my hon. Friend knows, Jobcentre Plus has designated the Dewhirst's factory in Ashington as significant to the labour market, which means that employees who are made redundant will be eligible for early access to a range of Government programmes and services. They will have access to the programme centres, where those who need immediate

123WH
help can get advice on CV preparation, job applications and interview techniques. Those who are eligible will also have early access to the new deal for young people, which gives those in that age group the opportunity to access the full new deal programme of support. It offers a range of employment, education and training opportunities.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: My hon. Friend talks about getting people back into work, and that is all well and good. We had the same situation in Blyth Valley a few years ago, when we lost a lot of jobs, but in my area, we are losing the jobs and not getting them back because all the money goes to the enterprise zones. South-east Northumberland and the rest of Northumberland are not part of an enterprise zone and we do not get the money that enterprise zones get. All the jobs are there, but workers in our area do not have jobs. My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck and I are saying that we need jobs in our areas.
Mr. Timms: I agree with my hon. Friend about the need both for jobs in the immediate area and for people in the area to have access to jobs in other areas, if they are available. There have been no new enterprise zone designations since 1996. The Chancellor has set out thinking about how we can promote business start-ups and new enterprise in areas such as those that my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck and I represent. That approach is much more promising than those applied by the previous Government. We need to create many more new jobs in the immediate area. In opening the debate, my hon. Friend set out a number of proposals, with which I have a lot of sympathy, and which reflect the work that the Government are doing to achieve exactly such results.
We will ensure that those made redundant at Ashington will have early access to the programmes I have described, including workplace learning for adults, which will provide short, job-focused training and longer occupational training. A local Jobcentre Plus liaison officer has been appointed to support those made redundant, and to act as point of contact. Dewhirst has, I am pleased to say, agreed to provide office accommodation at the factory, and it is intended that Jobcentre Plus staff will be on site from tomorrow in order to start their work. They will make presentations to groups of employees about benefit entitlement, training and work opportunities, and will give information on other organisations that may be able to help.
There will be information from the Inland Revenue on new tax credits, so that people will understand their position if they move on to other employment. For those who request it, there will be a counselling service that will include skills analysis to help people ascertain future job goals. There will be access to specialist support, such as disability employment advice, lone parent advisors, and the Wansbeck action team staff, in cases in which it can help. There will also be direct internet access at the site to the Jobcentre Plus vacancy database, which will provide detailed job vacancy information and a job-matching service, through
124WH
Jobseeker Direct. A wide range of support will be provided on the site from tomorrow to those facing redundancy in the next few weeks.
The textiles industry continues to be important for the UK. It contributes 0.8 per cent. of GDP, accounts for £15 billion in sales, employs some 250,000 people, and exports goods to the tune of more than £7 billion. That is why the Department of Trade and Industry is committed to helping the sector to improve its productivity, and to remain competitive in the tough global marketplace in textiles that now prevails, which is the background to the closure that we are debating. The Department will continue to support close work with the textile and clothing strategy group, which includes representatives of employers, trade unions, the retailers and the universities, to work together on the issues that the industry faces. This is a tough period of change. There have been substantial and severe job losses, such as those at Ashington, as manufacturers adjust to meet the challenges that they face.
In the context of Ashington, my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck has raised the issue of public procurement for UK-based manufacturers. We cannot pursue a buy British policy. Public purchases must observe European Union rules and the Treasury's value-for-money guidelines, and it is in the public's interest that they should do so. However, it is important to recognise that value for money is not the same as the cheapest unit price, and that there is scope for UK textile and clothing companies to compete more effectively in tendering for public sector contracts within the European and Treasury framework. If something costs 50 per cent. more than the alternative, but lasts 100 per cent. longer, there is a clear value-for-money choice to be made.
We must ensure that public sector procurers are able to make such choices, and are working with the industry through the textile and clothing strategy group to find ways in which to help UK suppliers to be more successful when they tender for public sector contracts. We have had meetings with senior figures in the industry to discuss the impact of current public procurement policy. Those have highlighted the opportunities for UK suppliers that are prepared to raise their game to meet the purchasing needs of public purchasers. We also supported the conference on public procurement organised by the GMB in November 2001, which was addressed by my noble Friend Lord Sainsbury and representatives of the Ministry of Defence and the Prison Service, both of which procure garments on a big scale. The conference highlighted the opportunities available to textile and clothing companies tendering for public contracts to identify the issues that have caused some UK suppliers to struggle to win contracts, and the actions needed to reverse the trend.
We have produced a good practice guide on value for money to remind public purchasers of the key element in the Treasury guidelines, because we recognise that the industry needs to make changes. Equally, procurers and those responsible for procurement in the public sector need to be able to make qualitative assessments about value for money when they are looking to award contracts for textiles or clothing. That has been widely distributed. Similarly, the Small Business Service and the Office of Government Commerce have produced detailed guidance for firms wanting advice on how to tender for public contracts.

125WH
We want to see dynamic, competitive markets operating throughout the economy. That encourages firms to bear down on costs and improve their efficiency and enhances their competitiveness in the home and overseas markets. However, in markets in which the Government are a major procurer of goods and services, our actions can have a big influence on the market and might impact on competition and on the long-term value for money that that can secure for procurement, ensuring value for money and encouraging strong competition go hand in hand. We welcome the Competition Commission's recent recommendations to improve competition in procurement and have asked the Office of Government Commerce to consider what further steps can be taken to increase competition and to encourage better long-term capacity planning in markets in which the Government have significant purchasing power. For example, advance information for all the potential suppliers about opportunities that are about to come up could be improved. We have also asked the Office of Government Commerce to build on its recent work to enable small and medium enterprises to compete for Government contracts to deliver value for money. The office of development and commerce will take those issues forward in consultation with a group that involves the Treasury, the DTI and the Small Business Service and will report to the Government in the summer. I shall ensure that the interests of the UK textile and clothing industry are represented.
The textile and clothing strategy group's recent report, "Making it Happen", which I launched in July, outlines the progress that has been made since the launch of the national strategy. It also charts the great challenges that the industry faces, underpinning the closure that we have debated. It describes an industry that is still going through profound structural change to enable it to compete in the global economy, and Ashington provides stark evidence of the scale of the change. That is deeply concerning for those who are affected. There is some reassurance to be gained from the industry view that it is not in terminal decline—it is undergoing a process of change as it faces global challenges. The industry has reaffirmed its belief, through the "Making it Happen" report, that the strategy blueprint remains the right direction for it to follow, so that it has a sustainable and competitive future. We will continue to work with the group to ensure that that happens. A great deal has still to be done, but with the industry and the Government working together we are confident that we can achieve it.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck for giving the House the opportunity to consider the particular problems facing his area that arise from the closure. I hope that the measures that I have set out, and the ideas that he proposed to which other Ministers can respond, will enable my hon. Friend's constituents to face the future with much greater confidence than would otherwise be the case.
Mr. Frank Cook (in the Chair): Order. We now come to a debate on national health service provision in Sutton. I ask right hon. and hon. Members who do not wish to participate in that debate to leave the Chamber quietly and expeditiously.

NHS Provision (Sutton)
4 pm
Tom Brake: I welcome the opportunity for such a timely debate. Much is happening in the national health service economy locally, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) will seek to catch your eye, Mr. Cook—provided that I do not speak for too long.
First, I would like to raise the subject of the review of Epsom and St. Helier trust hospital services in Sutton and Epsom. I support much of what is proposed; the modernisation of hospitals and a new approach to delivering health care within the community is welcome, provided that it is properly funded and does not lead to the loss of essential services. The trust would like to make changes; it does not want hospitals that are too full, that often treat patients who would be better cared for outside the hospital or closer to home; nor does it want long waiting times, operations being cancelled and so on—things that I and my hon. Friend, too, would like changed.
A key element in the proposal is for there to be significant investment in primary care—that is care provided in the community by GPs, health visitors, district nurses and so on. That, too, I wholeheartedly support. It would lead to many more services that are traditionally hospital-based being delivered locally through other services such as care centres, community hospitals, or whatever one chooses to call them.
I assume that that proposal is in line with Government policy. The Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears) nods her head. If that is so, I would be interested to know how capital will be raised for the project and what guarantees the Government will give the project as it develops over the next seven to 10 years. I hope that authorisation will be quickly forthcoming at each decision-making point. I would also like the Minister to explain a little of the process that will be used to rank that proposal against the myriad of other proposals that will be seeking access to private funds—or Government funds, should any be available.
Finally, I wonder whether the proposals will be put at risk or jeopardised by the current financial position of the trust, as it has an overspend of f 1.6 million. Will that affect the proposals?
The most visible impact of the proposals, should they come to fruition, will be the reorganisation of hospitals, the provision of cottage hospitals or community hospitals and—this is highly likely—the provision of a single acute centre. My family and I live in my constituency. Both my children were born at St. Helier hospital. We have made regular use of its children's accident and emergency department; and we were very happy with the level care provided on every occasion. My personal preference would clearly be for the acute hospital to be built on the site of St. Helier's. Although the building has served its purpose, it is not ideal in this day and age. However, it is important that arguments about where the acute hospital will be rebuilt do not detract from the priority that must be given to providing the best-quality patient care. Clearly, that will include

127WH
several factors, not just accessibility but also the experience of medical and other staff, the availability of consultants, doctors, nurses and so on.
So far, there has been reasonable consultation involving different organisations and I am satisfied that the process is moving forward in an organised and acceptable fashion. That contrasts with some concerns that I will raise shortly about at least one other local health care organisation that needs to be more open in the way it operates. Whether we are considering these plans or primary care trusts, it is important that the local authority is in a position to perform the scrutiny role. I understand that to recruit one health policy officer would cost in the region of £35,000, something that my local authority and others who will want to do the job of scrutiny properly will find it difficult to fund. Will the Minister use this opportunity to confirm that any funds that will be available as a result of disbanding community health councils will be passed to local authorities so that they can perform that role effectively?
I highlighted the longer-term plans for the Epsom and St. Helier trust, but there is a shorter-term matter that causes concern: the possibility of cuts within the trust. The budget of the Sutton and Merton primary care trust, the local PCT, will rise by 30 per cent. between now and 2006. Although the headline figure is good, compared to other PCTs the picture is less rosy, especially as the Epsom and St. Helier trust is recovering from a poor report from the Commission for Health Improvement and poor star ratings, which have improved in the most recent league table but need to carry on moving in the right direction. I want the Minister to explain what safeguards, if any, are in place to ensure that if the pendulum swings very far in the other direction in terms of the shift to primary care, the acute services do not suffer as a result.
There is one local difficulty in relation to the Epsom and St. Helier trust—the fact that one of the Surrey primary care trusts is not pulling its weight in terms of the financial contribution that it is expected to make; there is a shortfall of a couple of million pounds. Can the Minister say who should play an arbitration role in such disputes, if one PCT says that it will not provide funding but the others will? Someone needs to be able to step in and sort out the mess.
I come now to the openness of the decision-making process in respect of the Sutton and Merton primary care trust. The community health council has been talking with the PCT for several years about the need to be more open, particularly after the Nelson and West Merton PCT was set up. However, there has been a backward step in terms of accountability and openness, as the executive board of the PCT meets in private without any lay people or representatives of the CHC being present. Locality committees, which operate at a lower level, are responsible for drawing up a local development plan, but I understand that the CHC is not involved and apparently NHS solicitors have been asked to consider the matter. Will the Minister comment on the apparent lack of openness and accountability and say whether she supports action to ensure that the PCT is opened up to greater scrutiny?
128WH
Dental health care locally and the number of five-year-olds with decayed, missing and filled teeth are an issue. The figures are going in the wrong direction: the number of children suffering from dental decay has increased at a time when the targets for access to dentistry have apparently been met. I hope that the Minister will comment on how that can be the case.
The transfer of the renal transplant unit is also an issue. There are proposals to move some services from St. Helier to St. George's, but I understand that it has recently been shown that the cost of the upgrade that is needed at St. George's to accommodate the transferred service has increased significantly. I wonder whether that means that the plans have been put on hold or whether it is more likely that the service at St. Helier will be retained and the services at St. George's possibly moved there.
Bed-blocking is another issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam may have time to raise the local authority's concerns about the impact that the charges will have on the relationship between the PCT, the Epsom and St. Helier trust, and other health organisations. It is good, but could be affected by the charges.
I hope that the Minister can provide clarification on those points, either now, or shortly in writing.
4.11 pm
Mr. Paul Burstow: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) on securing the debate and selecting this topic. It is a timely debate on the important issue of health care provision in our constituencies and, indeed, in those of a number of other hon. Members present.
I declare a personal interest in that my family has used and benefited from the accident and emergency department for children and the maternity facilities at St. Helier. I therefore have direct experience of them and pay a warm tribute to the hard work that the staff do on behalf of the public, not only in the acute trust, but across the whole health economy in Sutton.
I welcome the increased funding that has been made available for the next three years. It provides a basis for stability of planning. There will always be questions as to whether the funding is adequate, and inevitably I make the point that it is one of the lower increases, but there is extra investment, which is one of the measures that I voted for in the Budget last year.
That said, we must place in a financial context the proposed clinical strategy that the acute trust has been working out with others, not least because at month six the Epsom and St. Helier trust reported that its financial position was an overspend forecast at £1.639 million. I have spoken to the trust more recently to get a fix on the current estimates for the overspend by the end of the financial year, and the figure is about £2 million. That is a serious, ongoing problem for the trust.
As my hon. Friend said, an additional problem is caused by the East Elmbridge and Mid-Surrey primary care trust not picking up all its responsibilities and obligations in terms of the money that it should be paying to the acute trust. That gives an additional financial problem of £2.15 million to the director of finance at that trust in balancing the books and making everything add up.

129WH
Those very real pressures make delivery of the trust's clinical services strategy more difficult, particularly the transition that is inevitably involved in the document, in that there is a move from what is in a way a centralised system, under which most care is provided within the acute trust's main buildings, to a more decentralised approach and the use of care centres. That will involve questions such as whether there is dual running of services while we move to the new system and build confidence in it. Where will the money for that come from, given that the trust has to recover its financial position and deal with the £2 million overspend plus the funding difficulties relating to the PCT? It will prove difficult for me, as a Member who last year voted for the tax increases to fund the investment to the NHS, to have to explain to my constituents why later this year my acute trust may have to make cuts in its services to bring its budget back into line. That will be a rather difficult story to tell, but I hope that the Minister will be able to help by providing some answers that I can give to my constituents.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington raised the question of accountability and the transparency of governance of the Sutton and Merton PCT, and I strongly endorse his comments. However, I want to raise briefly the development of systems for new patient and public involvement in the NHS, in particular the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health, which has been told by the Department of Health that it will have only one office in each strategic health authority. How on earth will that one office support all the patients forums in an area? Will the Minister tell us how that will work? Furthermore, why are community health council staff not being transferred to the new structure under TUPE, and why has no budget been announced for the work of that important local body? Why does it appear that local CHC members are being left out in the cold in the development of the new structures? Surely their experience, expertise and knowledge should not be lost to the new structures. It should be garnered and used to ensure that they work.
Sutton needs its own commission office to ensure access for patients and the public. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to my points and those made by my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington.
4.16 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): I am delighted to respond to the debate and I congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) on his openness in welcoming the process that has been undertaken in drawing up the clinical services strategy. I can reassure him that the process has been designed to build on the views of patients, the public and the people who use the services in his community.
I have explored the matter with some of the officials responsible and am heartened that the process has been worked from the bottom up—by asking people what the service should look like in the future and then trying to design the service around their views. That contrasts with the previous process, which took place a couple of years ago and started from the bricks and mortar. It examined the hospitals and institutions that were
130WH
already in place and the physical location and then tried to design a service from the top down. This process has been different, and there has been a genuine attempt to involve all local stakeholders, including primary care trusts, patients and local authorities, in designing the service. It is at the beginning and is about setting a vision. As both hon. Members have said, it is designed to be developed during the next seven to 10 years, so there is a long way to go in the practical implementation.
The process has been something of a revolution, as the service contemplates many more local care centres rather than the dominance of a large acute sector in the health economy. Much of the health service will move to a situation in which local centres cater for between 50,000 and 100,000 local people and provide a much wider range of services than have previously been available in primary care. We anticipate that GPs and other primary care workers will be doing much of the work that has traditionally taken place inside acute inpatient hospitals, and different ways of working, new skills, more investment and equipment, and much more flexibility in the staff who are employed in the local care centres and their skills will be required to bring about the change. The area in question will be a trailblazer, frontrunner and pioneer of a new way of approaching the design of health care services and their implementation. I would like to place on record my congratulations both to the clinical staff and to the health organisation staff on the imagination and creativity that they brought to bear in the process.
It is important that we try to change the way in which services are delivered for two reasons: first, to relieve the undoubted pressure on acute care and secondly, and equally important, to provide patients with the kind of services that they want in the 21st century. That means trying to give them the right care, in the right place, at the right time. That has not always happened. In future, patients will be more demanding. They will want services provided more quickly. They will want higher standards and they will want to choose which services are provided in their areas. That is exactly what the changes are designed to achieve.
The services in this area are the responsibility of Sutton and Merton PCT. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) was gracious enough to welcome the massive increase in investment that is going into the PCT. It is something like 30 per cent. over the next three years—a significant increase amounting to approximately £87.5 million. Although there are still pressures on the service, it will give real space for innovative thinking and new ways of delivering services for the PCT to put into place.
The PCT predicts that it will achieve financial balance in the next year, which is a significant improvement over where it was just a few months ago. As the increases in expenditure begin to feed through, it will be in a much more advantageous position. It is also meeting many of its targets. In some cases it is ahead of its targets. It is doing extremely well. The local hospital, which has gone from zero stars to two stars in the last 12 months, again under a new leadership team, is real evidence that progress can be made. In this Chamber today we are debating optimism, rather than some of the pessimism that may be being debated elsewhere in the House. We can see evidence of progress.

131WH
Both hon. Gentlemen raised other important issues. I will do my best to attend to them. I should like to deal first with the two issues raised by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington. He expressed concern about renal services. At present they are not under threat. The new approach that is envisaged is that out-patient and rehabilitation care will continue to be provided locally, as close to patients as possible, because that is where it is most appropriate. People do not want to have to travel miles for their out-patient care. They want rehabilitation if possible at home or in local centres.
Certainly the renal transplantation service will continue to be at St. George's. That is because it is a regional service. This service is not just for the hon. Gentleman's constituents, but for the whole of the south-east. It is therefore important that those transplantation services are looked at in the context of regional services as a whole, rather than this strategy, which looks at services for the people of Sutton and Cheam. That is why the renal transplantation service is not part of the clinical services strategy review.
The hon. Gentleman's second specific concern was the openness of the PCT in his area. That is an important matter. The Government are committed to trying to engage and involve as many local people as we can in decisions about the shaping and development of services and their priorities. Openness is a key factor. I understand that the PCT holds its board meetings in public and the community health council has been fully involved in all the discussions that have led to the drawing up of the clinical services strategy. They are supportive of the strategy and they have had a real opportunity to be involved.
The hon. Gentleman is asking for the professional executive committee meetings and the local management board committee meetings to be in public too. Clearly there is a debate about whether those are decision-making meetings that should transacted with the public, or whether they are management meetings and therefore less appropriate for that kind of public debate. We need to examine that matter to ensure that we get the right balance.
Clearly in any organisation, certain meetings where decisions are discussed will be internal management meetings. However, decisions should never be reached behind closed doors without dialogue with the public so that they can know what the criteria were, how the decisions were reached and what other options were on the table. I will certainly look at the issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised, but it is never as simple as saying that every meeting should be in public or every meeting should be closed. It is a matter of what business is being transacted and the appropriateness of those meetings.
On a similar matter, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam raised the important matter of public involvement. He said that the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health would have one office for the whole strategic health authority, and he asked for a specific office for his local area. However, the idea behind the commission is that it is not simply about bricks and mortar—offices or shop fronts where people go to make their views known.
132WH
The ethos behind the commission and the system for public and patient involvement is that it will go out to where people are. Again, that is a huge change for the national health service. In the past, we expected people to come and make their representations, which meant that we did not hear the voices of those who would not come to an organisation. Therefore, the commission staff have a specific brief as outreach workers to go out and interact with the local community, to work with the Citizens Advice Bureaux and all the local organisations to get their views. They will not be office based or static, but will be out working in the community. They will also be involved in all the different regeneration initiatives under which similar community development work is being carried out, and will feed views back into the NHS.
It cannot be good enough for the NHS public involvement work to be in a separate, parallel stream to all the other good public involvement work, in which the local authority will be greatly involved. Joining up all those views will be a key part of the commission's work. I ask hon. Gentlemen to be more creative and imaginative about the ways in which community development can work. It is certainly not the case that bricks and mortar offices and shop fronts are needed for people to come to.
The spending decisions with regard to the budget for the public involvement system have not yet been announced, but I can tell the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam that from 1 January this year, the NHS has a statutory duty to involve the public not only when there is a significant variation in service—in other words, when the decision has been made—but from the very beginning in shaping and developing ideas. A good example of that is happening in the constituencies of the hon. Members for Carshalton and Wallington and for Sutton and Cheam. As they both agreed, the clinical services strategy was drawn up on that basis from the beginning, rather than coming up with a preferred option.
Mr. Burstow: Have patients and the public been consulted to ascertain their preferred way of getting access to the commission as part of the process of devising the outreach strategy to which the Minister referred?
Ms Blears: Presumably, the hon. Gentleman is in contact with all the organisations in his area that carry out community development work, whether they are the local authority, the CAB or the council for voluntary services. All those groups engage with a wide range of members of the public. There is overwhelming evidence that where public involvement is to be successful, organisations must be flexible and go to where people are, engaging with them in a way that makes them feel comfortable and that it is worth-while to give their time and energy to get decisions taken.
Anyone who has been involved in any community development work will realise that having a static organisation that simply expects people to come to it is not the sort of organisation that is the most successful or that gets the greatest number of people involved in their communities.

133WH
The strategy is likely to take seven to 10 years. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, who initiated the debate, asked whether finance would be available throughout the process to make the proposals a reality. I am delighted that he believes that this Government will be in a position to make that clear in seven to 10 years' time when those proposals may well be realised.
The shift in the balance of power programme is to ensure that the primary care trusts, which will be spending 75 per cent. of the budget, will be taking those financial decisions in consultation with their local communities, and will decide such matters as whether to spend their money on local care centres and what the contents of those centres should be. That process will be on-going to ensure that the priorities of the community
134WH
are reflected in the budgets. While the Government are in power, we have been able to invest a tremendous amount of extra finance into those budgets to try to ensure that the vision set out in the clinical strategy has a realistic chance of becoming a reality and providing much better services to people in this area.
The programme is extremely ambitious. I am delighted that it has the support of hon. Members as the representatives of their communities, and I hope that we will begin to see some flesh on the bones in the years to come to ensure that the services are health care in the right place at the right time for people in their local communities. I have no doubt that those services will be of extremely high quality and valued by local people.
It being half-past Four o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment elapsed, without Question put.

CABINET OFFICE

  Refurbishment (Whitehall)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if a Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method document has been prepared for the refurbishment at 70 Whitehall; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [89076]

  Mr. Alexander
  The external refurbishment work currently being undertaken at 70 Whitehall does not require a BREEAM assessment.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what action is being taken by his Department to ensure that timber procured for use in the current refurbishment of 70 Whitehall is sourced legally and sustainably. [89077]

  Mr. Alexander
  External refurbishment works are currently being undertaken at 70 Whitehall. Timber or timber products are not being used in the current refurbishment of 70 Whitehall.

  Timber
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what refurbishment and redevelopment is being undertaken at 70 Whitehall; how much timber will be used; from which countries this will be sourced; and which companies are supplying this timber. [89075]

  Mr. Alexander
  External refurbishment work is currently being undertaken at 70 Whitehall.

  Timber or timber products are not being used in the current refurbishment of 70 Whitehall.

  Energy White Paper
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what meetings his officials have held with external organisations concerning the preparation of the Energy White Paper; and in each case, who attended and when the meeting took place. [88537]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have been asked to reply.

  As part of the preparation of the Energy White Paper my officials have held a large number of meetings and expert workshops with external organisations. These covered a wide range of issues and included three opening workshops in London, Glasgow and Newport, a final integrative conference in London and workshops on regional issues, energy policy and long term carbon reductions, energy efficiency, renewables and the energy implications of PIU energy review. Workshops and focus groups were also held with the general public. Details are posted on the DTI's website at http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/developep/reports.shtml.

  GM Crops
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what role was played by Lord Sainsbury in the study carried out by the Strategy Unit into GM crops; and whether Lord Sainsbury has access to papers held by the unit. [89095]

  Mr. Alexander
  Lord Sainsbury has had no role in the Strategy Unit study on GM crops. The project team has had no contact with him and he has not had access to any papers held by the unit.

  Ministerial Cars
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office (1) what the average cost per Minister arising from the allocation of a ministerial car was in each of the last three years; [89072]

  (2) how many Ministers are entitled to the allocation of a car; and how many Ministers in each year from 1997 have chosen not to avail themselves of one; [89073]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the practicality of replacement by a car pool of the system of allocation of cars individually to Ministers; and if he will estimate the savings which would result were such a scheme implemented. [89071]

  Mr. Alexander
  The responsibility for the provision of ministerial cars and drivers has been delegated under the terms of the Framework Document to the Government Car Despatch Agency. I have asked its chief executive Mr Nick Matheson to write to the hon. Member. Copies of his letter will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Freehold
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement about retention of freehold in the context of the Archbishop's Council's review. [88669]

  Mr. Bell
  As promised in my answer of 19 December 2002, I have provided the hon. Gentleman with the Group's Terms of Reference, and have placed a copy in the Library. The Group will be looking at the freehold, but will give priority to consideration of the position of clergy without the freehold. Its full terms of reference are:"to review the terms under which the clergy hold office to ensure a proper balance between rights and responsibilities, and clear procedures for resolving disputes which afford full protection against possible injustice;
  to consider in this context the future of the freehold and the position of the clergy in relation to statutory employment rights; and
  in the review, to give priority to consideration of the position of clergy without the freehold or employment contracts, and to report on this aspect in 2003 with detailed proposals and a programme for their implementation, the rest of the review to be completed, if possible, in 2004".

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Royal Butler Prosecutions
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Solicitor-General what the cost was to public funds of the prosecution relating to(a) Paul Burrell and (b) Harold Brown; and if she will make a statement. [86183]

  The Solicitor-General
  The cost of the prosecutions relating to(a) Paul Burrell and (b) Harold Brown to public funds has not yet been ascertained.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Solicitor-General on what date the Crown Prosecution Service became aware of the existence of a written authority from the Prince of Wales to Harold Brown, authorising him to dispose of a gold wedding ring; and if she will make a statement. [86185]

  The Solicitor-General
  The CPS has no knowledge of such a document. Following the statement to the judge at court on 2 December 2002, that the Crown would be offering no evidence against the defendants defence, counsel for Harold Brown produced and read out to the court a document that the CPS has to this day not seen. To the best of our knowledge, Harold Brown was not named in the document, nor did it concern the sale of any item.

TRANSPORT

  Air Traffic
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of air traffic dealt with by(a) Swanwick, (b) Prestwick, (c) West Drayton and (d) other air traffic control operators is (i) over 20,000 feet, (ii) over 25,000 feet and (iii) under 20,000 feet. [89001]

  Mr. Jamieson
  It is not possible to disaggregate this information to the level requested. In November 2002, the latest full month for which final information is available, the total number of flights handled by NATS was 157,635. Many of these flights were handled by more than one centre at different stages of their passage through UK airspace. The number of flights handled by each centre in that month was as follows:

  Number

  Swanwick

  129,690

  Prestwick (including oceanic flights)

  64,612

  West Drayton

  95,078

  Manchester

  47,305.

  Air Transport
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 16 December 2002,Official Report, column 641W, on the future development of air transport, how many Scottish consultation documents were sent out by his Department by (a) 30 November and (b) 10 December. [88418]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The breakdown of Scottish consultation documents dispatched by 30 November and 10 December is shown in the following table.
  218W

  30 November

  10 December

  Main document

  5,915

  5,930

  Summary document

  7,176

  7,181

  Questionnaires

  6,655

  6,676

  Airport Capacity (South-East)
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what relative weight will be given to responses to the consultation on the future of airport capacity in the south-east in the form of(a) individual letters and (b) questionnaire responses. [88495]

  Mr. Jamieson
  All responses to the consultation, whether in the form of individual letters or completed NOP questionnaires, will be fully considered and analysed carefully.

  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what external professional advice was taken into account in devising the questionnaire on airport capacity in the South East; [88496]

  (2) if he will revise and recirculate the questionnaire with regard to the consultation on airport capacity in the South East; and what representations he has received on the drafting and format of the questionnaire. [88497]

  Mr. Jamieson
  NOP were commissioned by the Department to advise on the drafting and format of the South East questionnaire prior to the start of the consultation on 23 July 2002.

  Since then there have been a number of representations from both individuals and organisations about the content and format of the questionnaire. We are considering these points carefully and plan to issue a revised questionnaire when the further South East consultation document is published early in 2003. Those who have already completed the existing questionnaire will be able to replace it with the new version should they wish to do so.

  Lewes Bypass
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects a quieter road surface to be applied to the A27 Lewes bypass. [89097]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 20 June 2002 [Official Report, column 506W].

  Motorway Tolls
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his policy is on toll charging on motorways. [89102]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The M6 Toll (the Birmingham Northern Relief Road), which is under construction and is expected to open in 2004, is the only planned motorway where all vehicles may be tolled.

  NATS
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what representations he has received
  219W
  on the reliability of the pilot controller radio communication system; and if he will make a statement; [R] [89004]

  (2) what representations he has received on the clarity of the newly fitted computer screens at Swanwick air traffic control centre; [88999]

  (3) what representations he has received on equipment failure experienced by NATS; and if he will make a statement. [89009]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have received a number of representations in recent months concerning NATS' systems or equipment but these are primarily matters for NATS as the service provider. I understand there were computer failures at West Drayton on 27 March 2002 and 10 April and on 17 May at Swanwick and there have been other, well-publicised, minor problems such as print size on the computer screens at Swanwick. The problems which led to the computer failures have been identified and addressed. New software, which provided revised colours and fonts on the radar displays in response to staff concerns, was successfully introduced intro Swanwick on 6 November.

  The CAA, as safety regulator, has remained satisfied throughout that safety has not been compromised.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many engineers were employed by NATS on(a) 1 May 1997 and (b) 1 May 2002. [89008]

  Mr. Jamieson
  NATS employed 1,177 engineers on 1 May 1997 and 1,270 on 1 May 2002.

  Postcodes
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what use his Department and its agencies make of postcode areas for(a) the collection and publication of data, (b) devising formulae for the distribution of grants and awards and (c) the delivery of services; and when such usages were last reviewed. [87742]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Postcode area data are not used widely across the Department and its agencies. The contractors who carry out the Department's National Travel Survey use the 'small user' Postcode Address File as its sampling frame, although final data are only published at Government Office Region or combined county level. The Survey of Privately Owned Vans, begun in October 2002, also uses postcode areas as the basis for collecting data. The sample size is too small to enable publication at postcode level but it is planned to publish regional results.

  Rail Passengers (Security)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will establish a national strategy and standards for CCTV on stations and in railway coaches; and if he will make a statement. [88717]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We will be considering the effective use of CCTV surveillance on trains as part of our current joint project with the Strategic Rail Authority to improve the on-train environment for rail passengers and staff. We already encourage the effective use of CCTV as part of the secure stations scheme accreditation process.

  Rail Schemes
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which rail schemes involving new or reopened(a) lines and (b) stations the SRA will complete by 2015. [89100]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Details of all rail schemes involving the strategic rail authority (SRA) are in their strategic plan (copies of which are in the House Library). A revised version of that plan is due to be published early in 2003 and copies of the revised plan will also be placed in the House Library.

  Road Congestion
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what work he has done to establish(a) the correlation between road space available and road congestion and (b) the impact on existing public transport alternatives along such corridors arising from the provision of extra road space. [89099]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department undertakes forecasting work for road traffic, for which available road space is an input. Forecasts were recently published in 'Delivering Better Transport: Progress Report', a copy of which is in the House Library. This forecasting work also estimates modal transfer arising from transport policies.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what additional volume of traffic he estimates will be generated using the SACTRA model in each of the road schemes announced in his recent statement to the House. [89101]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department accepted and has implemented the recommendations of the 1994 SACTRA report "Trunk Roads and the Generation of Traffic". As a result, road schemes are designed and appraised having regard to all sources of traffic, including generated traffic. It is no longer standard practice to make separate estimates excluding generated traffic. Thus, it is not possible to provide the information requested.

  St. Pancras Cemetery
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received regarding the removal of graves from St. Pancras cemetery in connection with the building of the channel tunnel rail link. [89333]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Secretary of State has received a small number of representations about this matter.

DEFENCE

  Apache Helicopter
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence by what date he expects the Apache AH Mk l's UK-specific secure communications system to have the ability to share voice and data information with other UK aircraft types and ground troops. [87976]
  221W
  Mr. Ingram
  The timescales for enhancements to enable Apache AH Mk 1 to share voice and data information with a range of United Kingdom aircraft and with ground forces are being defined but the aim is to introduce them as soon a possible.

  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made to ensure that the Longbow fire-control radar allows the Apache AH Mk 1 attack helicopter to deal with surface threats. [87977]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Longbow fire control radar is being tested and evaluated, along with other sub-systems, as the Apache helicopter is brought into service. Any necessary modifications will be made to ensure that Longbow is able to deal consistently with the threats for which it was designed.

  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what actions have been taken to ensure that the Apache AH Mk 1 attack helicopter achieves its planned initial operating capability in August 2004. [87978]

  Mr. Ingram
  To ensure that an initial operating capability for the Apache of August 2004 is met, action is being taken along six lines of development: delivery of the equipment; development of appropriate organisation structures and infrastructure; development of concepts and doctrine for how the equipment will be used; delivery of the required training; recruitment and retention of manpower; and supporting and sustaining the new capability once the equipment has been introduced into service.

  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the problems experienced with the Apache Mk 1 attack helicopter; and when he expects each of these to be rectified. [87980]

  Mr. Ingram
  The report by the Comptroller and Auditor General: 'Building an Air Manoeuvre Capability: The Introduction of the Apache Helicopter' published on 31 October 2002 reflected the outstanding issues relating to the Apache helicopter. Action is in hand to address the issues highlighted in the report and to ensure the delivery of an initial operating capability in August 2004.

  BAE Systems
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the discussions his Department has had with BAE Systems since 1 December; and what subjects areas were discussed. [88226]

  Mr. Hoon
  BAE Systems is a major supplier to the Ministry of Defence. As is to be expected, numerous discussions with the company have taken place since 1 December 2002, and continue to do so, concerning a wide range of subjects.

  British Nuclear Tests (Compensation)
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what restrictions apply on the provision of the medical records of ex-servicemen or ex-military medical auxiliaries who were present at British nuclear tests conducted at Christmas and Maiden Islands. [89018]
  222W
  Dr. Moonie
  There are no restrictions that apply specifically to the provision of the medical records of those ex-Service personnel who were present at the British nuclear tests on Christmas Island and Maiden Island. However, the normal restrictions on access to medical records do apply.

  Christmas Expenses
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many departmental Christmas cards he and his Ministers intend to send in 2002; how much these cards will cost(a) to buy, (b) to post and (c) in staff time to sign, address and place in envelopes; and if he will place in the Library a sample copy of the official Christmas card he has sent this year. [88106]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 19 December 2002]: Defence Ministers sent a total of 520 departmental Christmas cards. All expenditure incurred in the purchase and despatch of these cards was made in accordance with departmental guidance on financial procedures and propriety, based on the principles set out in Government Accounting.

  The cards were purchased from The Royal Star and Garter Home, a charity for disabled ex-service men and women at an equivalent cost of 67p per card. A copy of the card used will be placed in the Library of the House.

  It is estimated it took around four minutes of staff time to prepare each card for posting.

  Defence Bills Agency
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the total spending was of the Defence Bills Agency for the last year for which figures are available; and how much of that was spent in Scotland. [86061]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 10 December 2002]: The total value of Defence contractors' bills settled by the Defence Bills Agency for the year ending 31 March 2002 was £16,849 billion. Data on how much of this figure was spent in Scotland or any United Kingdom region is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Enron
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contracts the Department has placed with Enron since 1997. [87112]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence has not placed any contracts with Enron since 1997.

  Eurofighter
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with BAE Systems on the numbers of Eurofighter Typhoons projected to be in(a) Tranche 2 and (b) Tranche 3. [88224]

  Mr. Ingram
  We have regular discussions with BAE Systems on a wide range of issues associated with the Eurofighter Typhoon programme. The planned numbers of aircraft to be procured in Tranche 2 and Tranche 3 are set down in international memoranda of understanding between the four Typhoon partner
  223W
  nations and in the over-arching framework contracts placed with industry. For the United Kingdom these provide for 89 aircraft in Tranche 2 and 88 in Tranche 3.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the implications for the Eurofighter Typhoon project of developing an enhanced ground attack capability for the aircraft. [88225]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Eurofighter Typhoon will be a multi-role aircraft. Although primarily designed for air superiority, the aircraft will progressively benefit from enhanced ground attack capabilities as part of the planned procurement programme. The United Kingdom and other nations involved in the procurement will continue to keep under review the possibility of further enhancements to Typhoon's capability.

  Gracemoor Consultants
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the former employees of his Department who have taken up positions with Gracemoor Consultants, stating in each case the name and date of leaving. [82152]

  Dr. Moonie
  Under the Cabinet Office rules on the acceptance of outside appointments by Crown servants ("the Business Appointment Rules"), all Ministry of Defence non-industrial civilians and officers in the Armed Forces are required, within two years of leaving the Department, to apply for permission before taking up employment with an organisation connected with their official duties. Some of these applications are speculative and not all lead to external appointments being taken up. The rules require only senior officials whose applications are approved by the Prime Minister to confirm to their former department that they have taken up a new appointment on leaving the MOD. Details of such appointments are published by the Cabinet Office in the annual reports of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Green Ministers
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which Minister in his Department is the nominated Green Minister; how often he has attended meetings of the Green Ministers; and which official has responsibility for the Defra rural proofing check-list in his Department. [88455]

  Dr. Moonie
  I am the nominated Green Minister for the Ministry of Defence. The Green Ministers Committee (now ENV(G)) is a Cabinet sub-committee. It is established practice under Exemption 2 of Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information not to disclose information, including ministerial attendance, relating to the proceedings of the Cabinet and its committees.

  A list of the names of departmental contacts, who meet regularly to discuss issues such as rural proofing, is not published as personnel and machinery of Government changes mean that any list would be out of date fairly quickly.

  Knightsbridge Barracks
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the result is of his investigation into circumstances of the shooting incident at Knightsbridge Barracks involving a civilian, Mr. Rajko Novakovic; who(a) issued and (b) owned the firearm; how many soldiers were involved in the incident; how many civilian complaints concerning the improper use of firearms have been received in the past five years; what disciplinary action has been taken following the conviction of trooper Adam Everett by Horseferry Road magistrates; what ranks of officer have apologised to Mr. Novakovic; and when trooper Everett offered an apology. [89254]

  Dr. Moonie
  The investigation into the shooting incident at Knightsbridge Barracks leading to the conviction of Trooper Adam Everett was conducted by the civilian police.

  An internal investigation was conducted into the storage security of the firearm. The matter of internal disciplinary or administrative action now lies with the chain of command, and this properly remains a private matter between Trooper Everett and the Army. The matter of the soldier issuing an apology is also a private one between him and Mr. Novakovic.

  The figures relating to the number of complaints concerning the improper use of firearms received by the Service relate to the period 1 January 1998 to 31 December 2002. Worldwide, a total of 16 incidents of offences against the person involving firearms, where there was a civilian complainant and the suspect was a Service person (this includes dependants and United Kingdom based civilians), were reported to Service Police. You may also wish to be aware that, during the same time frame, there were 27 complaints made of similar incidents where the complainants were Service persons (this includes dependants and UK based civilians) and the suspect(s) civilian. These figures include incidents both inside and outside of barracks, but do not include incidents leading to an individual being charged or investigated for murder or attempted murder.

  Military Airfields
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what liaison takes place between his Department and(a) local hon. Members and (b) local authorities in the use of domestic military airfields when being used by the aircraft of a foreign power. [88321]

  Mr. Ingram
  Regular liaison takes place between RAF stations and local authorities. This includes notification of foreign aircraft activity, where it varies from the routine.

  Members of Parliament are similarly advised of such non-routine activity by either my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Defence or myself.

  Military Recruits
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost was per capita of training a
  225W
  successful military recruit to the agreed standard (a) in 1997 and (b) in the last 12 months; and what the difference was expressed in percentage terms. [88334]

  Dr. Moonie
  The information is not held in the format requested. However, the average cost of initial training for successful recruits is set out as follows:

  £000

  Officer

  Other rank

  1999–20001

  Royal Navy

  25.3

  4.4

  Royal Marine

  97.9

  31.8

  2001–02

  Royal Navy

  31.1

  6.9

  Royal Marine

  103

  33

  1RN/RM figures for 1997–98 and 1998–99 are not readily available

  £000

  Officer

  Other rank

  1997–98

  Army

  40.6

  5.6

  RAF

  15.8

  3.8

  2001–02

  Army

  52.6

  7.3

  RAF

  17.9

  4.5

  The 2001–02 costs were calculated on a resource basis (thus including overheads), whereas costs for previous years were only based on cash. It would, therefore, be inappropriate to make a percentage comparison between the two sets of figures. There are also significant differences between the services in the scope of initial training so that it is generally inappropriate to use these figures to make inter-service comparisons.

  MOD Contracts
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the ROF sites that supply his Department; and what the length of contract is at each site. [88572]

  Mr. Ingram
  The former Royal Ordnance Factories (now owned by RO Defence, within BAE Systems), which are involved in the supply of munitions to the Ministry of Defence are: Birtley, Bridgwater, Chorley, Glascoed and Radway Green. The MOD has a variety of contracts for the supply of munitions with RO Defence, most of which are covered by the MOD/ROD Framework Partnering Agreement. These contracts are not site specific, and it is for RO Defence to decide on the point of assembly and manufacture of components.

  RAF Fairford
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the terms of agreement are between his Department and the US Air Force in the use of RAF Fairford. [88320]

  Mr. Ingram
  The presence of the United States Air Force at RAF Fairford is, as with all bases made available to United States visiting forces in the United Kingdom, governed by the NATO Status of Forces Agreement 1951 and additional confidential arrangements.

  S-type Contracts
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many serving members of(a) the armed forces and (b) the infantry are employed on an S-Type contract having been manning controlled. [89280]

  Dr. Moonie
  As explained in the answer given on 27 November 2002,Official Report, columns 332–34W, only the Army uses Manning Control Point reviews. The Royal Navy and Royal Air Force have their own manning policies that are designed to meet their different requirements.

  There are 351 serving members of the Army who are employed on an S-Type engagement following termination of their notice or open engagement after a Manning Control review. Of these, 291 are Infantry personnel.

  Soldier Discharges
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many soldiers in the last five years signed an AFB120A form under QR 9.413; and how many soldiers who were discharged under QR 9.413 applied for a war pension after discharge. [89275]

  Dr. Moonie
  I assume the hon. Member is referring to AFB 130A form, which is completed when soldiers are to be discharged for a number of reasons, including Queen's Regulations 9.413, 'Not required for a full Army career'. For consistency with the period covered in the answer of 16 December 2002, Official Report, column 507W, the number of such forms signed by soldiers discharged under Queen's Regulations, paragraph 9.413 in each year since 1997 is shown in the table.

  Number of AF103As discharged under QR 9.413

  1997

  231

  1998

  175

  1999

  93

  2000

  66

  2001

  47

  2002

  3

  Total

  615

  An AFB 130A form may have been signed in some cases in which discharge action was terminated. Figures for such cases are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The Veterans' Agency does not collate data on the reason for discharge of veterans who claim a war pension. Therefore, the number of soldiers who were discharged under Queen's Regulations, paragraph 9.413, and who applied for a war pension after discharge, is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  UBS Warburg
  Syd Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when his Department was informed that the Department of Trade and Industry had hired UBS Warburg to advise it about the relationship between
  227W
  BAE Systems and his Department; which MOD officials met officials from UBS Warburg; and when these meetings took place. [88665]

  Mr. Hoon
  UBS Warburg were retained in early December 2002 to provide specialist financial advice to the Government as a whole, not to individual Departments. Ministry of Defence officials, representatives of the MOD Equipment Capability Customer Organisation, the Defence Procurement Agency and the MOD Press Office have been involved in a number of meetings at which USB Warburg representatives have been present.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Union Learning Funds
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assistance has been given by his Department to union learning funds; and if he will make a statement. [88808]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 7 January 2003]: Trade unions have a key role to play in promoting the development of learning and skills in the workplace. To help them do this, my Department has provided financial support through the union learning fund since 1998. Between 1998 and March 2002, £16.5million was made available; £9 million is available for 2002–03 and a further £33.6 million has been allocated for the next three years up to 2005–06.

  The union learning fund is a highly successful scheme and has become an established part of the lifelong learning agenda. Regular evaluation of this initiative has taken place and copies of the reports are available in the House of Commons Library.

  Christmas Expenses
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many departmental Christmas cards he and his Ministers intend to send in 2002; how much these cards will cost(a) to buy, (b) to post and (c) in staff time to sign, address and place in envelopes; and if he will place in the Library a sample copy of the official Christmas card he has sent this year. [88109]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  [holding answer 19 December 2002]: This year Ministers at the Department for Education and Skills sent around 1,550 official Christmas cards. These cards cost £1,659. The cards were sent via the governmental inter-departmental Service or the Royal Mail. No breakdown of the delivery methods is available which would enable an accurate assessment to be made of the postage costs. Equally no record is available of the staff time involved to sign, address and place cards in envelopes. A copy of the official Christmas card has been made available to the Library.

  All expenditure incurred in the purchase and despatch of official Christmas cards is made in accordance with the departmental guidance on financial procedures and propriety, based on the principles set out in "Government Accounting".

  Connexions
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) full-time and (b) part-time employees were employed by Connexions in each region (i) this year and (ii) last year. [88993]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 7 January 2003]: The following table gives the number of full-time and part-time staff employed by Connexions during the current year. The figures are taken from an annual staff survey undertaken by 27 partnerships that were operational by August 2002. The Connexions Service is expected to be operational in all 47 areas by April 2003.

  Comparable information is not available for 2001. Another survey of all Connexions partnerships is planned for the end of April 2003.

  Connexions partnerships operational by August 2002

  Full-time staff

  Part-time staff

  England

  5,023

  2,021

  South-east

  230

  204

  Milton Keynes, Oxon and Bucks

  230

  204

  London

  790

  315

  Central London

  176

  55

  North London

  143

  50

  South London

  184

  93

  East London

  287

  117

  East of England

  431

  172

  Cambs and Peterborough

  214

  74

  Hertfordshire

  107

  66

  Suffolk

  110

  32

  South-west

  599

  288

  Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole

  97

  25

  Cornwall and Devon

  244

  102

  Somerset

  84

  51

  West of England

  174

  110

  West Midlands

  846

  335

  Black Country

  225

  75

  Coventry and Warwick

  182

  112

  Hereford and Worcester

  102

  60

  Shropshire, Telford and Wrekin

  109

  51

  Staffordshire

  228

  37

  East Midlands

  314

  94

  Lincolnshire and Rutland

  148

  41

  Nottinghamshire

  166

  53

  Yorks and Humber

  479

  265

  Humberside

  226

  155

  South Yorkshire

  253

  110

  North-west

  968

  265

  Cheshire and Warrington

  204

  61

  Cumbria

  134

  49

  Greater Merseyside

  368

  81

  Lancashire

  262

  74

  North-east

  366

  83

  County Durham

  118

  33

  Tyne and Wear

  248

  50

  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of people who have received advice through the Connexions service were(a) under 19 and (b) defined as socially excluded in the latest 12 months for which figures are available, broken down by region. [88996]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 7 January 2003]: The table shows the number and proportion of young people receiving individual advice through operational Connexions Services for the period April 2002 to

  229W
  November 2002—the latest period for which this information is available. The table also shows the numbers of those identified as needing intensive support from the service.

  Intensive support is defined as integrated and specialist support for those facing substantial multiple problems which prevent them from engaging with

  All young people advised by Connexions in a one to one situation1

  Number of under 19s advised by Connexions in a one to one situation

  Number identified as needing intensive support

  Percentage

  England

  1,799,647

  1,726,652

  448,254

  24.9

  South East

  100,432

  96,838

  29,287

  29.2

  London

  154,167

  144,920

  32,056

  20.8

  East of England

  106,796

  102,548

  16,959

  15.9

  South West

  238,711

  225,097

  68,832

  28.8

  West Midlands

  263,257

  252,377

  35,055

  13.3

  East Midlands

  150,312

  145,069

  36,811

  24.5

  Yorks and Humber

  235,772

  226,669

  95,222

  40.4

  North West

  431,343

  416,597

  102,000

  23.6

  North East

  118,857

  116,537

  32,032

  27.0

  1 Connexions Services cover 13 to 19-year-olds and young people up to the age of 25 with learning difficulties and disabilities.

  Departmental Meetings (Wales and Scotland)
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when(a) Ministers and (b) officials from his Department last met representatives from (i) the Welsh Assembly and (ii) the Scottish Parliament. [89335]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Ministers in this Department are in regular contact with representatives from the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament, most recently on 31 October 2002 and 18 December 2002 respectively.

  Officials in the Department work regularly with the Devolved Administrations on matters of mutual interest. Information about the frequency of meetings is not held centrally.

  Grammar Schools
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what recent discussions he has had with local education authorities about the future of grammar schools; [87851]

  (2) what recent representations he has received from local education authorities seeking an end to academic selection. [87852]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 17 December 2002]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not held any specific discussions with local education authorities, nor has he had any representations from them, about the future of grammar schools or ending academic selection. However, he has recently had a meeting with representatives of Kent LEA about how school standards in general can be raised.

  Legislation does not allow for LEAs to propose that grammar schools stop being selective; that is a matter for the schools themselves, or local parents, through the ballot system.

  Language Teaching
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what estimate he has made of 230W
  learning. These young people are likely to be involved with a number of different professionals engaged in education, social welfare, health and housing.

  Young people also receive advice and guidance in a variety of group activities, through targeted mail shots and via Connexions websites, however this information is not collected by age group.

  the percentage of children in maintained schools learning a foreign language at Key Stage 2; and what he expects the percentage to be in (a) September 2003, (b) September 2004 and (c) September 2005; [89328]

  (2) by what date he expects that every primary school should have a language co-ordinator. [89332)

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  While the Department does not hold precise information about the numbers of children learning a modern foreign language at Key Stage 2, we are aware from a recent survey conducted by Warwick University that approximately 20 per cent. of primary schools currently offer some form of language teaching. We plan to carry out research this year to verify that percentage, and Ofsted will take account of language learning programmes in the primary schools they inspect. This will allow us to estimate the percentage of children who will be learning a foreign language at Key Stage 2 for the years cited and beyond.

  We expect that, by the end of the decade, every pupil at Key Stage 2 will be offered the opportunity to study at least one foreign language. To support this offer, we are concentrating on building capacity and supporting best practice, enabling schools to introduce early language learning at a pace which is right for them.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the overseas visits on departmental business undertaken by Ministers in his Department during the last 12 months. [89323]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  In the last 12 months, Ministers in this Department have travelled on departmental business to Belgium, France, Slovakia, Italy, Australia and the United States.

  All trips undertaken by Ministers comply with the requirements of the Ministerial Code.

  School Funding
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the SSA average grant per pupil in(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools will be in each LEA in England and Wales in (i) 2003–04 and (ii) subsequent years for which figures are available. [88325]

  Mr. Miliband
  The average primary and secondary formula spending share per pupil for LEAs in England are set out in the tables for 2003–04: figures for future years will become available at the time of the Local Government Finance Settlement for each year. These figures are not comparable with primary and secondary SSA per pupil for 2002–03 and previous years. The new system of funding for LEAs consists of a basic entitlement which is the same for all pupils, plus a top up for all deprived pupils, which is the same for all deprived pupils, and a further top up for those LEAs in areas with additional costs for recruitment and retention of staff. Where the average formula spending share per pupil is higher, that reflects a higher number of deprived pupils, and higher area costs. The system in Wales is different and is the responsibility of the Welsh Assembly.

  LEA

  Average primary formula spending share per pupil

  Average secondary formula spending share per pupil

  City of London

  3,252

  4,322

  Camden

  3,187

  3,952

  Greenwich

  2,985

  3,866

  Hackney

  3,336

  4,208

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  3,087

  3,935

  Islington

  3,217

  4,156

  Kensington and Chelsea

  2,957

  3,771

  Lambeth

  3,232

  4,129

  Lewisham

  3,011

  3,956

  Southwark

  3,160

  4,147

  Tower Hamlets

  3,625

  4,441

  Wandsworth

  2,923

  3,890

  Westminster

  3,255

  4,060

  Barking and Dagenham

  2,482

  3,204

  Barnet

  2,555

  3,250

  Bexley

  2,280

  2,986

  Brent

  2,814

  3,545

  Bromley

  2,237

  2,968

  Croydon

  2,410

  3,213

  Ealing

  2,757

  3,442

  Enfield

  2,538

  3,218

  Haringey

  2,823

  3,572

  Harrow

  2,590

  3,290

  Havering

  2,240

  2,961

  Hillingdon

  2,496

  3,193

  Hounslow

  2,714

  3,373

  Kingston upon Thames

  2,387

  3,117

  Merton

  2,504

  3,285

  Newham

  2,928

  3,611

  Redbridge

  2,505

  3,160

  Richmond upon Thames

  2,318

  3,092

  Sutton

  2,357

  3,112

  Waltham Forest

  2,609

  3,393

  Birmingham

  2,475

  3,156

  Coventry

  2,273

  2,912

  Dudley

  2,180

  2,849

  Sandwell

  2,378

  3,022

  Solihull

  2,115

  2,751

  Walsall

  2,302

  2,944

  Wolverhampton

  2,327

  2,992

  Knowsley

  2,381

  3,022

  Liverpool

  2,385

  3,048

  St. Helens

  2,195

  2,841

  Sefton

  2,156

  2,812

  Wirral

  2,217

  2,873

  Bolton

  2,269

  2,883

  Bury

  2,169

  2,833

  Manchester

  2,540

  3,235

  Oldham

  2,351

  2,985

  232W

  LEA

  Average primary formula spending share per pupil

  Average secondary formula spending share per pupil

  Rochdale

  2,323

  2,988

  Salford

  2,281

  2,936

  Stockport

  2,108

  2,769

  Tameside

  2,220

  2,876

  Trafford

  2,149

  2,817

  Wigan

  2,149

  2,808

  Barnsley

  2,195

  2,829

  Doncaster

  2,244

  2,836

  Rotherham

  2,198

  2,834

  Sheffield

  2,217

  2,877

  Bradford

  2,409

  3,039

  Calderdale

  2,233

  2,857

  Kirklees

  2,275

  2,881

  Leeds

  2,191

  2,837

  Wakefield

  2,167

  2,812

  Gateshead

  2,199

  2,838

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  2,297

  2,926

  North Tyneside

  2,151

  2,798

  South Tyneside

  2,233

  2,881

  Sunderland

  2,210

  2,855

  Isles of Scilly

  3,366

  3,989

  Bath and North East Somerset

  2,111

  2,747

  City of Bristol

  2,251

  2,949

  North Somerset

  2,119

  2,741

  South Gloucestershire

  2,107

  2,729

  Hartlepool

  2,255

  2,888

  Middlesbrough

  2,326

  2,972

  Redcar and Cleveland

  2,225

  2,842

  Stockton-on-Tees

  2,193

  2,824

  City of Kingston-upon-Hull

  2,292

  2,938

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  2,163

  2,681

  North East Lincolnshire

  2,210

  2,831

  North Lincolnshire

  2,210

  2,758

  North Yorkshire

  2,214

  2,662

  York

  2,074

  2,702

  Bedfordshire

  2,219

  2,831

  Luton

  2,432

  3,149

  Buckinghamshire

  2,276

  2,939

  Milton Keynes

  2,319

  2,984

  Derbyshire

  2,128

  2,715

  Derby

  2,233

  2,885

  Dorset

  2,136

  2,669

  Poole

  2,059

  2,709

  Bournemouth

  2,122

  2,763

  Durham

  2,208

  2,797

  Darlington

  2,190

  2,802

  East Sussex

  2,159

  2,752

  Brighton and Hove

  2,183

  2,850

  Hampshire

  2,141

  2,764

  Portsmouth

  2,237

  2,908

  Southampton

  2,296

  2,957

  Leicestershire

  2,083

  2,663

  Leicester

  2,443

  2,966

  Rutland

  2,204

  2,659

  Staffordshire

  2,102

  2,698

  Stoke on Trent

  2,254

  2,904

  Wiltshire

  2,214

  2,731

  Swindon

  2,153

  2,788

  Bracknell Forest

  2,287

  3,019

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  2,321

  3,019

  West Berkshire

  2,333

  2,970

  Reading

  2,412

  3,161

  Slough

  2,623

  3,326

  Wokingham

  2,273

  2,970

  Cambridgeshire

  2,224

  2,779

  Peterborough

  2,375

  3,011

  Cheshire

  2,133

  2,738

  Halton

  2,286

  2,946

  Warrington

  2,101

  2,761

  Devon

  2,217

  2,708

  Plymouth

  2,166

  2,813

  Torbay

  2,162

  2,807

  Essex

  2,164

  2,784

  Southend

  2,195

  2,847

  Thurrock

  2,267

  2,938

  Herefordshire

  2,246

  2,683

  Worcestershire

  2,088

  2,689

  Kent

  2,184

  2,803

  Medway

  2,167

  2,812

  Lancashire

  2,183

  2,778

  Blackburn

  2,389

  2,942

  233W

  LEA

  Average primary formula spending share per pupil

  Average secondary formula spending share per pupil

  Blackpool

  2,211

  2,862

  Nottinghamshire

  2,133

  2,746

  Nottingham City

  2,393

  3,075

  Shropshire

  2,201

  2,667

  The Wrekin

  2,196

  2,806

  Cornwall

  2,233

  2,758

  Cumbria

  2,220

  2,721

  Gloucestershire

  2,160

  2,743

  Hertfordshire

  2,257

  2,948

  Isle of Wight Council

  2,210

  2,779

  Lincolnshire

  2,226

  2,714

  Norfolk

  2,211

  2,727

  Northamptonshire

  2,183

  2,789

  Northumberland

  2,206

  2,734

  Oxfordshire

  2,266

  2,884

  Somerset

  2,159

  2,689

  Suffolk

  2,144

  2,698

  Surrey

  2,307

  3,019

  Warwickshire

  2,173

  2,752

  West Sussex

  2,176

  2,806

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Air Quality (Lancashire)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the most recent figures are for air quality in Lancashire. [88651]

  Alun Michael
  Defra currently operates two automated, continuous air quality monitoring sites in Lancashire: one in Preston, the other in Blackpool. These sites measure carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, ozone, particulate matter (PM 10), and sulphur dioxide. Current and historic air quality information from these sites is available at Defra's air quality archive, www.airquality.co.uk. The information is updated hourly.

