Sitting of 25 June 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

    Assets Recovery Agency
    Mr. David Trimble: If he will make a statement on the work of the Assets Recovery Agency. [120566]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy): I have been informed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Office that the Northern Ireland branch of the Assets Recovery Agency has six cases that are currently under active investigation. The right hon. Gentleman will know that the agency has been granted investigative orders, including search warrants, by the High Court in two cases on 13 June and 23 June. Indeed, search warrants were executed yesterday at three premises in County Down by Assets Recovery Agency staff, with the support and assistance of the Police Service of Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Trimble: I welcome the progress that the Minister reports. May I underline how important it is that the agency produces results, in particular with regard to the leading godfathers of paramilitarism and racketeering, because they are largely the same? I do not need to go into names, but the agency needs to target very quickly leading paramilitaries who we know control the major rackets. I hope that the agency will go after them and not just go around gathering up smaller fish.
    On accountability, because the body does not exercise police powers, it is not subject to inspection by Her Majesty's inspectorate. Will it come under the purview of the inspectorate of criminal justice? In that respect, we welcome the appointment of Lord Clyde as inspector. Will he have a supervisory role, because it would be wrong if that body turned out to be the only element in the broad spectrum of criminal justice that is not subject to an inspection arrangement?
    Jane Kennedy: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's words about the good work that the agency has undertaken in Northern Ireland. However, on accountability, the Northern Ireland branch of the
    1032
    Assets Recovery Agency is part of a UK-wide agency. Along with other partners of the Organised Crime Task Force, its accountability is often to Ministers and other Departments outwith Northern Ireland Office responsibilities. In this case, I believe that the current accountability arrangements are appropriate.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: May I assure the Minister that support for the Assets Recovery Agency comes not just from the small parties in Northern Ireland, but from Northern Ireland's largest political party as well?
    Is the Minister aware of the concern that the bulk of the cases considered by the Assets Recovery Agency involve loyalist paramilitaries, whereas the largest amount of money has been obtained by republican paramilitaries? Is there any step she can take to ensure that there is a proper pursuit of republican paramilitaries? Does she think that the Assets Recovery Agency could give any assistance to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) to recover some of his recent lost assets?
    Jane Kennedy: I am grateful to receive support for the Assets Recovery Agency, from whatever quarter it comes. On the selection of cases, it is important to remember that that is pursued by the agency and it is entirely for its director, supported by the assistant director of Northern Ireland, to determine. She must act in accordance with her statutory duty to use her powers in the way that she considers best calculated to reduce crime. However, we know of the clear links that exist between paramilitary organisations and organised criminal networks in Northern Ireland. We are very conscious of those links and pursue all organised criminals, whatever their political persuasion or complexion.
    Mr. John Taylor: In the context of assets recovery, is there not a danger that the IRA will not disarm, not because it still believes that it can bomb its way to a united Ireland, but because it needs its arms to sustain the menace of its criminal activities?
    Jane Kennedy: That does not apply just to the Provisional IRA, but to all paramilitary organisations that we have established are clearly engaged, or associated with, organised criminals who operate not simply within localities in Northern Ireland, but with organised criminal networks across the UK, Europe and the world. We must oppose those groups. The hon. Gentleman is right that they use their ill-gotten gains for the pursuit of terrorism. It is precisely because of that link, and the Government's recognition of it, that we established the Organised Crime Task Force in the first place.

    Peace Process
    Dr. Nick Palmer: If he will make a statement on the peace process. [120567]
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Paul Murphy): We are pursuing with the political parties how the devolved institutions might be restored and the remainder of the Belfast agreement fully implemented.

    1033
    It is essential to such advance, however, to have clarity on both the future of paramilitarism and the stability of the institutions.
    Dr. Palmer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that following recent developments in the Ulster Unionist party, a significant majority remains in favour of the peace process in the Ulster Unionist party and in the Unionist electorate, and an overwhelming majority is in favour of it in the electorate at large? Will he take the opportunity to work with those who favour the peace process and marginalise the fringe groups that do not?
    Mr. Murphy: I cannot agree with what my hon. Friend said in his last sentence about marginalising groups that do not agree with the Good Friday agreement. It is my job to talk to all political parties in Northern Ireland, irrespective of their political standpoint. However, I very much agree that the vote at the Ulster Unionist Council last week indicated that a majority of its members are still in favour of the Good Friday agreement. I agree with my hon. Friend that the majority of people in Northern Ireland believe that the best way forward is through the Good Friday agreement, and I also agree that the polls suggest that that includes the Unionist community. I believe that people in Northern Ireland want an end to paramilitary activity, and want the stability of the institutions that will be achieved through the Good Friday agreement.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: Would the Secretary of State tell the House how an amnesty for on-the-run IRA terrorist suspects can contribute to the peace process? Does he understand the growing public anger at the continuing persecution of former members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and those who served in the security forces in tribunals such as the Bloody Sunday inquiry, where millions of pounds worth of taxpayers' hard-earned money is being squandered?
    Mr. Murphy: I would not agree that money is being squandered. However, I agree that it is important for us at some stage to draw a line under what has happened in the past 30 years in Northern Ireland. There will come a time when we want to achieve a normal society in Northern Ireland, and I believe that we are going in that direction. As for the on-the-runs, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the proposals discussed at Hillsborough do not include an amnesty for on-the-runs, but they do make provision for a proper judicial process. He will also be aware that that process is linked in to acts of completion by the IRA, so it is entirely conditional on what happens in that area.
    Mr. Eddie McGrady: Does the Secretary of State agree that the peace process, which has now stalled, cannot be put back on track until there is firm, verifiable demilitarisation and destructuring by the paramilitaries, both republican and loyalist? Does he also agree that Government policy and attitudes to date have not created common ground among nationalists and Unionists who support the Good Friday agreement, so it is essential that the Government undertake a drive to ensure that paragraph 13 on decommissioning, destructuring and the cessation of violence against the community is immediately
    1034
    implemented in its entirety, particularly by the Provisional IRA, so that we can re-establish the devolved institutions of partnership.
    Mr. Murphy: My hon. Friend is entirely right that progress on restoring the institutions of the Good Friday agreement rests on the confidence and trust that need to be built up between political parties in Northern Ireland. That can be done only if the issues addressed in paragraph 13 about paramilitary activity are dealt with. My hon. Friend is entirely right about that, and his personal history in Northern Ireland is such that we listen to him with great respect. I believe that in the months ahead we will resolve these problems, which are extremely difficult at the moment. However, it is important that the House realises that unless we resolve the problems first, of paramilitary activity, and secondly, of the stability of the institutions we will not get a properly restored Executive in Northern Ireland.
    Lembit Öpik: Paragraph 8 of the validation, implementation and review section of the Good Friday agreement states that
    "the two Governments and the parties in the Assembly will convene a conference 4 years after the agreement comes into effect, to review and report on its operation."
    It is now more than five years since the agreement was signed and four and a half years since the Northern Ireland Act 1998 was passed, but that review has not even started yet. Why not?
    Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman is aware that we have had reviews of the Good Friday agreement under paragraph 7. A review under paragraph 8, which makes provision for a more general, deeper and intense review, will take place before the year is over. It is important for political parties and the two Governments to get together to look at the issues that divide us and ensure that the Good Friday agreement is implemented in full. However, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that if that is to happen we must rebuild confidence between parties, and to do so we have to address the issues that I referred to earlier.
    Judy Mallaber: I went to Belfast last week on a cross-party visit and was struck by the positive changes since I first visited many years ago, with the development of the city centre and the work of those such as the East Belfast community partnership to promote regeneration, jobs and skills. I also found considerable good will towards implementing the Good Friday agreement and returning to a normal life. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the priority must be to rebuild trust and move back towards an effective power-sharing Executive and Assembly?
    Mr. Murphy: My hon. Friend is right. We must rebuild that trust in order to move forward in the process. She is also right to draw the House's attention to the improvements in the life of people in Northern Ireland since the signing of the Good Friday agreement in 1998. She is aware that there are now 34,000 unemployed people in Northern Ireland, which is the lowest figure since 1975; that the increase in economic activity in Northern Ireland is such that it is the fastest-growing region or nation in the whole of the United

    1035
    Kingdom; and that there has been a 25 per cent. increase in tourism in Northern Ireland since the Good Friday agreement. She is particularly aware that the security situation in Northern Ireland is much improved on what it was in 1998.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: On behalf of the Opposition, I welcome the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar), to the Northern Ireland Front Bench. He and I are old sparring partners, and we look forward to his contributions on this important subject.
    As it is clear that the peace process has been paralysed since the Government decided to cancel the elections, and the parties have turned in on themselves, and as there continue to be murders by loyalist paramilitaries and attempted murders by republican dissidents, and the Garda Commissioner and the Chief Constable have both expressed their concern about the security position over the past few days, would it not be sensible to shelve all plans for any reductions in intelligence gathering or security capability in Northern Ireland, including the plans to dismantle the observation towers in south Armagh?
    Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman knows that any actions that are taken with regard to security installations are dealt with on the basis of the level of threat. He also knows that the normalisation paper that was discussed at Hillsborough, and which appears in the joint declaration, is entirely related to acts of completion by the IRA. The hon. Gentleman is right that, towards the autumn, it is important for us to engage in intensive discussions and negotiations with political parties in Northern Ireland so that we can have an Assembly in Northern Ireland. In addition, we want the Executive governing Northern Ireland, so that people who are from Northern Ireland can govern the people in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Davies: Is not the whole point that there have been no acts of completion, so reductions in our capability are inappropriate? Even if the Chief Constable and the General Officer Commanding were prepared to countenance the dismantling of those towers, is it not rather foolish to give away that card for nothing, in advance of the comprehensive negotiations that we all hope can resume before too long?
    Mr. Murphy: I repeat to the hon. Gentleman that the decision to dismantle the towers is entirely in line with the wishes of the GOC and the Chief Constable. I repeat that acts of completion by the IRA, particularly with regard to paramilitary activity, are linked to the rest of the normalisation paper, which is in the joint declaration. All our efforts are bent on ensuring that in the autumn we resolve our difficulties, we have an Assembly and we have an Executive, so that the process can move forward.
    Mr. John Hume: Does the Secretary of State agree that for the first time in history, the vast majority of the people of Ireland north and south have voted together on how they wish to live together, by overwhelmingly voting for the agreement? For that reason, it is the duty of all true democrats to implement
    1036
    the will of the people. Certain Opposition parties that wish to overthrow that agreement are overthrowing the principle of consent, which was the fundamental principle of Unionism. If they do that, what damage are they doing to their own people?
    Mr. Murphy: My hon. Friend is entirely right. In 1998, people north and south voted overwhelmingly for the Good Friday agreement, and the institutions of that agreement are the only way forward. I know that my hon. Friend is also aware that for us to move forward and to ensure that those institutions are restored, we have to restore the confidence and trust between parties in Northern Ireland, and that is based on ensuring that there is an end to paramilitary activity and that the institutions in Northern Ireland are stable.

    Terrorist Links
    David Burnside: If he will make a statement on the links between (a) Sinn Fein and (b) the Provisional IRA and (i) Batasuna and (ii) ETA in Spain. [120568]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy): The political and ideological relationship between Sinn Fein and Batasuna are well attested, as evidenced by recent press statements from Sinn Fein.
    David Burnside: The Minister will surely be aware, if she listens to her intelligence advisers, that ETA-Batasuna and IRA-Sinn Fein are identical and integrated organisations. In the case of our home-based IRA-Sinn Fein organisation, the Sinn Fein president and chief negotiator sit in the army council. The Minister should also be aware that under the definition of proscription of organisations in the Terrorism Act 2000, Sinn Fein should be on the list of proscribed organisations. Is it not time that the Government had the same courage as the Spanish Government and put Sinn Fein on the proscribed list until it acts as a democratic party?
    Jane Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman is right that Sinn Fein is the IRA's political wing and as such the two are inextricably linked. However—it is important for us all to bear this in mind—the Spanish do not regard Batasuna as supporting the peace process. Sinn Fein does support the peace process. Unlike ETA—[Interruption.] Hon. Members may disregard that if they wish, but unlike ETA the IRA is on ceasefire, and it is worth bearing in mind the difference in the behaviour of the two organisations. However, hon. Members will know, and will have heard the Government state many times, that ceasefires on their own are no longer enough to restore trust and confidence and to allow the re-establishment of the institutions. The IRA has to make it absolutely clear that all paramilitary activity, as set out in paragraph 13 of the joint declaration by the British and Irish Governments, will come to an end.
    Mr. Nigel Dodds: The Minister has admitted that Sinn Fein and the IRA, a terrorist group operating in part of the United Kingdom, are inextricably linked. Why, then, do the Government

    1037
    persist in trying to insert into all accountable Executive positions in part of the United Kingdom a group linked to and inextricably part of a terrorist organisation? Despite the Secretary of State's determination to close his eyes to reality, if he looks along this Bench in the House of Commons today he will see the reality—that the policy of supporting Sinn Fein in Government in Northern Ireland is supported only by a rump of the Unionist party as led by—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister will answer only the question.
    Jane Kennedy: I repeat that, unlike ETA, the Provisional IRA remains on ceasefire. The cost to Spain in terms of ETA's continuance of its terrorist programme has been 46 deaths since 1999. The comparisons with the Provisional IRA deserve scrutiny. The Provisional IRA, in our assessment, remains on ceasefire. However, as I said earlier, and it bears repeating, ceasefires on their own are no longer enough.
    Mr. Seamus Mallon: The Minister will be aware that all the structures to deal with terrorism must work properly, whether in Northern Ireland or outside it. Will the Minister confirm that, as of now, necessary investigations into the criminal activities of loyalist paramilitary groupings cannot be properly processed by the police ombudsperson for the very good reason that the Government will not fund those investigations? Will the Minister take the opportunity now to tell the House that the Government will fund at least three investigations into not just serious irregularities, but murders?
    Jane Kennedy: I am afraid that I do not agree with my hon. Friend on the point that he has made. The Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland received the whole of the budgetary requirements that she put forward in the case that she made. We met her request in full. The cases that she takes forward are a matter for her to prioritise within the budgets that she is required to manage.
    Mr. Hugo Swire: The Minister may maintain that the IRA "remains on ceasefire", to use her words, but the reality is that the current problems in Northern Ireland politics are caused by the IRA's failure to complete and the Government's repeated concessions to it. Is she aware of the recent poll conducted by Millward Brown Ulster, which clearly states:
    "If the IRA was to disband, 76 per cent. of Unionists would support the Good Friday agreement"?
    Is it not crystal clear where the Government's efforts must lie?
    Jane Kennedy: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman's comments. The complete transition to exclusively peaceful means is the contribution that all paramilitary organisations could make and which the people of Northern Ireland deserve. As I have said previously, statements or words on their own are not enough. The people of Northern Ireland, in order to have the confidence that all parties engaged in the peace
    1038
    process are fully wedded to democratic means, need to see actions that follow through on the words that they say.

    Paramilitaries
    Mr. Iain Luke: If he will make a statement on the criminal activities of Northern Ireland paramilitary organisations outside Northern Ireland. [120569]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy): The Organised Crime Task Force's most recent assessment is that two thirds of the organised crime groups in Northern Ireland have links to paramilitary organisations. Clearly, a number of those groups undertake their criminal activities both across and outside Northern Ireland.
    Good operational links already exist between law enforcement agencies nationally and internationally, as my hon. Friend has good reason to know in his constituency—[Interruption.] I will continue to work with. Organised Crime Task Force members with UK-wide responsibilities to assist in the fight against national and international organised crime—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There is far too much noise in the House, and it is unfair to those who are in the Chamber for Northern Ireland questions.
    Mr. Luke: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Given her very heavy work load, I am sure that she is unable to read the Dundee Evening Telegraph and Post or The Courier and Advertiser, but she will be aware from last week's reports in the Belfast News Letter and The Irish Times of the 26-year sentences handed down to five members of a Protestant paramilitary organisation, the Red Hand Commando, for their armed robbery at a Dundee public house last year. On speaking to the chief constable of Tayside, I was told that there was little consultation between the authorities in Northern Ireland and the police force in Tayside and Dundee. Given the statements that she has made today, I hope that she will do all that she can to ensure that greater efforts are made to improve liaison between the two organisations on the mainland and in Northern Ireland.
    Jane Kennedy: I am surprised to hear my hon. Friend's comments and I shall look into the case that he raises. I had understood that the Police Service of Northern Ireland indeed provided written statements and that an officer testified in the court case. I had concluded on that basis that there were good relations. I know that such relations exist on an operational basis between the Police Service of Northern Ireland and other police forces throughout England and Wales and, indeed, Scotland. Where such good links need to be developed, they are developed and built upon, and they are to be commended.
    Lady Hermon: The Minister will be aware that a very good Bill, the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill, has just completed its Standing Committee stage. What discussion has she had with the

    1039
    Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland about the implications of that Bill for tackling paramilitary organisations in the Republic of Ireland?
    Jane Kennedy: As the hon. Lady knows, I regularly meet the Chief Constable to discuss a range of issues. No concerns as such have been raised directly with me about the implications for Northern Ireland of the Bill to which she referred. I am aware of the very good relationships that exist between the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the law enforcement agencies in the Republic of Ireland, and I will do all in my power to foster those good relations so that we can continue to see successful joint operations of the sort that recently led to interception of the vehicle bombs that were thankfully intercepted at the border at the weekend and in Londonderry.
    Mr. Gregory Campbell: Is the Minister aware of the increasing concern, particularly in border areas in Northern Ireland, about paramilitary groups in the Irish Republic, including the various factions of the IRA, who are making preparations for further bombs like the one to which she alluded? Thankfully, that was intercepted in Londonderry, but there are many more. Is she aware of the concern of people in Northern Ireland regarding those preparations?
    Jane Kennedy: I am indeed aware of such concern in Northern Ireland. The dissident republicans continue to pose a serious threat. However, as I have said, due to the very good co-operation that exists between the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Garda Siochana in the Republic of Ireland, there has been a large degree of success in dealing with dissidents in both the north and the south of Ireland. That success will continue, and I will continue to do all that is in my power to foster good co-operation between those law enforcement agencies.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Paul Burstow: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 25 June.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): Before listing my engagements, I know that the whole House will join with me in sending our deepest sympathy and condolences to the families of those who lost their lives in Iraq. The Royal Military policemen do an extraordinary and heroic job in trying to bring normal and decent life to people in Iraq, and the whole country and their families can be immensely proud of them, even as they mourn them. Our thoughts are also with those who were wounded after they were attacked in Iraq yesterday.
    May I also express on behalf of Members on both sides of the House our deep sadness at the death of Paul Daisley? He was a conscientious Member of Parliament
    1040
    who represented his constituency well, and he will be sadly missed. Our thoughts are with his family at this time.
    This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.
    Mr. Burstow: I echo the Prime Minister's sentiments.
    May I ask the Prime Minister about a report that was submitted to this House by the health service ombudsman earlier this year, which revealed the scandal of elderly people being means-tested and charged for their health care? When will the Government act to compensate the thousands of elderly victims and reassert the principle that health care is free on the basis of need, regardless of a person's bank balance or age?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have already introduced free nursing care for certain people. To extend that right the way through all types of care would cost well over £1 billion, possibly £1.5 billion. We believe that that money is better spent on trying to provide support for people in their own homes. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that as a result of that support, around 40 per cent. more people get support in their own homes today than did a few years ago.
    Chris Ruane: Many MPs will have received hundreds of letters and cards on fair trade, and many will attend fair trade rallies in their high streets this Saturday. What message of hope and support can my right hon. Friend offer the fair trade movement; and what actions can he take to ensure that developing countries have the right to protect their vulnerable people and traders and to sell their products to rich countries, and that they are given assistance to regulate transnational companies?
    The Prime Minister: First, we will carry on with the most substantial increase in aid and development assistance that this country has seen. This Government are committed to continuing that support. Secondly, we will carry on trying to write off the debts of the most highly indebted countries, which are often prevented by the servicing of those debts from giving the assistance to their people that they need. Thirdly, we will make sure at the world trade round in Mexico in September that we get the action to move world trade forward so that we liberalise world trade and do not ask those poorer countries to stand on their own two feet, then deny them access to our own markets.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: May I join with the Prime Minister in sending our condolences to the family of Paul Daisley, the former Member for Brent, East?
    The Prime Minister is right that on today of all days we should pay tribute to the dedication and bravery of our armed forces on active service in Iraq. As the Prime Minister said, our deepest sympathies are with the families of the dead and wounded. There are those who will say after this news that we should back away from our obligations to Iraq. Does the Prime Minister agree

    1041
    that this instance should serve only to reinforce our resolve to bring peace and the rule of law to Iraq and to enable the Iraqis to take care of their own future?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree completely. It is worth pointing out that despite yesterday's terrible events, the people of Iraq now have the prospect of hope for the future, and of a proper, prosperous and indeed democratic country. The work of British servicemen and women there is of immense importance not just to that country, but to the whole region and the wider world. Even at this moment in time, it is particularly important that we redouble our efforts to bring stability to that country, which is the surest way of bringing stability to the rest of the world.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Clearly the security situation in Iraq remains difficult. There are reports that remnants of Saddam Hussein's army are still active and I understand that some non-Iraqis are involved in terrorist activities. Reports today indicate that British soldiers at al Majarr al Kabir may well have been the victims of an armed mob. Given all that speculation, will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to give a personal and candid assessment of the security situation in Iraq today?
    The Prime Minister: First, we should know far more about the incident in the next 24 hours. This is the background; in the al Maysan province, the people liberated themselves from Saddam but British forces have attempted to make sure that the local population—who regularly carried machine guns and small firearms—were disarmed of those weapons. There had been problems which may form part of the background. However, it is simply too early to say. We should be in a better position within the next 24 hours to know the origins of the group that attacked our forces.
    I should point out that there are some 14,000 British troops in theatre, with 10,000 in Iraq. We are also bringing in forces from other countries; over the next few weeks, 19 or 20 countries will be participating, with a total force of several thousand men. We are trying to make sure that, at every level, we have the troop requirements that we need. I spoke to the Chief of the Defence Staff this morning, who said that local commanders believe they have sufficient troops on the ground at present. Should they require more troops, we will make sure that they are available.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: As I have said, I believe that we must see this through. Given what the Prime Minister has just said about the security situation, what time scale does he envisage for the restoration of order in Iraq and, perhaps, for the eventual return of British troops?
    The Prime Minister: Already, we have reduced the British troop requirement; there were some 46,000 there during the conflict, and there are now 14,000 in theatre. I cannot be sure exactly when those troops can come home. However, we shall replace the troops that are there with others.
    1042
    I would assess the security situation like this: it is still obviously serious because, at present, former Ba'athist elements are trying to regroup and may pose a threat to our forces and particularly to the American forces in Baghdad. However, as a result of the work of British, American and other troops inside Iraq, a couple of thousand civilian policemen are back patrolling the streets of Basra. Many towns have now reinstituted proper political local councils. There are tremendous problems—as inevitably there will be—but it is important that we get a balance. There are also real improvements. Progress is being made in public services, with the reopening of hospitals, oil refineries and schools. The job, literally, is to rebuild the country and that will take time; however, it is necessary to take the time to get the job done.
    Ann McKechin: My right hon. Friend will share the concerns of many in this country about the deteriorating political and human rights situation in Burma and, in particular, the continued unwarranted arrest of the pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi. Will the Government press strongly for her immediate release, the release of all political prisoners in Burma and the restoration of democracy? Does he agree that in the circumstances, now is the time to stop British trade with Burma?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We have made the strongest possible representations in respect not merely of the release of the leader of the opposition, but of the restoration of proper human and democratic rights in Burma. The European Union also issued a strong statement at the European Council. On trade, we are making it clear to British companies that we do not believe that trade is appropriate when the regime continues to suppress the basic human rights of its people.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: On behalf of my colleagues, may I also extend my sympathy to the family of Paul Daisley, following his sad passing? Our sympathy also goes, of course, to the grief-stricken families of the six murdered British soldiers and to those who have been so seriously injured, whom we wish Godspeed and a swift recovery. We link that to the shock that is being felt at the Colchester barracks, where the six lost soldiers came from. Let us hope that the authorities, or those responsible for these atrocities, will see sense and respond to the British field commanders' request this morning by handing over the culprits within the next 48 hours.
    In line with what the Prime Minister has just told the House, based on his conversations this morning, the armed forces Minister has indicated the desirability of internationalising the coalition. Will the Prime Minister tell the House which other countries would play a predominant role? For example, has he taken the opportunity to discuss with President Putin, during his state visit this week, what contribution Russia might make?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that all those countries, particularly those represented on the Security Council, will want to play their full part. The assistance that Russia might give us is, of course, a matter that I can

    1043
    discuss with President Putin this week. As I said a moment ago, about 19 or 20 countries have pledged additional assistance. There are already soldiers of other nationalities in the British sector in Iraq, and that is set to build in the next few weeks. I have no doubt, particularly after the passing of the UN resolution, that we shall have a good response to our calls for assistance. I repeat, however, that at the present time the local commanding officers believe that they have sufficient troops for the job.
    Mr. Kennedy: On a related topic on Iraq, the Foreign Secretary said yesterday that, when the February dossier was approved for publication by the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister himself had assumed that its contents had come through the normal channels. Will the Prime Minister confirm that, at the point at which he authorised the publication of that dossier, he was not aware that sections of it had been lifted from a student thesis on the internet?
    The Prime Minister: I can confirm that. I would also say to the right hon. Gentleman that it is important, amid all this coverage, to realise that the contents of that dossier—and, indeed, of the first dossier which I presented to the House—are accurate.
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: The Leader of the Opposition asked a question about time scales. Listening to Northern Ireland Questions earlier, I was reminded that that Province was still directly ruled from this place, more than 30 years after direct rule was put in place. We desperately require an exit strategy for Iraq, and some idea of the time scale for our troops remaining in that country.
    The Prime Minister: I think that there are better analogies in regard to what is happening in Iraq. If we look at Bosnia, Kosovo or Afghanistan, we see that—as is the case in Iraq—at the height of a conflict there is a very large troop requirement. But the number of British troops now in Afghanistan, Kosovo or Bosnia is significantly reduced. Our exit strategy must be based on making sure that we maintain our pledge to help Iraq to be rebuilt as a stable and prosperous country, because if it is not rebuilt in that way, and if it were to continue under the type of regime that Saddam Hussein represented, it will continue to be a threat to the region and to the wider world. Even before this conflict began, during the 10, 11 or 12 years since the previous Gulf war ended, thousands of British troops have been patrolling the no-fly zone; so British troops have not been absent from Iraq since the end of the first Gulf war.
    Mr. Boris Johnson: What does the Prime Minister have to say to the Kimber family in my constituency, who, like many thousands in this country, have been wrongly assessed under the child tax credit system? They have now been told to repay £2,447.70 by tomorrow and, if necessary, to remortgage their house to do so, because in the words of the collections adviser at Reading, "Gordon Brown wants his money back." Is it any wonder that so few people are taking up this benefit?
    The Prime Minister: Of course I apologise to the hon. Gentleman's constituent for any mistake that has been made. He says that very few have taken up this benefit, but I think that somewhere in the region of 4 million people have done so. Whatever the circumstances of his constituent, for which I have already apologised, I think that most of the hon. Gentleman's constituents who are in receipt of this benefit will be appalled to know that the Conservative party is opposed to it and would take it away.
    Mr. John Hume: As the Prime Minister is aware, I have written to him on several occasions about the dangers of Sellafield. Now that he has clear research evidence of the serious damage that Sellafield is doing to the Irish sea, does he not think that the time has come to close it down?
    The Prime Minister: I am afraid that I must say to my hon. Friend that I do not think that that is the case. I should point out to him that all these issues are governed by international rules that we are obliged to abide by, and by an international authority that determines whether we are obeying our international obligations properly. I should also point out that on each occasion this issue has been looked at, the allegations made in respect of Sellafield have turned out to be wrong.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Has the Prime Minister ruled out any more increases in national insurance?
    The Prime Minister: The national insurance changes that we have put through are sufficient to make sure that we raise the money for the national health service. Any decisions are taken in the Budget, but the decisions that we have taken on national insurance are adequate for the health service rise in spending.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Last week, the Prime Minister was forced to give a pledge not to raise the higher tax, but that pledge is worthless if he does not rule out increasing national insurance as well, because under Labour it is a tax on income that goes all the way up the income scale. So will he now pledge not to raise national insurance again, or do we have to get the Leader of the House to make a speech on that, too?
    The Prime Minister: What I have said to the right hon. Gentleman is that the national insurance rise is adequate to fund the health service spending that we have. He is right to say that that rise goes all the way up the income scale—we thought that the fair thing to do. The fact is that, as a result of that rise, there is money going into our national health service, there are 50,000 more nurses, inpatient and out-patient lists are far below what we inherited in 1997, and we have the largest ever hospital building programme under way.
    The plain fact of the matter is that we make no apology for having introduced that tax rise: it was the right thing to do to fund the national health service. The

    1045
    right hon. Gentleman, by opposing it, is opposed to that investment, and I assume from what he has just said that he would reverse it.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Now we know that the Prime Minister's pledge of last week, like all his other tax pledges, is meaningless. Let me remind him that he is the man who said:
    "We have no plans to increase tax at all"—
    and who then took an extra £5,500 from every household in Britain. He is the man who said that people "shouldn't" suppose that he planned to increase national insurance—and who then increased it by £8 billion. When the Leader of the House confessed last week that
    "too many middle-income employees"
    have been hit under Labour, was he not right? Was not his real crime that he committed new Labour's cardinal sin: he told the truth about Labour and tax rises?
    The Prime Minister: The tax take as a percentage of national income this year will actually be lower than in eight of the 11 years that Margaret Thatcher was in power. Secondly, we have given a lot of help to families through the working families tax credit and the child tax credit. It is correct that we have raised national insurance by 1 per cent., for the reasons that we have given. But I should also point out that as a result of the stable economy, we have more people in work today, living standards are up by 10 or 15 per cent., and we have more support for families and the lowest mortgages for 40 years.
    As for the extra money going into our schools and hospitals now, we make no apologies for that. It is the right thing to do, and the right hon. Gentleman has made it very clear today that, at the next election, people can choose either extra investment in health and schools with us, or 20 per cent. cuts across the board with him.
    Andy Burnham: Every year more than 2,000 children in Greater Manchester have their teeth taken out under general anaesthetic. Is it morally right to allow them to go through that pain when we know of a safe and effective measure to reduce it? Will the Prime Minister ensure that the Water Bill will clear up and sort out the law on water fluoridation, giving communities in this country the power to choose it?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, there are proposals to ensure that local people are properly consulted on issues connected with water fluoridation, but he also knows that there are strong views on both sides of the argument. The matter should be left with local people, as we have described. If the arguments in favour are as powerful as my hon. Friend says, I have no doubt that they will win the day.
    Gregory Barker: Yesterday the Foreign Secretary described the dodgy dossier as "a complete Horlicks", so is it time to say "night, night" to Alastair Campbell?
    The Prime Minister: As I said earlier, that part of the dossier was entirely accurate and the mistake of not attributing it was accepted at the time. I would simply point out to the hon. Gentleman that, in respect of that dossier and the first dossier, not a single fact in them is actually disputed.
    Ms Oona King: Will the Prime Minister condemn again the terror tactics that ruin Israeli lives? Will he also condemn the terror tactics that ruin Palestinian lives? In the west bank and Gaza strip, I saw widespread arbitrary detention and torture, expulsion from land and property, access denied to health care and water, and now a wall that will seal off Palestinians—in some cases, from their own families, farmland and livelihood. Does the Prime Minister believe that the humanitarian consequences of those policies are grave and that they undermine moderates at a time when we should all support the road map for peace?
    The Prime Minister: There is a lot in what my hon. Friend says. It is true that the very purpose of terrorism is to undermine the moderate voice of the Palestinians. The difficulty is that it is also right to say that literally scores of Israeli citizens are being killed in these appalling terrorist acts. That is why I tell my hon. Friend that we have made our position clear on extra-judicial killings by Israeli forces and on terrorism.
    It is important to recognise that unless we manage to get a security position in the Palestinian Authority whereby the terrorist attacks can at least be minimised, the Israeli Government will inevitably come under huge pressure to take retributive action. The only way through it, I am afraid, is to make sure that we get a proper process going with a security plan in place. That is what we are working for. To be quite honest, we can condemn as much as we like, but unless we have a viable security plan in place, it will be very difficult to make progress. That is why I hope that it will be in place as shortly as possible.
    Mr. Alex Salmond: Did I hear the Prime Minister correctly when he described a plagiarised document with words and meanings altered as "factually accurate"? When exactly did he first realise that the dodgy dossier was a complete Horlicks? Was it after Colin Powell told the Security Council that it was a fine document with exquisite detail of deception? Why did he not tell the rest of us before taking this country to war?
    The Prime Minister: The reasons we went into this conflict are well known, as is the hon. Gentleman's position. He was opposed to it then, and he is opposed to it now. As to the facts set out in the dossier, they are correct. Whatever their provenance, it does not alter the fact that they are correct. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman may disagree with the action that we took. That is his right, but I defend that action because it was the right thing for this country to do. I simply tell the hon. Gentleman that removing Saddam from power

    1047
    and making sure that that country and region are stable and successful for the future is right for Iraq, right for the region and right for the wider world.
    Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: May I turn the Prime Minister's attention to premium bonds? Does he think that it is right that many of my constituents are barred from entry to premium bonds, given that the minimum amount that can be purchased is £100? That might be all right in the leafy suburbs, but could not that massive price be reduced, with the help of new technology, to allow all our constituents entry into that worthwhile savings scheme?
    The Prime Minister: It is certainly something that can be considered, but my hon. Friend will know what the problem is. If the minimum is lowered to too low a level, the bureaucratic costs of making the transactions are too great. He will know that the average purchase of premium bonds is some £4,500, so we would have to be sure that any change we made was not outweighed by disproportionate bureaucratic costs.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: May I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to our forces in Iraq and in sending our sympathy to the bereaved families? Will he join me in paying tribute to the continuing work of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, which faces difficulties locally but continues to serve this country abroad, including training police officers in Iraq?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly do pay tribute to the Police Service of Northern Ireland, and to all those police officers in Northern Ireland who do a superb job on behalf of their local community and—as the hon. Gentleman rightly points out—who provide their services in different parts of the world, where their particular expertise and experience is invaluable.
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: Are too many people paying the top rate of income tax?
    The Prime Minister: No, I am satisfied with the Government's tax plans, as my hon. Friend would expect.
    Mr. Robert Syms: Why are teachers being made redundant in Poole this year—and many more facing redundancy next year—when education is meant to be the Government's priority?
    The Prime Minister: Let us be clear that overall there have been some 25,000 extra teachers. As a result of the funding issues with which we are familiar, a small number of teachers have been made compulsorily redundant. In fact, some teachers are made redundant every year. Overall, however, we have had a massive increase in the number of teachers over the past six years and the funding per pupil in our schools has risen significantly. I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that whatever the problems of funding with schools in
    1048
    his or any other area, they cannot be improved by cutting back on education spending, which is the policy of his party.
    Mr. David Stewart: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the proposals by the EU tax Commissioner to put VAT on stamps. That would be a backward step for our postal services and would have a disproportionate effect on the poor and elderly. Will my right hon. Friend undertake to veto any such proposal and send a letter back to the EU marked "return to sender"?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, we are not in favour of that proposal.
    Bob RussellI am grateful to you for calling me, Mr. Speaker. I thank the Prime Minister for his warm words of condolence. It was announced within the last hour that the six military policemen who lost their lives yesterday were all from the Colchester garrison. This is the darkest day for the garrison in the past 60 years, and I am sure that the whole House would wish to convey our condolences to the families of those six people.
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    The Prime Minister: I entirely endorse what the hon. Gentleman says, and I am sure that he is right when he says that he speaks for the whole House.
    Mr. Peter Pike: My right hon. Friend will know that it is two years since we had the disturbances on the streets of Burnley. Last week, we celebrated the first annual general meeting of the building bridges project that was set up between the Muslim and Christian faiths in Burnley. Does he agree that it is communities working together, and the Government working with local councils, that will solve the problems of towns such as Burnley, and not the extremists who cause division wherever they go?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that my hon. Friend's words will be echoed by the whole House. He is right that the building bridges project has been successful in trying to achieve better community relations. He is also right to say that those who advocate extremism, or who want to turn their anger on people who are immigrants to this country, do nothing for community relations or for their own local communities and peddle disastrous misconceptions and misrepresentations. The way forward is good, solid community relations between people of all faiths and backgrounds, and I believe that that vision is supported by the vast majority of people in the country.
    Mr. David Heath: The head of MI5 has talked about the inevitability of a major terrorist threat. Whatever confidence we may have in our security services and emergency services, is it not the case that our civil preparedness is not as good as it should be? Why has it taken more than two years to produce even a draft Bill on civil contingencies? Why

    1049
    was the major exercise in London cancelled? Why have the Government no plans for an emergency broadcasting system? Are we really prepared?
    The Prime Minister: First of all, the head of the intelligence services was simply drawing attention to what has been said on many occasions, in respect not just of this country but of any western country. Indeed, we can see from the terrorist acts of the past few weeks
    1050
    that not only western countries are at risk from such attacks. These people will attack Muslims or people from any part of the world where they can perpetrate their terrorist atrocities. In relation to preparedness, the Government have spent literally hundreds of millions of pounds making this country more prepared. I pay tribute to the work of our intelligence services and of those in our public services. I believe that they have prepared this country as well as it possibly can be prepared for any such terrorist eventuality.

Points of Order
12.30 pm
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order relates to you, as you are responsible for the accuracy of the Official Report, according to "Erskine May". On 12 June, the Prime Minister, in answer to a question from me, attributed words to me that were wrong. I took up the matter with the Editor of Hansard, who explained that he accepts the word of 10 Downing street as to the accuracy and origin of quotes supplied to Hansard. However, I now have a letter from the Prime Minister that fails to substantiate the words attributed to me, or their origin. Instead, it refers in general terms to a pamphlet on the European constitution that I wrote, which again does not contain the words attributed to me that were recorded in inverted commas in Hansard.
May I ask, Mr. Speaker, that you instruct that the Official Report be amended and corrected to make it clear that I did not use those words? More importantly, may I ask you to ensure that in future Hansard does not accept at face value assurances, quotes and information from 10 Downing street that are clearly—in this case and in others—designed to confuse and mislead?
Mr. Speaker: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of that point of order. If he feels that he has been misrepresented, he must take the matter up with the Prime Minister. Hansard must report what is said in the House. It is for the hon. Member concerned, and not for Hansard, to take responsibility for remarks that are made and for any quotations that are used.
Mr. Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At Scottish Question Time yesterday, in the full hearing of the House, the Secretary of State for Scotland described the Scottish Parliament as an "assembly". The matter has been taken up substantially in the Scottish press today, the suggestion being that the Secretary of State is too busy to be in command of his brief. However, if we look at column 847 in the Hansard report for yesterday, we see that the word "assembly" has been deleted and the word "Parliament" inserted. Hansard staff are excellent, but that is a material change of meaning, as detailed in "Erskine May". Will the Secretary of State for Scotland have the opportunity to tell us whether any of his staff, or the parliamentary secretary, had a hand in seeking that change? Will the Official Report be altered to reflect what actually happened, as opposed to what the Secretary of State for Scotland might want to have happened?
Mr. Speaker: I understand that yesterday the Official Report did edit the reference by the Secretary of State for Scotland to the "assembly" in Holyrood, and that it used the word "Parliament" instead. As "Erskine May" makes clear, it is normal practice for Hansard to correct obvious mistakes. That is what happened on this occasion.
Mr. Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You, of course, are the guardian not only of the House but of each Member of
1052
the House. Am I right in saying that it is normal practice, if one Member of the House misrepresents another, deliberately or inadvertently, for the Member who had committed that inadvertent misdirection to correct themselves on the record? That would be an even-handed approach from one Member to another. The Prime Minister is a Member of this House; surely you, Mr. Speaker, have the right and—dare I say it?—the responsibility, in regard to the Prime Minister as a Member of this House, to exercise the same evenhandedness that, as we know, you exercise with other Members. I simply ask, Mr. Speaker, whether you would like to ponder this as an issue, with regard to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) said a moment ago. If not, there may be a suspicion among Members that the Prime Minister can get away with anything in this House and that he is not expected to meet the same standards of probity as other Members, rightly, are expected to do.
Mr. Speaker: Past events have shown that the Prime Minister knows that he does not get away with anything in this House. I am being asked to be a referee in these matters. I cannot instruct an hon. Member to withdraw in these circumstances. The Prime Minister will be able to note the right hon. Gentleman's point of order and my response; it is up to the Prime Minister then to decide what he might do about that matter, but it is not for me to instruct.
Mr. Salmond: Further to my earlier point of order, Mr. Speaker. Your reply was excellent, as usual, but may I seek your advice? Is there any way, in parliamentary terms, for me to find out whether the staff of the Secretary of State for Scotland or the parliamentary secretary sought that change, which is of considerable moment and interest in Scotland?
Mr. Speaker: This is a matter for the Editor of Hansard, not the staff. As the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members have said, Hansard gives us an excellent service that is second to none.
Mr. Simon Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I refer you to business questions last Thursday, when I posed a question to the Leader of the House? In reply, the right hon. Gentleman said:
"The vote for the Welsh block comes to the Secretary of State, and I then make a subvention for the purpose of running the Wales Office—that will continue"—
The words "that will continue" are important, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman went on:
"and the remainder goes to the National Assembly."—[Official Report, 19 June 2003; Vol. 407, c. 513–14.]
However, today, The Western Mail, the national newspaper of Wales, states:
"The Wales Office confirmed last night that it had not yet been decided whether Lord Falconer, the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, or Leader of the House of Commons Peter Hain would be responsible for 'top-slicing' the cost of the Wales Office from the Assembly's budget allocation."
On Thursday, the Leader of the House cum Secretary of State for Wales cum Lord Privy Seal said that he would be responsible. Last night, his office told The Western Mail that it had not yet been decided who was responsible. As that money comes from the House's

1053
allocation, is top sliced by the Secretary of State and only then goes to the National Assembly of Wales, how can we clarify this matter and how can we ensure that there is cross-examination?
Mr. Speaker: That was not a point of order, but I think that I can help the hon. Gentleman. Every week, Thursday comes around and we always have business questions; so perhaps, if he catches my eye, he can seek clarification tomorrow.
Mrs. Angela Browning: Further to the points of order made by my right hon. Friends the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) and the shadow Leader of the House, Mr. Speaker. It is a rather old-fashioned concept, but one that I value, that all Members of the House are honourable Members and that is at the core of our procedures. You would, therefore, reprimand any Member who suggested that another Member had misled the House—that is something that we try not to say in our proceedings. However, Mr. Speaker, the counterpoint is that if a Member, including a Prime Minister, says something that, on examination, proves not to be the case, it must—if we are all honourable Members—be incumbent on the person who is found to be guilty of misleading to come to the House voluntarily to put the matter right on the record. Unless that honour is upheld, there will an increasing demand from Members that it should be the norm to identify when a Member has misled the House, because it clearly happens.
Mr. Speaker: I have nothing more to add to the previous statements that I have made, but, once again, I say that I cannot be the referee in these matters; it is up to the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) and the Prime Minister to sort this matter out.
Mr. John Bercow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Most Members of Parliament have experience of using quotations and of being asked, absolutely properly and in accordance with precedent, by the Hansard writers to provide the source of those quotations. In absolutely accepting your ruling, as all Members do, may I simply ask for confirmation that it is the responsibility of a Member who quotes another to prove that the quotation is correct, not the responsibility of the Member aggressed against to disprove it?
Mr. Speaker: Once again, I say to the hon. Gentleman that I cannot be drawn into these matters.

Historic Counties (Traffic Signs and Mapping)
12.40 pm
Mr. John Randall: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law so as to require the Ordnance Survey of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to mark the boundaries of the historic counties on its maps; to require traffic authorities to cause traffic signs to be placed on or near roads for the purpose of indicating the location of historic county boundaries; and for connected purposes.
We live in an era when so much of our heritage and traditions seem to count for nothing and when, seemingly on the whim of those who find history an irrelevance, institutions can be dispensed with, without so much as a by your leave. Yes, I will unashamedly admit that I am in favour of traditions. However, sad though it is to admit, I have to acknowledge that things move on. To me and to many others, the historic counties of this country have a real significance.
I am not trying to turn back the clock for counties to become the administrative authorities once again. I am not even attempting to get self-rule for Middlesex, however tempting that might be—I hope, perhaps, to return to that another day. All that I am asking is that those historic counties' place in our heritage is recognised. They have played a prominent role in our national life for more than a thousand years, and their names and areas are widely used in tourism, sport, business, local and family history, military history, literature and the arts. They are a source of identity and affection for many people, and they have been the basis for an unchanging, recognisable and stable geography.
Now, all that is at risk. The link between local government and the historic counties has been broken throughout much of the country. Quite frankly, some of the names of the more modern administrative areas have not really got the same ring to them. In Scotland, for example, in my opinion the title "Central Region" is not exactly evocative. Goodness knows what the bureaucrats will come up with in the future. They will probably number the counties, so I might live in region 3B.
My Bill would introduce just two of the measures that have been proposed by the Association of British Counties, under the admirable chairmanship of Mr. Michael Bradford. Those aspirations are shared by many other county trusts, such as mine in Middlesex, where Mr. Russell Grant is such a champion, not just for us Middle Saxons, but for all the counties. All I ask is that signs, such as the brown and white tourism signs, be placed to mark the county boundaries and a duty be placed on the Ordnance Survey to mark those boundaries on larger-scale maps.
Perhaps it is unfashionable to be proud of our past and our heritage. I am self-evidently not cool, and some Labour Members—and even people outside the House—may say in today's parlance that I am quite sad. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Sad I may be, but I am immensely proud of the history of my county and my country. That is why I ask the House to support the Bill today.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Randall, Mr. David Amess, Mr. Harry Barnes, Mr. David Curry, Mr. Nigel Evans, Mr. Adrian Flook, Mr. David Hinchliffe, Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, Mr. Andrew Rosindell, Mr. Hugo Swire, Mr. David Wilshire and Sir Nicholas Winterton.

HISTORIC COUNTIES (TRAFFIC SIGNS AND MAPPING)
Mr. John Randall accordingly presented a Bill to amend the law so as to require the Ordnance Survey of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to mark the boundaries of the historic counties on its maps; to require traffic authorities to cause traffic signs to be placed on or near roads for the purpose of indicating the location of historic county boundaries; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 11 July, and to be printed [Bill 134].
Opposition Day
  11TH ALLOTTED DAY

    Tuition Fees
    Mr. Speaker: We now come to the first debate on the Opposition motions I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
    12.45 pm
    Mr. Damian Green: I beg to move,
    That this House notes the views of the National Union of Students about university tuition fees; and believes that the consequence of the Government's proposal relating to tuition fees will be to act as a severe deterrent to many students from hardworking but less well-off families, who will not be eligible for the £1,000 maintenance grant, from applying to university.
    As Conservative Members believe in inclusiveness, I should point out at the start that we are happy to mention in our motion the views of the National Union of Students, which has come out strongly against the Government's plans to make university education much more expensive. We also welcome the support of Members on both sides of the House who signed the early-day motion supporting the NUS campaign against fees. I am sure that, having publicly supported that early-day motion, they will welcome another chance to make that stance of principle clear to their constituents.
    This is also my first opportunity to welcome formally the new Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education to his post. The Times Higher Education Supplement described his purpose as reinforcing the Prime Minister's assault on ivory towers. To continue the spirit of inclusiveness, may I plead with him not to go down that route? Our world-class universities deserve congratulation and support, not the sniping that they have occasionally received from parts of this Government, notably from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am confident that the Minister will not follow that ill-advised way of proceeding.
    I shall divide my remarks between the effects of the Government's policy and those of our alternative: on students, on the issue of how to make access fairer and, finally, on the universities themselves. I also want to deal with some of the more serious critiques of our policy, as they deserve a considered response. There are some less considered critiques around, including one from the Labour party political communications unit, copies of which seemed to be widely available around the House yesterday. I am grateful to the large number of Labour Members who wanted to share their copies with us.
    Let me first remind the House of the key difference between Conservative Members and the Government on this issue. The Government's proposals amount to a new tax on learning: £3,000 a year for students at some universities, leaving them with debts that will hang over them for many years to come. That, of course, is one in a long line of betrayals. Just before the 1997 election, Labour said:
    "we have no plans to introduce tuition fees".

    1057
    Just after the 1997 election, Labour introduced tuition fees. Just before the 2001 election, Labour said:
    "We will not introduce top-up fees."
    Just after the 2001 election, Labour introduced top-up fees. Now, the Government are saying that £3,000 will be kept as the upper limit for the next Parliament. With form like that, I am afraid that even the Secretary of State for Education at his most charmingly eloquent will not be believed.
    I sympathise with those Labour MPs who have unwittingly deceived their constituents. They should stick to their convictions, however. They should not even be worried—if they are—about being branded as rebels. In a recent interesting speech on public services, the remark was made:
    "The essence of our reforms is to keep true to the principle of your citizenship—not your wallet entitling you to decent services."
    That quote sums up the Conservative approach to higher education and the approach of many on the Labour Back Benches and, I suspect, on the Liberal Democrat Benches. What it does not do, however, is reflect the Government's approach. It is therefore noteworthy that it is a quote from the Prime Minister in his latest relaunch of the Government. The gap between words and action is breathtaking. I agree with the Prime Minister's sentiment that it should not be our wallets that entitle us to decent services. I just wish that he would apply that to his own policy on higher education, with which he is marching firmly in the opposite direction.
    By contrast, the next Conservative Government will scrap all tuition fees—not only the Government's new top-up fees, but all fees. We will save students £9,000 of the debt burden over the period of a normal university course. We will scrap the arbitrary 50 per cent. admission target. We will scrap the access regulator, which is the latest piece of bureaucracy to drain independence away from universities. The best way to make access to university free and fair is to make education free and for admission; to be fair and decided on merit and potential alone.
    Mr. David ChaytorThe hon. Gentleman says that he will scrap all tuition fees, but he knows that the majority of students in the United Kingdom study at further education colleges. Would he scrap tuition fees for further education colleges?
    Mr. Green: I shall deal with vocational education later in my speech, because I agree that it is important. One of this country's historic failures has been not to take vocational education sufficiently seriously for almost 50 years. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman would agree with one of the problems that I lay at the Government's door: the 50 per cent. target and overemphasis on higher education has had the precise effect of devaluing vocational qualifications and further education.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Green: I shall give way to the hon. Lady, who I believe signed the early-day motion on which our motion is based.
    Mrs. Campbell: I want to comment on the hon. Gentleman's proposal to abolish tuition fees. Is he aware that almost 50 per cent. of students do not pay tuition fees because they come from families with such a low income that they do not have to? Does he agree that his proposal is designed to benefit the better-off in society and not the poorer students whom he purports to support?
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: So why did you sign the early-day motion?
    Mr. Green: I agree with my hon. Friend: it was slightly perverse of the hon. Lady to sign the early-day motion if she opposed the sentiments behind it. She will know that there is some doubt about the Government's position on the top-up fees element. The Secretary of State wavers between saying that poorer students will be exempt from all fees and that they will be exempt only from the existing £1,100—noises have suggested one thing or another. If it turns out that even the poorest students must pay a top-up element, the hon. Lady should agree that her point becomes invalid. I hope that we will receive some reassurance from the Secretary of State during the debate.
    The Secretary of State and the Government as a whole will be aware of the large and growing coalition that they have assembled against them on tuition fees. Let me explain why, first from the students' perspective. Barclays bank estimates that the average debt for students in 2002 will be £12,000, which is a rise of 28 per cent. on the previous year. A UNITE survey shows that debt among third-year students has increased by 61 per cent. The consequences of that are shown in a NatWest survey that says that the number of sixth formers who considered not going to university purely because of fees rose from 34 per cent. in 2000 to 50 per cent. in 2002. Half of all sixth formers consider not going to university only because of fees. That is the situation before the Government put up the fees even more.
    Mr. Chaytor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Green: I shall give the hon. Gentleman one more chance.
    Mr. Chaytor: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the debt that he is quoting is to a large extent incurred on credit cards issued by the very banks that conducted the surveys?
    Mr. Green: That might be true, but a debt is a debt if a student has to pay it. The body to which the debt is owed does not especially matter to a student, although clearly different interest rates are involved. The essential point of the debate is that, irrespective of to whom students owe debt, they will owe £9,000 more under the

    1059
    Labour Government's proposal than under ours. That is the key fact that students and their parents and families will face when they decide at the next election.
    Mr. David Rendelrose—
    Clive Effordrose—
    Mr. Green: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) first.
    Clive Efford: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that his party would pay for eradicating fees by reducing the number of people who may go to university?
    Mr. Green: I have already said that we would abolish the 50 per cent. target—I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is paying attention. The university sector would be smaller and better focused under a Conservative Government than under the Labour Government.
    Mr. McLoughlin: I do not think that we should be apologetic on this point. Back in 1979, one in eight people went to university. By the time we left government in 1997, the figure was one in three. Our party has an incredibly good record on widening access. We should provide access for those who deserve the education.
    Mr. Green: Absolutely. We need fair access based on merit alone. I shall deal later with problems of access for poorer social groups that have persisted throughout the long period of expansion under both Governments. Those problems deserve serious attention. I know that the Government are trying to solve them simply by expanding the rate of participation and I shall demonstrate to the House that that is not working.
    Mr. Rendel: The hon. Gentleman is arguing that the main reason for abolishing tuition fees and top-up fees is that they discourage people from wanting to go to university. He also admitted that under his scheme there would be fewer university places than there are now. Surely it is perverse to encourage more people to go to university but to provide fewer places for them.
    Mr. Green: We will encourage everyone who has the potential and who will benefit from it to go to university. The rising drop-out rate makes it clear that some people being enticed to university do not benefit from it. It does not need politicians and planners to tell them that, because they drop out in rising numbers and know that they are not benefiting.
    I half agree with the hon. Gentleman that the growing debt crisis is the reason why the Government have assembled such a powerful coalition in opposition to their proposals. Penny Hollings of the National Union of Students said:
    "The Conservative Party has correctly identified just how unpopular tuition fees have been and the catastrophic effect that top-up fees would have".
    1060
    A spokesperson for the Association of Teachers and Lecturers said:
    "We would welcome the abolition of university tuition fees, which are particularly problematic for low-paid graduates going to make their careers in the public services".
    Doug McAvoy of the National Union of Teachers said:
    "The Conservatives' proposal to scrap university fees is a welcome move in the right direction".
    I was especially delighted to receive a measure of support from the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), who is sadly not in the Chamber. He said in The Times that our policy was
    "one that many people in the Labour party agree with".
    I am grateful for that support.
    Michael Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend realise that this goes further? Is he aware of studies undertaken by Loughborough university, Warwick university, the university of London and many others that show that although the number of people from poorer middle-class backgrounds who go to university is increasing—I am sure that the Secretary of State will point that out—the number is decreasing as a percentage of the whole student cohort? As a percentage of the total number of people who go to university, people from poorer backgrounds are being deterred because of the debt that would arise.
    Mr. Green: My hon. Friend is right, and common sense suggests that that would be true. People who come from families that are not used to dealing with large debt are more likely to be discouraged by the prospect of long-term debt.
    The Royal Academy of Engineering, which speaks for many of the professions, commented on the Government's proposals:
    "There is a fear that proposals contained within the White Paper regarding student cebt and the setting of course fees will deter students from undertaking courses in more expensive subjects, including, particularly, science, engineering, and technology."
    Although Ministers say that part of the reason for expanding the higher education sector to meet their 50 per cent. target is precisely to make British industry more competitive, they should listen to the experts. They are deterring people from undertaking more expensive courses: not only important courses for industry but, of course, medicine and other courses.
    Mr. Tom Harris: Why does the hon. Gentleman not include in his list of quotes what Professor Nicholas Barr of the London School of Economics said in May 2003:
    "If places are rationed, then the middle class with their sharp elbows will monopolise them, so it is inequitable. If middle-class students go to university proportionately more than they do now, then they will be paid for by poor people"?
    Mr. Green: I am glad that we are joined by visitors from Scottish constituencies, to whom the debate does not apply. I am also glad that the hon. Gentleman got as far as page 20 of Labour's document. I shall deal with Professor Barr later on. His critique is serious and interesting, but it is also almost completely wrongheaded.

    1061
    The debt problem is real, but the Government's response has always been that it is worth getting into debt because graduates earn so much more. In that context, the previous Minister for higher education, now the Minister for Children, whom I am delighted to see in the Chamber, came up with the risible figure of £400,000 extra. I would advise her successor to pay serious attention to a number of pieces of work carried out over the past few months, some of it by the Government themselves. The latest edition of an annual survey by High Fliers Research of 15,000 students graduating this summer shows that starting salaries, which have risen for the past decade, are now falling. The typical starting salary expected by a graduate has dropped from £18,700 in 2002 to £18,500 this year.
    The Government's own Higher Education Statistics Agency says that more than a third of graduates last year could not find a job at all or had to settle for a low-skilled job. Some 40 per cent. of 2002 graduates thought that their degree was more or less a waste of time, money and effort. As I am going through Government publications, Ministers might also want to take a look at "Labour Market Trends" to see the variation in earnings of students who left school with two or more A-levels. Those with degrees in some subjects, like law, maths and economics, can expect earnings about 25 per cent. higher than average, but returns on other subjects are sharply lower. Social studies brings about a 10 per cent. premium, but education and languages have returns close to zero. On average, arts degrees show a negative return. Those graduates earn less than if they had not done a degree at all.
    It seems likely that Government policy, which has pushed up the proportion of young people going to university—as I said, they plan to increase that by 50 per cent.—has also had an effect. At present, students leave university with debts on average of £12,000. If the Government have their way, that average debt will rise to £27,000, but if the returns on higher education continue to fall as the price of higher education rises, will people want more of it or less? The Government's policy is perverse even in their own terms. The idea that graduates should be uniquely penalised for their learning because a degree always and everywhere leads to future riches is nonsense.
    Our policy is justified not east by its effect on reducing the burden of student debt. I was interested to read the work of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which is publishing a report today showing that the average graduate with no career break would be relieved of the burden of debt three years earlier under our proposals than under the Government's proposals. That in itself will act as an encouragement to potential students from less well-off backgrounds to apply for university.
    Mr. Chaytor: But is it not the case that that IFS report also criticises wholeheartedly the Conservative party's proposals precisely because they shift responsibility for financing higher education on to poorer people?
    Mr. Green: Is that on the basis of the assumption, which the IFS is clear about, that poor people will not be deterred by the extra burden of debt, because I
    1062
    disagree with the IFS on that? As my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) explained, and as common sense would suggest to the hon. Gentleman, people who come from families with no tradition of dealing with mortgage debt or large debts are more likely to be deterred. I agree with some of the IFS report, but not all of it.
    Michael Fabricant: We need not believe my hon. Friend on that matter. We can take the advice of the former Secretary of State for Education and Skills, who said in her news release:
    "for many lower income families"—
    I am quoting, Mr. Speaker, so Hansard can take note—
    "the fear of debt is a real worry and"
    does
    "act as a bar to higher education".
    She made that very point before resigning.
    The Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education (Alan Johnson): The hon. Gentleman states the blindingly obvious.
    Mr. Green: I am glad the Minister agrees with us. In his new role, he has a chance to change his Government's policy so that it recognises the blindingly obvious.
    Mr. Mark Hendrick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Green: I have given way enough.
    The second issue that concerns me is access. One matter that unites hon. Members on both sides of the House is that anyone with the potential to benefit from a university degree should not be denied that because of their social or economic background. The question is whether the Government's policy of simply expanding the sector is the best way to achieve that.
    If the Government were right in their contention that higher numbers mean wider access, they would have a case, but the evidence is absolutely plain that higher numbers do not change the social mix of universities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield said, there has been a huge expansion of numbers under successive Governments, but the social mix in universities, as the Secretary of State recognises, has not changed much over that period, despite the expansion in student numbers from something under 10 per cent. to something over 40 per cent.
    Indeed, over the past six years, expansion has continued at a headlong rate under this Government, who are specifically committed to solving the problem, yet the participation rate among the poorer social groups has not changed. However, the key to that—and the key mistake that the Government are making—is that it is a problem not of our universities, but of our schools. The Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education himself made the crucial point on Monday when he said:
    "once youngsters from working-class backgrounds get to the stage of acquiring two A-levels, nine out of 10 of them go on to a university education."[Official Report, 23 June 2003; Vol. 407, c. 738.]

    1063
    That is exactly the right point to make. There is no point in fiddling with university admissions to allow fairer access; what we have to do is improve our secondary schools so that wherever people come from, they have a chance of getting A-levels and aspiring as high as they like.
    The facts are plain, but the Government are choosing to ignore them and go off down the road of a new access regulator, who will tie universities up in red tape, make them sign agreements before they can charge the top-up fees, and generally threaten them until they replace admissions on academic merit with admissions on the grounds of political ideology. That is a gross interference in the freedom of universities and a straightforward attack on the principle of fairness. Indeed, that is already happening. I am sure that Ministers and many hon. Members on both sides of the House will have seen article in The Sunday Times headlined "Top universities offer poor students lower entry grades". It says:
    "Top universities are lowering A-level grade demands for
    certain students
    "to meet government targets, according to confidential papers."
    The report reveals that a number of universities
    "have responded to ministerial pressure with schemes that allow students to win places with as much as two grades below standard offers."
    Ministers should consider what effect reading that story in the Sunday papers has on parents, students and sixth-formers in particular, from all social backgrounds. They know that ministerial intervention means that their entry to university is not on the basis of hard work and academic potential, but on the basis of what suits a Government who are trying to hit their targets. That political interference in university entrance is disgraceful. We all agree that university is one of the most important ladders for many people. I agree with Professor Alan Smithers, who said:
    "Universities should be looking for students with potential and it is patronising to suggest they are more likely to be found in particular postcode areas."
    The third thing that is worth noting is the effect on the university sector itself. The Government have a novel approach to university education: pile it high and sell it expensive. The effects of that are already becoming apparent. Drop-out rates are getting higher. Some universities are seeing more than 40 per cent. of their students drop out. Can those few Labour Members who support their Government's policy say how that is fair or compassionate? To encourage young people to get into debt and to start on a course that they rapidly realise is not going to do them any good is yet another example of the harmful effect of arbitrary targets in the education sector. Successive Education Secretaries have become addicted to those targets. The 50 per cent. university admission target is one of the most harmful, which is why we will get rid of it.
    We need a university sector that is properly focused, offering degrees that mean something to those who can benefit from them. Bigger does not necessarily mean better. Does every current course provide proper value for the student? The previous Minister with responsibility for higher education made a notorious insult about "Mickey Mouse" degrees—a phrase that I
    1064
    have never used except when attributing it to her. The Secretary of State has cast aspersions on mediaeval history and classics, although on both occasions he retreated sharply and wisely in the face of opposition. We need proper, objective criteria for judging whether a course is worth while or not so that prejudices, whether against medieaval history or media studies, do not become the basis of policy. It is clearly sensible to look at drop-out rates, the qualifications required to take up a course and a range of other factors. However, it is clear that the university sector needs to be better focused.
    We need to pay more attention to vocational qualifications, a point made in one of the multitude of interventions by the non. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor). I suspect that he and I would agree that this country has an historic problem in not taking high-level vocational education seriously enough and that there is not enough of it on offer. In many cases, vocational education will give people a better start in life and a better chance to realise their full potential than what the Minister for Children referred to as "Mickey Mouse" degrees. Professor Barr and others have asked how that vocational education is to be provided, a point that the hon. Member for Bury, North also made in an intervention.
    The choice for many children who are left behind every year by the system is not university or vocational education but vocational education or nothing. The relevant financial calculation is not university versus vocational education costs but vocational education costs versus the cost of unemployment benefit, the new deal for young people, police and judicial actions, the impact of crime and economic dependency on others. On 9 June, David Bell, the head of Ofsted wrote wisely in the New Statesman that at 16
    "you're looking at one in five people that we know really do not go anywhere at the end of compulsory schooling—neither to further schooling nor education."
    The idea that all the money for vocational education has to come out of the higher education pot is therefore mistaken.
    Mr. Julian Brazier: My hon. Friend is making a compelling case. Would he further agree that the figures that he gave earlier on graduates show that in many areas the economy does not need extra graduates? By contrast, the building industry and many other industries desperately need more trained tradesmen.
    Mr. Green: My hon. Friend is right, and I am grateful to him for allowing me to make the point that the CBI and the TUC estimate that the cost of the skills shortage to the British economy is £10 billion a year or about £170 for every man, woman and child. The idea that a lack of graduates is undermining skills is nonsense—the problem is actually poor vocational education. I want to address the point about money directly because business spends £23 billion of private sector money a year on training, more than three times the amount that the Government spend on equivalent education through the Learning and Skills Council. A change in the mix so that more importance is given to vocational education would greatly increase the potential for private sector money. The funding mix in higher education is 60 per cent. public: 40 per cent. private. If we increased the importance of vocational education in the educational

    1065
    mix, we would attract much more private sector money. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) made the point that by doing so we would improve the skills base and address directly a problem that has dogged our economy for years. It does not relate to the number of graduates but the long tail of completely unskilled people. That is not a charge against the present Government, as the problem has dogged us for 50 years. However, it is an area where the education system is still failing badly, and where the economy has failed badly. We should therefore pay attention to the long tail of completely unskilled people in this country.
    David Wright: I understand the hon. Gentleman's analysis of the need to attract further private sector resources, an initiative for which there would be a cross-party welcome. However, evidence suggests that that needs to be pump-primed by public sector resources, which would require an uplift. Is the hon. Gentleman planning for that in his programme?
    Mr. Green: The Government are already spending £5.3 billion on the learning and skills councils, so a very large pump is priming money—
    The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Charles Clarke): The figure is £8.5 billion.
    Mr. Green: I am grateful to the Secretary of State. Somebody on the Learning and Skills Council board told me that it has a budget three times that of the Royal Navy. I do not know whether that is true, but if it is, or if the sum is anything like that, the pump is big enough. We need to spend money effectively and attract private sector money, because that sector will put money into things that it finds useful. The Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education would describe that as blindingly obviously, but Government policy appears to ignore it.
    The Government are trying to push more and more people into something called degree courses, which are of no benefit to the student and have no merit in the eyes of private industry. We are therefore not improving the life chances of the young people who go on those courses. That is a mad route from the viewpoint of the Treasury, students, the university sector and the country.
    I said that I would deal with serious educational critiques, notably that of Professor Barr. He is a distinguished economist, but his analysis reminds us that all economists are wrong some of the time, and most economists are wrong most of the time. The first problem in Professor Barr's analysis arises when he states that higher education is a general good for the economy and society and must be regarded as such. However, he also says that it is unfair to ask the general taxpayer, who may be a non-graduate, to bear the cost. One can hold one or other of those views but one cannot coherently hold both. If higher education is a general good, the taxpayer should subsidise it. The second problem arises when Professor Barr claims that student loans do not lead to debt, because they are paid back as a payroll deduction. One has to be a really clever economist to believe something as silly as that. If
    1066
    someone leaves university knowing that they have to pay back £20,000 or £25,000, they will feel that they have a very large debt to repay, whether it is going to a credit card company or coming out of their pay packet.
    Mr. Hendrick: Earlier, the hon. Gentleman referred to mortgage debt, but most people would regard a mortgage as an investment. Clearly, debt is a bit like crime—the fear of debt is quite a lot worse than debt itself. Why does the hon. Gentleman not pursue his own analogy with mortgage debt and call student debt an investment?
    Mr. Green: Millions of graduates want to pay off their student debt and take out a mortgage to buy a house. The fact that the Government are imposing on them a colossal burden of debt prevents them from taking out a mortgage, often into their late 30s. It is not a question of choosing between the two—the choice to take out a mortgage is being taken away from people.
    The third problem in Professor Barr's analysis arises when he claims that the universities need money, but ignores the effect of the fees. I would urge him and Government Members to read the HSBC study published earlier this week which says that fees could tip poorer, less prestigious universities over the edge into bankruptcy by making it harder for them to attract students. It is therefore not obvious that fees will attract more money into the sector. The fourth problem in Professor Barr's analysis is his claim, which Ministers like to repeat, that students get their higher education free—it is graduates who make repayments. That is sophistry. People cannot become graduates unless they have been students. To claim that students are a completely different group from future graduates is plain nonsense. I am afraid that the Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education attempted to repeat that canard on Monday, but I hope that he spares the House today.
    Professor Barr's analysis is based on a series of deeply questionable assumptions, and I simply disagree with it. If it is the best that the Government can come up with— Professor Barr's analysis occupies five or six pages of the document that they handed out prior to the debate—I am afraid that they are skating on thin ice.
    Students and their parents have been let down by the Government's proposals. Universities have been leaned on to meet political, not academic, priorities. We have tried tuition fees and they failed to give a fair deal to students or universities. Our policy of scrapping fees and making this vital part of our education system once again free for everyone offers them the fair deal that they need and deserve. I commend the motion to the House.
    1.20 pm
    The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Charles Clarke): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
    "rejects any proposal to abolish the existing fee of £1,100, which would lead to substantial reductions in the numbers of places in higher education and, as a consequence, fewer lecturers and a lower quality higher education experience; congratulates the Government on its plan to abolish up front tuition fees and to raise the threshold for repayment of loans from £10,000 to £15,000; welcomes the steps that the Government is taking to widen

    1067
    participation amongst students from deprived backgrounds, the establishment of the Office for Fair Access, the introduction from 2004–-05 of a £1,000 grant for students from the poorest backgrounds and better support for part-time students; condemns any proposal to withdraw the funding that is already being spent on widening participation, which would lead to fewer students from deprived backgrounds entering higher education and completing their degrees; and supports the continued expansion in participation planned by the Government and the part to be played by foundation degrees designed in collaboration with employers as an appropriate strategy to equip the UK workforce with the high level skills needed to compete in the global marketplace."
    I welcome the debate, as it gives us the opportunity to scrutinise the proposals of the Conservative party. It is necessary to scrutinise those proposals, as Conservative Members have refused to attend the Select Committee to discuss the proposals in detail, as I and my ministerial colleagues have done and, to give credit to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), as he and his colleague in the upper House have done, so that there is proper full debate of the issues at an important time.
    Mr. McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you confirm that Select Committees are appointed to examine the Executive, not to examine other parties' policies? It is the Executive that the Select Committee is appointed to monitor. For the Secretary of State to make the accusation that he has just made shows his lack of understanding of the function of Select Committees.
    Mr. Speaker: It is up to a Select Committee to interpret the rules of the House, so it would be up to a Select Committee to decide what it would examine.
    Mr. Clarke: I understand that the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) declined the invitation of the Select Committee to discuss his proposals in detail. As I said, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough deserves credit on behalf of his party for accepting.
    Mr. Green: I should put on the record what happened. At 2 pm on the relevant day, an e-mail arrived in my office inviting me to appear the following morning. Before I had even seen that e-mail, my office was rung up by the press, asking why I had declined. By any standards, the procedure was disgraceful and I have not yet had a satisfactory explanation of it from the Select Committee.
    Mr. Clarke: That clarification is helpful. I am grateful for it, though the Liberal Democrats deserve credit for coming to the Select Committee and discussing their proposals, even though I acknowledge that that gave rise to the comprehensive and forensic demolition—
    Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you advise me and other hon. Members whether it is normal practice in the House that when a Member accuses another Member of doing something, which is
    1068
    then proven to be wrong, and is acknowledged to be wrong, that person shows good behaviour in the House and withdraws the accusation that he made?
    Mr. Speaker: The whole point of a debate is that hon. Members can rebut any case that is made against them. There will be an opportunity to do so.
    Mr. Clarke: I began my speech by saying that I welcomed the debate because it gave us the chance to scrutinise the proposals of the Conservative party.
    Mr. Rendel: Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the best ways in which a Select Committee may be able to test out the policies of the Government would be to compare them with other, alternative policies?
    Mr. Clarke: I agree, but the comprehensive and forensic demolition of the Liberal Democrat proposals by my hon. Friend the Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education last Monday showed why the debate is so important.
    Mr. Chaytor: With reference to the Conservative spokesman's invitation to the Select Committee, is it not the case that following the original invitation, which was on the same terms as that to the Liberal Democrat spokesman, there was a subsequent invitation, inviting him to come at a time of his choosing?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We should go back to the main point of the debate. The Select Committee and who gives evidence is nothing to do with the debate.
    Mr. Clarke: I agree, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Green: The answer to the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) is no. He is—inadvertently, I am sure—seeking to mislead the House.
    Mr. Clarke: Let us move on. The main point that I sought to make is that it is critical that the whole House—all parties—Faces up to the issues concerning the future of higher education, as the Government tried to do in our proposals.
    Mr. John Bercow: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Clarke: I will give way on that point, then I will make progress.
    Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Given that he is all in favour of information and scrutiny, would he care to tell the House why, in the opinion poll conducted by ICM, 36 per cent. of respondents said that education and schools had got worse under Labour, and the trend over the past three months represents a 17 per cent. deterioration? Is it his fault, or would he care to blame it on someone else?
    Mr. Clarke: I do not intend to blame anybody. I intend to debate the higher education question, which I thought the Conservative party wanted to debate this afternoon.

    1069
    If we are looking for an authoritative assessment of the alternative proposals, we need to look no further than the report published today by the Institute for Fiscal Studies. I quote from its press release, which sets out the situation clearly:
    "New research from the IFS compares the reforms proposed by the two parties"—
    meaning the Conservative party and the Government—
    "looking at the effect on student and graduate finances, the distributional impact on households with different incomes, and the cost to the Exchequer and taxpayers in general. We"—
    that is, the IFS—
    "find that:
    Under both proposals, students would be better off while at university than under the current system."
    That is important.
    The press release goes on to state that, secondly,
    "The overall cost to the taxpayer would be about the same under both systems";
    thirdly,
    "For a given amount of government spending, more students"—
    more students—
    "could go to university under the White Paper proposals because graduates would be contributing extra money";
    and fourthly,
    "The Conservative proposals"—
    again, the words of the IFS—
    "would benefit the richest households more than the Government proposals, while the poorest households would be worse off."
    Same old Tories.
    The press release goes on to say that if the Government's White Paper proposals were adopted, there would be
    "A redistribution of income from poorer to richer households"
    and
    "Households in the poorest income decile would lose 1.5 per cent. of their income on average, while households in the top income decile would gain by around 0.4 per cent. from this switch in funding regimes."
    It goes on to explain why. That is an authoritative assessment of the two proposals in terms of distribution and equity.
    Mr. Tim Boswell: Apart from the fact that the Secretary of State omitted the middle paragraph, which he might like to share with the House, would he like to clarify his status in the matter today? Was it, for example, the IFS study that persuaded him to change his mind when, in common with five other right hon. and hon. Members who grace the Government Benches, he is a former president of the Nation al Union of Students? Was he wrong then and is he now persuaded, or why is there the difference now?
    Mr. Clarke: I shall come to the National Union of Students, but if the hon. Gentleman would like me to read out the middle paragraph of the IFS document, I shall do so. It deals with financial effects on students and graduates. It states:
    "The financial impact on students while they are at university would be essentially the same under the two proposals. However, once they finish studying, the effects on graduates could differ significantly."
    The document goes on to make the point that the hon. Member for Ashford made in his speech, that the IFS research indicates that what it calls the "average" graduate would make loan repayments for seven years under the current system, eight years under the Conservative proposals and 10 years under the White Paper proposals. [Interruption.] The figure on my press release is 10 years. Mine is the printed version.
    The core point that I make in citing the analysis is that the explicit purpose of the Conservative proposal, as confirmed by the IFS, is to benefit the richest householders, while the poorest householders would be worse off. We should never forget that.
    I now come to the National Union of Students. I was very interested—almost flattered—that the NUS was cited in the motion.
    What is the NUS's view of the Conservative proposals. The NUS president, Mandy Telford, says:
    "We"—
    meaning the NUS—
    "cannot endorse proposals that would shut the door on future generations and return higher education to the preserve of a privileged few. Nor should we accept a scheme that will continue to leave institutions bereft of cash and struggling to give students the quality of education they deserve."
    She went on to say:
    "The Tories would pay for abolishing fees by simply axing thousands on thousands of courses up and down the country. Further, they would abandon all the laudable attempts to reach out to people from backgrounds chronically under represented in further and higher education."
    Those are the views of the NUS on the Conservatives' proposals, and I find it slightly extraordinary that they cite the NUS's views in their motion as the NUS is so bitterly critical of their proposals.
    The truth of the Conservative proposals is that they mean less students, less resources for universities and less independence for universities from the state.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Would my right hon. Friend also agree that a reduction in graduates has an impact on the economy, and that fewer graduates mean that future economic growth will decline rather than increase?
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend, characteristically, is correct. That is the situation and that is why the investment in this population is so critical.
    Mr. Rendel: As the right hon. Gentleman has quoted the NUS president, Mandy Telford, he might like to know that, according to the BBC today, she has also said:
    "Neither the government nor the Conservatives have got it right with their plans to fund higher education. Neither of them are providing students with the support that they need to get through university."
    Mr. Clarke: She has indeed said that. She has criticisms of the White Paper, as she has made clear. What I wanted to point out as clearly as I could was that her criticisms of the Conservative party's proposals are very sharp and very direct.
    Mr. Paul Goodman: The Secretary of State has just confirmed his view that the more graduates there are the more growth there is in the economy. If that is the case, will he explain why, using his own logic, he wants to restrict the target to 50 per cent.? Why not 60 per cent., 70 per cent. or even 100 per cent.?
    Mr. Clarke: The comparisons with other countries are instructive. New Zealand is on 70 per cent., Sweden is on 67 per cent., and Australia and Norway are on 59 per cent. Those are the investments that other countries are making because of the knowledge economy and the world to which we are moving. That is why we have to address the matter.
    The key point that has not been appreciated enough in the country and which I want to ram home today is the impact of the Conservative proposals on the number of students. The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) said it in his subtle way last Monday when he said:
    "Some of our less successful higher education activity might be curtailed."—[Official Report, 23 June 2003; Vol. 407, c. 748.]
    The hon. Member for Ashford was rather blunter on 13 May. He said:
    "The number of students will be reduced…Under the Conservatives the university sector will be smaller."
    According to The Guardian today, he said:
    "If the sector needs to be a bit smaller then it is no bad thing. We are not dogmatic about that".
    Michael Fabricant: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Clarke: No I will not.
    Michael Fabricant: Why not?
    Mr. Clarke: Because I am making my speech and I shall continue to do so. We are going to get into an interesting logical philosophical debate about the nature of never and the meaning of meaning, which I look forward to. I shall discuss the meaning of hair and where it is.
    There is no doubt that under the Conservative party's proposals there would be a significant reduction in the number of students in this country. Professor Barr, whose statements the hon. Member for Ashford does not like, estimated a figure between 79,000 and 150,000 less students. [HON. MEMBERS: "Fewer."] My estimate is
    1072
    that the effect of his proposals would be a reduction of about 90,000 places in higher education in Britain. That means about 50 places for every sixth form or sixth form college in the country. Every sixth form or sixth form college will have young people coming through unable to go to university if the hon. Gentleman's proposals were to be carried through. I would like to know whether the hon. Gentleman has the courage to go to the four sixth forms in his constituency in Ashford and say that in each there will be an average of 50 less people going on to university as a result of his proposals.
    Mrs. Eleanor Laing: Yes.
    Mr. Clarke: The hon. Lady says that she is happy to make such proposals, but she will not be in Ashford. She should go to her constituents and say that in each of her sixth forms less students will go to university. That is a key aspect of the debate that needs to be understood. It is the Labour party that wants to extend opportunity and give people the ability to move forward. It is the Conservatives—back to the old Conservatives—who say, "We are not going forward."
    Mr. Stephen Dorrell: The Secretary of State is building a huge amount of his case on the importance of widened access to the university sector. Could he quote the evidence that leads him to the conclusion that the right number in terms of school leavers going on to university is 50 per cent.? What leads him to the conclusion that that is the right number, rather than some of the people in sixth forms in Ashford to whom he has just referred going into further education or other forms of tertiary education that may be more valuable to them and to the economy?
    Mr. Clarke: There has been a wide range of studies on the matter, as the right hon. Gentleman with his great experience very well knows. The one on which I draw most of all is the view that eight or nine jobs out of every 10 in the future will go to people with this level of skill, ability and talent in the knowledge economy. That has been carried through by a series of serious analyses. The 50 per cent. figure first arose some decades ago while the right hon. Gentleman was in Government, I think from the CBI first, saying that if we wanted to compete in business with other countries, we needed that level of university education—its assessment, not mine. We came to the view that that was where we should go, and I think that it is right. Its effect is right for the economy, for people in the economy and for young people coming through, and the effect of the Conservative Front-Bench proposals will be to cut out that opportunity for literally thousands and thousands of people in the country.
    Mr. Dorrell: Is it not closer to the truth to say that it is politically convenient, particularly in view of some of the international comparisons that the right hon. Gentleman quoted, to dub a particular form of tertiary education as a degree and university education rather than addressing more accurately the needs of individuals and society at large?
    Mr. Clarke: No, that is not right. The fact is that there is substantial academic research about what is a degree and what is quality assured to obtain international

    1073
    comparability, and so on. Of course, arguments can be made, as he says, about whether those academic assertions are right, but the core point, which I need to come back to again and again because it needs to be understood in every household in this country with children, is that the Conservatives want to take away the chances of young people going to university, and that is their explicit policy.
    Michael Fabricant: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Clarke: No, I will not.
    Michael Fabricant: Why not?
    Mr. Clarke: Shall we do that one-two again? I will make a pledge that later in the debate I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but at my convenience, not his, if he does not mind.
    The key point that needs to be understood is that it is not simply a question of the Conservative policies reducing opportunities in the way that they do, but of them explicitly reducing opportunities for people from the poorest and most disadvantaged backgrounds. The Conservatives have said that they will take away the access proposals for support for poorer students, adding up to over £100 million, dealing with child care grant, travel, books and equipment, school meals, disabled students. They will just strip it all out. They will not simply take away opportunity for all students, but take them away specifically for students who most need the help in order to get into university and have the chance of such an education. That is why, as the hon. Member for Daventry announced in the House last Monday, they will also abolish the Office for Fair Access. They do not want fair access. They do not want people to have the right to go to university.
    Mr. Boswell: Could the Secretary of State please explain, as he has already told me in answer to questions, that as the Office for Fair Access is about the procedures in determining fair admission, why anything whatever to do with the access of disabled students, for example, or other disadvantaged, groups, should have any concern or remit in that office? Is that not an entirely different matter, and has he any evidence whatever that we are making a proposal, for example, as he suggested, to wind up the disabled students allowance?
    Mr. Clarke: All I can say is that the hon. Gentleman is quite right. They are two different things. The various funding channels that he wants to cut, and which were explicitly referred to by the hon. Member for Ashford, are those funding streams that encourage people to go to universities. The specific parallel approach for getting applications from all backgrounds is the Office for Fair Access, which is the right way forward. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to confirm absolutely that there will be no criticism or modification of the schemes for access by people with disabilities, I shall be delighted to hear it. Perhaps he can give that confirmation in his speech.
    1074
    In the same way, the Opposition attack foundation degrees. The release given today in the interview in The Guardian made that clear. The hon. Member for Ashford said that the Tories' proposals on vocational training were due to be unveiled in the next few weeks—I am glad about that, as our skills White Paper is about to be issued and we will have another debate about that—setting out their belief that apprentices and practical courses will attract more private money than degrees. He can express that view, but the truth is that wide sections of those in industry, whether they are engineers, chemists or automotive specialists, want a foundation degree approach. They want universities to work with them to get the sort of skills that are necessary, but the Conservatives' approach is to take those away.
    Michael Fabricant: Is the Secretary of State aware that, by socially engineering university intake and setting quotas for the numbers of people who go to university, he is creating serious difficulties for employers? For example, the Engineering and Technology Board—I must declare an interest as an unpaid director—as well as Rolls Royce and many other employers have raised a problem in identifying which universities and courses are good and bad. A bachelor's degree no longer has the status that it once enjoyed, as a direct consequence of his Department's actions.
    Mr. Clarke: The whole presumption on which that intervention was based is wrong. We are not trying to socially engineer—I use his phrase—access to universities. What we are doing is completely the other way around. We are saying that people from all backgrounds in this country should have the opportunity to have a university education, and we seek to promote that.
    The Conservatives do not, however, simply propose that there should be less students; they also propose that there should be less resources.
    Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a Secretary of State for Education and Skills not to realise that the word "fewer" goes with the plural and that "less" goes with the singular?
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): That is not a point of order for the Chair.
    Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman should keep his hair on—[Interruption.] I have no hair to share with anyone; perhaps shared hair is something for the future.
    We also have to remember the state of affairs in respect of the universities themselves. Under the Conservatives, student-staff ratios went from 10:1 to 13:1 to 17:1; funding per student fell by 36 per cent. between 1989 and 1997; and an infrastructure backlog of almost £8 billion built up in universities. The Conservative proposals are equivalent to sacking 13,000 lecturers and taking out a further £740 million or more—money that the universities need to fund future growth and excellence.
    Pete Wishart: Loth as I am to become involved in debating English-only legislation,

    1075
    may I ask the Secretary of State to confirm that there is an impact and consequence for Scottish education funding? If the Government take the route of charging students for funding, there will be a lower increase from central funding, which will have a significant impact on the Scottish allocation of education funding through the Barnett formula. Will he confirm that that is the case? Has he made any assessment of the cost to Scotland?
    Mr. Clarke: The funding of education in Scotland is a matter for the Scottish Parliament and Executive. None the less, I acknowledge that, as there is a UK system of higher education, whatever we do has very significant implications for universities in Scotland, as well as Wales. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that I am discussing with Scottish Executive colleagues and others precisely how we can do these things in the most effective way.
    Dr. Brian Iddon: Does my right hon. Friend remember that it was a Conservative Government who cut the budget of my university, which trains scientists and engineers, by a massive 42 per cent. in a single blow?
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
    The Conservatives' proposals would mean not only fewer resources and students, but less independence for universities, as they are saying that they will remove the independent funding stream that universities want in order to develop their operations in an effective way. That is why the Conservative proposals are opposed by almost every university leader in this country; those people know that the proposals are an arrow at the heart of their independence and their academic freedom in deciding how they move forward. It is extraordinary that the Conservatives should have made those proposals. Perhaps that is why so many Conservative Back Benchers and Members of the other place do not support what their Front Benchers are about.
    The fundamental issue is equity. I shall give the House the figures. When we look at the amounts of money per student that we spend at different levels of education, we see some very revealing figures. In nursery education, the annual cost of a three-year-old place is about £1,750; for a four-year-old, the cost is about £3,500. In primary education, the figure is £3,230; in secondary education, £4,060; in first and second-year further education, £4,350; and in higher education, £5,360. That hierarchy of spending has been very well established for many years. It is based on saying that we should spend more money on people who are higher up the system in the educational hierarchy and less on those who are at the bottom.
    That policy is socially divisive in many ways, which is why this Government have been trying to spend more on under-fives and primaries. As we make those spending commitments, we are putting more positive effort into allowing children from all backgrounds to succeed and move forward. The Government have made that commitment and we will continue with it. The very important appointment of my hon. Friend the Minister for Children is a recognition of the priority that we attach to that issue.
    1076
    Every Secretary of State, whether from the Conservative party, the Liberal Democrats or elsewhere, will face resource allocation choices in deciding whether money should go to the youngest or oldest end of the age range. The fact is that the arithmetic that I have just given leads to a conclusion. The difference between what the state spends on a student who leaves school at 16 and does not do anything further in education and on somebody who graduates is almost £25,000. That is what the state puts in. I defend that position, as I think that the state should support it, and the overwhelming majority of support is for teaching costs. However, is it really so inequitable that individuals who have benefited from that education and will be able to earn on that basis later in life should make some contribution towards it?
    The Conservatives propose to increase that differential even more, so the issue is whether a graduate should contribute to that situation. Our proposals say that parents do not have to pay, because the fees are going back afterwards. Students do not have to pay while they are in college. Graduates have to pay—this is what our proposals have in common with a graduate tax—from the extra resource that they have. If the hon. Member for Ashford thinks that it is inequitable that the state should pay the cost per student that is currently paid by the taxpayer and that it is unfair to ask graduates to contribute to the costs, I ask him how much more unfair it is for that money to be contributed by non-graduates for the education of those very same graduates. Is it just or fair for us to say that a non-graduate should pay for the education of such people, but that graduates themselves should not? I do not think that that is fair or that it is the right way for us to proceed.
    I turn now to debt—a very serious issue to which the hon. Member for Ashford devoted some time. As I have said from the outset, there are genuine concerns about the fear of debt, as my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) pointed out. It is a fair subject of discussion; we have discussed it with the Select Committee and we will continue to take it forward. As Professor Barr argues, the issue is one of payroll deduction, but that does not mean that it is any less frightening. None the less, it is important to put the matter into some sort of perspective. Over a 40-year period, a current graduate will pay about £850,000 in income tax and national insurance contributions. That is a lot of money. They will also spend about £500,000 on food, and they pay those costs in a very direct way. Alternatively, somebody who stopped paying for 20 cigarettes a day would pay off £10,000 of student debt in 11 years with that money. Survey data show that single householders on average earnings spend an average of £36 a week on recreation and culture, which compares with the £8 or £9 a week that we are talking about in relation to the repayment.
    I do not deny that the debt is a serious and frightening thing for some people, but it is important to get it into perspective in terms of lifetime costs and to ask whether such an investment is worthwhile. It is also important to put it in the context of the range of protections that we have placed in the system. The repayments are income-contingent, so nobody pays if they are earning less than £15,000 a year, and that moves up in a direct process. We have put in protections for students from the poorest

    1077
    families, for whom we are waiving the fees at their current level. We are discussing offering bursaries as part of the project for universities that charge higher fees. The hon. Member for Ashford would abolish that. We have established a £1,000 grant on top of the loan to enable students from the poorest families to go to university. There is no up-front fee. We have moved the situation forward. In a pretty substantial contribution, we have said that there is a zero real rate of interest on the debt, which means that, unlike a mortgage or a car loan, it does not grow. Will the hon. Member for Daventry clarify the Conservatives' position on that? The hon. Member for Ashford was reported in The Guardian—I do not take it as gospel—as saying that they are going to remove the subsidy on the interest on student loans. In other words, the Treasury would no longer—
    Mr. Damian Green: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Clarke: Fine—I welcome the clarification.
    Mr. Green: I can happily confirm to the Secretary of State that that part of the report was inaccurate.
    Meanwhile, may I ask him to clarify his own position? He said that the poorest students will not pay the existing part of the fees. Does that mean that they will pay the top-up part of the fees?
    Mr. Clarke: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I have never been misquoted in The Guardian myself, so I do not quite understand his problem, but I am grateful for his clarification. I was not sure what the policy was, and I thank him for setting it straight.
    As for our position on fees, I repeat that it is our policy to waive the fees at their current level of £1,100 for students from the poorest families. That will continue. Through the Office for Fair Access, we are discussing with universities bursaries that would enable the balance between that £1,100 and a higher fee, if it were charged—say, £3,000—to be paid through a bursary regime. I am not in a position to make an announcement about that yet, but i t is an important and positive development that meets many of my hon. Friends' concerns.
    We are observing a Tory policy shambles of the most extraordinary kind. Only just over a year ago, the hon. Member for Ashford said on the GMTV programme:
    "I don't mind the principle of charging differential fees."
    Why has his position changed? The only explanation comes in remarks by the vice-chancellor of Buckingham university, which is a private university set up by the hon. Gentleman's friend Margaret Thatcher when she was Prime Minister. The vice-chancellor asked:
    "why are the Tories now sinking into louche popularism?"
    That is the truth of it. They came up with a little stunt and thought that they would campaign on it, but they did not think it through or imagine that anybody would analyse it. I welcome the debate, as we want to analyse it. The truth is that the Conservative record is one of never facing up to the challenges that the British university system faces. We are facing up to those
    1078
    challenges. Although they involve difficult choices—I acknowledge that absolutely—we are laying a foundation for universities to expand and develop and to play their role in our national society and economy. The Conservatives are utterly failing to do so.
    1.53 pm
    Mr. David Rendel: The motion is something of an anti-climax. We thought that the debate was supposed to be on Conservative proposals for student finance. The provisional title that was supplied to our Whips Office—"A fair deal for students and parents"—is the very title that the Conservatives use for their proposals, yet the motion makes no mention at all of Conservative policy. Indeed, it does not even call for the abolition of tuition fees. The National Union of Students is in line with only one Conservative policy. Whatever the Conservatives may claim, the NUS certainly does not agree with the rest of their policies, whereas the policies of the NUS and the Liberal Democrats are remarkably close.
    This is the third occasion on which the Conservatives have ducked an opportunity to deploy their thinking. First, they cancelled an Opposition day debate, then the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) refused to appear before the Select Committee on Education and Skills, and now we have today's motion. What on earth are they trying to hide? Could it be that they are worried that as soon as we get a real chance to take their new policy to pieces, as I hope to, it will be shown up as the unprincipled opportunism that it really is?
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will the hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to clarify an aspect of Liberal Democrat policy about which I am a little uncertain? In January, I read in The Guardian that Liberal Democrat policy was to abolish maintenance grants for the first two years of a university course, thus forcing poorer students to live and study at home. Is that still Liberal Democrat policy?
    Mr. Rendel: It is not, and it was not. As we have already heard today, it is perhaps unwise to believe everything that one reads in The Guardian.
    Liberal Democrat Members at least have had a consistent and principled record of opposing all fees for tuition ever since they were first proposed, including top-up fees.
    Mr. Chaytor: In a speech just two weeks ago, the Liberal Democrats' leader made it clear that under Liberal Democrat proposals an increasing proportion of students would study nearer to their homes. Is not the Liberal Democrats' budgeting based on that assumption?
    Mr. Rendel: We certainly believe that in future more people will choose to study closer to their homes as a result of the trend towards part-time studying. We do not intend to force that on anybody: it is happening naturally already.
    Neither the Conservatives' nor the Government's proposals will work, because one cannot have a serious policy of widening participation to include more students from non-traditional backgrounds and

    1079
    charging for tuition, which places serious financial and psychological obstacles in the path of participation. Recent research by Professor Claire Callender of South Bank university could not be clearer. She says that
    "one of the most significant findings of this study is that debt aversion deters entry into higher education…Debt aversion had the greatest impact on the participation of the very groups the government most wants to attract into higher education".
    Of course, top-up fees, as a result of which debts will soar to £21,000 or more on graduation, will make the situation far worse.
    We will support the Conservative motion—one could hardly do otherwise; there is nothing exceptionable in it—but the Government are right on two key points that the Conservatives have got badly wrong, and this is where Liberal Democrats part company fundamentally with the Conservatives. First, the Government are right that we need to increase participation. There is no doubt that that is what the British economy needs and what social justice demands. The Government are right to stress that objective and the Conservatives are wrong to oppose it. Liberal Democrats oppose fees because they are an obstacle to increasing participation. The Tories want to scrap fees at the cost of increasing participation.
    Andrew Selous: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that the missing part of the jigsaw is what is to be done with vocational and technical training? My party will shortly introduce plans on that. He cannot criticise supposed reductions in participation without considering the vocational and technical sector.
    Mr. Rendel: All the Tory costings are based on there being no money for such an expansion of further education, so I do not see how his party would manage to increase participation in that way.
    Research by Professor Barr shows that the Conservative proposals would not only end the proposed expansion of 182,000 additional places by 2010 but would lead to a cut of at least 79,000 existing places over five years. The research shows that if the Conservatives were to get their way, participation would fall from its current rate of 43 per cent. to, at the very best, 38 per cent. by 2010. Professor Barr concludes:
    "The Tory proposals are also offensive to anyone who cares about fairness."
    Far from increasing participation, the Conservatives would stop a quarter of a million young people—mainly from the least well-off families—going to university. Meanwhile, they are planning to cut £193 million earmarked to improve the recruitment and retention of poorer students, and they make no mention at all either of grants or—to take the point made by the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous)—of funding for vocational courses, despite saying that they expect many of the students who are denied a higher education place to take up vocational alternatives. Perhaps they have forgotten that a place on a vocational course is often more expensive than a place in higher education. The Conservatives' proposals could, in this area at least, be even more expensive than the Government's.
    1080
    We should never forget that the Conservatives substantially cut the value of grants when they were in office. Interestingly, the hon. Member for Ashford pressed the Government to
    "keep the maintenance grant in order to increase access to higher education, rather than damage it"—[Official Report, 19 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 1097.]
    Perhaps he would like to use this opportunity either to commit his party to reintroduce grants or to explain why it no longer supports them.
    The second point is about funding. There is no question but that the universities need more money. The Government are right about that and the Conservatives are wrong. After all, the Conservatives presided over a 40 per cent. real-terms drop in funding per student.
    Neither fees nor top-up fees can solve this funding problem. When the then Secretary of State introduced tuition fees, he said that the entire objective in taking the difficult decisions had been to put higher education on a firm footing for the next two decades. He also said that the new arrangements were introduced precisely to avoid the universities levying additional charges.
    In reality, tuition fees have merely plugged the gap left by a cut in public funding, as was confirmed by the chairman of Universities UK at a meeting this morning. Why should the outcome of top-up fees be any different? Good government implies working out first what slice of the national cake should be spent on each public service, and only then working out how much of that slice can be financed from charges and how much must be met from taxation. Top-up fees will not expand the higher education cake; they will merely change the balance between the public and private ingredients.
    In his reply to the debate on Monday, the Minister claimed that that would not be the case. He said that income from top-up fees
    "will be additional money going into universities"—[Official, Report,23 June 2003; Vol. 407, c. 766.]
    First, he must explain what provisions will be included in legislation to ensure that that happens. I cannot see how any provision could ensure that, but I should be interested to hear whether he has any of idea of the provisions he intends to include.
    Secondly, the Minister must tell us why the Government are prepared to allow the universities, which have a very obvious interest in the matter, to determine how much of the national wealth should be spent on them, instead of retaining that decision in the hands of the Government, to be taken on behalf of all the citizens of the country. What an abrogation of good government that would be if we allowed that situation to be maintained!
    At least the Government accept that there is a funding problem. The Conservatives are promising not more money for our universities, but less. Professor Barr's research identifies a cumulative deficit in the Conservative proposals, amounting to £1.6 billion over the first five years. Even taking the Conservatives' claims at face value, they are talking about merely a standstill position for our universities. In the face of all the evidence, they claim that funding at the status quo level is just fine, and that the universities can simply go into hibernation, unchanged in any way for the foreseeable future.

    1081
    The reality is that the Conservative plans do not add up and their costings have been rubbished by Universities UK. In fact, the Conservatives had to withdraw the first version of their press release to announce their new proposals because they discovered, shortly after its launch, that they had completely misunderstood one of the figures that they had taken from a UUK report and used to support their costings.
    Once they had been denied the cloak of credibility that they had hoped the vice-chancellors could provide, the Tories dreamt up an entirely different justification for the size of the saving that they claimed their policy would achieve. Sadly for them, their new calculation has been rubbished by the House of Commons Library, which has "difficulty understanding the logic". I do not know about you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I have seldom heard the Library be quite so damning about anything as to say that it has difficulty in understanding the logic of the proposal.
    Written parliamentary answers and the Library confirm that the Conservatives cannot possibly cost the Government's expansion plans with accuracy, for the simple reason that the figures are not yet available. We have asked the Government to cost their expansion plans, and we have been told that assessments of the costs for increasing and widening participation beyond 2005–06 will be made as part of the 2004 spending review, work on which "will commence shortly."
    Even the £700 million price tag that the Conservatives place on abolishing all fees is open to question. They have hardly based the figure on a rigorous source—an online interview with the Secretary of State, in which he gave a range of figures, £700 million being the lowest. It is interesting that the Tories should pick up on the lowest figure. As the Library points out:
    "There are very few figures in this area until the exact scheme and level of fees by individual institutions are decided."
    The Tory proposal to scrap the Office of Fair Access is not a bad idea; it is one of the few with which we agree. How much does the Tory press release claim this will save? Oh dear, Madam Deputy Speaker; all I can see is a question mark. The Tories have no idea whether the saving will be significant or not; their figures simply do not add up.
    Mr. Boswell: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government have not estimated OFFA's running costs, so it is impossible for us to provide an authoritative estimate. Furthermore, the university sector would incur substantial compliance costs in respect of OFFA, and no one has even made a start on calculating them.
    Mr. Rendel: The hon. Gentleman has just made the exact point that I was trying to make about his policies. He has come up with a proposal that he has not costed, partly because he cannot cost it. He simply does not know, as the figures have not yet been produced. His proposals cannot be relied on; the figures simply are not there.
    1082
    The Conservative's figures do not add up. There are simply too many question marks, some of which are provided by the Conservatives themselves. Their analysis is based on shoddy research, incomplete data and a confused analysis. There is one thing of which we can be sure: we cannot trust the Tories. If we want to know whether the Tories are serious about the issue, it is not good enough to listen to their warm words; we have to look at their record.
    Andrew Selous: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, in the debate on Monday, the House learned that his party leader had made a fundamental mistake about the number of students from the bottom two social classes who go to university, and had said something that the Labour and Conservative research departments confirmed was wrong?
    Mr. Rendel: I am unable to answer that at present, as the Government and my party leader are still corresponding about the issue. I have not been party to that correspondence, so I cannot answer the question.
    If we want to know whether the Tories are serious, we have to look at their record. What did they do in government?
    Alan Johnson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but this point is important to the debate. Is his position the same as that of his party leader—that the proportion of students from the two lowest economic groups going into higher education has fallen since the Government came to power? Is that still his party's position—yes or no?
    Mr. Rendel: If the Minister looks at the UNITE-Mori survey, he will see that the proportion of students who come from the C, D and E groups has fallen from 20 per cent. three years ago to 17 per cent. in the latest figures, which, I believe, come from last November.
    Alan Johnson: This is important to the hon. Gentleman and to everyone else in the House because it is about widening participation. His party leader said that the number of students going into higher education from the two lowest groups, D and E, had fallen since 1997. Is that correct or not?
    Mr. Rendel: As I have already said, I understand that that is still a matter of some argument. I cannot answer that question, but the Minister has now given me the chance to look up the relevant figures. The graph makes it absolutely clear that the figures for the C2, D and E groups have fallen as a proportion of the total. Those are MORI's figures. I am not sure what figures he is referring to, but those are the figures that I have. They are absolutely plain in the MORI report; if the Minister wishes to check them, I have them here.
    Mr. Chaytor: Will the lion. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Rendel: Not again. I am sorry, but I really must make some progress.
    When I was interrupted, I was about to look at the Conservatives' record in government. In 1981, they abolished the repeat grant. In 1984, the minimum grant