  In 2002 all automated measurements of carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen and sulphur dioxide were in the 'low' category of air pollution. 'High' levels of PM10 occurred at Preston on one day in 2002, where levels peaked at 80 micrograms per cubic metre. `Moderate' levels of PM10 were recorded at Preston on three days in 2002. 'Moderate' levels of PM10 were measured at Blackpool on one day in 2002, peaking at 51 micrograms per cubic metre. 'Moderate' levels of ozone were measured in Preston on 47 separate days in 2002, peaking at 67 parts per billion. In Blackpool, `moderate' levels of ozone were measured on 62 separate days in 2002, peaking at 78 parts per billion. Data for 2002 are provisional. Definitions of low', 'moderate' and 'high' pollution levels are provided at Defra's air quality archive.

  Bird Registration
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 11 December 2002,Official Report, column 311W, on bird registration, what the significant increase in enforcement action was that caused the increase in costs of running her Department's bird registration scheme between 2000–01 and 2001–02; how
  234W
  many police forces were involved; and how many (a) pending court cases and (b) convictions have resulted from this action. [89282]

  Mr. Morley
  The increase in enforcement costs from 2000–01 to 2001–02 was due partly to increased pay and overhead costs and partly to the recruitment of a number of new inspectors to widen the spread of expertise available to the Department.

  Increased enforcement does not necessarily result in a higher number of court cases as the chief aim of the wildlife inspectors is to deter crime. The number of pending court cases and convictions and the number of police forces involved in taking them forward in 2000–01 and 2001–02 were as follows:

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Pending cases

  0

  3

  Convictions

  3

  1

  Police forces

  3

  1

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 11 December 2002,Official Report, column 312W, on bird registration, what evidence she collated that de-registration of bird species currently listed on schedule 4 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 will not lead to an increase in illegal taking from the wild; and what assessment her Department has made of the cost implications for (a) enforcement and (b) conservation agencies of de-registration. [89283]

  Mr. Morley
  The reason for the consultation was to obtain views and evidence on the possible impact of any changes to Schedule 4. We are still analysing the responses.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the likely impact on the United Kingdom peregrine falcon population of removing that species from schedule 4 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. [89284]

  Mr. Morley
  No assessment has been made. The development of any future proposals for species to be excluded from Schedule 4 would be accompanied by an appropriate assessment.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 11 December 2002,Official Report, column 311W, on bird registration, what percentage of her Department's bird registration fees were paid by birdkeepers in (a) 1991–92 and (b) 2001–02. [89285]

  Mr. Morley
  In 1991–92,33 per cent. of the costs of providing the service were recovered and 2001–02, 14 per cent. of costs were recovered.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 11 December 2002,Official Report, column 311W, on bird registration, whether changes were made to the fees charged following the consultation on Review of Bird Registration and CITES licensing fees undertaken in July 1999. [89286]
  235W
  Mr. Morley
  No changes were made to any fees following the consultation on the review of bird registration and CITES licensing fees undertaken in 1999 because of concerns expressed by consultees.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 11 December 2002,Official Report, column 311W, on bird registration, how many birds were registered with her Department's bird registration scheme in (a) 1991–92 and (b) 2001–02; and what cost savings her Department has made in the running of the scheme following the 1994 review of Schedule 4 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. [89287]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department no longer holds data on how many birds were registered in 1991–92. Before the changes to Schedule 4 in 1993 there were 19,466 birds registered. At 1 January 2002, 6,918 birds were registered.

  In 1991–92 the total costs of Bird Registration were £309,769 and in 2001–02 total costs were £441,557. Because of changes to the species and numbers of birds being registered it is impossible to assess meaningful figures for savings achieved.

  Coley
  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mechanism is for the disposal of diseased coley taken from within salmon cages; and what assessment she has made of the effect diseased coley has on domestic farm animals in Shetland. [88723]

  Mr. Morley
  The disposal of diseased fish from fish farming operations in Great Britain must be carried out in accordance with the Animal By-Products Order 1999 (SI 1999/646). The disposal of diseased fish in Shetland is the responsibility of the Scottish Executive.

  Fisheries
  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the terms of fisheries quota swaps undertaken between Spain and Portugal for Western Waters in 1996. [88197]

  Mr. Morley
  I regret that this information is not centrally available.

  Hunting
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of who will take over the role of disposing of fallen stock if the number of hunts are reduced as a consequence of the bill. [89011]

  Alun Michael
  The European Union's Animal Byproducts Regulation will ban routine on-farm burial and burning of animal carcases from 30 April 2003. This will mean that the existing fallen stock service provided by a number of hunts could only continue with considerable investment in new equipment. So the future of the hunts' service is in doubt irrespective of the 236W
  Hunting Bill. The Government has been holding discussions with the livestock and disposal industry with the aim of developing a national fallen stock scheme.

  Marine Wildlife
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to secure greater protection for marine wildlife. [88862]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government's first Marine Stewardship Report, "Safeguarding our Seas", was published in May 2002. It sets out our strategy for the conservation and sustainable development of the marine environment and reiterated the commitment made at the 5th North Sea Conference to establish a network of well-managed marine protected areas by 2010.

  The Report contained a package of initiatives to better protect marine wildlife. In particular, it confirms our commitment to consult on the Regulations to extend the Habitats Directive out to the limit of jurisdiction of UK waters. We are also finalising our UK-wide Small Cetacean Bycatch Response Strategy. This will identify what measures can be taken to reduce the incidental capture of small cetaceans in fishing nets.

  In addition, our Review of Marine Nature Conservation is currently examining how effectively the current system for marine nature conservation is working and how improvements might be made where conservation objectives are not being met.

  Nobel House
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether a Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method document has been prepared for the refurbishment of Nobel House. [89079]

  Alun Michael
  The latest refurbishment in Nobel House was for areas of the sixth and eighth floors. This was undertaken for MAFF in 1997. As only parts of floors were refurbished it was concluded that it would not be appropriate to seek a Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) assessment. In the summer of 2002 "fit out" work was undertaken to allow Defra to occupy the top four floors of 9 Millbank, which is next door to Nobel House. Again, it was concluded that it would not be appropriate to seek a BREEAM assessment because Defra are not responsible for the building fabric and the building services; these remain the responsibility of the major occupier, Ofgem. Defra does seek BREEAM assessments for the major new or refurbishment schemes for which we are responsible.

  Officials
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many officials in her Department work(a) in the Strategic Development Unit and (b) on Regulatory Impact Assessment matters. [89092]
  237W
  Alun Michael
  There is no unit within Defra specifically called the Strategic Development Unit. The Policy and Corporate Strategy Unit in Defra employs 59 officials of whom approximately 21 work on strategic policy. Their functions include promoting the development of strategic capability across the Department as a whole.

  Five people work full time in the Better Regulation Unit, which is responsible for advice and guidance within Defra on the Regulatory Impact Assessment process. The unit is supervised by a member of the senior civil service who is also engaged in other duties. Responsibility for preparing individual RIAs rests with officials in the policy divisions who draw on other expertise as necessary, for example economic advisers.

  Pigs
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many pigs were slaughtered in abattoirs in the United Kingdom in each year between 1990 to 2001. [87291]

  Mr. Morley
  The information requested is given in the table below:

  Number of pigs slaughtered in abattoirs in the United Kingdom 1990–2001

  Unit: Thousand head

  Clean Pigs

  Sows and AdultBoars

  Total Pigs

  1990

  13,879

  325

  14,203

  1991

  14,091

  366

  14,457

  19921

  14,143

  373

  14,515

  1993

  14,265

  356

  14,620

  1994

  14,681

  389

  15,069

  1995

  14,021

  355

  14,376

  1996

  13,897

  324

  14,221

  1997

  15,132

  363

  15,496

  19982

  15,872

  415

  16,286

  1999

  14,350

  379

  14,728

  2000

  12,369

  321

  12,691

  2001

  10,449

  180

  10,628

  Notes:

  153 week statistical year

  2Figures have been rounded individually and totals will not necessarily agree with the addition of separate figures.

  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many pigs were on holdings in England and Wales in June of each year from 1990. [87294]

  Mr. Morley
  Total pigs in England are shown in the table below. Figures for Wales are a matter for the devolved authority.

  Total Pigs (England)

  Number

  1990

  6,308,324

  1991

  6,411,758

  1992

  6,408,233

  1993

  6,517,778

  1994

  6,591,684

  1995

  6,341,131

  1996

  6,275,376

  1997

  6,631,920

  1998

  6,729,927

  1999

  6,163,443

  238W

  Total Pigs (England)

  Number

  2000

  5,442,468

  2001

  4,822,870

  2002

  4,629,707

  Source:

  June agricultural and horticultural census.

  Water Quality (Lancashire)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the most recent figures are for water quality on the Lancashire beaches that are regularly tested. [88652]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 7 January 2003]: I announced on 11 November the best ever bathing water quality results in England and the North West, with all the Lancashire beaches passing the Directive's main mandatory standards in the 2002 season. Details of the weekly results of the sample testing for individual bathing waters are available on the Environment Agency's internet site at www.environment-agency.gov.uk (then follow "What's in your backyard?"). In addition, my Department will be placing in the Library early in the new year our annual publication "Bathing Water Directive (76/160/EEC) Detailed Summary of Survey Results—United Kingdom" This lists all identified bathing waters and the results of micro-biological and physico-chemical sample testing.

  Working Time Directive
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact of a Working Time Directive on the farm community(a) in its general application and (b) specifically in relation to the movement of livestock to and from another auction; and if she will make a statement. [89006]

  Alun Michael
  No sectoral analysis has been provided by the Department. The Department for Trade and Industry has overall responsibility for implementing the Working Time Directive 1998 and has produced a Regulatory Impact Assessment on the 1998 regulations. As a result of the flexibilities included in the regulations in relation to agricultural work it is anticipated that the additional cost to agriculture and associated sectors will have been small.

  The Working Time Regulations 1998 currently exclude a number of sectors including road transport. A new working time directive (known as the Horizontal Amending Directive) covering the excluded sectors, has been adopted together with three sector specific directives, including the Road Transport Directive. The Horizontal Amending Directive is due to come into effect on 1 August 2003. The Department for Trade and Industry is currently consulting on the draft regulations to implement the Directive.

  The Road Transport Directive is due to come into effect in March 2005 and the Department for Transport will be consulting on its proposals to do this in due course.
  239W

TREASURY

  PFI Projects
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) of 11 December 2002,Official Report, column 252, if he will list the PFI projects being carried out in the constituency of Maidenhead. [89015]

  Mr. Boateng
  No PFI projects are currently being carried out in the constituency of Maidenhead. However, the constituency benefits from PFI investment both in neighbouring constituencies and at a national level.

  Locally, for example, PFI has helped to channel extra money into hospitals administered by the South Buckinghamshire NHS Trust, which take patients from Maidenhead, and has financed the widening and resurfacing of the nearby M40 motorway. At a national level, PFI has provided vital investment to deliver public services whose benefits extend beyond the constituencies in which they are located, in sectors such as defence and the administration of justice. To date, PFI deals delivering over £20 billion worth of capital investment across the country have been signed.

  Climate Change Levy
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what(a) advantages and (b) disadvantages he identified in deciding to introduce the climate change levy in preference to a carbon tax. [89098]

  John Healey
  The Government's decision to introduce the climate change levy as a 'downstream' energy tax took account of the conclusions of Lord Marshall in his 1998 report 'Economic Instruments and the Business Use of Energy'. Lord Marshall concluded that a downstream tax on supplies of energy to the non-domestic sector would be necessary to avoid any tax impacting on domestic energy users. While under such a scheme it is difficult to determine the carbon content of electricity supplies other than as a broad average, it does encourage all non-domestic energy users to improve energy efficiency and thereby reduce carbon emissions. The climate change levy is also consistent with the Government's policy of maintaining a level playing field between different energy sources.

  Environmental Taxation
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his policy is on the application of tax to(a) plastic bags and (b) aviation fuel. [89093]

  John Healey
  The Government currently have no plans to introduce a plastic bag tax.

  The 2002 pre-Budget report announced that the Government will discuss with stakeholders the most effective economic instruments for ensuring that the aviation industry is encouraged to take account of, and where appropriate reduce, its contribution to global warming, local air and noise pollution. The Government will set out its plans in its Air Transport White Paper later this year.
  240W

  SDA Target SDAB3
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures other than implementation of the Financial Services and Marketing Act were used to determine whether Spending Review 2000 SDA Target SDAB3 was met, as stated on page 20 of the HM Treasury Departmental Report 2002. [89265]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 7 January 2003]: The measure used in assessing Spending Review 2000 SDA Target SDAB3 was whether the Financial Services and Markets Act was implemented successfully.

  The target was met on 1 December 2001 (known as N2). This was the point at which the Financial Services Authority acquired all its powers and is when the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 was fully implemented.

  Tunes Plateau (Wind Farm)
  David Burnside
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what deposit was required from the B9 Consortium with regard to the proposed wind farm on the Tunes Plateau off the County Londonderry coast; and if he will make a statement on the tendering process. [88872]

  John Healey
  I am advised that the development consortium (comprising B9 Energy, Renewable Energy Systems Ltd. and Powergen Renewables Ltd.) have made a premium payment of £30,000 in return for a 12-month exclusivity agreement for the Tunes Plateau site, in order to complete a comprehensive feasibility study.

  Voluntary Organisations
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the impact of the increased insurance costs on voluntary sector organisations. [88505]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government are aware of recent rises in premiums for liability insurance, which have affected some businesses and voluntary sector organisations. As announced in the Pre-Budget Report, the Department for Work and Pensions is undertaking a formal review of the operation of Employers' Liability Compulsory Insurance.

WALES

  ASW Cardiff
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether the Welsh Environment Agency has agreed to fund the cleaning of the Combustion Chamber at ASW Cardiff. [85482]

  Peter Hain
  [holding answer 5 December 2002]: I have been asked to reply. While the Welsh Development Agency would join me in welcoming Celsa's potential future investment in Cardiff, the agency's involvement would be strictly limited by European rules on state aid to assigning the lease on the Castle Works site on purely commercial terms to the new purchasers.
  241W
  The Welsh Development Agency has made it clear that the same terms would be available to any potential purchaser.

  The Welsh Development Agency is not able to offer financial inducements to a steel company.

  Green Ministers
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which Minister in his Department is the nominated Green Minister; how often he has attended meetings of the Green Ministers; and which official has responsibility for the Defra rural proofing check-list in his Department. [88456]

  Peter Hain
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales is the nominated Green Minister for my Department and regularly attends meetings of the Cabinet sub-committee.

  Rural impacts of policies, which apply across England and Wales, are assessed by the relevant lead Government Department. The development of distinctively Welsh policies is undertaken in conjunction with the National Assembly for Wales whose own integrated appraisal tool includes full consideration of the impacts on rural areas.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Christmas Expenses
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much will be spent on(a) entertaining, (b) Christmas decorations and (c) other festive activities this Christmas season by her Department and Government agencies answerable to her Department; and of this sum, how much will be spent in Ministers' (i) private offices and (ii) official residences. [88124]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 19 December 20021: The Department, including the Royal Parks, will have spent £9,944.26 on entertaining, £1,430 on Christmas decorations and £3,369.31 on other festive activities in this Christmas season. Of these amounts, £64.26 will have been spent in Ministers' private offices. No Minister in the Department has an official residence.

  All of this expenditure is strictly for official purposes only and made in accordance with the departmental guidance on financial procedures and propriety, based on the principles set out in Government Accounting.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Hawk Exports
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what equipment has been exported under the OIEL for the transfer of Hawk components and production equipment to India, which was formally issued on 6 September 2001. [87612]
  242W
  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 17 December 2002]: I refer the right hon. and learned Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) on 18 March 2002, Official Report, column 53W.

  Battery Recycling
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to the answer of 19 November 2002,Official Report, column 107W, if she will make a statement on the proposed disposal or reuse of this material. [87762]

  Mr. Wilson
  The aim of industrial nickel cadmium battery collection schemes including Bat-Re-Back in the UK and the Collect Nicad schemes in other EU states is to create a closed loop process which will see the collected batteries sent to a recycling facility where the cadmium is extracted for use in the manufacture of new batteries and the nickel is recycled and sold to the steel industry. The batteries collected from Bat-Re-Back are sent to the SNAM recycling facility in France. Although consumer nickel cadmium batteries are not widely collected in the UK they can be subject to the same recycling process.

  British Energy
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the costs to British Energy of(a) storage of all AGR nuclear fuel and (b) continuation with current reprocessing contracts in each year of the projected life of each of British Energy's advanced gas-cooled reactors. [87144]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 19 December 2002]: Details of the restructuring proposal, including those relating to historic and future spent AGR fuel management, were set out by British Energy in its announcement on 28 November 2002.

  The spent fuel management contracts between British Energy and BNFL are a matter for the companies. The Government intend to look at how the historic spent fuel contracts are managed as a part of the creation of the Liabilities Management Authority.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the likely effects on the public purse of British Energy going bankrupt. [89103]

  Mr. Wilson
  British Energy submitted a plan to Government for the solvent restructuring of the company. The Department and its financial advisers assessed the implications and decided to support it. Should British Energy not be able to deliver the restructuring plan, the Government are prepared to see the company go into administration, and would need to consider further the future structure of the business, its assets and liabilities.

  Coal Health Compensation Scheme
  Andy Burnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much compensation was paid to people resident in the(a) Leigh, (b) Markerfield, (c) Wigan parliamentary constituencies and (d) the

  243W
  Wigan borough under the Coal Health Compensation Scheme, by 15 December (i) 2000, (ii) 2001 and (iii) 2002. [87244]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 17 December 2002]: It is not possible to provide the statistics requested for the year 2000. In the timescale available it is not possible to provide statistics for the year 2002 up until 15 December 2002. However, we are able to provide figures for Wigan Borough up to 12 December 2002 and figures for the constituencies up to 30 November 2002.

  £

  Parliamentary Constituency

  Damages Paid

  Leigh

  Markerfield

  Wigan

  Wigan Borough

  Cummulatively to 31 December 2001

  COPD

  1,600,923

  1,341,454

  962,818

  495,762

  VWF

  1,570,421

  1,427,337

  716,237

  127,799

  I January 2002 to 30 November 2002

  COPD

  2,168,399

  1,433,227

  1,351,650

  VWF

  588,329

  713,145

  295,420

  1 January 2002 to 12 December 2002

  COPD

  657,904

  VWF

  6,801

  Construction (Skills Gap)
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures her Department is taking to address the construction industry's skills gap; and if she will make a statement. [88732]

  Mr. Wilson
  In order to recruit and retain people with the necessary skills at all levels, the construction industry needs to address the underlying issues which prevent it being seen as a career of first choice. Rethinking Construction and the Construction Best Practice Programme, which DTI supports, are working to tackle these issues. DTI is also working with the Strategic Forum for Construction which intends to develop and implement strategies to enable the industry to recruit and retain the 300,000 qualified people that CITB estimate are required by the end of 2006, and result in a 50 per cent. increase in suitable applications to build environment, higher and further education courses by 2007.

  The DTI also works closely with the Construction Industry Training Board (CITB—the statutory industry training board) and other industry bodies to ensure that workers in construction receive the training they need. For example, DTI gives support to "National Construction Week", a major national event showcasing career opportunities for the industry; the "Making Connections" initiative, which aims to attract and retain higher quality graduates in greater numbers; and a "language skills audit" to assess the perceived need for language skills in construction, where the first language of significant numbers of workers is not English.

  The DTI, together with the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), and the Department for Education and Skills (DIES), is taking forward a pan-industry skills and workforce development agenda that is relevant to the construction sector. The DTI
  244W
  recognises the particular importance of high quality leadership and management, and has just published a Government response to the final report of the Council for Excellence in Management and Leadership (CEML).

  Crown Copyright
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who sits on the HMSO's Crown Copyright User Group from(a) her Department and (b) industry; and if she will make a statement. [88815]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 7 January 2003]: The Crown Copyright User Group, has industry members from:

  Barbour Index plc;

  Rouse & Co International Ltd;

  The Stationery Office Ltd;

  Thomson Professional Information UK; The Publishers' Association;

  Reuters Ltd;

  Technical Indexes;

  Electronic Publishing Services Ltd, also representing the Information and

  Communication Industries Association.

  The Department of Trade and Industry member was from Communication and Information Industries Directorate.

  Dounreay (Decommissioning)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what implications costs arising from the decommissioning of Dounreay have for the estimated cost of decommissioning other publicly held nuclear liabilities; and if she will make a statement. [88051]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 19 December 2002]: The programme for decommissioning nuclear licensed sites is a matter for the nuclear site license holders and their regulators, taking into account Government policy on nuclear decommissioning. The programme at Dounreay has no special implications for the cost of dealing with other publicly held nuclear liabilities.

  Electricity Prices
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the change in(a) the wholesale price of electricity and (b) the price of electricity charged to retail customers since 1998. [88049]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 19 December 2002]: Since 1998 the month ahead baseload prices for electricity supplied by generators to energy suppliers have fallen by 40 per cent. in real terms up to March 2002.

  The average price of electricity charged to domestic customers has fallen by 11 per cent. in real terms between Q3 1998 and Q3 2002, while that for industrial customers (excluding the Climate Change Levy) has fallen by 23 per cent. in real terms between Q2 1998 and Q2 2002. Domestic customers who switch electricity supplier can save more. At the end of March 2002 over one third of domestic customers were with suppliers other than their traditional home supplier, saving on

  245W
  average around £23 (9 per cent.) on an annual electricity bill in 2002 compared to customers remaining with their traditional home supplier.

  Fireworks
  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the restrictions are on the times of year when fireworks can be sold; what assessment she has made of the adequacy of these restrictions in tackling misuse of fireworks; and what plans she has to make all parts of the 1976 Firework Package Deal legally binding. [86951]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  There are no legal restrictions on the times of year when fireworks can be sold. However, the voluntary sales agreement, introduced in 1976, limits the sales of fireworks to three weeks before November 5, and for a few days afterwards. This plays a role in containing the period when fireworks are available for sale, and hence, limiting misuse. To make the voluntary sales period mandatory would require primary legislation.

  Gas Supply (Winter)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she had made of the capability of the gas pipeline infrastructure to meet peak winter demand; what contingency plans are in place if the infrastructure fails; and if she will make a statement. [88044]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 19 December 2002]: The design and investment in the gas pipeline infrastructure is a matter for Transco. Their operating licence obligates them to maintain the network to withstand peak demand and conditions in the sort of severe winter we would face once in a 20 year period. Historic weather patterns dating back to 1928 are used in assessing the risks.

  Copies of Transco's emergency plans are already in the Libraries of the House. I have now also placed copies of the recently updated Gas Industry Emergency Committee plans in the Library. These show how the Government and the wider gas community would work with Transco in handling an emergency affecting the gas transmission system. The plans were last tested in September 2002.

  Insolvency Service
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the progress of the annual pay negotiations for the Insolvency Service. [88498]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Pay negotiations commenced on 13 December. Both parties are working to reach a settlement as soon as possible.

  Kyoto Targets
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list her Department's policies that have as one of their objectives helping Britain meet its Kyoto carbon dioxide emission targets. [87733]
  246W
  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 19 December 2002]: The UK Climate Change Programme, which the Government published in November 2000 sets out the Government's integrated package of policies and measures to deliver the UK's commitment to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases under the Kyoto Protocol.

  DTI leads on energy policy, where it has encouraged the growth of renewable energy, which will have an important role in meeting our Kyoto targets. In particular, under the Renewables Obligation, electricity suppliers will be obliged to provide a specific proportion of their power supplies from renewable sources.

  The Government is currently carrying out a review of energy policy with a view to issuing a White Paper in the New Year. The White Paper will set out the Government's future energy policies including those relating to the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions both globally and nationally in the 21st century.

  The DTI has worked with other Departments to develop and implement policies and measures in the Climate Change Programme, in particular those affecting business. In this context, it has worked with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and HM Treasury on the climate change levy and emissions trading, the establishment of the Carbon Trust and the implementation of the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control regulatory regime.

  Miners (Industrial Diseases)
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the average delay between a current or former miner agreeing to a final settlement payment for industrial disease and receiving it was in the last 12 months(a) in the UK, (b) in the East Midlands and (c) in Bassetlaw. [88976]

  Mr. Wilson
  The figures in the table are the number of days between the Department's claim handler's, IRISC, receiving the acceptance letter and the final payment being made.

  I understand my hon. Friend has indicated to the Department that he no longer requires these figures for the East Midlands.

  COPD

  VWF

  Expedited Payment

  Full and Final Offer

  Full and Final Offer

  UK

  8 Days

  9 Days

  4 Days

  Bassetlaw

  6 Days

  7 Days

  4 Days

  Nuclear Plant Security
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to deploy(a) anti-aircraft and (b) ground-to-air missile batteries around nuclear power plants and nuclear fuel cycle facilities in response to the terrorist threat. [87565]

  Mr. Wilson
  None. Security at civil nuclear sites is ensured in a number of ways, all of which are kept under review.
  247W

  Nuclear Power
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the excess of generating capacity over consumption if all electricity from UK nuclear power stations were to cease. [89087]

  Mr. Wilson
  UK generation capacity currently exceeds peak demand by more than 20 per cent. Nuclear currently makes up around 15 per cent. of UK capacity. Reflecting overall excess capacity wholesale electricity prices are low and some capacity has been mothballed. The impact on capacity margins of a cessation of electricity from nuclear power stations will therefore depend on the timescale over which nuclear output were to decline. Mothballed plant could return to operation. In the longer term new plant would be built.

  Output from nuclear power stations is forecast to decline from its current level of around 20 per cent. of total generation to around 7 per cent. by 2020 as existing stations close, unless the regulatory authorities approve extensions to the life of these stations or new capacity is introduced.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what sum has been identified as representing the maximum cost to public spending over the next 10 years of supporting the nuclear industry. [89090]

  Mr. Wilson
  On current projections, the clean up of nuclear liabilities at BNFL and UK Atomic Energy Authority sites is expected to cost some £1.3 billion per year over the next 10 to 15 years. In addition., the cost of the Government's contribution to British Energy's historic nuclear fuel liabilities is expected to average £150 million to £200 million per year for the next 10 years and fall thereafter.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her policy is on the time a discontinued nuclear power station should remain untouched before dismantling begins. [89091]

  Mr. Wilson
  Decommissioning of a nuclear power station, including details of timing, is a matter for the operator, taking into account the requirements of the regulatory authorities.

  Renewable Energy
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with ministerial colleagues on the potential impact on the development of renewable energy sources of the implementation of an indicative planning process; and if she will make a statement. [88050]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 19 December 2002]: DTI Ministers have met and discussed the impact of renewable energy developments on the planning process with colleagues in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. These discussions have taken place in the context of: preparing the Energy White Paper, which the Government plan to publish early in the new year, the re-drafting of Planning Policy Statement 22 which sets out statutory planning guidance on renewables in England and the ODPM's wider planning reforms.
  248W

  Scottish Electricity Grid
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on proposals to improve the Scottish electricity grid. [88052]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 19 December 2002]: It is vitally important that there are no barriers to Scotland's renewable electricity output being brought to centres of demand further south. Following a report, which was published by my Department in February, into the possibility of building a subsea cable to take electricity generated in Scotland down the west coast to link up with the onshore grid system further south, my Department set up the Transmission Issues Working Group to consider the implications for the grid infrastructure of significant increases in renewable energy generating capacity throughout Great Britain.

  The Working Group considered the costs of reinforcing both marine links and the grid onshore to bring electricity generated in Scotland to markets in the south and the transmission system operators in both Scotland and England are currently in discussions with their regulator, Ofgem, on the regulatory framework for making this happen. The report of the Transmission Issues Working Group will be published early next year.

  Small Retail Businesses
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimates she has made of the value of small retail businesses to the UK economy. [88645]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 7 January 2003]: Small and medium-sized enterprises are critical to the UK economy, generating new jobs and contributing to over half of the UK business revenue. Recent figures estimate there were 3.7 million enterprises employing nearly 23 million people, and with an annual turnover of over £2 trillion. Small retail businesses (sector 52 with 0 to 249 employees) represent 8 per cent. of all enterprises, 5 per cent. of all work force jobs and account for 4 per cent. of the UK turnover.

  Solar PV Industry
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what criteria she will use to judge the success of phase one of her Department's solar PV major demonstration programme. [87717]

  Mr. Wilson
  The success of the first phase of the major PV demonstration programme will be judged by a number of criteria including: whether the target number of installations have been completed within the budget, whether the overall cost of the PV systems has reduced significantly, and whether a strong PV industry in both installation and manufacture has been established.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures her Department has put in place since 1997 to encourage investment in the off-grid solar PV market; and if she will make a statement. [87719]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Department has funded a number of research and development projects under its Renewable Energy Programme, such as Hybrolight and Aviation Beacon/Landing Lights, Transport Refrigeration,
  249W
  Vaccine Fridge, Desalination System and UK leadership of an International Energy Agency PV Power Systems Task on PV for Developing Countries.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether a decision to move to phase 2 of the solar PV major demonstration programme will be made in consultation with the UK solar PV industry. [87723]

  Mr. Wilson
  We take it as read that the UK solar PV industry would welcome a second phase of the major PV demonstration programme. Should there be one, we will endeavour to consult them as far as is practicable about its shape and operation.

  Transco
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and industry what percentage of attendances by Transco at uncontrolled gas escapes were achieved within one hour in the last 12 months. [87484]

  Mr. Wilson
  According to figures reported to Ofgem, in the 12 months to 30 November 2002, Transco attended 98.51 per cent. of uncontrolled gas escapes within one hour, against a target of 97 per cent.

  TXU Energy
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations her Department received concerning TXU energy before 19November; and if she will make a statement. [88139]
  250W
  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 19 December 2002]: My officials and I were kept informed as to the developing situation at TXU Europe throughout the period of its difficulties.

  Wind Farms
  Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry further to her answer of 11 December,Official Report, column 329W, if she will set out the conclusions of the research; and if she will make a statement. [87881]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Wind Energy, Defence and Civil Aviation Interests Working Group, which was set up and is chaired by the Department, published in October Interim Guidelines on Wind Energy and Aviation Interests. The guidelines are intended to be a "living document" which will be updated and amended to reflect the outcome of research into the interaction between wind turbines and aviation (particularly radar). Copies of the document have been deposited in the Libraries of the House.

  The Working Group will be considering arrangements for the release of the studies as they are completed. The ongoing research includes studies to produce a model which will be used to predict the impact of wind turbines on radar systems; to investigate the various technical approaches which could reduce these impacts, and a study to examine European experience and practice regarding the impact of wind turbines on aviation interests.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Burma
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much her Department gave through multilateral agencies in(a) 2000, (b) 2001 and (c) 2002 to (i) the Government of Burma and (ii) the Burmese internally displaced people. [88771]

  Clare Short
  In calendar year 2000 my Department provided approximately £1.8 million through global funding of the UN and ECHO for poor and vulnerable people in Burma. The figures for 2001 and 2002 are not yet available. We also gave humanitarian funding to ICRC in support of its work with the very vulnerable and war affected in Burma. Additionally, we provided humanitarian funding for UNHCR and WHO in support of their work with refugees and the very vulnerable within Burma and across the Thai border. The breakdown by financial years is as follows:

  £ million

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03 (to date)

  UNHCR

  0

  0.805

  0.407

  WHO

  0.3

  0

  0.27

  ICRC

  0

  0.8

  0.5

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much her Department is proposing to give in 2003 to(a) the Government of Burma and (b) the Burmese internally displaced people. [88772]

  Clare Short
  DFID's funding to assist the poor in Burma is not channelled through the Government but through selected non-governmental organisations, United Nation's agencies, and the EU (ECHO). This policy will not be altered unless there is substantive political change.

  During 2003–04 DFID expects to spend more than £2 million on the extremely vulnerable including refugees and otherwise displaced people within Burma and on both sides of the border with Thailand.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the use of child soldiers in Burma. [88774]

  Clare Short
  There is credible information, including from Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the United Nations that this is a serious problem in Burma, both with the Burmese army and also Burmese insurgent groups. In November, the EU co-sponsored a resolution on Burma at the United Nations General Assembly that expressed grave concern over the human rights situation in Burma, including the use of child soldiers.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of human rights abuses by Burmese soldiers, with particular reference to sexual violence against ethnic minority women and girls. [88775]
  252W
  Clare Short
  The use of sexual violence by members of the Burmese armed forces requires a thorough and independent investigation. The EU co-sponsored a resolution on the human rights situation in Burma in November 2002 at the United Nations General Assembly that condemned the Burmese regime's human rights record, including the instances of sexual violence by members of the armed forces.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions she has held with(a) groups working in Burma and (b) the Burmese internally displaced people. [88776]

  Clare Short
  None.

  Child Soldiers
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the recent UN report on child soldiers. [88777]

  Clare Short
  The latest UN Secretary General's report on children and armed conflict covers a range of issues, including child soldiers, on which we are actively engaged. My Department finds the report a useful source of information and guidance. The emphasis on the "era of application" is particularly to be welcomed and supported.

  While the report provides some cause for optimism, for instance the coming into force of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, there is much more to be done to reduce the impact of armed conflict on children, their families and communities. The best way to achieve this is by the prevention, reduction and resolution of armed conflicts. My Department has intensified its work with other Government Departments to this end. While the Secretary General's report, pursuant to UN Security Council Resolution 1379, identifies various countries where the direct use of children in conflict continues, it is to be welcomed that the report also focuses on those aspects of children and armed conflict that tend to receive less attention, such as the impact of land-mines and the sexual exploitation of girls.

  Mrs. Caroline Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with the Governments of(a) Afghanistan, (b) Burundi, (c) the Democratic Republic of Congo, (d) Liberia, (e) Somalia, (f) Burma and (g) Colombia on the recent UN Report on child soldiers; and what efforts she is making to end the practice of using child soldiers. [88778]

  Clare Short
  No direct discussions have been held with the above-mentioned Governments and Administrations specifically on the recent report. In Afghanistan the UK will be sending an expert to support the UN and the transitional authority with the disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration of former and current combatants. The new Afghan National Army will have no child soldiers in its ranks.
  253W
  The UK is both very actively engaged in the peace processes in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Burundi and a major contributor to the process of disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration in the Great Lakes region. We are also playing a part in the Somalia peace process. Information from a number of sources, including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the United Nations, indicates that use of child soldiers is a serious problem in Burma, both by the Burmese army and various Burmese insurgent groups. In November, the EU co-sponsored a resolution on Burma at the United Nations General Assembly that expressed grave concern over the human rights situation in Burma, including the use of child soldiers.

  In addition UNICEF has recently produced, with our assistance, a publication on the use of child soldiers in the East Asia and Pacific region. The Quaker United Nations Office has recently produced a groundbreaking report—with my Department's support—on the lives of girl child soldiers in Colombia, Angola, Sri Lanka and the Philippines. For instance, the report describes particularly the relationship between sexual or physical abuse and exploitation at home and girls' willingness to become involved in armed conflict and how living in poverty played a key role in girls joining a movement or being abducted.

  Children (Trauma)
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what her Department is doing to help children suffering grave psychological trauma as a result of conflict situations; [88635]

  (2) what her Department is doing to help women and girls who have been victims of rape and sexual violence as a deliberate instrument of war; [88636]

  (3) [hat her Department is doing to help children (a) orphaned, (b) seriously injured and (c) permanently disabled as a result of conflict situations. [88779]

  Clare Short
  Armed conflict often seriously affects the development of children including by the infliction of serious damage to their physical and mental health. Children are damaged through land-mines, direct targeting of their homes and schools, sexual violence including rape and being forced to take part in direct hostilities. The best way to protect children from the impact of armed conflict is to prevent, reduce and resolve conflict. My Department has intensified its work with other Government Departments to this end. DFID also provides humanitarian assistance to children displaced by conflict or who have lost their families. We support efforts by the International Committee of the Red Cross and Red Crescent to try to ensure compliance with international humanitarian law. DFID also supports the work of UNICEF, UNHCR and other humanitarian agencies of the United Nations, as well as humanitarian NGOs. Many of these provide direct assistance to children who have been subjected to acts of physical and mental violence and their families and communities. This assistance can take the form of the provision of a safe place to live, health care, education, psycho-social assistance and food aid. For instance my Department has a global commitment to UNHCR of £14 million per year. This is in addition to targeted contributions in response to specific regional situations.
  254W
  Our work with UNICEF, UNHCR and humanitarian non-governmental organisations is also concerned with increasing their capacity to respond appropriately to children who have been treated so egregiously in armed conflict situations.

  Women and girls are targeted for sexual abuse and exploitation in situations of armed conflict, often as a deliberate strategy to terrorise them and their families. This issue was highlighted during the recent open debate on women peace and security at the UN Security Council in October when the UK had the Chair. The UK has also been instrumental in encouraging the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on this issue, which emphasised the use of sexual violence against women and girls. DFID is supporting the United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) in its multi-year programme to identify the causes and impact of sexual violence against women and girls in conflict situations. It also supports the UN Department of Peace-Keeping Operations and nongovernmental organisations to highlight gender issues, including sexual violence, associated with conflict.

  Eritrea
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the numbers of children aged(a) 1 to 3 and (b) 4 to 5 years old suffering from malnutrition in Eritrea; and if she will make a statement. [88683]

  Clare Short
  We do not have a specific breakdown by age of the number of children suffering from malnutrition in Eritrea. However, UNICEF have reported that, as of July 2002, three out of the six zones of Eritrea were showing levels of malnutrition in children above 15 per cent., and that more recent surveys have shown an increase.

  UN Relief and Works Agency
  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on Government funding for the UN Relief and Works Agency. [88611]

  Clare Short
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) earlier today.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to make changes to the use of asylum centres to process applications; how many asylum seekers are housed in accommodation centres; and where asylum seekers are placed when the centres are full. [88859]
  255W
  Beverley Hughes
  Accommodation centres will be introduced on a trial basis with a total capacity of around 3,000 in the trial period. We have made clear our intention that accommodation centres will contribute to faster processing of asylum claims with caseworking and appeal hearings taking place on-site at the centres unless there are sound pragmatic reasons for not doing so. Destitute asylum seekers who qualify for support but who are not placed in the accommodation centres will be supported under existing dispersal arrangements.

  Region

  June 2000

  September 2000

  December 2000

  March 2001

  June 2001

  East Midlands

  140

  300

  760

  1,140

  1,485

  East of England

  0

  0

  0

  140

  205

  Greater London

  70

  140

  245

  405

  620

  North East

  600

  1,120

  2,420

  3,210

  4,055

  North West

  1,090

  1,785

  3,415

  4,580

  5,870

  Northern Ireland

  0

  0

  0

  40

  50

  Scotland

  605

  915

  1,200

  2,395

  3,530

  South Central

  140

  175

  195

  220

  365

  South West

  5

  100

  380

  425

  485

  Wales

  0

  *

  15

  20

  295

  West Midlands

  95

  500

  1,350

  2,125

  3,610

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  570

  1,660

  3,550

  4,845

  5,930

  Overall total

  3,315

  6,700

  13,535

  19,540

  26,505

  Region

  September 2001

  December 2001

  March 2002

  June 2002

  September 2002

  East Midlands

  2,255

  3,215

  3,740

  4,045

  4,400

  East of England

  235

  320

  470

  520

  550

  Greater London

  870

  1,470

  1,870

  2,230

  2,365

  North East

  4,330

  4,765

  5,435

  5,750

  5,700

  North West

  6,885

  8,155

  8,870

  9,500

  10,250

  Northern Ireland

  65

  75

  85

  90

  125

  Scotland

  4,185

  4,750

  4,885

  5,040

  5,240

  South Central

  605

  800

  1,015

  1,040

  1,055

  South West

  595

  665

  765

  815

  830

  Wales

  455

  705

  1,015

  1,150

  1,405

  West Midlands

  5,295

  6,930

  8,035

  9,340

  9,975

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  7,115

  8,470

  9,455

  9,560

  9,690

  Overall total

  32,890

  40,325

  45,640

  49,085

  51,590

  1All figures have been rounded to the nearest five. Figures between one and two are represented by a *. Figures for each quarter exclude cases where support has been ceased before the end of that quarter.

  Statistics on the number of asylum seekers supported by NASS in each region are published quarterly on the Home Office's immigration statistics website: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigrationl.html

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 7 October from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mohammed AsimQureshi. [87658]

  Beverley Hughes
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 13 December 2002.

  Immigration
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will abolish his rule that prevents those awaiting decisions of the UK immigration authorities from carrying out voluntary work. [87274]
  256W
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers needing accommodation were dispersed to each region of UK in each month since the introduction of the NASS. [89409]

  Beverley Hughes
  Figures are only available on a quarterly basis.

  The table shows the number of asylum seekers (including dependants) who were supported in the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) accommodation as at the end of each quarter since June 2000.1 Figures are not available for the number of new asylum seekers who were dispersed in each quarter.

  Beverley Hughes
  We are keen to see asylum seekers and recognised refugees take an active interest in the welfare of their own communities and the local community by undertaking voluntary activity while they are in the UK. All asylum seekers, whether or not they are the principal applicant, may take part in voluntary activity at any point during their time in the UK. Others whose conditions of entry or stay prohibit employment paid or unpaid may not undertake voluntary work while their applications are being considered and we have no plans to change this.

  Missing Persons
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce a common reporting procedure for police services for missing persons. [88190]
  257W
  Mr. Denham
  There is an agreed procedure: details of all missing persons should be recorded on the Police National Computer (PNC) as soon as possible and in any case within 48 hours of their disappearance.

  Notification of all outstanding missing persons should be sent to the Police National Missing Persons Bureau (PNMPB), based at New Scotland Yard, within 14 days. Most missing persons are found locally within this period. Forces will not, however, be precluded from forwarding information to the PNMPB in a shorter time if a particular case appears to warrant more urgent attention.

  Details of unidentified persons or bodies found should be reported to the PNMPB within 48 hours of being found.

  Police Stations
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many police stations have (a) opened and (b) closed in Lancashire in each year from 1997 to 2002; [87908]

  (2) how many police stations have (a) opened and (b) closed in the north-west of England in 2002. [87909]

  Mr. Denham
  Chief constables in the north-west have provided information on the number of police stations that have opened and closed in the region in 2002. This is given in the table:

  Calendar year 2002

  Force

  Opened

  Closed

  Total

  Cheshire

  0

  1

  34

  Cumbria

  1

  2

  24

  Greater

  Manchester

  1

  1

  68

  Lancashire

  0

  1

  88

  Merseyside

  0

  0

  43

  The chief constable of Lancashire has provided information on the number of police stations opened and closed in each year from 1997 to 2002. This is set out in the table.

  Persons proceeded against for offences connected with pedal cycles, Greater London 2001

  Offence description/Principal statute

  2001

  Lighting and reflector offences Road Traffic Act 1988 Sec. 81 and RVL Regs. 1989

  2

  Riding on footpath (persons aged 18 and over only) Highways Act, 1835 Sec 72; (as amended by Local Government Act 1888 S.85(1), the Statute Law Revision (No2) Act 1888. Highways Act 1959 Sch25, Criminal Justice Act 1967, 3rd Sch. and Criminal Justice Act 1982, ss 39 and 46 and Sch.3); Metropolitan Police Act, 1839, Sec.54(7) and Byelaws.

  11

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the policy is of the Metropolitan police in seeking to deter adults from cycling on public footpaths; and if he will make a statement. [88443]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Cycling inconsiderately or irresponsibly on public footpaths is a criminal offence. The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that the Metropolitan police view the offence seriously, particularly where it is likely to result in
  258W

  Police station numbers in Lancashire 1997 to 2002

  Financial year to:

  Opened

  Closed

  Total

  March 1997

  0

  -3

  102

  March 1998

  0

  -4

  98

  March 1999

  0

  -5

  93

  March 2000

  0

  -3

  90

  March 2001

  0

  -1

  89

  March 2002

  0

  0

  89

  2002 to date

  0

  -1

  88

  It is the Government's role to allocate grant to police force areas as a whole. Capital grant and credit approval in 2002–03 for all police authorities in England and Wales totalled £199 million, including £20 million specifically for premises improvement and associated items. It is for the chief constable to decide how best to deploy available resources according to operational priorities and objectives. Accordingly, the decision to close a police station or restrict opening hours is an operational matter for the chief constable and not one in which it would be appropriate for the Home Office or Ministers to become involved.

  Public Footpaths
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many prosecutions there have been in the Greater London area of cyclists for cycling on the public highway without lights on their bicycles in the last 12 months; [88441]

  (2) how many prosecutions there have been of adults for cycling on public footpaths in the Greater London area during the last 12 months. [88442]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The available information, relating to the Greater London Area (Metropolitan and City of London police forces) for 2001 is contained in the table.

  This relates to riding on footpaths (which will include riding on pavements and using footpaths designated for pedestrians) and lighting and reflector offences (which will include cycling without lights).

  Information for 2002 will be published in the late autumn of 2003.

  danger being caused. Any Metropolitan police officer who is called to or witnesses such an offence will take whatever action is appropriate in the circumstances. The offence can be dealt with by way of a fixed penalty of £30. To help the police with enforcement we have made it possible for community support officers (CSOs) appointed under the Police Reform Act 2002 to issue these penalties. We have provided the Metropolitan police with additional funding for the recruitment of 500 CSOs.
  259W

  Sporting Events (Violence)
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been legally prevented from travelling abroad to football matches since 1997 as a result of prosecution for violent behaviour. [88724]

  Mr. Denham
  1,401 individuals are currently prevented from travelling abroad by the conditions of their football banning orders. Since 1 January 2000, a further 175 orders preventing travel have expired. All individuals subject to an order have at least one conviction for an offence of violence or disorder. No information is available for the period 1997–99.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with European colleagues regarding prevention of violence at football and other sporting events. [88725]

  Mr. Denham
  The Government work very closely with their European counterparts in tackling football disorder through active participation in Council of the European Union (ED) and Council of Europe fora. In the last 12 months this has resulted in a number of European-wide initiatives, including an updated "European Handbook on International Police Cooperation in connection with Football Matches" and the setting-up in each EU member and candidate state of a "National Football Police Information Point" for exchanging football-related intelligence and other information. The United Kingdom is also playing a leading role in a Council of Europe working group on the role of football in delivering social policy and in a recently established European 'think tank' on tackling football related violence. There are regular bilateral meetings with European colleagues.

  Transnational Sex Trade
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what legal assistance is provided to women that have entered Britain illegally as victims of sex trade. [89020]

  Beverley Hughes
  The White Paper "Secure Borders, Safe Haven: Integration With Diversity Within Modern Britain"—published in February 2002—sets out our general proposals for assisting the victims of trafficking for sexual exploitation. Briefly, where trafficked people are willing to come forward to the authorities, we shall where necessary make special arrangements for their protection including the provision of safe accommodation and health checks. We will consider, in the light of individual circumstances, whether it would be appropriate to allow them to remain here. Where they are to return home, we will assist them to do so, providing them with initial counselling, ensuring that they have suitable accommodation to return to, and providing help to enable them to reintegrate into their own community and find employment.

  We propose to commission non-governmental organisations to provide a range of support services, including access to legal advice, for women who are victims of trafficking for sexual exploitation, when trafficking shortly becomes an offence, as anticipated, on commencement of the relevant provision of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.
  260W

  Violent Crime (Havering)
  John Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many calls to police within the London borough of Havering were logged in the period 1 October 2001 to 30 September 2002 relating to incidents of(a) noise nuisance, (b) disturbance in a public place, (c) drunkenness, (d) criminal damage, (e) community problems and (f) other unlisted disturbances; and which localities are defined as hotspots for this type of offence. [85075]

  Mr. Denham
  The requested information is not collected centrally.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Asylum Support
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what responsibility his Department has for investigating fraud and error in the asylum support budget; and if he will make a statement. [88475]

  Beverley Hughes
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Home Office is responsible for providing support to asylum seekers who are destitute. The National Asylum Support Service (NASS) is responsible for administering the support provided to asylum seekers. NASS has established a mechanism for investigating fraud and error in its asylum support system.

  Green Ministers
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions which Minister in his Department is nominated Green Minister; how often he has attended meetings of the Green Ministers; and which official has responsibility for the DEFRA rural proofing check-list in his Department. [88464]

  Maria Eagle
  Our Green Minister is my noble Friend the Baroness Hollis of Heigham.

  It is established practice under Exemption 2 of Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information not to disclose information relating to the proceedings of the Cabinet and its Committees—such as ministerial attendance at Committees.

  A list of names of departmental rural contacts, who meet regularly, is not, published as personnel and machinery of Government changes mean that any published list would be out of date fairly quickly.

  Pay Offer Information Pack
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will place a copy of the Department 2002 pay offer information pack in the Library. [88206]

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

  Pensions
  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what action he is taking to help the poorest pensioners. [89049]
  261W
  Mr. McCartney
  The Government want all pensioners to have a decent and secure income in retirement and to share fairly in the rising prosperity of the country. The Government's first priority has been to help the poorest pensioners.

  From April 2002, the Government are spending an extra £6 billion a year in real terms on pensioners as a result of policies introduced since 1997. This includes £21/2 billion more on the poorest third of pensioners. This is three times more than a link between the basic state pension and average earnings since 1998 would have given them.

  We have introduced a range of initiatives designed to encourage pensioners to take up their entitlements. For the minimum income guarantee (MIG) we have undertaken a national advertising campaign, which resulted in almost 140,000 successful claims, with an average gain of £20 per week. We have also reduced the MIG claim form from 40 to 10 pages, introduced a MIG specific leaflet, and we are identifying potential beneficiaries through key events, such as claiming state pension.

  A key priority, for both Government and the Pension Service is the successful take up of the new pension credit, which will enhance and replace the MIG. It has been specifically designed to be easy for pensioners to claim and to be less intrusive. The weekly means test will be abolished for the over 65s and be replaced by a statement of their circumstances every five years. Capital rules will be relaxed and the upper capital limit abolished.

  Our take-up plan for pension credit is extensive and makes use of a range of channels. We will transfer existing MIG recipients to pension credit, ready for payments to be made from October 2003; write to all pensioners not already receiving MIG by June 2004 to alert them to possible pension credit entitlement, supported by a national publicity campaign; work with local partners to help support the communications to pensioners, and tailor marketing and communications activity accordingly.

  The Government have introduced other initiatives to help pensioners. These include winter fuel payments (WFPs), which will continue to be paid to qualifying households at £200 a year throughout this Parliament. In addition, we have introduced free TV licences for the over 75s, worth £104 a year. The WFPs and TV licences are non income-related and are tax free.

  All of the above demonstrate the importance that we attach to encouraging pensioners to take-up their entitlements, which in turn helps the poorest pensioners.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH

  Access to Children (Germany)
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what follow-up action will be taken to contact British parents who have reported prevention of access to their children in Germany to 262W
  British Consulates, in order to identify the common problems they are experiencing and give them assistance in the future. [89025]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Responsibility for cases concerning parental access to children in Germany lies with the Lord Chancellor's Department, Germany being a party to the 1980 Hague Convention on international child abduction. The FCO will continue to provide such consular advice and support as it properly can, in conjunction with the Lord Chancellor's Department, to British nationals who request it.

  Charles Knowles
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when his Department sent category D compensation claim number 3002250 on behalf of Mr. Charles Knowles to the United Nations Compensation Commission; and whether his Department received confirmation of receipt. [88604]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Mr. Charles Knowles' category D compensation claim, reference number 3002250, was sent to the United Nations Compensation Commission on 15 July 1993. The Department received written confirmation of receipt on 7 August 2002.

  Convention on the Future of Europe
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will take action in the Convention on the Future of Europe to ensure that the proposed duty to further the aims of the EU does not include joining the euro. [88929]

  Mr. MacShane
  The UK would not agree to a Constitutional Treaty that would compel us to join the Euro.

  Cote d'Ivoire
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on developments in Cote d'Ivoire; what the Government's policy is on(a) security and (b) international intervention in Cote d'Ivoire; and if he will make a statement. [88735]

  Mr. Rammell
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, remains deeply concerned about the crisis in Cote d'Ivoire, and its implications both for the people of Cote d'Ivoire and for the wider region.

  Recent fighting, particularly in the west of the country between the MPIGO/MJP rebel groups and Government forces, means that the security situation in Cote d'Ivoire remains extremely fragile. Since 9 December 2002, we have advised all UK nationals present in Cote d'Ivoire to use commercial means to leave the country.

  We have consistently made clear that the UK opposes any attempt to overthrow the elected government by force. We continue to provide support to the efforts of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) leaders to promote a political settlement which addresses the causes of the crisis, and to restore peace and security. UK support includes up to

  263W
  £2 million to assist the deployment of the Ghanaian contingent of the ECOWAS peace-monitoring force. We are working closely with France, and other partners, to ensure effective international support for these regional efforts. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has also agreed to provide up to £1 million in humanitarian assistance for Cote d'Ivoire.

  We remain gravely concerned at reports of mass killings and serious violations of human rights in Cote d'Ivoire. We welcome the UN Secretary-General's decision to request the High Commissioner for Human Rights to seek further information about these violations.

  We have also been concerned at all breaches of the 17 October 2002 ceasefire agreement. We are pleased that President Gbagbo has agreed to submit a crisis resolution plan to all Ivorian players and to ECOWAS leaders, and to consult them on it. We also welcome the fresh commitments made by him and by the leaders of the MPCI rebel group, during the 3–4 January visit of the French Foreign Minister, to respect the ceasefire. France has now offered to host a conference from 15 January involving all Ivorian political forces. We urge all parties to engage seriously in the search for an inclusive political solution to the crisis.

  Douglas Grindlay
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance Her Majesty's Ambassador to Berlin is giving to Mr.Douglas Grindlay. [88565]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  On 21 November 2002, a member of staff from our consulate in Hamburg accompanied Mr. Grindlay and his German lawyer to a hearing at the court in Pinnerberg. Consular staff in London and Hamburg are in regular contact with Mr. Grindlay and we will do all that we properly can to assist him.

  Flanders
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made by the Government to the Belgian authorities concerning the potential impact on Pilckem Ridge of the projected route of the A19 motorway in Flanders. [84521]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Government have made no representations to the Belgian authorities regarding the proposal to extend the A19 motorway in the area around Pilckem Ridge. However, the Flemish authorities have reassured the Commonwealth War Graves Commission that while the proposed route has not been finalised, it will not encroach on any Commonwealth War Graves Commission cemeteries. The MOD and the FCO, with the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, continue to monitor developments.