    1083
    was halved, and in 1985 it was abolished. In 1986, students lost their entitlement to supplementary benefit or unemployment benefit, and to housing benefit for university halls of residence. In 1989, the equipment allowance was abolished. In 1990, vacation hardship allowances were abolished, student loans were introduced and the entitlement to state benefit was withdrawn. Also in 1990, the grant was frozen at £2,200. In 1994, the grant was cut by 10 per cent. In 1995, it was cut by another 10 per cent., and the mature student allowance was abolished. In 1996, the grant was cut by a further 10 per cent., and student loans were increased by 10 per cent. Finally, in 1997, just before the election, grants and loans were both increased, at last—but only by 1.2 per cent.
    What have the Conservatives done more recently? They have tabled early-day motion 264 in the name of the hon. Member for Ashford, calling on the Government to stand by their manifesto pledge not to introduce top-up fees. Interestingly, six months on, only 47 out of the 166 Conservative MPs have signed it. Come to think of it, perhaps that is because the early-day motion also demands that
    "any future system of university finance must resolve current funding issues",
    yet the Conservatives' proposals do nothing to solve current funding issues. Why has the hon. Member for Ashford produced proposals that do not even meet the minimum requirements of his own early-day motion?
    In July 2002, Conservative members of the Education and Skills Committee voted unanimously in support of top-up fees and tuition fees. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes), who I am delighted to see in his place, was the only member of that Committee to oppose fees, and he issued a minority report in order to do so. It will be very interesting to see whether the three Conservatives on that Committee back my hon. Friend if he again supports the abolition of all fees in the Committee's next report, which I understand is due in a few days' time. Meanwhile the hon. Member for Ashford himself is on record as saying:
    "I don't mind the principle of differential fees…If it's true the Government is going to abolish up-front fees and say that everything should be paid back by the individual student afterwards, that's fine by me".
    Meanwhile, in Scotland, the presence of Liberal Democrats in the Government has ensured the abolition of tuition fees—no thanks to the Conservatives. The Scottish Conservative education spokesperson said on 31 October 2002 that the need for more income
    "may require the best universities to charge top-up fees. There is no reason why this should not be allowed".
    Mr. Boswell: I want to make a point that might even be mildly supportive of the Government. If the hon. Gentleman continues to argue that Liberal participation in government in Scotland has led to the abolition of tuition fees, and if the Government in this country are going to abolish immediate tuition fees and collect them after graduation, why does he object to Government policy?
    Mr. Rendel: I did not think that I had objected. I have always said that it is better to collect fees after the event, if they are going to be charged, but it has been our policy all along that they should not be charged at all. There
    1084
    should be no tuition fees, either before or after the event. In Scotland, we have stuck by our word and abolished tuition fees, both before and after. No tuition fees are charged at all in Scotland now.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: I might have got this wrong, but in Scotland do not students who graduate pay £2,000 towards an endowment, which pays for other students to go to university? What is the difference, from a student's point of view, between paying at that point and what the Government are now proposing?
    Mr. Rendel: We have had occasion to explain this many times in the past, and I am sorry to have to do it again. Let me see whether I can make it plain, even to those who find it difficult to understand. I might go into a grocer, buy some bread and butter and pay for it. If, when I came out, someone said to me, "Ah, I see you've just paid the council tax", I would say, "No, I have just paid for the bread and butter." Council tax is paid to the local authority. In the same way, tuition fees have to be paid for tuition. We cannot pay tuition fees to settle our council tax, or to buy bread and butter. We pay tuition fees for tuition, and the places that provide the tuition are the universities, so we pay the tuition fee to the universities. Not one penny of the £2,000 that graduates pay in Scotland goes to the universities.
    Mr. Damian Green rose—Mr. Damian Green rose—
    Andrew Selous rose—Andrew Selous rose—
    Mr. Rendel: Let me finish. I think that this will finally answer the point made by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell). I do not want to take any further interventions on this, because it is so clear and obvious that I cannot believe that hon. Members do not understand it.
    The Education (Graduate Endowment and Student Support) (Scotland) Act 2001 states explicitly:
    "Scottish Ministers shall, in making budget proposals to the Scottish Parliament, include provision that the income arising from the graduate endowment for the financial year to which the proposals relate be used for the purposes of student support."
    It would be illegal for that money to be used for tuition fees. By law, it has to be used for student support.
    We can welcome one fact at least, which is that, when the time comes, the Conservatives will join the Liberal Democrats in seeking to defeat top-up fees in this House. But if they were ever to be introduced, the Conservative policy would result not in a fairer and more inclusive higher education system but in a system that was less equal, less fair, and even more poorly funded. This is one bandwagon that the Tories are not only seeking to jump On, but doing their best to destroy, since their policy is simply not credible. Perhaps most significantly, their plans are so, well, Conservative. They have no positive vision of what our higher education system should look like in the future, or of the purposes it is there to serve. Instead, they hark back to a past age of elitism in which higher education was the preserve of the few. As ever, it is left to the Liberal Democrats to provide the only real and effective opposition.
    2.17 pm
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: I should like to begin by welcoming my hon. Friend the Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education to his Front-Bench position, which, I have to say, some of my hon. Friends regard as a poisoned chalice. I know that he will treat it with his customary skill and charm, and I hope that he will make a real impact on higher education policy.
    Conservative policy, which appears to propose paying for middle-class students to attend university by restricting opportunities for students from poorer backgrounds, is something that I find totally abhorrent and morally bankrupt. Many students have welcomed what the Conservatives have proposed, but when they start to understand the implications of that policy, things will start to unravel fairly quickly. Students will realise that the proposals are not about better access or better opportunities, but about restricting access and opportunities, and about cutting numbers, university funds and lecturers' jobs. We are back to the old Tory policies—and the reason that they were so resoundingly defeated in the 1997 general election.
    I welcome a great deal of what this Government are trying to do in higher education. I welcome the extra Government money that is going into higher education—which has not been mentioned so far—which is being funded from general taxation and represents a 30 per cent. increase in cash terms over three years. That is an amazingly large increase that we have not seen the likes of since the 1970s, and it is very welcome. I do hope, however, that some of that money will be used to fund better academic salaries. I say that not because my husband is a Cambridge university professor, but because the sector generally is suffering from low salaries and low morale. I should like to see better salaries in the university sector.
    I also welcome the measures designed to boost university endowments, in so far as they increase student support. But I am concerned that they may contribute to applicants making a choice based on the financial support that they can receive, rather than on the course that would best suit their needs and abilities. We need to look rather carefully at that issue, to which I shall return later in my speech.
    I very much welcome the ending of up-front fees and the raising of the earnings threshold after which fees start to be repaid. It is true that families just above the threshold who still have to pay fees find paying up-front fees difficult. Some potential students may be deterred from entering higher education by the prospect of inflicting such a burden on their families. I should tell my hon. Friend the Minister that, many years ago when I was a student, that certainly would have deterred me from going to university. Raising the repayment threshold will ease considerably the financial burden on new graduates. The prospect of new graduates retaining a greater proportion of their earnings will reduce the deterrent to their entering higher education.
    I also welcome the continuation of the Government's contribution of £1,100 in respect of fees for students from low-income backgrounds, and the reintroduction of a maintenance grant of up to £1,000 for some students. The use of the more inclusive definition of household income in determining whether Government
    1086
    fee contributions—and presumably grants—will be made is also a very positive move. And—need I say it—measures to improve support for part-time students are also to be warmly welcomed.
    However, despite those paeans of praise for the Government's position, I should point out that differential fees will have an adverse effect on access. I note that differential fees are not mentioned in the Government amendment, which I hope means that they are beginning to think again as to whether they will remain part of their policy. When students decide which course to apply for, they should choose on the basis of their own abilities and the suitability of the course to their needs—and on those factors alone. Choices should not be influenced by the student's pocket or by their parents' finances. Brighter students, particularly from lower income backgrounds, should not be deterred from the best courses because the fees are more expensive. A clever student from a poor background who has the qualifications to attend a Russell group university—perhaps even Cambridge university, which I represent—will have to decide whether to go to such a university or to a university that, in essence, will prove £5,700 cheaper because it does not charge the top-up fee. That is too difficult a burden to put on a person of that age. That is not fair—
    Mr. Chaytor: Is it not the case, however, that approximately 50 per cent. of the students at Cambridge university, for example, have been educated privately during either their secondary school career or their primary school career? Their parents have more or less cheerfully paid between £6,000 and £20,000 a year in school fees for either the previous seven or 11 years. Is my hon. Friend seriously suggesting that a fee to go to Cambridge university is unaffordable for that group of parents and students?
    Mrs. Campbell: My hon. Friend and I disagree on this subject. Unlike the Conservatives, I am not proposing that tuition fees be abolished altogether, because they do have a role to play. But I also believe that, if we are going to encourage more people from poorer backgrounds to attend universities such as Cambridge and receive a first-class education—I am sure that that is his objective as well—they must not be put off by the prospect of the top-up fee for which they will be liable. It is that objective that is uppermost in my mind. At the moment, slightly under 50 per cent. of the students who attend Cambridge university are from public school backgrounds, but the university is working very hard to ensure that more state school students and students from poorer backgrounds attend. I want to support it in its endeavours.
    Much has been said today about debt aversion. I have little to add to that, except perhaps to refer to a survey conducted by Universities UK in 2002, which confirmed that, to an extent, poorer students' course and institution choices are already determined by financial considerations. It is not unreasonable to suppose, therefore, that if top-up fees are imposed, Oxbridge's access problems will be exacerbated.
    When we debated this issue on Monday, my hon. Friend the Minister mentioned science, engineering and medicine courses, which are of course more expensive to

    1087
    provide. However, if universities charge more for these courses, such differential fees could have a serious impact on the training of scientists, engineers and doctors. Many such courses last for four or more years, and the additional fee burden of the extra year would be a deterrent to studying these subjects, which are vital to our economic prosperity and quality of life. In addition, universities that are under pressure to improve their finances would be tempted to cut expensive subjects such as science, especially where student numbers are static or falling.
    I should also like to mention the potential impact on women. On average, women have shorter working lives than men because they take time out to have children. Despite equal pay legislation, women graduates still, on average, earn less than men. So women have shorter working lives and lower overall earnings from which to pay off these significant debts. It follows that women are more likely than men to be deterred by higher fees, and that women's access to the best courses would be reduced by differential fees.
    I accept that universities need extra money, but providing some leeway by cutting numbers is not the right answer. If extra money is needed through higher fees, I would prefer—although it would not be popular—that it be raised by increasing fees across the board, rather than by increasing them for certain courses or institutions only, simply to ensure that different fee levels do not affect students' choice of course or institution. The Government's contribution towards paying poorer students' fees could rise in proportion to any increase in fees, to ensure that higher fees across the board do not have a greater impact on the choice to enter higher education in the first place.
    There are also other steps that we could take. Will my hon. Friend the Minister consider reintroducing state scholarships, for example, which were so effective when I was a student in helping people from lower income backgrounds to attend university? One problem with the endowment system to which I referred earlier is that students get such endowments only if they attend certain universities. State scholarships, which are based on both merit and need, could be assessed by means test, exam performance and recommendation by the school. That need not mean more exams for students at school, because our testing regime is comprehensive enough to provide a good idea of students' potential over their school years.
    Organisations already set up, such as the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts, which supports bright young people through their earlier years when earning potentials are low, could act as a part-public, part-private state scholarship foundation. That is worth considering because students who gained those scholarships would know that they could go to university without fear of getting into debt or suffering hardship while they are studying.
    There are currently many misperceptions about university. One particular misperception, which I have mentioned before in the House and would like to clear up, is about the cost of going to a top university such as Cambridge. My constituency has two universities and, in fact, it is a good deal cheaper to attend Cambridge university than it is to attend the Anglia Polytechnic
    1088
    university. Cambridge university students have the advantage of subsidised accommodation, making their rents cheaper, and they do not have to pay rents all year round as the Anglia polytechnic university students do. Furthermore, Cambridge university has the benefit of a huge number of college bursaries, which means that students from poorer backgrounds, particularly those not paying the tuition fees, are eligible for several bursaries to help them with maintenance throughout their degree study. When people are considering what university to attend. I hope that they will bear in mind that some of our best universities are among our cheapest. I hope that that will help them make their choices accordingly.
    I know that other hon. Members want to speak and I do not want to prolong my contribution. I thoroughly support the Government amendment to the motion and I shall vote for it this evening.
    2.33 pm
    Mr. James Clappison: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell). Without endorsing every aspect of her speech, I warmly endorse the generality of the sentiments that she expressed, particularly her point about the need to encourage clever children from low-income backgrounds to aim high and go for university education. In some meritorious cases, they should aim for the Russell group of universities and Cambridge university, which the hon. Lady represents. It is a shame that the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) who intervened on the hon. Lady's speech could not understand the point that she made about clever children from low-income families, because he wanted to make a point about the number of children from private schools going to Cambridge university. He could not see it, but it was a good point that stands on its merits.
    I also agree with hon. Lady about the remuneration of university academics. Even for professors, it is low, in comparison with what others in comparable professions can earn. I suspect that our academics' remuneration is low even in comparison with what is earned in universities in other parts of the world. We should all think carefully about that.
    An article by the former schools inspector, Mr. Chris Woodhead, in his The Sunday Times column, recently caught my eye. He was replying to someone who withheld their name and had written to him:
    "My daughter is taking her GCSEs at our local comprehensive and is predicted to do well. Unfortunately, her school has no sixth form but two local schools have offered sixth form places with the subjects she wants. One of these is a top grammar school. Although its record is outstanding I am concerned that my daughter may subsequently be discriminated against by universities that are anxious to comply with the government's desire that they admit more pupils from 'ordinary' schools. Am I being paranoid?"
    Alan Johnson: Yes.
    Mr. Clappison: The Minister says "yes", but Chris Woodhead answers that inquiry from "Name withheld". The Minister also knows that Chris Woodhead was appointed and retained as schools inspector by the Government. I well remember the

    1089
    Minister's predecessors praying in aid Chris Woodhead's name and praising him from the same Front Bench on which the Minister now sits. Chris Woodhead said:
    "Your fears are entirely reasonable. The government has created such a climate of uncertainty that nobody can feel confident about admission to university. That said, if your daughter has been offered a place at a top grammar school, you have no option. You must choose the best teaching and trust in fate and the courage of top universities to resist the political blackmail."
    Those feelings of uncertainty and the quandary that that parent had to face is experienced by parents throughout the country, not least in my own constituency.
    My constituency has several state schools that are outstanding on any criteria. Perhaps first in the firing line, however, are five independent secondary schools with very good academic records. They admit children from various backgrounds because of the scholarships available at those schools. It is fair to say that they are ethnically diverse and they include the only Jewish independent secondary school in the country that offers a distinctive Jewish education.
    Many thousands of children attend those schools in my constituency. As a constituency Member, my first priority has always been the education of children in the state sector. I wish the independent schools well, but they are the choice of the parents concerned who pay the fees for their children to attend them. As I say, my first concern has been for the state schools and I have made representations on their behalf—for example, about the unfair local government funding formula, which distributed resources away from Hertfordshire.
    On Wednesday next week, I shall visit a primary school in my constituency, which is concerned about the effects of Government funding policies and may have to reduce the number of teachers. I shall take with me a copy of the Secretary of State's speech today about primary school funding and see what the primary school governors and head teacher have to say about it when I meet them.
    As to the independent sector, one cannot remain silent in the face of Government proposals in respect of the access regulator and other measures that seem likely to result in discrimination against pupils in those schools—and, let it be said, others—however hard they work, and however great their academic achievements.
    Mr. Chaytor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Clappison: No, the hon. Gentleman had three bites of the cherry against my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green). We have heard enough of the hon. Gentleman in this debate, not least in respect of his unfortunate intervention on the hon. Member for Cambridge.
    Mr. Chaytor rose—Mr. Chaytor rose—
    Mr. Clappison: I may give way later. When the hon. Gentleman has heard the generality of my remarks, he may intervene again.
    1090
    There is a risk of discrimination. Do Ministers intend that? It is an interesting question. Will the Minister's policies result in discrimination? Almost certainly, yes. How significant will the discrimination be? There is every reason for apprehension. It was no accident that the first act of the present Government was to abolish the assisted places scheme. That spoke volumes about the Government's attitude towards independent education. Never mind that the scheme gave choice and opportunity to children from lower-income families. It was an article of faith of leading new Labour figures that the scheme was a subsidy to public schools and that, without it, public schools would begin to crumble. Nobody in their right minds really believed that, but it did not stop Ministers from saying it.
    In fact, the assisted places scheme was a subsidy for the child, not the school, and I am not aware of any public schools collapsing as a result of its withdrawal. I believe that I am right in saying that the number of applications for independent education is going up. That may be a comment on other aspects of the Government's policies on state secondary education. Let it be said that, notwithstanding the abolition of the assisted places scheme, today—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are debating two issues here and I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would return to them.
    Mr. Clappison: It will have caught your attention, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the Government amendment mentions the access regulator, and more than 100,000 children from low-income backgrounds attend independent schools as a result of the scholarships available at them. Under the proposals for the access regulator, the parents of those children have every reason to be afraid of being at risk of discrimination in the future when the time comes to apply for university. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Labour Members may say that, and no doubt the Government will try to convey the message that all is well. Indeed, on the first page of the Government's paper, "Widening participation in higher education", we are told that
    "admissions to universities are a matter for universities themselves and generally they operate in a way that is fair. Admissions should always be on merit—irrespective of class, background or school attended—and based on an applicant's achievements and potential."
    On the face of it, that is reassuring, and it is no doubt intended to reassure.
    Alan Johnson: That's okay, then.
    Mr. Clappison: Well, university admissions are already fair, as it says explicitly in the Government's paper.
    Alan Johnson indicated assent.
    Mr. Clappison: Perhaps then the Minister could explain why the Government intend to create the access regulator, and spend the vast amounts of public money that will be needed to do so. In my experience, universities bend over backwards to attract candidates who are well qualified to go to university, especially

    1091
    from lower income social backgrounds. if the system is fair now, why is the access regulator being created? We must look elsewhere for clues, and I will happily give way to the Minister if he wants to comment on that. He is certainly prepared to comment from a sedentary position.
    The detail of how the system will operate may give us some more clues about the effect that it will have in practice, as opposed to the Government's statements. What is the message that the creation of the access regulator will send to universities? Those universities that wish to increase their fees above the current £1,100 level will need to draw up an access agreement. Among other things, the agreement will need to set out
    "the milestones and indicators which a university will decide itself and against which it can measure progress towards its own ambitions of widening participation."
    What are those milestones to be? The Minister had enough to say a moment ago, so perhaps he will tell us what the milestones are intended to be. Ministers refuse to speak about that because they do not want to get their hands dirty with setting targets or milestones.
    As the Minister will be aware, his predecessor—now the Minister for Children, who was in her place earlier in the debate—let the cat out of the bag on a recent visit to China, of all places, where she must have felt safely out of the way. She made it clear that she wanted university admissions to be determined on class, and she wanted the Government to set a target to that effect. She said:
    "I'm actually going to set a target, where we want to get to by 2010."
    Before one could say "Laura Spence", she was forced to retract. We heard earlier from the Secretary of State about his reliance on press reports—he said that he had never been misquoted—and after the Minister's comments the press reported:
    "But after a conversation with Mr. Clarke, Mrs. Hodge issued a statement saying approaches to widening access would vary from university to university."
    She said:
    "That is why an overall target would be inappropriate and we have no plans to introduce one."
    The hon. Lady got into hot water on that. [Interruption.] The Minister is welcome to intervene if he wishes to clarify the position on targets and tell the House what the milestones are. I shall now give way to the hon. Member for Bury, North who gave us earlier some indication of the milestones that he would like to see.
    Mr. Chaytor: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware of the research conducted by the Higher Education Funding Council that demonstrated conclusively that for any given A-level points score, graduates from state school backgrounds achieved a higher class of degree than graduates from private school backgrounds? Is not that a justification for the policies that Bristol university and others are now trying to implement to identify the best talent at the point of entry?
    Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman's point would be stronger if Bristol university had not recently retreated on that policy. He has given us plenty of evidence of the targets that he wishes to set and the approach that he
    1092
    would wish to take. For my part, I want universities to admit children on merit, without discrimination according to which school they attended, which class they are perceived to belong to or any other facet of their background. The hon. Gentleman obviously disagrees and he is prepared to say so, but Ministers are not. However, they are sending out a clear message to the universities through the so-called Office for Fair Access and the letters that the Secretary of State will provide for guidance. No one should be in any doubt that the risk of discrimination against pupils will grow as universities feel under pressure to observe some sort of milestone or target to reduce the number of admissions of children who come from certain schools. There is a real risk that in the future, children will be discriminated against because of the school that they attended.
    The hon. Member for Bury, North mentioned grades and university standards a moment ago. That sort of thinking carries the real risk that higher and higher grades will be demanded from children from particular types of school. Three A's from one school will be worth less than three C's from another, and many able pupils, who would be well suited to university education, would benefit from it and would contribute to society as a result, will not get an offer. They will not be wanted because their university fears exceeding the number of children admitted from a certain type of school. Universities will feel under pressure from the Government and fear losing funding if it exceeded its targets. That is where the real risk lies.
    Mr. Hendrick rose—Mr. Hendrick rose—
    Mr. Clappison: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman if he will set out the milestones, because the hon. Member for Bury, North would not.
    Mr. Hendrick: Discrimination is happening now. Students are finding that they did not go to the right school to get into the university that they want to attend. If the access regulator does his or her job properly, that will not happen.
    Mr. Clappison: That is right. There is tremendous uncertainty and the categorisation of types of school should not be an issue. Admissions to university should be determined by the quality of the child. Individual application should be determined on merit, and not in any other way. The real problem with attracting people of merit, especially from lower income backgrounds, will arise from the greater and greater levels of indebtedness that they will get into as a result of the Government's policies. Whatever the Secretary of State says, the average debt of £12,000 is a much more substantial amount of indebtedness for someone from a lower income family. The other problem with the Government's policies is the failings in state secondary education, especially in certain places, of which we have seen far too much evidence recently.
    Mr. Hendrick: The debt will not be payable until after the student has graduated and earns more than £15,000. That debt should be considered an investment, because graduates are likely to earn far more over their working lives than people who do not go to university.
    Mr. Clappison: The terms that the hon. Gentleman uses will be understood by pupils from particular

    1093
    backgrounds, who will be used to professional, middle-class salaries and large financial transactions, such as mortgages. Those terms will not be so readily understood by people from lower income families, who will regard £12,000 as a daunting sum to owe. They will not be so easily persuadable. The Government's political interference in university admissions will combine with their financial policies to create serious discrimination with perverse results. Many people from lower income backgrounds will lose out, and others will lose out because they attend particular types of schools and are considered undesirable.
    Mr. John Horam: Does my hon. Friend agree that teachers do not only have the problem of lower incomes, even though they have had a university education? They also suffer if they happen to live in higher cost areas. The hon. Gentleman who has just intervened represents Preston, but I represent Orpington in Bromley, and the cost of housing for people in arts administration and teaching, for example, is huge. That is an additional stress, just at the time when they are trying to establish themselves in a career.
    Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and the same applies to my constituency. The high cost of housing and of living there means that it is difficult to attract people into public-sector jobs. As I said at the outset, the matter will be of concern to the thousands of children who attend independent schools in my constituency, and to the substantial number of children who attend outstanding state schools—grammar schools and former grammar schools—in and around my area. Parents worry that they will be discriminated against because of where they live. They have suffered from that already as a result of the local government funding formula, and there is a risk that certain types of area and the people who will live in them will suffer further discrimination as a result of Government policies.
    The problem is all part and parcel of the Government's muddled attack on the middle classes. The Government discriminate against people who they consider to be middle class.
    Alan Johnson indicated dissent.
    Mr. Clappison: The Minister may smile at that, but parents feel that there is a serious risk that their children will suffer discrimination because they live in the south-east and are middle class. At the same time, children from lower-income homes in my constituency will face rising levels of indebtedness as a result of the Government's financial policies. The Government's policies on state secondary education are failing to raise standards where they need to be raised.
    I think that the terms of the debate as set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford are entirely right. The Government are getting themselves into a fine old mess over university finance and admissions. There will be perverse and serious consequences for hundreds of thousands of families up and down the country. Ministers will have to face up to that. They may feel that certain people do not have the same right to a university
    1094
    education as others because of the schools that they tend to choose for their children, and the Government's financial policies may diminish the opportunities for other people. However, although the Government may feel that the middle classes do not have the same rights as others when it comes to higher education, everyone has the same right to exercise choice at the ballot box.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. A number of hon. Members are hoping to catch my eye. If those who speak can be concise in their remarks, more will be successful.
    2.52 pm
    Mr. Mark Hendrick: Our universities do a good job. Higher education is no longer restricted to tiny and wealthy elites. Our top universities are, I believe, among the best in the world. More overseas students are coming to the UK for their education than ever before, and university research drives the hi-tech industries in my area and in the nation as a whole.
    However, we face real challenges. Other countries already send more young people into higher education, boosting their economies. While an increasing number of people from all backgrounds go to university, the proportion coming from lower-income families has not increased sufficiently. Opposition Members argue otherwise, but I believe that the Government's policies will increase that proportion, despite the increase in top-up fees.
    Universities warn that lack of resources is preventing them from employing the best and brightest academics, or funding the cutting-edge research that our economy needs to prosper. College facilities need upgrading, and the size of lecture and tutorial groups is increasing. To that end, the partial financing of education by students is a necessity.
    As I said earlier, people who gain a university degree or further education qualifications have more opportunities, not just to command a higher income but to achieve personal fulfilment in their lives. The strategic review announced in October 2001 aims to widen participation. The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) said that it would discriminate against middle-class families, but that is not so. Wider participation in higher education means that more people from all social classes will be included in the Government's plans. I welcome the Government's plans to get half of the population under 30 into higher education.
    The review also aims to simplify the education system, especially in the areas of hardship support; to provide more up-front support for students, and especially for those from less well off backgrounds; and to ensure that all students have access to sufficient financial support throughout their years of higher education. It will also tackle the problems of debt and the perceptions of debt—an important point because, as I said in an earlier intervention, debt is somewhat akin to crime, in that the fear of debt is far worse than the reality of the debt that students will face after they have graduated and entered full-time employment. The constant and deliberate emphasis on the word "debt" to describe what is really an investment in the future deters people from entering higher education. If the financial commitment were sold as an investment, it would be far more attractive, and the numbers entering higher education would increase rather than decrease.

    1095
    In the decades since the 1960s, university education has changed. What was a preserve of the elite now supplies the mass market that the Government are trying to create through the rapid expansion of higher education. That expansion has occurred simultaneously with funding falling by 36 per cent. between 1989 and 1997.
    The Government have taken a sensible look at the structure of the entire higher education system, and are addressing the problems that exist. Their aim is to deal with student finance in the longer term, and to open up access.
    Demand for graduates is strong. A House of Commons Library paper on the future of higher education found that, by the end of the decade, 80 per cent. of new jobs will require higher education qualifications. We can achieve that only by widening access. Although 50 per cent. is the target, nobody is saying that we should stop there and, even if we do not reach that proportion, there will still have been a huge increase in the numbers of people going into higher education. Given that 80 per cent. of new jobs will require higher education, the target makes perfect sense. It would be wrong to remove it, and it is dishonest of the Liberal Democrats to claim that higher education need not cost more.
    There needs to be fair access to higher education, which is a "gateway" to "opportunity and fulfilment". The social class gap among those entering higher education has widened. Young people from professional backgrounds are more than five times more likely to enter higher education than those from unskilled backgrounds. The White Paper describes the current position as "socially unjust" and says that it
    "cannot be tolerated in a civilised society".
    I am pleased that the Government are taking steps to address the financing of student education while tackling the wider issue of ensuring that we have an education system which will meet the needs of Britain in the 21st century. It is not a matter of saying that students should not pay fees, or that targets should not be set. The task is to educate people to meet the needs of the 21st century.
    For the reasons that I have set out, it is regrettable that neither the Conservatives nor the Liberal Democrats want to open up the higher education system to make it more socially just and dynamic enough to compete in the modern world. The background of the Conservative party is one of cutting investment in public services. Since 1997, the Opposition have supported cutting spending levels to 35 per cent. of gross domestic product and have opposed every one of the Government's Budgets, pre-Budget reports and spending reviews, and they have refused to match Labour's spending plans.
    We all know that the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) revealed plans to cut public spending by 20 per cent., and the Leader of the Opposition has talked about "across-the-board" cuts that would include cuts in the numbers of teachers and support staff. [Interruption.] Opposition Members say that that is not true, but on 31 December 2002 The Daily Telegraph stated:
    "The Conservative education policy would be a poor deal for young people, a raw deal for our universities and a catastrophe for Britain in the global economy."
    1096
    This is a real ideological issue. The choice for higher education is between the Government, who believe in greater equality of opportunity, choice and an education system that will boost the economy, and the Opposition, whose proposals would lead to cuts in funding and to an elite-driven higher education system.
    That has not always been the case, however. On 19 January, on the GMTV programme, the Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) said:
    "I don't mind the principle of charging differential fees. What I think is important is the level of fees. If it's true that the Government is going back to abolish up front fees, and say that everything that should be paid by the individual student afterwards, that's fine by me."
    The Tories' sums do not add up; they would starve universities of resources, cap opportunities for students and force universities to close. They underestimate the cost of scrapping fees, especially as they are committed to cutting spending by up to 20 per cent., as I said earlier.
    The Tories are planning to revert to the time when university places were capped and the well-off benefited disproportionately. They openly admit that they want to cut the number of people in higher education; the hon. Member for Ashford said that earlier in the debate. Ninety thousand university places would go immediately, which is equivalent to 13,000 lecturers losing their jobs. A further 150,000 places would go, as universities would not have the additional income from the variable fee funding system.
    Mr. Boswell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having got as far as page four of the Labour party brief. Can he explain why, with the current ratio of university lecturers to students, there is a correlation between 90,000 students and 13,000 lecturers? Can he give a notional estimate of the top-up fee that would be required to generate an additional 150,000 university places—the number that he claims we are about to abolish?
    Mr. Hendrick: The calculations were made by my researcher and I genuinely believe that I gave an accurate ratio.
    The Tories have always believed in an education system that benefits the elite. That was their position in 1997 and it is their position now. They believe that Britain can flourish as a low skill, low investment economy. That is the view of a party that believed that unemployment was a "price worth paying" when they held power.
    Expanding higher education widens access to university education and increases opportunity. It also helps UK p1c to stay competitive in today's global market.
    Approximately half the higher education estate was built, to relatively low and inflexible specifications, in the 1960s and early 1970s. Much of it is nearing the end of its design life, and new requirements arise from scientific and technological advance, as well as from recent growth in research. Recent reports show an infrastructure backlog of about £8 billion, including a teaching infrastructure backlog of £4.6 billion, plus a need to double spending on maintenance.
    The abolition of the current up-front fee is important, so that graduates themselves are responsible for paying for the cost of their course. It is not, as the hon. Member

    1097
    for Hertsmere said, an anti-middle-class policy. The parents of those children would not be paying the fees; after graduating, the students would pay the fees. That is an important step in achieving social justice in educational opportunity.
    The Government have set out a sensible and practical policy to build an education system to meet the needs of students, employers and universities in the modern world. The policy is fair, and offers opportunity, social justice and choice for student financing in cost and repayment. It is a solution that will allow more people to realise the benefits of education and to fulfil their dreams, and will allow more students from lower income groups, as well as those from middle income groups, to attend university.
    3.4 pm
    Mr. Paul Goodman: It would be remiss of me to begin without welcoming the Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education to his new post. He will have noted that, so far, only 50 per cent. of the speeches from his Back Benchers have offered full support for his policies, as the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) had serious reservations about differential fees. She was wise to welcome him with the words that his job was a poisoned chalice, although I do not want to blemish my welcome by reminding him that that may indeed be so.
    The Minister will have noticed that although the entire speech of the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), rubbished my party's policy, the hon. Gentleman announced that he would vote with us—that is the Liberal Democrats!
    I shall give some figures that are at the heart of the debate, as it has mostly centred on student numbers. I do not think that anyone has yet pointed out that, in 1960, one in 20 school leavers entered higher education. Nowadays, partly as a result of what the Conservatives did in government, when we expanded access—contrary to some of the claims from Labour Members—one in three school leavers goes into higher education. By 2010, the Government intend that one in two 18 to 30-yearolds should do so.
    The Government intend the numbers in higher education to grow and grow. It is worth looking again at the reasons. The answer given by recent Governments in general and by the Labour Government in particular seems explicitly utilitarian: more graduates mean more growth. The Secretary of State expressly confirmed that in his speech. So that the rationale for the right hon. Gentleman's thinking is in no doubt, I shall quote from another of his recent speeches. He said:
    "I don't mind there being some medievalists around for ornamental purposes, but there is no reason for the state to pay for them…I argue that what I described as the medieval concept of a community of scholars seeking truth is not in itself a justification for the state to put money into that. We might do it at, say a level of a hundredth of what we do now and have one university of medieval seekers after truth…as an adornment to our society."
    I shall not argue—at least, not for the moment—that there is no convincing proof of the assertion that more and more graduates will deliver more and more economic growth, although I believe that there is no
    1098
    such evidence. Nor shall I argue that such a utilitarian view of education is both blinkered and philistine, although it is. Instead, I shall argue that that view has led directly to the alarm with which Labour Back Benchers greeted the Government's higher education policy—the Minister will recall that about 100 Labour Members failed to support the Government on Monday night—and the lack of support that the policy has received almost everywhere else.
    There is a simple truth about the expansion of higher education, as we discovered when we were in government and the Government are discovering now. Sooner or later, the irresistible force, namely, more and more students entering higher education, meets the immovable object, namely, the reluctance of the Treasury to fund tuition fees and grants for all those students. That is exactly what happened when we were in government and it is happening to the Government now.
    Let us consider student numbers. Since 1989, numbers have risen by 90 per cent., but funding per student has fallen by 37 per cent., because there is not enough taxpayers' money to go round. It is that shortage of money, not the ill will of Ministers—who are, by and large, well-meaning people—that has caused the Government twice to tear up their election promises.
    In 1997, they promised no tuition fees, but two and a half months later, under financial pressure, they revealed plans to introduce tuition fees. In 2001, they promised no top-up fees, but this year, again under pressure from the Treasury, they had to reveal plans to introduce top-up fees. No wonder, according to a NatWest survey—only one of a number of such surveys—that students who graduated last year have an average debt of £10,000, a rise of 67 per cent. on 2001. No wonder, according to the Government's own figures, that nearly a fifth of students drop out. That is lower than the rate for many of our competitors, but much higher than it was. No wonder, with such a shortage of money in the system, that there is a £5.3 billion backlog in capital investment, according to Universities UK, and that, according to a NATFHE survey, UK academics ranked 10th for academic pay out of 15 countries.
    What is building up is a composite picture of debt-ridden students, anxious parents, underpaid teachers and lecturers, and vice-chancellors and principals who are viewed by Ministers, according to their own words, not as scholars who have charge of independent communities of scholars, but as wheels and cogs in the machine of economic production. That is what the Government's policy is driving them towards, and none of those people is getting a fair deal, as I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) will say in summing up the debate.
    The Government will compound the existing problems of debt and drop-out, however, by trying to enrol an extra 15,000 students a year and employ an extra 1,000 teachers a year—the equivalent of another 20 universities—costing £25 million a year. According to the Government's own logic, there is no reason whatsoever why their target should be as low as 50 per cent. If it is true that more graduates produce more growth, why not raise the admissions target to 60 or 70 per cent., or even 100 per cent.?

    1099
    When I made that point to the Secretary of State during his speech, he approvingly quoted countries—although I think that only one of them was in the European Union—that had even higher participation rates, and the Government's own logic is now forcing them to travel down that road. We, too, went down that road when we expanded student numbers when we were in government. Now, the Government appear to have left themselves no option but to follow that route, which will lead to more debt and to more potential students being deterred from entering higher education—many are precisely the sort of students whom the Government want to encourage.
    On reflection, the Minister will be aware that my right hon. and hon. Friends have carried out a stroke of Disraelian audacity by producing a widely welcomed policy that seeks to abolish not only top-up fees, but tuition fees. That leaves him and the Labour party politically isolated, with 100 Labour Back Benchers having failed to support him in the Lobby on Monday. We will watch with interest to see how many of them support him today, but my hon. Friends and I know from talking to parents, students and potential students in our constituencies, many of whom may not yet have voted or many of whom did not vote Conservative at the last election, that our policy is certainly a vote winner that has left the Government in great difficulty.
    3.12 pm
    Mr. John Grogan: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) in the debate. He based his assertion that Labour Back Benchers were split down the middle on this issue on a sample of two Back Benchers' speeches. That was a small sample, but I believe that he was not far wrong. After my speech, the sample will be only a little bit larger, but it will show that 66 per cent. of us have some reservations about Government policy.
    I was emboldened to speak in the debate by three things. First, the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) said on Monday that he was particularly interested in hearing from Labour Back Benchers during this debate, and who could refuse such an invitation? Secondly, I am the author of early-day motion 799—one of the early-day motions on the subject—and it starts:
    "That this House supports the National Union of Students' campaign against student top-up fees".
    It makes no mention of fees in general. Thirdly, I feel this afternoon that I am at the apex of my political career in the House. Yesterday, I was elected as chairman of the all-party parliamentary beer club, and I do not think that it will get better than that, particularly after what I say today.
    I want to talk about the political context of top-up fees, which is easily forgotten. I then want to answer the question, which has been asked in interventions on Monday and today: why should students who go to top universities and will subsequently earn large amounts of money in future not pay more than students who go to other universities—bog standard universities, as some people might say?
    1100
    First, on the political context, the proposals arise from the review that the Prime Minister set up after the last election, but very few of us thought that we would end up with top-up fees. It was reported that he had told activists that student fees produced the greatest number of voter complaints during the election. He said:
    "It is an issue that came up a lot in the election campaign and we've got to make sure that we have got the right way forward for the future".
    Well, he was not wrong; it certainly did come up a lot during the election campaign.
    Hon. Members will remember the Deputy Prime Minister's unfortunate incident with the egg. On a much smaller scale, I was involved in a copycat incident at York university two days afterwards, when a student cracked an egg over my head. That happened two days after some flour had been thrown over me, and the local paper helpfully said that all I needed was some milk and I would be a right Yorkshire pudding!
    I was slightly heartened that, the following day, I was at home when an election leaflet from my principal opponent—a Conservative—came through the door, and there was a picture of him shaking hands with someone who was mildly familiar. I then realised that my Conservative opponent was shaking hands with my Conservative assailant under the headline, "Conservatives tough on crime and disorder". We all have to put up with these things during political life.
    It is interesting that we in the Labour party have changed and become in favour of top-up fees. I take as my text what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said in the House on 23 March 2000:
    "Anything that discourages open access to all universities and their departments in this country is, in my view, wrong. Those who argue for substantial differentiation in fees have to answer where the resources would come from to pay for those on low incomes to enter university departments, given that the top-up fee that they were levying would have to pay for that and for any improvement in quality. They would also have to answer how it would be possible for any Minister to argue with the Treasury for additional resources if those resources were going to be obtained by the universities levying fees on students rather than sharing the costs, as we are at present, with the taxpayer."—[Official Report, 23 March 2000; Vol. 346, c. 1106.]
    That point has been made by Liberal Democrat Members. My right h on. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills said that he was generally anti top-up fees when he came to office. What has persuaded those men of great intellect and the Labour party, or the Prime Minister, to change their minds?
    If we read the papers, which is all we Labour Back Benchers can do to see how such policies are produced, we learn that two great intellects are behind the proposals on top-up fees. First, the late Roy Jenkins apparently had a meeting with the Prime Minister and argued very strongly for top-up fees. Secondly his biographer, Andrew Adonis, who also works for the Prime Minister, apparently thinks that it is a very good idea as well. Andrew Adonis is obviously a man of far greater intellect than I am, but the one thing that I have and he does not is the ability to vote on top-up fees in the House.
    I gently tell those on the Front Bench that this will be the first domestic policy issue since 1997 where not only have both major Opposition parties lined up against it but so have a very substantial proportion—50 per cent.,

    1101
    or perhaps a bit more—of Labour Back Benchers, and there is the House of Lords as well. Politics is ultimately a game of numbers, and I really do not see how the current proposals can possibly get through the House.
    I come now to the policy issues that underlie the debate. Why should not students pay top-up fees? Well, the question itself reveals the philosophy behind the proposals. We will basically have a market-based education system. We will have elite universities, and the theory goes that people should pay to go to them and that they will be where all the research takes place. We will then have teaching factories, where those who have lower aspirations will go.
    In A-level economics, we learn that, for a market to work, people must have perfect information. People will not have the information to decide whether to pay the top-up fees. How can 18-year-olds from working-class estates in Selby possibly decide whether to take a degree at Cambridge, where they will have to pay? The fee will not be £3,000 ultimately, because the cap will go, and they will have to pay many more thousands of pounds. How can they possibly decide whether that will benefit them most? If they are risk averse—all the indications are that working-class children are risk averse for a whole variety of reasons—they will go to the nearest university. Their choices will be restricted.
    We have heard that there will be bursary schemes and that further announcements will be made about them. At the moment, the proposals are that each university should draw up its own bursary scheme, although it will have to meet some as yet undefined standard. Let us imagine being an 18-year-old from a working-class estate trying to work out what bursary scheme is on offer from which university. That proposal will act as a massive deterrent. For those just above the threshold who will not get bursaries—those from hard-working working-class and lower-middle-class families—how on earth will their choices not be distorted by top-up fees? Of course they will be distorted.
    Mr. Eric Joyce: Is my hon. Friend therefore saying that, in essence, children of middle-class families will have the wherewithal to make sensible and intelligent judgments based on the return that they will get from universities, but working-class kids will lack that wherewithal?
    Mr. Grogan: No. Let me give an example. Last summer, I advised a student from a working-class estate in Selby who was desperately trying to get to university. He could not open a bank account because the bank would not accept him unless he had a passport or a driving licence. It is so hard to get to universities from some backgrounds if information is not available and if family pressures are not necessarily in favour of going to university. In our party, we should take great pride in the fact that our ambition is to get far more children from working-class backgrounds into university. So far, we have failed. The best that we have done is to maintain the proportion, and the best that these proposals will do is maintain the proportion. That represents a poverty of ambition.
    Mr. Hendrick: Surely, making out, as the Opposition have done, that this debt will be a millstone round the
    1102
    neck of young people after they have finished their studies is not the way to encourage them to go into higher education. Is it not the case that if we say that higher education is an investment in their future, they will be far more likely to go into higher education and to get those benefits? We are focusing all the time on the costs and not on the benefits.
    Mr. Grogan: The costs are real, and they are very real for people who are 18 and who do not have a tradition of taking out great debts in their family. That will obviously have an effect on their choices. We only need to speak to working-class students, and to students who will be just above the threshold, to realise that it will affect their choices.
    Ms Meg Munn: Surely the point of the proposed changes is precisely that students are not being asked to pay anything upfront. We are not asking poor students to pay; we are asking better-off graduates to pay. My hon. Friend the Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education said the other day that a graduate earning £18,000 would pay back £5.20 a week. Surely that is a price worth paying for education.
    Mr. Grogan: In many ways the model to consider in relation to the proposals is the elite group of universities in the United States. We need only look at Harvard to see what we would get if we introduced differentiated fees. A large number of people whose families were well-off, irrespective of whether they went to public schools or state schools, would go to those elite universities anyway, a small proportion of students on bursaries would also go, as the universities would feel bound to provide them with places—perhaps, as is the case at Harvard, they would wait on the tables of the richer students in return for their bursaries—and a lot of people in the middle would be deterred from going to those elite universities because of the extra expense involved. Their choices would be determined not by ability but by affordability.
    One or two more Members want to speak, so I shall conclude in a moment. The Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education, for whom I have a great deal of time—we travel regularly together on the train to our constituencies, although perhaps he will talk to me less than he did previously—spoke warmly about Dearing on Monday and about what a great idea that review was. I remember that the Prime Minister made a speech on the anniversary of Jim Callaghan's lecture on education at Ruskin college in which he talked about trying to get a consensus on higher education policy. We need a consensus: our original ambition was based on Dearing; now we are to make another big change in student funding in 2005, which will have all sorts of distorting effects in terms of gap years and so on. One day, I am afraid, there will be a non-Labour Government.
    Paul Farrelly: Does my hon. Friend agree that, when there is no consensus—clearly, not even on the Labour Back Benches—the

    1103
    future of higher education is too important to be treated as a political football? We need to step back and have a Dearing II-type review.
    Mr. Grogan: Absolutely. If we are serious in the House about improving access and improving our higher education system, we must get a system that lasts a very long time. For me, that would mean stepping back from the current proposals. If the White Paper had proposed a number of options, perhaps supported by different members of the Cabinet—a graduate tax, for example, and an increase in the general fees level, as has been suggested today—it would have made it much easier to forge a consensus. I urge Ministers, even at this stage, to step back and to try to get that sort of consensus on the future of higher education.
    3.25 pm
    Andrew Selous: I am proud to belong to a party which, when in office, produced an increase in the numbers in higher education from one in eight of those eligible to one in three. That was a terrific expansion, and it was right that we did that. It is worth putting on the record that when Labour was running for election in 1997 it pledged not to introduce tuition fees and then did so, and in 2001 pledged not to introduce top-up fees and again did so. We know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not agree with this policy, and the majority of the speeches from the Labour Back Benches this afternoon have not been in agreement with it.
    As we heard on Monday, the new Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education, who I also welcome to his post, was asked by his predecessor to think seriously about this policy. I want to focus on the disincentive effect that I believe that this debt—that is what we should call it—will have on those thinking about going into higher education. We already know that students are facing—purely for maintenance and what they must pay at the moment—an average debt of around £12,000. That is a significant sum of money, which students must cope with by working hard at part-time jobs while they study and by trying to pay it back afterwards. If that average level of debt is to increase from £12,000 to £27,000, as we have heard this afternoon, that alone will be enough to put off many able people from going to university in the first place.
    I have just presented a petition to the House, on behalf of my constituents, under the heading, "Debt on our doorstep", which looks at the issue of debt in our society. We have rightly campaigned in this House about third world debt, about which we will be talking later this afternoon. Individual personal debt in the UK, however, is a serious problem. I am extremely concerned that the Government proposals will add to it, and will also have the effect of turning away from university many of those who could and should have taken that route.
    Young people today will face significant mortgage costs and housing costs. In my constituency and many others, to get on the housing ladder young people face huge costs to meet from their monthly pay to service their mortgage. If a further deduction is to be made from their pay just because they have been to university, they will think that that is a poor choice, and it will be a strong disincentive to take that route.
    1104
    The last part of the equation in terms of finances for people to consider is the pension situation. The House is also urging young people to think about pensions and to save sensibly for them. Young people will have to pay their mortgage costs and university costs and add their pension costs to that. Such a situation is not sustainable and we, as responsible parliamentarians, cannot urge people to take on the combination of those three strands of debt at such a young age. I urge all hon. Members to think seriously about that.
    I ask the Minister not to use Orwellian double-speak by saying that students do not pay but graduates do. They are one and the same person; we are merely talking about deferring an expense. It is not so long since the Government outlawed advertisements that talked about taking the waiting out of wanting, so I am worried when Ministers talk in such terms. Would we say that shoppers do not pay for goods but that consumers do? Such language does not add to the debate.
    I am also worried that several Labour Back Benchers described the sum as an investment rather than a debt. We all believe in the value of education to help people to fulfil their potential, but let us not kid ourselves that an owed liability paid for by monthly deduction from a pay slip is not a debt. We should not use any other word.
    Mr. Joyce: The difference between Labour Members and Conservative Members could be that we think that education is an investment unlike a car on which a person might spend a similar amount, for example. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a fundamental difference between consumption and investment, which is essentially why his argument falls down?
    Andrew Selous: We all agree that education is an investment and that it is worth going through education to better oneself. However, we are discussing how education should be funded and I argue that imposing a specific tax on learning only on people who had been through university or higher education would create a disincentive. We argue that it would be better to use central funding.
    Mr. Hendrick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Andrew Selous: I shall, but I am conscious that one or two hon. Members still wish to speak.
    Mr. Hendrick: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the situation is okay for those who have money and can afford the investment, but that those who do not have the money and would like to pay back the investment afterwards should not be able to do so?
    Andrew Selous: I am arguing precisely the opposite point. I argue that those with the lowest income will be most put off by the prospect of accumulating £27,000 of debt—a substantial amount—in addition to that accumulated by students at the moment.
    There are many jobs for which a degree is not essential but that are taken by people who we would all say had an excellent opportunity to develop at university. I worked in the London insurance market before I came

    1105
    to the House. It is a professional market that contributes greatly to this country's economy, and many who work there have professional qualifications but not necessarily university qualifications. There is no particular advantage for them to be a university graduate, so I think that people who want to enter such a profession would be put off going to university if they realised that it would result in them being poorer each month.
    I am deeply concerned about the access regulator and its potential effects. I am especially worried that people who were the first in their family to attend university would disadvantage their own children by doing so and that people from certain schools could be disadvantaged. The Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education was absolutely right when he said on Monday that the way to get more people to university is to bring them up to the A-level standard in the first place because we know that nine out of 10 people from more disadvantaged backgrounds who get two A-levels go on to university. We should go down that route.
    We have not touched significantly on an important issue that has been the Cinderella of our educational provision: vocational and technical training. I am proud to represent a constituency next to Luton university, which has paid me the great honour of asking me to sit on its court. Dunstable college, which is a first-rate further education college, is in my constituency, as is the Learning Warehouse, which is an innovative new learning venture in Leighton Buzzard. It is a collaboration among several FE colleges to offer education for people from the age of 16 to the grave. I am convinced that a large number of my constituents will pick the FE and vocational route—to their benefit—rather than taking the university route. The university route will be appropriate for some people, but not for sufficient people to meet the 50 per cent. target. The situation in different countries has been bandied about today and I shall mention Switzerland. Very few people there go to university but the country has outstanding technical and vocational education, which is well thought of and desirable for Swiss youngsters.
    The Select Committee on Work and Pensions examined challenges facing the UK labour market this morning. I shall quote two brief facts taken from a document outlining the way in which the European Union views the UK labour market. First, it states that the UK suffers from
    "Poor basic skills amongst a significant proportion of the workforce",
    and, secondly, that there is
    "Low educational attainment levels and participation rates in lifelong learning".
    That is right, but those two problems are best dealt with by taking the vocational and technical route, not by purely taking the university route.
    Mr. Stephen McCabe: I share the hon. Gentleman's views about the value of national vocational qualifications, but how does he
    1106
    think students pay for them? Does he think that the money comes out of thin air? Is he aware that they pay for it themselves per unit?
    Andrew Selous: I am aware that students pay, but the hon. Gentleman will probably agree that most students at FE colleges tend to be more locally based and do not have the extra costs of those students who go away to university.
    3.35 pm
    Mr. David Chaytor: I know that time is short and that I have had more than my fair share of interventions, but I want to refer to something that the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) said. He accused me of attempting to mislead the House in a question that I put to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I note that he is not in the Chamber, so I am reluctant to comment on that, but I must set it on the record that it is my clear understanding that a further invitation was issued to the hon. Gentleman to appear before the Education and Skills Committee to explain his party's policy, which he chose to decline. If I am incorrect, I am sure he will take the opportunity to correct me later.
    Given that my right hon. Friend comprehensively demolished the Conservative party's policy on higher education, which has emerged so interestingly in recent weeks, I do not intend to go over it, although there is much that I should like to say. Instead, I shall focus on a small number of points.
    We adopted the 50 per cent. target—in my view, quite rightly. The Conservatives have said that that is far too high and that they would cut it, but they have not told us exactly what the consequences of that would be. We know that they would be severe because they would reduce opportunity, and the reduced number of places would largely be borne by working-class young people. That is indisputable.
    The Liberal Democrats are also worried about the 50 per cent. target. They do not want an arbitrary target, but accept that it could be higher than 50 per cent. It is inevitable that the participation rate will increase beyond 50 per cent. as we move towards 2010. The rate in 2003 of 18 to 30-year-olds attending university or going into higher education is 43 per cent. For each of the past seven years, the rate of participation has increased by 1 per cent. a year. So it is reasonable to assume that for each of the next seven years it will also increase by 1 per cent. a year, based on previous projections. That does not take into account the significant—almost dramatic—improvements that are occurring in key stage 2 scores at the end of primary school, in GCSE scores at 16 and in A-level results at 18.
    It is almost inevitable that the natural progression, and the result of the Government's investment in primary and secondary schools over the past few years, will lead to far greater demand for higher education as we move to 2010 and beyond. That is important because it demonstrates the pressure on higher education budgets and the urgent need for Governments to find a different way of funding it.
    On debt, the point is that there is no such thing as a free university education. The question is not whether there should, or should not, be debt, but how the debt should be distributed. The Liberal Democrats say that

    1107
    the debt should be paid for entirely by those earning more than £100,000 a year. The principle that they apply is that graduates should pay more through the tax system. The great flaw in their argument is that the majority of graduates will not pay more through the tax system because they do not earn more than £100,000 a year. The Tories are honest about their policy. As my right hon. Friend made clear, we are back to class politics with a vengeance. They want the burden of payment for higher education to be switched entirely on to non-graduates. That is unfair. It is turning the clock back.
    The key to the problem is to strike a balance.
    The Dearing report establishes the key principle that responsibility for payment should be shared by all those who benefit from higher education, including the state, the community as a whole, the individual and employers. We have not heard very much about employers' contribution to the cost of higher education, and such a discussion may be for another time. However, although we can argue about the details, rates and thresholds, what the Government are doing is absolutely right if we are to get a better balance for all the beneficiaries of higher education.
    Paul Farrelly rose—Paul Farrelly rose—
    Mr. Chaytor: I am afraid that I cannot give way because time is pressing—[Interruption.] What the Government are doing is right, and I am delighted to ensure that 50 per cent. of this afternoon's contributions from Labour Members come with reservations about their policy and 50 per cent. are in favour.

    DEFERRED DIVISION
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I must announce the result of the deferred Division on the Question on sexual orientation discrimination. The Ayes were 267, the Noes were 54, so the Ayes have it.
    [The Division List is published at the end of today's debates].

    Tuition Fees
    Question again proposed.
    3.40 pm
    Mr. Tim Boswell: This has been an interesting debate, which has largely spoken for itself. It was introduced with panache by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), who deployed our arguments and thinking in painstaking detail. The Secretary of State then responded, but he may have been more rattled by The Guardian poll on education than we thought. Instead of going back into his shell, although he is not known for that, he delivered a speech that can only be described as doing handstands on the edge of the precipice.
    The Conservative motion was then supported, I think, by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), who is going to vote with us. Most of his arguments, however, were a rather dry exposition of his reservations and to some extent a caricature of what we want to do. An interesting aspect of our debate, which needs to be seen in the context of our previous debate on Monday, is the argument that was not made. It was referred to, but it was not made explicit by the Government in their amendments on either occasion. There is no reference at all in the Government amendments to top-up fees, as the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) perceptively pointed out, which are the policy which may not be spoken of. It would upset Labour Back Benchers, so it is better to keep it private for as long as possible.
    The only thing that the Government can salvage from this week's events is the hope that perhaps 100 Labour Back Benchers will have taken an exceptionally early bath and will not be available to oppose them this afternoon. However, we all know about the strength of feeling on the issue, which was encapsulated the other day in the vitriolic intervention of the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie) and today in the contribution of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly). I would only point out—and I am sure that Government Whips are well aware of this—that there are at least 86 Labour Members who sit in silent dissent. Legislation is forthcoming, if the Government get round to it, but it will be difficult to get it through the House. As an aside, two education Ministers are former presidents of the National Union of Students. One is the Secretary of State, the other the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg). They supported NUS policy, but I wonder when they saw the light and realised that it was all very sensible after all. It must have been after the coming and, indeed, going of the Conservative Government. Matters are therefore interestingly poised, albeit at an intermediate stage.
    To pick up on other contributions, it was interesting that Labour Back Benchers, as I anticipated, expressed a number of reservations about Government policy. The hon. Member for Cambridge believed that differential fees would have an adverse effect on access and, in a charming speech, the president of the beer club—the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan), who deserves further preferment—expressed passionate concern about the misdirection of Government policy.

    1109
    In particular, his contribution was valuable for mentioning the situation for people who are not affluent by any conceivable test and whose family income is just above the threshold. They are caught by the full weight of debt. The hon. Gentleman also spoke about poverty of ambition, and the danger of demoralising people who might want to make a wise choice and might well be fitted for higher education.
    We heard a contribution in support of Government policy from the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick). It was difficult to find out where he thought we should go, except possibly towards an indeterminate target, regardless of cost. I am not sure his Secretary of State would agree. We have just had a contribution from the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), who interests himself in these matters and sought to justify the target.
    On our Benches, we had particularly interesting contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), who was rightly concerned about intervention in the independent sector, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman), who produced a trenchant criticism of utilitarianism and an account of the stresses that higher education Ministers inevitably endure, which I can say from my own experience was entirely authentic, and my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), who made a positive and thoughtful comment and brought the lifetime implications of debt—for example, for pensions funding—into the discussion.
    One or two other interesting points emerged. When there was a discussion about the student drop-out rate, it occurred to me that if we could cut that, the whole of the mythical Labour case for the alleged withdrawal of student places would fall, because the increase in drop-out covers the wasted places and any possible run-back in the size of the sector.
    There was the usual confusion between participation and access. If the Secretary of State spent a moment looking at the figures for Northern Ireland, where there is a primarily selective secondary education system, he would see that participation is more effective in that country. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman tries to tempt me to go wider than perhaps I should have done. We will discuss that in another context. He needs to reflect carefully, and we shall reflect on what he said about the amount of support that will be available to parents or students who have to pay top-up fees. In the short time available, we wanted to hear from Government Back Benchers.
    Again, I assert the principles underlying our approach. First, of course we accept that there is a continuing role for public finance in higher education, because there is a national interest in higher education. There are benefits to students. We do not believe that they are automatically of the order of £400,000, as Ministers said rather glibly. If there are such benefits, which will not be available for every student, the right way to capture them is through income tax, which is a progressive system. It follows that if we are guardians of public money, it must be used to best effect and not wasted on fruitless courses or excess drop-out.
    1110
    Secondly, we should respect the autonomy of institutions. Too little has been said about that. The Secretary of State says that we are taking it away, but any vice-chancellor who derived further resources from what was on offer under the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, now the Home Secretary, as a new deal for higher education has much to think about. Any such additional funds have been bought at a high cost in intervention. That will be much worse when OFFA comes along as a political sop to the Provisional wing of the Labour Government to lend plausibility in respect of access. For the avoidance of doubt, I can say that there will be no diminution of access under our plans in relation to disabled student allowance, and we will be able to offer a measure of support for individual students. More details will be available on that matter in due course.
    Finally, we need to provide a fair deal for students. We need to remember that there are opportunity costs for students, particularly for those from less advantaged backgrounds who choose to go to university. They are not earning for three years and they have to maintain themselves, often at additional cost, in a strange town or city. The level of debt is significant and oppressive and it does represent a tax on learning. That is a tax that has been introduced by the Government. They may well recruit one or two more vice-chancellors to support them in their present course, although I think that those vice-chancellors are ill advised, but I can assure the House that they run the risk of losing the support of 1.5 million students and their parents and associates—a constituency of 5 million persons who know about the £9,000 a head price tag and will draw the appropriate electoral conclusion.
    3.50 pm
    The Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education (Alan Johnson): This debate, unlike Monday night's, highlights the stark choice before the British people. The Liberal Democrats have always added to the gaiety of the nation, but it will be a long time before they rule the nation. We enjoyed listening to their policies on Monday, but today we have seen the real stark choice. This issue concerns the future not just of higher education but of this country and where we want to be in the 21st century.
    What I find really amazing about the Conservative party is that, even after the full process of Letwinisation, even after the caring Conservative phrase, even after the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition had visited working-class estates in Edinburgh, and even after several focus groups and bonding sessions—or bondage sessions as they were called on Monday—we have this Tory policy.
    What we are debating here is not whether we should see a growth in numbers, although that is an important issue to which I shall return, nor whether we could do more to widen participation, although that too is an important debate. Those are not the central issues. What we are talking about here is whether to expand higher education and to maintain investment in higher education for the good of the nation, or whether to contract and cut back, squeeze and freeze and damage opportunities for our young people.

    1111
    At best, 10 Conservative Back Benchers were present for this important Opposition day debate, yet the Conservative proposal is to remove £430 million of funding for higher education—90,000 university places and 13,000 lecturers would go as part of their policy—and to end payments of £193 million currently going through the Higher Education Funding Council for England to widen participation for youngsters from working class backgrounds in higher education. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies, to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred earlier, said in its press release this morning, that is a clear redistribution from poorer to richer households. That is at the core of the Conservative party's policy.
    In opening, the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) made a number of remarks with which we fully, wholeheartedly, 100 per cent. agree. He said that fair access should be based on merit. That is absolutely true. We have said that over and over again and it is in our document on wider participation. It will not be the role of OFFA in any way whatever to interfere in the basis for access to university. [Interruption.] I shall come to the purpose, but let us deal with the points on which we can agree.
    We also agree that we should concentrate on skills when we unveil our policy in the next week or so, and I assure hon. Members that it will be worth waiting for. They will see that we are investing a considerable amount in skills. We also agree that the key is to improve secondary education.
    Our White Paper deals with all those issues, but it does not duck the central question of how we will secure expansion and ensure good-quality higher education into the 21st century without additional funding. Much of Monday's debate was about how to provide that funding, but today's debate has been about reducing the amount that we invest in higher education.
    The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) told us how terrible Tory policy was and how the Liberal Democrats would therefore support the Conservatives in the Lobby this evening—an argument that lost me. He also asked about provisions to protect extra investment, which were also raised by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) on Monday. I have given an assurance about that, as has the Secretary of State, but, perhaps more importantly, legislation already protects the funding council from taking fees income into account in its funding of institutions. Such provision already features in legislation and we have no intention of interfering with it.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) showed her usual good grace and courtesy, and gave paeans of praise for the Government's policy. She mentioned pay for higher education lecturers. Of course, we have invested a considerable amount in the past three years and we will invest more in the next few years. She has a difference of view about the key issue, which we have not tried to hide: our proposals for variable fees. We say that, just as Dearing argued four years ago, graduates should make a contribution and that it should go to universities and not be centralised. She said—I hope this is correct—that someone's decision whether to go to university should not be determined by their parents' finances or the money in their pocket. Of course, the basis of our argument is that
    1112
    that will not happen. We are doing away with up-front tuition fees, students will repay money only when they are in work earning £15,000 a year or more and the debt will be repayable at very modest levels. If the difference between us were simply about the level of the increased tuition fee, it would not be so wide, but it is about much more.
    The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) referred at the start of his speech to somebody whom I suppose could be described as "Paranoid of Hertsmere" and what they had written to the newspapers. I think that there was paranoia and scaremongering in his speech. He spoke about supporting the reintroduction of assisted places and made it absolutely clear where the Conservative party wants to go in that regard. He accused the Government of attacking the middle class, when it is clear that the issue is about money moving from the poorer to the more wealthy, as this morning's report pointed out.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) made a very important point about the perception of debt. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) pointed out, we are talking not about whether there should be debt for students and graduates, but about the level of that debt. My hon. Friend the Member for Preston made the important point that, if we scaremonger and frighten people about the level of debt, which is obviously an issue, it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. What we need to do is ensure that youngsters understand that the money is an investment in their future and that, in terms of our proposals, it is not an onerous burden.
    The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) was simply wrong. He said that the drop-out rate had increased, as did the hon. Member for Ashford. The rate has not increased; it was 18 per cent. before we took office and it is 17 per cent. now. Indeed, it is now 17 per cent. of vastly increased student numbers, so that argument is not reasonable. Neither is the argument that the funding per student has been reduced. It is now 36 per cent. more; we reversed that trend.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan), who will be seeing more of me on our train journeys between London and Selby—I congratulate him on his appointment as president of the parliamentary beer club—said that we need Dearing II. Let us look at Dearing I. Dearing represented a very important contribution to the debate. The Conservative Government set up the Dearing committee of inquiry. Conservative Members supported tuition fees through the Lobby, yet they cannot accept Dearing's central proposal, which is that there has to be increased funding, some of which needs to come from the graduate.
    This has been an extremely interesting debate. We believe that universities are powerful instruments for transforming society and that they are a civilising influence on society. The Conservatives' policy is a triumph of opportunity over integrity—[Interruption.] I meant of opportunism over integrity—I correct that slip straight away. Even the families whom they purport to help will find that they have been sold a pup when they realise that their child will find it harder to find a place at university. If we are to pull youngsters through to the stage where they have two A-levels and the chance

    1113
    of a university place—as all hon. Members agree that we should—and they find that the place is no longer available, that entire generation will have been let down. Even worse, the Conservatives' policy would drive down attainment, because those who get two A-levels will not have those university places to go to. So, to the delight of our international competitors and to the dismay of the higher education sector and business—
    Mr. McLoughlin Mr. McLoughlin rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
    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 191, Noes 293.

    Division No. 256]

    [4:02 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Djanogly, Jonathan

    Allan, Richard

    Dodds, Nigel

    Amess, David

    Doughty, Sue

    Ancram, rh Michael

    Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

    Baker, Norman

    Duncan Smith, rh lain

    Baldry, Tony

    Evans, Nigel

    Baron, John (Billericay)

    Fabricant, Michael

    Barrett, John

    Fallon, Michael

    Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

    Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

    Bellingham, Henry

    Bercow, John

    Flight, Howard

    Blunt, Crispin

    Flook, Adrian

    Boswell, Tim

    Forth, rh Eric

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

    Fox, Dr. Liam

    Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

    Brady, Graham

    Garnier, Edward

    Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

    George, Andrew (St. Ives)

    Brazier, Julian

    Gidley, Sandra

    Breed, Colin

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

    Goodman, Paul

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Gray, James (N Wilts)

    Burnett, John

    Grayling, Chris

    Burns, Simon

    Green, Damian (Ashford)

    Burnside, David

    Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

    Burstow, Paul

    Greenway, John

    Burt, Alistair

    Grieve Dominic

    Butterfill, John

    Gummer, rh John

    Cable, Dr. Vincent

    Hague, rh William

    Cameron, David

    Hammond, Philip

    Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

    Harvey, Nick

    Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

    Hawkins, Nick

    Cash, William

    Hayes, John (S Holland)

    Chidgey, David

    Heald, Oliver

    Chope, Christopher

    Heath, David

    Clappison, James

    Hendry, Charles

    Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Hogg, rh Douglas

    Collins, Tim

    Holmes, Paul

    Conway, Derek

    Horam, John (Orpington)

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Howard, rh Michael

    Cotter, Brian

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Cran, James (Beverley)

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Curry, rh David

    Jack, rh Michael

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford

    Johnson, Boris (Henley)

    Keetch, Paul

    Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

    Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

    1114

    Key, Robert (Salisbury)

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Salmond, Alex

    Kirkwood, Sir Archy

    Sanders, Adrian

    Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Selous, Andrew

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Shepherd, Richard

    Laws, David (Yeovil)

    Simmonds, Mark

    Letwin, rh Oliver

    Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

    Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Liddell-Grainger, Ian

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Lidington, David

    Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Spring, Richard

    Loughton, Tim

    Stanley, rh Sir John

    Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

    Steen Anthony

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Streeter, Gary

    Mackay, rh Andrew

    Stunell, Andrew

    Maclean, rh David

    Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Syms, Robert

    Maples, John

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Taylor, John (Solihull)

    Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    May Mrs Theresa

    Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

    Mercer, Patrick

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

    Thurso, John

    Tonge, Dr. Jenny

    Tredinnick, David

    Moore, Michael

    Trend, Michael

    Murrison, Dr. Andrew

    Trimble, rh David

    Norman, Archie

    Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

    O' Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Tyler, Paul(N Cornwall)

    Öpik, Lembit

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Osborne, George (Tatton)

    Waterson, Nigel

    Ottaway, Richard

    Watkinson, Angela

    Page, Richard

    Webb, Steve (Northavon)

    Paice, James

    Weir Michael

    Paterson, Owen

    Whittingdale, John

    Pickles, Eric

    Wiggin, Bill

    Portillo, rh Michael

    Willetts, David

    Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

    Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

    Williams, Roger (Brecon)

    Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

    Willis, Phil

    Randall, John

    Wilshire, David

    Rendel, David

    Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

    Robathan, Andrew

    Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Robertson, Angus (Moray)

    Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

    Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

    Young, rh Sir George

    Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

    Younger-Ross, Richard

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Rosindell, Andrew

    Mr. Laurence Robertson and

    Ruffley, David

    Mr. Mark Francois

    NOES

    Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

    Blizzard, Bob

    Ainger, Nick

    Blunkett, rh David

    Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

    Boateng, rh Paul

    Alexander, Douglas

    Borrow, David

    Allen, Graham

    Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

    Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Brennan, Kevin

    Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

    Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Browne, Desmond

    Bailey, Adrian

    Bryant, Chris

    Baird, Vera

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Battle, John

    Burgon, Colin

    Beard, Nigel

    Burnham, Andy

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Byers, rh Stephen

    Benn, Hilary

    Cairns, David

    Bennett, Andrew

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Benton, Joe (Bootle)

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Betts, Clive

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Blackman, Liz

    Caplin, Ivor

    1115

    Casale, Roger

    Hendrick, Mark

    Caton, Martin

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

    Heppell, John

    Challen, Colin

    Hesford, Stephen

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

    Chaytor, David

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Penlands)

    Hodge, Margaret

    Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

    Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

    Hoon, rh Geoffrey

    Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

    Hope, Phil (Corby)

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Clelland, David

    Howells, Dr. Kim

    Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

    Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

    Coaker, Vernon

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Cohen, Harry

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Coleman, Iain

    Hutton, rh John

    Colman, Tony

    Iddon, Dr. Brian

    Connarty, Michael

    Illsley, Eric

    Cooper, Yvette

    Ingram, rh Adam

    Corston, Jean

    Irranca-Davies, Huw

    Cranston, Ross

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Cruddas, Jon

    Jamieson, David

    Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

    Jenkins, Brian

    Cummings, John

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

    Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

    Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Darling, rh Alistair

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

    David, Wayne

    Kaufman, rh Gerald

    Davidson, Ian

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

    Keen, Alan (Feltham)

    Dawson, Hilton

    Kemp, Fraser

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Denham, rh John

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Dhanda, Parmjit

    Kidney, David

    Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    King, Andy (Rugby)

    Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Kumar, Dr. Ashok

    Edwards, Huw

    Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

    Efford, Clive

    Lammy, David

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Lazarowicz, Mark

    Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

    Lepper, David

    Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

    Leslie, Christopher

    Fisher, Mark

    Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Flint, Caroline

    Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

    Follett, Barbara

    Linton, Martin

    Foster, rh Derek

    Love, Andrew

    Foster, Michael (Worcester)

    Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

    Francis, Dr. Hywel

    Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

    George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

    Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

    Gerrard, Neil

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Gilroy, Linda

    McCabe, Stephen

    Godsiff, Roger

    McCartney, rh Ian

    Goggins, Paul

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    MacDonald, Calum

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    McFall, John

    Hain, rh Peter

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    McIsaac, Shona

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    McKechin, Ann

    Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

    McKenna, Rosemary

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Hanson, David

    McNulty, Tony

    Harman, rh Ms Harriet

    MacShane, Denis

    Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Healey, John

    McWalter, Tony

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    McWilliam, John

    1116

    Mallaber, Judy

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

    Sawford, Phil

    Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Sheridan, Jim

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Martlew, Eric

    Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

    Merron, Gillian

    Michael, rh Alun

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Miliband, David

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Miller, Andrew

    Soley, Clive

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Southworth, Helen

    Moffatt, Laura

    Spellar, rh John

    Mole, Chris

    Squire, Rachel

    Moran, Margaret

    Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

    Morgan, Julie

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Morris, rh Estelle

    Stevenson, George

    Mountford, Kali

    Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

    Mullin, Chris

    Munn, Ms Meg

    Stoate, Dr. Howard

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Stringer, Graham

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Naysmith, Dr. Doug

    Tami, Mark (Alyn)

    Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

    Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

    Organ, Diana

    Timms, Stephen

    Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

    Tipping, Paddy

    Owen, Albert

    Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

    Palmer, Dr. Nick

    Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Pike, Peter (Burnley)

    Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

    Plaskitt, James

    Pollard, Kerry

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Pound, Stephen

    Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Ward, Claire

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Whitehead, Dr. Alan

    Purchase, Ken

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Purnell, James

    Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Williams, Betty (Conwy)

    Rammell, Bill

    Wills, Michael

    Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

    Winnick, David

    Raynsford, rh Nick

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

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

    Wood, Mike (Batley)

    Woolas, Phil

    Rooney, Terry

    Worthington, Tony

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

    Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

    Ruane, Chris

    Wright, David (Telford)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

    Wyatt, Derek

    Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Salter, Martin

    Paul Clark and

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Jim Fitzpatrick

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
    MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House rejects any proposal to abolish the existing fee of £1,100, which would lead to substantial reductions in the numbers of places in higher education and, as a consequence, fewer lecturers and a lower quality higher education experience; congratulates the Government on its plan to abolish up front tuition fees and to raise the threshold for repayment of loans from £10,000 to £15,000; welcomes the steps that the Government is

    1117
    taking to widen participation amongst students from deprived backgrounds, the establishment of the Office for Fair Access, the introduction from 2004–05 of a £1,000 grant for students from the poorest backgrounds and better support for part-time students; condemns any proposal to withdraw the funding that is already being spent on widening participation, which would lead to fewer students from deprived backgrounds entering higher education and completing their degrees; and supports the continued expansion in participation planned by the Government and the part to be played by foundation degrees designed in collaboration with employers as an appropriate strategy to equip the UK workforce with the high level skills needed to compete in the global marketplace.

    Fair Trade
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): We now come to the debate on fair terms for international trade. I must advise the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. There will be an eight-minute limit on Back-Bench contributions to the debate.
    4.16 pm
    Mrs. Caroline Spelman: I beg to move,
    That this House shares the concern of the Trade Justice Movement about the plight of the poorest people in the world, and congratulates the Movement on bringing their conditions to the attention of the public; notes with concern the fact that a billion people live on less than a dollar a day, that life expectancy in many African countries is declining, and that 30 million people in Africa have HIV/AIDS; believes that rising levels of international trade and trade liberalisation offer the best hope of alleviating poverty in the developing world; calls for high quality legal and economic advice for developing countries on trade issues; further believes that the Government has failed to do enough to promote trade liberalisation, to reform agricultural subsidies and to phase out European trade barriers; and further calls on the Government to use the World Trade Organisation meeting at Cancun to do more to reform the international trade rules to give poor countries a fair deal on international trade.
    There is a terrible sense of déjà vu in holding this debate on our Opposition day exactly one year after our last such debate. If we look back over the past year, what have the Government really achieved in respect of securing fair terms for international trade? We share the frustration of the Trade Justice Movement that so little progress has been made.
    Unlike the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who wrote in The Guardian this week that she "fundamentally agrees" with the Trade Justice Movement, I can honestly say that although we share many of the movement's demands, we do not share them all. However, we congratulate it on bringing these issues into the public arena and giving us the chance to debate them openly. I shall be holding a trade justice surgery in my constituency on Friday, and I urge Members to take the opportunity, as I know that many are doing, to meet campaigners.
    The case for fair rules of international trade is overwhelming. The United Nations estimates that if trade rules worked for poor countries, they could reap benefits of up to $700 billion a year—14 times the amount that developing countries receive each year in aid, and 30 times the amount that they pay in debt repayments.
    One of the best parting shots of the outgoing Secretary of State for International Development was made in her withering analysis of the failure of successive trade talks to make any meaningful progress. In her speech on the dangers to Doha at Chatham house on 25 March, she said that
    "failure in the Doha Round of the World Trade talks mean a tragic missed opportunity to tackle the distortions and unfairness in trade rules that disadvantage the poorest producers and the poorest countries."
    She also said that
    "we missed 2 key development milestones":
    on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights and public health, and on special and differential treatment for developing countries. She described how

    1119
    the discussions in Geneva are stalling, destroying trust between World Trade Organisation members and dissipating their willingness to negotiate.
    Yet we are only three months away from the next round of the trade talks, in Cancun this September, with very little progress to show for all the efforts made. The post-11 September spirit of contrite concern for the world's poor, which led to Doha being called a "development round", seems to have given way to vested interest, the old complacencies and the status quo.
    Chris Grayling: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is doubly disappointing, because since the last Doha round and within Europe, a step has been taken in the wrong direction? The reality is that there are now fewer prospects than ever for the European Union properly to open up its markets to the producers of the third world.
    Mrs. Spelman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I shall mention in a few moments the disappointing results of the most recent common agricultural policy negotiations.
    Where is the will to change? We hear plenty of rhetoric about "healing the scars of Africa", but we see little improvement. The poorest countries' share of world trade has dropped by almost half since 1981 and is now just 0.4 per cent. There is an air of business as usual about the place. Last Friday's conclusion to the discussion on reforming the CAP was utterly depressing. Despite all the rhetoric about Britain playing a lead role in Europe, the Prime Minister appears to have capitulated before France and Germany to a deal that leaves the CAP substantially unreformed and the level of subsidies uncut until 2013—only two years before the deadline for meeting the millennium development goals. They were targets that we set ourselves to lift people out of poverty, ill health and missed opportunity, and to ensure that no one is left behind. At the European summit last weekend, the Prime Minister returned without, apparently, having raised the issue of the CAP with the French President and with no mention of the importance of CAP reform in the Council's conclusions.
    Agriculture is of key importance because three quarters of the world's poor live in rural areas. Agricultural produce is virtually their only source of cash, and developing countries are particularly vulnerable because production tends to be focused on a small number of cash crops. Yet the rich nations of the world regularly destroy opportunities in growth markets by dumping surplus agricultural production with subsidies from taxpayers' money. One of the starkest examples is in India, which, as the world's largest producer of milk, is unable to compete in the growth market of the middle east because of the subsidised exports from, among other places, Europe. It is a shameful comparison that every cow in the European Union is subsidised by $2 a day, while 3 billion of the world's poor live on less than that amount.
    Export subsidies are the most iniquitous feature of the CAP and even France is willing to acknowledge their damaging effects, but where is the will to remove them? The CAP does not now even serve our own farmers well.
    1120
    They suffer from exactly the same problem as developing farmers—seeing the middlemen take more and more of the profit on what they produce for diminishing returns at the farm gate.
    Dr. Nick Palmer: Would the hon. Lady be willing to overcome the roadblock by removing the right of nations to declare it an absolute strategic interest to keep the common agricultural policy? She will be aware that there is a qualified majority in favour of going much further than France is willing to go, but France is declaring the CAP to be a vital national interest. Would the hon. Lady be willing to give that up?
    Mrs. Spelman: The hon. Gentleman's intervention reminds me of a similar one last year. The point about using the veto in favour of national interest is that it is so frequently abused, and it is the abuse of national interest that presents the real problem.
    Farmers in this country suffer from exactly the same problem as developing farmers in seeing middlemen taking more of their profit. I would go so far as to urge British farmers to join the fair trade campaign and demonstrate real solidarity with the world's poor farmers. Like the Columbian coffee farmer, the East Anglian sugar beet producer would then make common cause to balance the power of the big food retailers and supermarkets. Consumers could buy products marked with the fair trade symbol knowing that, at home or abroad, more of the profit will go to the farmer.
    Mr. Andy Reed: Does the hon. Lady agree that not just fair trade but co-operative fair trade makes an enormous difference for farmers? On my recent visit to Ethiopia, I visited a coffee co-operative where the vast majority of the profit made along the entire chain went back to the individual farmers, who received probably four times more than they would get if they just sold their produce to the market. Is that an acceptable approach?
    Mrs. Spelman: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The co-operative principle, whether abroad or in this country, has been very successful in helping farmers to secure more of the value added to their product and ensuring that their farm gate returns rise. It is certainly a principle that we support.
    Sir Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend referred to milk and India earlier. Is not it a great shame that this country—for whatever reason, but mainly due to pressure from the European Union—abolished one of the most successful co-operatives of all time, the milk marketing board? Can my hon. Friend assure me that those matters, which have stood British farmers in good stead, will be considered by the Opposition, if not by the Government?
    Mrs. Spelman: My hon. Friend makes an important point about a complex and highly competitive international market for dairy produce. It is important to reiterate that we have called for a review of the way in which the present rules governing the dairy industry in this country operate, in view of the intense competition from other large producers, such as

    1121
    New Zealand—the lowest cost producer—and Denmark, to ensure that our farmers are able to compete on fair terms with them.
    The European Union is not the only offender. The US Farm Bill, which recently granted an extra $100 billion in farm subsidies, distorts world trade in the same way. On a recent visit to Malawi, I learned that 300,000 Malawian farmers had been persuaded by American companies to grow premium grade tobacco. Once the crop was established, the price was driven down to $1.6 a kilo, compared with the subsidised price received by US domestic farmers of more than $6 a kilo. US farmers produced more, the world price fell, and now the Malawians are out of business.
    Cotton subsidies are another example. The price of cotton is at an all-time low and cotton farmers in developing countries are suffering most from the plummeting prices. In the US last year, for example, some 25,000 cotton producers received almost $4 billion in subsidies. That is three times more than the US gave in aid to Africa. Oxfam estimates that Africa is losing $300 million a year as a result of cotton subsidies, and that prices would rise by a quarter if the unfair subsidies were eliminated.
    Members of the Trade Justice Movement are not against a rules-based system of international trade, but they want it to be fair—and so do I. They are sceptical about the way in which the World Trade Organisation works, because it appears to favour the rich and powerful nations. Rich countries, especially the US, Japan and Canada, and the European Union, have well-funded teams of specialist negotiators, while half of the poorest countries cannot afford them. For that reason, my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor has announced that we would help to create an advocacy fund for developing countries to use to provide themselves with high quality legal and economic advice on trade issues. Let us face it, we are not short of lawyers.
    Mr. Tom Watson: Can the hon. Lady enlighten us on how big the budget for that fund would be? Would it be greater than the £60 million that was cut from the aid budget in 1995, which was five times more than the annual income of Oxfam for that year?
    Mrs. Spelman: I construe from that intervention that the hon. Gentleman does not think that it is a good idea to provide developing countries with equal representation and that he does not believe that rich nations have a shared responsibility to create a level playing field.
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien: I applaud my hon. Friend's speech and the policy announcement of the advocacy fund, which has been hugely welcomed—not least because it would give developing countries the choice when it came to accessing the appropriate advice to be on terms at the WTO. The Chancellor and other Ministers seek to ensure that they have continued all-party support for many of their international initiatives, so does she agree that it is disappointing that when we
    1122
    seek such support for our policy, the Government remain significantly silent? That shows that they do not care about equal-terms advocacy.
    Mrs. Spelman: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. As he will know, there is usually a remarkably high level of consensus on the subject of international development. My right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Chancellor has welcomed the increased spending on international development that the Government have announced. Therefore, I too find it disappointing that the practical suggestion set out by my hon. Friend has not been taken up so far. Perhaps the Minister will have an opportunity this afternoon to correct that—or perhaps the Government have something else in mind.
    Although the WTO is a relatively new organisation, it must be seen to operate fairly if it is win the trust and confidence of those countries that feel poorly served by it at present. I was rather intrigued by something that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said in her article in the The Guardian this week. She said that the Government would create new institutions to deal with unfair trade. Perhaps the Minister will tell the House what she has in mind.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. I welcome the motion before the House, and the spirit in which she is speaking to it. She mentioned trade liberalisation, and the failure to increase the amount of trade in which developing countries can take part. Although supporters of the Trade Justice Movement would accept much of what she has said so far, they also believe that developing countries should have the ability to grow their own economies to the point where they are strong enough to take part in the WTO. What ideas does she have for allowing that to happen and ensuring that trade liberalisation does not mean simply that large multinational companies exploit developing countries?
    Mrs. Spelman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but he may not understand the important fact that trade liberalisation has brought benefits to developing countries. I shall be discussing later whether or not, on balance, trade liberalisation has been good for developing countries.
    That is an important question. In last week's edition of The Big Issue, an overwhelming case was made for the benefits of trade liberalisation. The magazine set out what globalisation can do to improve the prospects of a developing country by reducing poverty and boosting its economy.
    As the UN's development programme has observed, global poverty has declined more in the past 50 years than in the previous 500. In those five decades, there has been substantial trade liberalisation. Indeed, the number of absolute poor—people who live on less than $1 a day—has fallen by 200 million in the past two decades, even though the world's population has grown by 1.5 billion.
    Globalisation is a buzz word that anti-capitalist protestors have seized on. They have attacked it as the source of the world's ills, but globalisation—which is capitalism, if Labour Members can screw up their

    1123
    courage to use the word—is what the Government now believe in. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) has said that
    "multilateral trade liberalisation is an indispensable part of development."
    It is a key driver of economic growth, but—and this may be of interest to the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas)—it needs to go hand in hand with good governance and effective institutions that channel its power for good.
    The world is an unequal place. Resources are not distributed evenly, but it is what Governments do with what they have that makes all the difference. With certain exceptions such as Burma and North Korea, the open-market policies of the Asian continent have brought huge progress. Several African countries with a pro-market approach, such as Botswana, Uganda and Mauritius, have achieved economic growth, but others remain mired in the deepest misery. They suffer from conflict, corruption, sickness and—all too often—from hugely burdensome bureaucracies that hold them back.
    Mr. Gary Streeter: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and I am certainly enjoying her excellent speech. Does she agree that in the past 20 years it has been shown that good governance, the rule of law and a market-based economy are the key ingredients to a developing nation becoming prosperous and providing for its people? Does she consider that that ought to be more of a focus for Government policy than is currently the case?
    Mrs. Spelman: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He knows the subject well, having preceded me effectively in this post. He is right. India, because it is so populous, is probably the largest of many examples of a nation that realised that it was losing its competitive position and that trade liberalisation would unleash real opportunity. That is one of the best examples with which to encourage other developing nations to take the same steps.
    The International Development Act 2002 focused on poverty reduction, which we support. During the scrutiny of that measure, my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter), who spoke for the Opposition, pointed out that we must not lose sight of the importance of fostering good governance—something that was reflected in the words of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood. Good governance and effective institutions are essential to help to ensure trade liberalisation. Together, they bring real development and progress in those countries.
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: The point that my hon. Friend made, backing up our hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter), is right and I agree with everything that she has been saying. In essence, the aims of the Trade Justice Movement are pretty good and, in some ways, we can support them. However, when one visits a country such as Angola, as I did last month, and discovers that the president is pocketing $1 billion of oil revenue every year, while our aid programme is but £12 million a year, it puts everything into perspective. Does my hon. Friend agree?
    Mrs. Spelman: My hon. Friend touches on an important point. Politicians, whatever our persuasion,
    1124
    represent our electorate and make choices on their behalf. We try to provide leadership on policy, but the bad news stories, such as the one that my hon. Friend highlighted, create much public scepticism about the effective use of taxpayers' money. That is why it is so important to encourage and foster good governance and to stamp out corruption. We can then be confident that our taxpayers' money is being used to maximum effect to help the poorest countries in the world.
    I do not want to stand in this place next year bemoaning the lack of progress on international trade reform. As the Prime Minister said, the biggest thing happening in the next six months is world trade: Cancun represents a milepost, yet nothing prevents progress on CAP reform but the selfishness of those who do not want change. Meanwhile, coffee farmers in Ethiopia are dying in their huts and throughout the world people's livelihoods are being ruined.
    In his 2001 conference speech, the Prime Minister said that we must practise the free trade that we are so fond of preaching. In this country, we are so tired of his rhetoric that no one believes him any more. People in other countries see little benefit from that rhetoric in their livelihoods. I urge the Government and all hon. Members to seize the opportunity to bring about a fair deal in world trade for our fellow citizens throughout the world.
    4.38 pm
    The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Hilary Benn): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
    "congratulates the Trade Justice Movement on bringing the plight of the poorest people in the world to the attention of the public; notes with concern the fact that a billion people live on less than a dollar a day, that life expectancy in many African countries is declining, and that 30 million people in Africa have HIV/AIDS; reaffirms the commitment made in the 2000 White Paper "Eliminating World Poverty: A Challenge for the 21st Century" to improving international trade rules so that they work for all countries, and especially the poorest, in helping to reduce poverty; notes that the successful pursuit of trade reform through the Doha round of multilateral negotiations could contribute substantially to the Millennium Development Goals; welcomes the substantial efforts the Government is making to promote trade liberalisation, reform agricultural subsidies and phase out European trade barriers; believes that significant progress must be made to improve access for developing countries to developed country markets; further believes that a solution to the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and public health negotiations is urgently needed; and welcomes the commitment to ensuring that the Doha round produces real benefits for the poor."
    First, I welcome the debate and the Opposition's choice of subject, not least because it gives the House the chance to discuss development and trade in the week of the Trade Justice Movement's lobby of Members of Parliament. Secondly, I offer a warm welcome to the Treasury Bench and to the Department for International Development to the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), who will reply to the debate. I am sure that I speak for the whole

    1125
    House in wishing him well in his post. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development and I already enjoy working with him.
    Mrs. Spelman: I was remiss in not welcoming the Under-Secretary to his new post. I am grateful to the Minister for giving me this opportunity to make it clear that I should have done so.
    Hilary Benn: While we are in this mood of generosity, may I say that I also welcome a great deal of what the hon. Lady said in her speech? She put with clarity and force the case for fairer trade as a means of helping to encourage development. I say "a great deal" not because I am churlish, but because her argument was at its least convincing when she tried to suggest that the Government are not trying hard enough similarly to make the case that she has put to the House this afternoon. That is not true, and I suspect that she knows that it is not true, not least because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who is leading the WTO negotiations, is passionate about the issue and committed to making this a round for development. However, the hon. Lady is absolutely right to ask—this is the question for the House to consider this afternoon—whether, overall, the world is doing enough to deliver a fairer trading system. We are all concerned about whether we will make progress.
    The background to the debate—the reason why it matters—is the daily reality of life for the 1.2 billion of our fellow human beings who live in abject poverty and lack the basic necessities that all hon. Members take for granted: clean water to drink, the chance to go to school and someone to heal them when they fall ill. Those people only wish for themselves and their families the things that hon. Members wish for the people whom we represent: the chance to live to a reasonable age, to be part of a community, to raise a family and to earn a living.
    Mr. John Taylor: I wonder whether the Minister would care to tell the House just how unhelpful he thinks the common agricultural policy is?
    Hilary Benn: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me a moment, I intend to come to that very point, because it is a very important part of the challenge that we face if we are to deliver progress for those 1.2 billion people.
    As always in international development debates, it will be common cause across the House that global poverty amid so much plenty in the world is the single greatest challenge that we face. It is morally wrong. It is unjust. It feeds bitterness, division and conflict. All those are reasons why the world community, including the Government and the Opposition parties, are so committed to making poverty reduction one of the main millennium development goals. As the hon. Lady rightly said, they are the goals against which those 1.2 billion people will judge our commitment to making a difference to their lives. That is the issue.
    International trade is one of the most important means that we have to try to eliminate global poverty because it is about providing countries with increased
    1126
    opportunities to trade, to provide employment for their citizens and to allow poor people to improve their lives. More exports produce higher economic growth, greater encouragement of domestic reform and, therefore, faster poverty reduction. It is estimated that the increased income for developing countries from a 50 per cent. cut in protection, by developed and developing countries, would be about $150 billion a year—in other words, three times the value of all the aid that rich countries give to the poorer countries of the world.
    If the House is weighing in its mind the balance of benefit, making progress on world trade can do more than we in the rich world are seeking to do in the aid that we give. The hon. Lady referred to the World Bank's estimates of the impact that eliminating all barriers to trade in goods would generate. Indeed, the figures that she quoted would have the potential to lift 300 million people out of poverty by 2015.
    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: For the poorer countries to benefit from better trade conditions, it is important they all have an equal voice at the table. One of the great criticisms at the last Uruguay round was that 28 countries had no representation at all in Geneva. I wonder whether the Minister would tell us what progress the Government have made towards giving those countries a better voice.
    Hilary Benn: The hon. Lady makes an extremely important point. I was going to address that issue later, but I shall do so directly, since she has raised it, and take the opportunity to refer to the importance of improving the capacity of developing countries to participate in the process and of supporting negotiators, as they engage in trade reform. That is why, in the White Paper, "Making Globalisation Work for the Poor", published in 2000, the Government made a pledge to spend £45 million on trade-related capacity building activities between 1998 to 2004. That work is continuing and the funding has supported, among other things, the integrated framework, the Agency for International Trade Information and Development Co-operation and the Advisory Centre on WTO Law in Geneva.
    That directly addresses the point raised by the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) in referring to the shadow Chancellor's proposal, because the advisory centre already provides to developing, least-developed and transition countries free or low-cost legal support to those members pursuing cases in the dispute settlement mechanism. It provides seminars on WTO jurisprudence, general legal advice on WTO law and an internship programme for officials. It is working on precisely the issue to which the shadow Chancellor drew attention in his initiative. The only difference is that that work is already being done through the support that we are giving to that body.
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien: Does the Minister recognise, however, that there is a difference between the advocacy fund proposed by my party and the advisory centre in so far as while the advisory centre makes certain advice available—not least in dispute resolution—the key is negotiating in the trade rounds on equal terms? Under the advocacy fund proposal, developing countries have

    1127
    the choice of the advice rather than being patronisingly offered advice that the west thinks is fit for them, which inevitably builds up resentment.
    Hilary Benn: I accept entirely the point that the hon. Gentleman makes about the importance of supporting the development of that kind of independent capacity. That is why, if we look at the development programmes in which the Department for International Development is involved in many countries of the world, building domestic capacity within finance ministries and trade ministries to engage in these debates and to understand what the changes proposed in the WTO may mean for their country and their people is an important part of that work. My point is simply that while I understand the motivation behind the shadow Chancellor's proposals, we already fund support mechanisms internationally, and the issue to which the hon. Gentleman refers is already a central part of the work that we do increasingly with developing countries' Governments. He is right that they need the capacity; the question is what is the most effective way to do it. In truth, as I think that he would accept on reflection, the most effective place in which to build that capacity is in the institutions of government of those countries, allowing them to send their representatives and their Ministers well-armed with arguments to put in the negotiations that will take place.
    In recognising the importance of trade in helping to reduce poverty, it is important that we do not overstate the case. Trade alone is not the answer, although it is one very important factor in stimulating economic growth. As the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out in his intervention, effective states with effective institutions, which implement the right policies such as investment in infrastructure, health and education, are the states that are in the best position to try to benefit from the effects of trade liberalisation. Trade liberalisation and effective governance must go hand in hand, which was a point rightly made by the hon. Member for Meriden. That is why we are so heavily involved as a Government and as a Department in helping African and other developing countries to strengthen their institutions and therefore their capacity to develop economically.
    If we accept the argument about the benefits of trade, of course, we should be concerned that the current global trading system does not deliver those promised benefits and does not work for the poor.
    Mr. David Heath: Does the Minister share any of the concerns that some have expressed that by trying to widen the scope of the discussions at Cancun, the Government are effectively ignoring the fact that so many of the commitments from Doha have not yet been implemented?
    Hilary Benn: I do not accept that argument, and if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I intend to address that point later in my remarks. It is an important point, not least because the Trade Justice Movement has chosen to make it a particular focus of its activities during this week.
    The hon. Member for Meriden was right that rich countries' protectionist policies are stopping developing countries from benefiting, which means that the poorest countries in the world have few opportunities to grow
    1128
    and to trade their way out of poverty. That is why the agreement in Doha in November 2001 to try to make this a development round was so important. For the first time, in a significant way, which I think that we all recognise, it put development at the centre of the argument about world trade. That commitment is shared across different Departments—it is not just a commitment for the Department of Trade and Industry or the Department for International Development but for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Treasury and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—all of which are committed to making a difference. That is a sign of the importance that we give collectively to poverty reduction and, if I may say so, a reason why the Trade Justice Movement focused the energies of its lobbying campaign elsewhere, which relates to what the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said. The movement would acknowledge the force of the Government's argument, which shows why the Opposition's criticism that we are not trying hard enough is wide of the mark.
    However, that is not to say that success is assured—it is not. Despite everything at stake, progress during the negotiations has been painfully slow. Critical deadlines have been missed. The issues that matter most to developing countries, which are agriculture, special and differential treatment—I add that to the list that the hon. Member for Meriden gave us—health and trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights, are the key issues on which we as the world community, not as the UK Government, will be judged.
    Mr. Streeter: I think that the Government are doing their best in a difficult situation. It is, of course, outside their power to deliver, and they must do their best, as I am sure that they do. Will the Minister comment on accountability regarding the World Trade Organisation? Does he think that WTO talks are sufficiently well reported back to the House and that Ministers focus sufficiently on the specifics of the talks as they unfold?
    Hilary Benn: I recall that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made a statement to the House before she went to Doha to lay out the objectives that she and other Ministers would pursue. The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point—I think that it was the broader point behind his question—about the need to ensure that the issues are discussed widely so that people from all countries may express their views to their Governments before they go to Doha. He recognises that decisions must be taken by consensus in the end.
    I promised that I would turn to agriculture. Agriculture is the most important aspect of the negotiations for most developing countries because it offers the potential of the biggest gains for the world's poor. Liberalisation of agricultural trade could boost developing countries' exports by at least $30 billion a year, and perhaps by as much as $100 billion by 2015. That could lead to an annual increase of gross domestic product of almost 1 per cent. throughout the continent of Africa. Of course, Africa is the continent on which our success or failure to meet the millennium development goals rests because it is the only continent that has gone economically backwards during the past

    1129
    generation. Its share of world trade has halved and half the savings generated leave it each year. It cannot hold on to half the wealth that it manages to create.
    Agricultural markets are the most heavily protected, so we urgently need to tackle distortions in global agricultural trade that are created by our high tariff barriers, the current structure of our domestic support regimes and our subsidised exports. That is especially important because it is the aspect on which many of the poorest countries have the greatest natural trading advantage. It explains why the statement made by African Finance Ministers after their meeting in Addis Ababa this month said that they note with concern that Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development agricultural subsidies have a major and negative impact on the agriculture sector in the majority of their countries. That is the voice of developing countries making the case for change.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: On agriculture and the WTO, the Minister will know that only this week the United States Government decided to pursue a case against the European Union on genetically modified organisms. What is the Government's view of the use of GMOs in developing countries and, especially, of the way in which the US Government subsidise their companies to import and introduce GMOs into those countries, thus giving farmers little choice of whether to grow GM crops or not?
    Hilary Benn: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. The answer to his central question about the policy of Governments is that they should weigh up the same considerations for their countries as we are trying to do in the United Kingdom. Developing countries' Governments should take their own decisions based on their assessment and knowledge of what they think is safe and in the best interest of their countries' future. It is important that they have the power and ability to make those decisions. Others should not make those decisions for them.
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien: The Minister is generous in giving way a second time. Does he recognise that the removal of the tariff barriers would encourage a greater number of cash crops to be grown, which tend to be commoditised and fall prey to the cyclical nature of commodity prices in global markets? For a number of countries, that has hindered the completion of the heavily indebted poor countries initiative. Does he agree that equal emphasis should be given to value-added manufacturing and distribution instead of having to cede that value chain to the rich western world?
    Hilary Benn: I accept the hon. Gentleman's argument completely. Giving developing countries the opportunity, as he put it, to add value from goods that they produce would be a good way of enabling them to participate more effectively, and with greater benefit to their people, in the world trading process.
    On reform of the CAP, the negotiations in Brussels resumed today. The deal that was put on the table last Friday is good, but there is a considerable way to go. The Government have always said that they want a
    1130
    good deal, not any deal, and we are determined to get one. That is why we are working hard with our EU partners to secure that change. However, if hon. Members are honest with themselves, they will recognise that the debate on CAP reform has been going on for a quarter of a century or longer. It is a long-term project and we should be aware of the difficulty of making such a change.
    Mr. Parmjit Dhanda: I do not wish to break up the cross-party consensus on many of the issues raised, but does my hon. Friend have a message for Conservative MEPs, who consistently vote with the right in the European Parliament to protect the CAP rather than to reform it?
    Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend makes a strong and pertinent point. The basis on which we will be judged as elected representatives—whether as Members of this House or as Members of the European Parliament—is whether by our votes, as well as by our words, we support the objectives raised in the debate, which I think hon. Members on both sides of the House share.
    The second key issue is access to medicines. At Doha, we promised to make the World Trade Organisation's rules on intellectual property flexible enough for developing countries that cannot produce the medicines they need to tackle grave health emergencies. We were on the verge of a workable compromise in December last year, but the United States of America, responding to its industry's concerns, has to date blocked the deal. It fears that the proposed solution would be used by developing countries to override patents on what it regards as non-essential medicines.
    Those fears have to be addressed. They are not insurmountable. We believe that the December 2002 proposals address those concerns, but it is vital that at Cancun, if not before, we are able to make progress. For many developing countries, progress on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights—TRIPS—and access to medicines is a litmus test of whether we are serious, as a developed world, about giving them the support and help that they need.
    Mr. Richard Allan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Hilary Benn: If the hon. Gentleman bears with me, I have been generous in giving way and am anxious to conclude my remarks because many hon. Members wish to speak.
    The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome mentioned the new issues, which feature prominently in the Trade Justice Movement's lobbying campaign. The Government believe that an appropriate framework agreement on the new issues—investment, competition and the way in which trade is conducted—could help. Competition could be aided by tackling the anticompetitive practices used by big international and domestic cartels. The basic rules on transparent procedure in Government procurement could help to promote good governance and reduce corruption.
    As for investment, no one would disagree that it is what developing countries want and need more than any thing else if they are to make progress, but let us be

    1131
    clear: the existence of a multilateral agreement of itself would not guarantee that developing countries attract more investment, but it could provide clarity and security for investors on the right terms, thereby playing a part in helping those countries to lift their people out of poverty. Let me make the Government's position clear: we would not sign up to something that we did not believe to be in the interests of developing countries overall.
    Sandra Osborne: Does my hon. Friend agree that it not just a question of having the capacity to have a place at the table, but is also about having a voice that is listened to so that considered opinions can be heard? Does he acknowledge that many of the developing countries have expressed grave concern about extending the agenda to include new issues if that voice is listened to?
    Hilary Benn: I agree entirely about the importance of voices being listened to. If that is to be the case, voices have to be heard, opinions articulated, positions adopted and arguments advanced. As for the World Trade Organisation, the debate has moved on, and we should acknowledge that we hear fewer people saying that the WTO is the cause of all the problems and is an instrument that we should get rid of. Indeed, I noted with great interest the conversion of George Monbiot in his article in The Guardian on 24 June. He said:
    "The only thing worse than a world with the wrong international trade rules is a world with no trade rules at all."
    That is why his article was headed "I was wrong about trade", and I agree with his argument. Because the WTO is a consensus-based organisation we need to talk up developing countries' capacity to use their power in negotiations, where people give and take but in the end have to reach agreement. We need to talk up their potential power in the WTO to get the agreements that they want. We should not, as sometimes happens in debates in some quarters, although it has not happened today, pat them on the head and say, "It is all rather difficult." I do not believe that that is the case. Developing countries have the capacity and knowledge to use their power. In the end, who is more committed to the future and interests of a country than its people and Government?
    Finally, a generation ago, a debate about international development would probably not have included the speech made by the hon. Member for Meriden because it would have focused far more on aid than trade. That shows how all our views have changed in the intervening period. We have learned that while aid still matters enormously—that is why more is needed and why the Government are providing more—the chance to earn a living in the world matters more, as it can deliver more benefits. That is a huge difference between the international debate now and the debate a generation ago. However, we now have chance to make a much more important difference to the lives of the 1.2 billion people who live on less than a dollar a day. History will not judge us kindly if we fail, which is why we owe it to them to succeed.
    5.2 pm
    Dr. Jenny Tonge: As I have not yet had an opportunity to do so, may I welcome the bevy of beauty and talent representing international
    1132
    development on the Government Front Bench? However, I am outraged by the fact that the Secretary of State is not in the House of Commons, and is not answerable to the elected representatives of the people of this country.
    I congratulate the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) on convincing her party to use the Opposition day for this debate. I know how difficult it can be to convince colleagues that in the long term developing world issues are as important as national issues, if not more important. I congratulate her on her excellent speech, but it is a pity that the Tories' record in government did not match the rhetoric that we have heard this afternoon—[Interruption.] In answer to those sedentary interventions, I would say just give us the chance, and we will show you.
    As the hon. Member for Meriden said, this is the second year running that we have had this debate. My constituents have organised a fun event on Saturday and have asked me to take part in a tug-of-war to represent the struggle of poor countries against the rich. While I appreciate how useful my ballast would be on the poor countries' side against the CAP and other evil things, Members will be relieved to hear that I am going to be the referee and will hold the white handkerchief in the middle.
    The fact that the debate has become an annual event makes me very angry. The CAP is still unreformed and the world still dances to the tune of the United States of America. Have we no influence at all in the world? The right hon. Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers) stated in May this year—sadly, after he had stepped down from the Department of Trade and Industry:
    "No one should doubt the hugely significant role that international trade could play in tackling poverty. In terms of income, trade has the potential to be far more important than aid or debt relief for developing countries. For example, an increase in Africa's share of world exports by just 1 per cent. could generate…five times the total amount of aid received by African countries."
    It is a shame that the right hon. Gentleman did not think of that when he was at the DTI.
    We have heard some good things from the current Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. In a speech to the European Parliament in January, she said all that had to be said—a beautifully crafted speech. I congratulate the civil servant who crafted it. It was wonderful stuff and said all the right things, but where is the action? Can she deliver?
    It is infuriating that the millions of dollars spent on meetings of world leaders at the G8 or the negotiating rounds of the World Trade Organisation, plus all the security costs now involved, would go a huge way to helping the very countries under discussion—the poorest—to have adequate representation to make their voices heard, as several hon. Members have commented this afternoon. I have asked for the figures involved in such meetings of Heads of State and Ministers, and I understand that they will be published on 1 July. They are eagerly awaited by my office.
    Dr. Palmer: I was unable to get a reply from the official Opposition on whether they would favour the

    1133
    abolition of the rule that European countries can claim absolute national interest to protect the CAP. Would the Liberal Democrats favour abolition of that?
    Dr. Tonge: The Liberal Democrats have long called for the reform of the CAP. I will come to that later in my speech, if the hon. Gentleman will be patient.
    Once again, here we are rehearsing the arguments, while half the world's population, 3 billion people, live on less than $2 a day, and 1.2 billion—20 per cent. of the world's population—live on less than $1 a day. We must keep reminding ourselves that the global economy allows us to live in great luxury, with even the poorest in our society receiving at least enough to eat, while children all over the world die of starvation and disease. We must never forget them when we discuss debt relief and trade issues.
    If we do, poverty and despair will lead to war and terrorism, as the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) and I saw vividly a couple of weeks ago, and more despair—a vicious circle which, as we have seen in recent years, spills over into attacks on our comfortable way of life. The concrete blocks outside this place and the armed police everywhere in the building are an indirect result of our failure to address the needs of the poorest people in the world, and we must constantly remind ourselves of that.
    The trade rules that apply in the world today have caused mayhem all over the third world. Many of us have seen the results. The fall in coffee prices in the early 1990s and our failure to address the problem triggered the Rwandan genocide. Banana farmers all over the Caribbean have to look for an alternative crop because of the USA's determination to protect big boys like Chiquita and Del Monte. That, combined with the US policy to spray Colombian coca fields with herbicides, is likely to encourage Caribbean farmers to turn to the cultivation of illegal crops instead. What sort of progress is that? In the north of Ghana, I saw farmers made destitute because, thanks to the subsidies given to American farmers by their Government, American rice is cheaper than the rice grown in Ghana.
    There are many other examples. As the hon. Member for Meriden said, European dairy cows—this is one of the juiciest bits of all—receive a subsidy of $2 a day. That is the daily income of half the world's population. I am tempted to say that I wish I was a cow, but that may produce a response from hon. Members that is not complimentary. What madness this all is. What madness are we indulging in?
    American industrial and farm subsidies and the CAP in Europe have to be reformed. They are worth £200 billion a year. It is immoral to expect poor countries to open up their markets to our goods when our exports are so heavily subsidised and when in many cases we erect barriers for their exports to us.
    Will the Minister please tell us what concrete progress we can expect? I know that he hopes and believes, but what will he achieve? I am well aware of the anything but arms agreement between the EU and the least developed countries, but sugar, rice and bananas were taken out of that agreement. They are precisely the goods that they could have produced to their advantage. We have seen
    1134
    Mozambique, Zambia and Malawi suffer from that policy. They could produce sugar very cheaply, but they cannot compete with subsidised European crops.
    I have said that Liberal Democrats want the CAP reformed, and it must be reformed. What will happen when the EU has 25 states? Will the new European members expect the same subsidies as current members receive for their farmers? I understand that the CAP budget will remain at its current level of £30 billion a year, so it will be spread much more thinly anyway and our farmers will have much less subsidy. Could we hear from some Minister or other just what preparations are being made for that and how we will build in a reduction in subsidies so that farmers in the poorest parts of the world can benefit too?
    One issue that particularly concerns me is the ever-festering issue of trade related aspects of intellectual property rights, or in plain language that rule overseen by the World Trade Organisation which means in practice that developing countries cannot use cheaper versions of drugs that they need, such as retrovirals for AIDS, even when they can manufacture them, as in the case of Kenya. The developed countries hold 97 per cent. of world patents and any attempt to relax the rule is being blocked by the USA.
    Mr. Allan: I am glad that both my hon. Friend and the Minister have mentioned TRIPS, which is an important issue within the world trade negotiations. But is she concerned that the trend in intellectual property law in developed countries is towards broadening and deepening the scope of intellectual property protection, so that we may find that people in developing countries are excluded from an even greater range of products that they need if they cannot afford the licence fees to go back to companies in the developed world?
    Dr. Tonge: My hon. Friend is right. Despite all the developments in genetics and all the new medical and scientific developments, we are going backwards instead of forwards. Developing countries will be more and more shut out of the developed world if something is not done about this.
    I have asked before and I ask again: what representations have we seriously made to the USA on that issue? Why are we not successful? The USA does not want to contribute to the global health fund in substantial amounts, lest any of the preventive health programmes of the global health fund contain measures to provide safe abortion. We all know how it has withdrawn funds from the United Nations Population Fund. On the other hand, it refuses to allow the cheaper generic drugs to be used in developing countries. That allows me to come to the conclusion that the much trumpeted $15 billion to fight AIDS from George Bush, about which we have all heard recently, is a straight contribution to the United States' pharmaceutical companies, because it cannot be spent on very much else. When will the Government challenge the USA about that?
    Brian Cotter: My hon. Friend mentioned Rwanda and made clear points about the need for cheaper drugs. The case is made in Rwanda,