  Ian Hook
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what advice he has given to Mr. Ian Hook's relatives about seeking redress for his killing. [88609]
  264W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him today (UIN 88952). When we have received the results of the IDF and UN inquiries, we will discuss follow-up action with Mr. Hook's family.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his answer of 17 December 2002,Official Report, column 765W and 87111, when he expects to receive the results of the investigations into the killing of Mr. Ian Hook from (a) the IDF and (b) the UN. [88952]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We understand that both the Israeli and the UN reports are almost complete.

  Indonesia
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many internal armed conflicts there are in Indonesia; what the origins were of each conflict and how long each has involved the use of armed force; and what steps he has taken to press the Indonesian Government to provide for civilian oversight and accountability of the security forces. [88307]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There are a number of areas in Indonesia where the levels of violence give us cause for concern. These include Maluku, Sulawesi, West Papua and notably Aceh, where we welcome the recent agreement between GAM and the Government of Indonesia to end 26 years of conflict in that Province.

  The origins of such conflicts vary and are complex: some are inter-ethnic or inter-religious while others may have economic causes. Our message to the Indonesian Government is clear and consistent: long-term stability can be achieved only through political negotiation and consultation with the people. Together with our European partners we are in regular, top-level dialogue with the Indonesian Government, and urge them to maintain law and order and promote reconciliation in order to ensure the territorial integrity of Indonesia.

  We are implementing a strategy to tackle the causes of conflict; supporting reconstruction and reconciliation in troubled provinces such as Maluku, Aceh and Papua; and working with EU and other partners to help Indonesia build capacity to analyse and respond effectively to outbreaks of violence.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Andy Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what representations he has made to the Sri Lankan Government concerning(a) the publication in July 2001 of the Sinhala Commission Report and (b) the publication of similar anti-Christian material over the last 18 months; [88619]

  (2) [hat recent representations he has made to the Sri Lankan Government concerning the increase in violent attacks perpetrated upon Christians by Buddhist extremists; [88618]

  (3) what representations he has made to the Sri Lankan Government concerning the activities of the Bauddha Sanrakshana Sabhava, the Society for the Preservation of Buddhism; [88620]
  265W
  (4) what representations he has made to the Sri Lankan Government concerning the difficulties faced by Christians in obtaining planning permission to build new churches. [88621]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We are aware of allegations of attacks on members of the Christian community in Sri Lanka. It appears that such attacks are not on the increase or part of a generalised problem or coherent strategy. There are some safeguards in place to protect people from all religious backgrounds, and there are dedicated ministries for Christian as well as Hindu, Muslim and Buddhist affairs. However, our High Commission continues to monitor the situation and raises the rights of religious minorities, and other human rights issues, with the Sri Lankan authorities. We regularly urge the authorities to ensure the rights of all minorities are upheld.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress in the Sri Lankan peace talks. [89411]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Foreign Secretary and I were pleased to meet Professor Peiris, the Minister leading the Sri Lankan Government delegation, in December. This is an historic time for Sri Lanka. It is encouraging that the two sides have agreed to explore a solution founded on the principle of internal self-determination for the Tamil people, based on a federal structure within a united Sri Lanka. I am pleased that human rights are being addressed. I look forward to further progress at the next round of talks in January. The international community has an important role to play in offering both political and practical support to Sri Lanka. The UK has committed over £15 million in developmental assistance for 2003–04.

  Sudan
  Annette Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on recent fighting in Darfur, Sudan. [88267]

  Mr. Rammell
  There are 13 tribes living in the border area between Chad and Darfur, Sudan. The Embassy in Khartoum raised reports of clashes between camel herders from the north and the Fur in Jebel Marra with the Government of Sudan on 19 December. Tribal reconciliation conferences took place for the Fur in Jebel Marra on 16–22 August and for the Arabs in Kas on 1–13 September.

  Annette Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his Department has made concerning recent reports of arrests and torture of student activists in Khartoum by the Government of Sudan. [88268]

  Mr. Rammell
  Torture and arbitrary arrest were raised as part of the EU/Sudan dialogue discussions on 9–10 December 2002. We regularly urge the Government of Sudan to ratify the Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment and make representations to the Government of Sudan about individual cases.
  266W
  Annette Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the timetable for the resumption of EU development aid to Sudan and the pre-conditions for resumption. [88269]

  Mr. Rammell
  When a peace agreement is reached between the Government of Sudan (GoS) and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army, the EU will respond quickly to underpin it through the initiation of a normalisation process and the release of development funds. The EU is also engaged in a political dialogue with the GoS involving benchmarks on democracy, the rule of law, human rights and the peace process. This dialogue is reviewed on an annual basis, most recently by an EU Troika mission to Khartoum on 9–10 December 2002.

  Timber
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures the Government intends to take(a) unilaterally and (b) internationally to stop the import of Liberian conflict timber where it cannot be demonstrated that it is not being used for legitimate social, humanitarian and development purposes; and if he will make a statement. [89070]

  Mr. Rammell
  We have played a leading role in trying to restrict the Government of Liberia's sanction busting activities. We share the concern of the UN Panel of Experts Reports that the revenues from timber sales are being used to fund arms purchases in breach of UN sanctions. UN Security Council resolution 1408 calls on the Government of Liberia to undertake the audit of shipping and timber revenues and to use the revenues from the timber trade for social, development and humanitarian purposes.

  We supports the Africa Forest Law Enforcement and Governance (AFLEG) process, calling on all African governments and trading partners to take actions to control illegal activities in the logging sector and associated trade. There will be a Ministerial Conference in April 2003, organised by the World Bank, to push this process forward.

  Weapons of Mass Destruction
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the United States' recently announced national strategy to combat weapons of mass destruction in respect of the policy to discourage the worldwide accumulation of separated plutonium. [89016]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  This strategy is further evidence of the seriousness with which the United States is approaching the issue of the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. We welcome the renewed commitment to discourage the worldwide accumulation of plutonium and the use of highly-enriched uranium, in addition to the US programmes in Russia and other former Soviet states. The UK Government believe that proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the materials needed to make them, represents a serious threat. We support all efforts to counter that threat. On plutonium, we have committed £70 million over ten
  267W
  years to help Russia dispose of thirty-four tonnes of plutonium, as part of the 2000 US-Russian agreement. UK officials met with G8 partners in Moscow in December 2002 to progress this important programme. This UK-supported plutonium disposition programme forms just one part of the G8 'Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction', to which the UK has committed up to $750 million over ten years.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Devolution
  10. Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions he has had on devolved power being reinstated in Northern Ireland. [89186]

  Mr. Tom Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions he has held with Northern Ireland party leaders about the future of the devolved institutions. [89184]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I refer my hon. Friends to the answer I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson),Official Report, Column 154.

  Punishment Beatings
  11. Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent representations he has received about punishment beatings in Northern Ireland. [89187]

  Jane Kennedy
  Both the Secretary of State and I hold regular meetings with our senior security advisers, elected representatives and members of political parties to discuss a wide range of security issues including attacks on communities by both Loyalist and Republican paramilitary groups.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what research his Department has carried out into the impact of regulations on small businesses in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [89188]

  Mr. Pearson
  When drawing up the Better Regulation Strategy, which currently operates in Northern Ireland, and which seeks to reduce the regulatory burden on business, my Department consulted the various Northern Ireland business representative organisations including the Northern Ireland Federation of Small Business, about the impact of regulations on business.

  Castlereagh RUC Station
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has received the final report from Sir John Chilcott on the break-in at Castlereagh RUC station on 17 March 2002; and if he will make a statement. [89189]
  268W
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Government take the break-in at Castlereagh extremely seriously, which is why my predecessor as Secretary of State immediately announced an independent review to examine the implications to national security, how it happened, whether the measures taken following the incident have been adequate and whether there are wider lessons.

  This review, conducted by Sir John Chilcot, is running in parallel to the ongoing police investigation.

  I have not received Sir John's final report, but look forward to doing so in due course.

  Good Friday Agreement
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what further progress has been made towards the implementation of outstanding elements of the Good Friday Agreement. [89178]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Substantial progress has been made in implementing the Agreement, but the restoration of the devolved institutions depends on the restoration of public trust in the commitment of participants to exclusively peaceful means and to stable inclusive institutions. If that can be achieved then, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has explained, we can implement the rest of the Agreement in its entirety together.

  Security
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current security situation in Northern Ireland. [89190]

  Jane Kennedy
  Dissident Republicans remain a threat to the peace process but for the most part their activities have been thwarted, intercepted or nullified by good policing operations. Sectarian violence and the Loyalist feud continue to affect communities in Northern Ireland. Interface areas remain tense but quiet.

  It is now time for republican and loyalist paramilitary groups to make a commitment to end all forms of violence.

PRIME MINISTER

  Cabinet Papers
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of the Cabinet Office guidance issued to Cabinet committees requiring all Cabinet papers and letters to explain how proposals meet the economic, social and environmental objectives of sustainable development. [89094]

  The Prime Minister
  "Cabinet Committee Business: A Guide for Departments (February 2002)" is already available on the internet at http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/cabsec/2002/guide/index.htm. I am also placing copies in the Libraries of the House.

  Environmental Policy
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the delivery of environmental policy, with particular
  269W
  reference to the allocation of departmental responsibilities and the separation between policy making in DEFRA and policy delivery in other Departments. [89068]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government have made significant improvements across a range of environmental policy areas. The UK now has the cleanest rivers, beaches, air and drinking water since the industrial revolution. Greenhouse gas emissions were 13 per cent. below 1990 levels in 2000, with policies to improve energy efficiency taking 350,000 households out of fuel poverty since 1997, with a further 200,000 expected by 2004.

  In addition we have delivered improvements to sites of special scientific interest (SSSIs), increases in the green belt, and increased the proportion of new housing built on brownfield land. The Government's Strategy for Sustainable Food and Farming, published in December 2002, set out further proposals for redirecting agricultural support to environmental goals.

  Full assessment of the effectiveness of the delivery of environmental policy can be found in Defra's first annual report, at http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/deprep/2002/index.htm. This report provides an overview of the Department's objectives, and assesses progress against key targets. Responsibility for two of Defra's Public Service Agreement targets (PSAs) is shared with other Government Departments: with DTI for the target relating to greenhouse gases; and with DfT for the target relating to local air quality, reflecting the need for joint efforts to achieve the desired outcomes.

  The independent Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) assessed the UK's environmental policy and delivery in November. This report highlights areas in which progress has been made since the previous review in 1994, as well as identifying areas where more remains to be done. A copy is in the Library of the House and is available at http://www.oecd.org/E/home/0" EN-home-478-nodirectorateno-no- no-21,00.html

  World Peace
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent discussions he has had with President Bush concerning world peace. [89202]

  The Prime Minister
  I am in regular telephone contact with President Bush about threats to world peace, and had three meetings with him last year, most recently at the NATO summit in Prague in November. At a joint press conference there, we said that we shared the strong conviction that we must work together to make the world a more peaceful place.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Bedroom Standard
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 16 December 2002,Official Report, column 612W, if he will publish a table showing
  270W
  households in England below the bedroom standard broken down by (a) region and (b) tenure for the year 2001–02. [89524]

  Mr. McNulty
  The answer given on 16 December 2002,Official Report, column 612W, to my hon. Friend, gave information on households in England below the bedroom standard by region and tenure averaged over the years 1999–2000, 2000–01 and 2001–02 in order to provide a sufficiently large sample. Information at regional level for single years is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Councillors (Liabilities)
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the legal and financial liabilities of individual councillors appointed by their local authorities to serve on outside bodies by reason of their membership of that outside body. [88927]

  Mr. Leslie
  The potential liabilities of councillors as members of other bodies will depend on a number of issues, notably the terms on which they were appointed and the nature of the body concerned. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister intends shortly to consult on a draft of an Order to be made under section 101 of the Local Government Act 2000 to give authorities powers to provide indemnities to their members and officers. This will include provision in respect of functions performed by such individuals in their capacity as members or officers, including on outside bodies.

  Housing (Stock Transfer)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list housing allocations created as a result of stock transfer from a local authority which have since been transferred to another housing association. [88322]

  Mr. McNulty
  None of the housing associations created to receive stock transferred from a local authority have since transferred the stock onto another housing association. Some of these associations have undergone a name change or have become a subsidiary of a group structure, but they have remained separate legal entities with individual boards.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what(a) the level of homelessness and (b) housing list numbers for those requiring housing were in each authority which has undergone stock transfer (i) at the time of transfer and (ii) at each year-end subsequent to unit transfers. [88323]

  Mrs. Roche
  A comprehensive table presenting available information since 1988/99 in respect of homelessness household accepted annually, those accommodated at 31 March, and total households on the housing register at 1 April deemed to be "in need" has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps he has taken to ensure that there is no conflict of interest in the position of senior local authority officers promoting stock transfer. [88324]

  Mr. McNulty
  The current Housing Transfer Guidance includes detailed advice on how to deal with potential conflicts of interest when senior local authority officers are involved in a proposed housing
  271W
  transfer. Specific advice is addressed to those officers proposing to move to the prospective new landlord. This advice also covers consultants advising the authority and the prospective new landlord over various aspects of the transfer.

  Listed Buildings (Solar Panels)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what advice he provides to planning authorities on applications to install solar panels on listed buildings. [89074]

  Mr. McNulty
  General advice to local authorities about listed building controls is contained in PPG15, Planning and the Historic Environment. Specific advice about solar panels on listed buildings is provided in the new Annex to PPG22 Renewable Energy—Annex on Photovoltaics.

  New Mortgage Lending
  Mr. Steve Webb
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his Answer of 12th December,Official Report, column 470W, on new mortgage lending, if he will provide corresponding estimates for new mortgage lending that was not for house purchase; and if he will estimate the total amount of new mortgage lending in the last 12 months that was (a) for house purchase and (b) not for house purchase. [88931]

  Mr. McNulty
  Variable/Fixed rate lending. The estimated percentages of remortgages or further loans taken out in each of the past 12 months with an initial interest rate that was(a) variable and (b) fixed are shown in the table below. Also included, for comparison purposes, are the equivalent figures for new mortgages.

  New mortgages for house purchase

  Remortgages or further loans

  Month

  Variable

  Fixed

  Variable

  Fixed

  2001

  Dec

  83.6

  16.4

  91.6

  8.4

  2002

  Jan

  67.4

  32.6

  86.1

  13.9

  Feb

  70.2

  29.8

  88.8

  11.2

  Mar

  71.5

  28.5

  90.8

  9.2

  April

  73.9

  26.1

  91.9

  8.1

  May

  76.9

  23.1

  93.8

  6.2

  June

  79.1

  20.9

  94.4

  5.6

  July

  81.8

  18.2

  94.9

  5.1

  Aug

  82.6

  17.4

  94.5

  5.5

  Sep

  80.7

  19.3

  94.5

  5.5

  Oct

  77.3

  22.7

  92.5

  7.5

  Nov

  71.0

  29.0

  89.8

  10.2

  Source:

  ODPM, Survey of Mortgage Lenders

  It should be noted that loans taken out at an initial fixed rate of interest are likely to revert to a variable rate of interest after a fixed period of time, unless of course the borrower then chooses to remortgage (again) at another fixed rate of interest.

  New mortgage lending, December 2001-November 2002

  Gross mortgage lending in each of the last 12 months is shown in the table, together with the total for the 12 month period December 2001 to November 2002.
  272W

  Month

  Mortgage lending for house purchase £million

  Other new mortgage lending £million

  2001

  Dec

  5,964

  5,970

  2002

  Jan

  6,449

  6,814

  Feb

  8,908

  6,940

  March

  11,131

  7,429

  April

  12,162

  8,200

  May

  13,686

  9,678

  June

  11,185

  8,006

  July

  12,368

  9,818

  Aug

  9,685

  8,914

  Sept

  9,805

  9,342

  Oct

  11,089

  11,333

  Nov

  10,186

  11,155

  Total

  111,618

  103,599

  Source:

  Bank of England

HEALTH

  Acute Hospital Services
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress he has made in developing indicators to reflect patient views on food and other issues in acute hospitals. [88762]

  Mr. Lammy
  National health service performance ratings published in July 2002 included a number of performance indicators relating to acute inpatient survey data. In addition to this, the Commission for Health Improvement (CHI) and the Department have recently announced a number of additional patient survey performance indicators for the next publication in 2003.

  The CHI has now assumed responsibility for future publications of the performance ratings as well as the patient survey programme.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many acute hospitals have(a) closed and (b) opened since 1997. [88768]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on hospital closures ceased to be collected in 1991 following the introduction of the national health service internal market and trusts.

  What is usually referred to as a hospital closure often follows reprovision with the intention of providing higher quality care, in a more suitable setting for the benefit of patients.

  Since May 1997, a total of 64 such major reprovision developments under the private finance initiative have been prioritised, of which 14 involving acute settings have now opened and a further nine are under construction. In addition, four major publicly funded schemes involving acute settings have also been given the go ahead of which three are now open. These, along with a number of medium size projects, comprise the NHS plan commitment to deliver over 100 new hospital schemes between 2000 and 2010.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the recommendation by the medical Royal Colleges that an acute hospital should serve a population of 500,000 people. [88182]
  273W
  Mr. Hutton
  "Provision of Acute General Hospital Services" was published in July 1998 by a joint working party of the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Physicians of London and the Royal College of Surgeons of England. It suggested that the ideal unit for a fully comprehensive medicine and surgery is a hospital or integrated group of hospitals serving a population of 450,000 to 500,000. The effective size to provide most of the acute services for medicine and surgery was recommended to be one serving a population of 250,000 to 300,000. These recommendations were made some time ago now and thinking about how to organise services safely and effectively has moved on.

  In particular, the NHS Plan, published in July 2000, set the direction for the future development of hospital services, and Shifting the Balance of Power sited responsibility for local health service with primary care trusts.

  The Department of Health's configuring hospitals project has been examining the complex issues around configuration of acute hospitals over the past few months, and will publish a consultation document shortly. Ultimately, it is for local health services to decide, with their local populations, and in the light of relevant guidance and standards, how acute hospital services should be organised.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the implications of the whole system redesign approach for the introduction of the European Working Time Directive to acute hospitals; [88358]

  (2) what changes to working practices in acute hospitals will take place to accommodate the European working time directive. [88357]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department is currently running 19 pilots exploring solutions to enable National Health Service trusts to implement the European working time directive (EWD) for doctors in training while protecting service delivery.

  Details of the necessary changes in working practices are also set out in the HSC 2003/001 'Protecting Staff, Delivering Services—Implementing the European Working Time Directive for Doctors in Training'.

  Ambulances
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of ambulance trusts are failing to meet the eight-minute response target. [88745]

  Mr. Lammy
  The latest information available about the proportion of emergency calls resulting in an ambulance arriving at the scene of the reported incident within the eight-minute response time for all ambulance trusts, is contained in the Department of Health Statistical Bulletin, "Ambulance Services, England 2001–02". A copy of the bulletin is available in the Library and also at www.doh.gov.uk/public/sb0213.htm.
  274W
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes there have been to average turnaround times by ambulances at accident and emergency units since 1997, broken down by acute trust area. [88355]

  Mr. Lammy
  Validated information providing complete coverage is not available centrally.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many ambulances are operating in England; and how many operated in each of the past six years. [88746]

  Mr. Lammy
  The number of accident and emergency ambulances owned or leased by ambulance trusts in England is 2,970. This information was collected in October 2000. No other information is available.

  Bed Occupancy
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the optimal level of bed occupancy to reduce trolley waits for emergency admissions and cancelled operations. [88561]

  Mr. Lammy
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) on 19 December 2002,Official Report, column 1039W.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the Government's target is for occupancy levels in(a) general and (b) acute NHS beds; and what the levels were in 1997. [87533]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department has not issued any specific guidance on bed occupancy. As part of routine capacity planning each national health service trust needs to establish the levels of occupancy required for different specialties and types of care depending on their own particular circumstances. Appropriate levels of occupancy will depend on a number of factors including specialty, the balance between emergency and planned admissions and the size of the hospital.

  In 1996–97 the bed occupancy level for general and acute NHS beds was 80.7 per cent. Over the last two years, the number of beds have increased, reversing a 40 year decline.

  Cancelled Operations
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have had operations cancelled on more than two occasions in each of the past three years. [88769]

  Mr. Hutton
  Figures are collected on a quarterly basis on the number of patients whose operations are cancelled by the hospital for non-clinical reasons on the day of surgery and at the last minute, that is on the day patients are due to arrive or after arrival in hospital or on the day of their operation. This information is available in the Library and on the Department of Health website at: www.doh.gov.uk/hospitalactivity/ data requests/cancelled operations.htm

  These figures are not broken down to show whether a patient has been cancelled by the hospital more than once.
  275W

  Children's Vision
  Andy Burnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps he is taking to(a) implement a programme of vision screening among children with hearing impairments; and (b) ensure consistent access in different areas to specialist eye examinations for children with hearing impairments; [88580]

  (2) how much public funding was allocated to raising awareness among parents, children and teachers of (a) the importance and purpose of vision screening in children, (b) the importance of children having regular eye tests and (c) children's entitlement to free NHS eye tests in each year since 1997; [88578]

  (3) what steps he is taking to improve the (a) consistency and (b) quality of children's vision screening programmes in England. [88577]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 7 January 2003]The provision of vision screening programmes is a matter for local primary care trusts to consider in accordance with professional advice. This includes vision screening for children with hearing impairments and ensuring access to specialist eye examinations. The national screening committee recommends that all infants and children with a hearing loss should have an expert eye examination as a matter of routine. A national service framework for children, which will set standards aimed at raising the quality of the health and social care services that children receive, is currently under development. Information is not collected centrally on the amount of public funding allocated to raising awareness of vision screening and eligibility for free sight tests—which includes all children under the age of 16 and those aged under 19 in fulltime education.

  Department of health vacancies survey, March 2002. Vacancies in NHS trusts, consultant dental group of specialties 3 month vacancy rates, number and staff in post—England (excluding HA staff)

  3 month vacancy

  Rate (percentage)

  Number

  Staff in post1

  Staff in post 2

  Total consultants dental group

  4.5

  22

  473

  582

  Of which:

  Oral and maxillo-facial surgery

  2.2

  5

  222

  255

  Orthodontics

  6.8

  10

  140

  158

  Restorative dentistry

  0.0

  0

  57

  86

  Paediatric dentistry

  6.3

  1

  15

  24

  Additional dental specialties

  15.8

  6

  32

  47

  Oral surgery

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Periodontics

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Prosthodontics

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  1Whole-time equivalent

  2Headcount

  3Figures where sum of staff in post and vacancies is less than 10.

  Notes:

  1. Three month vacancy information is as at 31 March 2002.

  2. Three month vacancies are vacancies which trusts are actively trying to fill, which had lasted for three months or more (whole time equivalents).

  3. Three month vacancy rates are three month vacancies expressed as a percentage of three month vacancies plus staff in post.

  4. Three month vacancy rates are calculated using staff in post from the Vacancy Survey and the Consultant Census, March 2002.

  5. Staff in post data is from the Mini Consultant Census, March 2002.

  6. Staff in post data excludes staff employed by health authorities, as vacancy information was only collected from trusts, PCTs and special health authorities.

  7. Medical and dental figures exclude staff in training.

  8. Vacancy and staff in post numbers are rounded to the whole number.

  9. Percentages are rounded to one decimal place.

  10. —= figures where sum of staff in post and vacancies is zero

  11. Calculating the vacancy rates using the above data may not equal the actual vacancy rates.

  276W

  Correspondence
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health during the last year for which figures are available, how many letters from hon. Members were replied to(a) within six months, (b) within six to nine months, (c) within nine to 12 months and (d) in over 12 months; and what was the average time taken by ministers in the Department to reply to hon. Members' correspondence in that period. [87051]

  Mr. Lammy
  The information is shown in the table.

  Period

  Number of letters

  (a)Within six months

  15,080

  (b)Within 6–9 months

  489

  (c)Between 9–12 months

  205

  (d)Over 12 months

  74

  Average time to reply for the 12 month period:

  44.8 days

  A Customer Service Project has been set up under the Department's change programme. The aim of this project is to significantly improve the Department's performance in handling telephone, written and e-mail inquiries from members of the public and their representatives and to maximise the potential of the Department's website and other forms of communication media.

  Dental Surgeons
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of vacancies for dental surgeons. [87425]

  Mr. Hutton
  The data requested is shown in the table.
  277W

  12 HA figures are based on trusts, and do not necessarily reflect the geographical provision of healthcare.

  13 Figures may not match previously published data due to a different method of rounding used on the staff in post data.

  Sources:

  Vacancy numbers and rates: Department of Health Vacancies Survey March 2002 and Consultant census March 2002.

  Medical and dental staff in post: Department of Health Consultant census March 2002

  Junior Doctors
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health under what circumstances after August 2004 junior doctors will be subject to the limit on night workers of eight hours of work in any 24 hour period under the Working Time Directive. [83452]

  Mr. Hutton
  In order to implement the Working Time Directive (93/104EC) the Government propose to introduce legislation to extend the Working Time Regulations, including the provisions that apply to "night workers", to the activities of doctors in training from 1 August 2004, with the exception of the average weekly working time limit which will be introduced over a transitional period.

  A worker covered by the Regulations will be subject to the controls on night working if they satisfy the meaning of "night worker' in the Regulations.

  Under the Government's proposals, which are currently the subject of public consultation by the Department of Trade and Industry, the night work limits are excluded where there is a need for continuity of service as may be the case in hospitals, including the activities of doctors in training, but this is subject to the compensatory rest provisions.

  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many junior doctors are in training; and how this compares with the number in 1997. [89243]

  Mr. Hutton
  The data requested is shown in the table.

  The figures show an increase in the number of doctors in training between 1997 and 2001 of 9 per cent.

  NHS Doctors in training, England (Headcount)

  1997

  2001

  Doctors in training of which

  32,800

  35,790

  HCHS1

  31,460

  33,910

  GP Registrars

  1,340

  1,880

  1Hospital, Public Health medicine and Community Health Services medical and dental staff

  Note:

  Figures are for 30 September in the year stated except for GP registrars in 1997, which is for 1 October.

  Source:

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce census

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics

  Drugs Budget
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has assessed on spending levels on drugs in acute hospitals in(a) the last year for which figures are available and (b) each of the past three years. [88740]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  278W

  Total expenditure on drugs for NHS trusts in England

  £

  Total expenditure on drugs for NHS trusts in England

  £

  1998–99

  1,208,098,376

  1999–2000

  1,360,825,466

  2000–01

  1,515,722,071

  2001–02

  1,683,684,266

  Source:

  NHS Trust Financial Returns 1998–99 to 2001–02.

  The data include total expenditure on drugs, gases and blood products (but not fresh blood from blood centres) for national health service trusts in England. Drugs expenditure alone cannot be identified.

  E Coli
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce free prescriptions for those people who have suffered from the bacterium E coli0157 when they reach adulthood and display illnesses associated with this bacterium. [88990]

  Mr. Lammy
  Our policy is to give priority to helping people who may have difficulty in paying charges, rather than extending the exemption arrangements to people suffering from other conditions, for example, those who display illnesses associated with the bacterium E coli-157.

  Emergency Admissions
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to address the decline in the number of patients being admitted within two hours in accident and emergency units. [88743]

  Mr. Lammy
  Improving access to emergency care is one of the Department's top priorities. Three quarters of those who go to an accident and emergency (A&E) department, who need to be admitted to hospital, get a bed within four hours. By December 2004, all patients will be in and out of A&E within four hours.

  To help support A&E departments across the country, a new national clinical director for emergency care was appointed in autumn 2002. Additional investment of £30 million was made to enable the launch of the Modernisation Agency programme to help reduce waiting times in every A&E.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many whole time equivalent general practitioners there were in(a) each region and (b) England in each of the last five years. [89029]

  Mr. Hutton
  The number of whole time equivalent general practitioners in each strategic health authority and in England in each of the last six years is shown in the table.
  279W

  General Medical Practitioners (excluding GP Retainers)1 in England; 1997–2002 (by Apri1 2002 boundaries)

  Estimated whole time equivalent

  DHSC/Strategic Health Authority

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  North

  Northumberland, Tyne and Wear

  782

  802

  807

  812

  836

  852

  Country Durham and Tees Valley

  620

  617

  619

  622

  652

  642

  Cumbria and Lancashire

  1,079

  1,083

  1,090

  1,079

  1,093

  1,107

  Greater Manchester

  1,409

  1,404

  1,420

  1,424

  1,422

  1,422

  Cheshire and Merseyside

  1,346

  1,335

  1,370

  1,371

  1,388

  1,395

  North and East Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire

  944

  934

  951

  959

  968

  985

  West Yorkshire

  1,188

  1,198

  1,221

  1,227

  1,248

  1,266

  South Yorkshire

  716

  711

  720

  725

  734

  728

  Midlands and Eastern

  Shropshire and Staffordshire

  757

  776

  787

  792

  779

  781

  Birmingham and the Black Country

  1,260

  1,272

  1,279

  1,299

  1,305

  1,317

  Coventry, Warwickshire, Herefordshire and Worcestershire

  859

  853

  853

  869

  878

  903

  Trent

  1,363

  1,382

  1,386

  1,408

  1,434

  1,405

  Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and Rutland

  857

  851

  841

  817

  827

  831

  Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire

  1,228

  1,243

  1,250

  1,268

  1,276

  1,276

  Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire

  869

  892

  894

  897

  906

  906

  Essex

  805

  819

  819

  814

  805

  814

  London

  North West London

  1,107

  1,097

  1,055

  1,044

  1,064

  1,043

  North Central London

  739

  741

  727

  748

  746

  755

  North East London

  835

  845

  844

  866

  841

  859

  South East London

  814

  810

  840

  825

  833

  820

  South West London

  731

  720

  732

  735

  727

  752

  South

  Thames Valley

  1,145

  1,186

  1,198

  1,202

  1,218

  1,236

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  996

  999

  1,014

  1,017

  1,037

  1,041

  Kent and Medway

  860

  867

  868

  853

  860

  855

  Surrey and Sussex

  1,410

  1,430

  1,432

  1,435

  1,464

  1,469

  Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire

  1,225

  1,257

  1,281

  1,289

  1,301

  1,300

  South West Peninsula

  990

  981

  972

  1,000

  1,025

  1,012

  Dorset and Somerset

  727

  744

  761

  759

  771

  768

  England total

  27,660

  27,848

  28,033

  28,154

  28,439

  28,540

  1All Practitioners (excluding GP Retainers) include GMS Unrestricted Principals, PMS Contracted GPs, PMS Salaried GPs, Restricted Principals, Assistants, GP Registrars, Salaried Doctors (Para 52 SFA) and PMS Other.

  Notes:

  1. GP Retainers were first collected in the 1999 census and have been omitted for comparability purposes.

  2. WTE data has been estimated using the results from the 1992–93 GMP Workload Survey; Full-time = 1.00 wte; three quarter time = 0.69 wte; job share = 0.65; half-time = 0.60 wte.

  3. Data as at 1 October 1997–99, 30 September 2000–01 and 31 March 2002.

  Source:

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics

  Homeless People
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has recently met with Ministers from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister concerning homeless people's access and use of GP services; and what plans there are to do so in the near future. [87471]

  Mr. Hutton
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not recently met with Ministers from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to discuss homeless people's access and use of general practitioner services and currently has no plans to do so in the near future.

  However the Cross-Cutting Spending Review on health inequalities, published on 20 November, identified vulnerable groups, including homeless people, as a priority. The Domestic Affairs Cabinet Subcommittee on Social Exclusion and Regeneration will drive forward the implementation of the review.
  280W

  Medical Devices
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to publicise new regulations requiring CE marking on packaging for self-testing diagnostic medical devices. [88528]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Medical Devices Agency (MDA), which is the United Kingdom's competent authority for the medical devices regulations, has published the In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Devices Directive, which came into force on 7 June 2000, on its web site together with guidance documents on its implementation. In addition members of the MDA have given several presentations on the Directive's provisions to both manufacturers and users.

  Medical Qualifications
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the proposals from the European
  281W
  Commission on medical qualifications will require Britain to recognize levels of training below those required in the UK. [88172]

  Mr. Hutton
  Under legislation introduced in 1994 the United Kingdom automatically recognises training completed by nationals of European Economic Area (EEA) countries in other countries in the EEA which meets or exceeds the minimum standards specified in the relevant European Directive. Similarly, other EEA countries automatically recognise UK training. Most UK postgraduate medical training exceeds Directive minimum standards. The proposals from the Commission do not affect this position.

  Mortuary Provision
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of mortuary facilities are contained in temporary buildings. [88423]

  Mr. Hutton
  This information is not collected centrally.

  NHS Foreign Health Care Workers
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many foreign health care workers were recruited by the NHS, broken down by profession in each year since 1990. [88000]

  Mr. Hutton.
  The Department does not collect data on the country of qualification for nurses, midwives and other health professionals.

  The Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) publishes an annual statistical report which includes information about the number of foreign nurses and midwives on the register. This data can be found on the NMC website at: www.nmc-uk.org.uk.

  NHS Funding
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the proposed new funding system for the NHS will take into account the number of people who have private health insurance in a particular area. [88343]

  Mr. Hutton
  The new formula used to allocate revenue resources to primary care trusts for 2003–04 to 2005–06 is concerned with health care need and not availability of private care. The research on which it is based excluded all private episodes of care on the grounds that the need for national health service resources was being modelled. The research also takes account of supply factors such as private hospitals.

  £ per head

  Year

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove Health Authority

  584.27

  641.16

  813.92

  827.74

  869.19

  South Eastern Region

  599.07

  656.57

  759.83

  810.94

  890.46

  England

  607.85

  659.76

  763.79

  825.38

  885.83

  Notes:

  1.In many health authorities there are factors which distort the expenditure per head. These include: the health authority acting in a lead capacity to commission healthcare or fund training on behalf of other health bodies; and asset revaluations in NHS Trusts being funded through health authorities, for these reasons expenditure per head cannot be compared reliably between health authorities.

  2.Allocations per weighted head of population provide a much more reliable measure to identify differences between funding of health authorities.
  282W
  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what work is underway to review NHS funding formulae. [89244]

  Mr. Hutton
  The formula used to allocate National Health Service revenue resources has been reviewed by the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation.

  Following the review the allocations to primary care trusts for 2003–04 to 2005–06 were based on a new formula.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the new formula for allocation of health spending to health authorities and trusts. [88426]

  Mr. Hutton
  The 2003/2004 to 2005/2006 Primary Care Trust Revenue Resource Limites Exposition Book has been published. This shows how each Primary Care Trust's allocation has been calculated using the new formula. It can be found at.

  Later this year we will publish a revised version of Resource Allocation: Weighted Capitation Formulas which will describe the new formula.

  The team who carried out the research into the new formula have published Allocation of Resources to English Areas, a full report of their findings. It can be found at http://www.nhsis.co.uk/isdLservices/info_ consult_AREAReport.htm

  NHS Recruitment
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) administrators, (b) doctors and (c) nurses have been recruited by the NHS in the past 12 months. [88770]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the number of staff recruited to the national health service in the last 12 months is not separately available.

  NHS Spending
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average amount of NHS spending was per head in(a) England, (b) the South-East, (c) East Sussex and (d) Eastbourne, in each of the last five years. [87592]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the average amount of national health service spending per weighted head of population in the East Sussex, Brighton and Hove Health Authority area, the South Eastern Region and in England is shown in the table. Information is not held centrally for East Sussex or Eastbourne.
  283W
  3. Expenditure is taken from audited health authority and primary care trust summarisation forms which are prepared on a resource basis and therefore differ from cash allocations in the year. The expenditure is the total expenditure by the health authority and by the primary care trusts within the health authority and region area. The majority of General Dental Services expenditure is not included in the health authority or primary care trust summarisation forms and is separately accounted for by the Dental Practice Board. An element of pharmaceutical services expenditure is accounted for by the Prescription Pricing Authority and not by health authorities.

  4. Health authorities and primary care trusts should account for their expenditure on a gross basis. This results in an element of double counting in 2000–01 and 2001–02 where one body acts as the main commissioner and is then reimbursed by other bodies. This element cannot be identified in 2000–01 but has been removed in 2001–02 following the submission of the relevant information.

  Sources:

  Health authority annual accounts 1997–98 to 1999–2000

  Health authority summarisation forms 2000–01 to 2001–02

  Primary care trust summarisation schedules 2000–01 to 2001–02

  Weighted population figures for 1997–98 to 2001–02

  Nursing Staff
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nursing students were studying at(a) diploma level and (b) degree level in the most recent year for which figures are available. [88660]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  2002–03 forecast nursing student population

  Whole-time equivalent

  Total

  53,868

  Diploma

  47,449

  Degree

  6,419

  Figures are forecast and are subject to change. They are based on the planned number of places by workforce development confederations.

  Pathology Services
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) mortuary technicians and (b) clinical pathologists were employed in each trust in each of the last five years. [88506]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information available has been placed in the Library. Separate information is not collected on mortuary technicians; they are included with pathology technicians.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many new pathology departments have been opened in the past year. [88422]

  Mr. Hutton
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Dr. Liam Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which NHS hospital trusts with pathology services have not been accredited by Clinical Pathology Accreditation (UK) Ltd. [88424]

  Mr. Hutton
  We do not collect this information centrally. According to the latest information available from Clinical Pathology Accreditation (UK) Ltd, over 90 per cent, of National Health Service pathology laboratories are registered for accreditation. Full details are available on their website at www.cpa-uk.co.uk.

  PCT Allocations
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list of primary care trust allocations for 2003–04, including(a) allocations per head and (b) a statement of the deprivation levels in each PCT area. [88342]
  284W
  Mr. Hutton
  Primary care trusts revenue allocations for 2003–04,2004–05 and 2005–06 were announced on 11 December 2002.

  Information by primary care trust on allocations, 2003–04 allocations per weighted head and unweighted head and need index in the funding formula which provides an indicator of deprivation have been placed in the Library.

  Post Mortems (MRI Scans)
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce compulsory MRI scans during post mortems. [88420]

  Mr. Lammy
  We have no plans to introduce compulsory magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans during post mortems. The Department has commissioned a scoping study to look at the current level of research knowledge about minimally invasive post-mortem techniques, including MRI scanning. From this it is clear that at present there is limited research evidence as to the effectiveness of these minimally invasive techniques.

  Practice Nurses
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many practice nurses there were in each of the last five years. [89028]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Practice nurses employed by Unrestricted Principals and Equivalents (UPEs)1 in England; 1997–2001

  Numbers (headcount) and whole time equivalent

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Whole-time equivalent

  10,082

  10,358

  10,689

  10,711

  11,163

  Headcount

  18,389

  218,894

  219,495

  19,200

  19,846

  1UPEs includes GMS Unrestricted Principals, PMS Contracted GPs and PMS Salaried GPs.

  2Headcount Practice Nurse figures are estimated for these years.

  Note:

  Data as at 1 October 1997–99 and 30 September 2000–01.

  Source:

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics.

  Primary Care Services
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on the expansion of the range of services provided by the primary care sector. [83565]
  285W
  Mr. Hutton
  "Delivering the NHS Plan" confirmed our commitment to substantial increases in health service capacity. Our aim is, however, not simply to rely on expanding hospital capacity but to use the extra investment provided by the April 2002 budget to modernise the way services are provided to bring services closer to patients, expand the choices available to patients and make better use of the skills and capacity of the primary care work force.

  The Department is therefore taking forward a programme to deliver a wider range of services in primary and community settings, using general practitioners and nurses with specialist skills, working from improved and modernised premises. This is expected to deliver for example, millions more outpatient appointments taking place in the community rather than in hospital.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the lines of accountability for primary care trust boards are. [88525]

  Mr. Hutton
  Primary care trusts are national health service bodies established by the Secretary of State. They are performance managed by strategic health authorities and through them are accountable to the Secretary of State.

  Private Medical Insurance
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment his Department has made of the effect that the provision of private medical insurance has had on the standard of health in each primary care trust. [88344]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department has made no such assessment.

  Smallpox
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements exist to vaccinate people in remote areas in the event of a smallpox threat. [87247]

  Mr. Hutton
  Responsibility for putting in place appropriate local arrangements for vaccinations against smallpox will rest with the regional directors of public health (RDsPH). The Department of Health has recently published its draft guidance for dealing with smallpox and invited comment and discussion on the plans for dealing with any smallpox outbreak. RDsPH were involved in the drafting of the guidance. In this guidance, it is intended to establish 12 regional smallpox response groups across the United Kingdom, consisting of infectious disease physicians, paediatricians, public health physicians, microbiologists/virologists, acute care and communicable disease control nurses and occupational health staff who will be able to set up specialist care and vaccination centres for the regions in the event of a smallpox emergency.

  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements have been made to distribute smallpox vaccine. [87248]

  Mr. Hutton
  The strategic stock of smallpox vaccine is held centrally and arrangements have been put in place whereby the vaccine can be delivered to anywhere in the mainland United Kingdom within 24 hours of a request 286W
  for vaccine, 365 days of the year. As smallpox has been eradicated, this is only likely to be in response to a bioterrorist incident, whereupon the Chief Medical Officer or nominated Deputy would authorise the release of vaccine.

  As part of plans for dealing with any smallpox incident, it is intended to establish 12 regional smallpox response groups across the UK. The staff in these groups, consisting of infectious disease physicians, paediatricians, public health physicians, microbiologists/virologists, acute care and communicable disease control nurses and occupational health staff will be able to set up vaccination centres for the regions in the event of a smallpox emergency.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to vaccinate the whole UK population against smallpox. [87407]

  Mr. Hutton
  There are no plans to vaccinate the whole population as a contingency measure against the threat of a bioterrorist incident involving smallpox. Mass vaccination of the population could be justifiable if there was a smallpox attack or outbreak but it would not be acceptable to expose people to the risk of vaccination in the absence of any possible exposure to the smallpox virus.

  Smallpox vaccine has a much higher rate of serious complications than vaccines that are in regular use today. Certain groups are at even higher risk, such as those with weak immune systems or with severe eczema.

  We have already announced that a small number of key frontline national health service staff and a small number of military personnel who would provide the first response in the event of a confirmed, suspected or threatened release of smallpox will be vaccinated shortly. We are discussing with other Government Departments how to identify key workers in the emergency services and agreeing circumstances and timing under which they might be vaccinated.

  Our contingency plans for dealing with smallpox are detailed in the draft guidelines on smallpox available on http://www.doh.gov.uk/epcu/cbr/biol/smallpoxplan.htm

  Terrorism
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent precautions have been taken by the NHS for dealing with a mass casualty terrorist incident. [88394]

  Mr. Hutton
  The planning for the response to a mass casualty incident involves the scaling up of the normal response to a major incident. Following the September 11 2001 terrorist attack on the United States, specific guidance was issued to the national health service on the public health response to the deliberate release of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear incidents, mass decontamination and mass casualties.

  The Department has made available, through the emergency planning section of its website, www.doh.gov.uk/epcu a comprehensive package of guidance for clinicians on dealing with the consequences

  287W
  of deliberate release. The information is regularly updated. The website contains a link to the Public Health Laboratory Service website, which provides additional clinical and other information.
  288W
  Additional arrangements have been put in place for the provision of decontamination units and protective equipment for NHS staff and strategic stockpiles of medical supplies and other equipment.

CULTURE, MEDIA & SPORT

  Fixed Odds Betting Machines
  The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell)
  The Government have noted with concern the increasing installation in licensed betting offices of machines, described as fixed odds betting machines, which enable customers to play virtual casino games for prizes up to £50,000.

  The present law allows only two gaming machines in any betting office, offering maximum prizes of £25. Under the Government's proposals for reform of the laws on gambling in Great Britain, published in "A safe bet for success" (Cm 5397), betting offices would be able to install up to four gaming machines with a maximum prize of £500. Cm 5397 also noted the appearance of betting machines, pointing out that they have many of the characteristics which justify controls over gaming machines.

  The Government understand that the Gaming Board for Great Britain and the Association of British Bookmakers have agreed to the bringing of a test case to clarify the status of fixed odds betting machines under the existing law. While it would not be appropriate to comment on the merits or possible outcome of such legal proceedings, we welcome any action which will bring certainty to this issue so far as the present law is concerned.

  In order to make the position on future legislation clear for interested parties, I wish to confirm that the statement set out in "A safe bet for success" remains the Government's current policy. Therefore, our current plan is to introduce new legislation which will be drafted in such a way that those betting machines which in reality involve gaming will be brought within the relevant controls for gaming machines. We take the view that the uncontrolled proliferation of high-prize machine gaming on the high street risks seriously increasing problem gambling.

DEFENCE

  Service Museums
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie)
  A business process review of the six principal service personnel museums is to be carried out by the Ministry of Defence. These organisations have non-departmental public bodies designation and receive Grants in Aid from the MOD. They are the Royal Naval Museum, the Royal Navy Submarine Museum, the Fleet Air Arm Museum, the Royal Marines Museum, the National Army Museum 8WS
  and the Royal Air Force Museum. The previous review termed a Quinquennial review was completed in March 1997.

  Preliminary work has defined the scope of the study. The second phase will begin shortly and is expected to be completed within six months. The aim of the review is to examine the function, role, operation, funding and organisation of the museums, seek to identify key objectives and performance and to determine whether their current status is most appropriate to future needs.

  The review team will consult with a range of stakeholders during the course of the review including the museum directors, staff and trustees, MOD and single service sponsors, TUs, local government, other government Departments and other museums. The Ministry of Defence is interested also to hear the views of other organisations or individuals who would like to make a contribution to the review. Those wishing to do so should send their contributions by 28 February 2003 to:

  The Museums Business Process Review Team

  Open Plan Area, 2nd Floor

  Ministry of Defence

  St Giles Court

  1–13 St Giles High Street

  London WC2H 8LD

  Or by email to:

  dgmo-musbrhd@defence.mod.uk

  METEOR
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram)
  I am pleased to inform the House that the contract for the Meteor air-to-air missile for the RAFs Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft was placed with MBDA on 23 December 2002. This followed the signature of the Meteor MOU by Germany, the last of the six partner nations (France, Italy, Germany, Spain, Sweden and the UK) to sign, which permitted the UK, as lead nation, to sign the contract with MBDA.

  Meteor is a key element of the Government's commitment to provide the best possible equipment for the Armed Forces. It will ensure Typhoon has the capability to combat predicted air-to-air threats thereby meeting our requirement to maintain air superiority well into the future.

  This is extremely good news for British and European industry, sustaining high quality jobs in new technology and in system and software design. Furthermore, it puts MBDA at the forefront of a strengthened European missile defence industry and enhances export prospects for Typhoon.

  When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced on 16 May 2000, Official Report, columns 149–51 the decision to select Meteor as the beyond visual range air-to-air missile to arm Typhoon, he agreed to publish the details of the breakpoints and

  9WS
  determination of when theseassessments will be made, once the Memorandum of Understanding was established. Now that this has been achieved, I can confirm that the contract includes four breakpoints as follows:

  Demonstration of Ramjet Propulsion System (Boost to Sustain Motor Transition and Sustain Motor Operation)—at month 40 of the programme.

  Demonstration of Guidance and Control of the Asymmetric Airframe—at month 45 of the programme.

  Demonstration of the Effectiveness of Aircraft to Missile Transfer Alignment Process via Data Links—at month 45 of the programme.

  Demonstration of Electronic Protection Measures—at month 51 of the programme.

  The process for the independent assessment of the achievement of the milestones, and for securing partner nation agreement that they have been either achieved or failed, is set out in the MOU, copies of which will shortly be placed in the Library of the House. If MBDA fail to achieve any of the milestones, partner nations will be able to terminate the contract and recover all monies paid.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD & RURAL AFFAIRS

  Commons Commissioners
  The Minister for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael)
  The Department is undertaking a financial management and policy review of the Commons Commissioners.

  The Commissioners are an independent tribunal, sponsored jointly by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Welsh Assembly Government. They were established under the provisions of the Commons Registration Act 1965 to deal with disputed registrations of common land.

  The review will comprise an investigation of the functions carried out by the Commissioners, whether these functions still need to be undertaken and, if so, whether they should continue to be carried out by the Commissioners or whether another body in the public, private or voluntary sector could undertake the work.

  If it is considered that the Commissioners should be retained the review will consider issues such as cost effectiveness, staffing, finance and their relationship with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Welsh Assembly Government and the Lord Chancellor's Department. The full terms of reference are:

  Stage 1.

  To consider whether there is a continuing need for the functions carried out by the Commons Commissioners and, if so, whether the Commissioners provide the best means of doing so or whether the work could more effectively be carried out by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), the Welsh Assembly Government (WAG) or another body in the public, voluntary or private sectors.
  10WS
  Stage 2.

  If the conclusion from Stage 1 is that the Commissioners should be retained, the review will then look at all aspects of their financial management, accountability and relationship with Defra, WAG and the Lord Chancellor's Department. The review will consider and make recommendations on:

  the Commissioner's cost effectiveness, and the value of its work;

  the composition, operation, management and staffing of the Commissioners;

  the financial regime applying to the Commissioners and the effectiveness of

  financial and other management controls;

  the way in which Defra and WAG sponsor the body and monitor its performance and the role of the Lord Chancellor's Department in appointing Commissioners.

  The review will also consider and take account of the work of related reviews, such as the Leggatt review of tribunals and the policy and legislative review of common land being undertaken by Defra and WAG.

  The review will be undertaken in accordance with Cabinet Office guidelines, and we expect it to be completed in April 2003.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Immigration Control
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett)
  The Government are firmly committed to maintaining effective immigration controls and ensuring that genuine passengers are able to pass through our ports with the least possible delay.

  For some years the number of Jamaican passengers being refused entry on arrival in the United Kingdom has been increasing, nearly 3,500 or 6 per cent of arrivals last year. The number of Jamaicans who abscond having been given temporary admission is also unacceptably high, more than 150 a month during the first half of this year. These problems create enormous pressures for the Immigration Service but also lead to unacceptable delays and inconvenience for the great majority of genuine travellers from Jamaica. The situation can best be demonstrated by looking at the period leading up to Christmas. During the six weeks to 17 December 2002, 1,233 Jamaican nationals were refused entry at the UK's 12 busiest ports. This represented nearly 20 per cent. of all refusals at those ports during that period.

  The only effective way of easing these problems is to ensure that Jamaican passengers have demonstrated that they qualify to enter the United Kingdom before they embark for this country. In the circumstances I have decided to impose a visa regime on all Jamaican nationals wishing to visit the United Kingdom.
  11WS
  I would want to provide reassurance that the presence of a visa regime should not be a bar to those Jamaican nationals who genuinely wish to visit the United Kingdom. The rules under which decisions are made are the same whether that decision is made on arrival or before. This visa regime simply allows officials to consider the application before the passenger embarks for the United Kingdom. Providing greater certainty that a person has satisfied the Immigration Rules will also smooth the passage of genuine visitors through the immigration controls, giving advantage to all concerned.

  Board of the Central Police Training and Development Authority (CENTREX)
  The Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety (Mr. John Denham)
  I am pleased to announce the appointment of Professor David Croisdale-Appleby to the board of the Central Police Training and Development Authority. Professor Croisdale-Appleby will be taking up his duties immediately.

  He is a visiting professor of strategic marketing and communications at Strathclyde University, and these skills will be of immense value to the board. He has extensive experience as a board member with various bodies, and has been a CEO of major international marketing and advertising businesses. He was recently invited by the Lord Chancellor's office to become a member of the Family Health Services Appeal Authority and for one year was seconded to run a firm of solicitors specialising in criminal and family law.

  Professor Croisdale-Appleby joins the board at a time when Centrex is still finding its feet, having only been established as an executive non-departmental public body on 1 April last year. Centrex has a pivotal role to play in developing policing excellence, charged as it is with new police recruit training, and developing leadership skills within the police service. In addition to providing support and consultancy to forces, both domestic and international, on operational policing matters, Centrex is leading the way on alternative learning technologies through its new web based learning portal. Centrex is also establishing the National Centre for Policing Excellence, which will identify and disseminate good policing practice, such as the new street crime knowledge map, and develop regulations and codes of practice for effective operational policing.

HEALTH

  National Health Service
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn)
  I am announcing capital allocations for the national health service for the next three years today. This is consistent with the revenue budget allocations which were issued late last year.

  Capital allocations are made to the NHS in two parts. Operational capital is for the purpose of maintaining and enhancing existing capital stock, and is made direct to NHS Trusts and primary care trusts. Strategic capital, which is allocated direct to all strategic health authorities (StHAs), is for distribution at their own discretion for larger scale investments.

  Total operational capital is increasing by 10 per cent., in each of the three years 2003–04 and 2005–06. The growth in strategic capital in the StHAs is 13 per cent./11 per cent./14 per cent., for each of the three years. The residue of the capital is being held centrally—the largest being for information technology, where £400 million is being held for 2003–04, £700 million for 2004–05 and £1.2 billion for 2005–06.

  This is the first time that day-to-day operational capital has been allocated directly to NHS StHAs, trusts and primary care trusts.

  This is the first time that capital allocations have been made for three years rather then one year, allowing the local NHS to plan with confidence and certainty for the future.

  In addition, allocations have been informed by a new funding formula for both operational and strategic capital to give a nationally consistent and fairer basis for the distribution of funds.

  Of the money allocated to StHAs, £100 million is for the establishment of a local access incentive fund. The purpose is to reward NHS trusts and primary care trusts who make rapid progress in improving access to NHS treatment. Clearly this could include any of the NHS plan targets for access, both in hospital and primary care. Initially, however, we expect the main focus to be on:

  (a) reducing waiting times in accident and emergency (A&E) (progress towards the maximum four-hour total wait in A&E);

  (b) reducing in-patient and out-patient waiting times (progress towards the maximum six month waiting time target and the maximum 13 week wait);

  (c) reducing in-patient and out-patient waiting lists.

  Details of the allocations and an explanation of the new funding formulae have been placed in the Library.

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

Food Standards Agency
Lord Taverneasked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to ensure the independence of the Food Standards Agency.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the Food Standards Agency was set up as an independent non-ministerial government department, operating at arm's length from Ministers. The Food Standards Act gives the FSA the power to publish information and advice, including advice to Ministers, without needing to seek the agreement of Ministers or the Government.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, a month or so ago, it was widely reported that Mr Michael Meacher was backing the Soil Association, which was calling on the Food Standards Agency to take a more favourable view of organic farming. Since the Soil Association's principles are founded on the absurd and false proposition that synthetic chemicals are bad and that natural chemicals are good, and since its claims that organic food is healthier for people and better for the environment have been consistently rejected, does that not show a bias on Mr Meacher's part in favour of mysticism and against scientific evidence? Since he sought to bring improper pressure to hear on the Food Standards Agency, should be not reconsider his position?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: No, my Lords. I do not believe that we in the Department of Health are particularly qualified to comment on mysticism or other such philosophical matters. The fact is that within Mr Meacher's department, and following on from the Curry report, the department has encouraged an action plan for developing organic food and farming. That is a perfectly proper responsibility of that department.
The remit of the Food Standards Agency concerns food safety and nutritional matters and ensuring that consumers have information on which they can make an informed choice. The view of the chair of the Food Standards Agency is that there is no appreciable proven difference in terms of food safety or nutrition between organic food and conventionally produced food. It would therefore not be appropriate for the FSA to make comments that would favour one over
1010
the other. These are perfectly amicable and constructive discussions between two different government departments.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, returning to the independence of the agency, does the Minister agree with me that it is the openness of the Food Standards Agency and the core policy of putting the consumer first that have improved the confidence of the nation in food standards? Would he also agree with me that we have set a model for openness, based on the evidence, showing that an independent approach is more effective in handling risks and winning public confidence than is secrecy? That is outlined in the Government's review of the handling of risk. I therefore ask the Minister whether he will endorse the independent position of the agency. In saying that, I declare my interest as a member of the board of the Food Standards Agency.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords. the noble Baroness speaks with great authority as a member of the board of the Food Standards Agency. She is right; the whole purpose of creating the FSA was to secure independence and public confidence in food safety in this country. I believe that the agency, through its statements, the work that it has undertaken and the robust nature of its leadership, has shown itself well able to display such independence and has therefore enhanced public confidence in food in this country.
Lord Elton: My Lords—
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords—
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords—
Lord Elton: My Lords, I believe that it is our t turn.
Noble Lords: Elton!
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am under the impression that it is normal to take turns and that it is our turn.
I do not want to give undue weight to my question; I merely ask whether the Minister thinks that the supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, or that of the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, were entirely free from the bias and prejudice to which the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, took such exception.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, all noble Lords bring to our debates a high degree of objectivity. I would not discourage that at all.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, on the question of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is there not a great danger of those on either side of the organic food argument shooting from the hip? Also, as promised by the FSA some years ago—virtually since its formation—is it not high time that we had some quality research in that area?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the judgment that the FSA made in relation to safety and the

1011
nutritional value of organic as opposed to conventional food is based on the evidence available to it. Of course, it will always be appropriate to consider whether research should be undertaken. My understanding is that a workshop was held by the FSA a little time ago to consider the matter. I do not believe that the FSA has yet come to a conclusion. When it does so, no doubt that conclusion will be placed in the public domain.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, is the Minister aware that more than 60 years ago my father wrote a book called Charter for the Soil? It was all about organic farming and was not in the least mystical. Absolutely everything in that book is perfectly relevant today.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, as relevant as the questions of the noble Baroness always are.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, whilst one can understand the concerns of people over chemicals in food and the organic arguments point, does the noble Lord agree that the human body is in fact nothing other than a great chemical factory? It ingests chemicals; it creates chemicals; and it disposes of chemicals. What is the fuss about?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I really think that the noble Earl must speak for himself on this matter.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, if the Food Standards Agency is so independent, why will it not answer questions put by Members of either House? When one writes to it with questions, one is referred to the relevant department.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, if the noble Baroness would care to put to me specific instances, of course I shall take that matter up with the chair of the FSA. I must say that of course the FSA answers a great deal of correspondence. I should be very surprised if that was not being handled satisfactorily. But there is also a complaints system through which complaints against the FSA can be taken. But I am very happy to investigate specific causes of complaint.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, in the Minister's answer to the first of my noble friends, he stated that it would not be proper for the FSA to comment on the two situations—organic and sensible. Surely, it is its duty to do so if it has the evidence available.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the point here is that the FSA sees its remit as concerning issues to do with safety and the nutritional value of foods. Its conclusion from the research that it has reviewed is that there is no significant difference in terms of safety and nutritional value between organic food and conventionally produced food. Therefore, the FSA considers that it would be inappropriate to make a value judgment saying that organic food is better than
1012
conventionally produced food. At the end of the day, the credibility of the FSA depends on its advice being robust and evidence based.