    1135
    where hundreds of thousands of women and others are dying because of HIV/AIDS. Fortunately, the few Rwandans who have come to this country and received treatment can now live out their lives.
    Dr. Tonge: My hon. Friend is right, but we must not think that drugs are the only answer to the AIDS epidemic. Sadly, however much we fight even for generic versions, many developing countries will not have the money to afford those drugs and their economies will suffer as a result. Everyone knows that AIDS attacks the economically active members of the community.
    I desperately want to make the point that, before we start to engage in the traditional multinational company bashing and to refer to the wicked, evil drug companies about which we hear so much from NGOs and campaigners, we should ask: is it not time that they were recognised as being able to make a huge contribution to development?
    I recently learned of a public-private partnership in Botswana between Merck Sharp Dohme, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Botswana Government themselves. I see the hon. Member for Meriden nodding, as she has also heard of the project. Such a partnership is delivering all the prevention measures, education, health care and retroviral drugs that are needed to treat the AIDS epidemic in that country. It is a brilliant public-private partnership between a multinational company and a developing country.
    Surely, we can investigate the potential for such initiatives in all sorts of aspects of development. Multinational companies have huge budgets that are bigger than those of many countries. They have expertise in management that can counteract the lack of capacity in developing countries about which we are always hearing. They are also now accepting the need for far more transparency, which would counteract the corruption that the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) mentioned, which so often destroys developing countries. Will the Minister tell us what steps are being taken to encourage those very welcome initiatives?
    Dr. Palmer: The hon. Lady appears to be nearing the end of her speech. Will she be returning to the question whether her party would abolish the national veto on CAP reform?
    Dr. Tonge: I repeat that we have called for the reform of the common agricultural policy. I enlarged a little on that issue and I think that the hon. Gentleman should wait until we have debates specifically about the policy, not least so that we can learn what his party and the Opposition will do about it. We do not deny that it is a difficult problem, but it has to be resolved.
    One of the best initiatives in recent years, which we must not forget, is the fair trade movement, which started out in the form of fair trade goods in the Oxfam shops and a few bags of coffee here and there, but is now mushrooming into a very interesting development. What do the Government think about the fair trade initiative? Why cannot they take it up and support it much more nationally?
    My party acknowledges the progress that the Government have made on debt relief and on increasing the percentage of gross national product that is used for
    1136
    development aid, although the inclusion of debt relief in that figure means that the increase is not as large as it may seem. We acknowledge the Cotonou and anything-but-arms agreements and the recognition that public services, including health, education and water services, should be excluded from the general agreement on trade in services. I use the phrase "should be", as we are told that countries are not being forced to open those markets to external competition unless they wish to do so. We welcome that, but I have some reservations, as I am told that things are not as they seem. I hope that the Minister will address that issue.
    Of the least-developed countries, 100 per cent. have had their telecommunications sector requested by the private sector, 24 per cent. have had their environmental sector requested, 69 per cent. have had their financial services sector requested, 59 per cent. have had their transport sector requested, and 3 per cent. have had their energy sector requested. Seventy-two of 109 countries were requested control over water for human use and waste water management. Those are all essential services. In some countries, the relevant sector was effectively controlled by public services and there had been substantial public opposition to privatisation.
    We need to know from the Minister just what is the position on public services and the general agreement on trade in services. Liberal Democrat Members want faster progress on trade. By the time of the next conference in Cancun we must have liberalised our markets to allow access to exporters from developing countries. We must radically reform the CAP. We must lift TRIPS—trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights—restrictions on generic drugs.
    I have made only three main points, but they are vital. The EU and the USA are running out of time before the Cancun summit to get moving on the issue of subsidies generally. That must be addressed beforehand. If the Doha development round collapses, it will be our fault for not putting more pressure on the USA and the EU. New issues must not be addressed until those main problems are solved, as my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said.
    Please let us not have this debate again next year with no progress having been made. Let us get on with it.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. May I remind the House that the eight-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches begins now. With a fair wind and co-operation, it should be possible for all those seeking to catch my eye to do so.
    5.21 pm
    Mr. Tom Clarke: The Prime Minister is on record as saying that the biggest thing happening in the next six months is world trade. Therefore, in my necessarily brief speech, in the presence of my distinguished colleagues on the Front Bench, I shall seek to influence a process that has the opportunity of addressing, in the most effective way, the plight of poverty, which afflicts millions of people around the world; to do otherwise would be an irrelevant indulgence.
    We inhabit a world that has brought great benefits to the people of our nation and to those of other western European countries, as well as America. However,

    1137
    many of my constituents and local organisations are, I am pleased to say, acutely aware of the consequences of free trade and the impediments, barriers and hurdles to fair trade.
    This is not an anti-trade debate, but one that asserts that our trading affairs can be organised so that the benefits go to the many, not to the few, and so that social justice and enlightened self-interest can go hand in hand. I refuse to believe that it is beyond the wit of modern society to protect, and even to improve, the environment that we inherited, underpinned by more equal trading. I am greatly encouraged by the work of the Trade Justice Movement, including aid agencies such as the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development, Oxfam, the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund, Christian Aid and many others, all of which will campaign in every constituency in Britain over the next few days.
    I welcome this opportunity to contribute because, like so many other hon. Members, I have visited many countries that suffer immense and absolute poverty. Recently, I was in Cameroon, where I met the Minister of Finance, who I think at one point was the ambassador to South Africa. He cited the tremendous problem of falling commodity prices, coupled with his country's attempt to try to compete with subsidised goods, which he regarded as completely impossible. I was also in Rwanda, and following the terrible genocide—and now, happily, the reconciliation—it was a privilege to see Tutsi and Hutu children playing together, but despite the merits of the country's agricultural potential it was extremely disappointing to know that they are not dealing internationally with fair trade.
    Recently, I was in Angola, to which reference was made. The country is extremely rich in diamonds and in oil. It is not the fault of the British Government that those resources are not being made available to the people, or that, appallingly, one third of Angolan children die before the age of five.
    I have visited some of the shantytowns in Peru, where the young people said the same as my young constituents: they were looking for job opportunities. [Interruption.] They did not find that amusing. Given the lecture we had from the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), I am somewhat puzzled by her response to what has just been said.
    The poverty that we are facing is identifiable. Half the world's people live on less than $2 a day; a billion people are hungry every night; 1.5 billion people never have any clean water; 130 million children never go to school; and 10 million children die every year of preventable childhood diseases, even though, overall, life expectancy is up and infant mortality down.
    Last year, Professor Keith Popple of the Southampton institute said that
    "the combined wealth of the worlds three richest men is more than the combined wealth of the world's 48 poorest nations".
    No wonder CAFOD says:
    "Without trade that works for the poor, without an end to the grotesque subsidies and trade barriers that protect producers in the richest countries of the world, all that we have worked for in Jubilee 2000 will be put at risk. Developing countries are not asking for a handout. They want and deserve justice."
    Mr. Reed: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital that we maintain the link between debt relief, our aid
    1138
    programme and trade, and that none should be taken in isolation? For example, the collapse in commodity prices, to which he has referred, has led to the HIPC initiative falling into some disarray. Is it not vital that we do not lose the focus on the combination of trade, aid and debt relief, with all being equal in importance?
    Mr. Clarke: I agree absolutely and I am delighted that the Trade Justice Movement also agrees, not least because, rightly, it has been campaigning—and the Government have responded—on issues such as debt, trade, HIPC and the other matters that my hon. Friend rightly raised.
    Oxfam research showed that the falling price of coffee in Kenya forced parents to take their children out of school because they could no longer afford the fees. The price fall meant that parents' income more than halved in the space of two years.
    Yesterday's The Guardian contained an extremely telling article, which I commend to my friends in the Trade Justice Movement, by George Monbiot—[Interruption.] I see that it appeals also to the hon. Member for Meriden. George Monbiot said that he had changed his mind on some of the essential issues—for example, on the role of the World Trade Organisation. I welcome that change of mind. He made it clear that whereas he had argued that our aim should be to remove the influence of the WTO, he now realised that the initiative should be transformed. In telling words, he said:
    "The only thing worse than a world with the wrong international trade rules is a world with no trade rules at all."
    The challenge to this Parliament, the European Union, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organisation is to put in place a set of rules banishing free trade and replacing it with a genuine level playing field and fair trade. The Cancun conference in September is the next road stop on this almost endless journey, and we are watching all the developments very closely indeed.
    My last words are those that have been poignantly expressed by the Trade Justice Movement:
    "Trade should be the means by which poor people can lift themselves out of poverty, not the prison that steals their future."
    5.30 pm
    Tony Baldry: The prophet Micah said:
    "He has showed you, 0 man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?"
    We all have an inherent concept of what justice is, and this debate is about trade justice. When the Prime Minister of Ethiopia gave evidence to the Select Committee on International Development, he said that there was a danger that Africa could become the continental ghetto of a globalised world. He said:
    "Unless Africa develops, it will spawn all sorts of criminal groups en masse, including drug cartels and terrorists, which will haunt all of us. Unless Africa develops, people will flee not in their

    1139
    thousands but, perhaps, in their tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands, and that will haunt all of us. Unless Africa develops, there will be environmental devastation in the continent and the rest of the world. Unless Africa develops, a large part of humanity will be, in effect, excluded from the global cake and the global cake will be smaller for all of us. Developed countries have, therefore, a stake in Africa's development. It is in their enlightened self-interest to help Africa develop."
    Of course, we could replace the word "Africa" with the names of many of the developing countries.
    Our world community is interdependent, and we cannot simply have trade rules that are entirely give and take, whereby we ask the developing countries to gain concessions while they keep having to give more. Prime Minister Meles put it to the Committee that
    "international trade negotiations are based on bargaining and give and take. We know that whatever the rhetoric might be, those with the bigger bargaining power get what affects their interest more. That is the reality. The poor countries, particularly those in Africa, because their share in global trade is insignificant, have no significant bargaining power. They cannot engage in meaningful give and take."
    Many non-governmental organisations gave evidence to the Select Committee. Duncan Green of CAFOD spoke of
    "extracting as much as you can get and giving as little as you can. That is not even the free market but a straightforward mercantilist approach to negotiation."
    At Cancun, we shall all have to stand back and consider what is in the best interest not of each country but of the global community as a whole. Unless we in the developed world are prepared to make concessions on agricultural support and trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights—TRIPS—we can forget about getting the general agreement on trade in services or "new issues" on to the agenda, because there will be absolutely no interest in the developing world in making any concessions on GATS or new issues. Sadly, we have made almost no progress on agricultural support or TRIPS since the end of 2002.
    The International Development Committee has been undertaking an inquiry into the matter, and we went to see Commissioner Fischler. It was a pretty depressing meeting, as I think the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), who was also present, will confirm. We got there, sat down, asked the commissioner some questions, and he said, in terms, "Frankly, it is not our responsibility. It is not our fault. The EU is doing everything that we need to do." He said:
    "We know that our US friends are asking for more market access, but this more market access is at the cost of developing countries…Our agricultural support, on export subsidies, compared with the value of the export, is more or less insignificant…We reduce the more trade-distorting elements and partly increase those elements which are not trade distorting. Unfortunately, our American friends have done the opposite, especially with their last Farm Bill. This is where we now have a rather difficult discussion."
    In effect, Fischler was saying, "There is nothing for us to do." We then went to Washington to meet representatives of the United States Department of Agriculture. They said, "It is not us, it is you, the European Union, who have got to shift."
    1140
    Some real political effort needs to be made if we are to achieve a breakthrough. Understandably, that will require genuine political commitment. The attention of many political leaders, including our Prime Minister and President Bush, has understandably been distracted by Iraq and other topics. If I have a criticism and concern, it is that, if any progress is to be made in Cancun, it will require more than an interdepartmental Cabinet sub-committee and the Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry, for International Development, and for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs getting their act together. In terms of agricultural subsidy, some serious political head-banging and sorting out will be required in the EU and the United States. It is appalling to note that, even if we have won any influence in the United States, we have yet to sort out TRIPS.
    In his recent statement on the G8 summit, the Prime Minister said:
    "We all agreed that a successful outcome to the World Trade Organisation ministerial meeting…in September and the successful completion of the development round by 2005 are of central importance. The wealthy nations of the world simply cannot any longer ask the developing world to stand on its own two feet but shut out the very access to our markets that is necessary for it to do so. Reform of the European common agricultural policy will be vital in that regard."—[Official Report, 4 June 2003; Vol. 405, c. 158.]
    We would all agree with that. Then, almost a week later, the Prime Minister reported back from the European Council in Thessalonika. Those of us who have been around long enough understood the form of words that were used at the Dispatch Box. In the light of the wordplay between the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, it was clear that, while in Thessalonika, the Prime Minister had not invested any political capital in pushing for reform of the common agricultural policy.
    We on the Conservative Benches are far more consensual and kind to the Prime Minister than some of the political sketch writers. In the following day's edition of The Independent, Simon Carr said that the Prime Minister proved that
    "he is truly bilingual by speaking with forked tongue…
    The truth also gets lost in the technical forest. Was it good that common agricultural policy…reform was left with the Agricultural Council…?
    Bearing in mind the proposals will have to go to the Council of Ministers in the end, will the cause of CAP reform be helped or hindered by its current forum of discussion?
    Your answer will determine how many peasants starve to death in various country-wide death camps in the Third World. We don't know the answer, we can't know, and given that we have a generalised interest in Third World peasants not starving to death, we don't care. If we did care, Mr Blair would care. If Mr Blair cared, he'd have done something about it years ago."
    The real concern is that Ministers have to convince this House and the country that between now and Cancun the Government and the Prime Minister will invest some real political time and effort in talking to President Bush, and in making progress on agricultural reform and TRIPS. If they do not, we will make no progress on the WTO agenda. We do not doubt the good will and commitment of Ministers—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his time. I call Ann McKechin.
    5.38 pm
    Ann McKechin: I welcome today's debate on a subject that, sadly, receives very little time in this Chamber; indeed, it would largely be ignored without the tremendous effort of the many people throughout the United Kingdom who support the Trade Justice Movement. Sadly, despite the urgent and pressing need for widespread reform of our own trading policies and a truly development-led settlement, the prospects for a meaningful agreement are currently bleak.
    In February, I had the pleasure of being part of the British Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation to the World Trade Organisation parliamentary conference in Geneva. For me, that event symbolised a number of the issues that are blocking real progress. Unfortunately, the United States has withdrawn its membership of the IPU and accordingly did not participate. The US Government have a political philosophy that is generally suspicious of multilateral agreements. They have placed increasing emphasis on securing bilateral agreements where it is clear that they will always hold the upper hand. If the current talks fail, the route back to bilateral negotiations is already being marked out.
    Many EU member states appeared defensive about their own policies. In fact, some argued bare-faced that, because of their own economic problems, the developing world would have to wait before the EU could make further concessions on CAP. That is not very comforting for a country the majority of whose population is living on less than a dollar a day. The developing nations were exasperated and hostile about the lack of progress, and the WTO gave every impression of being completely uninterested in engaging in any form of parliamentary scrutiny or accepting criticism for the growing fault lines among member states.
    How can we make real progress? As the Minister confirmed this afternoon, it is certainly not in the interest of developing countries to return to a system of bilateral trade agreements in which they will always be the junior player. Under that system, the hope of comprehensive reform of either the CAP or US subsidies will rapidly vanish. A multilateral system should offer the best opportunities for change and development, but, rather than every player hanging on to their vested interests, it needs to operate on a basis of trust and with political will to reach agreed goals.
    The current round of negotiations has been termed a "development round", but there is no consensus on how development is defined, or on the process by which the details of that hugely complex group of negotiations is supposed to fit round it. Unlike the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, the World Trade Organisation has not incorporated the UN millennium development goals as integral to its own doctrines. If development is truly the ultimate objective, rather than just an add-on benefit of reducing trade barriers, the WTO needs to consider a much more radical reform of its own agenda.
    The test for a rule or proposal to be considered by the WTO should not be whether it is "trade-distorting", but whether it is "development-distorting". Many less developed countries quite rightly feel that they have been let down badly in previous trade deals. While they
    1142
    agreed to open their doors to our goods and suffered from our subsidised dumping, the richer nations were largely shielded and successfully clung on to their trade barriers. At the same time, the world prices of many basic trade commodities, such as coffee or bananas, have slumped, with disastrous effects on the economies of poor countries. The developing countries are understandably much more reluctant to make any further concessions unless they can achieve significant concessions from the west this time.
    There is, frankly, an increasing difficulty in achieving trade-offs in all sectors, and we need to consider whether the present round of negotiations should be the last permanent round, followed by a period of review and consolidation. As yet, there is no formal requirement for the WTO to review its own policies to determine which ones contribute and which detract from the goal of development. Currently, once commitments are made, it is virtually impossible to withdraw from them, however injurious they are to a nation's economic development, without severe penalty.
    Given the fractious atmosphere in which the current negotiations have been conducted, there is also a need to examine the scope and mandate of the WTO. There are key world trade issues—including, as I said earlier, primary commodity markets—that the WTO is not seriously concerned about. On the other hand, the WTO has become involved in domestic policy issues, such as intellectual property laws, domestic investment and subsidy policies.
    The WTO has evolved trade principles such as non-discrimination, most favoured nation and national treatment, which were correctly derived in the context of trade in goods, but there is no clear evidence or political consensus that the application of those same principles to areas other than trade will lead to positive development outcomes. Just about every developed country, including our own, expanded initially on the basis of special treatment for its own industries and Government procurement. The benefits of investment and procurement liberalisation are not likely to outweigh the disadvantages unless there is sufficient strength within the domestic economy itself and sufficient capacity to regulate foreign investment and adequately to enforce that regulation.
    Liberalisation, as the Government to some extent acknowledge, should not be pursued automatically as an end in itself. What is much more important is the quality, timing, sequencing and scope of liberalisation, and how the process is accompanied by other factors. Only last week, African Trade Ministers, meeting in Mauritius, issued a statement that referred to
    "the complexity and importance of the Singapore issues".
    It also said that the Ministers
    "note that WTO members do not have a common understanding on how these issues should be dealt with procedurally or substantively. Taking into account the potential serious implications of these issues to our economies, we call for the process of clarification to continue".
    Those are clearly very different views from those held by our own Government and other western countries, but I hope that, instead of forcing that part of the agenda forward now as part of a settlement this year, we will engage with the concerns of the developing world and consider a more appropriate mechanism to deal with those matters in a systematic manner.

    1143
    I know that our Government, who have taken the lead in so many development matters, will fight hard for a successful outcome at Cancun later this year and I urge them to focus their negotiating priorities on agricultural and non-food tariffs and on reaching agreement on the supply of vital drugs for AIDS, TB and malaria so that we can achieve a better world for future generations.
    5.46 pm
    Alistair Burt: I warmly welcome this debate, and in particular the introduction by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman). She has made a significant contribution to her brief and we appreciate the way in which she moved the motion today. I especially commend my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor on their work in establishing the advocacy fund. In an atmosphere that can become highly charged, those in developing countries need their own voice. They do not always speak with the same voice, and those organisations that purport to speak for them do not always necessarily say what those in developing countries would wish to say. Sometimes, developing countries have different needs and sometimes they say things that we would not expect them to say, but all their voices are authentic and they deserve to be heard. The advocacy fund will make a significant contribution to that.
    I wish to acknowledge the influence of outside bodies on our debate today. Most of us in political parties have bemoaned the fact in recent years that as membership of political parties has fallen, membership of single-interest pressure groups has gone up. Today is a perfect example of why that may be the case. Those in the Trade Justice Movement and the Jubilee Debt Campaign have brought the matter into the public arena with a vigour and determination that make us all think. The debt and fair trade issues that they have raised are familiar to almost all of those who will take part in this debate, but the campaigners have prosecuted those issues with a fervour that has changed the political agenda. The culmination of that in the lobby this weekend will be important to all of us. Most of us will have a chance to speak to the campaigners and I commend my local groups in Sharnbrook and Sandy on the contribution that they have made. I have been in close contact with them during the International Development Committee's current inquiry into fair trade. I wish that same energy could be incorporated into political parties, because we would all benefit if some of those who spent their time on single-issue pressure groups joined us. They might then appreciate the difficult compromises that we have to make on these matters, because they are not all capable of simple solutions.
    I also wish to acknowledge the contribution that the Churches have made to the issue. For a long time, those driven by the compassion of Jesus Christ have given their careers and development expertise to developing countries. They have joined those of all faiths and none in that work, and we pay tribute to them. On the back of that work, we have seen a growing disquiet in the Christian community at what has emerged. Our concept of neighbour has widened as the world has grown smaller, and it is in trade justice that the two come together. In the same way that environmentalists tell us that the flapping of a butterfly's wings in Africa can
    1144
    change the climate of a continent half a world away, so we know that there is a direct relationship between those who struggle to escape disease and poverty in one place and ourselves in another. One does not have to believe that there is an absolutely direct link between poverty and terrorism to recognise that those who seek to prey on the vulnerabilities of others find plenty of material in countries where the agony is greatest and the chance of escape most remote.
    Mr. Peter Pike: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that our recent visit to South Africa and the black township outside Capetown underlines how massive the problems are and how important today's debate is?
    Alistair Burt: The hon. Gentleman is right. We visited Khayeletsia, a community that did not exist in 1985, but in which 1.2 million people now live in shanty conditions. The South African Government are doing their best to cope with those conditions and to make changes, but the scale of the poverty—which we see only from time to time, when we visit—is very great. If it were suffered by our constituents, whose voices we hear every day, the patience and equanimity with which we debate these matters in this place would disappear. I have travelled to South Africa several times with the hon. Gentleman—I want to call him my hon. Friend—and he makes his point very well.
    There is an imperative on us to translate compassion into something rather different. As the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) said, we know that we are not responsible for everything. The causes of world poverty are complex and the ways to escape from it are even more complex, but there are things that we can do. What would the people who live in the remote parts of the world that we visit make of what we say in this debate and, more crucially, of what we are going to do?
    If agriculture is the key to releasing the poverty-stricken world into better conditions, we must look aghast at the state of negotiations under the Doha agenda. The declared aim was that those negotiations would be a development round, and nations mouthed their support for development for the poorest nations, but at the same time big decisions were being made in capital cities that went directly against the spirit of the Doha agenda.
    When the US passed its Farm Act 2002, it changed its financial support for agriculture. According to a document from the House of Commons Library, the Act
    "is expected to increase spending on US farm support by an additional 70 per cent. or $73 billion over the next ten years."
    What could $73 billion achieve if it were spread around the world, in some of the places that we have visited and situations that we have encountered?
    Mr. John Gummer: Does my hon. Friend accept also that the direct effect of support for the US cotton industry, for example, negates every penny of aid that the US gives to many African countries, because they are unable to sell their products to the rest of the world?
    Alistair Burt: It is a topsy-turvy world. We seem to be stuck with what people in the medical profession might

    1145
    term a psychotic condition. We can see what needs to be done, but we find that we are unable to do anything about it. That is true at Government level, and among people whom we know well and with whom we are in contact all the time. We can see the problem, but do we have the will to solve it?
    At the same time as the 2002 Act was being passed in the US, something similar was happening in the EU. Oxfam reports that, at the Brussels summit of October 2002, Jacques Chirac and Chancellor Schroder
    "brokered a deal to maintain a ceiling on agricultural spending until 2013. The deal in effect blocks the prospect of introducing any substantive change in the Common Agricultural Policy …until 2006, and will delay any meaningful concessions until at least 2012. Without radical reform of the CAP in the immediate term, the EU will not be able to go that…'extra mile'. The poorest countries in the world cannot afford to wait until the next decade for the richest to reform their agricultural regimes."
    And so say all of us.
    This has been a brief but excellent debate in terms of the contributions made by colleagues on a vital subject that has risen up the agenda. However, it is hard to escape the sense that we have all been here before. If we faced poverty, hunger, disease, HIV and AIDS on an African scale and if we faced the barriers to trade that might make some difference to those conditions, would we—as I said to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike)—conduct our debate with such patience and equanimity? Would the capital cities of Washington, Brussels and London be as reasonable in dealing with each other and would they take so much time breaking through a myriad of negotiations before something was done?
    In this Chamber, our compassion may be deep but our collective voices, mine included, will count for little unless we see some progress. The world is changing; the inequalities of history are, at last, at our own door. Let the consensus in the House and in the debate come through in the decisions to which we contribute, either directly, through the EU, or through our friends in the United States. In the developing countries that most of us will visit from time, people are listening and they deserve no less than that we translate our voices into action.
    5.56 pm
    Mr. John Battle: I welcome the title of the debate; it is fresh and new. It is not often that a title of a debate in the House is "Fair Trade". For hundreds of years, we have constantly talked about free trade. The ultimate free traders were the Liberals, when they were in power—hundreds of years ago. For nearly 20 years, we heard nothing but free trade from the neo-Conservatives, the new right. I welcome the fact that we are all fair traders now and that we are campaigning for managed trade. We should be asking: how is trade to be managed and who manages it? If we can find consensus on that in this place, the debate will have moved on significantly and in a helpful way for the 21st century.
    When I first worked on development in the 1970s, someone sent me a cartoon. It showed a man holding a teaspoon to a peasant's mouth. On the teaspoon was the word "Aid". The man's other arm was around the peasant's throat, in a stranglehold grip. Emblazoned on
    1146
    his arm was the word "Trade". Sadly, nearly 30 years later, we have hardly moved on enough to realise that the grip on the windpipe is the trade processes that undermine any increases in the aid budget. That Mexican cartoon rings just as true today.
    The campaign for increased overseas aid has taken on a new dimension. It has shifted so that it includes a focus on the unfair workings of the trade system. The Trade Justice Movement is to be congratulated on achieving that nationally; it includes many bodies, non-governmental organisations and faith communities, such as CAFOD, Oxfam, the World Development Movement, Christian Aid or the Save the Children Fund. They are all to be congratulated on shifting the focus and on getting across the message that trade relations are as crucial to long-term sustainable development as any aid. There is no trade justice in a world where 800 million go hungry. The trade system is not delivering for the poor. The trade system is unfair; it is weighted in favour of the rich countries and its massive in-built global imbalance is likely to continue unless action is taken to give the poor a break into the system.
    It is to the credit of the Government that they recognised the need to tackle unfair trade. In 2001, they published a helpful pamphlet, "Trade matters, eliminating world poverty", which acknowledges that trade can be a force for development, but only if it is fair and works for the whole world, not just for rich countries and—1 would add—multinational companies. Central to the Government's development policy is a commitment to the internationally agreed target to halve the proportion of people living in extreme poverty by 2015.
    Yes, the Government also have positive targets on basic health care provision and universal access to primary education. Yes, there has been some progress. Yes, there has been a welcome increase in the aid budget, ending a decade of cuts imposed by the Opposition when they were in Government. However, any current analysis of progress towards the millennium development goals shows that, on current trends, there is hardly a cat-in-hell's chance of halving poverty by 2050, never mind by 2015, unless there are radical changes in the trading system and in debt as well.
    Tragically, many poor sub-Saharan countries are struggling their way up an overwhelmingly down-moving escalator. The situation is getting worse for most sub-Saharan countries. Take health—some 7 million people still die every year from preventable diseases. Take education—more than 115 million children do not go to school, and 88 countries are nowhere near achieving the targets in education, to give but two examples. So without radical changes in the unfair trade balance, real and welcome increases in the aid budget will make hardly any impact on development.
    The preparations for the WTO round in Cancun in September—labelled the development round—have hardly got anywhere so far. They have not heralded much progress. Discussions on agricultural trade reform—a basic building block for any fair trade system—are well behind schedule. There are no signs of progress in dismantling the massive subsidies, which

    1147
    many other hon. Members have mentioned, that go to American and European agricultural production. The American Farm Bill and the European Union common agricultural policy subsidies are being reinforced and strengthened, rather than being dismantled.
    Yes, to our credit, the Government are pressing for genuine CAP reform, dismantling those subsidies that keep developing countries' products out of Europe. In practice, those subsidies are generating a huge system of agricultural dumping. That dumping is occasionally dressed up under the heading of food aid or other aid, but it ensures that agriculture in poor countries has no real chance of getting off the ground. In effect, it is being killed off by dumping. EU Tomato paste is sold cheaply in Ghana and subsidised EU dried milk powder is destroying the Jamaican Dairy Farmers Federation, to give two practical examples.
    While we press for CAP reform, let us not press on developing countries methods of change that we have not adopted in the past. Let us not say, "Do as we say, but not as we did." Let us not say, "You liberalise, while we continue to subsidise." I shall give a quotation from the US-based National Law Centre for Inter-American Free Trade:
    "The historical record in the industrialised countries which began as developing countries demonstrates that intellectual property protection has been one of the most powerful instruments for economic development, export growth and the diffusion of new technologies."
    That is classic, so let us not ask developing countries to move faster than they can. They need managed trade, but in the context of what they can achieve; otherwise, in the words of one great writer on these matters, we are simply "kicking away the ladder" and leaving developing countries with no chance at all.
    Finally, I recommend the Chancellor's International Finance Facility. That is the way to get investment into the developing countries quickly, effectively and for the longer term, rather than by being jumped into a new framework. My hon. Friend the Minister referred to "an appropriate framework", but let us take up the Chancellor's proposal on the international finance facility as one means to put in more investment quickly. Perhaps the WTO could take a leaf out of this debate. I close with this remark: as well as adopting the millennium development goals—getting into line on development would cost the WTO nothing—why does it not change its name? Instead of being the World Trade Organisation, why does it not call itself the fair trade organisation? In the meantime, we have much work to do—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
    6.4 pm
    Mr. Andrew Rosindell: The issue of trade justice is of immense interest to the constituents of all Members, and this weekend I will participate in local events in my constituency of Romford. That is demonstrated by the fact that our mailbags have been full of letters and post cards in the last few weeks highlighting the issue. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) on ensuring that this important topic is debated on the Floor of the House today.
    1148
    The aims of the Trade Justice Movement of eradicating world poverty, protecting the environment and assisting developing economies in their development are noble ones, which have the support of most if not all Members of the House. It is how that can be achieved, however, which is most important, and that is something that the trade justice campaign must review. The path from third world economy to first world economy must not involve endless intervention, regulation and international rulings. Those may provide short-term fixes but could also lead to dependency and the creation of false, unsustainable markets in the long term.
    The first of the main demands by the Trade Justice Movement, as found in its literature, reads:
    "stop forcing poor countries to open their markets".
    While I acknowledge the worth of its work, I must disagree with it on certain things, and that particular point is pure fantasy. All that it will achieve is the creation of mini fortress economies, and worse still, it presumes that developing economies do not want to trade internationally. I believe that they do, and that they need to do so. The real world does not work like that. Treating developing economies as if they are somehow exceptions to the rule will help no one.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Rosindell: In a moment.
    Surely the best way forward would be to implement strategies that leave poorer economies free to develop in the most appropriate manner, given their individual nature, resources and circumstances. Countries must be left free of interference and free from those who would rather spoon-feed developing economies than prepare them for true international competition.
    The next trade justice aim is to "regulate big business", which is the kind of typically socialistic reaction that presumes that politicians and officials know best. Even this Government have ditched that outdated view. If we regulate, we stifle and, in turn, will stunt growth. That is simple economics. Big business will not respond to new regulation in the manner anticipated by the anti-globalisation movement.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Gummer: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Rosindell: In a moment.
    It will not suddenly be a case of multinationals giving the third world a big hug and paying double for the produce. Regulations and barriers in the market drag everyone down. In the long term, that will include third world producers.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: The hon. Gentleman is in danger of doing a gross injustice to the Trade Justice Movement in confusing it with the anti-globalisation campaigners. One of the things that he must recognise is that the Trade Justice Movement has accepted, and welcomes the fact, that there should be international laws and regulations on trade, and wants to work within the

    1149
    WTO, but requests simply that individual countries, as he has said, should be free of interference and should be able to join in world trade as they think is best for their economies. Surely, if we are to look after the poorest people in the world, that is only right and proper.
    Mr. Rosindell: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, which is why I have not said that I oppose what the Trade Justice Movement is trying to do. I simply said that it should review some of the statements it has issued, which give out the wrong signals.
    Mr. Gummer: When my hon. Friend comes to talk about multinational companies, however, is it not reasonable to insist that international organisations have the same attitude, for example, to health and safety in Ghana as they do in the United States? Is it not reasonable to insist that such companies should do that?
    Mr. Rosindell: It is all a question of balance. Of course, there are examples in which certain rules need to be introduced. No one is suggesting that we should live in a free-for-all world. Trade provides wealth and jobs and gives people opportunities, so we should focus on trade. We should not only impose rules and regulations, because that does not work.
    Let me give a few examples of what happens in the real world. The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank estimate that because of restrictions on the trading of textiles and clothing, 20 million potential jobs have not been created. Regulation will not solve that. According to Oxfam, import tariffs cost developing countries about $43 billion a year, and the total cost of all forms of trade barriers rises to more than $100 billion, which is more than double the total amount of development assistance. Again, how will regulation solve that? The European Union common agricultural policy and the recent US Farm Bill force farmers in poor economies to compete against massively subsidised farmers in developed markets. No regulation can solve that, only the liberalisation of trade. I hope that hon. Members will accept that those facts represent the real injustices.
    I want a system that rewards success and allows businesses to flourish wherever they are because that leads to the eradication of poverty. That would require the scrapping of subsidies, the abolition of barriers and, hopefully, the slashing of tariffs. The system would embrace free markets and ditch protectionism.
    Proof of the success of that lies in countries such as China where the number of rural poor declined from 250 million in 1978 to 34 million in 1999, largely as a result of expanding trade. Similarly, the level of absolute poverty in Vietnam has been cut by half in 10 years. In India, trade policy reform brought about economic growth that led to a reduction of between 5 and 10 per cent. in national poverty rates.
    Furthermore, the Centre for International Economic Studies says that if developed countries fully liberalised barriers to imports, such action would generate gains of more than $600 million for Indonesia, more than $2 billion for sub-Saharan Africa, more than $3 billion for India, China and Brazil and more than $14 billion for Latin America.
    1150
    I urge the Government to use up and coming trade rounds to implement market liberalisation and to help developing economies to help themselves. People in developing countries should be treated as people, not charity cases. Above all, developing countries should be given a truly fair deal.
    6.12 pm
    Sandra Osborne: If it is not a contradiction in terms, we have had an enjoyable debate, despite its serious topic. We have heard interesting contributions and although it is slightly unfortunate that the consensus has been broken by the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell), the debate has been welcome.
    I welcome the Minister of State's commitment that prioritisation will be given at Cancun to reduce agricultural support for rich countries and to ensure that the world's poorest countries have access to affordable medicines. The Opposition called the debate—I congratulate them on that—at least in part because the Trade Justice Movement's campaign will happen this weekend. I want to raise several of its fears and concerns, especially about decision-making processes in the World Trade Organisation, as I mentioned in my intervention.
    I have often heard Ministers say that one of the advantages of the WTO is that decisions are made by consensus—the Minister of State repeated that earlier. We all know that there are official decision-making processes but that outside that pressure may be brought to bear that does not necessarily reflect a consensual approach—the word blackmail springs to mind, if that is not too strong a word. I appreciate that that is a cynical view but it is widely held, especially among my constituents who are involved in the Trade Justice Movement. I shall raise several issues that they highlighted.
    The Minister needs to tackle the issues head on so that we can address our constituents' concerns when we meet them this weekend. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has acknowledged the deep mistrust felt by developing countries, which believe that the richer nations are once again trying to dictate the terms of economic engagement. However, we have also been told that we began to put all that behind us at Doha and we now have a more transparent process of negotiation. A trade round was launched which, for the first time, put development at the heart of the negotiations.
    I applaud the Secretary of State's undertaking not to accept or agree to any trade proposal that would damage the prospects of developing countries trading themselves out of poverty, but, in many ways, it is those countries that she will have to convince. In spite of much talk of consensus, which I would support if it were genuine, severe misgivings have been expressed by many developing countries about expanding the WTO agenda to include what are known as the new issues, not least because, as the Minister of State admitted, little progress has been made on agricultural reform and health care. Most hon. Members have agreed that those should be the priority at Cancun.

    1151
    I want to specify instances in which dissent has been voiced to the WTO. I know that the Minister will be aware of that dissent, which contradicts the seemingly consensual approach and is cause for concern. In May 2001, a report of the meeting of the G15 summit level group, which now consists of 19 countries, stated:
    "The WTO should focus on accomplishing its current work programme rather than entertaining new issues which will create additional obligations on developing countries."
    In August 2001, the least developed countries submitted a paper to the WTO asking for the study process to continue. They were not ready to move on to full-scale negotiations on investment, but pressure was brought to bear by the EU to do just that. In September 2001, the Africa group of WTO members released a communiquéstating:
    "The Singapore issues"
    are
    "not within WTO competence in developing multilateral rules",
    and that
    "Members are not convinced that negotiation in these areas would deliver benefits to African countries…These issues would overload the WTO agenda."
    To return to Doha, 29 developing countries explicitly mentioned the new issues in their statements. Some 19 of those opposed their inclusion in the Doha agenda. Only two—the Republic of Korea and Venezuela—spoke in favour. The rest did not express a clear view. That opposition was ignored as the EU pushed ahead with its agenda. So what happened to consensual decision making?
    Developing countries continued to express concern as recently as April 2003 at the WTO trade negotiations committee in Geneva when the Africa group and the least developed countries reaffirmed their opposition. The Government know of those concerns, but I have highlighted them because I do not want to tell my constituents not to worry about the developing countries having their place at the negotiating table, where consensus prevails, if that is a cruel deception. I look forward to my hon. Friend's comments on that.
    Like the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), I, too, should like the Minister to clarify the position on the general agreement on trade in services. Fears have been expressed that GATS poses a threat to UK public services. The Government's consultation document states that most WTO members are content and that none is challenging the "accepted interpretations" of article 1.3—that public services supplied in the exercise of governmental authority are excluded from GATS. But fears are still being expressed.
    I have an active local branch of the World Development Movement. I congratulate it on its good work and look forward to meeting it this weekend. Only last week, however, I attended a local gala where the WDM had a stall. It was festooned with posters saying, "A threat to UK public services by GATS". So if an agreement has been made that poses no threat, someone, somewhere is telling lies. I seek clarification on that so that we can reassure our constituents at the weekend.
    6.19 pm
    Mr. Simon Thomas: It is a great pleasure to take part in this debate. I am grateful to the official Opposition for choosing fair trade as a subject for debate, and should like to welcome the new team at the Department. However, I, too, am disappointed that the Minister dealing with these issues is not a member of the Cabinet. There is a great deal of interest in these matters in my constituency, especially among the churches and chapels, which have been driving the agenda forward. It is great to have the opportunity to talk in the House about issues that, unusually, our constituents know more about and are better briefed on than us.
    International trade is a bit like a game of Monopoly, except that the developing countries are joining the game halfway through. The developed countries have already bought Bond street, the dice are loaded, and we are asking the developing countries to make do with Old Kent road. Occasionally, they will get out of jail free and will get £200 from the community chest, but they want to play the game by the same rules as us and have the same opportunity to benefit. Some of the scepticism about what will be achieved by the WTO in Cancun derives from the fact that the development round that dates back to Doha and has not been successful. Developing countries wanted it to succeed so that their faith in the WTO would be restored. The Trade Justice Movement, to be fair, has been trying to drive the public agenda forward. When we look at TRIPS—trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights—and the debates on agriculture and special and differential treatment, we notice some sticking points that have held back progress at the WTO.
    The Department wrote a joint letter with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to all MPs before our debate about the trade justice lobby and said that the delay in agreeing a solution on TRIPS was "regrettable". However, given the AIDS crisis in southern Africa, it is more than regrettable—it is disastrous. The key to helping those countries is in the hands of the developed countries at the WTO, and the problem must be sorted out before Cancun. Opposition, whether from the United States, the pharmaceutical companies or the multi-nationals must be swept aside, as lives are at stake, and nothing is more important than that. Everything else takes second place.
    Something else that is holding things back is the question of negotiating capacity. I am grateful to the official Opposition for including in the motion the proposal that there should be more capacity-building within developing countries. I accept what the Minister said, and the Government are to be congratulated on what they have done in the countries themselves. However, especially given the aim of Geneva negotiations, there is a little bit of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. There is no point in helping developing countries with their claims and difficulties with agreements if they cannot be empowered to get the agreements right in the first place.
    Special and differential treatment must be enhanced further, as it is an acknowledgement by the WTO that developing countries cannot be treated in the same ways as the rich countries. That difference is at the heart of the Trade Justice Movement. We may disagree about the methods needed to achieve fair trade, but the development movement believes that there is a material

    1153
    difference between developed countries and developing countries in their ability to deal with these matters and their starting point for a fair trade agreement. We should recognise that difference in international and multilateral agreements. That is what special and differential treatment means, and it should be strengthened. At Doha, it was agreed that special and differential treatment provisions should be strengthened to make them
    "more precise, effective and operational".
    In response, the developing countries themselves introduced 85 proposals to make those provisions more precise, effective and operational. The developed countries did not introduce a single proposal along those lines, and the result has been a logjam and no agreement. There must be a significant improvement in that situation.
    That is the context in which we need to look at the new issues, particularly investment. I understand why the Government say that they are important and they need to be on the agenda at Cancun. However, as the proposals introduced by developing countries cannot be resolved in the current round, they will doubtless be sceptical when the developed countries propose to include more issues in a series of negotiations that does not seem to be reaching a conclusion.
    I have a great deal of sympathy with the proposal from the Trade Justice Movement to sort out the remains of the Doha round and agricultural subsidies, restore faith in the WTO and show that it can work for developing countries and for fair trade. The additional issues must be part of the ongoing march of international trade, but at this stage I doubt whether many developing countries are capable of taking on board the new issues, or are satisfied that they are being treated fairly on other issues.
    In an intervention on the Minister, I mentioned GM foods. His reply—that countries must decide for themselves—was helpful. The US Government, of course, do not agree and are using the WTO as a mechanism to drive through their corporate interests in GM foods. We in the EU have argued the
    "need for a rigorous regulatory framework"
    based on environmental, health, animal welfare and ethical grounds. The EU has stated that it
    "will always aim at responding to the legitimate interests of its citizens, not to narrow economic interests".
    Developing countries should be able to do the same for their citizens. We should not ask for anything less.
    My final comments are on liberalisation. I do not share the enthusiasm of some hon. Members for it, because of those loaded dice in the game of Monopoly that I described. The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) mentioned Uganda and Botswana as examples of countries where liberalisation was working. However, Uganda is crippled by a civil war and has diverted 23 per cent. of its expenditure to defence, and in Botswana it is predicted that 31 per cent. of the work force will be lost through AIDS by 2020. Those statistics show that although certain aspects of liberalisation may be working, TRIPS and the WTO need to be adjusted so that those countries can benefit in full.
    1154
    Liberalisation brings huge challenges, changes and opportunities, but it can also be part of the problem. All I ask is that it should be applied where countries believe they have the capacity to deal with it. We should respect the sovereignty of those countries and their assessment of how their economies can best meet the needs of the poor. We must ask what such measures do for the poorest in those countries, not for us, the richest in the world.
    6.27 pm
    Mr. Colin Challen: Everybody is in favour of fair trade, from the mightiest corporation such as Rio Tinto Zinc, which proclaims:
    "We contribute to sustainable development by helping satisfy global and community needs and aspirations, whether economic, social or environmental",
    but which was described in The Guardian only this Monday as being ready to despoil a large tract of Madagascar's last remaining rainforest, a challenge to which the company's spokesperson responded with gusto, saying:
    "We will keep going no matter what",
    to the Bush regime, which talks the talk of fair trade, if rather rarely, but walks with a protective ring of steel around its burgeoning economic belly, and the European Union, whose collective fair trade design is pure hypocrisy when one considers its GATS request in the light of its own inability to reform.
    Who is against fair trade? Nobody, of course, but too often that means free trade biased in the developed world's favour. Nobody will own up to it, but there is such a mismatch between rhetoric and reality. Corporations, with their new post-Johannesburg role, are in the game with Government support to take control of resources from which they can turn a handy profit, largely because a fair price will not be paid for those resources. But the issue is not just more access to cheap resources or access to cheap labour.
    The everyday reality of fair trade was put succinctly in the Harvard Business Review of September last year, in an article entitled "Serving the World's Poor, Profitably", from which we learned:
    "It's…incorrect to assume that the poor are too concerned with fulfilling their basic needs to 'waste' money on non-essential goods. In fact, the poor often do buy 'luxury' items. In the Mumbai shantytown of Dharavi, for example, 85 per cent. of households own a television set, 75 per cent. own a pressure cooker and a mixer, 56 per cent. own a gas stove, and 21 per cent. have telephones.
    That's because buying a house in Mumbai, for most people at the bottom of the pyramid, is not a realistic option. Neither is getting access to running water. They accept that reality, and rather than saving for a rainy day, they spend their income on things they can get now that improve the quality of their lives." The world's poor do not have much of an opportunity to save for a rainy day because they are still too busy paying off the enormous debts with which they were encumbered when the west had money to throw at them, and which it will now agree to write off only if those recipient countries submit to the conditionalities of western hegemony, as the Washington consensus is known.
    The European Union, as the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry so rightly said in her article in The Guardian on Monday, is one of the worst offenders in

    1155
    making soothing noises about fair trade, because when it gives its cows a greater income than half the world's poor, its soothing noises come across a tad unconvincingly. But it is not just the subsidies and the dumping that should tweak our consciences, it is the lavish demands that the EU is making in this general agreement on trade in services round that should make us hold our heads in despair. Not only do we want to run the services of developing countries—do not forget that our motto is "Serving the world's poor profitably"—we also want to make sure that we can do whatever we like with the profits, which naturally means that the bulk of them will flow back to shareholders abroad rather than stay in the places where they were earned.
    We do not like the idea that a country such as El Salvador should want to ensure that 50 per cent. of profits remain; we do not like the idea that locals in Cameroon should want to legislate for foreign investment creating local jobs; we do not like the idea that Malaysia should want to have the power to stop, if it so wished, a foreign takeover of a local company. It also seems that we do not like the idea that some countries want to run water services as a locally-owned mutual benefit society—my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be interested in this—just as we want to run our hospitals, so they must not, because if they did the fat cats would not be able to buy them. These measures are no doubt designed to make the flow of foreign investment more likely, but I would argue that such strictures will make developing countries subordinate to the whims of foreign investment, at the expense of local growth and self-government, and of course that will make those countries more rather than less vulnerable to the chill winds that the increasingly volatile climate of globalisation delivers.
    There are three questions that must be considered before we go further down the free trade road. The first is, if the common agricultural policy was so successful in developing the post-war farming industry of the EU, why cannot a similar policy be good for the agriculture of developing countries? It is all very well arguing that developing countries want equal access to our markets, and they do, but what goes unsaid is that those countries are in no shape to compete equally—their infrastructure, distribution networks and indigenous markets are much weaker than ours, and they should be able to protect their development of these things until they are better able to compete. Investment should support that process, not suck these countries dry, leaving them in a worse state than before.
    Secondly, organisations such as the WTO need root and branch reform to allow equal access and influence to all nations in its negotiations. This is still not the case, despite what we have heard about this afternoon. Extra help has given developing countries better representation, but, as Dr Toufiq Ali, the Bangladeshi ambassador to the WTO has said, the greater numbers enjoyed by developing countries in multilateral negotiations has given them some extra strength, but that is negated when these countries are put under pressure in bilateral agreements. We know that the United States, for example, is chasing bilateral agreements more vigorously than ever before.
    Thirdly, the social and environmental dimension of free trade should be on the WTO's agenda. At the moment the WTO is prevented from discussing social
    1156
    issues—those fall within the domain of bodies such as the ILO. But who can remember the last ILO ministerial meeting or development round, and who can recall a single decision of the ILO that was enforceable in the same way that WTO decisions are?
    China, a new WTO member, is represented on the ILO by a member of the Government sponsored, Government authorized and Government monopolised trade union federation. The repression of trade unionists in China is routine, but the ILO is toothless and the WTO washes its hands. It is time that the ILO's status was raised to that of the WTO, with enforceable rules and penalties.
    Free trade dogma increasingly seeks to deny decision-making to democratically elected bodies. Whether it is the US plastic packaging manufacturers' association running to the US Department of Commerce bemoaning the anti-competitive Irish plastic carrier bag tax, or the European Court of Justice telling us that we should not have golden shares in any business, we can see that whatever is perceived as anti-competitive will be attacked, and the hands of Governments will be tied by competition policemen who are answerable only to remote and unelected bodies whose laws no country can overturn. We should pause and think long and hard about how such bodies can be democratised before we allow them to foist more illiberal policies on us.
    6.35 pm
    Dr. Nick Palmer: I shall keep my remarks short, as I know that those on the Front Benches would like to get a word in edgeways.
    We are all lobbied by a great many people on a great many subjects, and it is a pleasure to be lobbied on an issue from which the lobbyists do not stand to make any personal gains. Some hon. Members, such as the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who made a thoughtful speech, acknowledged that we lack new volunteers for political parties, which perhaps reflects the ebbing away of the idealism that we all seek to encourage and engender. The Trade Justice Movement is therefore a welcome phenomenon with which I believe we should engage. We should do so honestly and listen to what those in the movement are saying, rather than simply say in a general and patronising way, "Yes, it all sounds very nice." We should also tell them frankly when there are issues on which we do not agree.
    The Select Committee on the Treasury recently had the privilege of meeting the director of the World Bank, Jim Wolfensohn. With regard to the bank's latest report, whatever its reputation in the past, I believe that it is now seriously addressing issues of world poverty. We have heard many statistics today, and I shall add one more: 1.1 billion people make do on less than 70p a day. We need to consider poverty in the developing world. In the World Bank's reports, we see that the skewed inequalities in many developing countries are much more severe even than in our country, where they are bad enough. In working with developing countries, we need to ensure that our policies help them to develop and help their poorest people.
    An especially valuable initiative in that context is the international finance facility, which my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) mentioned. The

    1157
    attractiveness of the project is that it effectively doubles the available cash for aid in the short term to enable us to try to reach the world development goals that were agreed by the countries of the world a few years ago, but which, in many cases, are a very long way from being achieved. I commend the Government for pushing that issue forward. In talks with the Treasury in the United States, there was an impression that, although it might not be prepared to take the proposal on board in precisely the same form, it has not rejected it as explicitly as is believed in some quarters.
    The Trade Justice Movement is making a number of calls, although I shall not go into detail because of the time limit. Many of them have been mentioned. In particular, the movement is saying that there should be no forced liberalisation. Balance is important. There is an increasing recognition that siege economies and reckless liberalisation at all costs and as fast as possible are not the answer. This Government accept in their dealings with developing countries that they have the right to make informed decisions in consultation with us about the speed that is appropriate for them. I do not think that it is necessarily a bad thing for us to make a bid to offer services in a developing country, as long as it is not accompanied by inappropriate pressure.
    I welcome the Trade Justice Movement and its efforts this week, and I welcome the Government's efforts. When we discuss the urgent issues of the day in Britain, such as whether we need a new national football stadium and whether we are in favour of nudity in gardens or approve of the standard of television programmes, we should recognise that they are piffling in comparison with those faced by people who live their entire lives in the shadow of hunger and disease. That is what we have debated today. I am glad that the Opposition chose to make it the topic of the day and that our Government are making such a commitment to addressing the issues.
    6.40 pm
    Mr. Robert Key: Thank God that from time to time we can have a bit of passion—laced with good humour—in our debates. Today was one such occasion. I was first elected 20 years ago this month. When I mentioned international development during the election campaign of 1983, I can record that my constituents reacted with polite bemusement that I should mention such a thing, and no doubt they thought I was slightly dotty. They were probably right. It is interesting to note that during those 20 years the whole atmosphere has completely changed, as the Minister of State said. All sides of the debate have moved on, which is a very good thing.
    I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), to his new position. We can be sure that he will talk good sense. After all, he has a Master of Arts degree in imperial and commonwealth studies under his belt, and I note that his special interests include India and Sri Lanka, as well as Harrow, West. That is not a bad agenda for an International Development Minister.
    When I meet trade justice campaigners in my constituency of Salisbury on Saturday, I will be able to report that we have had a robust, well-intentioned and
    1158
    good-spirited debate. The Minister talked about basic infrastructure. We should never forget that we are talking about basic economics—resource allocation of the most basic kind, whether it be water and drainage or transport and the ability to get goods to market—as well as the intellectual property challenges that face us and all the negotiating that we have to do in the world.
    I was a little sad that the good humour was broken by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda), who, when he was generous enough to look in on our debate—I note that he is not here now—accused the Conservatives of scuppering attempts to reform the common agricultural policy. He was quite wrong about that. Conservative MEPs voted against the European Parliament report—the Cunha report—that opposed Fischler's proposals to reform the CAP. The Minister, who was then at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, thanked those Conservative MEPs for their support in trying to push forward the proposals for CAP reform. Indeed, when the Cunha report was voted on in the last plenary session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg, Labour and Conservative MEPs voted against it and tabled joint amendments. Let me get the record straight: we are on the same side on this issue. It is astonishing to find that Conservatives are reading The Big Issue and George Monbiot is eating his hat. As the Minister said, all our views have changed. I want to make it clear that Conservative Members support more aid, and we support more trade, too. That is an extremely important point to get across. We have all moved on since the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, and are now, I hope, firmly faced in the same direction.
    I salute the deep knowledge and compassion of the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke). I was a pleasure to hear him speak. He talked about free trade and fair trade. When I was a teacher of economics for 16 years, I always taught my pupils that free trade implied a willing buyer and a willing seller. We should underline that in this debate.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry)—who has done a distinguished job as Chairman of the Select Committee—talked about the need for real political commitment, and he is absolutely right. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) also spoke with passion, saying that we have all been here before and that we must see some progress. He said that we have changed the political agenda because of the pressure put on by non-governmental organisations and pressure groups such as the Trade Justice Movement. I welcome that very much.
    I wish that all political parties could put as much pressure on the political agenda as a lot of these new and vigorous groups, which perform an important role. However, they should not be surprised when sometimes the Government and the Opposition disagree with them. That is not to say that we disparage them; we are simply saying that perhaps matters are not as simple as the groups think. At least we are engaging with our constituents, all of whom now think it important that we address these issues and that we are not dotty if we do.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) made an important contribution; he put very strongly a passionate point of view, for which I

    1159
    commend him. It is important that we have robust arguments in this House. If ever there were a man with his finger on the pulse of his constituents, it is my hon. Friend. He said that this was an important issue to all our constituents; he is, of course, right.
    The hon. Member for Ayr (Sandra Osborne) was passionate about decision-making processes, which we should not neglect. The processes are obscure and esoteric in the extreme to the people we are seeking to help. It is no good us bashing ourselves around the head in Cancun—or putting wet towels around our heads in Brussels—if, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), every cow in the European Union is subsidised at $2 a day, which is twice as much as the living wage of half the world's population.
    I have some questions that the Government need to address. There is not time for the Minister to do so now, but it would be nice if he wrote to me about them. What will the Government do to ensure that other deadlines are not missed as badly as the deadlines for other reforms—for example, the CAP where it is all slipping horribly? Ministers are up against a real problem with the original Doha deadline. We were supposed to finish the round by January 2005; it is now suggested openly that it will not be finished until 2007. We must address that.
    What will the Government do about the increasing trade disputes that were put on hold under the peace clause negotiated during the Uruguay round, which expires on 31 December this year? What happens if we do not have something else in place? Several simmering disputes between the EU and the United States could boil up again, such as the foreign sales corporation tax and the fact that Brussels has won the right to impose up to $4 billion of tariffs in retaliation for America's failure to get rid of the tax provision.
    We must face these issues, and one more in particular: genetic modification. None of us has the answer to this or can be certain. The only certainty I have is that we must keep our minds open. There is no doubt that there are possible benefits and we must not close off opportunities. The director of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, Sandy Thomas, said in an important report this week:
    "We do not claim that GM crops will eliminate the need for economic, political or social change, or that they will feed the world. However, we do believe that GM technology could make a useful contribution, in appropriate circumstances, to improving agriculture and the livelihood of poor farmers in developing countries."
    The Minister of State said that we must ensure that each country has the right to make its own decision on GM. Yes, we must, but if we are not careful we will make that decision for them by excluding their products from our markets, which would be a backward step. We must embrace every opportunity for science and technology to improve the lot of the poorest people on the planet. That is what we should all do, and I hope that we shall be able to move forward in the next year to ensure that we address properly, sufficiently and effectively the needs of the poorest people on the planet.
    6.49 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. Gareth Thomas): It is a pleasure and a privilege to reply to this debate, and I
    1160
    congratulate the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) on her choice of subject. I am grateful to the House for its warm welcome. I particularly liked the description used by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) of the bevy of beauty and talent on the Front Bench. I am sure that I fit the first description, and I hope to convince the House that I fit the second.
    As the many excellent speeches on both sides of the House have demonstrated, the challenge that we face on this issue is considerable. Almost one in four of the world's population—two thirds of them women—live in abject poverty. They do not have access to adequate food, clean water, essential health care or basic education services. Such poverty and inequality in a world of great wealth should be a powerful imperative for action by Governments, and in particular, by the leadership of the world's most developed countries. That is why a focus to achieve ever-greater progress towards the millennium development goals has been at the heart of this Government's international agenda.
    Many other steps need to be taken. In particular, we need to make further progress towards debt relief, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) and my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) pointed out. Removing barriers and creating fairer trade rules is a vital route towards meeting the millennium goals. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) pointed out, we cannot talk about free or fair trade unless more developed countries take the often hard political decision to dismantle trade-distorting subsidies. Indeed, it is vital that European Union Agriculture Ministers take the bold decisions that many Members on both sides of the House have long sought on common agricultural policy reform in the negotiations that have resumed today.
    The evidence of the benefits of fairer trade is clear, and reducing global protectionism will increase global incomes. A number of hon. Members mentioned the US Farm Bill, and I share the sense of regret articulated by the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) that the US Administration seem likely to increase market subsidies at a time when we are working within the European Union and the WTO significantly to reduce them. It is important, however, that that issue should not be allowed to distract us from achieving the target of concluding the Doha development agreement by the end of 2004. If we are to deliver that ambitious agenda for development, we have to make trade rules work for the poorest. Ministers across Whitehall have been working closely together to tackle the major obstacles, so that we can secure the progress at Cancun that the whole House has today indicated that it wants to see.
    I welcome the spotlight that the Trade Justice Movement has brought to the issues of trade and development, to secure a fair deal for the world's poor, but I hope that the movement will now join us in prioritising the real issues that matter most to developing countries. At the top of the list, as the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) highlighted—and as the trade Ministers of the 49 least-developed countries made clear in their Dakar declaration at the end of May—is the urgent need to give real priority to

    1161
    remedying the negative consequences of agricultural subsidies that affect millions of farmers in those least-developed countries.
    The hon. Member for Banbury was a little unfair about our commitment to CAP reform. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is, as we speak, working extremely hard with our European Union partners to secure a good deal that will allow the flexibility needed for real and serious engagement in the WTO negotiations, and that will genuinely benefit developing countries.
    I accept, too, that resolving the TRIPS and public health negotiations is essential to making this a true development round, as was eloquently pointed out by the hon. Member for Richmond Park. We are continuing to try to secure US agreement to the accord that we almost had on 16 December last year, to which all other WTO members could agree.
    As the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) said, we are working on revisions to the WTO's special and different treatment provisions, in order to secure the progress that developing and—importantly—developed countries want to see. It is certainly true that deadlines have been missed, and the Government remain keen to re-establish the momentum as we approach Cancun.
    The hon. Member for Richmond Park touched on the everything-but-arms agreement, which she was right to highlight as an example of successful European Union action in providing a good deal for the world's poorest countries. However, she was wrong to say that sugar, bananas and rice are not excluded from the agreement; transitional periods are in place for those three most sensitive of products. Full duty-free arrangements for them will be phased in between 2006 and 2008.
    On the liberalisation of services under the general agreement on trade in services, which the hon. Member for Richmond Park and my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Sandra Osborne) mentioned, it is worth pointing out that research undertaken by a variety of organisations has highlighted the benefit that services liberalisation can have for developing countries. It is also worth mentioning that GATS is a bottom-up agreement: in other words, the countries themselves decide whether, and indeed when, to open up services, if they consider it beneficial to do so.
    The Government do not share the view that the so-called new issues should be left off the Cancun agenda. For example, getting more investment into developing countries must be fundamental to achieving the millennium development goals and genuine poverty reduction. Of course, promoting domestic investment is the priority, but foreign direct investment also has a key role to play. It not only provides additional capital, it helps to transfer new technology and skills and to generate new jobs. It is important to remember that developing countries will not be forced to open up all sectors; nor will they lose their right to regulate under any new investment agreement. Indeed, I can offer some assurance to the Trade Justice Movement campaign: we are interested only in developing an investment agreement that will help developing countries; we will not sign up to anything else.
    1162
    Business, which was mentioned by several Members, clearly has an important role to play in helping us to meet the millennium development goals. It is of course important in creating jobs, providing investment and fuelling the economic growth that we all want to see. May I suggest gently to the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) that we want responsible business activity? Indeed, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) made that point particularly tellingly in his intervention. We are pursuing a mixture of voluntary and mandatory approaches to promoting a true sense of corporate social responsibility.
    The one new idea in the motion moved by the hon. Member for Meriden—a fund to offer short-term legal aid to developing countries—is of course a good one. That is why this Government are already doing exactly that by providing direct support to the Advisory Centre on WTO Law, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State pointed out in an intervention. But as my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr said, what is essential is long-term assistance—which the Conservative motion does not mention—to build the capacity of developing countries, so that they can engage with the WTO on equal terms.
    Mrs. Spelman: On a point of clarification, the motion does not call for a short-term advocacy fund.
    Mr. Thomas: With respect to the hon. Lady, I think that she needs to look at the press release on this issue. We are determined to be in there for the long term. We have allocated some £45 million to build developing countries' capacity to engage properly with the WTO. I hope that that gives some reassurance to my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West and the hon. Member for Richmond Park pointed out, the Conservatives' motion would be a little more credible if their record on these issues was not so poor. An aid budget that was 0.5 per cent. of gross national product in 1979 had been cut by half by the end of their Administration.
    David Macleanrose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.David Maclean (Penrith and The Border) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
    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 177, Noes 295.

    Division No. 257]

    [7:00 pm

    AYES

    Allan, Richard

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Amess, David

    Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

    Ancram, rh Michael

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Brady, Graham

    Baker, Norman

    Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

    Baldry, Tony

    Brazier, Julian

    Barker, Gregory

    Breed, Colin

    Baron, John (Billericay)

    Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

    Barrett, John

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

    Burnett, John

    Bellingham, Henry

    Burns, Simon

    Blunt, Crispin

    Burnside, David

    Boswell, Tim

    Burstow, Paul

    1163

    Burt, Alistair

    Maclean, rh David

    Butterfill, John

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Cameron, David

    Maples, John

    Cash, William

    Maude, rh Francis

    Chope, Christopher

    Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

    Clappison, James

    Mercer, Patrick

    Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Collins, Tim

    Moore, Michael

    Conway, Derek

    Moss, Malcolm

    Cotter, Brian

    Murrison, Dr. Andrew

    Cran, James (Beverley)

    Norman, Archie

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

    Öpik, Lembit

    Osborne, George (Tatton)

    Djanogly, Jonathan

    Ottaway, Richard

    Dorrell, rh Stephen

    Page, Richard

    Doughty, Sue

    Paice, James

    Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

    Paterson, Owen

    Duncan Smith, rh lain

    Pickles, Eric

    Evans, Nigel

    Portillo, rh Michael

    Ewing, Annabelle

    Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

    Fabricant, Michael

    Fallen, Michael

    Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

    Flight, Howard

    Randall, John

    Flook, Adrian

    Redwood, rh John

    Forth, rh Eric

    Rendel, David

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Robathan, Andrew

    Fox, Dr. Liam

    Robertson, Angus (Moray)

    Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

    Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

    Garnier, Edward

    Gidley, Sandra

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Goodman, Paul

    Rosindell, Andrew

    Gray, James (N Wilts)

    Ruffley, David

    Grayling, Chris

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Green, Damian (Ashford)

    Sanders, Adrian

    Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Grieve, Dominic

    Selous, Andrew

    Gummer, rh John

    Shepherd, Richard

    Hague, rh William

    Simmonds, Mark

    Hammond, Philip

    Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

    Harvey, Nick

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Hawkins, Nick

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Hayes, John (S Holland)

    Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

    Heald, Oliver

    Spring, Richard

    Heath, David

    Stanley, rh Sir John

    Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

    Steen, Anthony

    Hendry, Charles

    Streeter, Gary

    Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

    Stunell, Andrew

    Hogg, rh Douglas

    Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

    Holmes, Paul

    Syms, Robert

    Horam, John (Orpington)

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Howard, rh Michael

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Taylor, John (Solihull)

    Hughes, Simon (Southward N)

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Jack, rh Michael

    Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

    Johnson, Boris (Henley)

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Keetch, Paul

    Thurso, John

    Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

    Tonge, Dr. Jenny

    Tredinnick, David

    Key, Robert (Salisbury)

    Trend, Michael

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

    Kirkwood, Sir Archy

    Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

    Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Waterson, Nigel

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Watkinson, Angela

    Laws, David (Yeovil)

    Webb, Steve (Northavon)

    Letwin, rh Oliver

    Weir, Michael

    Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

    Whittingdale, John

    Liddell-Grainger, Ian

    Wiggin, Bill

    Lidington, David

    Willetts, David

    Loughton, Tim

    Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

    Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

    Williams, Roger (Brecon)

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Willis, Phil

    Mackay, rh Andrew

    Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

    1164

    Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Younger-Ross, Richard

    Wishart, Pete

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

    Mr. David Wilshire and

    Young, rh Sir George

    Mr. Mark Francois

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    David, Wayne

    Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

    Davidson, Ian

    Ainger, Nick

    Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

    Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

    Dawson, Hilton

    Allen, Graham

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

    Denham, rh John

    Dhanda, Parmjit

    Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

    Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Dobson, rh Frank

    Austin, John

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Bailey, Adrian

    Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

    Barnes, Harry

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Battle, John

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Beard, Nigel

    Eagle, Maria (L 'pool Garston)

    Benn, Hilary

    Edwards, Huw

    Bennett, Andrew

    Efford, Clive

    Benton, Joe (Bootle)

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Betts, Clive

    Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

    Blackman, Liz

    Farrelly, Paul

    Blizzard, Bob

    Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

    Borrow, David

    Fisher, Mark

    Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Flint, Caroline

    Brennan, Kevin

    Follett, Barbara

    Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

    Foster, rh Derek

    Foster, Michael (Worcester)

    Browne, Desmond

    Francis, Dr. Hywel

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Gardiner, Barry

    Burgon, Colin

    George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

    Burnham, Andy

    Gerrard, Neil

    Byers, rh Stephen

    Gibson, Dr. Ian

    Cairns, David

    Gilroy, Linda

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Godsiff, Roger

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Grogan, John

    Caplin, Ivor

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Casale, Roger

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Caton, Martin

    Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

    Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Challen, Colin

    Hanson, David

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Harman, rh Ms Harriet

    Chaytor, David

    Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

    Clapham, Michael

    Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

    Healey, John

    Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Hendrick, Mark

    Clelland, David

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

    Heppell, John

    Coaker, Vernon

    Hesford, Stephen

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Heyes, David

    Cohen, Harry

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Connarty, Michael

    Hinchliffe, David

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Hodge, Margaret

    Cooper, Yvette

    Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Hope, Phil (Corby)

    Corston, Jean

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Cousins, Jim

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

    Cranston, Ross

    Cruddas, Jon

    Howells, Dr. Kim

    Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

    Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Cummings, John

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Iddon, Dr. Brian

    Darling, rh Alistair

    Illsley, Eric

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Ingram, rh Adam

    1165

    Irranca-Davies, Huw

    Naysmith, Dr. Doug

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

    Jamieson, David

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Jenkins, Brian

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

    Organ, Diana

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

    Owen, Albert

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Palmer, Dr. Nick

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Picking, Anne

    Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Pike, Peter (Burnley)

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Plaskitt, James

    Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

    Pollard, Kerry

    Kaufman, rh Gerald

    Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

    Keen, Alan (Feltham)

    Pound, Stephen

    Kemp, Fraser

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Kidney, David

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Primarolo, rh Dawn

    King, Andy (Rugby)

    Prosser, Gwyn

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

    Purchase, Ken

    Purnell, James

    Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Kumar, Dr. Ashok

    Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

    Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

    Raynsford, rh Nick

    Lammy, David

    Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

    Lazarowicz, Mark

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

    Lepper, David

    Leslie, Christopher

    Rooney, Terry

    Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

    Linton, Martin

    Ruane, Chris

    Love, Andrew

    Ruddock, Joan

    Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

    Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

    Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

    Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

    Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Salter, Martin

    McCabe, Stephen

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Savidge, Malcolm

    MacDonald, Calum

    Sawford, Phil

    McDonnell, John

    Sedgemore, Brian

    McFall, John

    Sheridan, Jim

    McIsaac, Shona

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    McKechin, Ann

    Singh, Marsha

    McKenna, Rosemary

    Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    McNulty, Tony

    Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

    MacShane, Denis

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    McWalter, Tony

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    McWilliam, John

    Soley, Clive

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Southworth, Helen

    Mallaber, Judy

    Spellar, rh John

    Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

    Squire, Rachel

    Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Stevenson, George

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

    Martlew, Eric

    Meacher, rh Michael

    Straw, rh Jack

    Merron, Gillian

    Stringer, Graham

    Miliband, David

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Miller, Andrew

    Tami, Mark (Alyn)

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

    Moffatt, Laura

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Mole, Chris

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Moran, Margaret

    Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

    Morgan, Julie

    Tipping, Paddy

    Morris, rh Estelle

    Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

    Mountford, Kali

    Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

    Mudie, George

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Mullin, Chris

    Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

    Munn, Ms Meg

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    1166

    Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

    Wood, Mike (Batley)

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Woodward, Shaun

    Ward, Claire

    Woolas, Phil

    Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

    Worthington, Tony

    Whitehead, Dr. Alan

    Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Wright, David (Telford)

    Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Williams, Betty (Conwy)

    Wyatt, Derek

    Wills, Michael

    Winnick, David

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    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), and agreed to.
    MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House congratulates the Trade Justice Movement on bringing the plight of the poorest people in the world to the attention of the public; notes with concern the fact that a billion people live on less than a dollar a day, that life expectancy in many African countries is declining, and that 30 million people in Africa have HIV/AIDS; reaffirms the commitment made in the 2000 White Paper "Eliminating World Poverty: A Challenge for the 21st Century" to improving international trade rules so that they work for all countries, and especially the poorest, in helping to reduce poverty; notes that the successful pursuit of trade reform through the Doha round of multilateral negotiations could contribute substantially to the Millennium Development Goals; welcomes the substantial efforts the Government is making to promote trade liberalisation, reform agricultural subsidies and phase out European trade barriers; believes that significant progress must be made to improve access for developing countries to developed country markets; further believes that a solution to the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and public health negotiations is urgently needed; and welcomes the commitment to ensuring that the Doha round produces real benefits for the poor.
    7.14 pm
    Mrs. Caroline Spelman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the winding-up speech that we have just heard, the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), said that the press release on the advocacy fund, issued by my party, mentioned that the fund was short term. I have conferred with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the shadow Chancellor and nowhere in the press release on the advocacy fund do the words "short term" appear. I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, that that should be put straight. The commitment is long term and sustainable, to provide expert advice through proper funds to help developing nations negotiate with rich nations—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. Let me deal with the point of order. It is not a matter for the Chair; it is more a matter for debate—[Interruption.] Order. I am sure that these matters can be looked at in the fulness of time, when the truth will come out.
    We now turn to—[Interruption.] Order. I have dealt with that point of order. We are now moving on.

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

    PRISONS
    That the draft Release of Short-Term Prisoners on Licence (Repeal of Age Restriction) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 5th June, be approved.—[Derek Twigg.]
    Question agreed to.

  PETITIONS

    School Funding
    7.16 pm
    Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: I wish to present a petition signed by 320 pupils—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. We are dealing with a petition. Could hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber do so quickly and quietly?
    Mrs. Brooke: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    The petition is signed by 320 pupils of Ashdown school in my constituency. The petition was promoted by Jacob Waters, aged 12, after watching his head teacher on television talking about the funding crisis in his and other Poole schools. Jacob was assisted by Catherine, also aged 12.
    The petition of pupils of Ashdown school declares:
    That it is disgusting that students in the Poole area are not getting enough funding for their education; that students who have special needs rely on their teaching assistants to help them obtain a good education; that the Government promised everyone a good education, including the students of Poole, but have not delivered funding for this; that children are the future of Britain.
    The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to provide, through legislation, adeq uate funding for all children, regardless of school or area.
    And the Petitioners remain, etc.
    To lie upon the Table.

    Community Pharmacies
    7.17 pm
    Mr. John Horam: I would like to present a petition on behalf of nearly 6,000 customers of Farrants pharmacy in Petts Wood, the Elmfield
    1168
    pharmacy in Biggin Hill, the Crofton road pharmacy and two pharmacies in Cotmandene crescent, St. Paul's Cray.
    The petition declares:
    That the Office of Fair Trading Report on Pharmacies poses a serious threat to community pharmacies, which will in turn disadvantage the sick, the elderly and the vulnerable.
    The Petitioners request that the House of Commons urges the Government to reject the recommendations of the Office of Fair Trading Report, so allowing community pharmacies to continue their valuable role in providing local healthcare in an accessible way.
    The Petitioners remain etc.
    To lie upon the Table.

    Geese (Bridgwater)
    7.18 pm
    Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger: This is a petition from 431 Bridgwater constituents about the heinous geese snaffler of Bridgwater.
    The petition declares:
    That two geese, belonging to nobody but adopted by the whole community of Bridgwater, which have lived and nested happily on the banks of the River Parrett for twenty three years, have been removed by some thoughtless fool; that whoever has taken the geese has kept them, probably for his Christmas dinner; that the police and the RSPCA have identified a suspect; that the community of Bridgwater would like to see the geese returned to their rightful home.
    The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to urge the police and RSPCA in Bridgwater to take action to return the geese.
    And the Petitioners remain, etc.
    To lie upon the Table.

    Housing Development (Watchet)
    7.19 pm
    Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger: I wish to present a petition on behalf of 450 people in the town of Watchet.
    The petition declares:
    There are serious concerns about the planned housing development on the Severn terrace field—namely that the housing density is too high and that it is out of keeping with the character of local buildings. It would reduce local parking space and increase the danger to local traffic, pedestrians and especially children.
    The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to ask the district council to seek amendments to the current plans for the Severn terrace field housing development.
    To lie upon the Table.

Agricultural Education
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Derek Twigg.]
7.20 pm
Richard Younger-Ross: I am very pleased to start a debate tonight on rural affairs and access to agricultural education in Devon. I confess to being slightly surprised that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will respond, as I had thought this a debate on education, but I very much welcome him to the Front Bench and congratulate him on his new position. I have no doubt that he will answer fully because I know that he has shared some of the concerns about Plymouth university's actions in the past, as he has an art college in his constituency that is facing closure, along with SealeHayne and another art college at Exmouth in Devon.
The university took the decision to close the SealeHayne campus and move the students to Plymouth at the end of last year. The university decided that it would have a one-month consultation, so that it could fully appraise itself of the views of the local population and the students. One of my arguments is that a one-month consultation is not adequate, and I shall come to that again later.
The college first opened in 1919, after Charles SealeHayne, who had been a Member of Parliament, stated in his will that a college should be established for the benefit of the people of the Newton Abbot area and to promote skills in Devon. The college currently has 180 hectares. It was originally run by a charitable trust. Although Plymouth polytechnic—later Plymouth university—took over running the main campus, the college still maintained its charitable status. Plymouth university only bought the campus—I believe, for a sum of about £850,000—in 1999. It said that it needed to do so because it needed to own the freehold so that it could invest in the campus to protect its future. That was obviously a very hollow gesture. I have every reason to believe that the university was actively considering closing the college when it was giving statements to the public that it wanted to buy the freehold to preserve it.
After I heard that the college would close, I arranged a meeting with the deputy vice-chancellor, Peter Evans. I was told that the vice-chancellor was not then available, as he was away on other business. I found it rather odd that, having decided to close three campuses, the vice-chancellor should disappear all of a sudden and not be available to contact local representatives. However, within a few days, I was able to see the deputy vice-chancellor, who assured me that the closure was necessary, that it needed to be done for academic "symbiance" and that it was for the good of all concerned.
Peter Evans went on to say in local papers that there were only four agricultural students—out of 700-odd students at the college—and that only 10 were studying agriculture part-time. I did some research, and a lecturer at the university has assured me that 521 students within the university study land use or food sciences in one way, shape or form, which is rather more than the deputy vice-chancellor suggested.
Mrs. Angela Browning: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. On the point about food sciences, he will be aware that I have supported his campaign. As a former Minister with responsibilities for food, I opened the technology transfer centre at Seale-Hayne, which is a very important facility for those studying food sciences and of great interest and importance to the wider agricultural community that the college serves.
Richard Younger-Ross: I take the point. I also thank the hon. Lady and other Devon and Cornwall Members who have supported the campaign to keep the SealeHayne campus open. The faculty that she opened is important, and a local food processing business in Newton Abbot, Uniqe, has told me that it might be interested in talking to the college about food sciences and using those facilities. Sadly, that will not be possible if the college is closed.
When I talked to Peter Evans, he said, "We'll look at what we can do. We haven't really decided yet. Maybe we'll open a conference centre there." That was about as vague as it was possible to be. There was progress as the weeks went on, but I did not think that it had been thought about fully. What he did not say—in the same way that he was misleading about the student figures—was that in February of that year the university had put in an objection to the district council about the lack of development status for the land. It had applied for housing, industrial and leisure use—everything. It strikes me that if it was applying for everything in that way, and it was looking to open up all those possible options, it must have thought at some point that it would want to develop the land for a non-academic use. Therefore, when he said, "We might open a conference centre," again, he was not necessarily telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth as I understand it, because, clearly, the college was considering other options for the land.
The university also put great store in the fact that many students do not like going to Seale-Hayne. SealeHayne is a land use facility in a rural area, and it therefore strikes me as an ideal location for the students. The students to whom I spoke all like it. Indeed, the Seale-Hayne future group, which has been set up to discuss and oppose the proposals by the university, did some research, including a study of students at Harper Adams college in Shropshire. It asked the question, "Would students consider going on to Seale-Hayne for academic studies?" When that question related to the rural campus, 95 per cent. said yes. When it was put to them in terms of a move to Plymouth, however, only 70 per cent. said that they might be interested and would consider it. The impact of moving and closing the college could therefore be that even fewer students attend the college than at the moment. That must put in doubt the viability of some of the courses that are currently being studied.
The former governors of Seale-Hayne college who oppose these moves got together and went to see the vice-chancellor—they actually managed it. They had letters of support from a number of people—Sir Donald Curry, Lord Clinton, Lord Plumb, the president of the Royal Smithfield club, two former regional directors of the former Ministry of Agriculture, county councillors, district councillors and town councillors—all of them

1171
dismissed by the vice-chancellor and the college. In fact, I am told that the vice-chancellor considered that they were a bunch of old toffs trying to preserve their public school and that he was having none of it. To dismiss representations from such people in such a manner is a disgrace.
Sir Donald Curry, who is a chief adviser to the Government on agricultural affairs, said:
"We are in grave danger of losing core farming skills if centres like Seale-Hayne are taken away."
Lord Plumb, a former president of the European Parliament and chancellor of Coventry university, who therefore understands the issues and the problems facing other colleges, wrote a letter to the chairman of the board of governors.
He said:
"I wonder if the Board of Governors fully and truly understands and appreciates the immense contribution the uniqueness of Seale-Hayne has made in the field of education in Agriculture and land-based subjects, and in training many of our most respected leaders today. In my view, it would be a tragedy if this 'compact and lively' College does not continue in its original form".
As I said, such comments were dismissed by the vice-chancellor.
Eventually, the vice-chancellor agreed to meet me. Today's Western Morning News said that some people consider him to be a bully-boy—apparently he has a reputation for that; I cannot really comment. The newspaper has run a lively campaign to try to keep the college. In today's edition, the vice-chancellor says that if he does not get his way, he will mothball the college. I do not know what sort of negotiating tactic that is but it is strong-arm and I rather resent it. I asked the vice-chancellor what modelling he had done on the effect of keeping Seale-Hayne campus open. Apparently, none had been done, so he could not say.
One of the reasons why there are fewer students at the campus than there should be is that it has not marketed itself. It was represented at the two county shows in Devon and Cornwall this year but not in previous years. When my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats on higher education, visited the college with me at the end of last year, the first thing that he said to me was, "Oh, they've got a marketing opportunity. There are very few foreign students here." Indeed, I am told that only 24 of the 561 people studying land-use studies are foreign students—all the rest are from the UK. It is absolutely amazing that the college cannot attract more people. I put that point to the vice-chancellor and he said, "Well, I wouldn't encourage them because the student union is a hot bed of racists." If one has such a problem, one deals with it. One does not use it as an excuse for not taking the college forward.
In my meeting with the vice-chancellor, he continued, without any prompting, to try to denigrate members of the student union in my eyes. He said that he had heard the rumour around the college that one of the student union leaders was going to stand in the local election for the British National party. I might be appalled by the idea of a person standing for the BNP and by all that the party does, but it is up to students to stand for any party that they like. It is not for the vice-chancellor to tell me such tittle-tattle to try to put down my view of the
1172
students. I do not know whether he is a bully-boy, but he is about as arrogant as a colonial governor and his management is a disgrace.
Mr. Adrian Sanders: Is it not outrageous that the university, which is funded by taxpayers' money, is steamrolling the decisions without any accountability to the community that will be affected and that it is not taking on board the clear expression of people who live around Seale-Hayne and in the wider south-west region? That gives grounds for somebody to call the vice-chancellor in and tell him what his job actually is.
Richard Younger-Ross: I thank my hon. Friend and I agree with his well-made points.
The professor said today that none of the money that will come from Seale-Hayne will be used to prop up the £60 million that he proposes to spend on the redevelopment of the university of Plymouth. His plans to redevelop the university are welcome and if the proposed schemes go ahead, it would be good for the south-west. I understand that he will be in place for perhaps only another five years—many in the southwest think that that is five years too many. What will happen after that if the university is in debt after spending £60 million? If money is available, I would be surprised if the governors did not asset-strip the campus site. I have no faith in the professor's assertions that the money will be ring-fenced and not used.
The university has to answer a number of questions. Who developed the financial model on which the decisions were made and who validated that? What technical expertise was contracted to advise on, for example, construction, marketing and other issues? What capital and recurrent costs and income assumptions were built into the model? What sensitivity analysis was conducted to enable the university to provide decision makers with a balanced range of scenarios on which to form a judgment? At what point in the decision cycle was a financial model made available to governors and other interested parties? What are the financial and other risks to the institution arising from the strategy? The Higher Education Funding Council obliges all universities to identify, quantify and manage risks as part of the annual cycle. I understand that the development has not been included in that. That issue should also be raised with the university.
Seale-Hayne is an excellent college. Its researchers are currently on the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council stand at the Royal show as representatives of the university of Plymouth. I want to see them there in future years, still based on the SealeHayne campus.
Access to rural affairs, agriculture and land use studies is important. The Daily Telegraph on 18 February this year said:
"Agricultural students are few and far between after the crisis in the industry puts off many potential applicants."
Action is required by the Government to encourage people to undertake such studies. If we lose SealeHayne, we lose an excellent centre and the opportunities that it provides. Perhaps we need a regulator that people can approach to examine the actions of universities and

1173
how they reach decisions. The Minister should ask the Department for Education and Skills to investigate the manner in which the university of Plymouth undertook the closure. One month's consultation is, to put it bluntly, a farce.
We could learn from the experience of Seale-Hayne. I hope that there is still time to save it, but if there is not, at least let us ensure that other communities and colleges are not dealt with in such a high-handed way by universities and vice-chancellors.
7.37 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): I congratulate the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) on securing the debate. I was initially as puzzled as he was that I was requested to be the Minister at the Dispatch Box. However, we take advice on such matters from officials and I think that it was the reference to rural affairs in the debate's full title that landed it on my plate—or, to be more accurate, on the plate of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality, who unfortunately cannot be here. In a sense, it is sensible that I am here because I have some knowledge of the subject and my constituency of Exeter will be affected by the closure. As the hon. Gentleman explained, the restructuring of Plymouth university is having a serious impact on my constituency. The proposed closure of the excellent Exeter school of art and design has caused considerable concern.
Richard Younger-Ross: The Minister might not know that the vice-chancellor of the university said today that the money from the sale will go towards financing the site in Plymouth.
Mr. Bradshaw: It was always likely to be the case that if the university made any money out of the sale of the land, it would be reinvested in the university.
I expressed the concerns about the closure of the school of art and design to the university, but no matter how strongly we feel about such decisions, it must be the right principle that academic institutions are free to make the decisions that they think are in their best interests and that they are prepared to defend those decisions. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) reminded me before this debate that as a young radio reporter I interviewed her at Seale-Hayne in her capacity as an agriculture Minister about the thorny issue of badgers and TB in cattle, another issue that has landed on my plate.
I am well aware of the excellent work that SealeHayne does hut, as the hon. Member for Teignbridge pointed out, the university of Plymouth, has made a decision about which courses to offer and where to run them in the best interests of the university as a whole. In December, the university's board of governors unanimously approved proposals that will have an impact on Seale-Hayne. I heard what the hon. Gentleman said about his initial problems in getting access to the vice-chancellor. If that is the case, that is
1174
deplorable. Anybody in any public institution should be available to elected Members of Parliament, as we are here to make representations on our constituents' behalf. However, in the same breath, may I say that I am not sure that the extent to which the hon. Gentleman personalised the issue in tonight's debate will necessarily help or strengthen his case.
The university has said that the changes may ultimately benefit the rural area in which Seale-Hayne is located. Thanks in no small part to the concerns expressed by the hon. Gentleman and others, as well as the strong local campaign by friends of Seale-Hayne, the university has committed itself to carrying out a feasibility study to establish a long-term future for Seale-Hayne. It has tasked the university's rural economy review group, chaired by Professor Mike Beveridge, the deputy vice-chancellor, and including several prominent key players in the south-west, to look at the future use of Seale-Hayne. The university has no plans to close the farm at the Seale-Hayne campus and will retain research facilities there.
Good innovative research is a vital aid to the Government, and I am glad to report that agricultural researchers from across the world visited the University of Plymouth Seale-Hayne campus for the first time as part of the UK Agricultural Economics Society conference in April this year. That conference was a valuable forum to discuss the increasing significance of the rural economy. One current proposal for the longer term use of Seale-Hayne is that it should become a rural centre of excellence—a training business centre for rural businesses to support and promote the rural economy of the south-west region. All parties involved in discussions—the university, the South West of England Regional Development Agency, Teignbridge district council and Devon county council—are in agreement about the general direction and long-term future use of Seale-Hayne. The proposal has been welcomed by, among others, Councillor Stuart Barker, who is chairman of the Teignbridge district council's economy committee and has described the plans as exciting and innovative. The idea is to establish a rural centre of excellence linked to the University of Plymouth's entrepreneurship programme.
Richard Younger-Ross: I accept the point made by the Minister. We all welcome the very good scheme proposed by the National Farmers Union and the RDA, but that proposal could be additional to a plan to keep undergraduates at the campus. It is a separate issue, and it should not distract us from the key issue—the removal of undergraduate students from the site.
Mr. Bradshaw: In the end, those are decisions for the university and its board of governors. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will work constructively with all the interested parties that I have mentioned in pressing for something that most people seem to agree would guarantee a good future for the college.
As I said, the proposal would support potential entrepreneurs across the region who need access to specialist expertise to help them develop their business ideas. The programme is being delivered with public

1175
money from the RDA as part of its three-year programme, "Knowledge Exploitation South West". That programme aims to boost the productivity and competitiveness of regional business through better exploitation of the higher education knowledge base in the south-west. The Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food included a recommendation that the Land-Based Training Association—LANTRA—and my Department should review agricultural education in full. In response to this recommendation DEFRA is carrying out a broader review of learning opportunities for rural businesses. The review will cover the provision and delivery of education and training, knowledge transfer, advice and information services, and measures to stimulate demand for learning.
The land-based colleges are a key partner in the review, and the review's project team at DEFRA has met a number of key partners and stakeholders including several land-based colleges, among them Seale-Hayne. The team has also met the National Association of Principals and Agriculture Education Officers, the organisation that represents land-based colleges, to discuss how the facilities of colleges can best serve the rural communities in which they are located. The approach being taken by the university of Plymouth in developing a rural centre of excellence at Seale-Hayne matches well the thinking of many of the organisations already consulted as to how land-based colleges can most effectively meet the needs of their local rural communities.
1176
I have asked the team at DEFRA to discuss with the university of Plymouth and other land-based colleges the proposals and how we can work together in our work on the learning skills and knowledge review to shape learning providers such as Seale-Hayne to the changing needs of rural areas.
The hon. Gentleman had a couple of specific questions about how decisions made by education institutions such as the university of Plymouth may be challenged. I am sorry to tell him that the Government have no locus to intervene in such decisions. As I made clear at the beginning of my speech, those decisions are made by autonomous universities and their governing bodies. There are proposals to establish an adjudicator who may have a locus to intervene in such decisions, but that will not happen until later in the year.
I hope the debate has been helpful for the hon. Gentleman and his constituents. The Government are working hard to ensure that the learning needs of people in places like Teignbridge are met. As part of that work, we need to make sure that those providing education and skills are able to meet the changing needs of a dynamic rural economy, and that they can meet the needs not only of those engaged in agriculture, but of others living and working in rural areas. I hope the university of Plymouth will use Seale-Hayne to good effect and to the benefit of Teignbridge and the wider south- west in future, as its founder intended.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes to Eight o'clock.

Deferred Division

  SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION
  That the draft Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003, which were laid before this House on 8th May, be approved.
  The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has drawn the instrument to the special attention of the House in its Twenty-first Report, HC 96-xxi.
  The House divided: Ayes 267, Noes 54.

  Division No. 255]

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Davidson, Ian

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Ainger, Nick

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Denham, rh John

  Alexander, Douglas

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Allen, Graham

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Dodds, Nigel

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Bailey, Adrian

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Barker, Gregory

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Barnes, Harry

  Efford, Clive

  Beard, Nigel

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Benn, Hilary

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Flint, Caroline

  Bercow, John

  Flook, Adrian

  Best, Harold

  Follett, Barbara

  Blackman, Liz

  Foster, rh Derek

  Blair, rh Tony

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Borrow, David

  Gardiner, Barry

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Brennan, Kevin

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Gilroy, Linda

  Burgon, Colin

  Goggins, Paul

  Burnham, Andy

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Gummer, rh John

  Cameron, David

  Hain, rh Peter

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hanson, David

  Caplin, Ivor

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Casale, Roger

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  Caton, Martin

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Heppell, John

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hermon, Lady

  Hesford, Stephen

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Hodge, Margaret

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Connarty, Michael

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Conway, Derek

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Corston, Jean

  Hutton, rh John

  Cousins, Jim

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Cranston, Ross

  Illsley, Eric

  Cummings, John

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Jamieson, David

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Jenkin, Bernard

  1178

  Jenkins, Brian

  Picking, Anne

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Pound, Stephen

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Purchase, Ken

  Kemp, Fraser

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Kidney, David

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

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Ruane, Chris

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

  Lammy, David

  Lepper, David

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Salter, Martin

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Sawford, Phil

  Linton, Martin

  Sheridan, Jim

  Love, Andrew

  Singh, Marsha

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  McGrady, Eddie

  Soley, Clive

  McIsaac, Shona

  Southworth, Helen

  McKechin, Ann

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Squire, Rachel

  McNulty, Tony

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Steinberg, Gerry

  McWalter, Tony

  Stevenson, George

  McWilliam, John

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Stringer, Graham

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Martlew, Eric

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Mercer, Patrick

  Syms, Robert

  Merron, Gillian

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Michael, rh Alun

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Miliband, David

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Timms, Stephen

  Moran, Margaret

  Tipping, Paddy

  Morgan, Julie

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Morris, rh Estelle

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Mountford, Kali

  Trimble, rh David

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Truswell, Paul

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Norman, Archie

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Ward, Claire

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Organ, Diana

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Owen, Albert

  Winnick, David

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Pearson, Ian

  1179

  Worthington, Tony

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Wyatt, Derek

  NOES

  Allan, Richard

  Chidgey, David

  Barrett, John

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Cotter, Brian

  Brazier, Julian

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Breed, Colin

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L

  Doughty, Sue

  Burnett, John

  Fallon, Michael

  Burnside, David

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

  Burstow, Paul

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

  Harvey, Nick

  1180

  Hawkins, Nick

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Heath, David

  Holmes, Paul

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Salmond, Alex

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Sanders, Adrian

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Thurso, John

  Moore, Michael

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Öpik, Lembit

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Weir, Michael

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Whittingdale, John

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Rendel, David

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Question accordingly agreed to.

Preamble
[MR. JOHN MCWILLIAM in the Chair]

Dietary Salt
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
9.30 am
Mr. David Tredinnick: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Has the difficulty of accessing Westminster Hall come to your attention? Some Members experienced particular difficulties in reaching the Chamber this morning, not least because the gates in New Palace Yard are closed and the directions are not clear. Furthermore, access through the centre of the hall, towards the Members' Cloakroom, is also barred. Are you satisfied that Members have been given sufficient notice that they might encounter difficulties as, perhaps, my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) has done in finding his way through the maze, and would you raise the matter with Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Serjeant at Arms has sent instructions on how to get here to all Members. If some Members have not caught up with them, that is up to them. I apologise for the difficulty. I understand that it is caused by the need to check the roof beams, and that that is being done for the sake of Members' safety. I notice that there is a good attendance this morning, and I am sorry that I have run out of orienteering badges.
9.31 am
Mr. Anthony Steen: As we have started one minute late, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that you may allow us to carry on until 11.1 am. I am delighted that Mr. Speaker felt that salt was sufficiently important to be given the prominence that he has conferred on it by granting a one and a half hour debate.
Salt is vital for our health. It is an essential source of sodium, and it keeps our nervous systems working. However, it is also a killer. We eat too much of it, and the health of the nation is paying a terrible toll. Last year, nearly 250,000 people died in the United Kingdom as a result of high blood pressure. Strokes accounted for 50,000 of those deaths as well as for substantial illness and disabilities. High salt intake is overwhelmingly linked to high blood pressure; the evidence is now as stark and dramatic as the evidence that smoking kills. There are warnings on cigarette packets; there should be warnings on food products that contain high levels of salt. The Government should insist that they carry a statement such as, "The food in this packet contains a high concentration of salt, which can damage your health."
The food industry, the Government and the national media all have a responsibility to warn people of the risks posed by a high cumulative intake of salt. The message should be, "This is your wake-up call: cut your daily intake of salt or you will damage your health."
266WH
The simple five-a-day fruit and vegetable message has been undermined by a plethora of off-the-peg, well-presented packets of pre-packed processed foods. Most of them contain more salt than one person requires in a single day. The food industry is our second largest industry after defence. It contains very powerful groups and many multinational companies. There are big advantages for them if salt is added to food; it makes people thirsty and more likely to buy a can of soft drink. In fact, PepsiCo produces both soft drinks and Walkers crisps. It is predicted that if the salt in snack foods were reduced, UK soft drink sales would slump by 8 billion cans a year.
How many people are aware that a slice of bread contains almost a gram of salt? Just six slices contain most of the recommended daily intake. If one ate a whole loaf, one would consume two or three times the amount of salt one needs in a day. People should eat bread that contains less salt, but it is very difficult to find. Breakfast cereals also contain high levels of salt—except for Weetabix and Shredded Wheat. If one pours cornflakes into a bowl of water, then takes out the cornflakes, the water tastes like sea water.
Tinned soups are extremely high in salt; even so-called fresh soups in cartons can contain over half the daily salt requirement. However, baked beans take the biscuit. On 27 May, the Daily Mail highlighted the fact that one tin of baked beans contains an entire daily allowance of salt.
A couple of sandwiches—four slices of bread—contain two thirds of the salt requirement for an adult; not to mention the filling, such as beef, cheese or ham, which will probably take the salt consumed above the recommended level. Mr. Deputy Speaker, how many receptions have you attended in the last few weeks where those delicious House of Commons sandwiches are served? We all tuck into them, but they contain a lot of salt. After eating four of them, one has consumed more than half one's daily salt requirement.
Ready meals are increasingly popular, and are fast and easy. However, this year's "Salt and Health" report from the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition shows that many people have very high levels of salt in their body, leaving little room for the salt that we take in from other foods, such as bread and cereals. Convenience should not mean an increased health risk. When products aimed particularly at children contain lots of salt, the damage starts.
The survey of ready meals by the Food Standards Agency published last month shows that 83 per cent. of ready meals contained more than 40 per cent. of the target salt intake for one day. Although "healthy eating" ready meals often contained a little less salt than the standard versions, the differences were small. One meal, Asda's "Good For You" lasagne, contained 60 per cent. of an adult's target daily intake of 6 g a day. However, Asda is committed to reducing salt in its products and will shortly achieve a reduction of up to 18 per cent. in the salt in its products since 1998. Safeway had some of the lowest-salt products; lasagne and chicken korma and rice from its "Eat Smart" range. Heinz "Weightwatchers" and Birds Eye "Less Than 3% Fat" chicken korma were also relatively low in salt.

267WH
Salt quite simply makes totally inedible food palatable at little cost. Take cheap sausages as an example. They contain 85 per cent. fat and 5 per cent. meat bound together with a cereal whose concentration of salt is 50 per cent. higher than that of sea water. Those products are cheap to produce and are most profitable. They also tend to be purchased by those on tight budgets who often need to watch their diets closely.
What about children's snacks such as Cheese Strings and Dairylea Lunchables? The amount of salt contained in those products is as high as salt levels in the Atlantic ocean. Once manufactures have managed to titillate children's salt receptors, those receptors become less capable of detecting salt concentration. As a result, children feel the need to consume more and more salt each day than they require. Any food that does not have a high enough salt content tastes bland to them. Nor is it just children who become addicted to salt; adults get hooked on it too. Even those who are aware of the dangers of too much salt in their diet consume large quantities unwittingly because 98 per cent. of the nation's shopping is done at supermarkets, where it is often more convenient for people to buy pre-packed rather than fresh foods.
Why exactly is it so important that salt is a component part of our daily diets? Salt not only confers its own flavour on products, but is used as an enhancer to modify the flavour of other ingredients and reduces the bitterness in some products. Salt is also a preservative mechanism, working via a reduction in water activity. Micro-organisms require water to survive and grow, but salt absorbs water, leaving a reduced amount for them. The Egyptians discovered that 5,000 years ago, when they used salt to keep food from decaying.
The Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition makes it clear that people are consuming too much salt and that that has a direct effect on their blood pressure—the more salt eaten, the higher the blood pressure. High salt intake also causes other damage, such as high water retention, and it can contribute to the thinning of the bones, known as osteoporosis, and is closely related to gastric cancer. Salt intake is an important consideration for people with diabetes, especially those who suffer from type 2 diabetes. High blood pressure, or hypertension, is a major risk factor for strokes, heart attacks and kidney failure. In western countries, average blood pressure increases with age. Although often considered normal, such an increase does not occur in traditional, hunter-gather societies, such as the Yanomamo people in Brazil. However, when hunter-gather peoples migrate to urban environments, their blood pressure levels come into line with those of people in industrialised societies.
According to a report in the British Medical Journal in 1996, people who consume large amounts of salt are at greater risk of suffering from strokes and cardiovascular disease. The recent Intersalt study measured the salt intake of more than 10,000 people in 32 countries and found that a difference of only 6 g of salt a day can result in a dramatic difference of systolic and diastolic blood pressure. Researchers at Leuven university in Holland reviewed the dietary habits of
268WH
people in 24 countries and discovered that high salt intake can significantly increase the risk of stomach cancer. There is no laboratory evidence that that is the case, and it is more likely that diets consisting of highly salted, spicy foods are often associated with low intake of fresh fruit and vegetables, which might contribute to the development of cancer.
In 1995, the effects of sodium intake on the bone density of 124 women who had been post-menopausal for more than 10 years were studied. A 50 per cent. reduction in the intake of dietary sodium was as effective in reducing bone loss in the hip and the ankle as supplementing the diet with calcium. Professor Graham MacGregor from the pressure group Consensus Action on Salt and Health has done much pioneering work in the field. Recently, he linked salt with calcium when he brought together several research papers on decreased bone density and reduction of calcium retention. He concluded that reductions in salt intake would reduce mobilisation of calcium from bone in post-menopausal women.
New salt targets for children highlight the fact that children's salt intake is higher than that of adults in relation to their body weight, and that approximately 75 per cent. of their salt intake is from processed foods, usually bought from supermarkets. A snapshot of the salt content of children's ready meals shows that some ready meals aimed at children have levels of salt as high as in standard adult meals, while some supposedly healthy option meals contain more than half a whole day's target intake. Marks & Spencer and Asda are pioneering a salt reduction programme for that group.
In 1994, the Government recommended that people reduce their daily salt intake. However, scientific evidence for the conclusion that daily over-consumption of salt is linked to serious health problems has come to the fore only recently. The Department of Health and the Food Standards Agency recommended that everybody should cut the amount of salt that they eat from the current average of 10 to 12 g of salt a day, which is equal to two teaspoonfuls, to 5 to 6 g a day, which is equal to one teaspoonful or less. In 1994, the Department of Health published a report entitled "Nutritional Aspects of Cardiovascular Disease", which recommended that the figure should be lower still-4.1 g. Other European countries are trying to achieve similar ends. It is not a British problem, but a western problem.
The salt that one adds in cooking or at the table is only about one quarter of the salt intake over which we have any control. As hidden salt lurks in processed foods, people are completely unaware of how much salt they consume. It is that hidden salt that is the killer. Everyone is consuming salt that they do not know they are consuming and which they would not necessarily consume if they had the choice.
Nutritional information on food packaging labels is confusing. Only a scientist—there are some here today—would understand it. Why does the law insist on having sodium levels on the packet, but not salt levels? Six out of 10 people say that it is important to look for salt when trying to eat healthily, but only two in 10 say the same about sodium. Only one in three think that salt and sodium are the same, and four in 10 have no idea

269WH
whatever about the relationship. CASH feels that information about salt, not sodium, should be on the label, because 99 percent. of sodium consumed in this country is from salt. The term "sodium" means little to the consumer. Of course, there are salt alternatives, but I shall not discuss those this morning.
Information on food labels must be rethought to make them clearer and more consumer-friendly. Marks & Spencer has devised a simple but effective panel that explains the ingredients of a product extremely well, and I commend that idea to the Minister and will send her an example. As I said, the panel is extremely effective, but Marks & Spencer tells me that it is illegal for it to display the panel, because it is supposed to include merely sodium levels, not salt levels. It is a wonderfully simple table that explains a product's contents in a moment. Furthermore, the information on the labels for Marks & Spencer's "Count on us" range makes admirable sense. It contains the information that one needs in order to lose weight, the amount of salt in the product and, most importantly, the amount recommended for consumption each day by adults. The fact that Marks & Spencer sells £100 million worth of that range each year demonstrates only too well that the public are acutely aware of their health and the way in which it is affected by what they eat.
Will the Minister say whether the Government are prepared to legislate so that, alongside each nutrition label, there is a list outlining the exact amount of each nutrient in a way that people can understand? Consumers could check that at a glance and make an informed but simplified choice without having to spend hours doing sums. Whatever the Minister says, my constituents and I do not understand the current labelling, and I doubt whether her constituents do. In fact, the information is printed so small that one cannot read it anyway.
Professor Alan Jackson, the chairman of the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition, states in his "Salt and Health" report, which was published in April:
"It is for the Government to consider the action required to achieve the recommended reductions in the salt intake of the population. Achieving these targets will not be easy. Key to achieving a sustained salt reduction for public health benefit is the engagement of the food industry (manufacturers, retailers and caterers)."
Renowned chefs such as Nick Coiley of the highly acclaimed Agaric restaurant in Ashburton, Devon—formerly of the Carved Angel in Dartmouth, which happens to be in my constituency—recognise that the public expect modern chefs to respond not only to fashion, but to health requirements. Fine food, he says, can be produced using a range of fresh herbs as salt alternatives that can bring out flavours in keeping with the demand for healthier food. However, House of Commons catering still relies far too much on salt. In one outlet last week, I commented on how delicious the roast lamb was and was told that salt is rubbed into it, which brings out the flavour. Yesterday, the baked potatoes were beautifully crisp. I discovered why: the skins had been rubbed with salt.
There is reluctance among the 40 or so chefs in this great Palace to reduce the amount of salt to what is considered good practice in a healthy diet. Who will change that? Some 3,000 people work in the Palace. I wonder how many people have higher blood pressure as
270WH
a result of the food that they eat here. I am convinced that the Government should issue guidance to restaurants, cafés, and other food outlets to indicate beside each item on the menu whether it is high or low in salt, or how much salt a portion might contain. There is no reason why that should not happen. It could be done as a voluntary code. It would focus the minds of the caterers and chefs as well as making the public aware of the issue.
Food is usually prepared and cooked behind closed doors in restaurants, and since more and more people eat out, especially city dwellers and younger people, it should be incumbent on restaurants to help raise the level of health consciousness. It is essential that the salt content per serving be stipulated. The Government could take a lead, which would fit in nicely with their long-term health plans to stimulate a pattern of healthy eating and diet awareness.
Why is the Government's NHS label so complicated? Supermarkets must pay£100 a licence for each product, and the logo looks like an MOT testing station logo. Hon. Members may have seen it. It is supposed to support healthy living but can be used only on fruit and vegetable products. I gather that Marks & Spencer believe it to be a complete waste of time. I should mention that I am a shareholder of Marks & Spencer, in which I declare an interest. I spent a morning going round one of its stores with its nutritional team, and was slightly infected, and affected, by its approach, which I found encouraging. It says that the NHS logo is a red herring—expensive, irrelevant and without credibility or recognition. Will the Minister explain why the labels have not been brought up to date or abandoned?
Salt in our diet is a matter of life and death. The Bible exhorts us to "seek life", and as a nation we are more aware than ever before of our health and vulnerability, and of the need to be kind to our bodies and to respect our diet if we are to enjoy quality of life in the years that we have left. Our new lifestyles, including the liberation of women, have resulted in a change in our cooking and eating patterns. The nuclear family has been replaced by a number of independent units in the same household. Processed foods have become part of the armoury of any home, and children eat separately from adults, mostly on the hoof, between computer games. Traditional sit-down, freshly cooked and prepared meals have all but disappeared.
Salt has become man's enemy because of the quantity consumed. What is good in small quantities can become bad in large quantities. It is not only food that is over-salted; I wonder how many people have considered the amount of sodium in bottled mineral water, which as mineral water, not spring water, goes through rocks. I will not mention brands that contain high levels of sodium. Far from being superior to tap water, mineral water contributes to the daily intake of too much salt.
The Government have a huge task to educate, legislate, advise, cajole, and lead by example. The debate is meant to send a signal to the country's caterers, retailers and food manufacturers of the national concern about the amount of salt in our diet and its impact on our health. This is, of course, an individual matter that everyone in the country must address. It is for everyone to decide what they eat, how much they eat