Secondary Schools
2.45 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easingtonasked Her Majesty's Government:
What assessment they have made of the standards in non-grammar schools in local education authority areas where selection for secondary schools takes place.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, the department has not undertaken this comparative assessment. However, we are aware of research by others which suggests that at GCSE pupils who attend non-selective schools in selective areas are out-performed by those who had similar key stage 3 results and attend comprehensive schools in non-selective areas. We continue to note any conclusions that are reached.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords. I thank my noble friend for that reply. As she is aware, for many years the Labour Party and Labour governments have said that selection at 11 years of age is wrong for a number of reasons. Indeed, she made that remark herself not too long ago in the Chamber. One of the main reasons is that often those who are not selected are quite capable of undertaking what we might call the "grammar school course". What happens to those children? Can she confirm that in some areas of the country parental choice is the only criterion of a system that is manifestly unfair? Is it not a serious misjudgment that a child's education and progress should be so handicapped when the Government's frequently stated policy is cast aside?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the Labour Party and the Government have been very clear in ensuring that we do not wish to see further grammar schools. I reiterate what I have said previously in your Lordships' House. Our concern in this matter was of the number of children not allowed to pursue the quality of education that was offered within the grammar school system in days gone by. What we now have is a schools system where every child is moving towards being able to achieve his full potential and in many schools is already able to achieve his full potential. We want to ensure that every school gives the best opportunity to every child. It is true that in schools where we still have selection in certain areas we offer that opportunity. It is also true that our own figures show that in comprehensive schools children from the brightest groups do better than they do in grammar schools.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, is the Minister prepared to congratulate Kent County

1013
Council on providing a variety of schools? It has a selective system that caters for children of different abilities—vocational, academic and so on. Are the Government prepared, as they award Beacon excellence to grammar schools and some of the Kent vocational schools, to accept that that is an alternative? Is the Minister prepared to accept Professor Jesson's evidence, which has been seriously questioned in a number of academic journals?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, as the noble Lord has referred to Professor Jesson, I shall do the House a service by reporting on what he actually said. He was commissioned to look at the structure and performance of secondary education in Kent. The major findings of his report were that grammar schools in Kent and Medway do less well and are performing at lower levels than other grammar schools in the country and that secondary modern schools show similar, if less pronounced, characteristics.
In looking at whether I should congratulate a local education authority, I think it is absolutely pertinent to ask whether we think that we can support that education authority to achieve better outcomes for all its children. That is entirely what the department would wish to do. So I am quite clear that if Professor Jesson's research is correct—I have no reason to believe otherwise—we need to support Kent to ensure that it is able to do the best it possibly can. I am sure that all the political leaders and officials in Kent are very keen to do that. Indeed, I know that they are.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, in view of the research done by David Jesson and others, does the Minister agree that the best system is a good comprehensive school in which the special needs of children at both ends of the ability spectrum are well catered for and well resourced?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, as I said, we know that children at the upper end of the band do better—marginally better—in comprehensive schools. We also know that, generally, a well delivered comprehensive education delivers for all the children. That is a cornerstone of the Government's policy, so I agree with the noble Baroness that it is important that we offer that breadth and quality of education to every child.
There are still some grammar schools. We have made our policy towards them clear with the parental ballot, and we still believe that that is the right way to go. We work with all schools to ensure that, whether one lives and raises a child in a selective or nonselective area, the quality of education that the child will receive is the highest that it can be.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the most extensive and detailed research done in Great Britain and Northern Ireland is that done by Dr Marks'? Dr Marks concludes that selection is better for all pupils, not just those selected to attend grammar schools. The average advantage is about 25 per cent at GCSE. 'The good overall performance of the selective
1014
system is, in part, due to the good performance of pupils at the widely underrated secondary modern schools. That is most evident in Northern Ireland, where the system is entirely selective. There, education results are well ahead of those in the rest of the United Kingdom—by 30 per cent, at least.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, Dr Marks provides important evidence. In part, that is why, in my Answer, I said that we continued to note conclusions. There is different evidence, and, often, the issue is whether the evidence can be used to make genuine comparisons. I mean no criticism of any of the research by that, but, often, when we examine the research, it is difficult to see the comparators in the way that noble Lords might want.
It is clear that the provision of the highest quality education must be paramount. From the evidence that we have, we believe that we provide that best through a comprehensive system that is high quality and looks to meet the needs of all children. That is what we will continue to do.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, Professor Jesson has a knighthood, so he has done rather well. However, the Minister did not answer my question. Professor Jesson's research has been seriously questioned in at least three academic journals. Is the department aware of that questioning?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords., we continue to consider all research and the questioning of all research. That is why I said that we look to ensure that the comparators are equal. We know that Professor Jesson examined 15 selective areas, although we would recognise only 10 of those as being within our criteria. That is an important point.
I am more concerned about Ofsted reports, which help us to ensure that we have high quality education. In view of this debate, noble Lords will understand why that is an essential part of our evaluation of schools.

Iraq
2.53 p.m.
Lord Bramallasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the up-to-date information that appeared in the British Intelligence Dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction published in September has now been passed to the United Nations observers for verification and any necessary action.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, a copy of the Government's dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was passed to UNMOVIC at the time of its publication. It is up to UNMOVIC to decide how to act on the contents of the dossier.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that slightly cautious reply. Does she accept that it is infinitely

1015
better that the so far unfettered UN observers, backed by all the, presumably, detailed intelligence and evidence that we and the Americans possess, should seek out and destroy any nuclear, biological and chemical weapons— a better description than weapons of mass destruction— that still exist? That is better than using quibbling over paperwork to drift into a war that, whatever the early success, will have untold consequences for the longer-term stability of the Middle East.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree with the noble and gallant Lord. So far, there have been 200 such inspections.
I am unaware of the sort of quibbling to which the noble and gallant Lord referred. As I said, the dossier was passed to UNMOVIC at the time of its publication. The noble and gallant Lord may be pressing a little further on other intelligence that has been conveyed to UNMOVIC and the IAEA, over and above that published in the dossier. If that is what concerns the noble and gallant Lord, I can tell him that, in addition to the published information, further information has been made available to the inspectors.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, now that the Foreign Secretary has—rather belatedly—recognised and acknowledged the intimate links between rogue states such as Iraq and the global terrorist system, can we look forward to another dossier, giving some of the intelligence underpinning that conclusion, on the lines of the information that has been circulated in Washington and provided to Congress about terrorist links with Iraq? Is it not now time for us to hear the same story, in order that those who have doubts about the war against Iraq and the need to take out Saddam can be reassured?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I take issue with the pejorative remarks about it being late in the day to acknowledge links. We have always said that there were no direct links between Al'Qaeda and Iraq. There are no such direct links on which we have firm information or intelligence, and I continue to answer your Lordships' questions on that point. There are links between Iraq and some other organisations, and we have discussed those. A connection can certainly be made, in so far as it might be claimed that, "My enemy's enemy is my friend". I suggest that that may well be the sort of link that informs the noble Lord's question.
We will continue to publish information that we believe to be helpful in explaining why Her Majesty's Government take the view that they do of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but we will always put the safety of our intelligence sources and of our Armed Forces in the forefront of any judgment about what to publish.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, given press reports that some circles in Washington are sedulously denigrating the work of Hans Blix, can my noble friend the Minister assure us that there is no question of a
1016
casus belli being constructed from information that has not been corroborated by Hans Blix, simply on the grounds that it has not been passed to him?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, there have been voices in the background criticising Dr Blix since before he got to Iraq in the first place. I repeat to your Lordships that Her Majesty's Government has the utmost confidence in Dr Blix and in Dr ElBaradei.
There will be a discussion on the Iraqi declaration made on 8th September—all 11,807 pages of it—at the UNSC tomorrow, 9th January. That will be an opportunity for Dr Blix and Dr ElBaradei to give an update on their work, and I suggest that that will be an opportunity for any of the worries that the noble Lord mentioned to be aired in the most suitable place—the Security Council.
The Lord Bishop of Durham: My Lords, in view of what the Minister has just said—rightly—about the safety of British intelligence forces and other western personnel, is she aware that 42 per cent of the population of Iraq are under 16? That represents 9.6 million children. Is the same weight given to the probability of innocent suffering in Iraq, should war break out, as to the protection of our people?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, one of the most awesome and dreadful responsibilities that a government can face is the responsibility of having to put troops into a conflict. It is an awesome and terrible responsibility not only because of the risks to the troops of this country or any of our allies who would be involved and the terrible loss that there would be if the worst circumstances were to prevail, but also that all war, by its very nature, may involve the loss of innocent life.
It could be argued that the loss of young life is, in many ways, more terrible than the loss of older life. However, I am bound to say to your Lordships that, whether a person was 16 or 60, the loss of an innocent life would always be a matter of grave responsibility. That is why we are so careful in how we proceed on that issue. It is why we have pursued the United Nations route; why we have persuaded others that that was the right route to pursue; and why we have also put as much information into the public domain as we possibly can to explain why the Government are so convinced that we are taking the right action on that issue.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I should like to express a degree of—
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, has given way on at least two occasions. I believe that it is his turn.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, the Minister has expressed the Government's confidence in Hans Blix and the work that is being undertaken by the UN

1017
inspectors. However, if the UN inspectors find no material breach, is there any reason for military action to be undertaken by the Government?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the initial full report to the United Nations Security Council is not due until 27th January—although, as I have indicated, there will be a preliminary discussion of the findings so far taking place in the United Nations Security Council tomorrow.
I stress to your Lordships that the report on 27th January is not the end of the process. It is merely a staging point which was committed to in UNSCR 1441. If there is no material breach at that point, that does not mean that the whole process of inspections is over. It is up to anybody else who feels that he has material breaches to report to do so. There is nothing to stop any other country at that point also bringing the Security Council into its confidence over what it believes is happening. But at that point it would be a decision about the continuation of the inspection. Therefore, I stress to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that that date is not a date on which a decision must be made one way or the other. It is simply a point at which a report will be made and discussed.

Middle East Plan
3.2 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davisasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in view of the suicide bombings in Tel Aviv on 5th January, it is still their intention to proceed with a Downing Street meeting on the Middle East Plan.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we condemn the suicide bombings that have taken place and ex press our condolences to the relatives of all those concerned. However, we believe that these events emphasise the need for a political process. The London meeting is intended as a part of this. We would regret a decision by the Israelis now not to allow the representatives of the Palestinian Authority to attend. This would not help the cause of peace and security for Israelis any more than for Palestinians. We are therefore in touch with the Israeli authorities about ways in which Palestinians we have invited might be able to come.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that the recent slaughter of 22 innocent people in Tel Aviv is to be utterly condemned. I also agree that the withdrawal of the present talks regarding the situation in the Middle East would be unfortunate in the extreme. What steps are being taken internationally by the Government to rally support for this imaginative concept, albeit on a different date? I stress that the negotiations must be wider than with the Israelis concerned.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I reiterate the outrage which I am sure we all feel at the
1018
appalling carnage and barbarous murder of innocent people in Tel Aviv. However, we believe that the already delayed process of getting back to negotiations would be helped by the talks which the Prime Minister has suggested on reform of the Palestinian Authority. Not only have we been in contact with the Israeli Government, but members of the United States Administration have joined us in asking the Israeli Government to think again on that point.
I can report that Her Majesty's Ambassador in Tel Aviv, Mr Sherard Couper-Coles. is due to see Prime Minister Sharon at 3.45 p.m. our time today. He will be handing over a letter from my right honourable friend the Prime Minister urging the Israeli Prime Minister to think again about the travel ban that he has placed on the Palestinian Authority. We shall not have a definitive response on that issue until later today. But the Americans support us in our suggestion that thought should be given again to this matter.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, it is vital for the sake of both peoples, both of which are suffering, that a way towards peace is found which is acceptable to them both. Does my noble friend see that when atrocities are carried out by the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade, which is part of Arafat's Fatah, it makes it very difficult for the Israelis to take part or to agree to separate negotiations with the Palestinians because, rightly or wrongly, their government believe that that is impossible while they denounce the terror but take no steps to prevent it?
In those circumstances, what can our Government do to bring the parties together or, in the words of the classic Arab proverb, make both hands clap?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, of course the key to peace is to find a way forward which is acceptable to both parties. However, I stress to my noble friend that the only way that can be done is not through the barrel of a gun but through discussion. One of the major concerns voiced by the Israeli Government is what they describe as the lack of reform in the Palestinian Authority. Some of their concerns in that respect may well be justified. It is for that reason that my right honourable friend thought it wise and sensible to hold the conference that he suggested should take place next week. It will also be attended by members of the quartet, as well as representatives from Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan.
My noble friend says that it is difficult for the Israeli authorities to allow the Palestinian representatives to attend in those circumstances. I appreciate that the Israeli authorities have many grave concerns over that and, in light of the recent atrocity, little wonder that they do. However, elected authorities or elected governments cannot always be responsible for the terrorist activity of those operating within their territories. I believe that drawing the direct line between the two is unfortunate. We very much regret

1019
that the Israeli Government have taken the view that they have and we hope that they will, on wider consideration, think again.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, if a Palestinian citizen from Ramallah were to migrate to the United States and set up settlements in Brooklyn, would that not be considered an act of aggression and a criminal act? Why on earth should people from Brooklyn be allowed to migrate to Israel and set up settlements subsidised by the government of that country?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, is aware, we have discussed settlements in your Lordships' House on a number of occasions. I have been perfectly clear that Her Majesty's Government are extremely unhappy about the level of settlement activity. When we last discussed it I reported that in the past year there have been some 34 settlements in the Occupied Territories which Her Majesty's Government consider to be illegal.
I fully take the point made by the noble Lord. However, we must find a way forward. It is sometimes easy for what I can only describe as both sides of this argument to reiterate the grievances that they have. There are grievances on both sides. They are very deeply felt by both sides. Simply reiterating those grievances does not move us any further forward. That is why we need to talk, and talk around a table, as we should be doing next week.

Diego Garcia
3.10 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaireasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they retain responsibility for the observance of international law and conventions on Diego Garcia.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos): My Lords, yes.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, can the Minister assure us that the Government are fully briefed on the conditions under which the United States is keeping prisoners from the Taliban on Diego Garcia in view of the serious allegations made in the Washington Post and the Herald Tribune on 27th December? The United States is, at the very least, steering close to the wind as regards the Geneva Convention and other aspects of international law. This is sovereign British territory and therefore, as I understand it and as the Minister has confirmed, the British Government are responsible for ensuring that international law is fully observed.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am aware of the stories in the press. Those stories are entirely without
1020
foundation. The United States Government would need to ask for our permission to bring any suspects to Diego Garcia. They have not done so and no suspected terrorists are being held on Diego Garcia.
Lord Judd: My Lords, will my noble friend take this opportunity to reaffirm the Government's position that, in everything we are doing in pursuing Al'Qaeda, the way we do so manifests the kind of society that we are trying to protect against international terrorism? Will she also reaffirm that abuse of prisoners and torture have no place anywhere within such a strategy?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am pleased to agree with my noble friend. We as a government have made it absolutely clear that we shall do everything we can to fight international terrorism. We have also made it absolutely clear that we shall apply all the relevant rules of international law.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, having declared an interest in the International Criminal Court Act—and I thank the noble Baroness for the assurance that the reports in certain American papers are not well-founded—what human rights are accorded to terrorists and to prisoners of war on Diego Garcia and how is such distinction drawn, as the United States has declined to ratify the statute?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I repeat that the stories which have appeared in the press are completely without foundation. The Unites States Government would need to ask our permission to bring suspects to Diego Garcia and they have not done so. No suspected terrorists are being held on Diego Garcia and, under current British Indian Ocean Territory law, there would be no authority for the detention of Al'Qaeda suspects in the territory.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there was a recent parliamentary delegation to Mauritius? There is tension between Mauritius and Her Majesty's Government over the Chagos Islands of which Diego Garcia is part. The Chagos islanders are not able to visit the graves of their relatives, even though we suggested that the Americans could use their helicopters to fly them in, including to Diego Garcia, without any security risks. Is it not important that we are seen to be like Caesar's wife on this issue, or there will be other consequences?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am of course aware of the concerns of the Chagos islanders and their wish to go back to Diego Garcia. I have been involved in discussions on that matter. We have consulted the United States, as we have a responsibility to do so under the treaties we have signed with the US. The US has not given agreement to this but we have agreed that there could be a return. We chartered a vessel but, unfortunately, it was not made available. We are happy to reinstate any such visit but it would not include Diego Garcia because of the reluctance of the US Government.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, will the Minister confirm whether the United States holds

1021
prisoners of any kind on Diego Garcia? Perhaps I may ask a related question. Do the Government continue to make representations to the United States about the number of British citizens held under similar conditions in Guantánamo Bay?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I can confirm that we continue to make representations with respect to Guantánamo Bay. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has spoken on a number of occasions to Secretary of State Powell about that issue. I am not aware of any requests having been made to the British Government about any prisoners being held on Diego Garcia, and I am not aware of any prisoners being held on Diego Garcia.

Electricity Supply Industry
3.14 p.m.
Lord Tombsrose to call attention to the problems in the electricity supply industry created by the absence of a strategic decision mechanism; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is clear that the electricity supply industry is experiencing some severe problems at present. Some well-publicised examples are the financial problems of British Energy and other generators such as TXU, AES and PowerGen. At the other end of the spectrum lie the delays in restoring electricity supplies disrupted by bad weather.
But these problems, serious as they are to those involved, are only symptomatic of the deeper problem which I want to examine today: a problem which threatens the long-term reliability of electricity supply in this country and hence our prosperity and standard of living.
Let me explain my reasons for doing so. I have spent much of my life in the electricity supply industry, joining the City of Birmingham Electricity Supply Department in 1946 as a graduate trainee. The industry was nationalised in the following year, the better to meet the huge construction programme required to remedy the non-investment of the war years and to provide the basis for post-war industrial recovery.
The British Electricity Authority was formed in 1947 to take over the activities of more than 600 separate electricity undertakings, municipal and private. In 1956, almost 10 years later, the Herbert committee, set up by the government to review the organisation, concluded that it was over-centralised and recommended the separation of distribution activities into 12 statutory area boards, but retention of centralised generation in the Central Electricity Generating Board. A recommendation to establish a central authority with responsibilities for the industry as a whole was not accepted. Instead, the Electricity Council was created with a rather Utopian view that within it,
"the generation and distribution sides of the industry can resolve their problems under independent guidance".
1022
This was to be the first of a number of occasions on which the government of the day rejected expert advice on the management of the industry with unfortunate, though predictable, results.
Fortunately, and largely for political reasons, the organisation in Scotland took the form of two boards: the South of Scotland Electricity Board and the North of Scotland Electricity Board, each of which combined generation and distribution operations and were not part of the Electricity Council for England and 'Wales, reporting to the Secretary of State for Scotland instead of the Secretary of State for Energy. Henceforth, the industry in Scotland was to be more coherently managed, with great benefits to staff, consumers and plant manufacturers.
In 1976, the Plowden committee was set up to examine the industry organisation in England and Wales and recommended integration of generation and distribution activities in a new Electricity Corporation. This was accepted by the government of the day, a draft Bill was published in the form of a White Paper, and the measure appeared in two Addresses from the Throne, but the Bill was not presented to Parliament for a variety of political reasons.
At this point, I should return to my own career in the industry. After working in grid control in the power stations, I was asked to start a commissioning and trouble-shooting department for GEC power plant division, where I later became divisional manager. I then joined the South of Scotland Electricity Board in 1968 as director of engineering and became chairman in 1974. In 1977 I was asked to become chairman of the Electricity Council for England and Wales and chairman-designate c f the proposed Electricity Corporation. Three years later, in 1980, I resigned in protest at the failure to bring about changes which I considered essential to the health of the industry.
Things continued in that way until 1989 when the industry was privatised. This was done on the basis that the distribution boards, which had been formed on the basis of management delegation, were capable of becoming viable private companies. During the intervening years they have all become subsidiaries of foreign electricity companies, in one case a nationalised one, and ownership of them has changed hands on a number of occasions.
But the attempt to create competition in the generating side of the industry ran into even more trouble. For some years, generators were not allowed to acquire distributors. Recently this has changed so that there is now a motley collection of pure generators, pure distributors and hybrid combinations of the two, all of them served by a single trading system—and this for a product which, by its nature, cannot be stored, so that theoretically instantaneous pricing must be attempted at the margin.
The latest attempt to produce such a mechanism— the new electricity trading system (NETA)—has produced the present chaos, in which the wholesale price of a kilowatt hour has fallen by almost 40 per cent

1023
over two years while the retail domestic price has remained substantially constant. The beneficiaries have been some large industrial consumers, opportunist retailers as diverse as British Gas and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, and some others notorious for pressure selling techniques, and, importantly, those vertically integrated companies fortunate enough to be well balanced.
Regulation since privatisation has concerned itself with short-term issues and not with the long-term health of the industry. Generating companies are in serious difficulty and are mothballing plant, and nowhere is the future shape of the industry being seriously addressed. Government is quite low on the learning curve of dealing with an essential long-term industry subject to short-term market forces.
The latest lesson comes with British Energy, which is receiving short-term state aid and a change of management. Investors there have seen their assets vanish, and the prospect of renewed investment in companies subject to capricious government actions must be remote. For, in addition to the adverse effects of NETA, British Energy output is subject to the same climate change levy as that of fossil fuel generators, despite the fact that nuclear power does not produce carbon dioxide and so does not contribute to climate change. The adverse effect of this particular aberration on British Energy is some £80 million per year.
Additionally, the rating burden on nuclear power stations is 50 per cent higher than that on fossil fuel stations and 200 per cent higher than that for wind power. Even further, British Energy has been constrained to maintain expensive reprocessing of used fuel as part of a plan to privatise BNFL. The only common factor in these various decisions is damage to the long-term future of the industry.
Future planning for the electricity supply industry is complicated because of the long time-scales involved and the complexity of many of the technical issues. For example, the price and security of supply of competing fuels in the future are major uncertainties. It is estimated that in 2020 some 80 per cent of our electricity requirements may be met by gas imported thousands of miles from areas such as Russia and North Africa. Optimists will tell us that governments in those areas are stable and have good commercial reputations. But 20 years is a long time in politics and in international trade, and the vulnerability of the UK to political pressures, price instability and terrorist action would be very great.
Problems of secure fuel supply have featured prominently in the past in the planning of the electricity industry, which had to deal with miners' strikes and the Yom Kippur war. In both cases, disruption resulted but was manageable. I emphasise that that planning originated within the industry. There is no possibility of a similar strategy emerging from the present fragmented and fragile industry. Instead, as nature abhors a vacuum, we have seen the emergence of countless government policy reviews and procrastination as a wholly unsatisfactory substitute.
1024
Such reviews are unlikely to contribute to the long-term problems of developing an industry to face the changing challenges of fuel supply and environmental pollution, partly because they are usually conducted without an appreciation of the technical challenges involved but also because political issues pre-empt the objective examination which is necessary.
In my experience, the classical political answer to difficult problems is to avoid decision for as long as possible and, in the meantime, to do a number of limited things to mollify vocal groups. A current example is the present reliance on wind power, heavily subsidised, to make a contribution to the national electricity demand, which is likely to be substantial but will be of little value to the industry's major problems.
The essential problem is to reconcile the short-term demands of the market with the long-term investment and planning needs of the industry. Future plans have to cope with many uncertainties—for example, technical problems, construction delays. planning delays—any of which can imperil or delay the financial return on the project. Such a project, in isolation, is unlikely to appeal to investors but can be undertaken by an established industry within which the project uncertainties can be accommodated. Examples of this, of which I have first-hand knowledge, are electricity supply itself (properly organised), oil exploration and aero engines.
The last of these provides an interesting example. Following receivership in 1971, Rolls-Royce became a small player in the world market for aero engines because it could not support from its own performance the investment needed to keep pace with international competition. Of course, the Treasury was unable to contemplate investment on the scale needed. The solution lay in privatisation after 17 largely wasted years in government ownership. Extensive new investment took place—largely funded by releasing working capital—and within six years Rolls-Royce was again a major player on the world scene, a position which has since been consolidated and extended.
So it is evident that privatisation of a long-term capital-intensive business is not impossible if the management structure and determination exist. The essential problem lies in establishing a relationship between the industry and the public interest as represented by government and its regulatory mechanisms. This is the key problem in the electricity industry today.
Here, history can offer some pointers, although it is necessary to go back some 60 to 80 years to find them. After the First World War, the emerging electricity supply industry was very fragmented, with municipal and private companies operating in a generally isolated way. The solution proposed by the Williamson committee of 1918 was to establish electricity commissioners to oversee the operation and development of the industry. It had powers to approve reorganisations and give consent for building new power stations. It was described by the Weir committee of 1926—which led to the establishment of the National Grid—as,
"an expert committee carrying out a continuous investigation".

1025
That committee commanded the respect of the multifarious companies then operating.
It is interesting to note that at the time of nationalisation, as I said earlier, there were more than 600 undertakings in existence under the general control of the electricity commissioners, with the National Grid, set up in 1926, operating the interconnections and trading arrangements. Unless some such system to organise and direct the present fragmented industry can be established, I fear that the present short-term approach will inevitably lead to power failures on a large scale, imperilling our national prosperity and standard of life. Present efforts to deal with this problem are too short term and diffuse to offer a satisfactory solution.
The industry has been well served by periodic reviews of its structure and problems. The Williamson committee of 1918, the Weir committee of 1926, the Herbert committee of 1956 and the Plowden committee of 1976 are all constructive examples which identified structural problems and went on to propose solutions.
It is interesting to note that, in general, while the proposals of committees before the Second World War were generally accepted and implemented, those after the war were generally not. In my view, today's problems largely stem from that post-war desire to interfere on a political basis with solutions proposed as a result of careful and expert analysis. This tendency can be seen in other activities and perhaps reflects an over-valuation of the possible contribution of politics to complex industrial problems.
The history of the electricity supply industry since nationalisation in 1947 has been marred by intervention for political reasons. I hope that a similar tendency will not mar today's discussions. That would be highly undesirable in discussing an issue of great national significance which should transcend party political interests. In my view, all three parties share responsibility for the present chaotic state of the industry and all parties should be prepared to recognise the problem and contribute to a solution.
I suggest that the way forward is for the Government to set up an independent expert committee to report to them on the problems facing the industry and to recommend remedial steps. The matter is one of considerable urgency and I hope—although I can give no assurance—that there remains time for order to be restored and a reliable electricity supply system to be established. The present situation—ad hoc responses to successive crises—will simply not do. It damages confidence and morale both within and without the industry, and sows the seed for further difficulties.
I raise this issue because of its importance, and because I believe that I am able, by virtue of independence and experience, to identify and describe the problems. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, we have heard an extremely powerful and experienced speech from the
1026
noble Lord, Lord Tombs. He has been kind enough to remind us—and some of us may have needed reminding—of his long experience in the industry. He speaks with enormous authority. I had the pleasure of his chairmanship when I sat on the Select Committee on nuclear waste—whose report remains one of the major guidelines for government in dealing with a current problem facing the industry.
In the light of the noble Lord's recounting of the history—which will make interesting reading in Hansard—I can understand his wish to see some "strategic decision mechanism", as spelt out in his Motion. He indicated that he preferred a committee to review the position rather than a straight move to a strategic decision mechanism. For my part, I approach the suggestion of a strategic decision mechanism with some caution. Had the Motion called for "a coherent policy framework" to be provided by government, I should have been much happier. However, I understand that it is not the custom in such debates as this to table amendments to Motions. I should certainly have hesitated to table one to a Motion from so knowledgeable a noble Lord.
It is the word "decision" that worries me. Since the electricity industry was privatised, I have found that there has been a great deal of support for the concept of a competitive market for electricity. Yes, it must be properly regulated, of course; and I shall have something to say about that shortly. But the major decisions—to invest, to enter into contracts, to merge or de-merge, to buy and sell commercially—are all decisions to be made by the players, not by the Government or by some government appointed mechanism.
I should find it possible to support such a market-based system were it allowed to operate properly. But the present system is not being allowed to work properly, for reasons which become clear to anyone who has taken the trouble to read the DTI document headed: Energy White Paper: Responses to Stakeholder Consultation on Key Energy Policy Issues. It is no more than 37 pages: a closely typed, summarised account of some 2½ thousand responses to the Government's consultation document published in May last year.
Of course, there are areas where a government decision is crucial—for instance, in getting on with the business of dealing with nuclear waste. The noble Lord's Select Committee report appeared nearly four years ago, and so far we have heard nothing, other than about further consultation on how to consult—which is in effect all that DEFRA has done. I heard Mr Michael Meacher declare to a meeting that I chaired that he wants to go down in history as the Minister who solved the problem of nuclear waste. I do not know how much longer he thinks he will remain a Minister, but at the present rate, it will have to be a very long time. Here is an issue where government do have to take the lead and make absolutely clear where they stand.
Returning to the document to which I referred, most respondents recognised that we are in an electricity market which is not just in the UK but which is

1027
becoming EU-wide. This support for the market resonated in last year's report from the Trade and Industry Select Committee in another place. Perhaps I may quote one paragraph from the committee's report, Security of Energy Supply (HC 364-I), to illustrate what I mean. Paragraph (j), on page 60, states:
"We agree with the view that it should not be the role of Government to dictate the appropriate mix of fuels for electricity generation, although that need not prevent intervention by the Government and the Regulator to ensure that long-term security of supply is maintained".
The report contains many other paragraphs—with, of course, a Labour majority—making the same point. It is for the industry and not for the Government to make these decisions.
So what we are discussing today is a market where most of the decisions, strategic as well as operational, are rightly taken by the market. Why is it not working? I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, that there is a great deal wrong with the present system—it is not working. The phrase that I used as an alternative to a "decision-making" institution was "a coherent framework". I am afraid that I detect very little evidence that we have such a framework for the electricity industry.
What I do see—and here I entirely agree with the noble Lord—is a whole raft of constantly changing interventions, more and more mechanisms to interfere with the market, more and more targets announced, many of them only to be abandoned, sending out conflicting signals and conflicting policies, all of which serve to confuse and de-stabilise what could be a proper working market.
There are many examples, but time allows me to mention only a few. Everyone recognises that the policy framework has to reconcile at least three conflicting objectives: security and diversity of supply—with security being exceedingly important; the need to reduce the environmental impacts of electricity production, particularly with regard to global warming but also with regard to sulphur dioxides and nitrogen oxides; and, thirdly, addressing the problem of fuel poverty. It is difficult but by no means impossible, with the right policy framework, to work towards the achievement of all three objectives.
My first example refers to the regulatory system. When this House debated the Utilities Act 2000, many concerns were voiced that undue weight was being placed on the third of those objectives, the question of fuel poverty, and the overriding need to keep down the price of electricity to the consumer, even at the expense of the other two. The new electricity trading arrangements set up under the Act, policed by the new regulator—which eventually adopted the name of the old one, Ofgem—have demonstrated that the fears voiced in this House at the time were justified.
At the last moment this House accepted two amendments which I proposed, aimed at broadening Ofgem's objectives to add a further objective:
"to secure a diverse and viable long-term energy supply".
1028
It had to apply to both electricity and gas, therefore it appeared twice: in Sections 9 and 13 of the Act. That was fiercely opposed by the Government, but, with the help of parties in all parts of the House, it was carried against them by three votes. I subsequently had a letter from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, to say that the Government were not going to reverse the amendments in another place.
But what has happened? Last year I attended a seminar at the Institute of Economic Affairs addressed by Mr Callum McCarthy, the director general of Ofgem, the regulator. I asked him how he was giving effect to the clauses written into the Bill by Parliament to form part of the Act. His reply startled me and others present. We were given the firm impression that he had been given guidance that the Government did not want the clauses and that he should not pay too much attention to them.
I subsequently drew attention to that remarkable state of affairs in a letter published in The Times last year. I was mildly surprised that nobody sought to challenge my statement. So, I was even more surprised to read in the responses to the consultation document, which I referred to a few moments ago, that the regulator regarded "diversity and security" as being at the heart of his obligations. He could have said that in response to my letter to The Times. At some stage somebody decided not to do that. The statement is extremely difficult to accept, when one looks at what is happening on the ground.
As a result of Ofgem's price regulation regime, wholesale electricity prices have fallen by 40 per cent in the past three years, as the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, said. I do not believe that I am alone in not having noticed any such change in my domestic electricity bills. But what has been the impact of the 40 per cent cut in wholesale prices on the generators?
The noble Lord mentioned British Energy. I shall add only that the effect of the price cuts has been to price nuclear energy out of the market. That required, therefore, short-term financial support from the Government, because British Energy faced serious problems. The most extraordinary of the Government's policies on nuclear energy is what I can only describe as their pig-headed refusal to recognise that, if ever an industry should be exempted from the climate-change levy, it is the nuclear industry. It generates no carbon; it contributes nothing to global warming and climate change. Yet, because some Ministers are deeply hostile to the nuclear industry, that has not been done. I give that as a clear example of the conflicting policies to which I referred.
Let me give another example. Last month I had an agonising cri de Coeur from the Combined Heat and Power Association. No doubt, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, will have something to say about it, too. I shall be very brief. The association pointed out that at the last election, the Labour manifesto said:
"Labour is committed to a secure, diverse and sustainable supply of energy at competitive prices … a doubling of combined heat and power by 2010."

1029
The paper from the association continued:
"But what has happened? According to the Government's annual digest of UK energy statistics in 2001:
Additions of new CHP capacity have fallen by 95% in a year;
The output of existing CHP schemes has fallen by at least 17%
The capacity of operating CHP plant has effectively fallen by 800 MWe since 2001.
This means that:
£1 bn of investment in consented CHP schemes is now currently stalled.
Not surprisingly, UK emissions of carbon dioxide from the power sector have risen by 13%".
The industry has been priced out of the market. It is unable to contribute to the reduction of global warming. We now read that it is almost certain that the target of doubling the output by 2010 is yet another one that will have to be abandoned.
The last example I shall give, which the noble Lord also mentioned, is the Drax coal-fired power station run by AES Drax Power Limited. This is the only large coal-fired power station to have fitted a flue gas desulphurisation plant to limit emissions of nitrogen oxide and sulphur dioxide. It cost nearly £700 million to install. The annual running cost is about £30 million. Falling wholesale electricity prices are leading buyers to switch to lower-cost non-abating coal-fired generators. As a result, more coal is being burned by the higher polluters and less by Drax, which is saddled with the cost of its flue gas desulphurisation pollution abatement plant. I could give figures, but I should bring my remarks to a close.
How can that possibly make sense? What does it say about the Government's commitment to environmental improvement? What does it say about Ofgem's professed commitment to diversity? I hope I have said enough to demonstrate that, so far from having a coherent framework within which a competitive market could work, the Government's energy policy is a shambles. They have no lack of wise advice. Much of it forms part of the response to the consultation paper. I shall quote only one more extract from it. There are pages of it, much of which is extremely sensible advice. Paragraph 7, under the heading of "Transmission, Distribution and Trading" asks:
"What more can be done to provide a stable framework for investing in these sectors?"
Paragraph 7.1 states:
"There was support from across the energy industry and unions for a clear economic and political framework for energy".
That is what we will be looking for in the White Paper, which the Government are to publish within a month or two. And, by God, we need it.
3.48 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I declare an interest. Like the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, I have been involved in the energy sector for many years. I am currently chairman of Micropower, which exists for the promotion of small-scale electricity generation. I am delighted to participate in this debate, which was so ably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Tombs. I was closely associated with him, particularly when he was
1030
chairman of the Electricity Council and I was chairman of the Coal Board. We had not only good personal relations but good trading relations. At that time, I am glad to say, the electricity industry was taking large quantities of coal, so we met in a celebratory frame of mind, unlike the present situation, where unfortunately the amount of coal, particularly British coal, being used to generate electricity is dwindling.
The noble Lord is very lucky to have won the ballot for this debate because it is extremely timely in view of the proposed White Paper, as both his speech and that of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, made clear. As that document seems to have been a little delayed, perhaps the Minister can tell the House when it is likely to appear. The latest date that I have heard about is March, but we originally expected it to be published at the end of last year. I should appreciate some enlightenment on the subject.
The debate is not only timely because of the White Paper that is due to appear; it is also timely because of the considerable amount of disarray in the electricity market at present, to which both noble Lords referred. It is unfortunate that a number of the leading companies involved in electricity generation should have been so adversely affected by the dramatic collapse in the wholesale price, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, pointed out, has certainly not been passed on to the domestic sector and, therefore, has caused a great deal of harm to those who have generated as opposed to those who both generate and supply. That is an aspect of the development of which I believe the Government were not particularly in favour. They wanted to separate these various activities.
Not only have the large operators been adversely affected in the present situation. Smaller ones have also been involved. This covers both renewables and CHP, to which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, referred. The discrepancy between the gas price on the one hand, which has remained relatively high, and, on the other hand, the wholesale electricity price, which as become very low, has caused real problems for CHP operators. The Balancing and Settlement Code of NETA that discriminates against intermittent suppliers, which renewables and CHP inevitably are, has added to the problems. Some corrections have been introduced into that code, and it is possible that more are contemplated. Perhaps the Minister could also refer to that possibility.
There is no doubt that electricity is absolutely crucial, not only in the consideration of energy policy but also in the affairs of the nation as a whole. The drastic effects of possible power cuts, or of major variations in the price of electricity, are situations to be avoided. I hope that the White Paper will deal with the problem of electricity in all its ramifications, and propose the sort of framework to which both noble Lords have referred. In documents dealing with energy policy, it has all too often been the practice to treat primary sources of energy as being of major importance, while leaving electricity as a follower-on because it is a secondary source. However, it has now

1031
become the most important element in energy policy. I hope, therefore, that in the forthcoming White Paper there will be a comprehensive chapter devoted to electricity.
The White Paper should consider the problem in ways that subdivide themselves quite easily under the headings mentioned by both noble Lords; namely, security, diversity, and efficiency. The latter, of course, has an impact on climate change. I should like to say a few words under each of those headings.
Security of supply is absolutely vital. Hitherto, there has been a substantial surplus of capacity, but that has been eroded by a number of plant closures, two of which were announced just a few days ago, and by plant being mothballed. Even though I was told in answer to questions that I have raised on the subject that the mothballing of plants was a form of security, that is not entirely so. It takes several months for a mothballed plant to be brought back into action, which means that it cannot deal with an immediate situation. There must be at least 15 to 20 per cent surplus capacity, which, under the previous regime, the CEGB made sure was always available. The present regime does not allow for that; and, therefore, there should be a modification in the regulatory arrangements to ensure that there is an incentive to generators to maintain that degree of surplus capacity.
The other possible security risk could arise from terrorism. I have no doubt that suitable measures have been put in hand to safeguard major power stations, especially nuclear stations. But in the longer term, a further safeguard could be achieved by decentralising the way in which electricity is generated.
I turn to diversity. Since the dash for gas in the 1990s, the gas generation of electricity has built up from virtually nil to over 40 per cent. It could raise to 60 or 70 per cent on a business-as-usual basis, as defined in the PIU report, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Tombs. At that stage, something like 90 per cent of the gas used in the United Kingdom would have to be imported. That strikes me as being a disturbing and very serious prospect, but it did not seem to be treated as such in the PIU report; indeed, the report seemed rather detached about it and suggested that the situation should continue to be monitored. I do not know what "monitoring" really means. What happens if, in the process of monitoring, it is found that a serious situation is arising? How, at the drop of a hat, could one deal with the problem of the massive dependence for the generation of electricity on gas and on the imports of gas? Something more positive than just monitoring must be introduced.
We need to consider other ways in which electricity could be generated. Serious consideration should be given to such alternatives. It will be no surprise to noble Lords if I start with coal, which could have a major part to play in the future generation of electricity. Clean coal technology has now been developed to the point at which it can be fully effective. Such plants are operating in the United States, and in
1032
other European countries. It can also be associated with carbon extraction, which is also another valid and proven process.
Two projects have been put forward in the United Kingdom for such plants—one at Hatfield in Yorkshire, and another at Onllwyn in South Wales. I very much hope that the Minister will be referring to those pioneering efforts and that he will indicate ways in which the Government could help them to come to fruition. After that start we could have many more such plants, and begin to see some diversification in the way in which electricity is produced in the future.
Mention has already been made of the nuclear sector. It really is time—indeed, the time has almost passed—for a decision to be reached on the future of the nuclear industry. We all know that there will have to be a progressive withdrawal over the next 10 to 15 years of most of the nuclear plant operating at present, and that the time-scale for new nuclear plant, if such should be decided, is very long for planning and capital expenditure reasons. Therefore, more than a pointer needs to be given in the White Paper about this. But, if such a pointer is to be provided, it will be necessary to take into account all the issues relating to nuclear waste in which the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, was very much involved.
I remember reading the report that appeared nearly four years ago. It seemed to me to make a very sensible suggestion as to how nuclear waste might be dealt with, and yet the problem is not yet resolved. Perhaps the White Paper will show how it is to be resolved. There is also the problem of special security for nuclear stations, as well as the question of the capital cost and the role that it is to play in climate change—a matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, referred.
We also need to consider renewables. The Government have rightly said that they consider renewables to be of great importance; indeed, they have given the matter much support. But, at present, renewables are mainly limited to wind power, and particularly on-shore wind. There is an increasing amount of resistance on visible environmental grounds to the extension of on-shore wind. Therefore, the Government need seriously to consider ways in which the concept of renewables can be widened. I should prefer a term such as "clean energy" to replace that of "renewables", which could include such processes as methane recovery from disused coal mines, in which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, has been much involved, clean coal technology and combined heat and power.
This brings me to the issue of efficiency, because combined heat and power means that the output of large scale power stations that currently produce only about half the heat content of the primary energy put into them will be virtually doubled, resulting in up to 80 or 90 per cent efficiency. The trouble with large scale power stations is that the waste heat cannot be used. With smaller scale power stations it can be because you can site combined heat and power stations near consuming points and therefore make use of the waste

1033
heat. That doubles the efficiency with which energy can be produced and used and helps to deal with the problem of climate change.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, drew attention to the doldrums through which combined heat and power is passing. It is important that the White Paper indicates what will be done to correct this serious situation if the Government want to achieve their climate change objectives.
I am involved, as I have indicated, with micro-CHP: combined heat and power in domestic households. It has been developed technically; products will be on the market in about a year's time and that could revolutionise the way in which the electricity distribution system works. Hitherto it has worked one way; namely, through the progressive flow of power from the main power stations to the consumer. If we have a wide spread of CHP plant and go into the household so that every household effectively becomes a power station we will need a new distribution system. I am glad that Ofgem have recognised this and have talked about the "rewiring" of Britain.
There will be a dramatic change in the electricity industry. It is necessary for this "rewiring" to take place quickly. When these products come on to the market they will be like a domestic boiler but will produce both heat and power; consumers will have all the electricity they require and they will need to sell surplus electricity into the grid. That is why changing the distribution arrangements is necessary.
It is important that there should be a carefully thought-out strategy for the electricity sector. The Government have an opportunity in the White Paper to achieve that. The issues of security, diversity and efficiency need to be clearly tackled and the new and developing technologies such as micro-CHP should be given a helping hand so as to change the electricity system in Britain for the better.
4.3 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, for introducing this discussion. It is timely because day after day we read in our newspapers of the problems facing the electricity industry. In today's Financial Times there is an article headlined,
"US group hit by wholesale electricity price falls".
It reads,
''NRG Energy, the struggling US electricity group, is in talks with banks",
to reschedule its finances. Even today as the debate takes place we see that the electricity industry is struggling.
It is rather daunting to follow such a distinguished group of speakers: a former Secretary of State for Energy; a former chairman of the National Coal Board; and the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, himself, who was chairman of the Electricity Council. I cannot match that in any way, although I was employed in a humble capacity in the electricity supply industry at a power station. The noble Lord, Lord Tombs, and I met on the Electricity Council when I was a member of
1034
the National Joint Council for the Electricity Supply Industry trying to earn a crust for my fellow trade unionists at low levels in the industry. I do not know whether I succeeded but at least I tried; that is the best one can do.
The noble Lord, Lord Tombs, gave proper recognition to the nationalisation of the electricity supply industry. Indeed, for a time it served the nation extremely well. I like to think that public ownership might be the way by which we could bring order into a chaotic industry but I fear that towards the end nationalisation did not serve the country well. I shall explain why. The reorganisation that began in 1956 eventually led to the formation of the Central Electricity Generating Board which became too big and too powerful. The CEGB dominated the industry and fixed prices to suit itself. The regional boards had virtually no say over prices or policy which meant no say for the consumer either.
The CEGB, in other words, grew too big for its boots and failed to respond to the market. It continued to build power stations to meet an exponential annual increase in demand of 10 per cent when mass demand had fallen to 2.5 per cent or less. As a consequence we had a large surplus of capacity—over 100 per cent in Scotland and over 50 per cent in this country—with dire consequences for the consumer. That should not have happened. The board's insistence on retaining current cost accounting when inflation was falling added further to the consumer burden.
When I was in the other place I was a member of the House of Commons Select Committee on Energy. I came up against the CEGB, which was impervious to any criticism and unresponsive to any ideas to improve its performance. It was not averse to concealing the truth, especially about the true cost of nuclear energy. The Department of Energy seemed to have no influence and was mesmerised into impotence by self-serving experts on the CEGB. I was worried when full-scale denationalisation of the industry was decided on, but we could not return to such a system. It corrupted public ownership and brought it into disrepute, which I regret.
The noble Lord, Lord Tombs, is correct, as are the other speakers. Electricity is so vital to every part of everyone's life and to the soul of this nation that it cannot be allowed to slip into neglect and chaos and become the plaything of private owners, particularly foreign owners whose only interest is making as much profit as possible and who pull out when it suits them.
Government policy, if it can be discerned at all, is not helpful. Their laissez faire approach deprives the industry of the leadership that it needs and the direction it should take. The policy of the regulator, which has already been mentioned, in driving down prices to unsustainable levels seems to conflict with the Government's other policy of reducing energy consumption on environmental grounds. How can one reduce energy consumption by constantly making it more easily and cheaply available to the general public who use it? It is not a reasonable and well thought out policy. It also does nothing to conserve indigenous gas

1035
supplies. This country will soon be completely dependent on foreign sources of supply. That cannot be good. It will again create difficulties for the whole industry.
The United States group, which I mentioned, bought Killingholme power station for £400 million. It is now worth £200 million. Such losses are unsustainable. What will happen to the industry if there are large-scale bankruptcies of various owners? Who will pick up the tab? If they can no longer afford to generate the needed electricity, who on earth will take over? There can be only one source—the state. If that is to be avoided, it is vital to ensure that the existing arrangements can operate properly, profitably and to the benefit of the consumer.
As I said, it is clear that the current system is not working and that a crisis in security of supply could be looming. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is right: we have mothballed plant, both oil and coal. However, it would take months, perhaps years, to bring those power stations back on line, and they would pollute the atmosphere, which is also against government policy. It is the Government's duty to prevent that crisis happening.
Wind power has been mentioned. However, it is the most inefficient and most environmentally damaging way of dealing with alternative energy sources. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, mentioned combined heat and power and measures to save electricity. All of those were discussed by the Select Committee on Energy; again, however, they were obstructed by the CEGB. Nevertheless, those measures are far better than building wind farms which produce electricity at about three times the cost of gas and cause environmental damage at the same time.
It is difficult for me to give the Government any advice on how to proceed on a macro basis. However, it may be that, while not bringing the industry back entirely into public ownership, they may well have to go back to the Weir report and consider having the national grid under public ownership. That may well be a way of providing leadership to an industry that is currently fragmented and, unfortunately, failing.
The noble Lord, Lord Tombs, was right to put forward his idea of setting up an expert committee to examine the current situation and make recommendations to achieve better cohesion and to ensure that this vital industry and vital commodity are under protection. Other than food, there are two essentials in this country: water and electricity. Without electricity, civilisation collapses. Therefore, the Government do indeed have a grave responsibility. I hope that they will meet it.
4.16 p.m.
Lord Patten: My Lords, I am very glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. I think that he perhaps undervalued and devalued his own experience as someone at the sharp end in the industry, on the Electricity Council and on the Select Committee in another place, where we served together. I enjoyed his contribution, as I enjoyed greatly the speech by the
1036
noble Lord, Lord Tombs—to whom we are very grateful for initiating this debate. There was much cause for thought in his comments.
Following the remarks of my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, however, I feel that the need is perhaps less for a new mechanism and rather more for quicker and better decision-taking by government. To illustrate those themes, I shall concentrate my remarks on just two spheres. The first is nuclear, which might be considered as the tough end of the electricity generating spectrum. The second is renewable energy, which for many commentators and politicians is at the softer, more politically correct and fashionable end of the spectrum.
Although I have an interest to draw to the attention of the House, having been a non-executive director of a renewable energy company since about the time that I came to your Lordships' House in 1997, I make it clear at the outset that I support both forms of electricity generation: nuclear and renewables. If I may have the temerity to correct the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, however, I should add in passing that there is a bit more to the renewables industry than wind power. There are many plants generating electricity from other sources of renewable energy.
I certainly want to tell the House that I do not belong for one moment to the "nuclear power is evil, wind power is wonderful" school of thought. Nor, however, do I belong to the "burning of biomass is an environmentalist cop-out, while nuclear is the only way, truth and light" tendency. There is no ideal form of electricity generation; all have their problems, costs, inefficiencies and environmental impacts. However, in a balanced and integrated energy generation policy, each has its place, and each should be considered in any strategic decision-making process, for which the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, called, and in any joined-up thinking by government of whatever political colour, Tory or Labour.
I turn first to nuclear power. Having been invented in the 20th century. nuclear power cannot be disinvented. I believe that it should be a component part of any joined-up, 21st century UK energy policy. Without its contribution to diversity and certainty of supply, future availability and continuity of electric power will not be guaranteed, particularly in the face, as other noble Lords have pointed out, of apparent growing over-dependence on potentially volatile imported gas supplies from the Middle East, North Africa, Central Asia and elsewhere.
I believe that any decision on new generation nuclear capacity does, of course, fall into the "acutely difficult" box for any government; there is no denying that. I also believe—although I do not want to shock my own Front Bench that we have a far-sighted and courageous energy Minister in Mr Brian Wilson. He understands these issues and he wishes to catch this particular falling knife. I mean what I say: I do not seek to damage Mr Wilson in any way at all with these warm comments from the Tory Back Benches. I wish to reassure the Labour Front Benchers about that.
However, my prediction for the New Year is that, following the much-spun forthcoming White Paper, the Government will fudge the nuclear issue. They will

1037
take no decision on nuclear power before the next general election. Thus uncertainty will reign and growing insecurity of supply will follow in a sector which, by any standards, has exceptionally long lead times.
I have made these points about nuclear power as an entirely disinterested observer. As regards renewables, I have a long and very direct set of experiences, as I declared to the House earlier, as a director of Energy Power Resources Limited, which is a company with a portfolio of plants from wind to those burning biomass, making it easily the largest generator of electricity from alternative sources in the United Kingdom. Indeed. I am told that it now accounts for about one quarter of all the electricity generated from biomass in the whole of western Europe. But companies such as these are still very much in the foothills of development, as is probably the company of the noble Lord. Lord Ezra.
Governments of both political colours have recognised that and have encouraged the growth of alternative energy. I do not doubt for one moment the good intentions of this Government. I can see a slight nervousness coming over the face of the Minister in that more praise is going in the Government's direction from these Benches. I believe that the Government have had very good intentions. However, in promoting the principle and practice of renewable energy, it is not to decry those good intentions to say that in my judgment progress is so slow that the UK has absolutely no chance whatever, on present trends, of meeting the Government's targets in the matter of the generation of electricity from renewable sources, whether for the middle of this decade, for 2010 or for 2020. If the Minister who is to reply to this debate disputes that, I hope that he will set out exactly when and how these targets are going to be met. I believe that the Minister understands the science of all this very well indeed and better than most of us. He knows the figures and the trends derived from them as well as I do.
In the interests of realism, which suits all of us concerned in these matters and which certainly suits the national need, perhaps the Minister might add another spot of what I understand to be called in polite No. 10 circles these days "target revision". I understand that that is what it is called in polite spinning circles. The Minister might add a little target revision in this area to the plethora of government target dumping which has so noisily been falling around us since the turn of the year: from targets about the misuse of drugs to those about participation rates in higher education, all of which have been thudding to the floor as they have been dumped by the Government.
In the face of the looming shortfall, probably the biggest waste of taxpayers' funds would be for the Government and the department to conjure up lots of fancy new grants for new plants in this area of renewables. There is certainly no special pleading from me on and for that: indeed, to the contrary. Present regimes need watching very carefully indeed. Perhaps I may give a couple of small examples. There is the bio-energy capital grants scheme, which currently sets out
1038
a requirement that renewable energy plants of over 20 megawatts capacity should use about 25 per cent of energy crops by the third year of their construction, and 50 per cent by the sixth year of operation.
Those are exceptionally unlikely targets to be met; they are impractical expectations. Targets are a good discipline for all of us privately; but pragmatically and practically they should be realistic. Politically they can be very damaging to the Government's health if they are not realistic. Policy-makers should beware of grasping at straws in this area. Probably the best way of killing stone dead at a stroke, as we used to say, the nascent renewables generating industry would be to allow the co-firing of renewable fuels—such as straw, wood residue, miscanthus among the energy crops or coppiced willow—with coal.
We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that there are many large, mothballed old plants waiting to come back to life. If even 10 per cent of the fuel burnt in them with 90 per cent coal was allowed to qualify for renewable purposes, that would overwhelm the small plants which are fuelled 100 per cent by renew able sources. It would also encourage a fresh surge in the burning of fossil fuels like coal as well, which many people concerned environmentally would not wish to see. I can well understand why the directors of these companies considering co-firing wish to see it occur because they have mothballed coal plants in their portfolios and wish to breathe new life into old assets. I see the fearsome figure of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, rising to his feet.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, surely the noble Lord will accept that if clean coal technology with carbon extraction were to come onto the market he would support it.
Lord Patten: My Lords, I certainly believe in these forms of technology enabling electricity to be generated from coal or from anything else. The point which I am making is that the kind of proposals current in the industry at the moment concern people wishing to bring back into use mothballed coal plants and co-firing them with some renewables which count towards the renewables obligation. That would breathe new life into the mothballed assets of companies which have already been written down or written off entirely in the balance sheet.
I believe that policy makers should be aware of the unintended consequences of their apparently benign intentions, which is the line of thinking in the department which says, "Renewable energy is not developing very fast. People have come forward with the idea of co-firing, which will mean that we have a little more renewable biomass fired with coal. Therefore, we can say that we are burning more biomass and more renewable energy is coming". That might be produced for a year or so, but at the same time the genuine nascent renewables industry would be killed off in a very short time. That would be the unintended consequence of the benign intentions of policy makers. We have all seen that.