271WH
and where they buy their food. We enjoy immense choice, and our farmers produce some of the best food in the world. However, we no longer eat food fresh. If we did, salt intake could be halved, which would save thousands of lives in this country alone. I hope that the debate will light a beacon of awareness that will continue beyond 11 am today.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I see five Members standing. If they do the mathematics as quickly as I can, they will see that if they restrict their time voluntarily, they may all get in. I have no powers to restrict their time.
9.54 am
Mr. Kerry Pollard: I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) on securing the debate. I am pleased that he invited me to take part in it to discuss this vitally important issue. I also welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson), to her new post. She is an old friend of mine and represents a neighbouring constituency. I know that she takes the issue seriously.
Salt is vital for life, and I shall give an example of that from my own family. My second son, Adam, is diabetic and has epilepsy, and therefore his salt balance is critical. If he loses salt, he goes into a coma and has to go into hospital to have his salt level rebalanced. Within minutes, he is bright and breezy again and back home with his family.
I agree with what the hon. Member for Totnes said. I have had to change my speech, because much of what he said, I had intended to say, and I am sure that that will be the case for other hon. Members. That will certainly help, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in cutting down on the length of our contributions.
It is not universally accepted that we consume too much salt in our diet, and one of our big challenges is to get that message across. We are going on a journey similar to that taken on tobacco a number of years ago. Some 40 years ago, when I was 15 or 16, starting to smoke was a rite of passage. We all did it and accepted it—that was the way things were.
I am pleased to say that I did not take to smoking, and do not smoke now—I have not smoked for donkey's years. I did not like it, and it did not like me, and that has saved me thousands of pounds. I am also pleased to say that my wife does not smoke, and nor do any of my seven children. I hope that none of my seven grandchildren will either. However, the journey that we are taking now is similar.
Chris Grayling: I am concerned by the hon. Gentleman's comments, because he draws a parallel between tobacco which, in any shape or form, is directly linked to disease, and salt which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) pointed out, is of concern only in excessive intakes rather than in a
272WH
balanced diet. Surely the hon. Gentleman does not want to see us go down the same route of significant regulation that has been necessary for tobacco?
Mr. Pollard: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, but the only parallel that I could think of with reducing salt consumption was the journey that we went on in raising awareness of the dangers of tobacco.
As the hon. Member for Totnes said, Professor MacGregor has been a pioneer in making everyone aware of the dangers of salt. A few years ago, when he started his campaign, he was castigated by many of his colleagues, and looked on as a little cranky. I am pleased that he remained cranky, and that he has carried the campaign forward. I have been a member of Consensus Action on Salt and Health for five years and have worked closely with Professor MacGregor. He now has a national reputation in the field, and people accept that what he says is true. The CASH awareness campaign has had some success, in that many of our supermarkets and others who add salt to food are gradually reducing it. However, that success has been insufficient.
In March 2000, I tabled early-day motion 558, which stated that high salt intake leads to high blood pressure, causing more strokes and heart attacks—the two commonest causes of death in the United Kingdom. It also stated that
"three-quarters of people's salt intake … comes from … processed food."
I received 28 signatures in support of that motion. The hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) tabled a similar early-day motion this year, which attracted 53 signatures. That might indicate greater awareness among Members of Parliament that salt can be dangerous, although it is vital to life.
Professor MacGregor and the CASH team have organised three annual events on salt awareness day. I sponsored one, which was attended by Raymond Blanc, the internationally known chef. He regaled us with tales of the amount of salt that he puts in his restaurant food. In his restaurant, he said, people had become used to a lower level of added salt and their taste buds had adjusted accordingly. I said that I would pop into his restaurant and have a meal with him one day, not realising that there is almost a year's waiting list and that dining there is more or less by invitation only—it is like going to Buckingham Palace. I have not yet been to see Raymond Blanc, but he uses less salt in cooking and evangelises about it around the country.
Anton Edelman, another renowned chef, came along to a salt awareness day. He, too, is well aware that adding too much salt is dangerous. As the hon. Member for Totnes and others have said, salt added to processed food and bread is the real killer. I have twice met representatives of the Federation of Bakers, who are trying their best to cut the amount of salt they put in their products; they have made some progress but nowhere near enough. It is a matter of taste; we need to persuade, bully or, if necessary, force a reduction in salt intake. The story could then have a happy ending for tens of thousands of babies, who will not die prematurely, suffer crippling strokes or have a poor quality of life. We must not fail children, who are vulnerable and innocent victims being force-fed too much salt. Action now will save lives.
10 am
Dr. Richard Taylor: The hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) has outlined the problem before us very clearly. Those of us from the northern half of the country know that there is a dialect word for food that is short of salt: it is "wallow", which has nothing to do with a hippopotamus in mud. The Oxford English Dictionary, which has about 10 volumes, includes the word and gives the meaning as "tasteless, insipid and sickly". That is why we will have such a battle to reduce salt consumption—it is what makes some food worth while.
I shall quickly whiz over some of the things that the medical profession have been told in the last few years. I am not a nutritionist; I am a retired physician who is probably out of date and therefore I shall speak with caution.
In 1995, a document entitled "Health of the Nation" was sent to all hospital doctors. It stated that the average intake of salt per day was 9 g, which should be cut to 6 g, which alone would reduce average blood pressure by 2 to 3 mm of mercury. At that time, the aim was to reduce blood pressure by 5 mm of mercury, because that would reduce strokes by 34 per cent. and heart attacks by 21 per cent.
In 2000, the national service framework for coronary heart disease was issued. It described the reduction of risk factors and encouraged healthy eating. There was not much specific mention of salt and sodium, but the healthy eating advice recommended a balanced diet—increasing fruit, vegetables and oily fish, and decreasing fat, saturated fat and salt. I should be interested to know from the Minister how milestone 3 in the NSF is being achieved. It states that
"by April 2002 every local health community will have quantitative data no more than 12 months old on the implementation of the policies"
on promoting healthy eating, among other things.
Healthy eating advice is to eat more of the good things and less fat, saturated fat and salt. The hon. Member for Totnes made the good point that we must convince the food industry, because food marketing affects what people eat. The hon. Gentleman said that if companies sell both crisps and drink, they are doing themselves a lot of good. However, Walkers are producing crisps in the old-fashioned way, which most of us will remember, with a separate little packet of salt that one can choose to tip on to the crisps or not. Perhaps the message is getting through.
Mr. Steen: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments, and it was a chat on the steps outside that resulted in his being here. When he was in general practice—it was not that long ago, although he may think so—did he raise the issue with patients, or is it only just coming on the radar screen now?
Dr. Taylor: I must correct the hon. Gentleman—I was a hospital physician not a general practitioner. However, the issue was certainly covered in the list of advice that we gave patients with blood pressure problems. We were well aware of the issue in 1995.
I was about to tell hon. Members about the tremendous battle that has gone on with the food industry and the salt manufacturers. As recently as
274WH
2001, the Salt Manufacturers Association appealed to the Government
"to open up the debate on dietary sodium consumption and promote a policy on salt consumption based on sound scientific evidence."
It added:
"We do not believe this has happened to date."
It also produced a very persuasive, lengthy paper, which it sent to the Food Standards Agency's Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition. The paper states:
"Specifically, since 1994 new evidence has emerged that … defines far more precisely any blood pressure relationship with salt restriction in normal and hypertensive persons… provides critical new data on the blood pressure benefits of improving the overall quality of the diet as opposed to simply restricting salt … shows that salt sensitivity is not the primary contributor to premature cardiovascular events, but simply a surrogate marker for a poor quality diet … argues that the 1994 … recommendation on dietary sodium intake should be reconsidered."
Sadly, I have not had that long to prepare for the debate, and I have been unable to find out whether the Food Standards Agency replied, although I hope that the Minister has the facts.
On 8 March, the British Medical Journal reported that the World Heath Organisation had concluded
"that a diet low in saturated fats, sugar, and salt and high in fruit and vegetables, together with an hour a day of exercise, can counter cardiovascular diseases, cancer, diabetes, and obesity."
That is certainly the gold standard recommendation at the moment. However, to convince the food industry, and the salt manufacturers, in particular, we must find out whether the association's paper was considered.
How do we tackle the issue? To be honest, the NSF on coronary heart disease contains only platitudes. It says that we should improve access to healthy foods, make them affordable and ensure that public agencies make
"a variety of healthy foods readily available to staff".
Contrary to my usual experience of House of Commons potatoes, those in the Terrace Cafe never have enough salt on them, so perhaps some of the chefs have got the message.
Mr. Steen: Portcullis House would be worth a trip.
Dr. Taylor: I thank the hon. Gentleman very much.
It is essential to raise awareness about the importance not only of the issues around salt, but of food labelling. Like other hon. Members, I have taken the trouble to look at a few food labels. The sandwich that I ate yesterday—in Portcullis House—contained 1.9 g of sodium. while the dietary information on another sandwich was in very small letters. I am lucky in that I can take my glasses off and see things close to, but I could not have read the information on that sandwich otherwise.
I emphasise that there must be balance in everything. One must balance one's diet, but one must also strike a balance between dietary considerations on the one hand, and exercise and weight loss on the other. I am very lucky in having an office in Portcullis House. I have discovered that it is exactly a quarter of a mile between my office and the voting Lobbies. Yesterday I made

275WH
eight journeys two ways, which means that my exercise quota is being reached quite easily. I am pleased about that.
I shall certainly try to avoid convenience foods. There are terrible stories of other contaminants of salted peanuts in pubs, which I am sure all members have heard—I shall never eat any of those. I shall concentrate on crisps with separate salt. I shall finish with the hope that the Minister will give us some definitive answers, particularly on how we should persuade the food industry—the salt producers—that it must market products containing less salt, that will yet be attractive and encourage people, particularly the young, to buy them.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If everyone else takes 10 minutes, not everyone will get in.
10.10 am
Dr. Howard Stoate: I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) on securing this important debate, and on his huge background research, which has informed the House and shows how much interest he takes in this important subject. Members should be able to reduce the lengths of our contributions; most of the points that I was going to raise have been well covered by the hon. Gentleman.
As we have heard, salt is necessary for life. It is in virtually all living organisms and it is therefore contained in everything we eat. As with many foodstuffs, too little is dangerous and too much is dangerous. It is similar in many respects to the other major food groups such as fat, protein and sugar, all of which have consequences if we eat too much or too little of them.
So what is the problem? As we have heard from hon. Members on all sides, we all eat too much salt on average. That is undoubtedly having a significant effect on our overall health. The reason why it is such a difficult problem comes down to the difference between epidemiology, which is the study of disease in populations, and individual health care, which is the study of disease in individual people. The public fully understand the effect of eating too many calories, too much fat—particularly saturated fat—and too much sugar. It goes without saying that most people will be able to tell us that if we eat too much, we get fat, and that if we eat too much fat, we are likely to get heart disease and will certainly put on weight.
What is more significant is that most people understand that if one reduces one's calorie or fat intake, one can reverse the health effects rapidly. The diet industry, which is now worth£2 billion a year, is testimony to the fact that most people realise that limiting food has a direct personal effect on their health. The difficulty is that that does not apply to sodium and salt. As the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) said, if everyone reduced their sodium intake to the recommended level, we could probably see a 2 or 3 mm reduction in blood pressure across the population. On an individual basis, that would have a vanishingly small effect, but the effect on the whole population would be enormous. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, it would save tens of thousands of lives a year.
276WH
The problem remains that individuals have little control, because modifying one's sodium intake does not make a great difference: people do not look or feel different if they change the amount of salt they take in. We have to look more at what Government, manufacturers and the industry can do to limit the sodium people take in their diet, which is clearly far too much at the moment. That will be difficult.
It would be easier to say, for example, to manufacturers, "There's too much salt in the food. Reduce it". That would be nice, but there are good reasons why they will not do that. The main reason is that salt is incredibly cheap. It is also a good preservative and flavour enhancer. It alters the texture of food, and it is therefore a valuable commodity. It is a cheap way of producing flavoursome, well preserved, safe food.
Unfortunately that has consequences, particularly for children. I recently went to a healthy eating talk at Sainsbury's, organised by the National Obesity Forum, BUPA and Sainsbury's. A tour is offered, and one can go around the larger Sainsbury's stores with a nutritional adviser who will point out which foods are good for one and which are not. A good range of foods is available in Sainsbury's. I would not deny what it is trying to do; it is very positive, but I looked at the con tent of food in a so-called healthy eating range, and it still contained far too much salt. Admittedly, there was less than there was in the standard range, but only a bit less. The manufacturers concentrated far more on calories, saturated fat and sugar, all of which are important, and were taking insufficient interest in salt. The reason is simple. If salt is reduced, people do not like the food and do not eat it; anyone who has eaten salt-free baked beans knows that they are disgusting. There is pressure on manufacturers to use salt to make their food more palatable.
There is a particular problem in respect of children. If we do not do something radical about their salt intake, we will face a major problem. I recently wrote a pamphlet for the Fabian Society on obesity in children. In the course of the research, it became obvious that salt was a major problem. Because of children's smaller body mass, the amount of salt that they take proportionately is worryingly high. The other difficulty is that most of the foods that children like, particularly crisps, nuts and pizzas, contain far too much salt. It is not an exaggeration to say, as I concluded in my Fabian pamphlet, that if we do not do something radical about children's nutrition, we shall raise a generation of children who predecease their parents. In that case, I was talking more about obesity and its effect on type 2 diabetes and heart disease, but the same could easily apply to salt. Much more research is needed.
I call for radical measures. Telling people, "eat less salt" will not work. It is not an easy message to get across, and the average member of the public will not understand it. If it does not have a direct effect on their appearance or their well-being, people will not do it. With other Members, I am calling for far more controls on advertising to children, on snack machines in schools, and on sponsorship, particularly by fast food manufacturers. That is where the problems lie. On children's television, 97 per cent. of food advertisements are for foods that are high in fat, sugar, salt or other things that children should not eat to excess. Kids are

277WH
bombarded with advertisements for the most damaging foods, so we should take stringent measures. I do not believe that a voluntary code, or advising people to take in less salt, will work.
I appreciate the difficulty that the Minister and the Government will be in if she starts talking about punitive measures against manufacturers and advertisers. However, if we do not do something drastic, we will face a major health problem. It must not be underestimated. Today's debate shows that people are aware that if we do not do something radical, soon and far reaching, the consequences will be huge.
I am pleased to have had an opportunity to take part in the debate and I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes on securing it.
10.17 am
Mr. David Tredinnick: It is always a great privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen), who has campaigned for many years on the issue. When I say many years, I mean it—
Mr. Steen: Not as long as my hon. Friend.
Mr. Tredinnick: My hon. Friend is very generous, but he is wrong: he has represented his current constituency for 20 years and, before that, Liverpool, Wavertree for 10 years, so he has unbroken service of 30 years in the House.
I welcome to her post the Under-Secretary of State for Health. She succeeds the hon. Ladies who are now, respectively, the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing, and Community Safety, and the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. I wish her well. I see that she was instrumental in the banning of carcinogenic asbestos products and took a lead in issues relating to lead in paint, so she is well placed to consider this subject. I notice also that she has opposed ageism in employment, so those of us who are over 50 are glad to know that she will not object to our extended tenure in the House.
Like everyone else, I find that most of my arguments have already been made. However, I should like to say a little more about children, and to make some international comparisons. The worst example of salt poisoning that I have ever come across was in the Gaza strip in Palestine. Due to the extraction of water under Israeli Government policies, the salination of drinking water means that the Gaza strip has the highest level of renal failure in the world. That illustrates how serious the issue can be.
The hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard) mentioned the early-day motion that I tabled in February, and mentioned other motions on sugar intake and omega oil supplements. The Government must look at diet much more seriously. Much could be done to improve the health of the nation by gently warning people of the effects of food consumption. The hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) mentioned taste; he said that bland beans were not much fun. I see the tin of beans belonging to my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes. It is not bland; it has lots of salt in it.
If one examines Elizabethan cookery books to see what was in people's diets, one can see that tastes were quite different. People did not have the taste for sugar
278WH
that we have today. We must try to reduce progressively consumption of salt by persuading the food industry to take action. The arguments made by the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) were absolutely spot on. The industry has tried to mount a defence with quite spurious arguments in many cases. We need to secure a gentle reduction that will coincide with a change in taste, as the hon. Member for Dartford said.
My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes mentioned children, and the marketing of foods that are aimed at them. Children have been subjected to phenomenal marketing campaigns, which have coincided with the food industry's expansion of salty foods. Consumption of all the new crisps, the little circles, ringlets and so on that our children try to persuade us to buy for them at motorway service stations—"Daddy, may I try Doritos?"—peaked in the 1980s. Those consumption levels are starting to decline, but far too little has been done in that respect. The Minister must pay attention to that.
Another important issue that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes is labelling. Labelling is confusing; I would like to know what percentage of the population know what sodium is. I imagine that a large proportion think that it is quite different from salt. The Minister must take that point on board. How small is the small print? What percentage of the population can read a label without glasses? That would be an interesting statistic. We need clearer labelling. There have been motions in the House over the years—certainly over the bur Parliaments in which I have served—that have addressed the labelling issue.
A related issue, which the Minister must address, is that of food supplements. The Minister will be aware that the Food Supplements (England) Regulations 2003 have been laid before the House. It has become apparent from discussions with food industry representatives at the Food Standards Agency that the setting of maximum permitted levels of nutrients in food supplements by the European authorities is likely to lead to very low permissible levels, reflecting outdated concepts of nutritional need rather than safety. That is a battle that the Minister must fight and win. The risks of excess sodium consumption are well documented and well known, but the documentation and information available on that subject far exceeds the information available on the known risks from excessive consumption of vitamins. However, the Government are proposing to accept European legislation that will remove a whole raft of very valuable nutrients and minerals from our diets. The point was made about the use of herbs rather than salt. If we are going to use the natural products of this country, we do not wish to see effective species elimination by the European Union.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Miss Melanie Johnson)indicated dissent.
Mr. Tredinnick: The Minister shakes her head, but that motion has been prayed against and may be the subject of a Supply day debate. The Minister should be aware that one of the well-known experts in the industry, Patrick Holford, is making a presentation to the House on 7 July. He is the founder of the Institute for Optimum Nutrition. Before the Minister says that that is bound to be an industry organisation, it is a not-

279WH
for-profit educational trust that accepts no funding from vested interests, including vitamin, food or drug companies. Patrick Holford and that organisation are clearly at odds with the Food Standards Agency and its interpretation. The FSA says that limiting B6 is wrong and that the EU directive on vitamins and minerals will be had for one's health.
The Minister should be aware that there is massive opposition in the industry. She should also get a grip on the problems with the food supplements directive and the traditional herbal medicines directive, and on what we are trying to achieve in this country through preventive medicine, an improved diet, more and better labelling, and reduced sugar and salt intake—the whole package. The hon. Lady's predecessor accepted a delegation of industry manufacturers who said afterwards that they believed that they had been misled. They had been promised that the criteria used would be different, but they believed that the Government had caved in. I urge the Minister to reconsider the issue.
I am mindful of your warning about time, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and of my desire to help other colleagues. I want to talk briefly about the situation overseas. In the United States, about 50 million adults have high blood pressure or hypertension, about 700,000 die from heart disease each year, and 166,000 die from strokes. It is estimated that the average American blood pressure would drop by 5 mm Hg if US food manufacturers were to reduce by half the levels of sodium in their products over a 10-year period. As a result, the country would experience a 20 per cent. reduction in high blood pressure, a 14 per cent. reduction in death from strokes and a drop in overall deaths of 7 per cent. Such a change in sodium content would save 150,000 lives a year.
The World Health Organisation has been mentioned. Its teams evaluated the cost-effectiveness of 17 measures aimed at preventing cardiovascular disease worldwide, including what it calls non-personal measures such as media messages about the importance of blood pressure, body weight, cardiovascular disease and cholesterol counts, and personal measures such as being screened and, if necessary, being treated for high blood pressure and elevated cholesterol. The WHO found that the measures, which include moves to cut salt from the food supply, could be very cost-effective. The Minister should take note of its conclusion that Government action to reduce salt appears to be more effective than voluntary efforts. The WHO is behind us on the issue.
The Food Standards Agency wrote a letter to me that was addressed, "Dear Colleague." I thought for a moment that the chairman had been elected to the House of Commons, because we use that form of address in the House. The letter said that the agency was taking action. I would not say that my early-day motion in February had influenced that decision, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes knows, early-day motions are tabled and press releases can be issued. Nevertheless, the Food Standards Agency has committed itself to achieving a 10 per cent. reduction in average salt intake. That is welcome, although 6 g a day is still too high. Some progress has been made, but not a lot.
280WH
I am a great fan of Westminster Hall. The debates are often very good and we have a range of expertise here this morning. What we have heard so far must give us all hope. We know that we are dealing with a serious issue that must be addressed. I look forward to hearing further contributions.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I will call the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) if he promises to take no more than three or four minutes.
10.29 am
Mr. Michael Weir: Much of what I would have said has already been said, so I shall be brief.
It has long been recognised that Scotland has a health problem because of poor diet, and salt is a contributing factor in the high incidence of heart disease and cancer. A Scottish health survey of 1998 reported that 33 per cent. of men and 28 per cent. of women suffered from high blood pressure. However, there are huge variations in that overall statistic. The figure for men in the younger age group of between 17 and 24 years of age is much lower: it is only 10 per cent. The figure for those in the older age group of 16 to 74 rises to about 76 per cent. Women showed the same general trend.
Those of us who have passed the mid-point of our 40s will be all too familiar with general practitioners regularly taking our blood pressure and advising us to reduce our salt intake. Most of us have probably taken that advice and at least moved to low-sodium alternatives. However, that will do us no good if a lot of the food that we eat is heavy in salt or sodium. We could, of course, stop eating pre-prepared food, bake our own bread and so on, but for practical purposes that is impossible in the lives that we lead.
A serious problem that concerns me as a father and which has been mentioned by other hon. Members is the effect on children. It is not easy to cut down on children's salt intake. Most children, and not a few adults, are over-fond of potato crisps, some of which are very salty indeed. For example, I stopped buying a certain brand of crisps advertised by the former captain of the England football team—I hasten to add that that had nothing to do with my decision—because they tasted very salty indeed. I instead bought the brand with the separate little blue bag of salt that the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) mentioned. Those crisps have been about for many years under a different name, but, ironically, are made by the same firm, Walkers crisps. Interestingly, when my daughter was given those crisps, she ate them but did not put the little blue bag of salt on them and was quite happy to eat them without the salt, which gives rise to the question whether the salt is required in the first place. That is a small victory, but shows that perhaps the cause is not lost and that reduced salt can work if we push at it.
I am one of those perhaps deeply sad persons who goes round supermarkets looking closely at the labels on the products that they buy. As has been mentioned, one needs a degree in food science to understand much of what is on the labels. It is also worth recalling that it is not always clear from the labels what the salt or sodium content of a product is. Someone with high blood

281WH
pressure might want to know the salt content, but it may be listed as sodium. The salt level in any food might be around two and a half times the listed sodium level, and even then not all sodium may be apparent, because it can come from ingredients other than salt. That is highly important, because, as has been mentioned, 75 per cent. of our daily salt intake is hidden in the food that we eat, which contributes to a large number of strokes. If we reduce that proportion, 50 per cent. of those may be avoided.
Conscious of your constraints, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall finish on that point.
10.31 am
Mrs. Patsy Calton: Most of the points that I wanted to make have already been made, but I hope to add a small amount of extra value.
Most people consume more salt than is absolutely necessary; the average is 12 g as compared with the average daily requirement of 6 g. Some 75 per cent, of our salt comes from processed foods, which makes it more difficult for people to understand exactly what they are taking in. Salt comes from ready meals, and canteen, restaurant and fast foods. I would particularly single out restaurant and fast foods rather than ready meals, because at least when one buys something from a supermarket there is a label on the packet if one cares to look for it. However, all of us over 50 suffer from a problem with labels in that we have considerable difficulty in reading the text if it is in 6 or 5 point type, and usually have to take our glasses off to do so.
There are large quantities of salt in foods; for example, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) said, I think, that there was 1.9 g of sodium in the sandwiches that he had for lunch yesterday, which represents 76 per cent. of his recommended daily intake. It is worrying if we can buy or are enticed into buying such food in this place. The figures in the hon. Gentleman's example probably included the filling, because I checked the bread that I used to make toast this morning and it had less than 0.1 g of sodium, so I thought, "Well, that's okay then." I can usually control my salt intake until lunchtime, but once lunchtime comes in this place it goes haywire. When I was preparing for the debate I first thought that I would check how much salt I eat in a day. I was doing well until lunchtime, but my husband got to the Red Lion pub ahead of me and ordered me a cheese and bacon sandwich, which threw the whole thing out for that day. I was also very much aware of the extra water that I needed to drink for the rest of the day.
The Food Standards Agency and the Department of Health have proposed a reduction of 25 per cent. in salt levels in processed foods as a first step. We should strongly support that recommendation. We need a staged process that deals not only with salt, but with a healthy, balanced diet and exercise as part of our lifestyle. It is not sufficient to talk simply about salt and sodium. However, we must be careful not to overstate the case. It has been recognised in the past few years that one problem with diet is that once officialdom recognises one issue—body mass, for example—some people go to the opposite extreme and we see all the difficulties of eating disorders, such as anorexia and bulimia. We do not want people to try to cut salt out of their diet completely. That would be a great shame.
282WH
The Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition has concluded that the evidence for a direct link between salt intake and high blood pressure is now much stronger. The hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard) said that the way in which we grew in knowledge of this issue was similar to what happened with tobacco. There is a link in terms of public perception. We now believe that there is a direct link between salt and blood pressure, but we have not quite got the final piece of information. What we do know is that people who suffer from hypertension will reduce their blood pressure by reducing their salt intake. That is important research, important information for us to have and a good pointer in the right direction. Although there is evidence that does not show a direct link between salt intake and blood pressure, the information that we have indicates that reducing our salt intake would do most of us no harm and some of us a great deal of good. It would be sensible to ensure that we move forward on that basis.
There are three areas in which we can do something about this issue. However, it is complex, and several steps must be taken into account. We need to worry about what is happening with children. Baby foods and the amount of salt in them are already strictly controlled. The problem arises when children move to the next stage of nutrition and start to eat normal adult foods. That is when they are likely to be overloaded with salt.
I shall conclude shortly, because I am aware that other hon. Members want to speak. As I suggested, there are three areas in which we must work much harder. First, we need a standard food labelling system to make it clear to consumers exactly how much salt is in a product. I accept that we are talking about whole populations, but when populations are examined, we see that it is the activities of individuals that make a difference. Individuals must therefore be able to work out exactly what they are taking into their body and take informed decisions about that.
Secondly, manufacturers should gradually reduce the salt content of foods. That should be encouraged by whatever means the Government have at their disposal. Thirdly, steps must be taken to increase public awareness of the potential risks of an excessive salt intake, with an emphasis on the importance of a healthy, balanced diet combined with physical activity.
Together, those three steps would enable the public to make an educated choice and perhaps assist them in preventing the ill health resulting from strokes and so on that is likely to come later, and the premature deaths that could well occur as a result of raised blood pressure, which an increased salt intake is thought to produce. We need to be slightly careful about assuming that there is a direct link, because we do not know that yet.
With hon. Members' indulgence, I should like to conclude by thanking my temporary researcher, Helen Kearney. She is a student on work experience and she is here today. I thank her for the work that she has done on this issue and I hope that she found it interesting. I praise her school for producing such an interested and interesting student.
10.39 am
Chris Grayling: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) on securing the debate and on making a powerful speech. Judging by the speeches from both sides of the Chamber, there is general concern about the issue, as well as a general awareness that we must deal with it if we are to improve the food environment.
My hon. Friend made some important points. He said that salt had taken a terrible toll on the health of the nation, and he set out some reasons for that. His remarks encapsulated very well the public health problems that we face, and he gave practical examples. He talked about salt in cornflakes, lasagne and even mineral water, although, judging from the contents label on the bottles in the Chamber, we would have to drink 20 to 25 cases to reach our daily allowance. I do not think, therefore, that mineral water poses an imminent health threat.
My hon. Friend hoped that the debate would act as a beacon of awareness to the nation. I would like to think that many people outside are listening with rapt attention, but I suspect that we shall all have to do much more work to build awareness of the problems.
My hon. Friend referred to developing ideas that could help to tackle those problems. He talked about labelling, and his comments were echoed by the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton). There is general agreement that labelling must be smarter and more effective, and that the message must be clearer for consumers who do not fully understand the health issues around salt. In that respect, I sense consensus in the Chamber that improved food labelling is a non-controversial way of educating shoppers who buy products that contain excess salt. It is also a way of encouraging the industry to look for ways to reduce salt.
My hon. Friend talked about the possibility of low-salt items being highlighted on menus in restaurants. Clearly, there is increasing labelling on menus nowadays. It started with vegetarian food, and vegan foods are now sometimes labelled, too. It is even becoming commonplace to see gluten-free items. I see no reason why restaurants should not be free to put low-salt items on their menus as well. However, I suspect that that is not really the answer and that we need lower salt levels across the board rather than in just some dishes.
The hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard) made a thoughtful contribution, which was clearly based on his experience. I was glad that he clarified his position on the comparison with tobacco, a point also raised by the hon. Member for Cheadle. There is a danger in pursuing such an analogy too far. The important difference is that tobacco is a direct contributor to ill health, whereas salt is an essential part of our daily diet. Too much may be bad for us, but too little is equally bad. If we create the sense that salt is a demon like tobacco, we shall do people a disservice.
Mr. Pollard: I was trying to make the point that we and our children are being force-fed salt and have no control over that. A distinction can be made as regards tobacco, because people can choose whether to light a
284WH
cigarette and put it in their mouths. That was the point made by my hon. friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate).
Chris Grayling: I accept that point and the desirability of reducing salt in food. However, salt is part of a balanced diet, and we do not want the consumer to believe that it must be avoided at all costs. As with fatty foods and other foods about which there is a health issue, we need balance not prohibition. That is why I raised concerns about some comments that have been made.
Mr. Steen: Does my hon. Friend agree that what is required is a little health warning—perhaps something along the lines of "Too much salt could damage your health"?
Chris Grayling: That is a fair point. Public education should get that message across, just as it has done with fatty foods. I shall return to education in a moment.
The hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) made the extremely important point that in an age of industrial production, food is often tasteless and needs additives to pep it up and make it attractive to the consumer. I want greater expansion of organic farming, and more use of traditional methods, although I recognise that in a modern, industrial society we cannot wholly leave behind industrial farming methods and it would be wrong to do so. However, the agricultural sector has a duty to explore ways of ensuring that the products of industrialised forms of farming have the taste that makes it less necessary to put salt in food.
The hon. Member for Dartford gave his views on banning advertising to children. He and I have debated the issue before; I have great anxiety about taking the route of regulation rather than education. The hon. Member for St. Albans mentioned using force, and I have genuine concerns about that, although I shall not rehearse the arguments at length. I understand the motivation for wanting to pursue the issue, but in an era of 24-hour news channels, multichannel satellite television and a variety of marketing ways to reach consumers, enforcing a ban and defining the territory in which it would apply would be difficult.
Dr. Stoate: The hon. Gentleman and I do not see eye to eye on the matter because manufacturers of processed foods that are high in salt have huge advertising exposure and make large profits, but there is no profit in healthy and natural foods. Therefore, the advertising that kids are exposed to is completely unbalanced. I am merely calling for balance.
Chris Grayling: My view is that we should try to educate consumers. The trend in recent years has been for manufacturers to start producing healthier options. They have taken a step along the way, although there may be further to go. The more they can see the benefit of responding to genuine market need, the more likely it is that there will be a change in consumers' behaviour. I am not persuaded that telling people what to do or cutting them off from a section of marketing will deliver that objective; only education can do so. The difficulty is in deciding where to draw the dividing line if bans or restrictions are to be imposed in marketing foods—for

285WH
example, when is a food healthy? Who decides whether it is appropriate to market a food? Legislating in that respect would be extremely difficult.
Mr. Pollard: The hon. Gentleman is talking about choice, but as I said, people do not have a choice: they are being force-fed the stuff. That is why legislation may be necessary.
Chris Grayling: It is my hope and belief that the retailers and manufacturers are taking steps in the right direction, as the hon. Member for Dartford and my hon. Friends the Members for Totnes and for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) said. There may be a long way to go, but the retailers and manufacturers deserve credit for the improvements that have been made. We need to go further; society is afflicted by obesity and is becoming aware of the problems caused by excessive salt intake. These are not the only issues relating to food and nutrition. The food industry must play a core role in helping to address some of the problems. However, we will solve them only in an environment in which the consumer wants a healthier product and there is money to be made in delivering it. We must start the process with public health education.
The hon. Member for Dartford said that people are aware of the personal impact of eating less, being slimmer and having a healthier diet. We must extend that awareness to salt consumption; parents need to know that if they allow their children to consume excessive amounts of salt, they will be less healthy. Parents must want to take the purchasing decisions in the supermarket on a Saturday morning that will deliver healthier products to their children. That must be our priority.
There should be a national debate about salt, and better public health education about the implications of excessive salt consumption. An effective partnership with the industry would encourage it to push at the margins of the market to persuade consumers to try new products. Providing better labelling and information would mean that consumers were better able to take rational decisions by looking at the side of the pack and saying, "I want that, but not that". That is where the Government's priorities should lie.
I commend all hon. Members for their contributions to this extremely important public health debate. I hope the process will continue. I stand by the view "educate, not regulate", and I call on the Government to put real effort into the "educate" part.
10.50 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Miss Melanie Johnson): I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) on his success in securing this important debate. I also welcome the contributions of all who have participated.
High blood pressure, also known as hypertension, is common in the UK. It is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease, stroke and premature death and a contributory factor in more than 170,000 deaths a year in England. The Government are committed to reducing deaths from heart disease. The recent World Health Organisation project on the burden of disease indicated
286WH
that 50 per cent. of deaths and disability could be prevented by national and individual action to reduce major risk factors such as high blood pressure.
Reducing average salt intake is likely to decrease the burden of high blood pressure and improve public health. Our action to reduce the population risk of developing high blood pressure is multi-pronged. It touches on the contributions of a number of hon. Members, because it includes cutting the level of salt in the diet along with encouraging children and adults to eat more fruit and vegetables, maintain a healthy weight and be physically active. All those are needed, and education plays a role.
Sodium is an essential nutrient, and salt is the major source of sodium in our diet. Most people, however, consume more sodium than is required. The latest available data show, as hon. Members have said, that habitual levels of salt intake are high for both adults and children. For adults, average intake is two and half times the amount required, averaging about 9 g a day instead of 6 g. Although accurate data are not available for children, conservative estimates suggest that some children have intakes higher than those of adults.
There is one reassuring fact. Responses to the Food Standards Agency's consumer attitude survey of 2002 showed that 51 per cent. of consumers recognised that they should eat less salt. I shall come on to the point about how salt and sodium are identified in people's minds, but the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) and for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard), have been recognised, and that is important.
About 75 per cent. of dietary salt intake comes from processed foods, with the remainder added during cooking and at the table, under consumers' own control. The main sources of salt include cereals and cereal products and meat products, which together contribute more than 50 per cent. of the average salt intakes. I should make a point about the figures on what people buy and eat. One thing that has emerged from my discussions is that it is important to be aware of how much of certain things one eats. Although salt in bread has been reduced, bread can still be an issue because we eat a lot of it. Conversely, although some products contain a high concentration of salt, if one eats a small amount of them the fact that they are very salty might not matter.
Our target is a reduction from 9 g to 6 g a day, as recommended in the 1994 report by the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition Policy. A large body of opinion favours a general reduction in salt consumption, which we recognised in the White Paper "Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation" and in the NHS Plan. We made a commitment in the plan to work with the food industry and the Food Standards Agency to improve the overall balance in the diet of salt, fat and sugar. That was endorsed by the Chief Medical Officer, and, in 2001, the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition, which replaced the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition Policy, also made recommendations for children. Its report on salt and health was published on 15 May 2003. It concluded that the target intake of 6 g of salt per day for adults, set by the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food and

287WH
Nutrition Policy, remained valid, and that the evidence that salt intake was directly associated with blood pressure was even stronger.
The Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition also concluded that lowering the average salt intake of the population would proportionately lower average blood pressure and confer significant health benefits. However, I understand that if someone lowers their salt intake, that will lower their blood pressure, but having had a higher salt intake will already have done some damage; they will not return to the levels that they might have done, had they had a lower salt intake throughout their diet.
For infants and children, significant health benefits would be gained from a reduction in average salt consumption. The Government accept the Committee's recommendations and have taken action to bring the report to the attention of all the stakeholder organisations known to have an interest in salt as a public health issue, including the European Food Safety Authority and all the EU food agencies.
The required reduction in average salt intake by one third is substantial and will need concerted action by all, including the food industry—manufacturers, retailers and caterers, all of whom have been well represented in contributions to the debate—and consumers, and will need support from a range of stakeholders including the Government.
The Government are taking action on three fronts: encouraging people to reduce the salt that they add to their food, encouraging them to reduce the salt content of the foods that they buy, particularly processed foods; and providing consumers with helpful information on food labels.
Labelling was raised by several hon. Members. I understand why that topic is important, although, judging by some hon. Members' remarks, I would guess that they have not often done the family shopping. I am an expert on doing the shopping, so I know a great deal about what is to be found in various stores and their labelling arrangements.
The current labelling arrangements require sodium, rather than salt, to be specified. We are making representations to the European Commission on changing those arrangements, which would need to be done on a single market basis. That would allow us to
288WH
label products as containing salt rather than sodium. Negotiations are under way, but have not yet reached a conclusion.
Mrs. Calton: There is a problem with the term "salt". Perhaps "salt equivalent" would need to be used. Sodium ions cause the dietary problems, and if "salt" alone was used, sodium from other sources might be missed.
Miss Johnson: I thank the hon. Lady for her remark and for her contribution to the debate. It is also possible to use a separate labelling panel to indicate salt content, as several retailers and others have already done. We would be in favour of the salt content of foods being made clearer to consumers, and it is not currently illegal to use a separate labelling panel to do that. However, I accept that people have a problem in linking the sodium and salt contents. It is good news that people recognise that salt is an issue, but we need to make the link to sodium as strongly as we can.
Mr. Steen: What about a warning—a little sign similar to the ones that appear on cigarette packets—that salt may cause damage to health?
Miss Johnson: Many aspects can be included in labelling, but there is a problem with continually adding things to labels. One problem with reading labels in supermarkets is that they contain a lot of information, and the more that is included, the less space there is to include detail, particularly on smaller products.
Since 1998, the salt content of bread has been reduced by between 7 per cent. and 21 per cent., depending on the product. The largest salt reduction has been in white loaves—21 per cent.—and the salt in wholemeal bread has been reduced by 10 per cent. Considerable achievements have therefore been made. However, I agree with hon. Members that more work must be done on all those fronts. That is why the Government are pursuing the strategy of examining ways to reduce the salt content of individual foods, and to ensure that labelling, consumer education and healthy eating are at the top of our agenda.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I ask hon. Members who do not wish to stay for the next debate to leave quickly and quietly? I hope that hon. Members can find their way back to the Central Lobby.

Access to the Countryside
11 am
Mr. Francis Maude: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the case of my constituents Robin and Jane Loder and the experiences that they have had in relation to the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. I have notified the Minister in advance of the case that I shall raise, so I hope that he is in a position to respond to the detailed issues.
Leonardslee Gardens in Lower Beeding in West Sussex is one of the wonders of England. Situated in the High Weald area of outstanding natural beauty, it has been created over 150 years by four generations of the Loder family and is home to one of the most interesting collections of flora in the world. It is especially famous for its collection of rhododendrons, which, in the month of May, flower so spectacularly that I would not be surprised if Leonardslee were visible from space. Indeed, the species rhododendron loderi was developed by Robin Loder's forebears at Leonardslee. Today, it is owned and managed by Robin and Jane Loder.
Like his forebears, Robin is a fanatical gardener and botanist, who has written extensively about natural flora. However, Leonardslee is no rich man's plaything. Open to the public—as it is for eight months of the year—it is the only source of livelihood for Robin and Jane, and for the eight full-time gardeners who work there. It also provides seasonal employment for a further 50 or so people.
Before 1987, only about half of Leonardslee's 200 acres was open to the public. The rest was very mature woodland, with many trees of such an age that they were a danger to the public. The hurricane of October 1987 changed all that. Standing four-square in the path of the storm, Leonardslee was devastated. In the 60 acre area of Leonardslee with which I am concerned today, 3,000 trees were lost; only 740 were left standing. The entirety of a unique 1902 pinetum was destroyed, and even in the least affected area, 75 per cent. of the trees were destroyed. Overall, Leonardslee lost 10,000 trees.
In the years following, Robin Loder repaired the damage and used the opportunity to revitalise an extraordinary, but completely artificial piece of English landscape to the extent that, in 1993, the 60 acre area joined the rest of Leonardslee in holding a grade 1 classification in English Heritage's register of parks and gardens. That accolade is a fair reflection of what generations of Loders—Robin certainly not the least among them—have accomplished. What has been done there is in every way admirable. Leonardslee is open to the public, it gives employment, it has added to the store of scientific knowledge, and it is organically managed. It is a unique, beautiful and magical place, which has become so, and remains so, through the expenditure of enormous amounts of hard work and considerable sums of money.
In November 2001, the Loders discovered—through the Countryside Agency's website, not through the courtesy of a letter or a telephone call—that two thirds of the area of Leonardslee currently open to the public had been mapped as open country with open access for
290WH
the public. Open country is defined by the CROW Act as land that
"appears to the Countryside Agency to consist wholly or predominantly of mountain, moor, heath or down."
The 120 acres so mapped are intensively managed ornamental gardens, and parkland grazed by deer and, for more than a century—rather eccentrically—by wallabies. It is an area that was, until the 1987 storm, heavily wooded.
Following an initial response by the Loders, half of that area was removed from the provisional map. Some 60 acres remained in two adjoining parcels, which the Countryside Agency continued to maintain were open country within the meaning of the Act. The area was almost exclusively heavily wooded before 1987. In the past 10 years Mr Loder has allowed part of it to regenerate naturally as woodland in order to create a shelter belt, so that he can replant the 1902 pinetum, which contains a variety of more or less tender trees. That process has now started. That natural regeneration has been heavily managed, as it needs to be, to ensure that the trees that grow—mainly birch—are of good quality and enhance the aesthetic appeal of the place.
Leonardslee is plainly neither mountain, moor nor down. The argument is about whether any of it can sensibly be described as lowland heath. The only definition of heath appears in paragraph 68 of the Countryside Agency's mapping methodology, which says that heath is
"land of a generally open character, usually characterised by natural ericaceous dwarf shrubs."
The definition continues:
"The typical vegetation types are heathers, gorse, bilberry, mires, scrub, unimproved grassland, and bracken."
Area E, the smaller of the two parcels of land, cannot reasonably be said to display those characteristics—it is basically grassland and some regenerating woodland. However, that is the only relevant quality, as the Countryside Agency admits. Had that area been heavily wooded, as it was before the storm, it could not have been classified under the Act. Area F, the larger area, was also heavily wooded, and will be so again as a result of the progressive planting undertaken since. It does, however, contain a small area of some 5 to 7 acres that exhibits some of the characteristics of genuine lowland heath.
Robin Loder rightly appealed against the decision. The appeal was scheduled for August, and now, at the eleventh hour, the Countryside Agency has said that it will not contest the appeal, albeit on limited grounds, to which I shall return. I am especially grateful for the care and courtesy that Sir Ewen Cameron, the chairman of the Countryside Agency, has devoted to the case. It might therefore be thought that there has been a happy outcome to the episode. However, I cannot overstate what a torment the affair has been for Robin and Jane Loder. They have seen an arm of the state take an apparently arbitrary, almost whimsical decision that would, at a stroke, have deprived them not only of their livelihood but of the life's work of Robin Loder and his distinguished forebears. The situation has cost them many tens of thousands of pounds in professional fees even thus far; had the appeal continued to its contested conclusion, that sum would probably have been doubled. The financial cost has been severe enough, but

291WH
the emotional and mental toll that the episode has taken has been immense. Robin and Jane Loder deserve recompense for what the state has subjected them to, and I intend to see that they get it.
I should like the Minister to respond to my concerns. First, the process has been appalling. There has been no consultation and no discussion. Whenever surveyors have visited, they have refused to enter into any discussion with the custodians of the property, and have therefore denied themselves the opportunity to understand the history and background of that certainly unique piece of land. The surveys have been cursory and poorly documented, and the report from the last survey, in March 2003, has neither been supplied to the appellants nor referred to in the agency's statement of case. I ask the Minister that that report be now provided.
These procedures are inefficient from the agency's point of view, because they inevitably lead to such expensive mistakes. However, it is also contrary to natural justice for the state to be able to intervene regarding private property without the owners' having any opportunity to make their case at an early stage. I ask the Minister to institute an urgent review of the procedures to ensure that the demands of basic natural justice are met.
Secondly, the decision to map the area as heathland is incomprehensible. The Countryside Agency's own survey map tells the whole story: area E is described as half acid grassland and half regenerating woodland. It is accepted that the presence of those two types of cover is compatible with an area's designation as heathland, but only in the sense that their presence does not stop the area being heathland overall. I know of no definition under which the presence of acid grassland and regenerating woodland on their own make an area heathland. According to the agency, area E and area F between them include only one small portion, which is no more than 13 per cent. of area F—the 5 to 7 acres to which I referred—which is described as "heathland/acid grassland mosaic." The term mosaic is important, because it clearly conveys that the land so described is only partially heathland. That clearly means that it is not "pure" heathland, if such a concept exists. In the tick-box survey form that the agency completed in May 2002, the box for heathland in the section on "qualifying land cover" was left unticked. The only type of cover that could definitively make the area heathland was not found. Other cover types that were ticked—acid grassland, bracken, scrub and scattered trees—are all compatible with heathland, but do not make an area heathland.
The agency's statement of case wilfully misstates the position by asserting that
"a mosaic of heathland and acid grassland is the predominant ground cover".
The agency's own plan, which I have to hand, gives the lie to that assertion. It makes it clear that only 13 per cent. of the area is such a mosaic, yet it stubbornly adheres to its original conclusion, even in the face of its own evidence. Even at the point of concession 10 days ago, it continued to maintain that the ground cover was heathland, with that dogged, dogmatic refusal ever to
292WH
admit error so typical of Government agencies that so enrages law-abiding citizens and makes them utterly determined to pursue their grievances against the state to the last farthing.
The concession letter states:
"We would, however, wish to make it abundantly clear that the Agency does not accept the appellants' assertion that the land is regenerating woodland and, therefore, not heathland. The Agency maintains its view that the land cover is heath. In addition, the criticisms of the mapping methodology advanced on behalf of the appellants are rejected in their entirety."
That is not a way for Government agencies to behave. It is disgraceful. It avoids the issue of the agency's thoroughly dodgy methodology and definitions being ventilated and tested in a tribunal. The only conclusion that I can draw is that the agency plans to subject other landowners to the same appallingly arbitrary treatment. I hope that the Minister will commit to an urgent review of the methodology and definitions that govern the agency's behaviour.
The third issue relates to a deficiency in the 2000 Act. It is clear that Leonardslee is "park and garden". English Heritage's inclusion of it in its register surely puts that beyond dispute, and it would be "excepted land" under part 1, schedule 1 to the Act. There should therefore never have been a problem, except that the agency is entirely unable to make a definitive and binding statement declaring it to be excepted land, and thus to conclude the matter.
For Robin Loder to rely on the provision, the land would have to appear on the map, and it would be entirely on his shoulders to assert and to defend its "excepted" status against all comers—in the courts, if need be. How can that be just or fair? As it happens, the local chapter of the Ramblers Association strongly supports the Loders' case, but that might not have been so, and it cannot be right for matters of such importance to be left to chance in this way.
At the very least, I hope that the Minister will commit to amend the 2000 Act to enable exception to be dealt with at the mapping stage, so that land such as Leonardslee that is so obviously excepted can be taken out of the equation at the start of the process and so that people like Robin and Jane Loder will not be subjected to all these proceedings.
The fourth issue is that it is surely profoundly wrong that land to which the public already have access on payment of an entrance fee should come under the open-access provisions. Leonardslee could not exist without the paying public, and far from wanting to keep the public at bay, Robin Loder absolutely needs to entice them in. However, Leonardslee is an entirely manufactured landscape and can remain of interest to the public only if it is intensively managed, and that is expensive. Without replanting and intensive grazing by deer and wallabies, even the few acres of quasiheathland that the agency is so keen to get its hands on would swiftly revert to scrub. The type of management involved makes things even more expensive. Organically managing Leonardslee involves, for example, pulling ragwort by hand rather than spraying it, and I know from personal experience that that demands high levels of manual labour. Giving the public free access to land to which they previously paid for access would therefore be utterly self-destructive. The very qualities that made

293WH
the area appealing would evaporate in the absence of the entrance fees that maintained them.
There is, however, a further objection, which, as far as I can discover, was never ventilated when the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill was scrutinised. It is surely objectionable in principle for an economic asset to be expropriated by executive diktat and without compensation. It is arguable that genuine heathland, downland, moorland and mountain, whose economic value lies primarily in grazing, remain economically unimpaired by the advent of open access. However, the entire economic value of such as Leonardslee would be confiscated.
When I raised the issue with the agency's chairman, he responded by saying that the agency would impose restrictions if such properties were mapped and failed to clear the excepted land hurdle. He said that the agency would expect the restriction regime simply to replicate the existing payment regime. There are two problems with that. First, that policy has not yet been finalised and promulgated, so landowners cannot plant on that basis. Secondly, it is a travesty that a landowner should have to go through such a protracted, expensive and emotionally gruelling process to win, at inordinate cost, the right to continue doing what he is already doing. That cannot have been intended in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. I therefore hope that the Minister will undertake to amend the Act to clarify that it is not intended to apply to land that is already open to the fee-paying public.
This has been a sorry episode, and there will be many others who, like Robin and Jane Loder, have had their lives turned upside down. I hope that the Minister can provide some reassurance that such manifest faults in the system will be put right.
11.17 am
The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael): I thank the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) for securing the debate and for giving us an opportunity to discuss the important points that he raises. It was interesting to hear of his experience of manual labour, and I am happy to commend his efforts in pulling up ragwort. As he knows, it is one of the issues that we are working on with the horse industry, because of its pernicious effects. I therefore very much admire the right hon. Gentleman's contribution to tackling the problem.
I shall not reopen issues that were debated when the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 was scrutinised in this House and in another place. I shall, however, update hon. Members on the point that we have reached in implementing the new right of access to open countryside and registered common land. It is worth bearing in mind that some of the processes involved are complex, particularly because we sought fairly to balance people's understandable wish to access and enjoy the countryside against the needs of land managers, including farmers, in managing their land.
The right hon. Gentleman refers specifically to the Leonardslee gardens appeal, but he will be aware that I cannot comment on the merits of the individual appeal. As he said, the Countryside Agency has made it clear that it will concede the appeal. However, he will be aware that an inspector must still formally determine the
294WH
matter on behalf of the Secretary of State. That is because the process is transparent.
The right hon. Gentleman made several criticisms, particularly of the agency and some of its approaches, and I will ensure that those criticisms are examined. I am keen for the agency not only to act fairly and efficiently but to be seen to act fairly and efficiently. I can reassure him that I meet the chair, the deputy chair and the chief executive regularly to discuss its policies and performance, and the implementation of the 2000 Act and the mapping exercise regularly figure on the agenda.
On the case to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, I can confirm that the Countryside Agency has written to the Planning Inspectorate and to the owner, Mr. Robin Loder, to say that it will not contest Mr. Loder's appeal against the showing of land at Leonardslee gardens on the provisional map. Further, I understand that the chairman of the agency wrote to the right hon. Gentleman earlier this month and in summary said that this had been a difficult case, raising issues that the agency had not encountered previously. For that reason it is not right to make a generalised risk assumption.
The agency remains convinced that the land in question met the vegetation criteria for the heath set out in the mapping methodology. It pointed out that there was a unique situation of land within a formal garden, which meant that the land did not meet the provision in the methodology that land should be of a generally open character, which is why the agency decided not to contest the appeal.
The chairman also said that the agency regrets the anxiety caused to Mr. Loder, but assured the right hon. Gentleman that agency staff had acted properly at each stage of the appeal. As I have said, it would not be appropriate for me to comment further as the planning inspector has yet to determine the appeal. I am happy to say more, once the appeal has been formally determined by the inspector. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that these are formal legal processes and that in some ways it might have been helpful if we had had this debate after the formal determination took place.
Mr. Maude: Given what the Minister helpfully says—that this has been a test case, which has enabled a number of difficult issues to be tested and resolved within the agency—I hope that he will go on to say that it would be appropriate in the circumstances for the Loders' expenses, which are considerable, and have been incurred almost in the role of guinea pig for the agency, to be reimbursed.
Alun Michael: I think the right hon. Gentleman knows the answer to his own question, which is that I am not going to say more about this case until the appeal has been finally determined. I hear what he says and I have said that I will look at the case with the agency to see what wider lessons might be learned and what further can be said in response to the criticisms and points that he has made in the debate once the appeal has been determined.
It is worth making the point that the agency must map all land that appears to those undertaking the mapping to consist of open country or registered land. But the right of access will not necessarily apply to all the land

295WH
that appears on the agency's maps; that is of the essence of the three-stage approach that is set out. The Act recognises that within areas of open country or registered common land there will be land that should not be open for public access. Such land is described as "excepted land": gardens, parks and cultivated land are among 13 categories of land specifically excepted from the right of access, even though they may be shown on the agency's maps.
The purpose of the excepted land provisions is to provide flexibility. The agency's maps will last up to 10 years. Over that period, land currently shown as open country or registered common land may become excepted, and excepted land may change its use so that the right of access applies to it. The agency has no power to remove excepted land from its maps of open country and registered common land. The agency's maps can only show the current extent of excepted land, so people walking in the future may be misled into thinking that land is open for access when it is not and vice versa.
In any case, I am not convinced that walkers will use the agency's statutory maps as their main source of information on land that is open for access. As a walker myself, I go to the source of Ordnance Survey maps, as I am sure most people do. However, I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we recognise the benefits for landowners and walkers alike of giving people as much information as we can to help them understand where they can and cannot walk. It is also fair to say that both the agency and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are learning lessons as this unique process is carried through as a result of the CROW Act.
All the bodies involved in the roll-out of the new right of access will undertake extensive publicity to ensure that people understand the right and the accompanying responsibilities. We are working in partnership with our colleagues in Wales, the countryside bodies, the Ministry of Defence and Ordnance Survey to decide how best to identify excepted land in England and Wales. We are also looking to the main stakeholders on this issue, which include the Country Land and Business Association, the National Farmers Union and the Ramblers Association. It is good that those organisations are talking to one another.
That process will be enhanced by the committees at local and county level, which engage people who have traditionally been on different sides of the equation to try to secure a practical outcome for the implementation of the CROW Act and other access issues. We hope that those discussions will lead to a solution that is acceptable to all parties concerned with the implementation of the new right of access.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to landowners wanting to charge for entry to land shown on the agency's maps of open country and registered common land. Again, I stress that I am referring to the issue generally, although he referred to it in specific terms. The agency considers that there are circumstances in which a direction excluding access should be given to allow the owner of access land to charge an entry fee. One principle of the Act is that the right of access should
296WH
not prevent landowners from managing their land. That said, it is important that restrictions and exclusions of access are not abused.
The agency is preparing guidance for the bodies responsible for granting directions restricting or excluding access. Clearly, that guidance must distinguish between cases in which there is a legitimate need to exclude access and those in which the intention may be simply to make access more difficult for walkers. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would accept that distinction.
I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that we are making good progress towards implementing the new right of access by the end of 2005, as has always been the intention. I have announced that I intend to roll out the right on a region-by-region basis, starting in the summer of next year. We are on course to achieve that, but we cannot predict with certainty how long it will take to determine appeals against the showing of land on the maps. Everyone involved in the process is learning as it continues.
Last week, we laid regulations to give the agency powers to correct minor errors on its maps of open country and registered common land. Those powers will assist the agency in its determination to ensure that the maps are as accurate and comprehensive as possible. The powers will also, in a minor way, simplify part of the process. We aim to lay regulations shortly on exclusions and restrictions of access.
At every stage in the process, we have sought to balance the sometimes conflicting demands of land managers and users of any new rights of access. We consult widely on all our proposals and seek to include as many people as possible in our decision making.
We are working closely with the agency to consider how the new right of access should be managed and what funding streams are available to assist. This is not just a matter for central Government. We are encouraging local authorities to think hard about the benefits of the right that will accrue to local communities and about how to make the most of that exciting opportunity. It is significant for the economies of many areas. Access and things such as the national trails have an enormously important impact in drawing people to an area and enabling the local economy to benefit. We expect the new right of access to benefit local communities by bringing more walkers into the countryside and increasing local economic activity. I am convinced that local communities will see benefits as a result. What could be better than a walk in our glorious countryside followed by lunch in a village pub?
As the right hon. Gentleman said, the process is complex and individual cases raise important issues. I have given him an undertaking that I will consider the issues that he raised once the case to which he referred has been determined, and that I will respond to him further then. As I said, it would not be appropriate for me to say more during this debate, although I greatly welcome the debate.
11.29 am
Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.