1039
It would be much better and at nil cost to taxpayers' funds, which I am always anxious to avoid, to kick-start innovative technologies and encourage new entrants, new companies and new investment into renewable energy without any Government support at all, by introducing differential banding under the renewables obligation for different forms of alternative energy regeneration from wind through biomass burning and back again. That would give much greater depth to the industry. Perhaps the Minister will have time to explain why we do not have this differential banding regime in place.
That having been said and that request made, perhaps I may end in the bi-partisan spirit which has rather overwhelmed me this afternoon. I do not doubt the Government's good intentions. I am a particular fan of Mr Brian Wilson and his brave approach. I applaud the spirit behind the Government's good intentions as regards many parts of energy generation. I applaud the spirit behind their target setting although I believe that they are pretty quixotic in quantum and that they will learn to rue having set them year by year.
As regards nuclear, alas—as I said, the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, well understands the science—I certainly doubt the courage of the Cabinet, even when collectively cheered on by the Minister to whom I have referred quite enough already. As regards alternative energy, I doubt that the members of the Cabinet fully understand the impact of some of their policies, be they co-firing or the lack of banding under the renewables obligations.
I greatly welcome the opportunity provided by the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, to take part in this debate. Should the Government decide to accede to the request of the noble Lord for a committee of inquiry, the Minister will easily find his number in the telephone directory. If the noble Lord demurs from the chairmanship of the committee, I should be happy to put my name forward. However, given the rather straight-faced look of the Minister, I believe that I am unlikely to receive that invitation.
4.30 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, has provided us with a good opportunity to discuss the matter. So far we have heard many authoritative speeches. However, I fear that mine will probably not be among them. I have certainly noted the emphasis on the need for stable prices and security of a diverse supply of electrical energy. I have the privilege of owning some commercial woodland in Scotland which could be used as biomass.
I recently tabled a Question for Written Answer on the replacement of the generating capacity at Chapelcross nuclear power station in Dumfries which has been closed. I was most surprised when I received the answer that the Government had no policy for such a replacement and that it was being left to the market for new generating capacity to evolve. Noble Lords
1040
will be mindful that energy is a largely reserved matter in Scotland and is, therefore, a matter that we can debate in this Chamber.
I was almost astounded to read that a Labour government had no expectation of a power generating policy. That seems to be remarkably laissez-faire. In Scotland we have been generating power by various means for a considerable time. More power is generated in Scotland than is consumed in Scotland. So, electricity is an export along with whisky. computers and tourism.
Much to the chagrin of some political parties in Scotland, 42 per cent of electricity is generated by nuclear at Hunterston and Torness. Coal and gas stations supply just over 20 per cent each. Some 12 per cent comes from renewables and most of that is from various forms of hydro, which I am certain have not yet been mentioned today. Hydro accounts for 10 per cent of Scottish generation. New style renewables provide up to 2 per cent. There is good potential in and around Scotland for developing the various forms of modern technology. Wind is obviously in abundance and a new factory has been established at Machrihanish to produce aerogenerator equipment. Wave and tidal resources are naturally very available around Scotland. Solar potential, both wet and photovoltaic, is good though patchy. Biomass is distinctly possible but issues of transport and siting are involved. Combined heat and power is very possible.
The potential for micro generation at home is as good as anywhere else, but my fellow Scots are a fairly conservative bunch and are not yet in sufficiently pioneering mode for micro generation to be widespread. I fear that it is still viewed as being only for eccentrics. Evidence from pilot projects would help with that. So here there is a definite role for government to become involved.
The issues of transport and voltage drop are relevant in a country with plenty of land and a sparsity of population. I am undoubtedly in favour of more hydro schemes but I recognise that most of the existing ones are situated a long way from our cities. However, this is a proven technology. It is clean and it is easily absorbed into the landscape as an asset. Some other renewables are not so acceptable in the landscape.
In an ideal world the generating station would be situated on the edge of the town or city, which does away with the voltage drop problem. That is difficult to arrange but it may not be as difficult as we think. It probably depends on getting the right economies of scale.
If one considers a biomass generator on the edge of a town, one has to accept that it needs to be surrounded by an industrial scale forest to provide the fuel without exorbitant transport costs. I am in favour of such an approach for only 45 per cent of commercially produced timber goes to the sawmill. The lop and top is anything up to 55 per cent. However, I also recognise that Scotland is a land of small woods, and that we object to wall-to-wall plantations. A multitude of small woods is a valuable

1041
landscape asset and is a very marketable tourism asset as well. We need to make a judgment between biomass generation and tourism and recreation.
Energy generation in Scotland is an issue with which government could be more involved. I know that the siting of generation plants is more the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament and local planning authorities but it would be helpful if a more positive steer came from the United Kingdom Government. It is, of course, deducible that the United Kingdom Government favour generators that do not produce greenhouse gases to meet Kyoto targets. I wish that the Government would agree that they favour nuclear, hydro and modern renewables and that they are less in favour of coal, gas and oil.
Assistance could be given towards small-scale generators and towards micro generation to encourage its take-up by citizens who see themselves as normal. More schemes akin to the biomass district heating plant in Lochgilphead would help to normalise those new approaches, as would that which is proposed on the Isle of Arran.
Government could promote various types of generation and pilot new ones. Why will they not do so? I look forward to the White Paper.
4.37 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, on being successful in the ballot and thank him for introducing this important debate. I congratulate him also on the way in which he promoted the debate, drawing enormously on his expertise and experience. Like the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, and the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, I wish to mention the excellence and experience of those noble Lords who have already spoken. I very much hope that not only the Minister but also Members of another place will treasure that expertise and experience.
The New Electricity Trading Arrangements (NETA) were introduced in March 2001 by Ofgem and the DTI. They seem to have been successful in increasing competition and reducing wholesale prices by 40 per cent compared with 1998. One of the main reasons for the fall in prices is that there was a significant degree of generating overcapacity. Of course, some overcapacity is certainly needed not only to meet peak demand but also to allow for the fact that inevitably some plant will be out of action from time to time because of breakdowns and the need for servicing. It is estimated that there is 22 per cent more capacity than is needed to meet peak demand.
Currently the wholesale prices of electricity have actually fallen below production costs by as much as £5 to £7 per megawatt hour, which has caused grave financial problems to various generators, as the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, mentioned. I had intended to discuss the problems of British Energy but my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding has already done so and, as time is running on, I shall not mention that.
The problems of electricity generators have resulted in the renegotiation of contracts with BNFL, which will cost the Government between £150 million and
1042
£250 million a year for the next 10 years. I say that quickly, but that amounts to some £1.5 billion to £2 billion, and that is only for the next 10 years—and even that may not be the end of the road. There will be a further knock-on effect on the struggling British coal industry. Powergen has so far mothballed two of its plants, and is seeking a credit line of no less than £9.3 billion. TXU Europe has been cut adrift by its American parent and is in danger of insolvency. The German company Innogy is under pressure to mothball capacity.
We in the Conservative Party strongly believe in the market governing prices and supply, but we are also concerned about the continuity of supply of this essential utility. On 18th November 2002, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, asked whether the problems being encountered by generators would lead to difficulties in supply. In a supplementary question, raised the matter of the Californian experience, in which uneconomic pricing and the insolvency of Enron resulted in widespread electricity blackouts. I received reassuring replies from the Minister, who told me that,
"it is likely that generating capacity will be taken over by another supplier".—[Official Report, 18/11/02; col. 134.]
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, was told about the many plants that had mothballed. He commented today, as did the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that it takes some time to take plants out of mothballing.
We are having the debate today on the premise that there is an absence of a strategic decision mechanism for the electricity supply industry. We on these Benches believe that in a sense there is one with which we should not interfere. On the one hand, it is right and proper that the market should govern prices, the number of identity of suppliers and the sources of fuel. On the other, it appears that Ofgem is doing a good job in regulating prices in the network monopolies of distribution and transmission and in ensuring continuity of supply, which are its essential functions. It is also right that we have abolished the old mechanism whereby there was only one monopoly supplier and uncompetitive prices were a hidden stealth tax imposed by—and I freely admit this— successive governments.
From the investor's point of view, it is equally right that the regulation of the industry should be in totally independent hands, and not subject to the political vacillation of successive governments or of Treasury policy.
The Conservative Party's energy policy was succinctly set out by my honourable friend the Member for Maldon and Chelmsford East, in a debate in another place on 20th June 2002. He indicated that our four key objectives were economic efficiency, security of supply, environmental benefit and relief of fuel poverty. With the exception, to some extent, of economic efficiency, the other essential and worthy objectives cannot be the sole responsibility of the commercial concerns, supplying an essential utility to industry and private consumers at prices that are in effect controlled by the regulator, however lightly.

1043
The delivery of our electricity supplies, whether in the form of the power stations, the Grid or the power lines in the street leading to our homes, offices and factories, are as much part of our national infrastructure as are the roads, the railways, the water and sewage systems. It is the responsibility of the Government, as well as that of the generating and supply industry, to ensure that the essential framework is there, because of the national policy decisions that are required. My noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding made that point.
Diversity of supplies is essential. With finite natural resources of our own, we cannot allow ourselves to be dependent on only one type of fuel or one supplier. Our energy is currently produced in approximately equal thirds of gas, nuclear power and coal, with a mere couple of per cent of renewable sources. So what of the future? What percentage of our electricity should come from coal, for example—and, indeed, which coal? There are billions of tonnes lying under the British isles that are mostly uneconomical to extract because it is cheaper to import it from abroad, sometimes even from the other side of the world.
The next four paragraphs of my notes relate to Drax, but my noble friend Lord Jenkin and the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, discussed that so thoroughly that I shall not bore your Lordships by repeating what they said.
What percentage of our electricity should come from gas? Our current North Sea reserves are estimated to last for about 11 years at the year 2000 rate of consumption. It is believed, although "hoped" might be a better word, that there are further as yet undiscovered reserves. However, by 2005 we shall certainly have to start importing some gas. At some time in the future, our own gas will run out, and we will then he entirely dependent on overseas sources of supply. To that extent, we could be in the hands of far from stable suppliers. We shall also have to compete with the many other gas users for the available supplies. As was pointed out during "Utility Week", on 2nd November 2001, the United Kingdom will no longer be self-sufficient in oil and gas later this decade.
The use of coal and gas as fuel for generating electricity results in the production of acid rain, sulphur and nitrogen, contributes to global warming and is directly contrary to the Government's environmental targets.
Then there is nuclear power. I have heard many noble Lords say that this is a cleaner source, without quite as many unhealthy emissions. However, the nuclear industry has its own costing problems, not merely because of the necessity of operational safety factors but because of the decommissioning costs. The nuclear industry has to factor those in, whereas the gas, coal and oil industries do not have to internalise the cost of dealing with the pollution that they cause.
Since 1995, both Conservative and Labour governments have said that building nuclear power stations must be a commercial decision, but it can be done only if there is a governmental willingness that it
1044
should happen, including ensuring that planning consent is given after due public inquiry. The commercial decision then would be for the industry to decide whether to take up the opportunity offered by the Government's policy. Even when the commercial decision is made, it must be borne in mind, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, that, what with one thing and another, it takes a long time from deciding to build a nuclear power station and bringing it into commission. One way or t'other, some decisions need to be taken now, or certainly very soon.
The Conservative Party's policy on nuclear power was stated by my honourable friend the Member for South Suffolk, in another place on 22nd October 2002. He said that a future Conservative Government,
"would not take a decision to replace nuclear with nuclear; nor would they rule out new nuclear-generated electricity if, with the legacy costs provided for and the associated risk accounted for, it proved to be the most economic way of continuing to meet the global requirement of addressing climate change".—[Official Report, Commons, 22/10/02; col. 223.]
I think that that means that the Conservative Party would take the decision—I do not think that the word "not" was originally there. It must have been typed in by my secretary. Many noble Lords asked about that. Will the Minister answer the question of my noble friend Lord Jenkin as to why the nuclear industry still has to pay the climate change levy? Everyone is interested in that. I remember asking that question myself, and the Minister said that it was cost neutral, but it is worth asking again.
Finally, I come to the policy on renewable energy sources. As the Trade and Industry Select Committee pointed out almost a year ago, successive governments have claimed to support the development of renewable energy sources for more than 25 years. However, those sources have their own difficulties. Wind farms on land are deemed by their neighbours to be too noisy and by neighbours and environmentalists to be unsightly, while seafarers regard offshore sites as a hazard to shipping and an impediment to what remains of the fishing industry. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, pointed that out, and my noble friend Lady Wilcox is saying it from a sedentary position. Either way, the amount of electricity produced would be too small, too intermittent and too costly.
As to tidal power, despite the large sums poured into research—that was not intended as a pun—the engineering problems have proved so far to be insurmountable. Unless global warming results in some future climate change in the United Kingdom, solar power is also totally out of the question in this country. My noble friend Lord Jenkin and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, have discussed combined heat and power, and I shall not go into it again. Nuclear fusion—the creation of energy by fusion of hydrogen atoms—is well into the distance.
We believe that the electricity industry will work best if governed by the market. As to the sources of supply of the raw materials for generating electricity and distributing power to consumers, and inevitably the amount that is charged for it, we support the regulator and his work. But the industry cannot

1045
operate on its own, utterly divorced from input from the Government. It most certainly cannot operate in a strategic environment that changes as often as the weather. At one time there was a so-called "dash for gas", and then, in an attempt to prop up the indigenous coal industry, new gas-fired power stations were barred. At one time, nuclear power stations were seen as the future of total power self-sufficiency. However, perhaps because some Labour politicians opposed them root and branch until the realities of office sunk in, they gave them only a grudging nod of approval. As I have said already, renewable energy sources have been sought by successive governments, but none of them has been prepared to put in the funding and to say that, if and when it proves practical, those development costs will be written off so that the power can be generated economically.
I remind the House very briefly of the report of the European Union Committee of this House dated 14th February 2002. It said:
"We see no fundamental conflict between liberalisation and energy security. Indeed in our view, liberalisation can help promote security by promoting more flexible and diverse markets'".
Ofgem's statement of its corporate strategy for 2003 to 2006 includes,
"monitoring the wholesale electricity market as it develops so that electricity supplies remain secure and the market continues to be competitive".
We endorse that and its other objectives.
What is required is for the Government to lay down the framework, and then minimise their day-to-day involvement by leaving it to Ofgem—the regulator— to ensure the continuance of those flexible and diverse markets not for the short term, which can take care of itself, but for the medium and long term. That must be a realistic market that allows the industry to develop and operate for the benefit of its customers, determines what fuel sources are to be used, in what proportions and from what sources, and determines to what extent the Government accept the responsibility of ensuring that the infrastructure—especially that part affecting the environment—is in place.
In common with other Members of your Lordships' House and, I have no doubt, the entire power industry, I hope that the Government will take the opportunity afforded by the debate to tell us exactly what their commitment to the objectives is and how and when they intend to bring them about.
4.53 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, for his speech and others for their contributions and insights. I am very conscious of the fact that they are based on knowledge of the energy and electricity industry at the highest levels.
I begin by recognising the considerable achievements of the electricity industry both while it was in the public sector and in the private sector. The nationalised industry, particularly in the post-war
1046
years, had huge achievements, not least in bringing electricity to virtually everyone in our country. Before privatisation, the main investment decisions were taken at the centre by the government and the Electricity Council and its associated boards. While that approach had strengths, it also lent itself to investment decisions which were supply rather than demand-driven, and to decisions being made on a political rather than on a market basis.
I was surprised that the noble Lord saw nothing wrong in the performance of the nationalised industry. In a sense, I was disappointed by his speech, because he did not really deal with the question that I thought he would raise; that is, that of strategic decision-making or what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, called a co-ordinated policy framework, which we should have. He seemed to hark back to an overall large corporate approach that market forces played no part in. That was also the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, who said that we should somehow go back to planning our energy policy on a national basis rather than seeing a role for both market forces and a co-ordinated policy framework.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I was really, I thought, supporting what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said. All of us were saying that we want a clearly defined framework and look forward to seeing it in the White Paper.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, if that is the case I take back my comments. I thought that the noble Lord was harking back. He seemed to say constantly that he wanted governments to take decisions about which energy sources should have priority, where decisions should be made about investment, and so on. That is not the role of government. As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, rightly pointed out, the role of government is to provide a coordinated and coherent policy framework in which the decisions are made by private industry.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, that it is not an answer to have an expert commission to decide what the body should be. We have debated the matter a great deal over the past 50 years. We have a system now: the question is whether it provides the right strategic mechanisms or whether we should seek to change it. If the noble Lords, Lord Patten and Lord Tombs, are looking to the chairmanship of an expert body to resolve that question, it will probably be in vain. However, what I say will not come as any surprise to them.
Privatisation released electricity companies to invest and to innovate in ways that were previously impossible. Companies, not government, now made key investment decisions. That allowed managements to make many good decisions and savings. which regulation passed on to consumers. They also made some mistakes. The key difference is that in this situation the private sector takes the risk, makes the returns when things go well, and makes losses when things go wrong.

1047
The electricity industry now operates in a market environment, but also, it must be stressed, within a framework designed by the Government to ensure that our policy objectives are delivered. We see four such objectives, which, until this debate, I thought were uncontroversial. The objectives are those that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, stated clearly. They are competitive prices, security of supply, a low-carbon future, and addressing the problems of the fuel poor.
I was surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, did not mention competitive prices in his three objectives. He seemed to start by giving approval to market forces, and then complained about prices coming down, which I would have thought it was hoped competitive market forces would produce. He was concerned about the closure of redundant capacity. If one wants a quiet life and no change, the thing to do is to have a planned economy and accept all the inefficiencies that go with it. However, if one brings market forces into areas such as energy policy, one will get changes. One will get situations such as that involving British Energy. One will get changes such as those that have happened on combined heat and power because electricity prices have come down. One will get situations—I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart—where the value of a company changes. That is the nature of market forces.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Inevitably we are constrained by time, but on a previous occasion I warned the Government of the dangers of running the electricity market on the basis of short-run marginal cost. As the noble Lord will know from his own experience, to run a business by pricing based on short-run marginal costs is the surest way to bankruptcy. That is what I am concerned about. I hope that either the Minister today or the White Paper will address that. Prices have fallen by 40 per cent. Look at the damage that has been caused.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I accept that there will be moments—anyone who has worked in industry will know this—when prices in the marketplace do not give good returns. One has to ask the question whether the prices we had before were the right prices. Of course they were if one wanted to keep large amounts of redundant capacity in place. But if one accepts the principle of a market economy, one has to accept that prices will reflect supply and demand and there will be periods when prices fall and one does not make highly desirable levels of profitability. That is the nature of the market. Frankly, the market will respond with people taking action on capacity to bring it into line with the supply. If one does not want that, one must go back to some kind of planned economy.
The point I want to make was that as well as the electricity market now being part of the market, it is also co-ordinated, both on a day-to-day basis and more strategically by a number of bodies. First, the DTI is the ministry responsible for policy towards the electricity industry and is the sponsor department of Ofgem.
1048
Ofgem of course is the major body responsible for economic regulation of the gas and electricity industry in Great Britain. It operates under the direction and governance of the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority, which sets all major decisions and policy priorities. There is also the National Grid Company, Transco plc, which, as the owner of the licensed electricity transmission company in England and Wales and the main licensed gas transporter in Britain, co-ordinates the electricity—and now also the gas— market under the rules set up by Ofgem and the DTI.
So strategic decisions are not left only to the market. The Government maintain responsibility for the overall framework. We have put in place measures to shape the strategic framework and to keep that framework under review.
On coming to power we rebalanced the regulatory system in favour of the consumer and established Ofgem to better co-ordinate gas and electricity regulation. We created the network operating companies, which have been much under the spotlight in recent months, to underpin competition and to focus management on their core responsibility. We have also underpinned the fledgling retail market with new wholesale electricity trading arrangements (NETA) and made other changes to reduce market power.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, believe that NETA has been causing what I think the noble Lord referred to as a situation of "chaos", although I felt that the only evidence he produced was that prices had fallen sharply. I do not regard that as necessarily a sign of chaos. The fact that companies had to adjust their strategies does not seem to be a chaotic situation but one that is highly desirable in the circumstances.
The noble Lords, Lord Tombs and Lord Stoddart, were concerned about foreign ownership. Foreign owned utilities are subject to exactly the same level and scope of regulation as those owned by their UK parents. They pay tax to the UK Treasury and must compete in our market. This situation of acquisitions is not one way. British utility companies own assets abroad; the most obvious being National Grid Transco itself, which is now one of the largest operators in New England. Our utilities, like our economy at large, are rapidly beginning to operate as part of a European and indeed global economy in which we are all interdependent.
I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Patten, that we need to keep open options on energy sources. I further agree that we simply do not know which energy sources or which combination of energy sources will best meet our four objectives in the future. Therefore, I believe that the key thing is to keep those options open, to put in the right framework and, in particular, to give the incentives for areas such as renewables and then to leave the matter to the market to choose which option within that framework, with its social obligations, provides the right targets.
I am not in favour of the idea of banding types of renewable energy. That sounds remarkably like trying to pick winners. I am—and I am sure the noble Lord

1049
is—against that as regards commercial matters. Although, obviously when one is looking at where one allocates R&D resources, one takes account of what are the most likely winners in terms of the technology.
I say to the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, that it must be clear from our policies that we are wholly supportive of renewables. Again, they have to compete in the marketplace. But we have given them huge incentives in terms of the climate change levy and the renewables obligation, which is a very strict and important obligation on electricity companies. As to hydro schemes, the problem is that we are simply using all the hydro power that there is in Scotland. There is very little scope to have more.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, raised the question of nuclear waste. I agree with them: this is an issue that we must get on with. On the other hand, we must face up to the fact that the previous policy failed in 1997 because it did not have a broad level of support. Therefore, having a consultation period to try and get support is a critical part of the whole process.
The security of electricity supply was raised by a number of noble Lords. As I have said previously in the House, the situation for this coming winter is that we have a reasonable level of capacity. We have about 17.5 per cent spare capacity. There is also mothballed capacity, but I accept that that takes some time to be recovered. The longer-term issues have been assessed in the White Paper. Also last year we set up the joint energy security of supply working group so that officials from the DTI, Ofgem and National Grid Transco could carefully monitor developments affecting security of gas and electricity supplies.
I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, reminded the House that liberalisation of markets—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am obliged to the Minister for giving way. On the question of security of supply, a matter which I have questioned before, is it not true—according to the newspapers—that over the weekend during this cold snap the supply reached within a hair's breadth of about one megawatt the figure of 54,000 megawatts? That really is not security of supply. I think that the noble Lord should look at it.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as I understand the position, we have this quite considerable margin of supply of 17.5 per cent. That is on the assumption that a certain capacity is mothballed, which of course it may not be. So in fact the figure is very close to 20 per cent. which is usually given as being the correct or ball park figure within which it should be. I shall however check those figures and write to the noble Lord if they are wrong.
I was going to say that I was glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, reminded the House that liberalisation of markets is not in conflict with diversity and security. On the contrary, markets give the security that we seek.
1050
I hope that, overall, noble Lords will take comfort from the fact that we continue to address the strategic issues that face the electricity industry. Strategic analysis continues to be carried out, and the Government, the regulators and the industry are all fully engaged. We also need to prepare policies for the coming century. The Government's energy White Paper will outline the key energy policy issues for the future. It will be published in the spring.
We must address the long-term future security of energy supplies. Fuel diversity requires that we enhance international relations, especially with producer countries. We must deal with nuclear waste and the future of nuclear energy. We must move to a low-carbon economy. Deeper emission cuts will be necessary in the longer term. If we grasp the opportunities in time, innovation and technology will help us to address that and provide export and inward investment opportunities. We must remain competitive and—last but by no means least—we must protect the most vulnerable by working in partnership with industry to address fuel poverty through low prices and energy efficiency measures.
The Government have the strategic capability to deliver on our objectives. However, the measures that we need to take can and should be implemented against a background of liberalised markets operating over regulated networks that are required to apply non-discrimination towards their customers. In that way, we can use the benefits of the innovative and investment skills of good industry management to deliver service to our customers and the policies that we need to see brought in over coming years.
5.11 p.m.
Lord Tombs: My Lords, I have enjoyed the discussion that has taken place. It was almost always well informed, and I am grateful for that.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, raised the question of the meaning of "decision" in my Motion. I can see how it could easily be misconstrued, so I shall explain it further. Decisions must be taken at various levels. The executive decision to build a power station rests with the company building it; the decision to create a climate in which that is legal, possible or desirable rests with the Government; and the decision to provide the finance rests with the market. There are a lot of decisions.
In proposing the expert committee to which the Minister takes such exception, my intention is that its decision would create a climate in which the other decisions could be made. That does not exist at present. The fragmentation of an industry is the antithesis of long-term planning. It results in the adoption of narrow-minded, short-term views that relate to the welfare of an individual company, and that is exacerbated by the short-term view of the markets, which require performance this year in an industry that requires long-term commitment.
An example that struck me at the time as coming high up the stupidity scale was the combination of electricity and gas in Ofgem: they are different industries. The gas industry, like the water industry, is

1051
concerned with the exploitation and distribution of a natural resource. The electricity industry is a conversion industry that takes a series of feedstocks and converts them using complex and capital intensive mechanisms. The investment and planning requirements of each industry are different. It is tempting, as Ofgem has done, to bring to the job the retailing of the product. I understand that the Minister is in sympathy with his own background, but that does not address the problems of the industry. The problems of the industry are safeguarding investment and supply in 15 to 20 or 30 years' time.
The White Paper is no substitute. It should do the Government's job and should set out a sensible strategy for the country. However, for the reasons that I gave, it cannot decide or, at least, achieve the building of individual plants. It should recognise its responsibilities.
I have some sympathy with the views of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, although I recall that our relations were not always cordial. Occasionally, we disagreed on the price and quantity of coal. I was particularly taken with his description of micro-generation and his alarming suggestion that the whole electricity system might be re-wired. It is an incontrovertible fact that an electron does not mind whether it travels from right to left or left to right along a conductor. I do not see why such mythical micro-electricity exportation should create any more problems for the conductor than its importation. I would be glad of an explanation of that at some stage.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I shall explain. It requires regulatory changes.
Lord Tombs: My Lords, that is not the same thing as re-wiring the country. It may be re-wiring the brain of the regulator, which may be more difficult.
We had some discussion on nuclear power, and I went out of my way not to get drawn into that subject. It is a subset of what I am trying to discuss today. Nuclear power, wind power, wave power, solar power or coal require important decisions within the electricity industry, but the framework for the electricity industry to work and make such conclusions does not exist. That is the burden of what I said today. If I have not made that clear, I do not know how to make it clearer.
I was greatly impressed by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. He over-responded to my request for nonpartisanship. Perhaps, it was the noble Lord, Lord Patten, and not the noble Earl. I apologise.
Lord Patten: My Lords, I am the one without the beard.
Lord Tombs: My Lords, I was greatly impressed by the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Patten, although I thought that he overdid his response to my request for non-partisanship. I am delighted to see that there can be compliments from one side of the House
1052
to the other, but I did not want it overdone to the point at which they agreed all the time. That would be depressing for the rest of us.
The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, displayed a sensible approach to the balanced use of renewables and other forms of power, including nuclear power. However, he fell into a trap: I had not made clear what I meant by "decision". The noble Earl was in favour of government decision making, I am in favour of governments making decisions in the areas in which they can make decisions but not pretending that they can make what I would call macro decisions—those that are strategic in the sense that they are long-term but individual in the sense that they are short-term.
I was disappointed by the Minister's reply. It struck a new low in my experience of government responses to new ideas. It is not possible to say, for example, that I saw nothing wrong in nationalised industries. I agree that the nationalised industry was supply-driven and that it incurred costs. However, I mentioned that I had resigned because the Government would not allow the industry to be organised efficiently, and I would have thought that that was sufficient indication that I did not think that nationalised industry was perfect. That was a substantial error.
The Minister made reference—flippantly, I hope—to some competition for the chairmanship of the expert committee. I rule myself out of serving on any such mythical body, desirable though it may be. I rule myself out partly on age and partly because I have spent far too much of my life trying to advise governments who do not listen. I have no ambition to extend that career. It needs to be done, but I would rather that somebody else did it.
There is a pressing need that was not evident in the Minister's reply. I do not know how I can get the Minister to recognise it. I hope that he will think more deeply about the arguments. There is a need for a consistent framework in a fragmented industry that is subjected to short-term impulses. By its nature, such a structure cannot produce coherent decisions, and it is not fair to expect the Government to make such decisions. The Government have an important strategic role, but they must see, receive and evaluate a view from an industry that, in its present framework, is not capable of producing it.
I shall not withdraw the term "chaos". It is there, and it will increase. I note the Minister's confidence that we will not have power interruptions in the next few years. I do not share that confidence. I am not surprised that he has withdrawn the existing 17.5 per cent margin of supply. He was right to do that.
I did not intend to be unduly critical of the Minister. I know how difficult it is for a Minister to come to a debate in this House with no real notion of what it will be about and deal with a subject that is not primarily his. The Minister did that well and did it bravely, and my critical comments were not critical in an overall sense.

1053
I thank your Lordships for allowing me to ventilate the topic. The House, in general, has appreciated the debate. and I hope that the Government will think more deeply about the matter. With some pleasure, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Balkans
5.20 p.m.
Lord Russell-Johnstonrose to call attention to the stability pact for the Balkans; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think I should begin by declaring an interest or, perhaps more accurately, an involvement in the stability pact. I am chairman of the governing board of the International Institute for Democracy—a small but, I believe, extremely efficient and effective French-registered NGO located in Strasbourg. It was established 12 years ago jointly by the European Parliament and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which is in itself unique, and has the support of some 25 parliaments in Europe, although, unfortunately, national constitutional arrangements preclude parliaments of certain large countries—such as our own, Germany and France—from making financial contributions to such an organisation.
The institute has an agreement with the stability pact to take the lead, under Table 1 which deals with democracy, in promoting what I would generally describe as "Parliamentary Standards". To that end, we have promoted a series of seminars throughout the region and continue so to do.
Secondly, it might be helpful to your Lordships, and an aid to recollection, if I briefly sketch the background to the stability pact and how it works. This might also save some of the Minister's breath later on. Credit for initiation goes to the French. In 1993, Edouard Baladur, then French Prime Minister, suggested a,
"Pact for stability and security in Europe".
At that time he was thinking more about Hungarian minorities in Romania and Slovakia than Yugoslavia. Remember, this was when the Bosnian war was at its height. Srebrenica did not fall until July 1995.
However, after the Dayton Peace Agreement in November 1995, the French pushed their ideas further by proposing a,
"process for stability and good neighbourliness in south-east Europe"
—the so-called "Royaumont Process"—which, in due course, fused into the stability pact for south-east Europe, which was signed in Cologne on 10th June 1999; the Germans at that time being in the chair of the European Union and solemnly adopted by the heads of state at the Sarajevo summit on 30th July 1999.
The intention was to seek to stabilise the Balkans, not only by encouraging reconciliation and the development of democracy and human rights but also, most importantly, by economic support. The stability
1054
pact was and is organised and directed by the European Union. Essentially, it is a co-ordinating mechanism seeking to match the offers of donor countries which, apart from the European Union itself, are notably the United States, Canada and Japan from the G8, with smaller but still significant contributions from countries such as Switzerland and Norway, and match that to the needs of the recipient countries.
There is a co-ordinator—the first being Bodo Hombach who has since been succeeded by Erhard Busek. The co-ordinator chairs the regional table or standing conference which oversees the work of the three working tables: Table 1 on democracy, Table 2 on economic questions, and Table 3 on security and justice. It may sound a little complicated to your Lordships, but perhaps that is because it is.
The first two years of the stability pact coincided with the two concluding years of my period as President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, during which time I moved around the Balkans a lot and attended a number of conferences whose main focus was the stability pact. It is on the basis of that experience that I want to make a few comments and ask some questions.
There is no doubt that the stability pact was launched with many fanfares of trumpets and great clashing of cymbals which were repeated at the First funding conference in Brussels at the end of March 2000 when the so-called "Quick-Start package" was unveiled. That created a high level of expectation among the recipient countries which, in turn, during the two years which followed, slid into disillusionment. I remember one leading Romanian politician saying to me that there were,
"too many tables and too little on them to eat".
Whether that could have been avoided is a question which will be long debated, but which needs to be debated.
The recipient countries "in transition", as the euphemism has it, were already struggling with the realisation that transition from communist dictatorship to pluralist democracy did not automatically and swiftly produce prosperity; indeed, for many, it created impoverishment. The stability pact was therefore seen as a kind of saviour; a kind of Balkan Marshall Plan. And it was not or is yet so to become.
No major environmental project has, so far as I know, been completed. I sometimes think that, from the point of view of political presentation and also the acceptance of the necessary degree of transparency in tendering and implementing projects, there should have been an early concentration on one major project—the most obvious being the clearance of the Danube and the reconstruction of the bridges at Novi Sad, destroyed by the NATO bombings. That would have yielded widely-spread benefit throughout the whole region, not least in Romania and Bulgaria at the bottom, which gave us necessary but, for them, extremely politically difficult support during the intervention in Kosova.

1055
The extent of the mismatch between the standards required by the Brussels bureaucracy and the capacities of the recipient bureaucracies was, I do not think, fully anticipated and caused many delays. There was always. of course, the shadow of corruption which was and still is widespread in many of the recipient countries. I remember sitting for nearly three hours with President Voronin of Moldova while he graphically described to me the extent of corruption in his country at every level which he had inherited and which I think explained the seeming paradox of the communists being re-elected there.
Can the Minister give us any idea of the extent to which progress is being achieved in this very difficult area? There is no doubt that Bodo Hombach is a brilliant man, but the personality of Erhard Busek may prove better suited to the task of co-ordinator.
I noted in particular one phrase in his report on setting priorities for 2003 and beyond. He said:
"While the Pact remains committed to promote long-term trends, the Special Co-ordinator recognises the need to deliver tangible results on an annual basis".
People want to see evidence of progress.
My second question for the Minister concerns resources. Obviously there must be clear accountability of expenditure—for example, wastage of money on Bosnian houses which were never built. The issue in Albania which I do not believe we need to go into again, and others, were matters that gave great concern. However, if we accept that there is improved confidence in the way things are done, is there any serious resource default? In other words, do they need more money to achieve what could otherwise be achieved? Perhaps the Minister could also give us an idea of the level of contribution made by the main donors; that is, the European Union, the United States, Canada and Japan. I realise that it is a complicated matter because some gave not money but paid in kind.
In the time at my disposal, it is not possible to cover all aspects of the work done through the stability pact, but I think especial credit ought to be given to the development of free trade arrangements in the region; to the work done in the transport and energy fields; to the training of administrators; and to the tackling of organised crime.
One most important piece of feedback that I get is the emergence of a much more strongly articulated determination throughout the region to put its own house in order and not to blame the inadequacy of external help for its own shortcomings. When I was in Skopje at the end of November, I heard that very strongly expressed. Of course, it will continue to need nurturing on quite a large scale for a long time, but where this proceeds against a growing mood of selfreliance—or the wish for self-reliance—the chances of success improve.
I want to make three further points in conclusion. In November 2001, I spoke at a conference organised by the Congress of Regional and Local Authorities of the Council of Europe in Istanbul, which was concerned to encourage "economic twinning", if I can call it that,
1056
between western cities and regions and cities and regions in the Balkans. The idea was mainly to provide expertise but in some cases also direct assistance. Has the Minister any information on how that is proceeding? Are any British cities involved?
"Balkanisation" is a kind of swear word in the British political vocabulary. While it dates back perhaps more than a century, it still persists as a negative idea. Some politicians, especially those in large countries, are deeply attached to the development of the grand design and the emergence of new small countries is anathema to them, despite the evident success of the Baltic States and Slovenia.
That brings me to Kosovo. Kosovo is in drift and in my opinion that drift will not be arrested until the United Nations bites the bullet, accepts that after what took place re-absorption into Serbia—or Serbia-Montenegro, as it may become—is completely unacceptable to the Albanian Kosovans and that it should become what we still call "a sovereign state".
Unfortunately, I was not well yesterday and so was unable to participate in the debate on the Convention on the Future of Europe which I had intended and wanted to do. That is the background. The enlargement of the European Union and foreseen further enlargement, the work of the Council of Europe in reducing the importance of borders without necessarily removing them, and the emergence within our established, though not so very old, so-called "nation" states of pressures for greater self-determination in Catalonia, in the Basque country, in Bavaria and—dare I say it?—in Scotland and Wales, have created a new scenario. What used to be called "independence" is not seen as being contradictory to the fullest cross-border co-operation or to the achievement of regional or European-wide common standards, policies and institutions.
It seems a contradiction, but I believe that Kosovo and Serbia will co-operate much better if they are apart than if they are forced together. Post-war Europe found it convenient, if perhaps necessary, to found its diplomacy on territorial integrity and non-interference in the states' internal affairs. With the blessed growth of the recognition of the universality of human rights, these notions are changing and becoming out-dated.
Finally, can the Minister say whether the European Union has set any time-scale on the operation of the stability pact? When I ask that question I receive different answers: some say six months; some say a year; some say that it is open-ended. I think, at this stage, with so many continuing uncertainties, it must be open-ended.
The stability pact began hesitantly but it has done much constructive work. It has much still to do, but without it we would not have made the progress we have. I beg to move for Papers.
5.35 p.m.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I am pleased that this debate is taking place. We are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Russell-Johnston, for tabling it. My take on the whole of the West Balkans stability pact issue is different from his. That will become clear as we

1057
go along. My main knowledge arises from the report which we prepared in Sub-committee A of the European Union Committee under the distinguished chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell. He was such a distinguished chairman that he has now been promoted.
We visited Sarajevo, Belgrade, Zagreb and so forth about a year ago and concluded our report, HL107, published on 16th April. It goes under the jazzy title, Responding to the Balkan Challenge; The Role of EU Aid. As the noble Lord, Lord Russell-Johnston, said, there are a considerable number of countries in the stability pact; far more than the 15 in the EU. There are the G8 comprising America, Canada, Japan and so forth and there are many others in eastern Europe which are not in the EU or even located in the Balkans. The noble Lord hinted at the criticism, which I would put more strongly, that the stability pact was grossly overhyped in France and Germany at the start. It led people in all the places we visited, as well as in Romania and so forth, to believe that there would be new money on the table.
An official DfID citation states:
"The Stability Pact has no funds of its own and what the Pact Secretariat describes as Stability Pact assistance to SE Europe is in fact made up of assistance from individual donor states and the Commission, plus infrastructure lending and grants from IFIs".
That is the position, and it highlights the fact that probably 90 per cent of all the money we are talking about is EU money. I would say that it is nearly all multilateral. Ten or 15 per cent add-on is bilateral from Britain, Switzerland and so forth, but it is essentially EU money. In broad, ball park terms, it amounts to 5 billion euros over five years.
I want to contrast that figure with 5 billion euros over one year for the military. The name of the game should be to ask, first, how can we get more of the military into the civil side so that the military can go home. It is an expensive operation. However, people such as General Kiszely, whom we met, confirmed the evidence of our own eyes. The military cannot be allowed to go home if that means the whole place sinking hack into chaos. That is a generalisation. But there are parts of the Balkans—I do not need to specify which—where that would still be the case, although progress is being made. I would give a good seven or eight out of 10 to the EU aid programme and the improvements that have been made over the past three years in particular.
Chris Patten is doing a very good job in Brussels in reconstructing the aid programme, and the European Agency for Reconstruction, particularly in the Serbia/ Kosovo area, is giving much more ownership and involvement to people on the ground. I believe there is now a 10 to one ratio in terms of locals working on a job and people working for Brussels. That is a very important statistic because no one in their right mind believes you can get the involvement of local authorities, magistrates' courts, trade unions, the police and so on. Private investment is obviously the biggest need, but you cannot get any of that by just having officials turning up. There needs to be a lot of ownership on the ground.
1058
The stability pact has acted as a catalyst for some of this broader thinking to get through to people. It also has the advantage, unlike individual aid programmes, of the so-called country strategy paper—the EU road map—being negotiated with each country, which is very important. The stability pact has given a regional dimension to the whole area.
Let me say a word about what I mean by the "whole area" because it is a rather interesting question. We use the "Balkans" word. Some people do not like the "Balkans" word. We use "West Balkans" as a term. Some people do not like it. However, there is another concept floating around in the area which is even more interesting. It is what I would call the "south-east Europe hinge".
Let me explain what I mean by that because at the next EU summit in Thessoloniki in June we shall hear much more about it. It involves the roles of Greece and Turkey and Greek-Turkish relations bilaterally with Skopje, Sofia, Bucharest and so on. I made a brief visit to Macedonia just over a year ago to carry out work for the Foreign Office on the industrial/trade union position on employment, which has been very negative as a result of the catastrophic way in which the privatisations have been carried out, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Russell-Johnston.
My programme involved a meeting with all the trade unions in the stability pact in Thessoloniki. There is a European college there which is a convenient place for everyone to meet. Our ambassador in Skopje came down to meet me—I suspect that he wanted to see the Greek museum of anthropology rather than to pick me up—and drove me three hours up the road to Skopje. When you get to Skopje, Europe is not there in Brussels but is down in Salonika and Athens. This will be the hinge of the area in future—from Ankara to Athens to Bulgaria to Romania and most of the Balkans—for work which is changing the Greek/ Turkish relationship.
I have made several visits to Athens when I have found it absolutely impossible to complete a sentence without someone screaming abuse at me for making the wrong use of the word "Macedonia" or for a wrong thought about the relations between people in Greece and the country that we now call the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia. That situation is now easing. When I got to Skopje, I found that when I suggested meetings between the trade unions in Macedonia and Athens—in construction, forestry, travel, transport and so on—they all said yes. That would have been unheard of five years previously.
I believe that the penny has now dropped. I shall probably be chopped into little pieces by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, who is to speak shortly, for saying that I detect more strategic rethinking now on these issues in Athens and Ankara—not only because of Cyprus but because, at the next stage of EU enlargement in 2010, or whenever, all of these issues will raise important questions. Before the lead up to the EU summit in Thessoloniki in June., the Government should ponder the significance of the Thessoloniki venue and realise that this is a big issue

1059
on which I have been trying to put my finger. Regional co-operation is a delicate matter—but it is there, and this summit will be rather different from the Corfu summit, the last time, I believe, a summit was held in Greece, some six or seven years ago.
There is also a rethink going on—in part under the umbrella of the stability pact—in regard to the ethnic business. I reflected when we were in Sarejevo—a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but that has never stood in my way—that the people in the Ottoman empire in 1600 who went to Constantinople to work as janissaries and so on for 25 years were Muslims when they came back. Some people said that that made them ethnically different. That is nonsense. They were not ethnically different; they were Muslims instead of Christians.
All of these issues can be interpreted in several ways but I suspect that once people have stopped screaming at each other, there is a lot of scope for them to get on rather better than they have in the past.
Returning to the issue of the 5 billion euros a year for military and 5 billion euros over five years for civil aid, we need to have rather more of a neo-colonial relationship with the Balkans, just as we do in Africa and other places, because, although it is not Bokassa's diamonds, we cannot afford to hand out money and not care where it goes. That is not the kind of accountability our taxpayers want. They want very much to see us succeed because, in saloon bar speak, if we do not succeed in getting economic stability over there, they will all come over here. That is the kind of thinking that drives voters in Europe. There has to be much more involvement on the ground with how the money is spent.
This requires a lot of ownership on the ground. At the moment there is still a big problem getting underneath governmental layers. As Chris Patten told us, the more we want accountability for every penny, and hold up every penny of expenditure until we have the accountability and everything else pinned down, the more we are singing a different song to the one that we have been singing about ownership, encouraging micro-businesses and encouraging people to do their own thing.
What is emerging is an interesting new concept—nothing is new under the sun, of course, but it is fairly new in the scale in which it is operating—namely, that the EU road map is becoming "owned", in the new way in which that term is used, at many levels, by many layers of society, in many of the West Balkan countries, from Zagreb through to Albania. It is "owned" by these people because it rings a bell with them. A road map is something you chuck on the back seat of the car; no one tells you that you have to look at it. But you certainly do have to look at it when you get to the T-junction in order to figure out that if you want to go to one destination you turn right and if you want to go to another you turn left. That is playing with words, but there is, psychologically, quite an important change in thinking in the West Balkans. People want to aspire to the stabilisation and association agreement.
1060
Incidentally, the words "stabilisation and association agreement" bring in the word "stabilisation" in a confusingly similar way to the word "stable", as in "stability pact", but they are not the same animal.
Under the stabilisation and association agreement, the country's strategy papers—which concern banking, water supply, infrastructure, magistrates' courts, border zones, VAT and so on—are an important new way of doing business.
In conclusion, although I believe that the stability pact was over-hyped, there is scope for regional co-operation, which is a pre-requisite to private investment. I do not believe that anyone will invest in an "itsy-bitsy" place where the market is only two peanuts. If the growth and stability pact and the country strategy papers are worked on against this umbrella, there can be some scope for viewing with confidence the future of the West Balkans.
5.50 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I, too, welcome this debate on an area of Europe which is very important to its future. I speak as a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Russell-Johnston, for giving us this opportunity to debate and perhaps raise the profile of the stability pact for the Balkans. The noble Lord's expertise on the area is considerable. He set out the issues very clearly in his opening remarks.
I did not know the area well. Like many people, I had been on a very happy holiday to Split and Dubrovnik many years ago. This autumn, however, I went as an official observer to the elections in Bosnia-Herzegovina and subsequently attended the parliamentary conference entitled "Enhancing Security and Political Stability through Economic Co-operation"—a progress report conference on the stability pact for south-eastern Europe.
As the noble Lord, Lord Russell-Johnston, has explained, a parliamentary troika sponsorship system for the activities of the stability pact was established in June 2001. The European Parliament and the Parliamentary Assemblies of the Council of Europe and the OSCE each take the lead on a six-months rotating basis. The first conference was chaired by the European Parliament and took place in Brussels in 2001. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe chaired the second conference, which took place in Bucharest in June 2002. The Tirana conference—chaired by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe—took place in October 2002. On that occasion, as a representative of the Economic Affairs Committee of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, I was appointed as Rapporteur of the proceedings. We shall have a debate on the report in the coming January session of the Council of Europe, which it is hoped will take matters forward to some extent.
What I learnt from that conference—indeed, it is generally self-evident—is that no country or region can remain in isolation any more. South-eastern Europe has some 55 million people. If we add these to the 112 million consumers who form part of the central European free trade area, this creates a potential market with huge possible benefits.

1061
The practical steps for bringing together the countries of the stability pact for the Balkans are very important. That is what we were monitoring at the conference. One of the ways in which matters were being taken forward from the first two conferences was the creation of free trade agreements between the various countries.
Twenty-one such agreements had originally been proposed. In October, it was reported that 10 out of the 21 had been signed. At a subsequent meeting that I attended in November, I understood that matters had moved on: that some 12 agreements were complete and nine were actively under way. So we are approaching the target of 21.
It seemed to me that, although it is desirable to have the free trade agreements completed, the mere fact that such agreements are being set up between countries in the region is an important step forward for political as well as economic reasons.
It was clear from the discussions—which were attended by representatives of all the countries involved—that the negotiations themselves have proved very efficient tools for easing tensions between countries. The agreements serve as connecting links, to establish co-operation which was either non-existent or had been severely disrupted by years of conflict.
The pact's intention to transfer the ownership of its activities to the beneficiary countries themselves was also made clear. In doing this, the pact has managed to instil a new spirit of co-operation between officials and experts of the countries concerned. As a result, we now see former adversaries sitting around the same table, jointly drawing up and implementing the agreements. A few years ago, this would have been unthinkable for many of the countries.
The free trade agreements also demonstrate the region's institutional and human capacity for applying and implementing Council of Europe and other international standards on good governance, openness and transparency in all the institutions involved.
It is important in this context to recognise that all the efforts and changes are not exclusively for the countries in the stability pact region of south-eastern Europe. So long as the European Union member countries perpetuate policies such as the common agricultural policy and its system of subsidies, the more we prevent less developed countries, often relying on primary agricultural products, from making economic progress and standing on their own two feet. I am probably getting on everyone's nerves by repeating this every time I speak on the subject, and in many different contexts, but I believe that reform of the common agricultural policy is something about which all of us, as parliamentarians, must keep reminding the Government.
As well as co-operation between the member countries of the region, we need to see on-going co-operation between the many international organisations, such as the World Bank, the EBRD, the Council of Europe Development Bank and the European Investment Bank, which are all involved in the stability pact process. Ensuring that kind of co-operation and co-ordination is
1062
clearly a task for the special co-ordinator, Mr Busek, and his team. It is also a theme to be pursued at subsequent parliamentary troika conferences of the nature of the one I attended in Tirana.
However, I wish to point out in this context—as a plug for the Council of Europe—that the Council has an additional unique opportunity to monitor and ensure such co-operation, since all the global and European organisations involved in the stability pact attend our sessions in Strasbourg at least once a year to report back and to answer our questions. I believe that this is the only parliamentary forum where we can call to account representatives of the World Bank, the EBRD, the OECD and other such institutions. We left Tirana agreeing that in our various assemblies—the European Parliament and national parliaments—we would put pressure not only on our governments but also only on those institutions.
Providing a framework is important. Signing up to free trade agreements is important. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Russell-Johnston, said, the crucial factor in terms of public perception is the practical steps which are taken.
The co-ordinator provided us with a list of 46 quick-start projects of which cross border/trade facilitation projects constitute to date only six. But to those can be added the development of the regional electricity market. I hope that at future conferences we shall hear of further progress.
Perhaps I may read out the Tirana Declaration. It called for the creation of a parliamentary structure involving the countries concerned; a continued push for the speediest completion of infrastructure projects, including the transport, energy and water management sectors and simultaneously the systematic introduction in each sector by a strategic approach to infrastructure development in the region: the timely conclusion of the remaining 10 (as it then was) regional free trade agreements before the deadline of December 2002, followed by their rapid implementation; renewed efforts to develop, by appropriate agreements, the free movement of people across the region; an intensified fight against corruption and organised crime, including trafficking in human beings, drugs and arms; creating conditions conducive to the voluntary return of refugees and displaced persons and ensuring protection of minorities; and UNMIK to provide conditions necessary to promote the participation of Kosovo in regional cooperation. That point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Russell-Johnston. The extract from the final declaration will provide the agenda for the next parliamentary troika conference. In January we shall debate the issue in the parliamentary assembly in the Council of Europe in Strasbourg. I shall be happy to furnish any noble Lords who would like more detail on the subject with a copy of the report and the Tirana Declaration.
It is important that we continue to raise awareness of the work of the stability pact whenever an opportunity arises. High expectations were raised regarding the consequences of the stability pact, with the expectation of a possible Marshall Plan for the Balkans. Since it will be a slow process it is important

1063
that the people with obligations do not forget them; and that the people on the ground have patience. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
6.5 p.m.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Russell-Johnston, not only for raising a topical and important foreign policy issue—the stability pact in the Balkans—but also for thus enabling the House to repair an omission of its own making: the failure so far to debate the report to which the noble Lord, Lord Lea, referred, on the European Union's aid to the Balkans, which was submitted by its European Union Committee in the first half of last year.
I hope that I may be forgiven for raising this seemingly rather parochial point about the scheduling of debates on reports of the European Union Select Committee, but it is important. It is all very well having a scrutiny procedure which is the envy of other parliaments in the European Union and respected in Brussels for the quality of its reports; but. if we cannot find the time to debate the reports in a timely manner, that surely deprives the whole process of a good deal of its meaning. That is one among a number of other points being raised by the Select Committee in its report on ways to improve our European Union scrutiny procedures. Is it too much to hope that this rather striking example of current shortcomings will attract the attention of the "usual channels" and lead to some remedy in the future?
When Bismarck made his much quoted remark about the Balkans not being worth the bones of a single Pomeranian grenadier, he was perhaps making a valid point about the undesirability of the European powers meddling in the sanguinary ethnic quarrels of the Balkans. But the history of the twentieth century also demonstrated, no less than three times, how difficult, indeed impossible, it was for the rest of Europe to insulate itself from turmoil and instability in that region. It is after all an integral part of our continent. It is totally dependent for its trade, investment and prosperity on the rest of Europe. In the most obvious sense it is Europe's backyard and, therefore, somewhere where Europe's common foreign and security policy has to begin, if not to end.
If we had been holding this debate 10 years ago, in the first month of 1993, the atmosphere would have been a good deal more fraught, the mood one close to despair, as the different parts of the former Yugoslavia slid deeper into the quagmire of war and massive human rights abuses and the efforts of the international community to counter this slide proved inadequate or unavailing.
In Bosnia a full scale war was raging; in Croatia a fragile and unstable truce showed no signs of durability; in Kosovo repression by the Serbs was the order of the day; in Macedonia a new multi-ethnic state faced challenges from all its neighbours; and, in Belgrade, Milosevic, the great destabiliser of the Balkans now facing trial for war crimes at The Hague,
1064
ruled unchallenged and was master of the most powerful military machine in the Balkans, which he showed no hesitation about using to further his ambitions. Faced with that daunting prospect, the international community was a prey to divided counsels and infirmity of purpose. And three international organisations—the United Nations Security Council, NATO and the European Union—on whose strengths and effectiveness our security and prosperity crucially depended, were being mocked and sidelined and made to look feeble in a way which many commentators predicted would inflict permanent damage on them.
Now, 10 years on, we can look back with some relief and perhaps a very modest degree of satisfaction to the fact that many of these Doomsday scenarios did not materialise; but, more importantly, we can seek to learn from and to apply the lessons from that earlier, dismal period. The first of those was that divided counsels, either between the Europeans themselves or between the Europeans and the United States were a recipe for disaster and for the frustration of the objectives of each of us. The second was that we should never send a large but under-equipped peacekeeping force into a region where there was no peace to keep in the first place. A determination to meet aggression and massive human rights abuses by the use of force, if necessary, was an essential part of any successful strategy. The third was that if we were to manoeuvre the Balkan countries out of the dead end of mutual hostility and economic collapse in which the break-up of the former Yugoslavia had left them, we needed a judicious blend of sticks and carrots, the most important of the latter being the longterm perspective of becoming a member of the European Union; and that we also needed—all of us—a long-term commitment to the region. The fourth was that the three vital international organisations—which I mentioned [to which we belong are much more robust and adaptable than we once feared. All three now play a crucial role in the post-conflict peace-building in the Balkans of which the stability pact is an important part.
That is the good news; but we certainly cannot yet afford to take the stability of the Balkans as a given or assume that these damaged countries, with their pitifully weak economies, can be left to fend for themselves. After all, by no means all the signals that reach us from that region are very positive. The region is a prey to organised crime, corruption and drug and human trafficking. As such, it adversely affects our own security. Democracy is shallow-rooted at best and still far too obviously based on ethnic divisions. A situation whereby recently in Serbia and Montenegro more than 50 per cent of the population could not be persuaded to vote in a democratic election is hardly a recipe for long-term durability. Legitimate economic activity remains anaemic and inadequate to provide a living, let alone prosperity, for the populations, whose tendency then is to be sucked as illegal immigrants towards the more prosperous countries to the north and west.
It would be remarkably feckless to assume that the Balkans can, in the foreseeable future, dispense with the pro-active engagement of the international

1065
community. But we must face the fact that that engagement will require a strong leadership role by the European Union. For some time now the balance of external involvement has been shifting in that direction. The European Union has taken over from the United Nations the responsibility for the civilian police mission in Bosnia. It is ready to succeed NATO in Macedonia, and, thanks to the Copenhagen meeting's welcome resolution of the outstanding problems on European security and defence policy, this will take place in full co-operation with NATO, and with full NATO backing. The European Union may, at a later date, need to do the same in Bosnia.
All that makes good sense; but it needs to be approached with caution and without excessive European bragging. There was quite a lot of that at the beginning of the 1990s, and it left us with egg on our faces. It remains critically important that the United States continues to be fully engaged as an active partner. not just in spirit but on the ground.
Although the establishment of the stability pact took place on the initiative of the European Union, it includes the United States and other non-European countries as full participants. It is thus part of the cement provided by that wide external engagement needed to hold together the Balkan region and to prevent regression to the practices of the past. Its launch may have been accompanied, as other noble Lords said, by excessive expectations. Its early history may have been marred by turf fighting and duplication. But its tasks of co-ordination among the external donors, building confidence and security among the Balkan neighbours, exercising downward pressure on their military spending and intentions, and increasing respect for human rights are as essential and valuable as they were at the outset.
However, it is important to ensure that the stability pact is fitted into a coherent overall approach to the problems of the Balkan region. It does not have, or need, an independent role of its own. It needs to be fitted in with everything else being undertaken in the region, in particular by the European Union.
Among all the institutional complexities, the task of the stability pact is simple: to work itself out of a job. If in 10 years' time, or perhaps more, we can conclude that the countries of the Balkans are just normal European countries that have definitively renounced the use of force, either between themselves or in their internal affairs, and which are applying systematically the European standards of human rights, we should also be able to conclude that the stability pact has played its role in bringing about that desirable objective.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to debate an important issue and an excellent EU Committee report, which I read with much value yesterday while preparing for this debate. I am reminded of previous debates with the noble Lord, Lord Russell-Johnston, on the relationship between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom,
1066
stretching back in my case to Liberal Party conferences in 1968 and earlier. We never agreed entirely on how far devolution should go.
As the EU Committee report and the Government in their response remarked, the stability pact had over-optimistic beginnings. And, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, remarked, in the early stages of Yugoslavia's collapse there was much over-hyping of what the European Union was capable of. But we have all learned from the bitter experience of the past two years. What worries me now is that the stability pact implies a scale of commitment over a timescale that few in national parliaments—and, I suspect, some in governments—fully appreciate yet. As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, we are talking of a 10-year or 15-year to 20-year period that ends with the states becoming full members of the European Union.
That will cost a great deal of money over a long period. The EU Committee report remarks on the scale of the financial transfers already under way. Commissioner Patten has made speeches remarking that the European Union must adjust to the extent to which calls upon the common budget will come increasingly for the purpose of dealing with the European Union's near neighbours rather than spending on our own agricultural and other problems. I am not sure that these issues are yet fully appreciated by enough people at national policy-making level. Therefore, EU governments need to absorb the implications of the commitments they have agreed. It is a road map to full membership. It is a financial commitment that the French and German governments were willing to talk about in principle but not to follow through in negotiations on the future of the EU budget. It, therefore, has major implications for the overall priorities of the EU budget.
A commitment is given to nation-building and state-rebuilding, which is still very unfashionable on the other side of the Atlantic. But the European Union is taking it on here and perhaps more so in Afghanistan and elsewhere. If it cannot be done successfully in south-eastern Europe, this is the test that will show our failure to do so outside Europe.
We are all conscious that the costs of failure are immediate, even as far as Britain. The KLA was, after all, raising funds from the Albanian community in London at an early stage in the development of the Kosovo conflict. There are Albanian groups in trans-national organised crime. I am told that they have been involved in smuggling drugs and people into Britain. Many transnational people-smuggling networks across Europe have strong connections with the western Balkans in one region or another. So, Britain is concerned with what the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, called not just Europe's backyard, but our backyard. We cannot disengage.
The European Union is now effectively in a protectorate situation with Bosnia and Kosovo, which, again, we shall have to manage for many years to come. With Serbia and Montenegro and with Albania and Macedonia we are in a situation of trying to impose tough conditions on weak governments, surrounded by rather corrupt actors who are, therefore, not entirely in

1067
control of their states. We need to offer assistance with training of all kinds to help change the domestic culture. The weaknesses of the region are very obvious.
Some months ago, when I had to spend a week, first, in Sofia and then travel to Serbia/Montenegro, I was extremely grateful to the British embassies there for the assistance that they gave me as regards learning about the region. I was especially interested when they told me that I could travel by land from Sofia to Belgrade if I was willing to spend a day in Niš in southern Serbia—a place where the British embassy had had no contact since the Kosovo war. I wish that they had told me before, but I spent some time in the university where it seems that I was the first western speaker to deliver a public lecture since 30 of its students had been killed during the bombing of the Kosovo war. Thus, I received a rather warm welcome.
The experience gave me a sense of the desperate isolation from the outside world experienced both by the teachers and the students over the past 10 years. I recognised how much we can do to help in terms of recreating exchanges—inviting people out of the country—and by offering education to the younger generation so that they will have a greater sense of being back in a European network. We need to educate them together with people from other countries in the region.
I was very pleased and proud in Belgrade to be asked to give a lecture to the Diplomatic Academy and to discover that its deputy director was someone who I taught 10 years ago. He was one of the first students for whom George Soros paid, coming out of Serbia as Yugoslavia collapsed. I refer to the teaching of Serbs, Bosnians, Croats and others at the Central European University. After the lecture, I was particularly pleased to hear older Serbs saying that the active way in which students at their diplomatic academy ask questions throughout the seminar was very un-Serbian and very European. That is something upon which I encourage the British Government to spend more money. Please may we have more scholarships—more Chevenings—to bring people out and get them together. We need to send more British exchange scholars into the region and more British academics should be attached to its universities. We also need more British policemen helping in the training of their police forces, and so on. That is very much the sort of thing that we can do well. In summary, it means educating the next generation, and providing assistance of all kinds.
We are also necessarily concerned with the immense economic weakness of the western Balkans. There are too many small and weak states with out-moded systems of manufacturing and of agriculture, as well as an astonishing lack of regional integration. One of the biggest shocks that I experienced arose during the short while during which I was transferred from one car to another at the Bulgarian/Serbian frontier, which, I was told, was one of only two crossing places. At 10 o'clock in the morning, I observed that there were almost no trucks crossing from one side to the other. I was astonished by the absence of regional economic integration, which is the real problem.
1068
When we talk about the western Balkans, it is very important that Romania and Bulgaria should also be treated as part of the larger region. We need to rebuild a sense of what was, after all, one integrated region under the Ottoman empire and what is now a relatively small and concentrated area. Therefore, infrastructure spending does matter, but it has not yet been entirely rebuilt. Stable government and non-corrupt government also matters. The problem of corruption and organised crime was recently evident both in Sofia and in Serbia and Montenegro. I refer not just to the clan links and the traditional black economy but also to the former socialist networks—the KGB, and others—which, as many people know, have privatised themselves very effectively. In Serbia there are the former Milosevic networks that continue to maintain important stakes in the economy, which leads to a very delicate situation where one is trying to revive economic growth.
There have been some weaknesses in the western approach. It seemed to many of us that part of the problem in the early stages was the fact that too many bodies were involved. It was not just a case of NATO, the EU, the UN; it was also the OSCE. I remember at least one occasion when it involved a conference at the UN Economic Commission for Europe. Not surprisingly, there were too many meetings with not enough going on. It is much better to move towards a situation in which the EU becomes the main responsible actor. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, that keeping the United States and Russia engaged and linked in with what is underway is important in the process, but this is primarily an EU responsibility. Indeed, our American friends tell us on regular and repeated occasions that they regard it as largely an EU responsibility. Again, I worry a little whether here, as in other areas of common foreign and security policy, too much may be left to the Commission, without there being sufficient continuing political and national involvement. It is an underlying weakness in CFSP that some national governments, especially some of the smaller ones, can slip into the assumption that when the EU is dealing with a matter they can leave it there rather than recognising that this means that we are all in the process together and we all have a part to play.
I turn to the question of state building and the number of states involved. The noble Lord, Lord Russell-Johnston, may be right to say that there is no alternative in the future of Kosovo but independence. Many of us would regret that, and many of us accept that it is quite right to postpone answering that question for as long as possible. As for Montenegro, I hope that all pressure from outside will be put on trying to maintain Serbia and Montenegro together. As I remember from MoD briefings during the war, Kosovo is roughly the size of Ulster, with the same population. Montenegro is roughly the size of Cyprus, with the same population as Bradford. Its main economic activity this time round was cigarette smuggling. In the early period of independence, Montenegro survived on a very small national budget, largely through mountain agriculture. It was only

1069
when I took my children to see the "Merry Widow" that I realised that Franz Lehar had written an entire opera making fun of the idea that Montenegro could, indeed, be independent, and that its entire national debt could easily be owned by one widow—thus the threat to the future of this "joke state", as he wanted to put it.
What we need is integration in the region, not disintegration. We have a long-term commitment of 10, or perhaps 20, years, which will end with EU membership—indeed, we discussed yesterday where Europe ends—and will include at least two, possibly three, majority Muslim states. We should be saying that to the Turks as we discuss the question of whether we wish to exclude Muslim countries with them. We all have shared national interests at stake, and there is a valued British contribution that we need to be making in our enlightened self-interest. Clearly, the stability pact is a useful framework for the way forward through stability and association agreements to partnership agreements. Eventually, perhaps in 10 years' time or longer, it will lead to entry into the European Union. That has to be the long-term goal. It will provide the leverage for conditionality to bring the western Balkans back into the European family.
6.29 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Russell-Johnston, for initiating, with his great experience, today's debate on a subject that is close to my heart. It was fascinating to hear first-hand from the noble Lord. At this stage I must declare an interest as a member of the British Association of Central and Eastern Europe. When I was a Member of the European Parliament and vice-president of the Bulgarian and Romanian delegation, I took the Bulgarian/Europe agreements through Parliament. I am also a governor of the American University in Blageovgrad and still visit the Balkans frequently.
We have had an interesting and constructive debate, with few speakers, but ones who are genuinely interested in the subject and the area. It has been a debate of exceptionally high quality; what one would expect from your Lordships' House.
I support the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, on his report.
Just think, it may soon be possible to drive from Vienna to Sofia in seven hours, much the same amount of time as it takes to drive to Scotland. I will not mention how long it takes at present. This part of the infrastructure plan is just one of the noble aims of the stability pact, to which I shall return later.
Why is the stability pact so important? It was established in 1999 as a German initiative during its presidency. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Russell-Johnston, for filling in the background to its establishment. It was designed to bring lasting peace, prosperity and security by tackling the formidable problems of south-eastern Europe, which had suffered critical injury following almost a decade of war and internal conflict.
1070
We all remember the past problems that haunted the Balkans. To quote Vladimir Philipov, the distinguished co-ordinator in the area,
"The understanding underpinning it was that the problems of the Balkans are problems of Europe and that the efforts of all European states were required to solve them. The Pact had to live up to huge positive public expectations".
Many people called it the new Marshall Plan and everyone had high expectations. But it was not that simple, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Lea, and others. Huge demands were soon being made from countries in other parts of the world. Those countries' financial problems were soon pulling at all the Western powers' purse strings. But, despite the lack of expected funds and a certain amount of paternalism, there have been considerable successes.
Reading through the many speeches by the special co-ordinator Erhard Busek shows that much has been achieved in the relatively short space of three years. The possibility of conflict between any of the countries, which gripped the headlines of the last decade, has become remote.In Prague in November 2002 the invitation was extended to seven countries including Bulgaria and Romania to join NATO. This is an enormous step forward towards future stability in the area. The way is now being paved towards future membership of the European Union in 2007.
These are giant strides from an area that was often called "the forgotten Europe" during the Cold War, and by Bulgaria, which in those days risked being the forgotten country. The Balkans are an integral part of our continent, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, rightly stressed. There will be other exciting developments to look forward to during the Greek presidency engaging south-east Europe, culminating in the Thessaloniki summit at the end of June.
There have been several other achievements and many issues are still in progress: free trade agreements; problems with refugees; dealing with the abolition of small arms and light weapons; organised crime; and trafficking in human beings. All are vital to the future of the area.
In the short time available I shall concentrate on. one issue: infrastructure. I strongly believe that one of the most important issues is the development of infrastructure in the region; figuratively speaking we need a revolution in the infrastructure sector. Infrastructure can play the role coal and steel played as a core for western European integration, both for the security and for the development of the Balkans. It will stimulate the emerging spirit of co-operation among the new generation in the region.
In the Bulgarian case, this was manifested best in the assistance to find a solution to the problem of where to locate the second bridge across the river Danube. The former special co-ordinator Mr Hombach was personally involved in solving the Danube bridge problems. Will the Minister tell the House about the progress that has been made in restoring full navigability to the Danube and its tributaries, and the cross-Danube road and rail links in Serbia? How much progress has been made with the project for the Sofia-Nish highway?

1071
I support the noble Lord. Lord Russell-Johnston, in remembering the help that the Bulgarians, under difficult circumstances, gave during the Kosovo war. The land communications between the Black Sea and the Adriatic are being improved, largely through the corridor VIII road and the rail project to link Burgas and Durres. These will bring further co-operation and trade and make it less likely that the area should descend into further conflict.
I should like to ask the Minister about the EC stabilisation and association agreement with Croatia. The agreement's ratification was suspended by the Government last year because, as I understand it, of the Croatian Government's refusal to hand over General Janko Bobetko to The Hague tribunal. I am sure the House would be interested to hear what the current state of play is, what the prospects are for a renewal of ratification and what conditions the Government have set Croatia for any renewal.
The stability pact is ultimately meant to lead to EU membership for the nations of south-eastern Europe. I welcome the fact that the target of 2007 is still there for Bulgaria and Romania. It is noticeable that Bulgaria's progress in the accession chapters has been stronger than Romania's. How does the Minister think that Romania can be encouraged to make faster progress?
The special co-ordinator Mr Busek is looking to increase the focus of the stability pact on regional trade. What are the Government doing to help this aim? The enlargements of 2004 and 2007 will pose challenges to the Balkan economies, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire.
I would like to conclude by putting forward an idea of Mr Vladimir Philipov. He suggests that the word "development" be inserted in the name of the pact in order that it should reflect the new situation, expectations and approach, and for it to be called in future, "the stability and development pact". I ask the Minister to consider raising that idea.
6.38 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Russell-Johnston, for promoting the debate. I commend him for his considerable knowledge of the region and the hard work he undertakes there. I also thank my noble friend Lord Lea of Crondall for drawing our attention to the hard work of the Select Committee and members, including my noble friend Lord Grenfell, in compiling their report. I have some sympathy with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, about the timeliness or otherwise of debating these reports, but those are matters for the usual channels.
As all have noted, this is a region with a great deal of history. The wars and nationalism in the first half of the last century shaped and damaged the region as much as any region in the world; so in the second half of the 20th century did the divisions of the Cold War and the dictatorial imposition of state socialism. The falling away of the Iron Curtain and the collapse of the
1072
former Yugoslavia were momentous events. The latter led to some of the worst atrocities in Europe since the Second World War, notably the Srebrenica massacre.
It is now seven years since the Dayton/Paris peace accord. So the peace in Bosnia has now lasted twice as long as the war did. I commend the leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon, as the High Representative. That leadership is gradually restoring normality, building on the considerable work of his predecessors.
The Kosovo conflict is more recent. Since 1999, the United Nations—thanks to Michael Steiner, the Secretary-General's special representative in Kosovo, and his predecessors—has been working with KFOR, the EU and the OSCE to restore stability and peace. There is therefore little present or immediate threat of renewed war in either conflict. Britain has played a major part in bringing that about, working with our NATO allies, EU partners, Russia, the UN, the OSCE and others in the region including the EU special representative in Macedonia, now Ambassador Brouhns.
The noble Lord, Lord Russell-Johnston, specifically asked about Kosovo's status. The United Kingdom fully supports Special Representative Steiner's approach of "standards before status". The provisional institutions of self-government have come to prove that they are committed to making Kosovo work before status can be discussed, and that includes establishing a dialogue with Belgrade. The United Nations Security Council said in Resolution 1244 that Kosovo is part of FRY. It has agreed that final status must be resolved in due course through dialogue between political leaders in Belgrade and Pristina, but neither side has yet demonstrated its full commitment to the benchmark that the special representative has laid out.
Having dealt quickly with the past, much of which the noble Lord, Lord Russell-Johnston, sketched out, perhaps I may turn to some issues concerning the future. The relative peace in the region and the turning of the corner in history gives the region a real future to which it can look forward. Peace offers the people of the region optimism—optimism fuelled by a desire for peace, prosperity, freedom and security, all of which are very natural desires. Those same desires, and indeed the same principles, underpinned the drive to create what became the European Union. And those values are at the heart of the EU.
Soon, on 1st May 2004, as the Copenhagen Council confirmed, more countries will be joining us. As the Copenhagen Council also made clear, the EU has underlined our determination to support the efforts of the Western Balkans to move closer to the Union. In order to move closer, the countries of the Western Balkans have to take the right steps—steps set out in the EU's stabilisation and association agreements. The agreements state clearly how the countries of the region can become part of a modern European Union.
As the noble Lord, Lord Russell-Johnston, said, the stability pact goes a great deal wider than that. Much has changed in the region since the creation of the pact at the Cologne Council in the wake of the Kosovo

1073
conflict. The pact offered a brighter future for the region. Now, however, the pact is changing to reflect the very changes in the region itself. It is increasing its focus. prioritising better, streamlining its operations and working to hand activity over to the region. I commend its special co-ordinator, Ambassador Busek, on all his work on all these fronts.
As the noble Lord, Lord Russell-Johnston, noted, the pact's current mandate and the associated budget provided for by the EU expires at the end of June 2003. The EU Balkan summit, scheduled by the Greek EU presidency for June, will provide the opportunity to review the mandate. In answer to the specific point raised by the noble Lord, it is very much as he suspected: there is no end date. It will end when the integration to Europe is sufficiently well advanced—when it has, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, effectively worked itself out of a job.
Despite the problems that the noble Lord, Lord Russell-Johnston, described, there has been some real progress. I look forward to the continuation of that progress and the added value which the pact is able to bring in promoting integration of the Western Balkans towards the EU. For example, the free trade initiative to complete a free trade area across southeastern Europe is a commendable goal and one which I was very pleased to hear the noble Lord himself applaud. The latest free trade agreement was concluded only last week by Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
I am therefore happy to tell the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, that we still hope that by mid-February there will be 21 bilateral free trade agreements, as she indicated she hoped there would be, between all the countries of the region and that they will be completed. Thereafter, the pact plans to work on practical implementation of those free trade agreements. Clearly there will still be a great deal of work to do on them.
I hope that I do not have to remind the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, how strongly I agree with her on the points she made about full reform of the common agricultural policy if we really are to open up trade between the EU and the countries of the Western Balkans. She appealed to her colleagues in your Lordships' House to lobby the Government on this issue, but perhaps I should try to persuade her that there is no need because we are convinced. I suggest that your Lordships' energies would be far better deployed lobbying some of our colleagues elsewhere in Europe and, perhaps more pertinently, asking some of the Balkan countries themselves also to lobby some of our colleagues in Europe.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, forcefully made the point about why the Balkans are so important to the United Kingdom. Many other noble Lords also touched on that point. Our support is firm because the region is so important to the United Kingdom. It is true that the region is not under the daily spotlight as it once was, but that is in itself a healthy development: it means that the appalling and tragic events which newspapers and the other media have to record and
1074
place before us daily are no longer occurring in the region. If the region flourishes, then—for all the reasons spelled out so eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay—the rest of the European Union will flourish. Britain also benefits from a safer and more prosperous Europe. By the same token, if the region fails, we in Britain and our fellow citizens across the European Union will be more at risk—more at risk from crime, drugs and human trafficking, much as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, described.
So Britain and our EU partners have a real stake in success in the region. That is why the biggest investment of European money, troops and political effort ever made in one region has been going into the Balkans over the past few years. The noble Lord, Lord Russell-Johnston, asked specifically about resources. The European Union is the biggest donor in the region, providing about 4.5 billion euros of aid assistance between 2002 and 2006. We in the United Kingdom contribute approximately 20 per cent of that sum, totalling about £600 million over six years. We do not have the figures for the US, Canada and other donors which the noble Lord requested because the stability pact does not ask donors to publish their contributions.
We in the United Kingdom not only provide that aid but have bilateral programmes in the region outside the EU's assistance. Those programmes amount to more than £35 million in cash terms and much more when the cost of troops, police officers and liaison officers posted across the region are included.
My noble friend Lord Lea of Crondall made a powerful point about the sums spent on aid and the military presence and said how much better it would be to use the money spent on the military on aid and development programmes. It would of course be better, but the conditions would have to be right to enable us to do so. I spent time with our military in both Bosnia and Kosovo. British peacekeeping is so sought after because it is so good and so effective. Soldiers know the members of the various communities in which they are working and where they live. They can tell who is likely not to get on with someone down the road. They know which elderly people are targeted by some of the tough locals and who, for example, cannot get out to do their shopping. They know which children are liable to cause trouble. That is really important. It is also important that our peacekeepers know where drugs are traded; who handles suspect money and who may be corrupt in politics and public life.
I sympathise with the noble Lord in his overall objective, but I ask him to go very carefully when calling for a switch of money at the moment from the military who are doing such a terrific job in these areas.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. The thrust of my remark was exactly as she has stated. It would be very nice if it could be the other way round as regards 5 billion euros a year for the military and 5 billion euros over five years which is the sum for aid. But we can only do

1075
that if the other conditions are satisfied. I am sorry if I did not express myself clearly. I agree totally with the point my noble friend made.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am glad to know that we are at one on that. The international community, therefore, can be said to be playing its part and with one or two exceptions the countries of the region now live up to their obligations and take responsibility for their own future.
Progress towards the conditions for EU eligibility have been mixed so far. The peace is fragile, as I have described. In some places it is still dependent on large numbers of peacekeepers, but those numbers are diminishing. NATO will review the position later this year. Meanwhile, as I indicated, those troops are still necessary. Democracy is starting to take root. There has been a host of elections across the region during the autumn. Broadly speaking, they have been fair, free and peaceful. Most have been run very effectively by local authorities with only modest support from the international community. So the region is taking ownership of its own democracy.
But the elections also exposed a growth in apathy on the one hand and in a nationalist vote on the other. I agree with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. For example, only 45 per cent of the population voted in the recent Serbian presidential election. Not all elections deliver effective governments with the will or the capacity to push ahead with the reforms that the region needs. As the noble Lord said, this is no recipe for long-term durability. It is something which is still very much in the forefront of our minds as being a difficulty for us.
On the plus side, the region's economies are recovering, underpinned by sound reform. That offers new hope for citizens and the prospect of better times. But there is still a long way to go. Almost everyone in the region is poorer than they were 10 years ago before the war started. That is a solemn thought. The refugee crisis is improving. After Europe's biggest refugee crisis since the Second World War, most refugees have now returned in large numbers and in safety. But others still have to find the courage to make that brave trip home. Some war criminals have been brought to justice. Milosevic is on trial at The Hague. There are others from every side in the recent war and clearly not all those indicted are at The Hague. Mladic, Karadzic and others remain free and we remain committed to bringing them to justice.
Perhaps I may touch on four key areas which are the priorities where we believe that the work must continue. They are similar to the points made about the Tirana declaration by the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper. There is the strengthening of democracy. Democracy is about binding a society in which the leaders are accountable to the people who elect them. In democracies there are constitutional checks and balances which moderate the power of elected governments. There is an independent judiciary and parliament to which the government is accountable. There is a free media which is able to
1076
criticise the government without fear of persecution. All these components of a mature and stable democracy are developing in the region, but more is needed.
There needs to be greater reform in the economies. Everywhere a start has been made, but much more needs to be done if the region is to create jobs and prosperity including mixed economies in which private and public sectors both play some part not only in manufacturing but also in the development of services. There has to be improvement in tax collection and real tackling of corruption in the public services; a simple, certain and transparent legal structure that encourages legitimate economic activity and foreign direct investment. In this the emphasis by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, on training is very apposite and his point on education exchanges is very relevant. I shall undertake to take a look at Chevening scholarships for the Western Balkans and come back to him on the points he made because I agree very strongly with what he said.
We need well-trained publicly accountable police forces, official and impartial courts and a real effort to stamp out organised crime. The Balkan mafia is still very well organised and it is very well armed; sometimes it is better resourced than some of the Balkan governments. Sadly, I have to agree with a number of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. That is why the UK Government hosted a conference in London in November with the regional countries, European Union members and others to focus international attention on the problem of organised crime in southeast Europe and to agree on key measures which we each can take. The London conference produced a joint commitment and strategy to tackle these issues.
I gave an answer to my noble friend Lord Tomlinson on 27th November which set out the successes of the conference. The documents have been placed in the Library of the House. I believe that they answer a number of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Russell-Johnston, when he asked about the measures being taken by this Government to tackle corruption. In addition to those internal measures we hope that the governments of the Balkans will accept and co-operate with the authority of the international criminal tribunal in The Hague. The fact that the governments have a legal obligation to co-operate with the tribunal is not always acted on by those governments. It is clearly established by international law under the UN charter. In co-operating with the tribunal, governments send a very clear signal either that they want to be treated as genuine candidates for membership of the European Union or they do not. If the countries in the region seriously aspire to membership of the EU and closer integration with the other international structures, they have to take the obligations of the international court.
The noble Lady, Baroness Rawlings, raised the question of what had happened in Croatia in relation to Bobetko. The process of ratification will continue once the ICTY informs us that Croatia is fully cooperating, which is not the case at the moment.

1077
I said that there were four key issues and I have dealt with three of them. I turn to the fourth very important issue which many noble Lords have raised about regional ownership. Nobody wants the international community presence in the region to continue forever. I was very pleased to hear the reported remarks that the noble Lord, Lord Russell-Johnston, was able to tell us came from one of his interlocutors who said that those in the region really do want to take responsibility for themselves. The InterCam national community does need to work itself out of a job in the region, but nobody wants to jeopardise the gains of the past few years. So the change has to occur in a measured way as conditions allow. The international community recognises the progress which has been made in the past few years, but also recognises that engagement must continue in an open way as I have described at least for the foreseeable future before we are able to move forward to disengagement.
I make it clear that we in Britain intend to stay engaged in the region. We want to stand by all who want reform and a modern European future. We believe that we can be proud of what we have done for the region. Our troops are helping to deter war and build peace; our police are helping to build local police forces that can operate to European standards; and our development experts are helping to promote good governance and sustainable recovery. Our diplomats continue their good work with the governments of the region and others to sustain the stability and reforms of the region. We shall sustain that engagement for as long as necessary.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, can she tell us what is happening about the Danube bridges?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, this question was raised by both the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell-Johnston. The Danube Commission is leading on the clearance of the Danube. The Commission comprises a collection of international financial institutions, the European Commission and the countries of the region. It is making some progress although I agree very much that the progress has been slow. One shaft of light that I can offer your Lordships is that the stability pact has formed a similar Commission for the Sava river, which is a tributary of the Danube. The noble Baroness was also interested in the tributaries. The Commission has been successful in clearing the Sava and we have supported it.
On the larger question of progress on the Danube, I am afraid that it is painfully slow. I shall seek additional information on that issue and write to the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, and to the noble Lord, Lord Russell-Johnston, and place a copy of the letter in the Library of the House.
7 p.m.
Lord Russell-Johnston: My Lords, this has been a good debate. It has also demonstrated a high level of consensus for there has been little disagreement.
I wish briefly to comment on a few matters. The noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, said that he viewed matters differently from me. So far as I could judge, he did not. Admittedly, I did not talk about the eastern Mediterranean access and the problems of Greece and Turkey. However, I believe that Simitis has moved Greece forward enormously. One of the most significant things that happened was the rejection of the mention of religion in the Greek passport. That step took a lot of courage in the face of the orthodox Church and illustrated the way that the Government think. The noble Lord did not mention Giscard in his remarks on Turkey which I thought were ill-timed and ill thought-out. We have to look at Turkey in terms of a bridge to the Islamic world and not in a negative way such as Giscard set out.
My friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, and I have been together for a long time in the Council of Europe. She stressed the positive effects of pressure for free trade agreements and the fact that negotiations have served as a vehicle for improving relations. They have; that is very true.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said that we have not debated the excellent report of the European Union Committee. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, is no longer present. I did not try to initiate a debate on that report but have read it and it is very good indeed. However, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal controls these matters. I note that he is present. He may well take note of what is being said.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, also said that it is dangerous to assume that everything is all right. I refer not only to the fact that on two occasions under 50 per cent voted in presidential elections in Serbia and Montenegro, but also to the fact that on the first occasion Seselj, who is the direct supporter of Milosevic, received 25 per cent of the vote. That is worrying in my opinion.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, emphasised our failure properly to appreciate the length of our commitment in the Balkans. He was unlucky to find no trucks crossing the Bulgarian/Serbian frontier. One of the successes of the stability pact is that the long queues of trucks on both sides of the Customs posts have been considerably reduced. I am afraid that I shall not argue with the noble Lord about Montenegro but I could do so and I shall in another place.
The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, is absolutely right to stress the importance of infrastructural development. I always remember flying in a helicopter from the south to the north of Albania. Both the road and rail land connections in Albania are awful. However, it is potentially an enormously rich little country with a relatively low population, immensely

1079
good agriculture and an absolutely unspoiled coastline. But one needs good links to get from one place to another.
The Minister gave a good and positive response. As regards Kosovo, I do not disagree with her that one should have standards before status. That is a good way of putting it. However, it is possible to indicate that if you reach a certain standard, you will achieve a certain status. That really was what I was saying. As regards there being no good end date, I thought that the phrase that the Minister used about the pact bringing an added value sums up the whole matter very well indeed. She was the only person who mentioned the Hague; I did not. As I said, the Srebrenica massacre took place in 1995. Mladic is still at large in a relatively small geographical area. That means that some people are actively not co-operating with the whole Hague process.
I end by again saying that I am grateful to noble Lords who took part in the debate and to those who listened to it. They also serve who only sit and listen. I hope that the debate was useful. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Food Labelling
7.6 p.m.
Lord Morris of Manchesterrose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to combat misleading food labelling.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, misleading food labelling has increased, is increasing and must be diminished. That undoubted truth prompted my Question and will inform my speech in opening this debate.
The House knows of my interest in chronic illness and disability both as the first Minister for Disabled People and before then, as a Private Member, author and promoter of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. This interest alone makes the health effects of misleading food labeling—not least the avoidable chronic illnesses and preventable disabilities they inflict on children—an issue of deep concern to me.
That the Government share that concern is made clear by the welcome presence here this evening of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. I know that he and the Government also share my concern about the daunting difficulties—and indeed dangers—that more than 2 million visually impaired people face in trying to cope with widely practised dishonesties still permitted by labelling legislation.
Of course, the DTI has a major interest in food labelling; but it is plainly of compelling importance also to the Department of Health and merits the participation of a Health Minister in this debate. Certainly no one sees more vividly than my noble friend why prevention was prioritised in the founding principles of the National Health Service. I acknowledge as well this evening the
1080
genuine concern my friend Patricia Hewitt, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, has about this policy area.
A further interest I have in this debate is that of lifelong membership of the Co-operative movement, in which I have held the highest elective office as President of the Co-operative Congress. I declare that interest with pride and do so in the presence of two other Congress Presidents: my good and noble friends Lord Graham and Lord Fyfe. They will be as mindful as I am this evening that many of our predecessors in that distinguished office also served in your Lordships' House. One of the earliest of them, perhaps to the surprise of some noble Lords, was the Earl of Roseberry who—four years before becoming Liberal Prime Minister—presided over the Co-operative Congress held in Glasgow in 1890.
I know that my noble friends Lord Graham and Lord Fyfe share my delight in the leadership our movement has been giving in campaigning for better protection of shoppers against unscrupulous food labelling. Its reports on abuses permitted under current legislation—Lie of the Label and Lie of the Label 2—reflect its core principles and a tradition of ethical trading that goes all the way back to its birth in Rochdale in 1844.
The two reports won support from the Consumers Association in Food Labels, the hidden truth and the Food Standards Agency's Consumer attitudes to food standards. Their impact was further increased by extensive NOP research and a survey of the marketplace by Sustain, the report of which quotes a label bearing the "pork pie" of a legend:
"80 per cent fat free crisps".
When shown the label, 61 per cent of NOP's respondents said they thought it was a low-fat product. In fact it was almost all fat and, when told the truth, over 80 per cent said such claims should be unlawful.
Inventive marketing is not, of course, confined to food labelling. We live at an exciting juncture in marketing techniques, with drug companies under heavy fire for trying to invent a new disease, female sexual dysfunction, to generate Viagra-sized profits from curing it. As my noble friend Lord Hunt may have seen, the current issue of the British Medical Journal states editorially that "female sexual dysfunction" is the clearest case yet of a,
"corporate-sponsored invention of a disease".
Yet drug companies have nothing to teach unscrupulous food labellers. For they create, not imaginary disease, but the real thing.
Lie of the Label, published in 1997, was an exposé of those who, in food retailing and manufacturing alike, market their products with no regard for ethical values. "Seven deadly sins" aimed at hoodwinking customers were identified, as were the limitations of current legislation for tackling them.
The second report, Lie of the Label 2, published in mid-2002, highlights a worrying lack of progress in addressing serious health concerns. Thus the prevalence of obesity in England has trebled over the

1081
last 20 years and continues to rise. In 1980, 8 per cent of women were classified as obese and 6 per cent of men. By 1998 the prevalence had risen to 21 per cent of women and 17 per cent of men. Over half of all women and two-thirds of men are now either overweight or obese.
With their weakness for the stars of TV and cinema and for computer screens, children are shown to be particularly vulnerable to the heavy marketing of food products. Quick-fix convenience foods and a constant barrage of advertising of fatty and sugary foods are important factors in the upward trend of child obesity and the health problems involved.
For the good of child health it is crucially important for food labelling to be clear, readily understandable and governed by effective legislation. But that is not happening now. The provision of nutritional information is merely voluntary and only legally required where a nutrition claim is made. How then do shoppers know how much fat, sugar and salt are in the products they eat and give their children? All too often manufacturers hide the truth, including many household names among the producers of chocolate, sweets and soft drinks, making any meaningful attempt to balance our diets impossible.
In hard summary, the seven deadly sins identified and documented in Lie of the Label were:
The Illusion—hiding information such as the fact that mechanically recovered chicken was the main ingredient of a product sold as 'mince and onion'.
Weasel Words—meaningless terms to enhance a product name such as 'wholesome' and 'natural'.
Rose Tinted Spectacles—clever photography or the use of small plates, making the portion shown in the picture bigger than the actual contents.
The Bluff—overclaims such as dried pasta that is 'free from preservatives' when it is not allowed to contain preservatives by law.
The Hidden Truth—for instance the actual meat content in a 'meat pie'.
The Half Truth—details of what is not in the product instead of what is: for example, the 80% fat-free crisps sounded healthy; but the 20% fat that remained was still very high.
The Small Print—the 'hard sell' is made clear enough but poor contrast and small fonts make important ingredient information difficult to find, even for people with 20:20 vision, and mock the plight of the visually impaired.
Taken together this catalogue of economies with the truth today involve millions of British consumers in about the biggest stitch-up since the Bayeux Tapestry.
Before saying any more about sinning I turn briefly, however, to a striking example of virtue. It concerns a world "first" recently achieved in Britain by creating the technology to braille the packaging of retail goods. While as I have shown some strive to hide vital information, even from sighted people, that achievement by the Co-operative movement is now making it clearly available to people who are blind. And I pay special tribute this evening to the constancy and commitment of Terry Hudghton, of the Co-operative Group, in having pioneered this humane advance in labelling which, by example, will benefit blind people worldwide.
It took two years of painstaking work to develop the technology needed to start brailling and it was first used on own brand medicines including analgesics and
1082
vitamins. They were chosen for priority because serious safety issues arise for blind people. To give but one example, without Braille it is impossible for them to distinguish between cartons of paracetamol and aspirin.
I had the pleasure with David Blunkett, Colin Low of the RNIB and Peter White of the BBC, of launching the project in the East End of London. Wide media coverage significantly raised public awareness of all the difficulties and dangers faced by visually impaired consumers. The new technology has since been shared with the industry as a whole to facilitate the application of Braille to an ever-increasing range of consumer goods. This demonstrated that, while the development process had been long and time-consuming, it was not undertaken for commercial gain but rather as an expression of social responsibility and human concern.
Five years after the challenge to the industry posed by Lie of the Label to adopt ethical labelling policies and procedures, the follow-up Lie of the Label 2 report reveals only slow progress. There have been three significant changes in legislation: a requirement to declare the percentage of principal ingredients; the inclusion of genetically modified ingredients and additives; and the identification of country of birth, rearing and slaughter of cattle in beef products And while the Food Standards Agency continues to produce guidelines and codes of practice, they are difficult to enforce and frequently ignored.
It is against this backdrop that Lie of the Label 2 stresses the urgent need for more effective legislation. Since 1990 there have been two options available: the so-called "Big Four"—energy, protein, carbohydrate and fat; and the "Full Eight"—these same four plus sugars, saturates, fibre and sodium. But since both options are legally required only when a nutrition claim is made, producers of fatty, sugary and salty foods often choose not to list nutrition on the pack. While that is bad enough, NOP's extensive consumer research on the two available nutrition information formats shows them to be confusing to shoppers and of little value in making informed purchasing decisions.
The reality, then. is that manufacturers can still choose not to declare nutrition information and that, even when they do, consumers often find it meaningless. The effect of this on the prevalence of obesity alone strongly emphasises the vitally important need for clear nutrition information on packs if consumers are to understand the value of a product and balance their diets in full awareness of the health risks involved.
In assessing health risks, fat is one of the main concerns. Most of us recognise the importance of controlling the fat we eat. Eighty-six per cent of NOP's respondents said clear labelling would reduce obesity and the health risks it creates. Even so traders persist in throwing dust in the eyes of consumers by implying that their products are low in fat when they are not or fail to give due prominence to fat content.
For good measure they also act in contempt of the Joint Food Safety and Standards Group's guidance that:
"Since x per cent fat free claims can be misunderstood, they should not be made".
Where products are mainly fat in nature, such as butter or margarine, good practice is to declare the fat content on a main selling face; but on too many packs it is consigned to the bottom face. This is all the more disturbing since they could be termed "low" or "reduced" fat but still contain a significant amount. Unsurprisingly, 78 per cent of people polled by NOP believe a spread labelled "low fat" to be just that, while in truth over a third of the product is fat. This is typical of the willingness of many people to accept a company's claims at face value—but have they not a right to this trust?
I turn now to sugar, the "arch criminal of dental decay". Sugars have no nutritional value. They displace nutritious foods from our diets and there are many good reasons for consuming less. Only one in four of us knows they are carbohydrates and companies dodge the nutrition labelling rules by hiding the amount of sugar in processed foods in their carbohydrate content declaration.
While starchy carbohydrates are an important part of a healthy diet, sugar is bad for teeth and contains only calories which, in excess, contribute to obesity. Sixty-three per cent of consumers recognise the need to control sugars to maintain a healthy diet, but the food industry is not allowing them to use the knowledge. Sustain's marketplace survey found many examples of sugary foods with no nutrition information. They include leading brands of biscuits, confectionery, soft drinks and frozen desserts, which fail to declare or list only partial information.
Most people know that too many sweets, high in sugar, are "bad" for us. But what of products we do not associate with high sugar? As manufacturers do not have to specify the sugar content, people unwittingly buy products they would studiedly avoid if they knew how much sugar they contain. With three in four consumers confusing sugar and carbohydrate and 46 per cent not knowing the relationship, it is highly irresponsible for nutrition panels not to list sugar separately.
Salt too is a major concern. It is easily controlled at the table, but 80 per cent of the salt we consume is in processed foods, making it inexcusable that we are not told how much salt is in the products we buy. And why can sodium be declared when salt cannot? After all there are two important problems with listing sodium. The first is that consumers do not relate to sodium the many health warnings about excess salt. Sixty per cent of people say that salt information is essential to healthy eating, while only 20 per cent say the same about sodium. The second problem, no less important, is that very few of us know the relationship between salt and sodium. Twenty-eight per cent think they are the same, but in fact sodium content usually has to be multiplied by 2.5 to reveal the salt content. So the
1084
28 per cent who think salt and sodium are the same consume around two and a half times more salt than they think they are.
Again, it is harmful to consumers for information about sodium—but not salt—to be given on high salt foods. Without knowing the salt content the consumer cannot make an informed assessment of the food's safety. A glaring example is that of a leading brand of baked beans in tomato sauce. The sodium content is listed as 0.5 grams per 100 grams. On the surface that is a very small quantity, but it equates to 5 grams of salt per tin. This compares to a 6 gram maximum daily recommendation. So salt, like fat and sugar, can hide itself, due to the lack of mandatory legislation to vouchsafe the giving of clear information.
The case for such legislation applies all the more urgently when labelling "tricks of the trade" are used to make questionable health claims. Supermarket shelves are an arena where products jostle for position, each striving for the shopper's favour; and companies seeking a competitive edge increasingly claim that their product contributes to a healthy diet. Of course, every trader has the right to present a product in the best possible light. But this should not be allowed to conflict with the consumer's right to make an informed choice.
Take, however, a market-leading chocolate spread that claims to be rich in calcium, magnesium and vitamins. In fact it contains 33.5 per cent fat and an unspecified—but certainly high—amount of sugar. Its claim is blatantly calculated to lead parents buying it for their children to make a healthy eating association with the minerals and vitamins. Why else promote them on the front of the pack? Yet in truth the product is positively harmful when consumed as part of a diet already high in fat and sugar. Nevertheless 80 per cent of consumers shown the pack by NOP believed it to be healthy. In the same poll, half the respondents wanted an outright ban on such misleading claims.
The Joint Health Claims Initiative, made up of consumer organisations, enforcement authorities and industry bodies, was set up in 1997 to establish a code of practice on health claims on foods. Companies are not required to produce independent validation of health claims prior to marketing—only to defend a claim if challenged.
A further example of health risks from misleading labelling concerns the exploitation of consumer fear. Cholesterol in our blood is linked to a high risk of heart attack and strokes; but the amount of cholesterol in food has only a small effect on the cholesterol in our blood. The amount of fat, particularly saturated fat, has a much bigger effect on blood cholesterol. And the linkage can be positively dangerous when high-fat products make a cholesterol-free claim on the label.
The Joint Food Safety and Standards Group states:
"Since dietary cholesterol is not a major factor in coronary heart disease and there is a danger of confusion with blood cholesterol level, Ion' cholesterol claims should not be made".
That advice has been reiterated by the Food Standards Agency; but many such claims are still made in marketing high-fat products such as margarine and

1085
frying oils, rendering ludicrous the argument that stronger legislation is not required. To argue that now is to bark not just up the wrong tree but in the wrong forest.
The European Union has issued a working document which, if adopted, will put both nutrition and health claims on a legal footing but will not end all lying on food labels. Nor would the document allow claims to be linked with diseases, even where such links are well established, are based on official advice and could be helpful to consumers. For example, the link between folic acid consumption and the reduced risk of babies born with spina bifida. Surely here a message on the labelling of foods containing high levels of folic acid would be helpful for women intending pregnancy?
As a longstanding co-operator himself, I am sure my noble friend Lord Hunt will welcome the impact the movement's two reports Lie of the Label and Lie of the Label 2 have made in exposing the extent and seriousness of misleading food labelling; and that he will see the urgency of the case for stronger legislation to protect consumers. I know too that he will be as pleased as I am that since 1997—matching practice with precept—the Co-op has strictly applied its own code of practice for ethical standards in labelling. But exhortation and good example alone cannot solve the increasingly serious problem of misleading labelling without legislative change.
It may have been Mark Twain—if not it ought to have been—who said that,
"a lie can be half way round the world before truth has got his boots on".
What stronger legislation can do is to reduce the advantage lying so often enjoys over truth in the retailing of goods. Like misleading food labelling itself that advantage has increased, is increasing and must be diminished. This debate is about challenging that advantage and I much look forward to my noble friend's response.
Lord Fyfe of Fairfield: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester for raising the matter of misleading food labelling. I am particularly pleased as I was a director of the Cooperative Group, the CWS, for 20 years, and its chairman for 11 years and was involved in many instances in the initiatives that led to more responsible food labelling.
I also have a personal interest. Throughout my adult life I have had periods of dietary problems. But my interest is not just business or personal; it is based upon my concern for the health of the population at large and the long-term consequences of unhealthy eating in terms of avoidable illness.
I shall focus on three items raised by my noble friend Lord Morris: first, Braille; secondly, the "Fairtrade" endorsement; and, finally, marketing to children. On Braille. difficulty understanding information is one thing, but not being able to see it is entirely another. In 2001 my noble friend Lord Morris helped the Co-op launch its Braille on product packaging initiative as part of its access-for-all policy. The Co-op continues to
1086
apply Braille to packaging wherever it can and it is working with the packaging industry to overcome specific technical issues and help other retailers to provide this important information.
To my knowledge no other retailer has followed the Co-op's lead. I believe that the Government should intervene to accelerate the process of providing Braille on packaging, in particular on medicinal products where grave dangers are caused by potential misidentification.
On "Fairtrade", there appears to be a growing number of endorsements appearing on the front of packaging these days—whatever those endorsements happen to mean—to the point that what are designed to be key selling points are competing with each other and being overlooked by highly confused customers. The endorsements include organic certification. farm assurance schemes and environmental issues, "eat five" and "animal friendly". The list goes on. It is not surprising therefore that many of those marks are not, according to the IGD, easily recognised or understood.
One such endorsement is the "Fairtrade" mark. This simple logo makes a difference to millions of people in developing countries who would otherwise toil in poverty to satisfy the western demand for products such as coffee, bananas and chocolate. Building awareness of this critical mark and sales of these products on which it is founded should be at the top of the agenda of any retailer who considers himself to be socially responsible.
The Co-op has recently taken a huge step in its market leading drive to bring Fairtrade into the mainstream, by converting all its own brand chocolate bars to Fairtrade sourcing. At the same time it has produced a report that investigates the cocoa market in terms of supply and inequality of trade and examines just what difference Fairtrade can make. The report challenges other retailers and the manufacturers of leading chocolate brands to develop Fairtrade products of their own.
I pick up on the point mentioned by my noble friend Lord Morris earlier relating to the very worrying trend of obesity in children, and raise the issue of the lack of government action in banning advertising during children's television hours. It is well documented that advertisers explicitly target children. The Co-op's report Blackmail of July 2000 revealed that of all the food products advertised during children's TV hours, 95 per cent were high in fat or sugar.
There seems little point in the Government investing in free fruit for primary school children if and when they sit down in front of the television after a hard day's study, they are brainwashed into pestering parents for all manner of sugary and fatty foods. Recently 130 MPs signed an Early Day Motion asking the Government to ban advertising to pre-school children.
Last year more than £161 million was spent on advertising chocolate and confectionery; a further £34 million was spent on advertising crisps and snacks. Much of that will have been targeted directly at children. But advertisers claim that parents also watch

1087
those adverts and so do not produce figures for specific child marketing. Those huge advertising spends compare to just £5 million spent on advertising fruit in the same period. It really is quite staggering.
I do not suggest for a moment that fruit or vegetables are completely free of danger. One of the deadliest vegetables I am acquainted with—to my cost—is cucumber, which really can have devastating effects upon one's digestive system. Those of us who have enjoyed the hospitality of Her Majesty at Buckingham Palace may find that that portion of the food available is highly inedible. Certainly, I would caution great care when dealing with cucumber. But. like so many other foods, of course it is subject to trial and error. One does not know that one is allergic to it until one has suffered the consequences of it. After that brief criticism of cucumber no doubt I shall be railed at by the cucumber growing association—if there is such a body—if they hear of that comment in the House.
The food industry denies that it is responsible for growing levels of obesity, blaming instead cultural shifts and lack of physical activity. Part of that may be true. But the simple question is: if advertising of fatty and sugary foods does not encourage purchase, why is so much spent on marketing?
As part of its Blackmail campaign two years ago, the Co-op committed itself to a voluntary ban on advertising high fat, sugar and salt products during children's TV hours and called on the Independent Television Commission and other parties in the food industry to do the same. The Co-op has gone further still, banning the use of child oriented marketing on such products in stores, such as in leaflet promotions, including free gifts and using cartoon characters on packs as part of the store environment. Where is the progress elsewhere in the industry and what is the motivation for such progress when the Government apparently will not take a strong stance on the way in which the food industry is damaging our children's health?
I say that because although self-regulation by manufacturers and retailers is highly desirable, it is I regret to say also highly unlikely. That is why I believe that the Government must take a strong line.
Perhaps we could spare a thought once in a while for the working mother with limited time and a modest budget. Her priority, quite understandably, is to fill her children's stomachs. She may not have the time or the inclination to analyse food labelling or the knowledge to discard misleading information. That is why labelling must be clear and easily understood. That is a matter, frankly, of education.
The costs to the NHS arising from misleading and inaccurate labelling must be enormous. I would not care to hazard a guess, and I do not expect my noble friend the Minister to do so. However, he may care to give the matter some consideration and, perhaps, reply in writing. The cost must be enormous.
1088
A great deal has been done to improve dietary information. Much remains to be done. I know that my noble friend the Minister shares the concern expressed on these Benches. I look forward to his response.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords. I begin by declaring my interest as a consultant to the Cooperative Group, and I congratulate my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester on his excellent overview of the situation. He sought not only to highlight the contribution of the Co-operative Group but, I hope, to alert us to what was known in the Co-op movement as "consumer education". That was the fashionable phrase then.
I remember Caspar Brook helping to create the Consumers' Association 50 years ago. I remember how the movement was created. Although there are blemishes, pitfalls and disappointments, when I look back over the advances made in consumer education over the past 50 years, I find it remarkable. Of course, one of the original principles of the Rochdale pioneers, more than 150 years ago, was to educate the consumer. Ordinary people could neither read nor write, and they certainly required some uplift, which they got.
I remember a remarkable coincidence. When I entered the House, I met the former Labour Chief Whip, Lady Pat Llewelyn-Davies. She was a great lady and a great Chief Whip. I said to her that the only other Llewelyn-Davies that I had come across was Margaret Llewelyn-Davies, the first national secretary of the Women's Co-operative Guild. The guild's motto was "The woman with the basket". It made no pretence: it was interested in the lot of the ordinary working woman. Lady Llewelyn-Davies said that her husband, Dick, was the grandchild of Margaret LlewelynDavies. That was a remarkable link, and it was humbling to realise that there was such continuity.
It is not just the Co-op movement. One of the things that I have acknowledged is the fact that most large supermarket organisations—whether through Cooperative initiatives or not—long ago recognised that they ignored the interests of the consumer at their peril. There was a commercial benefit as well as a social benefit. Speaking corporatively, I might call it a dividend, which accrued to business. As a student. I learnt the phrase "Caveat emptor"—"Let the buyer beware". That tag, which explains it all, says, "You know what you're buying, or you ought to. If you decide to buy it and pay for it and it turns out to be a dud, that's your fault". That is a point of view, and I have bought as many things as anybody in the House, only to get home and realise that I had not wanted to buy what I had, in fact, bought.
My twopennyworth about the subject of labelling is the extent to which it has crept into our lives. It is remarkable. I went to see a lovely lady who is a dietician in my local GP practice—a lady called Linda—and what she drummed into me was that I should read the label and understand what it tells me. She told me the guidelines for fat, sugar and calorific intake. It was good common sense.

1089
It is not a party issue and never has been. The first lady to be chairman of the National Consumer Council was Lady Elliot of Harwood, a great lady, who was in the House when I came here, in the 1980s, and had a first-class record. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, is not unfamiliar with her role and work. Lady Macleod and Naomi McIntosh, wife of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey, were also chairmen of national bodies. There has been a growth in protection for the consumer, and the Minister will not take it amiss if we prod him, when he discusses with his colleagues how to do things better.
One of the things that I found out when I listened to my dietician and read the label was the extent to which cholesterol played an important part for someone such as myself—not obese, but fatter than he would like to be and recognising the danger of having too high a level of cholesterol. Everyone in the House will know that that level should be down between five and seven, for a man. I have managed to get between five and seven, but I have heard of people who have gone to the doctor with a problem and have been told that their cholesterol level was 15 or 16 and had to be brought down. It can be brought down, provided that we follow the advice.
One piece of advice that I picked up was that it is possible for someone who has a liking for a certain thing—marmalade, for instance—to find a substitute. I suffer from diabetes, so I follow a little regime and look after myself in that way. My noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester swept up everything in his tour de force and did not leave the rest of us much to get our teeth into. He dealt with the problem of cholesterol and the manner in which the unscrupulous—or careless—producer and labeller tries to sell his products and says to himself that it is up to the buyer to know what the label says.
On the basis of experience in the Co-op movement and elsewhere, we can say that we are in an age in which ordinary people—families, young mothers, wives—lead not one life but two or, sometimes, three. I remember how my mother looked after a family of five, with my dad on the dole. She made everything—the bread, the puddings, everything. I used to go down to the Grainger Market in Newcastle and buy the products as cheaply as I could. I bought the sheep's head; she made the soup. I bought the rabbit; she made the rabbit pie. I have pleasant memories of the quality of the food. Those days are gone, except for those on the lowest income, people on a tiny budget, as my noble friend Lord Fyfe of Fairfield said in his excellent speech. He missed out the fact that, for many years, he was the chief officer of a Co-operative Society and had to put his reputation on the line every week about quality.
I hope that the Government will apply themselves to the question of whether it is right that women should go to work. Is it right that people use a car to go shopping? Is it right that the big supermarkets get bigger and the number of competitors smaller? That is not the object of today's debate. The object is to say to the Minister that there is a job of work to be done. That job does not rely just on the Government, or retailers,
1090
or producers, or suppliers, or wholesalers; it depends on the concerted effort of everyone. I am sure that the Minister will tell us of the various initiatives which he and his colleagues are taking in an attempt to try to obtain a consensus of how we should be approaching the issue. It will not be easy because if it costs money to either the Government or the producer, there will be resistance.
I believe that my noble friend Lord Fyfe made one of the most valuable contributions today. Ultimately, if we eat badly or poorly, the consequence is that we shall become ill more quickly than we might otherwise. The costs fall on the consumers because the National Health Service picks up the bill. When I see illustrations in the newspapers about people who are obese or who abuse themselves with drink, drugs or in any other way, I become as boiling mad as anyone because they have done it to themselves.
However, the Government with their resources, their research and their dedication, have the opportunity to deal with the problem far better than any retailer or group. Reflecting on the advances that have been made by ordinary people in so many ways, it would be 1,000 pities if, in the next decade or two, we find that people's greed. ignorance or pure cussedness lead us into the state that I believe we are in danger of becoming.
One might say as I say, "If they cannot look after themselves why should anybody else look after them?". But that ought not to be the spirit in this country. I do not believe that it is. I look forward to the Minister giving us hope that the matters highlighted are not only well known, but are also understood by him and his colleagues, and that they have some solutions to the problems.
7.52 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, is, of course, correct. The mislabelling of food is wrong. There is no party political divide on that. If there is a mislabelling, the Government would be right to crack down on it as hard and vigorously as they could.
I appreciate the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, in introducing this brief debate. I did not intend to contribute because the debate seemed to be a proposition so worthy in its objective that it would be something that would enjoy universal approval in this House. However, the noble Lord, Lord Fyfe, cannot be allowed to get away with his brutal attack on the dumb but humble cucumber.
It is a wonderful plant and I believe that someone must speak up for it. That is my only purpose in contributing to this brief debate today. I agree that some modern cucumbers are so bland, awful and unacceptable, that no one should eat them. However, I hope that I might persuade the noble Lord, Lord Fyfe, on one occasion at least to come with me to the land that the Ancient Greeks once described as Arcadia—the modern republic of Georgia. The Georgians have as a starting dish the simplest food which must be entirely acceptable to everyone. It is a

1091
simple dish of ugly tomatoes—certainly not grown for their external beauty, but wonderful in their taste—and cucumbers—certainly not prepared or grown for their external beauty but, again, wonderful in their taste. Combine the two together, sliced, covered with walnut oil and walnut flour, eat with rough bread and a glass of wine, and I ask anyone to find me a simpler, more beautiful dish in the world.
If the noble Lord objects to cucumbers, I hope that he will come at least on one occasion to Tbilisi to appreciate that it is not some dumb, stupid, clumsy vegetable, but really something of great beauty and taste.
Lord Fyfe of Fairfield: My Lords, perhaps I may make a confession. My consumption of cucumber is probably limited to the domestic variety. However, I should be very happy to accept the noble and learned Lord's invitation.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, would the noble and learned Lord, speaking of cucumbers, care to repeat that?
7.56 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, someone has just said, "Follow that"! I expect most noble Lords are merely wanting to get away for dinner now that that exquisite description of food has taken place.
The debate, which was well introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, has highlighted a very important area of everyday life. People should be able to trust the food that they buy and that it is what it says it is. At the moment, the most certain thing for most people is simply the price. They are not certain what they are getting for that price.
Food bought falls into two main categories—food that is bought to eat or cook at home and food bought when eating out. I believe that misleading labelling in canteens or restaurants is equally worthy of further government attention. I look forward to the Minister's comments on that issue.
In both those areas consumers are rightly demanding more information about what they put in their bodies as well as on other issues such as animal welfare and food miles. Those are the types of issues, together with the desire to ascertain what is not in their food, that have made the organic movement so singularly successful. Bearing in mind the Question asked earlier today about the Food Standards Agency, I believe that it is deliberately myopic of the Food Standards Agency to concentrate on whether organic food is more nutritious or not.
That is only a small part of the question. People are reassured by the fact that organic food does not contain pesticides or antibiotics. The Soil Association aims for its members to produce food of as high a standard as possible. Its label has become one of great reassurance.
1092
There is, too, real interest from shoppers in local and regional labelling. People want their local produce to be more clearly labelled. Here, I must declare an interest as chairman of Somerset Food Links and as a Somerset county councillor. Both those bodies have been working on developing a form of labelling that is suitable for local producers to use. It may sound simple to print labels saying "Produce of Somerset" and slap it on food or other products. Actually, it is far more complicated than that. To produce a scheme that can be verified properly by Trading Standards, who will have to police it, has proved difficult.
However, we are having some success. We shall see a label during this year. I know that several other counties, too, have embarked on this work. During the next couple of years, the ease with which people will be able to identify what is their local or regional food will improve greatly. Part of the difficulty that the public have had is that they simply have not known where the food originates.
Many retailers, especially in the independent sector—delicatessens and butchers—and the Co-op, which has been mentioned many times today, have made significant voluntary efforts to provide customers with very good, accurate descriptions of their produce. That is perhaps true of butchers in particular.
Therefore, it was a great surprise to me, and very disappointing, that Food from Britain this year—far from recognising these efforts from a sector that has kept the concept of British food alive during the past couple of decades—should see fit to award their Retailer of the Year Award to the American giant Wal-Mart. I believe that someone from the independent sector might have merited that award. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that having heard at great length of the work of the Co-op—both on fair trade and labelling issues—they, too, had a claim for that award. I do not expect the Minister to deal with that point in his reply, but I merely want to register my disappointment with that outcome.
There are many ways in which the public can be misled by the various adjectives. They include traditional, farm fresh, country style, tasty, mature, classic, finest and gourmet. I went through them at the weekend while conducting a small survey in preparation for the debate. I could probably have taken up two minutes reading out the list of adjectives I found on the cheese counter alone. However, I believe that on the whole consumers understand that those are marketing devices and I do not find their use too difficult a concept. I believe that they are not so much a deliberate attempt to mislead as a reasonable attempt to create an image.
Far more serious is a matter which was well picked up by the Consumers' Association in December 2002 in its report on misleading descriptions of processed food, The Ready Meals Market. That is a salutary survey of the current position. Ready meals list the ingredients in the order of the quantities in which they appear in the meals. However, that is useful only if one can read well, if one can read at all and if one is not long-sighted. When I was looking at the packaging, I

1093
found that in many instances I needed a magnifying glass—and my sight is not that bad! Otherwise, one will rely on the name of the product.
As regards the name of the product, one would imagine that an "Ocean Pie" was mainly fish or products of the ocean. But the one I examined contained 80 per cent ingredients other than fish. A Birds Eye chicken pie contained only 18 per cent chicken, 2 per cent peas and 2 per cent carrots. I had to ask myself why they bothered with the vegetables which amounted to such a small portion of the ingredients.
A large part of many ready meals is made up of bulkers; tapioca, starch and potato and wheat derivatives. That is the worst kind of misdescription. Dolmio creamy mushroom sauce contained 11 per cent mushrooms, but my winner in the survey was a Heinz chicken in a creamy mushroom sauce with new potatoes. I would have assumed that it contained mostly chicken—perhaps at least 30 per cent chicken—but no, it contained only 11 per cent.
Noble Lords have highlighted the results of eating a diet of such ready meals which are high in starch, sugar and salt and low in vegetables, meat or fish. At first glance, such meals may look good value, but I believe that at £1.50 or more for a dollop of wheat, tapioca and potato, with some flavourings and a smattering of protein, it is not good value and work needs to be done in this area.
No doubt your Lordships will recall the Sunny Delight debate when a drink purporting to be a fruit product had to withdraw its claim to be an orange juice. The product now makes no claim to be orange juice. However, on the shelf below the stack of Sunny Delight in my local Tesco in huge letters was a shelf-screamer which claimed "orange outburst". That was clearly designed to mislead. I therefore believe that together with food manufacturers the supermarkets should take responsibility for trying hard to describe the product. Perhaps my winner in this area was the new Disney range "Roo Juice". Noble Lords might assume that it is squashed kangaroo, but actually it is apple and strawberry juice and a lot of sweeteners.
Finally on fruit juices, often they are labelled as being sugar free. They are sugar-free but they contain a great deal of artificial sweetener such as aspartame about which many health doubts have been raised. I must at this point mention the best among the fruit juices for accurate labelling. It was Copella, with its apple and elderflower, which was 99 per cent apple juice and 1 per cent elderflower.
The Food Standards Agency has come up with some useful guidance on clear labelling but it has yet to tackle misleading labelling. As the debate shows, that issue is of fundamental importance. It is no use being able to read the labels if still they are misleading. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that the Government believe it to be their ultimate responsibility to ensure that people have protection from being exploited either by canteens, restaurants, pubs or supermarkets.
8.5 p.m.
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I, too, want to express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Morris, for bringing to the attention of the House the issue of misleading food labelling. I congratulate him on a most informative but deeply worrying and detailed account of the situation as he sees it. I believe that the debate will contribute to the ongoing progress towards clearer food labelling which is allowing consumers to make informed decisions about the purchases they make.
Here I must declare my interest. I have been in the food industry for 25 years. I come from a family of fish processors and suppliers of supermarkets nationally for many years, including Co-op Wholesale and Co-op Retail—companies we were delighted to work with. I come from the days when fish was wrapped in newspaper or in a brown bag. How times have changed! We have even heard about the possibility of a Braille label.
I must also declare that I am on the hoard of Cadbury Schweppes PLC, where I chair the main board committee on human rights, ethics and social responsibility and where we endeavour to trade fairly. I was also the chairman of the National Consumer Council for six years. I am president of the National Consumer Federation of the Consumer Policy Institute. I am also president of the Trading Standards Association.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, described most eloquently the progress which has been made thus far in consumer education. It was lovely to hear him talk about that great consumer champion, Lady Elliot. I have therefore had a lovely time of reminiscence. I hope that in listing my interests I have indicated that I can see the problem from both sides. I see it from the point of view of a manufacturer, where there is an understandable reluctance to cover every inch of the product with labels containing complex information, origins, ingredients and processes, let alone the dreaded special offer stickers which the supermarkets usually want putting on at the last minute when one has to try to find a space.
Sometimes the label is as large as the product itself, or, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, noted, the print on the label is reduced beyond legibility. All of this adds great costs to the products. Over the years, I have watched and I have seen how manufacturers—particularly the ones which were supplying supermarkets—have struggled to try to sell their product in an attractive packaging while at the same time trying to set out on their product all the information that is constantly required.
On the other hand, the needs and rights of the consumer to be easily able to gather relevant information about products they wish to buy must be paramount. We are not talking only about someone who checks a label for a few calories but about those for whom food labelling is extremely important: those who have allergies and for whom avoiding certain ingredients is a question of life and death; and those with health concerns or moral and religious beliefs which dictate the choices they make as consumers.

1095
I would like to think that the needs and wants of the manufacturer and of the consumer are not irreconcilable. That may be a job for the Minister when he replies to the debate. Standardisation is needed. Let us have enforceable guidelines from the Food Standards Agency for manufacturers so that all concerned know what are the expectations. Consumers can then make direct comparisons between products with the confidence that they are not being misled, and the manufacturers themselves will have an even playing field, safe in the knowledge that their competitors face identical requirements.
The food labelling regulations of 1996 took us some of the way, but clearly more needs to be done. Accurate information on the country of origin must be standard. Part of this must involve closing the unhelpful loophole which allows meat reared and slaughtered abroad to be labelled as British as long as it undergoes some minor further processing in the United Kingdom. To this end, I fully support the Private Member's Bill in another place which makes a good start at tackling the problem.
More work must be done to protect certain groups of consumers. For those with allergies and those with religious or moral beliefs about what they eat, there should be the removal of the rule whereby ingredients do not have to be included on the label if they make up less than 25 per cent of the overall product; and more must be done to protect those with safety concerns over GM foods and those with, as I have learnt today, health concerns and disabilities that need consideration—even difficulties with cucumbers.
This should all be relatively straightforward, but there is another aspect to the debate that must be, and has been, addressed. By far the most widespread misleading food labelling—the noble Lord, Lord Morris, explained this so clearly with his seven deadly sins—involves more subtle marketing strategies: words, pictures and symbols that are implicitly used to mislead consumers by drawing them to make false conclusions about the products that they buy.
Presently there are no obligatory guidelines for the use of words that can be used to mislead consumers such as "Light", "Low Fat", "Traditional" and "Pure". Moreover, frequently pictures on labels are designed to bring about a belief that what is on the label is featured highly in the ingredients. This can be extremely misleading—for example, Knorr Tastebreaks creamy chicken pasta, which has pictures of succulent chickens featuring significantly on the label but contains only minute traces of chicken in the product.
To clarify this muddle of misleading labelling, criteria for claims—whether explicit or implicit—need to be clearly defined. As the noble Lord, Lord Fyfe, said, matters need to be clear and easily understood. We need a list of approved words and symbols and a minimum standard must be met in order to make certain claims. Thus confusing labelling could be replaced by a clear system of coding which the consumer is able to trust.
1096
I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply to the debate, to this further call for action—from all sides of your Lordships' House, I am glad to say—on misleading labelling.
8.12 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it has been an excellent and informative debate. I join other noble Lords in paying tribute to my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester for his excellent introductory speech. He was absolutely right to make the connection between the speech he gave today and his tremendous work in bringing forward the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Bill so many years ago.
As he rightly said, the debate today focuses on the experience of individuals in this country. People who are chronically sick and disabled need to have confidence that, on the issue of food labelling, they ultimately understand what they are buying and that they can rely on the system to ensure that they know what it is they are being asked to purchase.
My noble friend is a past distinguished president of the Co-operative Congress. My noble friends Lord Graham and Lord Fyfe also undertook such senior office in the Co-operative movement. I bring no great qualification in terms of seniority in the Co-operative movement, although I am a member of the Cooperative Party and of the Midlands Co-operative Society, and my children have been active in the Woodcraft Folk movement, which is closely associated with the Co-operative movement. I believe that we should be very proud of what the Co-operative movement has achieved over the years. When we come to debate the issue of foundation trusts in the reasonably near future, it will become apparent that many of our proposals for the future organisation of the NHS rest on the philosophy and values of the Cooperative movement. Indeed, we have received a great deal of advice from the Co-operative movement on how we should take forward the organisation of the NHS at local level.
My noble friend Lord Graham referred to the historic links between Members of this House and members of the Co-operative movement. He mentioned in particular Margaret Llewelyn-Davies and Pat Llewelyn-Davies. Hattie Llewelyn-Davies continues this work through the generations and is currently chair of an NHS organisation in Hertfordshire.
The question of Braille is very interesting. While it is very valuable that the Co-op has introduced Braille on many products, as a health Minister I am particularly interested in the introduction of Braille on many over-the-counter medicines, and I pay tribute to the society. I agree with my noble friend Lord Fyfe that we should encourage other retailers to do likewise. As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said, legibility is of crucial importance to many people, whether in regard to food, medicines or other retail products.
As a health Minister, I am greatly concerned about the question of obesity. My noble friend Lord Fyfe asked about the impact of obesity on the National

1097
Health Service. We reckon that 21 per cent of adults in England are obese. A further 34 per cent of women and 45 per cent of men are over weight. The prevalence of obesity in England has trebled since the 1980s.
My noble friend asked about the cost. I cannot give him precise figures, but a report by the National Audit Office highlighted the substantial burden of obesity on our society. Taking health, social and financial costs together, the NAO estimated that obesity costs the economy in excess of £2.5 billion each year.
Our action in relation to the food industry has an important role to play in tackling obesity. But I believe that the question goes wider. The national school fruit scheme, the efforts that we are making to improve health programmes generally, and the encouragement particularly of young people but of all people to take part in exercise programmes are of equal importance.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Fyfe that the whole issue of the promotion of food to children is very important. The Food Standards Agency is considering a number of programmes to tackle these issues. It has established an independent expert review of the available evidence. That will pick up some of the issues that my noble friend has raised about the role of TV advertising in food choice. It will also examine surveys of the nutritional content of some foods promoted to children. I hope that that work will give rise to more concerted action in relation to the promotion of food to children. All of us who are parents know that this is not by any means an easy issue to tackle; nor is it easy for schools. Schools which have made brave attempts to promote healthy eating have often been knocked back because there has been a consumer reaction and they have lost money. We need to do a great deal of work in health and in education to try to move forward in a way that takes children with us, which is what we must do.
I come now to cucumbers! The noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, invites my noble friend to accompany him to Tbilisi. Other speakers too would be very willing to do so. I think that my noble friend risks a transition from eating cucumbers with Her Majesty to eating cucumbers at Her Majesty's pleasure if cucumber lovers have their way! The substantive point is that food is a great thing, but it also carries its risks. We seek to provide informed information to enable individual consumers to make up their own mind. I am sure we all agree with that.
We are all consumers. As consumers we have a right to expect clear, honest and accurate food labels so that we can make properly informed choices. My noble friend Lord Morris made a powerful and persuasive speech to that end. My noble friend Lord Graham said, "Let the buyer beware". The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, gave some excellent examples of why the buyer has to beware. There is no doubt that the importance of food labels is increasing as consumers become more discerning and the food industry introduces new products, new technologies and new ways of processing food.
I agree that consumers have a number of concerns about the way food is labelled. Can they believe what they are being told? Are they able to understand the
1098
information they are given? Is that information clear? Is it relevant? Is it easy to find and to read? Consumers want information on labels for a number of reasons. Not everyone necessarily wants the same information. People with allergies need very specific information to avoid substances to which they may have an allergy. For them, that information can be a matter of life and death.
As my noble friend Lord Morris and the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, suggested, others look for specific health benefits. They may be attracted to food making claims such as "low fat", "reduced salt", or "helps maintain a healthy heart". There are those consumers who just want to know that they are getting value for money and are not being taken for a ride when they make a purchase, as my noble friend Lord Graham suggested.
Whatever our personal attitudes to the many concerns consumers may have, there is surely one thing about which we are all agreed: that there should be clear, accurate and honest information so that the consumer can make properly and fully informed choices. I have no hesitation whatever in saying that the Government believe that it is crucial to make sure that we can combat misleading food labelling. For that we undoubtedly need proper regulatory tools and effective enforcement of those rules.
We know that consumers are not satisfied with the current regulatory position. We know that they are concerned that some claims, particularly those made on foods which may contain lots of fat, sugar or salt may not be reliable or simply fail to tell the whole story. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, gave us some excellent examples. There is also evidence to suggest that, despite there being regulations to protect consumers, there may still be products on the shelves which are mislabelled or labelled in ways that they feel are misleading. That is an enforcement issue.
Clearly, we have regulations. We have laws which provide certain safeguards although, I readily accept, not all the safeguards that noble Lords would wish for. But as a first step to improving the current situation, it is important that enforcement of the current law is as adequate as possible. I believe that there is some good news here. I pay tribute to the work of law enforcement officers. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, has a particular relationship now with trading standards officers. I pay tribute to them and the environmental health services provided.
When the Food Standards Agency was created, one of its responsibilities was to ensure the effectiveness of enforcement across the UK. A framework agreement on local food law enforcement was fully implemented in April 2001. Importantly, that gives the FSA a clear role and remit to monitor, set standards and audit the performance of the individual local authorities. That is an important step to encouraging consistency—we all want consistency; industry needs consistency—and a vigorous but proportionate approach. Ultimately, if an audit identifies real failure by a local authority to discharge its functions adequately, the agency has

1099
powers of direction and report. It has not used them yet; but they are powerful ammunition to encourage local authorities to take the matters seriously.
Noble Lords commented on the Food Standards Agency's guidelines. They are not statutory but are valuable in giving enforcers and the industry a clear framework within which to encourage and adopt consistent, appropriate labelling practices. Many retailers, including butchers. as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said, and the Co-operative movement, as several others said, have played their part in constructive dialogue. Although I fully accept that we need to look at the statutory framework under which we operate, there is much room to work constructively with industry to ensure that good practice is adopted. Retailers will benefit if they develop good practice, because more consumers will use their products. We wish to emphasise the need for good practice alongside statutory regulation.
The FSA has emphasised several points in its guidance. First, in the ticklish area of places of origin, it makes clear that origin labels on food must be unambiguous. It stresses the importance of clear labelling and, in particular, the need to consider how consumers will interpret labels and store displays. I readily accept the problem. Bacon or ham, for instance, processed in Britain using Danish pork should not be described or presented as British. The agency has recently published guidance on the terms "fresh", "pure" and "natural", which I hope will be extremely helpful. It has also published advice aimed at improving the clarity of food labels. That was another concern highlighted in the Co-op's excellent reports.
I readily accept that guidance can take us only so far and that we need to look at the legislation. Much of it is harmonised at EU level. The Government undoubtedly welcome the recent Commission initiative to review EU labelling legislation. Commissioner David Byrne recently announced a comprehensive review of that legislation. The Commission has made clear that it places labelling clarity and country of origin labelling high on its list of priorities. It is employing consultants to carry out the review and has set up a steering group to oversee the work. It is anticipated that it will report towards the end of 2003. Industry and consumer interests are represented on the steering group.
1100
The Government will take a pro-active role in arguing our cause within Europe. The Food Standards Agency has a critical role to play in European discussions. Among the things we want are a full declaration of specified food allergens in ingredient lists and more comprehensive ingredient lists to help those who want to avoid certain foods. Proposals aimed at achieving that have already reached common position stage in Brussels and are likely to be finally adopted later this year.
I note what my noble friend Lord Morris said about the need to see links between certain foods and diseases. I understand that consumers want easy-to-use nutrition labelling on all foods and agreed criteria for making health and nutrition claims such as "low fat", "high fibre", "good for the heart", "lowers cholesterol", et cetera. The Commission is drawing up proposals to address those issues. We will seek to ensure during negotiations that proposals are as comprehensive and as consumer-focused as possible. We have also been successful as the UK Government in persuading the Commission, with the support of other member states, to look at the rules on origin labelling.
I note what the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said about catering outlets. I know that research has indicated a number of different information issues with regard to non-pre-packed foods and foods sold in catering establishments. I believe that there is a balance to be drawn in this respect. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, about the degree of information that needs to be available, but the agency is to hold a stakeholder meeting in late January 2003 to establish the way forward. I hope that that move will be seen as a constructive response.
In conclusion, I should stress that I am by no means complacent about the current position. I take the strictures of my noble friend Lord Graham to heart. There cannot be any room for complacency. We must be ever vigilant. However, at the same time, short of the legislative changes that we shall undoubtedly see in the next few years, there remains much to be done in partnership with the responsible end of the industry. I commend the Food Standards Agency for its approach. We have had an extremely constructive debate this evening. I end my remarks by thanking my noble friend Lord Morris for his quite excellent opening speech.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes before nine o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the

  Police (Northern Ireland) Bill [H.L.]
  (First Day)
  The Committee met at half-past three of the clock.
  [The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Skelmersdale) in the Chair.]
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Skelmersdale): Before I put the Question that the Title be postponed, it may be helpful to remind your Lordships of the procedure for today's Committee stage. Except in one important respect our proceedings will be exactly as in a normal Committee of the Whole House. We shall go through the Bill clause by clause; noble Lords will speak standing; all noble Lords are free to attend and participate; and the proceedings will be recorded in Hansard. The one difference is that the House has agreed that there shall be no Divisions in the Grand Committee. Any issue on which agreement cannot be reached should be considered again at Report stage when, if necessary, a Division may be called. Unless, therefore, an amendment is likely to be agreed to, it should be withdrawn.
  I should explain what will happen if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting. The Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and will resume after 10 minutes. In this connection, the Chairman's watch is always right even when it is wrong.
  Title postponed.
  Clause 1 [Consultation with Board]:
  Lord Maginnis of Drumglass Lord Maginnis of Drumglass moved Amendment No. 1:
  Page 1, line 5, leave out subsection (1).
  The noble Lord said: First, I apologise for my voice. I hope it will last for four hours. There are those who may, before the day is out, hope that it fails me.
  When we debated the Bill at Second Reading, I was initially more than surprised at the lack of substantive responses from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams, who, in my short experience in your Lordships' House, has been the very epitome of courtesy, understanding and helpfulness. Yet, in retrospect, I think I understand the Minister's reluctance to attempt to counter the widespread objections that I and others voiced in respect of the Bill, and recognise how he may have felt constrained by more than the time considerations on that occasion.
  The extent to which he was unable to give assurance that what is before us is not a softening-up process for the Government's Text for Consideration, which
  GC 2
  accompanied the Bill has caused me some considerable anxiety. I hope that before today is out he will reassure me that further clauses deriving from the Text for Consideration will not be introduced to the Bill at a later stage or in the other place.
  This amendment to leave out Clause 1(1) addresses the issue of policing objectives as society as a whole requires them to be. It seeks to contest how Government seek to tailor them so that terrorists and their political acolytes can participate in a process that is alien to them and to which they are antagonistic. There is no doubt about that antagonism or the ongoing involvement in terrorism of the very people that the Bill is designed to accommodate. Indeed, a local paper states that the,
  "IRA now holds enough guns for 1,500 terrorists".
  I do not think that any of us are surprised by that revelation in the Sunday Independent of 29th December, nor by the fact that the people whom the Government are seeking to accommodate are involved in very serious racketeering and carrying out acts such as so-called punishment beatings against those—some of their own people; some business people in the Irish Republic—who fail to hand over millions— millions that no longer; I say at least this with some thankfulness, come as easily from America, following the 9/11 incident.
  In his response to me on Second Reading, at column 508, the Minister told me why Surrey would not allow criminals on district policing partnerships or its police board: basically, because it did not have to. But that means simply that terrorism pays. In other words, the pressure coming from Sinn Fein/IRA is such that we have to—Surrey does not—admit criminals to our police board.
  The great danger with the Bill is that it is not here for our consideration because society requires parliamentary debate on the matters that it addresses but because our Prime Minister has already reached an exclusive understanding with a terrorist fraternity and requires Parliament to accommodate that agreement. That is why we are here, but that is not democracy—it is effectively government by diktat. The Bill undermines the very fundamentals of democracy, of law and of order. It simply means that terrorism pays.
  Lest the Committee think that I stray from my amendment, let me try to illustrate what the Bill does and so put the clause in context. The Bill comes to us in a form in which any particular element is difficult to recognise as fundamentally undermining the democratic process. It is cleverly structured, but prepares the way for erstwhile terrorists, or criminals, to be members of the police board. It would reduce the number of board members who can cause an inquiry to be held from 10—a majority of the board—to eight, which is a minority. It would also reduce and dilute the basis on which the Chief Constable can object to an inquiry being held or, crucially, on which sensitive information can or cannot be made available.
  If we put those three things together, we find that the Bill opens the door to exploitation of the institutions that are intended to protect society by terrorists whose objective has been to destroy the very structure of that society.
  One has to understand this cumulative effect of the Bill to be able to recognise that Clause 1(1) is but a device to relegate the professional opinion and the influence of the Chief Constable to below a level that can be virtually dictated by some people who we would not permit to sit on the committee of our local sports club.
  Amendment No. 2 tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Smith of Clifton and Lord Shutt of Greetland, which we are shortly to debate, would ensure that this was to happen. But even without that amendment, there is no evident let out for the Secretary of State should be fail in his efforts to obtain agreement on long-term policing objectives. He is given the task of obtaining agreement but if we have this weighting of boards to permit terrorists, criminals and those associated with them to be part of the board; if we reduce the numbers of those people who are able to bring about inquiries, we open the door to a landslide of complaints and mischievousness that will have huge repercussions for ordinary members of society.
  It is of little consolation to be told—I have no doubt that I shall be told—that the Secretary of State ultimately would have no alternative but to go ahead without agreement after having sought to obtain it, if that were not possible. But that brings us back to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 and forces me to ask why we change it. That is properly structured; this is not. If I am right that the Secretary of State would go ahead if he failed to obtain agreement, no doubt the Minister will enlighten me. But if he is able to go ahead in the final analysis, could that decision then not be dictated by what the Prime Minister might agree with Sinn Fein behind closed doors, as happened at Weston Park? That is the problem I have with this clause. The Prime Minister can once again, through diktat, decide what arrangement will be provided for the benefit of Sinn Fein rather than for society as a whole.
  If Clause 1(1) stands as drafted and the influence of the Chief Constable is relegated to the status of others, as in the current Clause 1, the Secretary of State could be deemed to be without justification for decisions he may take. Perhaps I may illustrate the dangers in that. Where we relegate the professional opinion, we seek agreement from those who represent the lowest common denominator. What will society as a whole benefit from that? Sometimes we find that we begin to mend things that ain't broken. For example, Patten has set in motion a very expensive inquiry into the use of baton rounds. I do not know how long the exercise has been under way—no doubt the Minister can tell me—but it has achieved nothing conclusive. We are now hearing that in Northern Ireland the police can use water cannons for crowd control. In 1970, 1971 and 1972 that was frowned on. Water cannons were withdrawn in those years because they were allegedly indiscriminate.
  Worse still, we are now contemplating issuing police in Northern Ireland with CS gas. Nothing could be more indiscriminate as a means of crowd control than CS gas. In the final analysis, those of us who have lived, worked and soldiered in Northern Ireland and worked with the police there know that for as long as there is disruption on our streets, for as long as there are those who orchestrate violence, there will be a need to use baton guns.
  I do not intend to stray from the amendment but throughout today's proceedings it will be important to look at how each element of the Bill affects every other element of the Bill and how it undermines the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000. We must endeavour to persuade the Government. I hope that we will get a more definitive and perhaps sympathetic answer from the noble and learned Lord when we come to conclusions on each element to be debated here today. I beg to move.
  3.45 p.m.
  Lord Rogan: I support the amendment. The aim of subsection (1) is to promote and elevate the role of the board above others in determining the long-term policing objectives. As the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis of Drumglass, has said, the duty to determine the long-term objectives rested with the Secretary of State under the 2000 Act. That will remain so under this clause. However, the changes made in the clause will elevate the board above the Chief Constable in importance in determining the long-term objectives. Under the 2000 Act the Secretary of State is obliged to consult the board, the Chief Constable and any other persons he thinks appropriate. This clause will oblige the Secretary of State to consult the board with a view to obtaining its agreement and merely to consult the Chief Constable and any other person as before.
  Lord Glentoran: I should like to make a couple of generalities with your Lordships' permission. After I started putting together the amendments I realised that this is a very difficult Bill to have in Grand Committee because it amends two Acts. Noble Lords from all parties, including the Government, have tabled amendments to amend a Bill that is designed to amend two Acts. I hope that noble Lords will agree that most of the arguments have been made strongly at one time or another, either during the passage of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 or during Second Reading of this Bill. It will be difficult to try to amend amendments without being able to divide on them.
  The major amendments that I have tabled for today propose that certain clauses should not stand part of the Bill. An amendment that a clause should not stand part is worthless without a Division. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal spoke to me about that before our proceedings began afternoon. From our side, to use the phrase of my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew, I propose that we should just canter through some of those amendments, so that when we reach Report, we can deliver the arguments in, I hope, a fairly full Chamber, and have some meaningful Divisions. That is how I hope that we shall proceed.

  GC 5
  The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, also folds into how the Bill is structured. As I understand it, the essence of the Bill is to change the balance of power between the Secretary of State and the Policing Board, and between the Policing Board and the Chief Constable. As I said outside the Chamber to the noble and learned Lord and others, I have no argument in principle with most of the Bill, because my party would certainly like the judicial systems and so on of Northern Ireland to proceed in parallel with other parts of the United Kingdom. Most of what is contained in the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000—and, indeed some of the amendments to it if they are included—would be acceptable to a county or metropolitan police force in the mainland of the United Kingdom.
  However, the timing of this is wrong. When I first read the Bill, I felt that it should not be rushed through Parliament but given time because of the context into which it is being placed. Perhaps when the Bill was drafted, the context in Northern Ireland was different. We had devolved power, we had a devolved Government; it looked as though things were going reasonably well. Sadly, we have no devolution at present. Things do not look as if they are going well. We could be without devolved power for some time. It is in that context that I have drafted most of my amendments.
  As we stand today, although I do not wish to be associated with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, said in his opening remarks, I support the principle of the amendment.
  Lord Mayhew of Twysden: Perhaps I may briefly follow up on what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Rogan. We are doing something rather dangerous if we make a change from what was legislated only two years ago: the character of the obligation to consult.
  First, when it is proposed to amend an established text, it is normal to be told what has gone wrong with the established text in an Act that necessitates a particularly early amendment. I hope that we shall hear that from the Minister.
  I do not believe that this instance is any exception to that rule. The Government thought it sufficient in 2000 that the Secretary of State should merely consult the board, the Chief Constable and such other persons as he thought appropriate. It is hard to discern what can have occurred during the last couple of years to make that rubric less than satisfactory. Something must have, yet now this change is proposed. If the Secretary of State has a proposal for a long-term policing objective, it will still be good enough for the Chief Constable that he, the Chief Constable, is simply consulted. However, that is not so for the Policing Board, which has to be consulted with a view to obtaining its agreement.
  I have two objections to this provision which the noble and learned Lord may be able to dispel, and I shall be pleased if he can. First, as has been said, this change has the character of one in the eye for the Chief Constable. I think it may be perceived as such by his service if not by him, and neither he nor his service
  GC 6
  seems to me to be in need at this juncture of a slight, or a perceived slight, of that character. If there is any meaning in the text of the amendment, and I question that, surely the Chief Constable will ask why consulting with him should not also be with a view to securing his agreement. The implication is that getting his agreement is of no consequence to the Government, so one can just go through the motions with him. In the regrettable atmosphere of Northern Ireland, that is how this change is liable to be interpreted. That is an unnecessary slight, unless I am missing a rationale which at present eludes me which I should have seen.
  My second objection is that I cannot see what the new formula means. The Government do not go as far as to say that the board must be given a veto. That would be conferred by Amendment No. 2, which we shall discuss shortly, tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Smith. They do not say that no determination or revision shall be made without the consent of the board. In effect, it seems to me that they are inviting Parliament to say that it must be run past the board in draft form to try to get its consent. If that is not the purpose, what is it? How far must they go? What movement, if any, must they be prepared to make? How are their efforts to be judged judicially if the sufficiency of their efforts were, in some case, to be challenged?
  At present, it seems to me that this is gesture drafting, which is always liable to be a source of uncertainty and difficulty, and is made less desirable still in that for the Chief Constable it seems to be rather a rude gesture.
  Baroness Park of Monmouth: I should like to add one small point to the cogent points been made by my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew and the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. Surely, the Secretary of State is there because he represents what is still a part of the United Kingdom. If, for instance, the matter under discussion were a major decision affecting the Special Branch, the Policing Board might well have a totally parochial view, which would be probably heavily influenced by political considerations. The Secretary of State would have the wider knowledge that the changes being proposed could have a serious wider effect on the coverage of terrorism as it affects the whole of the United Kingdom. He could then tell the board. That is another reason why we have to resist this, because it is essentially parochial.
  4 p.m.
  The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): Having reminded myself that this is not Second Reading, I intend, if the Committee will forgive me, to stick to the point of the amendments. As the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, made plain, they are an attempt to strike out the whole of Clause 1. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran alluded to that. It is, in a sense, a clause stand part debate, to which I have no objection.
  The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, asked me—and I am deviating from my own rule—about. Surrey. Paragraph 11 of Schedule 2 to the Police Act 1996

  GC 7
  contains a prohibition on a person being a member of a police authority—the rough equivalent of the board—if he or she has within five years before the date of appointment been convicted and had a prison sentence of three months or more. After that five-year period is gone, however, there is no disqualification on someone sitting on the police authority in Surrey.
  The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, also asked me about the Text for Consideration. I believe that the Government have acted openly and honourably. We published the text at the first possible opportunity. I was able to discuss it with all noble Lords who were interested and the Secretary of State was party to the later discussions. The Government's position is that the Text for Consideration represents what we would seek to introduce only in the context of acts of completion. It is possible—I do not know and cannot say—that the clauses might be introduced in your Lordships' House, in which case we would have the opportunity to discuss them fully. It is possible—I do not know—that they may be introduced in the Commons, in which case they would come back to us and I assure your Lordships again that we would have the opportunity to discuss them fully.
  The clause provides for a slight balancing of consultation. The law currently requires the Secretary of State to determine—and from time to time revise—long-term objectives for the policing of Northern Ireland. This is therefore a question of long-term objectives, not a question specifically of how one deals with Special Branch, to take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth.
  The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, says essentially that the time is wrong. That again is a matter of political judgment upon which we will each maintain our view and neither will convince the other by argument, whether rational or not. I think, with great respect to him, that he is wrong and we are doing it right. In any event, that goes to his approach to the whole of the Bill and not simply to Amendments Nos. 1 and 5 to which I am speaking.
  The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, asked why we were doing this. It is for a number of reasons. The Updated Implementation Plan was published as long ago as August 2001. In Recommendations 10, 11 and 12, the Government made certain responses. Clause 1 is simply to attend to the response that was made—I repeat—as long ago as August 2001. There will be a slight change of balance. I do not think that anything has gone wrong with the board, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, suggested. It is settling well. My understanding—I defer to others if theirs is different—is that it is proving by and large a success. Clause I simply requires the Secretary of State to consult the board—which he has to do anyway—with a view to obtaining its agreement to the proposed objectives or revisions. I see nothing by way of slight to the Chief Constable there. The board is there as the properly constituted statutory authority with a division of statutory responsibilities between it and the
  GC 8
  Chief Constable. There is a danger sometimes of looking for bogeymen behind the wardrobe when there is not even a wardrobe.
  Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: I apologise to the Committee. I did not realise that I had a second bite of the cherry.
  Lord Dubs: It is not a bite; it is a nibble.
  Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: I shall take that advice, however intentioned. I am disappointed by the noble and learned Lord's response but I do not believe that that will surprise him. However, at least he appears to have confirmed my fears that, at some stage during the Bill, we shall have something that will not have the benefit of a Second Reading or Committee stage debate but will be introduced at a later stage without debate.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I distinctly did not say that. I said the opposite. I said that I did not know how history would unfold. I said that I did not know whether amendments would be introduced here or in another place but that, if they were introduced here, we would have a full discussion. If they are introduced in the Commons, they will have to come back here for full Lords consideration of Commons amendments. I said specifically that I shall ensure that we have ample time to discuss these questions and, indeed, your Lordships are entitled to demand that.
  Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: I am grateful that the noble and learned Lord has clarified that. It is some comfort. But the idea that the Bill is designed exclusively for the benefit of Sinn Fein/IRA when that organisation is involved in terrorist activity and in spying operations at the very heart of government and when, in other words, it is not to be trusted, is, to me, an absolute and utter folly. However sceptical Members of the Committee may be on the whole issue of policing in Northern Ireland, it is not to be taken lightly that a society which has, at first hand on home ground, had to endure 30 years of terrorism should now be sold out.
  Members of the Committee who will have known me in another place know that I am not a scaremonger or someone who tries to agitate beyond what is reasonable. But, on this occasion, I feel that there is an element of selling out and of sleight of hand. I believe that the way that we are now arriving at the third police Bill in four years is simply an incremental surrender to the threat of violence, if not violence itself.
  At a time when the Government are talking in tough terms about how they will fight a war at international level—but not on home ground, we hope—against international terrorism, we should remember that those whom we seek to accommodate have had associations with every other terrorist group that one could name throughout the world, with gangsterism and with organised crime in America and elsewhere.

  GC 9
  I do not want to intrude on the Committee's time by commenting further but I have to underline the fact that nothing I have heard reassures me that there is not an alternative. This is not complementary law; this is not to underpin law; this is to undermine it.
  Baroness O'Cathain: I think the Bill has been drafted by people who are not necessarily going through the whole 30 years of history, but it seems reasonable to me. We have the Secretary of State, who is the chairman; a non-executive board and the chief executive. In any organisation when considering objectives—the big word in this clause is objectives and the revision of the objectives—it is always the duty of a board to set the objectives for the organisation and then to consult. However, the consultation is not after the objectives are set; it would be ongoing. I cannot see the Chief Constable not being able to talk to the Secretary of State, or indeed members of the board, during the whole process of considering whether the objectives which are originally in their strategy are right for the circumstances, which are always dynamically changing, or whether they should be revised. I do not think it is put into little compartments. In the interests of the long-term peace and stability in Northern Ireland it is better to try to have a loose relationship, but the board would always have to be consulted in order to agree the objectives. Am I wrong or am I wrong?
  Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: With respect, I think the noble Baroness is wrong on this issue. She alludes to putting things into compartments. The Act is structured in the way that she imagines. The amendments to that Act put things into compartments as she implies would be harmful. Long-term objectives have more to do with political than operational issues. They are concerned with the structuring of policing. The Chief Constable has to interpret those in an operational manner. It is wrong to use the analogy of a company. That is a different situation. The board is the representative, and one would hope the honourable representative; people with integrity representing the best interest of society.
  Of course the Secretary of State will consult. The Act allows him to consult but he has to consult with a view to obtaining agreement. It places an onus on him that is unreasonable and politicises those within the board who are not meant to be there for political purposes, in the narrowest sense, but rather for the purpose of representing the interest of the community in relation to how the Chief Constable interprets the objectives and implements them in an operational sense. That is where the difficulties arise. We are putting into compartments the relationship between the various elements as has not occurred in the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000.
  Lord Rogan: May I say a few words? If we are going to use the analogy of a board of directors of a commercial company, let us assume for the moment that the Secretary of State is the chairman. The Policing Board contains the non-executives and the Chief Constable is the chief executive or, in American
  GC 10
  terms, the chief operational officer. It is perfectly reasonable that the chairman would consult with his non-executives to obtain agreement for proposed objectives, but those are wide objectives and not necessarily the operational nitty-gritty of the day-to-day running of the company. In the day-to-day running of the company, the chief executive—in this case, the Chief Constable—has primacy.
  If this clause goes through, that primacy will be taken away. Not only will the Chief Constable not have that primacy, but in fact he will have a lesser role than the board—or the non-executives. That is what we object to.
  4.15 p.m.
  Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Smith of Clifton Lord Smith of Clifton moved Amendment No. 2:
  Page 1, line 8, leave out from "shall" to "to" in line 9 and insert "obtain the agreement of the Board"
  The noble Lord said: My noble friends and I are strong supporters of the Policing Board. We believe that it has been working well. That is the view of the Oversight Commissioner, who highlighted several achievements of the board since its creation. We would like to strengthen this aspect of the board by this amendment.
  The clause appears to be designed to increase the power of the board. If so, the clause is welcome. However, it is difficult to decide whether this will make a difference in practice. We therefore believe that there is a need for legislation to tease out the differences between consultation, on the one hand, and consultation with a view to obtaining agreement. Our amendment proposes a tighter formulation. It would place an obligation on the Secretary of State to get the agreement of the board before he or she set out changes in the long-term objectives or codes of practice. I beg to move.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am grateful for the noble Lord's commendation of the board, which I believe is well justified. I cannot accept these amendments, or anything like them, because they would not simply enhance the power of the board, but give it an absolute veto on long-term objectives and codes of practice, whatever the strength of the argument and the conviction that the Secretary of State had. I do not think that any responsible Secretary of State at this stage could contemplate that. On that basis, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I invite the noble and learned Lord to deal a little more fully with the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Smith, about the difference between consulting and consulting with a view to securing agreement. I asked that question in my own rather halting remarks earlier but I did not detect an answer. I gave one or two illustrations of the difficulty to which this sort of drafting seems to give rise.

  GC 11
  If you are inviting a contrast to be made between consulting, and consulting with a view to securing agreement, then the question arises as to what movement is expected to be made, and how one judges whether sufficient attention has been paid to what Parliament will be taken to have intended. Could the Minister help me a little on that, and at the same time help the noble Lord, Lord Smith?
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: Certainly. It seems to me that undoubtedly consultation with a view to securing agreement has a different shade of nuance from simply consultation. It is right, as the noble Lord, Lord Smith says, that this is a modest enhancement of the board's significance and authority. That is why we have done it, pursuant to our undertaking in August 2001.
  Lord Smith of Clifton: Having heard what the noble and learned Lord said, we may reflect on this matter before Report. However, at this moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 3:
  Page 1, line 8, leave out from "Board" to end of line 9.
  The noble Lord said: This amendment concerns the same topic as that of the previous two amendments but, in fact, it seeks to do the opposite of what the noble Lord, Lord Smith, attempted to achieve in Amendment No. 2. The argument about the difficulties in obtaining agreement was made extremely well by my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew. I believe that the wording of that amendment was not helpful and my opening remarks follow on from that.
  The noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal said that the board is working well. I agree that it is working well but it is not complete—Members of the Committee will be aware that the problem children are not part of it. Therefore, we should not make a judgment as to whether it is or is not working well.
  Another point that is sometimes forgotten is that we have 13,000 soldiers or thereabouts in Northern Ireland, who, led by their general, are in support of the civil power. As I understand it, beside the Secretary of State, who is the commander-in-chief, so to speak, come the Chief Constable and the Policing Board. Then come the general and the soldiers. The Policing Board and the Chief Constable are, on paper at least, in control of a serious and significant security force. When we start to mess about with the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 and spread powers down from the commander-in-chief—that is, the Secretary of State—into a Policing Board which is incomplete and then to a Chief Constable, I believe that at this stage we are on dangerous ground. I beg to move.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, rightly says that this amendment returns us to the earlier argument. The consequence of his amendment would be that the 2000 Act would remain unamended. Therefore, he is seeking the same
  GC 12
  objective by a different course. For the reasons that I have already outlined, that is not what we have undertaken to do and, therefore, I cannot accept the amendment.
  Lord Glentoran: I thank the noble and learned Lord for that and we shall await Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Rogan Lord Rogan moved Amendment No. 4:
  Page 1, line 14, at end insert—
  "(2B) Nothing in subsection (2) above shall prevent the Secretary of State from determining or revising objectives under this section.""
  The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 8. These two amendments seek to make perfectly clear that the executive power of the Secretary of State is to remain unfettered. The Policing Board should not be given additional powers because a government of any hue have abdicated their responsibility.
  The purpose of long-term objectives is more political than operational, and submissions from the Chief Constable and the board should be of an operational and/or a feasibility nature. Enhancing the role of the board to that of a near partner involves it in the more political aspect of policing. These areas have not been devolved and this matter should not be effected by the back door. It is not consistent with Patten. Paragraph 6.3 of the Patten report states,
  "the statutory primary function of the Policing Board should be to hold the Chief Constable and the police service publicly to account".
  Paragraph 6.4 and the recommendation in paragraph 6.5 note the role of the board concerning objectives and priorities but not in setting long-term objectives. Indeed, it was in the 2000 Commons Committee Debate, where a member of the SDLP stated and first introduced the term "long term" into this section, in order to be consistent with Patten. I beg to move.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: These amendments are not necessary. They add nothing. Should be fail to reach agreement, the Secretary of State has the powers intact. On the basis of that assurance I hope noble Lords will withdraw the amendment. Incidentally, I remind myself that in Patten—the report, not the implementation document—paragraph 6.5 recommends that the Policing Board should set objectives and priorities for policing.
  Lord Rogan: With those assurances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 5 to 8 not moved.]
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2 [Board's policing objectives]:
  Lord Maginnis of Drumglass Lord Maginnis of Drumglass moved Amendment No. 9:
  Page 2, line 9, leave out subsection (2).
  The noble lord said: Here, there appears to be an absolute and total anomaly in so far as the board has a responsibility to determine and from time to time may revise objectives for policing in Northern Ireland. But those objectives in the Act were intended to be framed in such a way as to be consistent with the objectives brought forward by the Secretary of State. Now, with the removal of the part which states,
  "but in any event shall be so framed as to be consistent with the objectives",
  there is almost legal permission for the board's objectives to be at variance with those of the Secretary of State. Yet we have just debated the extent to which the Secretary of State, in determining his objectives, has to seek agreement or attempt to achieve agreement, with the board.
  So what is this provision intended to achieve? Once again, it appears to be simply a removing of qualifications in such a way as will ultimately please those who have no real interest in the welfare of society or the policing of Northern Ireland. I would have thought that consistency would have been commendable rather than that that should be removed. I beg to move.
  Lord Glentoran: It is probably appropriate that I speak now to my opposition to Clause 2 stand part because effectively that would achieve the same thing as the amendment currently under discussion.
  Under Section 25 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 the Policing Board is required to frame its policing objectives to be consistent with the long-term objectives of the Secretary of State. Under Clause 2, the board will merely have to take account of the Secretary of State's long-term objectives. This represents another example of the Secretary of State's authority being eroded at the expense of the board. I cannot help but think that this is a political concession. It is a concession that at any time we could regret, again harping back to my original statements about timing and the general situation in Northern Ireland today. Now is not the time to start messing about with the powers of the Secretary of State in regard to the security of the Province and the people who live in it.
  4.30 p.m.
  Lord Mayhew of Twysden: Perhaps I may revert to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis. I too find it difficult to understand why something that was considered appropriate two years ago, after a good deal of thought, is now apparently in need of amendment. The noble and learned Lord reassured us on the previous amendment about the Secretary of State's residual power to make long-term policing objectives. What is the point of the Secretary of State being able to do that if the board can make objectives stick that are inconsistent with them? It is extraordinarily difficult to understand. I am prepared to believe that there is some background material that I have failed to observe, but I would not be alone in benefiting from an explanation.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I shall respond to all three of your Lordships who have contributed. I do not disagree with the result which has been outlined by those who have spoken.
  The amendment would require the Policing Board to take account of the Secretary of State's long-term policing objectives set under Section 24. This is a change from the existing provision, which requires the board's objectives to be consistent with the Secretary of State's. I accept the comment made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, that this is a tilting of the balance. It would be wrong of me to suggest otherwise. It is a tilting of the balance in favour of the board, within the tripartite-type relationship. Again I go back to the noble and learned Lord's question. Why, after such a brief period since the passage of the 2000 Act, are we returning to this? The answer is that the board is in position. It is quite right, as the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said, that not everyone is aboard—no pun intended. It is working well. It will give additional authority to the board.
  That is essentially a judgment. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, thinks that the judgment has been made too early. I have to disagree. We are not in disagreement about what will be brought about. The question is whether it should be brought about at all, and if so, whether it should be brought about now. Essentially, that is the judgment we have had to make.
  Lord Glentoran: Perhaps I may add one thing. Looking forward, we are not just balancing the Secretary of State with the board. As I understand it, in the case of full devolution, the Secretary of State will be replaced by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. Perhaps the Committee should bear that in mind when making judgments about this topic.
  Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I have listened with care to the noble and learned Lord's characteristically lucid explanation, but I have found myself unable as yet to see an answer to my question. What is the point of the Secretary of State having this residual power, unaffected by anything that we have been discussing so far, to determine a long-term policing objective, when we are amending the law as it is at present—and has been only for the last two years—to allow the board itself to adopt a policing objective that is inconsistent with that? I know that it no longer has to be consistent but it follows from that that it may be inconsistent. That is fraught with future difficulties. Which is to prevail? What is to be the Secretary of State's attitude to the fulfilment of an objective arrived at by the board that is inconsistent with a long-term objective that he himself has made—having sought agreement but failed to get it?
  When we pointed out the difficulties of interpreting what is meant by "with a view" to securing agreement, the noble and learned Lord said that, at the end of the day, the Secretary of State will be able to go ahead notwithstanding the fact that he did not get agreement. In practice, how will that work? How is the Secretary of State expected to respond in his executive capacity to steps being taken by the board to secure the

  GC 15
  fulfilment of an objective that is inconsistent with his long-term policing objective? Does not the noble and learned Lord see potential for real future difficulty here? I can see why it may be thought necessary to make a balance, shift, nuance, or whatever—the board may feel happier and there may be long-term political objectives to secure that—but the board should not be indulged at the expense of the future difficulty that I have tried to outline.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: The current Act defines two different types of objective. Section 24(1) states:
  "The Secretary of State may determine … long-term objectives for the policing of Northern Ireland".
  The analogy made by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, is not entirely misplaced. The Secretary of State sets the long-term policing objectives. The board has then to determine—and, it may be, devise—objectives for the policing of Northern Ireland. So the two are not exactly the same. I respectfully repeat that the amendment would mean that the Policing Board would have to take account of those long-term—one may call them strategic—objectives when it functions on an annual and day-to-day basis.
  Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Lord Glentoran: I have given notice that we oppose the Motion that the clause should stand part of the Bill, but we cannot take any action on that today, so I pass.
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3 [Public meetings of the Board]:
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 10:
  Page 2, line 13, leave out "Paragraph 19" and insert "In paragraph 19(2)"
  The noble and learned Lord said: I ought to have said earlier that the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, abundantly explained to me his stance, which was that he reserved all his ammunition and all his subsequent positions on clause stand part. We all respect that.
  Amendments Nos. 10, 11, 14 and 15 are minor amendments to correct an error in the original drafting. As originally drafted, the transitional provisions in Clause 3(4) were applied to the whole clause. It is not appropriate for them to apply to Clause 3(3), because that requirement does not operate by reference to a year. These rather esoteric amendments are simply to correct errors of drafting. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 11:
  Page 2, line 14, leave out from "Board)" to "for" in line 15.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Smith of Clifton Lord Smith of Clifton moved Amendment No. 12:
  Page 2, line 15, leave out "eight" and insert "twelve"
  The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. We wonder why there is to be this reduction in the number of meetings of the Policing Board. After all, the Patten report recommended that,
  "The Policing Board should meet in public once a month to receive a report from the Chief Constable".
  The 2000 Act stipulated 10 times a year but the Bill will reduce that to eight times a year. The reduction of the number of public meetings that the board must hold each year is a clear departure from Patten. That is a retrograde step in transparency and public accountability. Nothing in the revised implementation plan, nor the public part of the Weston Park agreement, indicated that that departure was envisaged. We simply ask the Government to explain why they feel that that reduction in the number of public meetings is desirable. I beg to move.
  Lord Rogan: I shall speak not only to Amendment No. 12 but to Amendment No. 13, which is similar. The noble Lord, Lord Smith, alluded to the fact that the 2000 Act provided for a minimum of 10 public meetings of the Policing Board in any given year. The Bill will reduce that figure to eight. However, it also removes a paragraph in the 2000 Act that prevents a meeting being held within 28 days of a previous meeting. It therefore removes a de facto maximum of about 12 per year. Patten recommendation 34, in paragraph 3.6, recommended that public meetings be held once per month. The clause is inconsistent with that recommendation. My amendment, Amendment No. 13, would provide flexibility to the board by not prohibiting more frequent meetings, yet provide protection to the Chief Constable not to be obliged to report to the board too frequently—for example, on a weekly or, indeed, daily basis.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am most grateful. I shall respond, if I may, to both Amendments Nos. 12 and 13. I must say that the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, are perfectly reasonable and it is legitimate to require an explanation. This change has been made at the specific request of the Policing Board. It wants greater flexibility about when it can hold meetings. On the noble Lord's point about accountability and transparency, I underline that the provision is simply a minimum requirement. To give only one example, there were occasions when the board was dealing with the problems of Omagh last year when it was difficult to have public meetings. In fact, there was no public meeting in either January or February. So the board is settling in well. It made the request for more flexibility.

  GC 17
  That is also my answer to the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, on Amendment No. 13. Again, the board wanted more flexibility in the management of its business, which may well mean that it will be able to meet more frequently in public if it chooses, because the 28-day limit will not obtain. I hope that that is considered to be a helpful response to Amendments Nos. 12 and 13. Those are the reasons.
  Lord Smith of Clifton: In view of what the Minister said, I am reassured, but I very much hope that the board does not regress to holding merely eight meetings a year. Because it has requested this amendment, we must assume that it is acting in good faith, but there will of course be other boards in future. We may have to reconsider this question if it drops to the minimum of eight meetings a year. However, in the light of what the Minister said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees: In calling Amendment No. 13, I should inform the Committee that, if it is agreed to, I cannot call government Amendment No. 14.
  Lord Rogan Lord Rogan had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 13:
  Page 2, line 16, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
  "(3) In sub-paragraph (3) for "28" substitute "14"."
  The noble Lord said: In view of the response from the Lord Privy Seal, I shall not move the amendment.
  [Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 14 and 15:
  Page 2, line 16, leave out "Sub-paragraph (3)" and insert "Paragraph 19(3) of Schedule 1 to that Act"
  Page 2, line 17, leave out "Subsections (1) to (3) have" and insert "Subsection (1) has"
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 4 [Funding for pension purposes]:
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 16:
  Page 3, line 27, after "77" insert "(1)"
  The noble and learned Lord said: This is also to cure a drafting error. The clause separates the grant for police pension purposes from the rest of the grant for police purposes, which is a necessary first step to allow the board and the Chief Constable to draw up separate accounts for police officers' pensions and for other police purposes. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 5 [Accounts and audit]:
  4.45 p.m.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 17:
  Page 3, line 43, leave out "Service of Northern Ireland"
  The noble and learned Lord said: This, again, is a corrective amendment. The RUC fund is now called the Police Fund and not the PSNI Fund and therefore this is to correct that error. For the avoidance of further confusion, the police fund here is not the same as the non-statutory police fund chaired by Sir John Semple. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.
  Clause 8 [Reports of Chief Constable]:
  On Question, Whether Clause 8 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Lord Glentoran: The discussion and debate concerning whether Clause 8 should stand part of the Bill is very similar to that relating to Clause 9. I will briefly go through the arguments here.
  This is perhaps the most serious error in the Bill, if I may be polite and put it like that. It seriously reduces the power of the Secretary of State and the Chief Constable. It restricts the grounds on which the Chief Constable can refer requests for a report to the Secretary of State. It leaves out the provision—and this is the important part—that the Chief Constable can refer a request for a report to the Secretary of State if it would, or would be likely to, prejudice the prevention or detection of crime or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders. I submit that this is direct interference in the operational powers. We will probably have a longer debate on Report but I give strong notice to the Government that we, in this party on this side of the House, wish to see that re-included in the Bill by dropping these clauses.
  Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I want to add a few words in support of what my noble friend has just said. It is important to bear in mind that the 2000 Act does not give the Chief Constable a veto in any dispute between himself and the board over whether a report on a matter specified by the board should be made. It gives him the power to refer that dispute or issue to the Secretary of State provided that the issue arises where the Chief Constable has demurred from providing the specified report on one of the four grounds identified by my noble friend.
  I agree that this has a bearing upon the constitutional doctrine of the operational independence of a chief officer of police. For many years I have regarded that doctrine as one of profound importance to the rule of law in any democracy. It is of special importance in Northern Ireland because, if one is frank, it was honoured more in the breach than in the observance before direct rule was imposed some 30 years ago. There is particular sensitivity in consequence of that in Northern Ireland. It is important that no perception should be encouraged that it is in any way being trenched upon.
  Of those four grounds in the 2000 Act, three will continue to be present in the Bill as amended by this rather complex drafting and one will have been lost. It is worth seeing that they all have the same character.

  GC 19
  The prevention of crime falls slap within the operational responsibility of the Chief Constable. The same applies to the detection of crime and the apprehension of offenders. Is there anything about the prosecution of offenders that is different? There is not. They all share the same character. They come within Section 59(3)(d) of the 2000 Act, the fourth group, and the one which is now to be removed. They share the same character as the matters identified in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of that section.
  I suggest that here we have an important matter. One wonders why, again within two years, this change is being sought. Given the sensitivity to which I have alluded, it seems to be particularly important to remember that at present the law does not give the Chief Constable a veto; it merely gives him the power to refer the matter to the Secretary of State. It is that power which is being taken away and which I believe is dangerous. There may be a good explanation which eludes me at present. However, I hope for a persuasive reply from the noble and learned Lord.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I understand entirely the attitude that has been expressed by both noble Lords who have spoken. It may be convenient if we discuss this particular issue in detail when we come to Clause 19 because that clause will provide the new Section 76A. I am not ducking the issue because we need to examine this. However, in a curious way we will have a better opportunity when discussing Clause 19 than at this stage.
  Lord Glentoran: I thank the noble and learned Lord for that reply. As he pointed out, Clause 19 is very much part of this debate. It seems perfectly reasonable that we should have a full and interesting debate when we come to that clause.
  Clause 8 agreed to.
  Clause 9 agreed to.
  Clause 10 [Approval of proposals relating to inquiries by Board]:
  Lord Maginnis of Drumglass Lord Maginnis of Drumglass moved Amendment No. 18:
  Page 6, line 41, leave out "subsections (2) and" and insert "subsection"
  The noble Lord said: This clause concerns the number of members voting who can cause an inquiry. Again, I apologise to Members of the Committee as I am feeling decidedly unwell. I hope that they will forgive me and that they can hear what I have to say.
  Essentially, the clause makes it easier for the board to cause an inquiry under the 2000 Act. The number of members currently required is 10 out of a board of 19. The clause would require only eight members to cause an inquiry and, in some respects, it turns a minority into a majority.
  This issue was visited in Committee in the Commons during the passage of the Bill in 2000, and it is worth noting that the first copy of the Bill required that 12 members would be necessary to cause an inquiry. However, during the passage of the Bill the number
  GC 20
  was amended from 12 to 10 in order to placate the SDLP. In responding to Seamus Mallon on that occasion, Adam Ingram said the Secretary of State had already accepted that the number of members required to support an inquiry should be lower than the figure of 12, as given in the Bill.
  I said earlier that I was minded to move to a majority of board members voting for an inquiry, whatever the size of the board. Then, Adam Ingram illustrated that if there were 19 members of the board, the figure would be 10; if there were 15 members, it would be eight; and so on. Any variation of that would apply only if there were direct rule. He said that he failed to understand why the honourable member for Newry and Armagh did not accept the reasonable proposition that for an inquiry to be triggered, a majority of board members should want it. It would be, in the words of Patten, an extreme measure, so it was not unreasonable to expect the majority to be convinced of the merits of an inquiry before it was triggered. That is the working premise on which this approach has been developed. Those are important words concerning the idea that an inquiry is an extreme measure. I believe that they should be dwelt on at some length.
  Let us look at what is likely to happen if we reduce the number not from 12 to 10, as happened in the 2000 Act, but from 10 to eight. There will be a greater likelihood that inquiries will be called for trivial, provocative or malicious reasons merely as a hindrance.
  Adam Ingram said that, given that Patten—we are trying to be true to Patten—referred to the power of an inquiry as an extreme measure, there can be nothing unsound in persuading a majority of the board to hold such an inquiry. What has changed? What is the reason? Again and again, I hear noble Lords ask the Minister what has changed. I do not hear any convincing answer that things have changed so radically that we need to have a root-and-branch tinkering of the 2000 Act.
  Hence, I return to the point I made at the outset; that is, that this Government are prepared to do anything, however irrational that may be, however much that may contradict their original position in terms of policing, to ensure that those who are actively or passively associated with terrorism, whether they be Sinn Fein, IRA or both, become eligible to sit on the Policing Board. Amendments Nos. 18 to 22 run together. Amendment No. 18 simply opposes the clause standing part of the Bill. As I said, the number of members required has already been reduced and this would be the second reduction in two years. The other amendments seek to make it a little more difficult to cause an inquiry and they are in line with Patten.
  The Minister must tell us why he believes, or the Government believe, that when it is convenient for the Government and whatever arrangements they made at Weston Park, we can deviate from Patten but when others suggest that Patten is less than adequate, we are told that no changes can be made. I beg to move.
  5 p.m.
  Lord Shutt of Greetland: I have been looking at the numbers here and it seems that the amendment proposed cannot be right. This affects the number required for a quorum. For example, where the quorum with fewer than 16 members is 10, it is now suggested that there should be six required members. It was eight, but now it is suggested there should be nine. The idea that somehow, with as few as 10 members in a quorum of nine must agree and if there are only eight a resolution cannot go forward, does not seem to be right in any form of democracy. Therefore, I do not feel able to support the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis.
  Lord Rogan: In seeking to tease why these clauses are required, perhaps I may ask the Minister two or three questions. How many inquiries have been ordered since the board became effective? How many inquiries have failed to be ordered because the vote was insufficient? Finally, where would this change have made a difference over the past two years?
  Lord Glentoran: Perhaps I may say a few words on clause stand part now, as the issues are similar. Clause 10 concerns the number of members of the board required to initiate an inquiry following a report by the Chief Constable. At present, no such inquiry can be held unless approved by the required number of members of the board—10 members out of 19, which is more than 50 per cent.
  Clause 10 reduces that number to eight, as long as that represents the majority of the members present and voting. I see no purpose or virtue in this reduction. When the board consists of 19 members, it is perfectly reasonable that the required number of members present and voting to initiate an inquiry should be 10. If 50 per cent of the board cannot be there, it does not sound good, and I would not like the thought that an inquiry of this nature would be started with the support of less than 50 per cent.
  We must be aware that it is quite possible under those circumstances that a decision of this nature could be hijacked by either side. The Bill moves powers around and facilitates certain things. My main purpose in opposing the clause is to deal with that.
  I do not wish to be taken as a strong unionist or anything like it. My party has remained in a bipartisan agreement with Her Majesty's Government, and we are still there. I apologise for sounding pompous, but we are truly seeking to look after the security and the welfare of my fellow Ulstermen and countrymen.
  We are talking about the management of our security force in a country that is riddled with violent crime and terrorism. We are nervous that the Government are going too far, too soon. That said, fiddling about with the numbers of the board required to make a certain type of decision is gerrymandering, and in my humble suggestion is not very intelligent in the current climate.
  GC 22
  I give notice that we will come back to Clause 10 on Report and argue that it should not stand part. I hope that what I have said has gone some way to support the current amendment before your Lordships.
  Lord Shutt of Greetland: Will the noble Lord consider whether it is proper to have a quorum? The quorums that are suggested here, that are in the Act, are two thirds of the total membership, rounded down to the nearest full number. Therefore, if it is right to have that as a quorum, do these other things not follow through from that in terms of best practice?
  Lord Glentoran: I am completely content with the way that the numbers were laid out in the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000. I do not wish to change them.
  Viscount Brookeborough: I, too, want to question the Government on their motives. I must declare an interest in being a member of the Policing Board, but anything I say is of a personal nature on this subject. I understood that the Government had put together this fairly complicated policing Act in order to get consensus on policing in Northern Ireland and, what is more, to show that it was cross-community and accepted by everybody, and that the decisions would be pure and unquestionable in terms of democracy and the rights of minorities, majorities and different sections of the population. The Policing Board has been in being for a year. We are told by the Government that it is working well and now they want to produce an amendment that immediately draws the whole thing into question.
  It has been clear until now that a majority of the board was required. Now the Government want to enable certain decisions to be taken by a minority of the board. The credibility of the Policing Board should be uppermost in the Government's mind. Reducing the figures as they wish to—again I say this from a personal point of view—enables the undermining of the people and the system that the Government have put in place and continue to praise. I do not accept that that is right. I hope that we shall return to the issue in the future as a complete clause. We shall most certainly not give up at that stage.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: Plainly, we shall need to have a full substantive debate on this proposal. I shall explain the thinking behind it, which would at least expose that thinking, even though it may not be universally applauded.
  Line 43 at the bottom of page 6 of the Bill says:
  "In sub-paragraph (5)"—
  of the 2000 Act—
  "after "by" insert? —
  "—
  (a) a majority of members of the Board present and voting on the proposal".

  GC 23
  There is no prospect that a minority present and voting could bring about an inquiry. In fact, on my reading, those words,
  "a majority of members of the Board present and voting on the proposal"
  are not in the original Act at all.
  This means that we are lowering the threshold to get an inquiry. The reason for that is plain. Those who see themselves to be in a minority on the board at the moment are concerned that the threshold is too high, because those whom they see as the majority representatives—I stress those words "they see as"—can simply stay away or abstain to block the motion.
  The answers to the carefully crafted questions of the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, which I shuddered to hear, are nought, nought and nought at the moment. He may well have been in possession of that information before he asked the question. It is a perfectly legitimate question. The Government have made this commitment to deal with complaints that have been expressed that there might be a proper case for an inquiry of this sort which could be stymied by those who have the majority on the board. It is as plain and simple as that. That is the judgment that has been made. It is in no sense a criticism of the board; it is the response to a feeling that exists. There still remains the override that I have described to your Lordships in page 6 of the Bill, to insert,
  "a majority of members of the Board present and voting".
  Therefore, it is a lowering of the threshold but it is not in any way an empowerment of a minority to have its will over the majority of those present and voting.
  Lord Glentoran: I am afraid that I cannot agree with the noble and learned Lord on this occasion. I hear what he says, but by opening the opportunity to have fewer people in the boardroom allowed to vote, he is opening the doors to what I call a form of gerrymandering. Reducing the numbers allows the situation to encroach. I am sure many of us in less important situations and corners of the world have played this game on little committees, trying to make sure that we have the committee stacked with the people we want there and forgetting to tell the others that it is happening. I know that is frivolous, but it is behind my thinking to some extent.
  There are legal methods used within government circles, in the Millennium Commission and others, such as postal voting. If a decision of this nature needs to be taken urgently by the board, there is nothing to stop the chairman or the chief executive ensuring that those members who cannot be present on the day when the decision needs to be taken have an opportunity by fax to put their signature to their vote and thus enforce them either to make a decision or knowingly abstain and live with the result.
  5.15 p.m.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: Perhaps I may deal with that, because it is an important point. I do not think it
  GC 24
  is a fair representation of the safeguards in Schedule 1 of the 2000 Act. It is at page 50, if that assists Members of the Committee.
  Paragraph 18 of Schedule 1 at page 50 of the 2000 Act says there have to be at least three members of the board making a written request asking for a meeting of the board to be called "to consider the matter"—the matter being the setting up of an inquiry. That is trigger number one.
  Secondly—and this is mandatory—the chairman,
  "shall, no later than three working days after the day on which he receives the request, call such a meeting.
  "(3) The meeting shall be held no earlier than six, and no later than twenty-one, working days after that day."
  Importantly,
  "(4) The chairman shall notify each member of the Board of the date and purpose of the meeting."
  Those are very strict safeguards against the sort of fiddling or gerrymandering to which the noble Lord referred. I accept that the noble Lord's concern is a legitimate one, but it is fully met by those safeguards.
  Lord Glentoran: I accept what the Minister has said, in the light of those safeguards. I was aware of that, but I still wanted to make the point.
  Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: I have listened carefully to what has been said. I query the mathematics of the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, who suggested that in our Amendments Nos. 20, 21 and 22 we were seeking to achieve two thirds of the board voting. Those amendments would increase by one each of the numbers required in the 2000 Act, for a fairly obvious purpose. That is to underline our concern at the changes that have been made and accentuate our feelings on the matter. However, even nine out of 16, if my mathematics are not at fault, is around 56 per cent—something over a half. Ten out of 18 would be 55 per cent, and 11 out of 19 is about 57 per cent, give or take a percentage point. There is no question of us going to ridiculous lengths and asking for two thirds.
  However, I can envisage a situation in which there were only 15 people present, with four people unable to attend for some reason. If and when—perhaps I should just say when—we have Sinn Fein and other disreputables on the board, I can foresee a mischievous group of eight members taking advantage of the fact that only 15 members, or even fewer, are present and calling for an inquiry. Eight can cause an inquiry. If there were 17 people there I believe eight could still cause an inquiry. The Minister will clarify that, but I think we are talking about minimum numbers, we are not talking about democratic votes in terms of those who are present. I can foresee—and I hope the Minister will foresee—a situation where things get very tight, where the temperature rises in Northern Ireland and where, on a daily or weekly basis, a mischievous group get together and seek to call a meeting. As I understand it, we do not have to have eight to convene the meeting; eight can cause an inquiry to be held. A mischievous group of less than eight could regularly cause a meeting to be brought about until they find that they have the requisite eight

  GC 25
  and so an inquiry is called. You only have to win once when you are a terrorist. The issue is not the calling of an inquiry; it is the ability, through this ridiculously low number, to disrupt the working lives of other members of the board by calling a meeting on a whim and forcing this to happen again and again. I would be grateful if the Minister would address that issue.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: Perhaps I may amplify what I said earlier, because I may not have been clear. I repeat that there has to be a majority of those present and voting to bring about a positive vote for an inquiry. If there were, for instance, 17 present of whom eight voted for an inquiry, that would not bring about an inquiry.
  Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: I admit that I am thinking less than clearly today, for obvious reasons. That was not what I intended to say. I intended to say that with the prospect of eight being able to cause an inquiry to be held, there will be increasing motivation to call meeting after meeting to test the waters and so disrupt the working lives of other members of the board. I doubt that one would be disrupting the working—with the emphasis on working—lives of Sinn Fein/IRA, they are quite flexible in all they do.
  Viscount Brookeborough: As opposed to my noble friend Lord Maginnis, I am thinking clearly on this one. I meant a majority simply in the sense that if a decision is taken by eight people, whether it is a split decision or otherwise, it is a decision of the board. That board, as it sat, is capable of being less than 50 per cent of its full number. Therefore, the decision has been taken by a group consisting of under 50 per cent of the total board.
  One may wish to split hairs, but when decisions were made on matters such as the police uniform and Omagh, one was not aware of people's personal thoughts in those meetings, how they came to those decisions or how people may have restrained from voting or voted one way or the other. One was presented with was a unanimous decision because 100 per cent of the board was present. One is in danger of being presented with a decision reached with fewer than 50 per cent of the board present. I believe that that undermines our credibility.
  Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 19 to 22 not moved.]
  Clause 10 agreed to.
  Clause 11 [Investigations by the Ombudsman]:
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 23:
  Page 7, line 13, after "a" insert "current">
  The noble and learned Lord said: In this group, we find Amendments Nos. 23 and 27. Amendment No. 23 is in my name; Amendment No. 27 is in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Maginnis and Lord Rogan. I believe that both amendments seek to establish a common point; namely, to clarify that the
  GC 26
  ombudsman's power to investigate police policies and practices is non-retrospective. I believe that Amendment No. 23 is preferable, and I shall try to explain why.
  In answer to specific questions raised by noble Lords during Second Reading, I said that it was not the Government's intention that the power to investigate police policies and practices should be retrospective and that we would try to clarify that. I hope that I am fulfilling that undertaking.
  Amendment No. 23 makes clear that the ombudsman's remit in relation to the investigation of policies and practices is restricted to practices that remain current. That is why the additional qualifying wordߞ"current"—is included. In investigating those, it might well be natural to inform herself of the way in which officers have conducted themselves in applying those policies and practices.
  If we agreed to Amendment No. 27, the ombudsman would not be able to look at conduct in applying current practices and policies which had, for example, occurred only the week before Royal Assent. Therefore, in bringing forward our amendment, I hope that we have met the concerns expressed at Second Reading and elsewhere. The word "current" would limit the scope for investigation and the ombudsman would have to carry out her investigations on the basis that she was investigating current policies and practices. I take the point that she should not be usefully engaged in looking at policies and practices which had perhaps ceased 20 or 25 years ago. I hope that I have met the spirit of what Members of the Committee expressed. I beg to move.
  Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: I listened with interest to what the Minister told us and I think that it may go. I shall obviously study the matter at further length and no doubt we shall return to it on Report. Perhaps I may point out that my Amendments Nos. 27. 28 and 29 sought to achieve, first, what I think the noble and learned Lord has understood. They also sought to add that, insofar as policing is not a devolved matter, the Secretary of State should, as a matter of form, be sent a copy of any report. The Bill suggests that the report would be sent to the Chief Constable and to the board but, in so far as ultimate responsibility lies with the Secretary of State, a copy of the report should also be sent to him.
  Moreover, where an investigation under the clause is completed by the ombudsman, the ombudsman should report on it to the Secretary of State if requested to do so. That may go without saying, but it is certainly not enshrined within the current drafting and is something that might usefully be added to the Bill.
  5.30 p.m.
  Lord Fitt: This debate has once again illustrated that policing in Northern Ireland is a highly sensitive issue. Even after so many years of debates and inquiries, many people in Northern Ireland feel that the Bill is totally unnecessary. I am certain that the previous Secretary of State who piloted through the Police

  GC 27
  (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 saw no need for the inclusion of all these additions to it. Although it will be denied, I am also certain—as are many people in Northern Ireland—that the whole Bill is a result of discussions that took place at Weston Park.
  In the aftermath of the terrible tragedy of Omagh, a name came into the public domain that was allegedly a pseudonym for Kevin Fulton. Kevin Fulton was allegedly an Army agent who was giving information to the police. When his name came into the public domain, it was to the effect that he had got in touch with the police and given them information that the bomb was to be exploded in Omagh that cost so many lives. After many hours of arguments and inquiries, it subsequently transpired that that was totally untrue and that the information that he gave could not and did not identify the town of Omagh as to be bombed that day. However, his intervention and his statement led to the ombudsman calling an inquiry into the activities of the police: what they did or did not do in relation to the Omagh bomb.
  I do not have to illustrate to the Committee how emotive was that time in Northern Ireland, how the whole community stood back in revulsion at the terrible happenings of that day. I attended many of the funerals and met many of the relatives of the victims, and I know the emotion that there was about that.
  The conclusions of the ombudsman's report into that, which, as I said, was triggered by the so-called information given by this agent, Kevin Fulton, led to a great deal of controversy in Northern Ireland. It appeared that the ombudsman, Nuala O'Loan, was coming down firmly in a position that placed her in total opposition to the police. That is how the police saw it—and how I saw it, because I knew many of the policemen engaged in that inquiry, especially Chief Superintendent Eric Anderson, who was broken-hearted about what he had to do in the investigation into that complaint.
  That is terribly dangerous. It seems to put the office of the ombudsman firmly in the nationalist as opposed to the unionist camp. Again, we have all the seeds of a bitter division. That division has not gone away.
  I once spoke here to the ombudsman and told her of my great reservations about and hostility to the report that she then issued. She told me then, and it was confirmed by those who were in her company, that the report stated quite clearly at the outset that the police could not be blamed for allowing that bomb to be exploded in the town of Omagh. That is quite true, it was printed at the beginning of her report, but that is not how the people in Northern Ireland saw it. Even yet, depending on what district one goes to or what religious group one gets involved with, there are people who will say that the police stood back and let that bombing take place.
  GC 28
  No later than this Monday, I was in Northern Ireland. One of our widely read newspapers, the Irish News, printed a front-page report. I was terribly distressed when I read it. It appears that the NIO agreed a pay deal to the so-called informant, Kevin Fulton. He has now left Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Office have agreed to buy him a home in England and to pay him a considerable sum of money, all to stop him from identifying the name of another IRA mole whom he allegedly knew in Northern Ireland. That report—which I do not contradict, but will speak to the Lord Privy Seal about after the Committee, because it is very annoyingߞstates:
  "An NIO source last night admitted that attempts had initially been made to use the Police Ombudsman's Office as a conduit to offer the compensation deal to Fulton, but that was abandoned after Nuala O'Loan's office refused to get involved.
  But it is understood that one of Fulton's police handlers travelled to England late last year and advised the former agent he would receive 'compensation' if he dropped threats to reveal the identity of the IRA mole known as 'Steak-knife'."
  This man, Kevin Fulton, is on record at this especially emotive time of having gone to a British Sunday newspaper and signed a deal for £50,000 that he would identify this mole. The newspaper agreed to that, and then decided to make further enquiries. When those were made of the police, they immediately withdrew the mole.
  That involves the use of taxpayers' money from everyone in Northern Ireland and throughout the United Kingdom. The NIO was prepared to give that man considerable compensation to set him up in a lifestyle here, outside Northern Ireland, on the ground that he does not divulge the name of the IRA mole. What is to prevent him from divulging that name to a Sunday newspaper in future, if he is so unreliable? He gave an interview to an English newspaper and the reporter said that his impression of him was that he was,
  "a notorious double dealer behind a string of dubious hoaxes".
  If the Northern Ireland Office is to use British taxpayers' money to pay a scoundrel such as that to leave Northern Ireland and to set him up in a lifestyle to which he is rapidly becoming accustomed, I again pose the question: is there any guarantee that he will not at some time in future—irrespective of the compensation which he has been paid—run short of money and go to a Sunday newspaper to divulge the name of the IRA mole? Personally, I should be quite happy about that as I have no time for moles, and I do not care who the mole is. Some people say that people are so frightened of divulging the name of the mole because he may be in the upper echelons of the IRA. We do not know, but it is not right that the ombudsman's office should be used, or was used—I do not believe that it will ever be used again—to call into question the credibility, sincerity or compassion of the police of Northern Ireland in their investigation into that terrible tragedy.

  GC 29
  Incidentally, I notice that the NIO has tried to use the ombudsman to act as a link with the alleged informant who is now living here in the United Kingdom. She has refused to do so. Nuala O'Loan may have learned her lesson from previous events. However, I believe that it is right for the Government either to agree with this or to let the people of Northern Ireland know how much money has been paid and what it has been paid for and whether they have any guarantees that this so-called informant will not divulge the name of the so-called IRA man in the IRA.
  This report, which is in Monday morning's Irish News, is very disquieting. I have a copy of it here. The printing of such a report at this time could resurrect all the doubts and concerns that people have about some members of the ombudsman's office and, indeed, about the police in Northern Ireland.
  Lord Glentoran: I want to say two things on this amendment. First, cautiously, I welcome it. I am certainly nervous about the ombudsman being able to investigate what is termed here "practice or policy". It is getting very close to investigating operational methods. There is a balance here but, on this occasion—the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal will probably not believe his earsߞI wish to give the benefit of the doubt to the ombudsman. I am grateful that this government amendment has been tabled today because it certainly makes me far more comfortable with the Bill as it stands.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am not seeking to conclude the discussion, which obviously I cannot do. In response to the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, I simply want to say that I have not seen the cutting and am in no position to make any comment at all. However, my silence should not be taken as acquiescence. I am in no position to have any knowledge about it.
  Baroness Park of Monmouth: I differ slightly from my noble friend Lord Glentoran because I am concerned that one provision under which the ombudsman may decide to investigate a matter is when she has reason to think that there is significant public concern. It seems to me only too likelyߞ
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am trying only to be helpful, not discourteous. My later amendment takes away that offensive phrase and substitutes it with "the public interest".
  Baroness Park of Monmouth: The noble and learned Lord has corrected me most helpfully. I accept that but still wonder whether it would not be more appropriate and more in line with what I believe all other ombudsmen do if, when she has reason to think that it is in the public interest that something should be done, she says to the Secretary of State, first, that she believes that an issue should be investigated. He may decide that she is not the proper person to do so because of the problems that it might create in the relationship between her and the police—relationships mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt—where a certain amount of mutual distrust might arise.
  GC 30
  Therefore, I would want the ombudsman to take no initiative of that kind without previously consulting the Secretary of State. There may be room for that in the legislation, in which case, of course, I shall not pursue the matter further. However, I believe that he would be better placed than her to judge whether it is an appropriate issue for her to investigate. I make a total distinction between that and the normal work of all ombudsmen, which I believe is to listen to the complaints of the public against the police and to investigate those complaints. But this gives her power to investigate major areas of political public policy. There should be a safety mechanism built in somewhere to restrain her because once she has said to the Policing Board "I am going to do this", it will be meaningless that she afterwards mentions it to the Secretary of State. I should like to see some sort of built-in safety mechanism.
  I may be making too much of this but a point was made earlier about how important it is that the public should trust the police. The activities of the ombudsman need to be considered in the light of the need not to destroy the reputation of the police without very good reason.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: Perhaps I may respond to the noble Baroness. If the ombudsman decides to conduct an investigation, the Bill requires that:
  "he must immediately inform the Chief Constable, the Board and the Secretary of State".
  It is not simply the board that has to be informed immediately, but the Chief Constable and the Secretary of State. If the suggestion is that the Secretary of State should have a veto on the ombudsman's work, I suggest that goes to the very virtue and nature of an independent ombudsman. If there are allegations of state malpractice, surely it should not be for the Executive to determine whet her or not investigations should occur.
  5.45 p.m.
  Baroness Park of Monmouth: I entirely accept that. I simply feel that the judgment of the ombudsman in such issues should be controlled to some extent by beginning with the Secretary of State, so that at least it is possible to say on an issue of timing, "This is the wrong moment to do that", or whatever other reservation he has. I recognise that I seem to be advocating the interference of the Executive in the operations of the police. I accept that and that is why I wish some sort of mechanism could be brought about which does not do that but which enables some thought to be given to it. To judge by the Omagh experience, the ombudsman may not necessarily have a strong understanding of the widening circles of damage that can arise from impulsive, though entirely honourable, intentions.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 24:
  Page 7, line 15, leave out from "that" to end of line 16 and insert "it would be in the public interest to investigate the practice or policy"
  The noble and learned Lord said: This aspect was touched on by the noble Baroness. The amendment concerns new Section 60A, which deals with investigations into police practices and policies. Your Lordships have now agreed that,
  "The Ombudsman may investigate a current practice or policy…if…
  (b) he has reason to believe that the practice or policy is giving rise to significant public concern."
  We have had a good deal of representations that have led us to the conclusion that that is not the best formulation. The better formulation would be "in the public interest". The reason for that is twofold. First— noble Lords have spoken about this—there can be a whipped up rather synthetic agitation based sometimes on misapprehension or sometimes on plain untruths, which would generate significant public concern. Having listened to the representations, we thought that those points were well made. We have suggested, "in the public interest". That would exclude a synthetic agitation because it would not be in the public interest to investigate that.
  There is also a deeper point. There are some acts of wrongdoing which are not known to the public. It is in the public interest that they should be exposed and demonstrated but they cause no significant public concern because the public are not aware of them. We thought carefully about the representations we had. I hope this amendment commends itself to the Committee. I beg to move.
  Baroness O'Cathain: I am always concerned when I see reference to the public interest. Who determines what is the public interest? I know that public concern and public interest are different but I am slightly concerned about the use of words.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I take the point made by the noble Baroness and would make two observations. The ombudsman has to make judgments on public interest questions in the context of her other functions, not least, for instance, in deciding which information should be made public, if any. If her decision on what is in the public interest is irrational, she is subject to the control of the court through judicial review.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Mostyn of Williams Lord Mostyn of Williams moved Amendment No. 25:
  Page 7, line 16, at end insert
  "(1A) But subsection (1) does not authorise the Ombudsman to investigate a practice or policy to the extent that the practice or policy is concerned with conduct of a kind mentioned in section 65(5) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (c. 23) (conduct which may be within jurisdiction of tribunal established under section 65 of that Act)."
  The noble and learned Lord said: Amendments Nos. 25 and 31 are linked. They set out the parameters within which the ombudsman may operate. The two amendments seek again to address concerns raised. Amendment No. 25—this may chime well with the sort of concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth—makes clear that there is not to
  GC 32
  be an overlap between the ombudsman and the machinery set up under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. That was a matter about which we had to think carefully.
  Amendment No. 31 explains that while the ombudsman is entitled to have access to all the information she may require to conduct an investigation of a current policy or practice, those responsible for handing over that information are required to identify it as sensitive and to flag up that in their judgment it should not be further disclosed.
  We have tried to achieve a prudent balance. I hope Members of the Committee will think we have got it right. I remind the Committee that Section 63 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 contains a series of safeguards to prevent improper disclosure by ombudsmen of that type of information. I beg to move.
  Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: Perhaps I may point out to the Minister an old saying that there are no secrets in Ulster, and it is one to which he might give some cognisance. The reality is that the Chief Constable may well put an embargo on information passed to the ombudsman's office. As the Minister will recall, even the Secretary of State's office was not secure when it came to determined spying by the IRA. Nor have I any reason to believe that, whatever the integrity of the ombudsmanߞ-I do not, for one moment, call that into question—whatever the safeguards relating to her office and the administration in her office, it is unlikely that she could guarantee that sensitive, secret information could be adequately safeguarded.
  Although the Minister's intentions are good, they are likely in practice to be ineffective. Therefore, I believe that the amendment is inadequate. It is intended to reassure us, but is not a realistic safeguard against the determination of subversives to gain information. It may be damaging not just to a person or a group of people, but to society as a whole.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I take the noble Lord's point but that does not derogate from my central proposition that one needs safeguards. After all, Mr Shayler was recently convicted by a jury for a breach of the Official Secrets Act. In the nature of things, that meant that he had breached it, but that would not bring me to the conclusion that we do not need an Official Secrets Act. One has to do the best one can, and we have a reasonable balance here of protecting legitimate interests of different sorts.
  Lord Glentoran: I wish to make one point here, not with the amendment itself other than where it refers to Clause 76A(1). I would feel much happier if Clause 76A(1) were Clause 76.
  Baroness Park of Monmouth: I am sorry to be difficult again. I see that the general intention is very good. Subsection (2)(b) in Amendment No. 31 says,
  "the person supplying the information is of the opinion that it ought not to be disclosed".

  GC 33
  Subsection (3) of the amendment goes on:
  "The person supplying the information must—
  (a) inform the Secretary of State that the information has been supplied to the Ombudsman".
  That seems an extraordinary idea. If it is not suitable to be supplied, here we are accepting that it will have been supplied and then thought will be given to whether it should have been. Have I misunderstood that?
  I should also like an answer some time—although obviously it cannot be now—on the security arrangements for vetting the members of the ombudsman's staff.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: In response to the first question raised by the noble Baroness, this brings into operation the requirement that the information should not be further disclosed by the ombudsman, not that it should not be disclosed to the ombudsman. Subsection (3)(b) says:
  "inform the Secretary of State and the Ombudsman that, in his or its opinion, the information ought not to be disclosed on any of the grounds mentioned in section 76A(1)".
  In other words, it cannot be published by or on behalf of the ombudsman. I do not know the security vetting procedures for the ombudsman's office in detail. I undertake to find out and write to the noble Baroness and, if appropriate, I shall put a copy of the letter in the Library.
  Baroness Park of Monmouth: I take one further point from the noble and learned Lord, which is that in most busy organisations it is in practice unlikely that something will rest with the ombudsman alone. It is not practical. There will be a number of people around her who would need to know, for various reasons, what information had been supplied. Therefore, it is not quite as simple as it sounds to say that it stops with the ombudsman. In practice, unless she is a quite remarkable person, it cannot.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 26:
  Page 7, line 18, leave out "must" and insert "shall"
  The noble and learned Lord said: We have in this group Amendments Nos. 26 and 30. We are back to our old friends "must" and "shall", in Amendment No. 26. Amendment No. 30 would replace "enactment" with "statutory provision". There is no substantive change here. It is simply designed to ensure consistency with other legislation. Amendment No. 26 brings the wording into line with the rest of the clause and the 2000 Act. Amendment No. 30 brings the wording into line with the terminology used—as noble Lords well know and recall—in Section 1F of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954. I beg to move.
  6 p.m.
  Lord Rogan: The night is getting late and I am going to be pedantic. I am somewhat troubled with the word "immediately". How is that defined? Perhaps defining
  GC 34
  a timescale—say within a 24 hour period or within one working day—would be better than using the word "immediately". I am in favour of specifying within 24 hours.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I think we have moved beyond "immediately". I am speaking to Amendments Nos. 26 and 30, which happily do not deal with anything immediate.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 27 not moved.]
  Lord Maginnis of Drumglass Lord Maginnis of Drumglass moved Amendment No. 28:
  Page 7, line 24, at end insert "; and
  (b) send a copy of his report to the Secretary of State."
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: These amendments would alter the reporting arrangements. They would require the ombudsman to report to the Secretary of State as well as to the board and the Chief Constable, rather than only to the board and the Chief Constable, copied to the Secretary of State where appropriate. We see this as going against the spirit of Patten, which placed a greater emphasis on the role of the board rather than the Secretary of State. The main vehicle for accountability should be the Policing Board. II: was therefore to the board that Patten recommended, in paragraph 6.41, that the ombudsman should report on her findings.
  Clause 11 already makes provision for the report to be sent to the Secretary of State in particular circumstances, such as when the investigation touches on an area of his responsibility or on an excepted matter, within the definition set out in the Northern Ireland Act 1998. We think this is an appropriate arrangement and sufficiently safeguards the Secretary of State's interests to be informed about the outcome of ombudsman's reports.
  Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: I am grateful for that clarification. None the less, I feel that it is contradictory, as in so much of this Bill. Back in Clauses 1 and 2, the Secretary of State has a specific role, taking into consideration that policing is not a devolved matter and the Secretary of State has the total responsibility. To ask the ombudsman to send a copy of her report to the Secretary of State is hardly infringing her independence. As the Secretary of State has the ultimate responsibility, it is reasonable for him to require the ombudsman to report on her investigation. That is consistent with what is in the Act and what government have proposed in Clauses 1 and 2. I make those points in the hope that the Minister will not be so assiduous in his pursuit of the independence of the ombudsman as to make her task and her place within the overall scope of things slightly ridiculous. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 30 and 31:
  Page 7, line 28, leave out "an enactment" and insert "a statutory provision"
  Page 7, line 36, leave out from beginning to end of line 11 on page 8 and insert—
  ""(2) Subsection (3) applies if—

  (a) the Chief Constable or the Board supplies information, or information contained in a document, to the Ombudsman under subsection (1) for the purposes of or in connection with an investigation under section 60A of the 1998 Act;

  (b) the person supplying the information is of the opinion that it ought not to be disclosed on any of the grounds mentioned in section 76A(1).

  (3) The person supplying the information must—

  (a) inform the Secretary of State that the information has been supplied to the Ombudsman;

  (b) inform the Secretary of State and the Ombudsman that, in his or its opinion, the information ought not to be disclosed on any of the grounds mentioned in section 76A(1).""

  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 12 [Independent members]:
  Lord Shutt of Greetland Lord Shutt of Greetland moved Amendment No. 32:
  Page 8, line 19, at end insert ", including in terms of gender and ethnicity"
  The noble Lord said: This relates to the appointment of independent members to the district policing partnerships. The clause suggests that:
  "In appointing independent members of a DPP the board shall so far as practicable secure that the members of the DPP (taken together) are representative of the community in the district."
  Clearly, being representative of the community in the district means being representative of the district. There would obviously be a different sort of representation in certain parts of Belfast to parts of Antrim or North Down, for example.
  We have come back to words such as "representative". We have decided not to propose "reflective", but we could well do so. This also brings us to the word "community". I have always thought of community as rather a good word, but there is a sense in which, sometimes, it leads one into thinking— particularly in the case of Northern Ireland—that people are of one of two sorts, and we know what that means. This amendment is to include within that,
  "in terms of gender and ethnicity".
  I believe that to ensure that we are representative, reflective or whatever, we need to take a broad look at that community in achieving a district policing partnership. It is important that gender and ethnicity are considered and it is not just a matter of looking at unionists, nationalists and so on. I beg to move.
  Lord Glentoran: Perhaps I may speak to clause stand part at the same time as speaking to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Shutt. I have a great deal of sympathy with the noble Lord's amendment, because my concerns are the interpretation of the description in the Act, which the noble Lord very eloquently outlined and, perhaps even more so, what I
  GC 36
  understand to be the Government's intention for Belfast—and probably not only Belfast. If there are to be four sub-DPPs for the greater Belfast area—north, east, south and west—unless one can find some clever drafting, it is almost certain that the east will be hijacked, almost entirely loyalist and run by loyalist paramilitaries, either up front or behind the scenes. The same will be true of west Belfast. It is not certain who controls the ground in north Belfast, so there may be a punch-up of some sort there. That proposal is not at all attractive to me.
  In the light of that, it is dangerous to start placing restrictions and predetermining how the DPPs should reflect the district for which they are responsible. If we can find a way to broaden the provision, as the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, is intended to do, that must be welcome.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I sympathise with what lies behind the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, but it would not produce the outcome that he wants. I entirely agree that "representative" is a broad term, which undoubtedly includes gender and ethnicity. It may include other categories in the statutory equality duties in Section 75 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998.
  The code of practice will determine those appointments. After all, we should not limit "representative" simply to gender and ethnicity. There is also religion, disability, age and cultural background. The problem with good intentions, with which the noble Lord will be familiar, is that if we write in gender and ethnicity, it will seem that they are the only two categories that matter. It is better to have a code of practice and allow it to operate. I sympathise with what the noble Lord said. I am happy to reaffirm as boldly as I can that gender and ethnicity are to be taken into account when one considers representativeness.
  I hope that, on the basis of what I have said, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
  Viscount Brookeborough: Before the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, rises to do so, may I assure him that we are in the process of selecting the members for DPPs. We shall begin next week, but they will not be announced until they have all accepted the posts and are all in place. However, every type of grouping, religion and gender that one can possibly imagine is being considered to ensure that those members are representative of the community. The noble Lord should have no worries on that score.
  Lord Shutt of Greetland: I am delighted with the Minister's assurance that all these and other matters will be taken into account and that that is a matter of public record. I add only that good intentions are better than bad ones. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 12 agreed to.
  Clause 13 [Disqualification]:
  Lord Rogan Lord Rogan moved Amendment No. 33:
  Page 8, leave out lines 25 and 26 and insert—

  "(a) from membership of a DPP for a period of three years; or

  (b) permanently from membership of a DPP if his failure to make the necessary disclosure under paragraph 7 was intentional."

  The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 36. Clause 13 permits persons removed from office under paragraph 7 of Schedule 3 to the 2000 Act—in other words, those who have made a false declaration about criminal convictions—to be eligible for reappointment next time round.
  The effect of that will be that a person removed the day before a local election will be unaffected. He can immediately be reinstated in office after the election. Our amendments are intended to prohibit people for a period of five years—meaning that anyone who is suspended will have an actual period of suspension to serve. Further, they would permanently disqualify a person who intentionally made a false declaration. That is a serious intention to deceive and should not be treated lightly, as it appears to be in the Bill. The presumption should be that the failure is intentional unless the board has determined otherwise. We seek to remove any problem in determining an intention to deceive. I beg to move.
  Baroness O'Cathain: On a point of clarification, earlier in our proceedings the noble and learned Lord said when discussing the issue of appointments with respect to the Surrey police that people could not be appointed within five years. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, is valid if someone who was disqualified one day when there were local elections the next was allowed to get back in. I support the amendment; I only wonder why the period is to be only three years if in the example of the Surrey police it would be five.
  6.15 p.m.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: Perhaps I may immediately deal with those points. In the illustration of the Surrey police that I gave in answer to the continual tormenting of me by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, I simply pointed out that it is a disqualification from sitting on a police authority if one has a previous criminal conviction that has been punished by a sentence of three months or more.
  The disqualification here may be for different reasons and Clause 13 introduces an equivalence between the members of the DPPs and the members of the board. A member of the board who is disqualified is disqualified until the next Assembly election. Having been removed, his disqualification runs until the next Assembly election. The point of the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, remains: he could be disqualified close to an Assembly election and then be reinstated. We have tried to get some equivalence between
  GC 38
  disqualification and re-membership of a DPP with disqualification and re-membership of the hoard. That is simply a question of consistency.
  Viscount Brookeborough: They are not appointed under the same rules, because the independent members of the board do not necessarily fall at the next election. The independent members of a DPP do, because local elections come about at prearranged times or after a certain length of time. They are therefore not similar to independent members of the main Policing Board.
  Lord Rogan: If consistency is what we seek, I should be happy for MLAs to be disqualified for three or five years as well.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I cannot accept that offer on their behalf. My point is that in respect of elected persons, if one is removed one is eligible to go hack onto the board after the next election. It seems appropriate and, as I said, equivalent to have the same system for DPPs.
  I turn to the second point—that there should be a presumption that there has been an intentional failure to make the necessary disclosure—raised by Amendment No. 36. The current code of practice on the appointment of independent members, which was published last August by the Secretary of State, already instructs the board carefully to consider whether failure to disclose an offence should rule out an applicant. I respectfully suggest that that deals with the mischief that the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, was addressing.
  Lord Glentoran: Perhaps, for the sake of tidiness, I should speak to Amendment No. 35, which seeks to insert the words,
  "for a period of five years".
  This matter is in the same vein as the one that we have just been debating. If a person happens to get thrown out of the DPP for a misdemeanour a week before the election, then the idea that he should be able to be readmitted the following week is nonsensical. If DPPs are to exist and to do their job, they will have to be groups of very serious and committed people. If one of those people, to use rather old-fashioned language, has let himself and the side down to the extent that he has been thrown off the DPP, it would be rather uncomfortable for the remaining members of the DPP to have to welcome him hack a couple of weeks later. If we are to have a situation where members of the DPP can be asked to leave for disciplinary reasons, then they should be asked to leave for a reasonable term. Five years would seem to be a fairly good, round time.
  Baroness Park of Monmouth: I wonder whether—
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The Committee appears to be in some confusion. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, spoke to Amendment No. 35, as he is perfectly entitled to do, but I am not sure whether we have dealt entirely with Amendment

  GC 39
  No. 33 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rogan. Perhaps I did not hear what he wished to do. Does he wish to withdraw the amendment?
  Lord Rogan: I was not requested to do so, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Shutt of Greetland Lord Shutt of Greetland moved Amendment No. 34:
  Page 8, line 25, leave out "for" and insert "from seeking"
  The noble Lord said: This matter is obviously in the same territory. In a way, this is a probing amendment but, in my view, it could stand well. At present, the clause states,
  "is disqualified for membership of a DPP".
  That is strange wording. We suggest that it should read,
  "from seeking membership",
  because there is a sense in which the clause as printed suggests that, once the next local election has taken place, the appointment is a shoo-in. I should have expected that, once the next local general election had taken place, that person would then become eligible and could therefore be considered either to be admitted or to be kept off. I believe that the matter would be clarified if the words "from seeking" replaced the word "for". I beg to move.
  Baroness Park of Monmouth: The Oversight Commissioner, who has been looking at what has been done so far, says of the DPPs that the process of soliciting nominations for independent members and for selecting them is well under way. Can the noble and learned Lord tell me whether, if at all—I entirely take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Shutt of Greetland—there is any way of preventing nominations being made by members of the community whom the rest of the community would not wish to have a choice in the matter of membership of a DPP?
  It has seemed to me all along that in the background—in some areas, at least—the power of the paramilitaries and of political parties is such that it would be very difficult for anyone to be genuinely independent. If people are to be nominated, that would seem to make it even more difficult for the sort of person whom we want to see in place to become an independent member of a DPP. Is there any way of watching that process to ensure that persons put forward are not nominated by groups of the community who will terrorise others. It seems to me that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, is relevant to that. He is saying that they must be solicited but by who?
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: In response to the earlier question as to whether it would be a shoo-in after the election, appointments are governed by Schedule 3(4) to (6) to the 2000 Act. Those and the associated code of practice require the council to run a competition and then to make nominations to the board. The board then decides on suitability taking all factors into account. I am not sure that that is necessarily a
  GC 40
  complete answer to the question raised by the noble Baroness. I shall reflect on that and, if there is anything more useful to be said, I shall write to her and place a copy of my letter in the Library.
  Viscount Brookeborough: Perhaps I may be of some help on that point. The people are not nominated to that first selection group; they nominate themselves. They offer themselves up and then go through a serious selection process, which is run by a professional business as advisors to the council. A shortlist of those who are eligible—some of whom would become ineligible—if they put forward their name, are then put forward to the board who select, using all the other criteria we have discussed.
  Baroness O'Cathain: Perhaps I may ask a rather na? question. If someone is deemed not to be worthy to be a member of the DPP, surely they should be disqualified and not allowed to stand again?
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: That is the difference between the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, and what is currently in the Bill. The critical point is that they should not be able to have substantive membership of the DPP. That is the important point. Whether or not they make an application is by the way. The real question is that they should be disqualified. The system described by the noble Viscount and which I indicated earlier, brings about what the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, wants.
  Lord Shutt of Greetland: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment Nos. 35 and 36 not moved.]
  Clause 13 agreed to.
  Clause 14 agreed to.
  Clause 15 [Core policing principles]:
  Lord Maginnis of Drumglass Lord Maginnis of Drumglass moved Amendment No. 37:
  Page 9, line 13, after "functions" insert "insofar as practicable"
  The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment, because it appears that the Bill now confuses or mixes up core policing principles with police functions. There is a confusion as to what is a principle, what is a function and what is a priority. If, as suggested in the Bill, police officers shall carry out their functions with the aim of securing the support of the local community and acting in co-operation with it, and that is a finite statement, it strikes me that it may well be one which is in conflict with the general functions of policing as defined in Section 32 of the 2000 Act, where those general functions are defined as being to protect life and property; to preserve order; to prevent the commission of offences and to bring offenders to justice.
  While it is commendable and desirable that those general functions as defined in Section 32 are carried out in a way which secures the support of the local community and acting in co-operation with the local community, there may be occasions when the two

  GC 41
  objectives are not concurrently attainable. I have no doubt that without me going into detail, the Munster will be able to understand the type of situation that perhaps exists today on the lower Shankhill, where the Adair faction, while having influence, are in conflict with other members of that community.
  Where do the police seek to secure support when there are two factions in conflict with each other? I am sure that it happens in many other situations throughout Northern Ireland. Is it not a priority that the functions as defined in Section 32 should take precedence? Hence, would it not be helpful to add on page 9, line 13, after "functions", "insofar as practicable"? If that were inserted into that sentence there would be nothing irrational or contradictory in terms of new Section 31 A and Section 32 of the 2000 Act. I beg to move.
  6.30 p.m.
  Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I support the amendment, or at least the thinking behind it. Many, if not all of us, visualise areas which can be described as communities where there is a general intention to defy and defeat what is required by proper policing in a certain set of circumstances which, regrettably, can occur quite frequently. There may be some difficulty in the drafting of the amendment: "insofar as practicable". Perhaps another way to tackle it might be to add after Section 32(1) a new subsection(1(a) or (2)(a), "subject to the foregoing duty, it shall be the duty of the police to", and then to proceed as drafted. I suggest something of that character. I believe that there is a realistic and practical justification for the amendment, which I hope the noble and learned Lord will consider.
  Lord Shutt of Greetland: Amendment No. 38 is linked with this amendment. I return to the word "community" which I think of as a good word. However, it has been put to us that there are occasions in Northern Ireland where community means the local hard men. In such circumstances, acting in co-operation with the local community could have rather undesirable consequences. Policing should be left to the professionals. Therefore, consultation might be a better way to define this relationship, rather than co-operation.
  I have been thinking about this since the amendment was drafted. I wonder whether a glossary of terms might be useful. The word "community" may mean different things in different places, even in the Bill. I should like to think that the word "community" had a good and warm feel to it about something which is real and genuine and certainly does not mean disruptive hard men. Therefore, this attempts to assist with that, bearing in mind that we are talking about core policing principles. I am not certain that that is right. I beg to move.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I think that the observations have proceeded on a misapprehension. As the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, says quite correctly, this clause deals with policing principles. It states:
  "Police officers shall carry out their functions".
  GC 42
  A police officer is sworn to uphold the law. That has nothing to do with getting on happily or turning a blind eye in no-go areas. These are principles. The clause states:
  "Police officers shall carry out their functions with the aim … of securing the support of the local community".
  That is so, but it relates to the support of the local community in discharging their functions, which are the upholding of the peace and the maintenance of law and order. Secondly, the clause states,
  "acting in co-operation with the local community".
  Again, that is so in the context of carrying out their functions. Indeed, if one is talking about no-go areas and hard men, if someone is directed to consult them, I should have thought that that would have been rather less firm. This is a principle and it is admirably set out with absolute clarity. It is not an A to Z of how one carries out one's duty off the Shankhill Road; it concerns what one is supposed to be about and I suggest that it is admirably expressed.
  Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: I accept the good intentions and the clear definition given by the noble and learned Lord in response. None the less, I wonder whether, to some extent, he contradicted his advice to the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, on Amendment No. 32 when he suggested that, in defining things in terms of gender and ethnicity, he was defining something specific within what was intended to be a much broader field. Insofar as this part of the Bill seeks to define two areas, which I believe are referred to as "core policing principles", are those the only principles that one would apply to police and policing? I think not. Therefore, in the interest of consistency—although, if I remember an earlier part of the debate, the Bill is not particularly concerned with the concept of consistency—will the Minister concede that something needs to be done in order to tidy up this aspect of the Bill as I have attempted to do in Amendment No. 37?
  Baroness Park of Monmouth: I continue to share the anxiety about this matter. I believe that it is an extremely likely scenario that the hard men in a community, whether loyalist or Sinn Fein/IRA, could—it would be in their interests to do so—cause, through influence, threats and the rest, someone to be put forward who would be accepted as an independent member and who himself or herself might be a perfectly respectable member of society whom the board could very properly accept.
  However, if that person were under the control of the paramilitaries, then the position of the police would become extremely difficult. Presumably they would have to discuss the application of policing with such people in the community. I believe that it is very hard on the ordinary community for us not to recognise clearly in the Bill that there is a distinction between the ordinary people who are under the threat and the heel of the paramilitaries, and the paramilitaries who wish to put themselves forward as "the community", or to put their nominees forward. I hope that when we reach the next stage, somehow we

  GC 43
  can find the wording that makes it clear that when we say "community", we do not mean the paramilitaries or their nominees. I do not know how that can be done. It will make a laughing stock of the police if they are seen and known by the ordinary man in the street to be solemnly having to co-operate and consult with people whom the man in the street knows perfectly well to be representing not his normal interests, but those of paramilitaries, who may also be criminals.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I shall reply immediately to the noble Baroness on that. The answer is found in a combination of Section 31A on page 9 of the present Bill, which says:
  "(1) Police officers shall carry out their functions with the aim—".
  I paraphrased what their functions were. They are amply described in Section 32 of the 2000 Act—on page 16, if that is helpful to the Committee. One needs to go back to the 2000 Act. The general functions of the police referred to are:

  "(a) to protect life and property;

  (b) to preserve order;

  (c) to prevent the commission of offences;

  (d) where an offence has been committed, to take measures to bring the offender to justice."

  None of those would conceivably be compatible with giving into the hard men in the no-go areas, because they would not be preserving order, preventing the commission of offences or taking measures to bring the offender to justice. That is why one needs to take care in looking at Section 31A in the overarching context of Section 32, which remains unamended.
  Viscount Brookeborough: The noble and learned Lord has linked this to Section 32. The DPP stands for co-operation with local communities. Co-operation is co-operation whether a community is hard-line or not. It is not that the police would not be trying to carry out their functions. If they were working in co-operation with a very hard-line community, it could mis-direct them and attempt to control them.
  Section 16 of the 2000 Act deals with the functions of DPPs. DPPs do not have control of the police. They provide views, they monitor, they make arrangements for obtaining views and they act as a general forum. We had an argument about that when that Bill went through. Section 16(1)(e) says,
  "such other functions as are conferred on it by any other statutory provision".
  This would appear to me to be that other statutory function which can now come in under the DPPs as the policemen, with the police having an obligation to co-operate with any local community if it is deemed as such. Since the Government in their wisdom seem to want to divide Belfast into hard areas, I can see no way that the DPP has anything other than a statutory duty to co-operate with that community under Section 16(1)(e) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: We are confusing two completely different things. We should go back to
  GC 44
  Section 31A and the functions of police officers defined in Section 32 of the Act. They are quite separate from the functions of the DPP in Section 16 of the Act. Someone on the DPP is not obliged to take measures to protect life and property, to prevent the commission of offences or to take measures to bring the offender to justice. We must keep these concepts distinct. What is said here is, "Under the general arch of your functions as defined in new Section 31A you must try, as a matter of principle, to secure the support of the local community and to act in co-operation with it". That is exactly what Patten said: "You will never have an effective police force unless you get local community support". That is a truism. We will not get effective policing unless we get the co-operation of the local community. That is an aspiration and a principle which is set down and is perfectly sensible.
  Lord Mayhew of Twysden: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, in his first response he said that the clause was admirably drafted. I wonder whether it can be quite so admirably drafted if it has given rise to the difficulties that have been voiced by our colleagues today, leave aside myself. All I ask is that the Minister should think again. It may be that on reflection it will occur to all of us that it is admirably drafted. At present I am not in that happy state. After all, we are trying to make life a little easier for ordinary police constables, who are faced with extraordinarily difficult public order situations from time to time, and for their immediate commanders on the ground. I should like the Minister to again consider this and to perhaps give a little less cursory response. I see the argument he put forward but whether that would be as clear if there were a declaratory sentence inserted into the Bill is perhaps for consideration.
  6.45 p.m.
  Lord Fitt: In the rarefied atmosphere of this Committee it is hard to realise the difficult situation we are discussing. Anyone in Northern Ireland last weekend would have been able to watch a BBC Northern Ireland programme called "Interface". On Sunday night the programme depicted what it was like to live on the Catholic side of a peace line and on Monday night—I have not seen it but I am getting the tape—what it was like on the other side. From what I saw of the Sunday night episode, in Ardoyne the police were being stoned, bottled and firebombed. There was no way that a policeman could enter that area without wearing all sorts of gear and protection from the army and the rest.
  On the other side of the peace line, it was exactly the same. The so-called peace line between them is either barbed wire or a wall. Incidentally, there are 21 peace lines in Belfast. Where do we get a representative of that community, as it is called? Does that community take in a radius of 500 or 600 yards? We would have someone from the Catholic community and someone from the loyalist community, and the police would be faced with a terrible difficulty. So, do not let us underestimate the difficulty in trying to find a community representative who will be acceptable to

  GC 45
  both sides of the peace line. That will not happen. There will be one from the loyalist side and one from the other side. They are the people who will dictate, in no uncertain way, whether or not policemen are allowed into that area.
  Lord Glentoran: The intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, made the point yet again that Patten was, in his own words, written for a normal, peaceful society. My point, which I have laboured all the way through, with which I shall continue and which stands, is that the time is not right for the Bill. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, for making the point so clearly.
  Lord Rogan: Perhaps I may add to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. From what he says, the situation on the ground is far worse. Most people coming from Belfast would identify the Shankill as one area and the Falls as another. The Shankill is a very defined area of Belfast and has been for generations. In the minds of most people it would be a single community. Yet we all know that because of what has happened in the Shankill over the past few years it is at least two communities if not three, so it is worse than just across the divides.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I do not disagree with anything that has been said—certainly not with what the noble Lord, Lord Fitt said. I hope that my response was not cursory, because I have returned to the Act three times and explained it carefully. I urge the Committee to keep distinct the principle that attaches to a police officer's core functions and the problems that may inure from DPPs, which I do not overlook.
  Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: I am somewhat disappointed that the noble and learned Lord has not responded to my serious point about consistency. We have not grasped the difficulty in a practical sense. It has perhaps been acknowledged but not grasped in a practical sense. I shall not enlarge upon what the noble Lords. Lord Fitt, Lord Rogan, or Lord Glentoran, have said on the matter.
  Whenever the time may come for the Bill, it is not and should not be now. Society in Northern Ireland is not ready for it. The terminology that is being used here is confusing. Whatever leadership I had, I should not like to be a young police officer aged 19 or 20 trying to interpret what were my priorities as I policed some of the most difficult areas of Northern Ireland.
  Nor, in fact, would I as a young policeman—or as a much older individual—be able to define what is a community in Northern Ireland. No one lives in a box. Whatever happens in one geographical area impacts on the adjacent one. The people who live in one geographical area interface with people in the adjacent geographical area, so there is no simple definition of what is a local community. None the less, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 38 not moved.]
  Lord Shutt of Greetland Lord Shutt of Greetland moved Amendment No. 39:
  Page 9, line 15, at end insert ", and
  (c) protecting human rights"
  The noble Lord said: We are here in similar territory to that of previous amendments. The noble and learned Lord mentioned Section 32 of the 2000 Act. New Section 31A is to be inserted in front of that. The Act mentions "the police" and "general functions". The Government have deemed it necessary to insert New Subsection 31A, entitled "Core policing principles", in front of that. Whereas Section 32 deals with "functions" —we have heard that they include protecting life and property, preserving order, preventing the commission of offences and so on—the core policing principles come before that.
  Although I am not certain whether new Section 31A(1)(a) and (b) are entirely correct and new Section 31A(2) mentions other functions, the new section seems really to be about the aim and purpose of policing. It is fair enough to say that it is about "securing the support" of local people and "acting in co-operation" with local people, but there is another dimension—we have human rights. If it is so important to have this clause of core principles, protecting human rights should be one of them. I beg to move.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I sympathise entirely with the thinking behind this and I hope I can reassure the noble Lord and the Committee that because of the Human Rights Act 1998, all police officers are obliged to act compatibly with the European Convention on Human Rights. The clause makes it clear that the code of ethics is the guide for all police officers, which they must attend to. That code is fully compatible with the ECHR and other international human rights standards. Apart from that, the board has a duty under Section 3(3)(b) of the 2000 Act to monitor the performance of the police in complying with the Human Rights Act and under Section 3(3)(d)(iv) to assess the effectiveness of the code of ethics. Therefore, one has here a deeply ingrained human rights protection and, on the basis of those assurances, I hope the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
  Lord Shutt of Greetland: I shall reflect on those words. Bearing in mind that we are talking about core principles, it would be useful to have that on the face of the Bill so that everybody involved in policing was aware of it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 15 agreed to.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: This may be a convenient moment, unless there is significant disagreement, for the Committee to adjourn until tomorrow at 3.45 p.m.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Thomas of Walliswood): The Committee stands adjourned until tomorrow at 3.45 p.:m.
  The Committee adjourned at three minutes before seven o'clock.

  Zimbabwe: UK Visas
  Zimbabwe: UK Visas
  Racist Incidents: Police Service
  Racist Incidents: Police Service
  Taking Game without a Licence
  Taking Game without a Licence
  Centrex
  Centrex
  Exceptional Leave to Remain
  Exceptional Leave to Remain
  Citizenship Advisory Group
  Citizenship Advisory Group
  Naturalisation Knowledge Requirements: Sign Language
  Naturalisation Knowledge Requirements: Sign Language
  Immigration Controls
  Immigration Controls
  RPIX
  RPIX
  Service Personnel Museums
  Service Personnel Museums
  Meteor Air-to-air Missile
  Meteor Air-to-air Missile
  Seaside Resorts: Development Funding
  Seaside Resorts: Development Funding
  Nuclear Power Stations
  Nuclear Power Stations
  Americium: Export Control
  Americium: Export Control
  Wireless Telegraphy Regulations: Licence Renewal
  Wireless Telegraphy Regulations: Licence Renewal
  Hospital Admission: Declaration of Religious Affiliation
  Hospital Admission: Declaration of Religious Affiliation
  Antenatal Clinics
  Antenatal Clinics
  NHS Capital Allocations
  NHS Capital Allocations
  Game Licences
  Game Licences
  Fishing Industry
  Fishing Industry
  Fallen Stock
  Fallen Stock
  Youth Parliament Manifesto
  Youth Parliament Manifesto
  Spending Review Fixed Assets: Roads and Railways
  Spending Review Fixed Assets: Roads and Railways
  Goods Operator Licences: Red Diesel Offences
  Goods Operator Licences: Red Diesel Offences
  Connex
  Connex
  Department of Transport Expenditure
  Department of Transport Expenditure
  Pedal Cycles: Rear Lamps
  Pedal Cycles: Rear Lamps
  Strategic Rail Authority Personnel
  Strategic Rail Authority Personnel
  MV "Prestige"
  MV "Prestige"