Equal Pay
2 pm
Judy Mallaber: I am pleased to have secured this debate on equal pay for women and men.
What is today's debate about? It is simple to describe. The pay gap between women and men is 19 per cent. for full-time workers. For those working part time, the gap is 41 per cent. Hourly earnings of women part-time workers are just 59 per cent. of men's earnings, and the position has not changed for 25 years. The problem is much harder to eliminate. Even though pay discrimination has been illegal for 33 years since the passing of the Equal Pay Act 1970, inequality remains horribly stubborn. It runs from top to bottom and cuts across all sectors of employment. There are the well publicised cases of pay discrimination claims in City firms; for example, the share analyst, Julie Bower, won £1.4 million from Schröder Securities for a discriminatory bonus scheme, and the cleaner, Dawn Ruff, at Hannant cleaning was paid 60p less an hour than her male colleagues doing equivalent jobs.
That is why the all-party group on sex equality wanted this debate. Its chairwomen, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan), tabled an early-day motion on the subject, which has 129 signatures so far. It is such a wonderful a motion that, until I secured this debate, I was convinced that I had added my signature to it. To my horror, I discovered that I had not signed it, but now I have. I know that my hon. Friend hopes to intervene on this debate, but she must also attend a worthy Committee that is considering the Female Genital Mutilation Bill. I place on record our thanks to her for her work on the all-party group, and to the Equal Opportunities Commission for helping the group and providing briefings for Members today. I also thank my union, Unison, the TUC and firms in my constituency for providing information.
The all-party group welcomes the steps already taken by the Government to redress the pay gap, but we call for further action to give the strongest possible positive lead to employers and to highlight the problem, about which we have not done enough despite it being such a long-standing and deep-seated problem.
I am delighted to introduce the debate because I have worked on the issue of pay equality all my adult life, beginning many years ago—more than I care to remember—on the women's rights committee of the National Council for Civil Liberties with, among others, the Minister's boss, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. We were tackling pay inequality, and promoting equal pay for work of equal value.
At that time, I worked for the National Union of Public Employees and wrote its documents on a statutory minimum wage, until we finally persuaded our party that the principle was not an interference on free collective bargaining, but a positive measure in tackling injustice and poverty. It can be one of the most effective tools with which to tackle women's pay. Some 1.5 million people benefited from it when it was introduced. Some 70 per cent. of them were women and two thirds of them were working part time. For the most recent date for which figures are available, 1.8 million workers in Britain, of whom 1.35 million are women, were
298WH
earning less than £4.50 an hour, which will be the minimum wage rate from October this year, as recommended by the Low Pay Commission. I welcome that increase, but my request to my hon. Friend the Minister is that the Government should ensure continued increases in the future. We need increases that are significantly above inflation to help to tackle the pay gap and promote improvements for those on the lowest pay.
I was proud to serve on the Committee that considered the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. I was on the Committee with the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), and I hope that he will later recant the many hours that he made us spend, sitting through the night, telling us what an absolute disaster the minimum wage would be—the end of civilisation as we knew it. I know that he is an advocate of equal pay, so I look forward to his telling us that he now totally supports the minimum wage and the increases in it.
Pay matters. We all know that. It directly affects our standard of living. It shows how we are valued by our employers and society, and it can affect how we value ourselves. What does it say about the importance of women's work that they are paid so much less than men? How is that regarded? Pay inequality and secrecy about pay is bad for business. It can demotivate staff and lead to the loss of good, experienced staff. Pay inequality follows women into retirement and into pensioner poverty.
This is a complex issue that will require determined work on various fronts. We have seen the gap and how little progress we have made in the past 33 years. The causes of the pay gap have been and can be analysed under three main headings: straightforward discrimination, occupational segregation and the effects of the unequal impact of caring and family responsibilities. On pay discrimination, employers that I have asked have said to me, "We do not have a problem here, because we have equal pay rates. We pay men and women the same. There are no problems." However, employers often think that they are all right—that there is no problem—because they are looking only at basic pay and salary rates. Equal pay covers all elements of a pay package.
I am a strange anorak. I recall that, when I was working for the union, I used to love getting the pay statistics from local government employers. I would pore over those with great delight. At that time, the cook and the dustman, for example, were on the same basic rate, but the pay differences between them were substantial. One got a bonus and the other did not.
Other issues relating to unsocial hours payments, company cars, pensions and holidays all come into the pay package. Equal pay also means paying men and women the same, even if they do different jobs if they are jobs of similar worth, or jobs that can be evaluated as being equal.
Joan Ruddock: My hon. Friend is speaking about local government, so I wonder whether she has seen the excellent paper produced by the GMB, the Transport and General Workers Union and Unison on term-time working? That mainly affects women who are employed in term time, but who are

299WH
often not paid for holidays and are on low rates of pay. Will she consider that issue, because it involves direct discrimination of the kind that she is discussing?
Judy Mallaber>: I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I used to help to negotiate pay rates and conditions for school meals staff and cleaners, so I am aware of that problem. Indeed, I recently attended the rally organised by the unions. I hope that we can take that point on board positively.
Because there are so many factors involved, we need employers to analyse their pay structures properly if they are to identify why men and women receive such different deals on pay. I welcome, as I am sure all hon. Members in the Chamber do, the Government report that has asked employers to carry out pay audits. I also welcome the development of the equal pay questionnaire to help employees to take up questions and concerns about unequal pay with their employers, and the Equal Opportunities Commission equal pay toolkit.
Julie Morgan: Does my hon. Friend not agree that it is important that help is given to small and medium-sized businesses, so that they are able to analyse their pay practices? Is she aware of the high-tech guide for small businesses issued in Wales by the EOC in conjunction with the Welsh Development Agency? That is aimed especially at such firms to help them analyse their pay practices and move forward. Such businesses do not always have the resources available to large bodies and public bodies. I am sure that she will recognise that that is important in Wales, because two thirds of the people there work in small and medium-sized enterprises.
Judy Mallaber: I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution. That is important. I did an interview earlier with my regional BBC. I was asked whether employers would say that that was just another burden on them. I do not think that it is a burden—it is useful for businesses to have a good, fair pay structure. However, they need help with that and it is important that we have guides to make it easy for them to produce one and that say that this is not a complex exercise and that they will be given as much help as possible so that they are able to carry out the audits.
There are several issues that I shall add to the debate and ask the Minister to consider. First, the recent research from the EOC shows that only 18 per cent. of large employers and 10 per cent. of medium-sized employers have embarked on pay reviews. But, if they do not do so, they may not realise that there is inequality in their organisation. The immediate reaction is for organisations to say that they do everything properly, because they do not obviously discriminate. I call on my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that the Government make a great effort to highlight pay audits and the assistance and advantages available to employers. The Government need to put the same effort into this issue as they do in promoting tax credits, family friendly and flexible working rights and so on.
Secondly, it is important to monitor progress on the equal pay audits. I do not suggest that there should be compulsory pay audits, but if progress is not being
300WH
made, we will have to consider what more can be done. Otherwise, closing the pay gap will take decades. We have already waited 33 years and we cannot wait for ever.
Thirdly, we should use the power of the public sector and ask all private sector contractors employed by the Government to complete a pay review before contracts are agreed. The growth in the contract culture makes it difficult to apply many of the employment practices and employment legislation in our economy. For example, the Equal Pay Act 1970 cannot be used if comparisons cannot be drawn because people are employed by different employers, even if they are carrying out work as contractors for the same organization.
Fourthly, I welcome the TUC equal pay pilot project, which has been funded by the union learning fund. In the Committee on the Employment Bill, which was enacted in 2002, Opposition Members were fine about family friendly flexible hours but what drove them doolally and bananas was funding for union learning representatives. They insisted that the Minister stayed in Committee for the whole day while we talked about a positive proposal that I thought was the obvious thing to do; the Opposition said that we were there only at the behest of the TUC.
It is important to help workplace representatives to find out how to do equal pay reviews. It is important, too, to promote partnership between workplace reps and employers to conduct those exercises jointly. At present, the project has trained 500 representatives to understand what the reviews are about. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that funding is continued for that purpose, including helping people from the employers' side.
Fifthly, the Government must lead by example. We cannot ask everyone else to do what we are not doing ourselves. The Secretary of State said recently how embarrassing it was to discover that an equal pay audit had uncovered a serious problem of unfair pay in ACAS, the great arbiter that ensures that everything operates smoothly in the workplace and assists people to get things right. However, at least the audit was done. The Secretary of State said that money had been found to address the problem.
I ask my hon. Friend to ensure that the results of the pay audits carried out in other Departments and agencies following the EOC's "Just Pay" report are published as soon as possible, and that action is taken to provide the funding to rectify any problems that are uncovered. I hope that she will take note of the matters arising from the issue of pay audit and pay discrimination.
I want to give a positive example of my union's experience of the NHS agenda for change programme, which has been widely discussed recently in various contexts. It covers more than 1 million employees and brings together about 10 different pay negotiating groups. When I wrote pay claims for those groups, it was a nightmare because the structure was so complex. The programme covers ancillaries, admin and clerical, professional and technical, ambulance and nursing staff, midwives and senior managers. It has taken four years to do the evaluation, which includes equal pay and equal value principles. It has been a massive and amazing exercise, but it will benefit NHS patients as well as

301WH
employees. Bringing those groups together will mean less rigid demarcation; it will allow employees not to be disadvantaged if they change jobs because they can move within the pay bands. That will be a lot easier and better for the NHS.
The unions have agreed to carry out the first pilot schemes to ensure that everything works smoothly. If the NHS can do that, it cannot be impossible for other employers, with far less complex structures, to take such measures on board.
Mr. Mark Francois: Will the hon. Lady allow me to make a constituency point? I have two major call centres in my constituency, one of which is unfortunately in the process of making most of its employees redundant. As she will know, the bulk of call centre employees have historically tended to be women. Does she have examples—not necessarily from my constituency, but from elsewhere in the country—of unequal pay in call centres?
Judy Mallaber: That raises the issue of occupational segregation, to which I shall come shortly. It is one of the difficulties that result from men and women working in specific fields. It is difficult to implement equal pay in call centres unless one can find comparators within the same employer, although I am sure that employers can take up such issues.
Let me return to my previous point and give an example from the NHS pay agenda. Following the pay review, domestic supervisors are moving into a pay band that includes building and maintenance craftworkers. Domestic team leaders are moving up into a pay band with porter team leaders, security officers and storekeepers. As a result of last year's local government pay dispute, the Local Government Pay Commission is now moving towards introducing a similar exercise in local government. I think that we shall find that the agreements that were supposedly introduced on single status have not all been implemented, partly because of funding issues.
I have one question for my hon. Friend the Minister on public service pay reviews. Again, it comes back to the issue of contracting out. There is currently a dispute at the Royal Bolton hospital about cleaners being contracted out to work for a private company. There are agreements made under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, but they do not necessarily apply to employees for ever and they do not apply to new employees. The agreement on tackling the two-tier work force in local government was welcome, and I ask my hon. Friend to do all that she can to ensure that such agreements are extended to the NHS and other public agencies. Again, it is often women who lose out and become second-class citizens when work is contracted out to voluntary sector agencies or private contractors.
I return to the point about call centres. I have talked about the various facets of pay discrimination, but another major difficulty is occupational segregation. Pay audits can help to identify the impact of what is a major factor in pay inequality. More than 60 per cent. of women's employment is concentrated in just 10 occupations. I ask the Minister to look again at a proposal contained in the report on part-time workers
302WH
that was published by the Select Committee on Education and Employment in the last Parliament. We suggested that such workers could use the concept of a hypothetical comparator, because many of them do not have anyone with whom to compare themselves. That is another issue that I shall put on to the table in the hope that we can return to it at some stage.
I want now to go beyond the public sector. I was talking to an employer in my constituency last week. I thanked him for the excellent evidence that he gave to the boundary commission in a case that we won. I took the opportunity to ask him about pay structures in his company, Bowmer and Kirkland, which is the largest privately owned construction and engineering group in the UK. He is very keen to ensure that all its employees and contracted companies get their construction industry training board construction accreditation certificate. I went to give out certificates last year, and John Kirkland, the chairman, was brave enough to do the tests himself while 1 was waiting to give out the certificates. He thought that he should lead by example and that, if he could not do the tests, there was no reason to think that his employees should.
I was pleased to give certificates to two women quantity surveyors, who were also there. The company has done well at pushing women into such jobs. Its subsidiary KeyBemo, which manufactures roof sheeting, has a woman UK operations manager. About 20 per cent of such posts in Bowmer and Kirkland are held by women, which is a very high figure for the construction industry. I understand from the House of Commons Library that there are so few female quantity surveyors that they do not feature in the labour statistics as a category. My local company, which is working very hard on training and is keen to promote women, still has only a minority of women in the jobs that are likely to attract higher pay.
Joan Ruddock: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point about the entry of girls into construction and engineering in this country. It is appalling. Given the shortage of engineers and construction workers—some 17,000 vacancies are unfilled every year—surely that is a sector in which women and girls could find jobs and receive equal pay?
Judy Mallaber: I agree with my hon. Friend. She will be interested to know that, this morning, the Equal Opportunities Commission launched a formal investigation into occupational segregation, focusing on modern apprenticeships in five sectors including construction, plumbing, engineering, ICT and child care. I want to see men entering the burgeoning child care market as well as female plumbers and quantity surveyors, so the EOC launch is good news.
The employer that I mentioned, Bowmer and Kirkland, is working on a project at Landau Forte college. While it is there, the 50-year-old male site agent and the 20-year-old female quantity surveyor are taking the opportunity to go into the college to talk to the students about opportunities in the construction industry. That is a very positive example and my hon. Friend is right to mention the matter, which relates to my next point for the Minister.
The skills White Paper will provide an opportunity for us to focus on the issues. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be involved in that debate and that will

303WH
pick up the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) about how we can ensure that the matter is taken up in schools. Education work has been done, and we need to push that forward so that boys and girls know what opportunities exist and are not shoehorned into particular jobs.
I shall not have time to focus on the third issue, which is just as important. It concerns unequal responsibilities within families and the long hours culture, which we say is such a bad idea although we all go along with it. We do not seek to pressurise people about the choices that are right for their families, but we need to keep pushing to make it easier for women and men to share family and work responsibilities, whatever choices they have made. We are looking to improve further on the welcome changes that have already been made, for example by introducing paid parental leave.
There is also a need to do far more about child care. We have done a great deal but there is still a long way to go. I invite my hon. Friend the Minister to congratulate Naomi Compton, who runs the early years unit in Derbyshire. Last week, she was named UK public sector manager of the year. Child care is an important area on which we must keep working.
The EOC states in its manifesto that it wants to halve the pay gap in five years. Unless we act on the range of issues that I have outlined, we shall not get there; we have not got very far yet. We have made progress, some of the legislation is in place, and a number of schemes are under way, but we need to act with huge determination in all areas if we are to start to cut into the problem. Let us do everything that we can, so that we do not return in another 33 years merely to say that we have not got very far.
2.23 pm
Mr. John Bercow: May I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) both on securing the debate and on her excellent speech introducing it.
I would like to think that the time will eventually come—not least as a result of the pioneering work of the Equal Opportunities Commission and others—when the cause of equal pay will no longer be seen as a source of partisan division between mainstream political parties. There is no reason to suppose that it need be a continuing source of friction. In arguing in support of equal pay, I shall divide my comments into two broad categories. First I will briefly focus on what the Government are doing with the public sector. Secondly, and more substantially, I will focus on the commercial sector. I will not at this stage be tempted to reply to the little tease, or taunt, from the hon. Member for Amber Valley on the national minimum wage. However, I fear that it will not be long before the itch is such that I will have to say something in response before I sit down.
First, I turn to the public sector. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and Minister for Women has often emphasised the Government's commitment to, and progress in, the conduct of equal pay reviews
304WH
across Government Departments, non-departmental public bodies, and so on. That work is welcome. Progress has not been as speedy as some thought that it should be, but I do not quibble with the seriousness of purpose that the Government have shown.
There are a number of points to be made in relation to that policy. First—I hope that the Minister for Industry and the Regions and Deputy Minister for Women and Equality will accept this is the spirit in which the point is volunteered—we must have transparency from the Government. No Government can be allowed to be the judge of their own cause. If we are to judge the quality of what the Government have done, and the significance of the findings of the reviews, we need those reviews to be published. We have been told that a summary of the findings will be published. I politely put it to the Minister that it would be helpful for us to have the full details of all the reviews and all the findings of all the Departments, so that individual Members can assess the significance of the evidence.
Secondly, according to the Secretary of State when she spoke in the House on 1 May, significant evidence of what she described as serious problems of unequal pay has been unearthed. It is useful to know that the Government propose to institute action plans to deal with that. However, we need to know what those action plans will contain. It will be in the interests of informed public debate if those plans are published, and there is an opportunity to exchange views on them. Where discrimination in pay is relatively subtle and insidious, there will be pressure—and rightly so—for realignments of posts and regradings both within and between different parts of the public sector. We can make a judgment on how robustly the Government are tackling that problem, and the speed with which they propose to even out the discrepancies, only if we see those plans.
Thirdly, I endorse the call made by the hon. Member for Amber Valley for a broadening of the scope of the reviews to cover contractors. The hon. Lady touched on that point, but it bears underlining and repetition. In many cases, there is a labyrinthine structure within the public sector whereby a Government Department contracts out certain services to a particular company, and that contractor subcontracts the performance of the function to another organisation. In the spirit of the request by the hon. Member for Amber Valley, which I support, we need to know whether both the first contractor and the second contractor have conducted, or propose to conduct, equal pay reviews.
If the Government are committed to equal pay, and determined to demonstrate that through their behaviour, they should regard it as axiomatic that anyone who works for them should sign up to, and operate by, precisely the same principle. That will involve a degree of additional work—it will take time to extend the pay reviews—but in a thoroughly worthwhile and beneficial cause.
Fourthly, it is fair to exhort the Government to promote the policy. Those of us who work within the narrow and hallowed portals of Westminster and Whitehall tend to think that there is a much greater awareness of what we do than is actually the case. In the

305WH
wider world, vast numbers of people are completely oblivious to the vast bulk of what happens on a day-to-day basis in Westminster policy making.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: My hon. Friend's point about bidding for Government contracts is relevant. Many good smaller companies in my constituency have proactively and successfully addressed the problem of equal pay, but do not often get the chance to go anywhere near a Government contract, whereas larger firms that subcontract, or even sub-subcontract, do not take equal pay seriously, yet get a lot of Government work.
Mr. Bercow: That is unsatisfactory, and it precisely underlines the force of the argument for extending the scope of the reviews.
The commercial sector is facing a critical challenge and is being offered a critical opportunity. The reasonable argument has been advanced that personal entitlements, social justice and equal pay policy should be pursued. I do not dissent from that argument, which is persuasive. However, it is worth while underlining the other prong to that argument: in the end, it is in the interests of business to practise a fair and equal pay policy.
Ultimately, people can choose an employer. If they see that a company operates fairly, gives them their due, and does not discriminate between men and women but operates on the principle of reward for merit, they are more likely to work for such a company than to work for a backward-looking, narrow-minded and thoroughly discriminatory operation.
For the commercial sector there are serious risks, which will grow, if it operates unequal pay policies. In general terms, the risks fall into two categories: direct costs and indirect costs. If companies are drawn into litigation, there are the direct costs of having to appear in court, of acquiring specialist expertise to guide them, of paying for legal representation, and of having to make often substantially backdated pay awards to one or more member of staff. There is also the prospect that if companies are found to have transgressed the terms of the Equal Pay Act 1970, they will have opened up a can of worms that will cause their activities in relation to a far larger group of staff to be probed and scrutinised. To avoid that eventuality, a company should accept head on its responsibility to operate fairly.
In addition to the obvious and direct costs, bad practice gives rise to indirect costs. It is sometimes difficult to quantify those costs precisely, but it seems to me, as I hope it will seem to others participating in the debate, that those costs are so obvious that only an extraordinarily obtuse individual could fail to recognise that they will be incurred. One such indirect cost is the lower productivity of workers who feel hard done by and not especially motivated, and will not work as effectively for the organisation as they might otherwise.
A second, related indirect cost is the lower productivity of managers who have to wrestle with the consequences of the internecine conflict incurred by the organisation's bad pay policy, instead of spending their time driving the business forward. The third consequence, which must have a negative effect on the effectiveness and harmony of the company, is poor
306WH
workplace relations—a climate of suspicion, a sense of uncertainty, and an air of curiosity and cynicism about what other colleagues are paid.
The consequence that should be the most palpably significant to a business is the loss of reputation that the company suffers. In the end, businesses depend on the good will of the people who work for them, of their existing customers and of those who might be their customers in the future.
For all those reasons, companies should resolve to behave in an honourable and proper way as a point of principle and practicality—to behave in a way, I should underline, that the law has required of them for 33 years. The essential element of protection has been on the statute book since Barbara Castle's 1970 Act. Too often it has been honoured in the breach rather than in the observance. Secrecy about pay, which the hon. Member for Amber Valley touched on in her remarks, has tended to disguise the significance and scale of abuse. The fact that there is a significant level of abuse is surely no longer in question.
Issues of retention and recruitment are also involved. I have implicitly acknowledged that a company will struggle either to recruit or retain staff—or both if it does not operate a fair pay policy. To place the matter in context, so that nobody underestimates the importance of the phenomenon that we are debating, I shall highlight a statistic that has come my way from the EOC that is as significant as any that I have encountered.
On the basis of the commission's assessment, based on labour force surveys and workplace trends that it has observed, by 2010 only 20 per cent. of the work force will be white, able-bodied, male and under the age of 45. I was very struck by that statistic. Already, 53 per cent. of women with children under the age of four and 70 per cent. of women with children under the age of 10 are in the workplace. It is right that we should focus on the issue as a mainstream subject of public policy; it is a matter to which great urgency should be attached.
I have tried to make a non-partisan speech, because I believe that the Government do a lot of good work in that area. It is entirely proper that Ministers should be probed, scrutinised, harried and tested at every turn; if they expect otherwise—and I am sure that the hon. Lady does not—they are in for a shock. None the less, good work is being done.
I shall now focus on the work of the EOC. Since December 2001, it has had targets for the conduct of pay reviews. That harks back to a point that the hon. Member for Amber Valley made. The EOC has suggested that by the end of 2003, 50 per cent. of companies with 500 employees or more should have conducted equal pay reviews, and 25 per cent. of the rest of the commercial sector should similarly have undertaken such reviews. I am sure that that target, and the moral force behind the EOC's pronouncement has had an effect; yet even in the light of that—and the publicity that it has sought for its campaign—by March this year only 35 per cent. of large companies had fulfilled the brief. They do not have long to catch up if the EOC target is to be met by the end of the year.
Only 27 per cent. of medium-sized firms have done the right thing. Worryingly and disturbingly, 54 per cent. of large companies and 67 per cent. of medium-sized

307WH
enterprises have not done the right thing, and we are advised that they have no plans to do so. That underlines the importance of a political focus on the issue, and on the Government injecting a degree of oomph into the publicity, and the communication of their own policy, of which I wager that only a tiny fraction of individuals and businesses in the country are currently aware.
Many companies have done good work—HSBC, Procter and Gamble, British Telecom, Unilever, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Camelot and Nationwide to name but a few. There is anecdotal evidence that has impressed me that they have been impelled on to the path of righteousness by the propagation of the policy by the Government. If the Government and the public sector give a lead and suggest that that is to be the normal pattern in the future, there is reason to hope that the commercial sector will follow.
I should love to indulge myself, and Westminster Hall, by quoting all sorts of companies that have put their commitment on the record. However, I am conscious that other hon. Members with a longstanding commitment to the subject would like to speak, so I shall resist the temptation. Suffice it to say that over the years, many companies have taken the view, "We're all right. We'll sign up to the principle, but there isn't a problem, so we needn't be preoccupied with the conduct of a review." If there were nothing wrong with their conduct of pay policy and they had nothing to fear from the conduct of the review, perhaps—but if there is something rotten in the state of Denmark, the sooner it is discovered, identified and corrected, so much the better for all of us.
The hon. Member for Amber Valley legitimately teased me about the national minimum wage. I make no apology for detailed probing and extensive scrutiny of the Government's position on the minimum wage, time-consuming though it proved to be. However, if in my mind facts change, I am willing to change my position. I am more than happy to concede, four to five years on, that my anxieties about the national minimum wage have been overwhelmingly demonstrated to be incorrect. I thought that there would be huge job losses. That is not a particularly newsworthy revelation on my part, because I have said several times in the House and elsewhere that the great shakeout of jobs that Conservative Members predicted has not taken place. The Government introduced the wage at a relatively low level, and I am thankful for that.
I shall make an additional point that meets the hon. Lady at least part of the way. The logic of the existence of the minimum wage is that it will be periodically and affordably increased. The increase that has been announced and will take effect in October this year is based on evidence from, and endorsement by, the Low Pay Commission. Several business representatives form part of that commission. The proposed increase is worth while, but it does not strike me as excessive. If it is to be affordable in terms of the state of the economy, the calculation has to be based on what the benefit will be to the people concerned, and the benefit to some of the lowest-paid people in our economy will be enormous. The damage to the economy from an increase in the
308WH
minimum wage would have to be considerable to outweigh the benefit to some of the most vulnerable people in our society.
The hon. Lady focused on the fact that many people in receipt of the minimum wage are women, and that it has done something to reduce the pay gap. It has also done a good deal to improve the quality of life of the people concerned. As a practical Tory, I have no hesitation in saying that I have looked at the evidence, and the minimum wage has proved to be beneficial. My anxieties have not been fulfilled. I am willing to change my mind. To persist in pursuing an incorrect policy when the evidence shows that it is incorrect is foolish. To admit that one was previously incorrect and to change one's mind is wise. That is my position, and it does not require further elaboration.
I am delighted to have participated in the debate. I look forward to the day when I have persuaded and educated the bulk of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Conservative party to such an extent that we can become champions of the fair treatment of equal pay and anti-discrimination policy in this matter, as in others.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam): Order. Two hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. I need to call the wind-up speeches in 16 minutes, and I am sure that those Members can divide 16 by two.
2.44 pm
Sandra Osborne: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will attempt to be brief. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). It is refreshing to hear a Conservative Member giving such a commitment to equal pay. He certainly makes a good analysis of the business case for supporting equal pay and also of the changing structure of the work force. I agree with him that that is rather surprising and paints a very stark picture. Needless to say, it was also a pleasure to hear his description of his "road to Damascus" conversion in respect of the national minimum wage.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) on securing the debate. It is an extremely important issue, in which unfortunately we have made little progress over the past 30 years since the Equal Pay Act 1970 was introduced. I argue, along with the EOC and others, that the legislation as it stands patently is not working and is in need of urgent review.
I shall endeavour not to repeat what has been said, because we are all working to the same EOC brief, for which we all grateful. Low-paid workers in our society are only too aware of the pay gap. As my hon. Friend outlined, they certainly benefited a great deal from the minimum wage, but not anywhere near enough to enable them to close the pay gap. I want to raise the issue of the pay gap suffered by young female graduates. They seem to be unaware of the gap and make the assumption that they will automatically be paid on an equal basis with their male colleagues. We know that that is not the case. The EOC has cited research that suggests that the annual salary of male graduates aged 20 to 24 is 15 per

309WH
cent. higher than that of female graduates in the same age group, and that the gap becomes wider among older age groups.
For many of the younger generation of women, the old myth pertains that the battle for women's rights has largely been won. I believe that the secrecy in awarding salary packages perpetuated by many companies to which colleagues have referred, serves to obscure the reality that there is still a long way to go. The hon. Member for Buckingham described the process as subtle and insidious, which is a good way of describing the situation. We all know that it goes on, but trying to prove it and identify it is difficult.
The hon. Member for Buckingham also referred to statistics provided by the equal pay taskforce that, within eight years, the pay gap will be eliminated. However, we all know that that is not happening. We must make much more progress and we must review the relevant legislation. I understand that the Government pay reviews have been extensive and that a report is forthcoming by the end of July. Will the Minister confirm that when she sums up?
As the hon. Member for Buckingham said, many employers have no intention of conducting a review. That is not just complacent, but resistant. That is why the whole situation must be looked at again. My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley said no one wants compulsion, but I am not sure about that. If the present situation is not working and we find, while monitoring the position, that it is not getting any better, we should seriously consider that. We cannot wait any longer. We have waited 30 years and we must see much quicker progress.
Another issue that I want to raise is the single equality commission and the possibility of having a single equality Act. Perhaps the Equal Pay Act could be reviewed in that regard, but we all agree that the present equality legislation is piecemeal. It is not transparent. People do not know their rights or where to exercise them. I should welcome the Minister's comments on whether the Government will consider introducing a single equality Act.
In some respects, Scotland is leading the field with the help of some European funding. The close-the-gap initiative includes partners from Scotland, covering rural and urban areas. It has secured funding for three years to run an equal pay project in Scotland, which will work with employers to help them to institute pay reviews and to explode some myths about equal pay and related issues. Those involved in the initiative are also working with those affected by equal pay issues, and my main point relates to that. Those who are affected are women in part-time work, lone parents, women returners, ethnic minority women, women with disabilities, those who are disadvantaged through geographical location and those who live in areas of deprivation, or who are affected by a number of those factors. As my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley said, they are largely concentrated in female-dominated jobs, which have been traditionally low paid and regarded as secondary income to that of the main breadwinner in a household. However, we know that to be a complete myth, and out of step with the changes that have taken place in our society.
310WH
I shall cite two examples, one of which affects the whole of the United Kingdom, and the other of which is currently taking place in Scotland. The two interconnected examples are of situations in which women, who are being discriminated against in pay and conditions, are fighting back, and I congratulate them on so doing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) referred to term-time workers. I believe that a grave injustice has been occurring for many years in relation to term-time workers, who work mainly in education. Cooks, cleaners, teaching assistants, office and library staff are invariably low paid during term time and receive no pay during the holidays. They are a microcosm of women as the second sex in a labour market hallmarked by part-time, casual and temporary contracts and low pay.
Many hon. Members will be aware that, before the jobseeker's allowance was introduced, term-time workers could claim unemployment benefit during unpaid leave. However, they are now deemed to be in full-year employment but still receive only part-year pay. There is still a presumption that term-time jobs in education are for mothers making a bit of pin money to supplement another main breadwinner's wage. That is a vastly outdated and patronising view of women's place in the labour market and is highly discriminatory.
Every worker should get the rate for the job regardless of domestic circumstances. If we seriously accept that we need to tackle poverty pay and close the pay gap, the Government and employers must acknowledge their responsibilities towards that group. I congratulate the GMB, Unison and the Transport and General Workers Union on taking on that campaign, and I intend to support them.
I am very proud of the work that the Government have done in their introduction of universal nursery education for three and four-year-olds. That is one of our best achievements. However, as we know, nursery nursing is a job done almost exclusively by women, and nursery nurses have been very poorly paid for many years. There is, therefore, a contradiction between introducing universal nursery education and not addressing the issue of low pay among nursery nurses.
The hon. Member for Buckingham suggested that such issues can lead to a lack of motivation among the work force. The nursery nurses in Scotland have decided that they have had enough, and are currently taking industrial action in relation to their pay claim. However, perversely and unbelievably, not only are those nurses suffering from years and years of low pay, but their employers are considering introducing term-time working for nursery nurses, which would add them to the group of workers who are discriminated against on that basis. I believe that to be completely unacceptable, and I hope that the Minister agrees with me. I look forward to hearing her comments.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), may I remind her that I have to reach the summing-up on the hour?
2.54 pm
Vera Baird: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will jettison a large part of what I intended to say, and will focus on one important issue. I echo the

311WH
congratulations that have been offered to the Government on the many dimensions across which they have encouraged and enhanced equal pay, of which the pay reviews are the most important and central. I look forward to the results of those reviews.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) on securing the debate, and I echo what she said about the need, before contracts are signed, to oblige contractors to commit themselves to equal pay and to carry out pay reviews, as a condition of working in the public sector. That falls short of the compulsion that has been referred to as an inevitable last resort if progress is not made, but is an appropriate, constructive and prudent use of contractual leverage.
Another issue, which is similar to but somewhat different from the position of contractors who are, for instance, being used by a public authority, perhaps to run its canteen or to do its cleaning, is the trend—indeed, the deliberate policy—of having public services as a whole delivered by bodies other than public authorities; that is, they are not delivered by the public sector. Such measures as public-private partnerships, private finance initiatives, large-scale voluntary transfer of council housing, the introduction of public interest companies to run foundation hospitals and the use of private contractors to deliver more and more public services will put more and more people outside the ambit of government and public sector pay reviews. Government and the public sector are being cut back. I am not especially complaining about that policy, but the impact seems dangerous. It is essential that public sector and government pay reviews should be repeated, in order to ensure that pay discrimination does not creep back into the system. As time goes on and that element of policy develops, it seems that such reviews will affect fewer and fewer people, and narrower and narrower kinds of employment. That must not be allowed.
By a mechanism similar to contractual leverage on the part of smaller contractors, it is eminently possible to stipulate as a standard term of every PPP and PFI contract—and of part of the memorandum of articles of every public interest company—that there should be equal pay and that reviews must be carried out to ensure that it occurs. I shall be happy to be reassured that the proposals do not represent a limitation on public sector reviews, but if I am right and there is a hazard, the example that I have given will be slightly more than worrying, and will, I fear, be an example of how far equal pay is from being mainstreamed. Policies such as PFI, PPP and the private delivery of public services flourish without any regard to the vulnerability to which, by a side wind, they have exposed women workers, in particular, by removing them from the public sector. If I am right, the realisation that the policy has developed without sufficient regard to equal pay by means of accessibility to pay reviews will, in a sense, come only after the event.
I again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley on securing the debate. It is hugely important to keep the detail high on the agenda, but, equally, I cannot close without congratulating the Government. I had thought of saying something clever about the fact that Government have done 18 times more during their six years of office than the last
312WH
Conservative Government did in the 18 years that they had in office. However, since the last Conservative Government did precisely nothing, 18 times nothing would still be nothing. I shall therefore conclude by congratulating my Government on the progress that they have made.
2.58 pm
Dr. Vincent Cable: I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber). The subject is very serious and deserves far more attention than 10 minutes at the end of Department of Trade and Industry questions once a month, which is what we normally devote to it, so I congratulate her on securing the debate and on the way she presented it.
The facts are not in dispute. The gender gap has been quantified: it is 20 per cent. in relation to full-time income, which has declined from 30 per cent. in the mid 1970s, and 40 per cent. in respect of part-time income, which has not declined at all in the last 30 years. We are therefore talking about a big disproportion in payment and no improvement in part-time work.
In my short time, I want to concentrate on two or three questions. Why are there not more women fat cats? That might seem a slightly odd question, but during the recent controversy I was struck by the fact that a woman Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was pursuing a lot of rather dubious business people who were ripping off their shareholders and work force in large numbers and getting away it. All those business people, without exception, were men, which prompted me to look up some of the figures. Of the people in this country who earn more than £100,000 a year, which is probably not everybody's definition of a fat cat, but is the Liberal Democrats' definition based on our tax proposals, there are 285,000 men and 40,000 women. Only one in eight of the high earners are women. That is important statistically, because if 100,000 more women were earning £100,000 a year, the gender gap would close dramatically. More importantly, many of those people are employers, who will influence the ethos of hiring and recruitment in their companies.
I see this issue at first hand. My own family has a kind of reverse gender gap. My eldest son is an opera singer with an intermittent income. My younger son is a research scientist with no income, then there is me—I do not know whether MPs are regarded as highly paid. My daughter, on the other hand, is a high-flying commercial barrister. When she rolls up at the front door in her latest sports car, one is tempted to think, "Maybe gender does not matter any more." That makes her angry, and she explains, quite accurately, that there are probably three or four women in Britain of her age earning her salary in that occupation, whereas there are dozens and probably hundreds of men doing the same thing.
There were many obstacles on the way, from kindly barristers who metaphorically patted her on the head and said, "Don't you think you would be happier doing family law," to a macho culture that suggested that if you turned up for work later than 7 am and left before

313WH
11 pm, you were some kind of wimp. Many obstacles, which are institutionally embedded, are preventing women getting into the high-flying, high-earning jobs.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not trying to be picky, but it is not really appropriate for the hon. Gentleman to use the word "you" in that context.
Dr. Cable: I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I appreciate that you are not a fat cat. I did not intend to imply that you were.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I was objecting that I was not a wimp.
Dr. Cable: Even more right.
Many of the problems arise in higher education. We have heard about some of the different levels of payment to graduates, but the problem is deeper than that. We know that more women than men are doing better at A-level and going into higher education. The question is, what do they do at university? An enormous amount of occupational segregation takes place at that stage. Women are highly disproportionately represented in the humanities, social science and certain kinds of bachelor of science courses, especially chemistry and biology. Men are heavily disproportionately represented in maths, computing, engineering and business studies. That matters.
Some useful research has been done for the university of Warwick, which suggests that people who do humanities—English literature and history—have a graduate income throughout their working lives of up to 10 per cent. less than they would if they had left school at 18 and gained a vocational qualification. In other words, although they may study an interesting subject, people who go through that kind of course penalise themselves financially by doing so. If we add the burden of debt, there are considerable financial penalties from making that choice.
It is possible, even in the professions, to see much occupational segregation that is damaging to women's career prospects. I have mentioned the law, but there is also the social sciences. I once taught undergraduates economics, and it always struck me that women were in the minority. An interesting article was published recently by John Kay, formerly the dean of Oxford business school, titled, "Why so few women do economics." He noticed that in a class of 100, it is typical to find no more than two or three women doing economics. On the other hand, in other social sciences, such as sociology and psychology, women are in the majority. He asks why that should be so, and what the consequences are.
Economics is not an intrinsically useful subject. Apart from John Maynard Keynes, few economists have gone on to make lots of money themselves. It is, however, a platform for a lot of highly paid jobs. Somebody with a good economics degree from a "good" university with a good maths background can go straight into a market analyst's job in the City with opportunities for a six-figure salary in two to three years. Without that background people will not get that kind of job. Women are completely out of that professional track. Many sophisticated choices must be made at A-level and at the
314WH
point of university entrance. Those choices marginalise the vast majority of women from high-paid occupations—they will never be fat cats because they are making the "wrong" choices, although they might be right in other ways.
We need to address the issue of sending out the right signals. How many schools prepare young women for making certain choices at A-level, such as by steering them in the direction of studying maths? Maths opens the door to so many other things. Rather, they quietly encourage girls to study English literature, which might be interesting but does not hold the key to certain professions. That is just a thought. It is not at all clear that any progress is being made in addressing why women are not entering the highest paid occupations.
My second question is partly related. Why are there not more women academics? The answer is not obvious. Of all the careers that should be open to women with families, academia is an obvious attraction. It should be fairly flexible, as people can take work home—they can write academic articles there and read essays. One tends to assume that The Guardian-reading classes teach in universities so they will be fairly enlightened and there will not be any hidden prejudice.
However, the figures for the academic world are staggering. The gender gap is larger than average at more than 20 per cent. In the hierarchy of academic professions, 35 per cent. of all postgraduate students are women, and that goes down to 31 per cent. of lecturers, 16 per cent. of senior lecturers and 7 per cent. of professors. Those figures are not greatly different from those from before the first world war. For some reason, women are finding it extraordinarily difficult to make progress towards the higher rungs of the academic ladder in a profession that at first sight seems open, and in which large numbers of women are now becoming qualified because of their graduate status.
Mr. Bercow: I am rather shocked by what the hon. Gentleman said. Is there any evidence that the phenomenon that he describes is worse than average in the traditional universities, as one might suspect?
Dr. Cable: I do not think that that is the case. The university that comes out worst of all is the university of London, and in particular King's college. There might be all kinds of reasons for that, but that is what the figures show.
I do not know what the answer is. Nobody seems to be clear what it is. It might be something to do with the decline in specialist girls' schools and colleges at universities, which might prepare them for an academic life. It is most likely due to the fact that universities, like the civil service, operate on the basis of salary increments—an old-fashioned way of rewarding length of service rather than quality of performance or productivity. A man who has served 20 years without interruption will be on a higher rung of the ladder than a women who has served 10 years and has taken 10 years out to look after children. Women are therefore permanently depressed in the career structure. Since the Government are the main funding source for universities and will expect something back for their substantial contributions, I hope that they will examine that.

315WH
My final point relates to what is happening in the civil service. The Government have carried out useful survey work in the civil service, and have found that the pay gap, at 27 per cent., is bigger than it is in the economy as whole. If the Government are driving a gender equality agenda, as they are and should be, why is more not being done in precisely the area over which the Government have some control, as opposed to the area of small business where their control is indirect? I do not know the answer to that, but I suspect that the Minister might be able to tell us. I suspect that it has a great deal to do with the nature of bureaucracy, which rewards long service and incremental progress through a 30-year service in full-time employment. That does not take into account the flexible work patterns that most women, reasonably, seek. If the Government are to make a breakthrough in gender equality, they must consider their own employees. I hope that the Minister will indicate how much progress is being made in that respect.
3.9 pm
Mr. Henry Bellingham: This is an important matter, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) on the impressive way in which she opened the debate. I also congratulate the new Minister on her appointment. I have seen her in action in Committee and written her hundreds of letters, which have always received quick responses, so I can testify to the fact that she did a superb job in her previous post. I wish her well in her interesting new assignment and in her role as Deputy Minister for Women and Equality.
One of the most important points that has been made was voiced by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who rightly pointed out that a contented work force will be motivated and satisfied, will create more wealth, and lead to a happier business community, whereas workers who feel hard done by will not realise their potential and will require a substantial diversion of management time.
The official Opposition feel strongly that the Equal Pay Act should be adhered to. It is more than 30 years old and it was the last Act of any significance passed by the Labour Government before they lost the 1970 election. The 19 per cent. pay gap for full-time staff and the 41 per cent. pay gap for part-timers have been mentioned. The hon. Member for Amber Valley pointed out that we hear a lot about the high-profile cases. However, there are cases every day throughout the country involving people who have suffered unfair discrimination. To an extent, they a re overshadowed by the high-profile cases that hit the news and make the headlines. A string of tribunal cases has featured in the tabloid press, some successful, others not.
Pay discrimination is sometimes stark and obvious, but it is often much more subtle. It can result from differential bonus rates or from anachronisms in the way in which posts are graded within an organisation. It is instructive to examine other figures. While 60 per cent. of women and 79 per cent. of men aged between 16 and 64 are in employment, only 48 per cent. of working-age women who have a child aged under two are in
316WH
employment, compared with 90 per cent. of men with a child aged under two. That is a staggering difference.
The conclusion that I draw from those broad statistics is that, at any one time, many female employees are taking maternity leave—paid or otherwise—that, indirectly, their careers are being held back and that some loss of earnings does occur. Action is needed to protect women to the greatest possible extent from unfair discrimination on their return from maternity leave. It is vital that we have a flexible labour market that allows mothers to go back to work as soon as they feel able to do so. Firms should be more proactive in that respect.
It is interesting to look at some of the other statistics. The secondary education gap that used to exist has not just been closed; it has been reversed. Last year's figures show that 57 per cent. of girls but only 46 per cent. of boys gained five or more GCSE grades A to C. So far as A-level passes are concerned, the figures are 41 per cent. for girls and 32 per cent. for boys. It is, therefore, even more important that we address the gender pay gap.
One of the other interesting points is that women are twice as likely as men to work in the public sector. In fact, 32 per cent. of working-age women in employment work in the public sector, compared with 16 per cent. of working-age men. That is why it is important to focus on the public sector, and in my closing remarks, I will do just that. I would like to hear what the Minister has to say about that.
The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) said that the pay gap in the public sector is 27 per cent. I had no idea that the figure was as high as that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham pointed out—and it was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Amber Valley—the Government cannot be seen as a fair judge of the private sector until they can categorically state that they have got their own house in order.
There must be more transparency, and the Government must take the lead in that. I hope that the new Minister will work with the Secretary of State to ensure that Departments adhere to the best possible practice. I was in the House on 1 May. Department of Trade and Industry questions had just finished, and we then had questions to the Minister for Women. I was disappointed when the Secretary of State said that departmental reviews
"have revealed serious problems of unequal pay and we are putting in place the action needed to put that right."—[Official Report, 1 May 2003; Vol. 404, c. 422.]
The reviews have been promised, but will they be published? What will happen when various anomalies are identified? The Government promise action plans, but we need to know what those action plans contain. What regradings and realignment of staff pay will be recommended? Will the Government tell us where work of equal value is being unequally rewarded? Will the Government make it quite clear what remedies they will put in place to solve those problems?
Every hon. Member who has spoken has said that the scope of the Government's pay review must be broadened to go beyond the mainstream Departments. It must cover agencies, non-departmental public bodies, contracted-out staff, and, as was mentioned earlier,

317WH
subcontractors and even sub-subcontractors. The Government are in a very important position as far as procurement is concerned. They procure billions of pounds of contracts every year. I do not wish to see another bureaucratic box-ticking exercise. I want an answer to a very simple question—has the firm in question conducted a pay review, and what were its results? There is an argument for the Government to disqualify certain applicants from the public procurement process. I would be grateful if the Minister would comment on that because it is vital that the Government promote equal pay more vigorously.
People in the top companies in this country and even those who know how Whitehall works have no idea that the Government have recently launched equal pay questionnaires. Why have the Government been so laid back about promoting their reviews? Why have they been so low key? Is it because the Government have been secretly embarrassed by their lack of progress? I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on that.
As at least four hon. Members have said, we support what the Government have done so far, but it is vital that they become more proactive and make an effort to put their house in order. If they do that, the Opposition will support them because we want to get on to the other agendas, particularly burdens on business, red tape and regulation. We will no doubt return to those matters for debate in this Chamber. However, today, we support what the Government have done, but would like to see them do a great deal more.
3.19 pm
The Minister for Industry and the Regions and Deputy Minister for Women and Equality (Jacqui Smith): I join in the congratulations for my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) on securing the debate, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Government. This is not my first outing in my new ministerial role, but it is my first outing as Deputy Minister for Women. All hon. Members have identified today's debate as dealing with a crucial issue that must be addressed.
Time is short and I do not intend to repeat the statistics that hon. Members have rightly prayed in aid. It is not only morally right that men and women receive equal pay, but, as the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) correctly pointed out, it is right for business and society.
Hon. Members have outlined the range of factors that contribute to the pay gap, which obviously means that we must take a range of action. Several Members have rightly turned the spotlight on to the Government. We take the findings on the pay gap seriously, which is why we are taking action to put our house in order. I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley highlighted the considerable progress made in the NHS, where our approach to public sector pay enabled us to deliver on both the commitment to equal pay and the flexibility of public services, which is crucial.
Several hon. Members have referred to the cross-Government equal pay review in which the Cabinet Office is taking the lead. I can tell hon. Members that 79 Departments and agencies, representing 92 per cent. of the 500,000 civil servants employed by the Government, have already submitted their action plans to the Cabinet
318WH
Office. The rest will be submitted shortly and are being chased vigorously by the Cabinet Office to ensure full coverage.
Without wanting to blow my new departmental horn, it is worthwhile pointing out that the Department of Trade and Industry HQ audit was one of the first to reach the Cabinet Office and that we have received very positive feedback. Likewise, all the DTI agencies and non-departmental public bodies have completed their plans.
The Cabinet Office is working closely with Departments over the details in their action plans and will—this relates to the transparency issue—publish a summary report of the findings by the end of July. The hon. Member for Buckingham pushed us on that issue, but it is for individual Departments to make the details of their pay reviews available given the delegation of pay responsibilities across the Departments. The Cabinet Office recommends that the details should be placed in the Library once discussion is completed.
The Government are also committed to encouraging the rest of the public sector to do likewise. On top of that, they have drawn together for the first time what Departments are doing to address gender equality as a whole. The report "Delivering on Gender Equality" was recently published, and we are introducing equality targets, which will be backed up by that action plan. The Government are showing their commitment to gender mainstreaming in all key spending Departments. That relates to the important issues raised by hon. Members about how we can ensure that those directly employed by the public sector benefit from the emphasis on equal pay and about how we can ensure that that is extended into the private sector.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) made an important point about the relationship between Government policies for the private sector to build capacity and our ability to ensure equal pay. The issues around the use of procurement are tricky, but hon. Members have made a strong case. To ensure that the commitment to equal pay across the public and private sectors feeds through properly, we have set a target for the first time in the "Delivering on Gender Equality" plan. It says:
"The Government will work with businesses and trade unions, the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) and Opportunity Now towards ensuring that 35 per cent. of large companies have done pay reviews by 2006".
The hon. Member for Buckingham was overly sanguine about the current position, because that target would double the number of large companies that have completed pay reviews.
I acknowledge what hon. Members have said about the need for the Government to lead by example and to communicate what is happening. We need to do that in partnership with business and the unions, which is why we provided the EOC with £100,000 to prepare a toolkit for voluntary pay reviews, which was launched in July 2002.
I recognise the important contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan), who chairs the all-party group on sex equality. She raised the issue of small businesses. A separate system is also being developed for small businesses.

319WH
I take seriously the need to make practical what businesses do to address equal pay. We worked with the EOC in making changes to its code of practice on equal pay, and we support the equal pay forum, which is organised by Opportunity Now and the EOC and which promotes equal pay reviews among employers. Members must be committed to carrying out, or have already undertaken, an equal pay review in order to join.
My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley is right to highlight our work with trade unions. We gave more than £250,000 to the TUC to train workplace equal pay representatives. I am sure that my hon. Friend understands that I cannot pledge money far into the distance, but I hope that the fact that we extended the project from one year to two years and have given a commitment to working with trade unions will give her some reassurance.
Hon. Members have also rightly identified pay segregation as part of what leads to a pay gap. More than 60 per cent. of women are still concentrated in just 10 occupations. Those occupations are typically the ones that pay the least: for instance, sales assistants, secretaries, child carers, cooks and caterers. If those 10 occupational groups are taken out of the equation, the pay gap in relation to the other 40 per cent. of women closes dramatically to just 8 per cent. That is why I warmly welcome the EOC's general formal investigation into occupation segregation in training and work. I look forward to seeing the result. I note that the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), who is the Minister responsible for skills, also welcomed that investigation today and said:
"We are committed to creating far more high status vocational learning opportunities for young people. Therefore we'll be interested to consider any barriers which may inhibit this ambition."
I have covered some of the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable). His contribution made me wonder whether, given that I chose economics over English literature at the age of 18, I should be
320WH
benefiting more in terms of pay than I am. However, the importance of my current role is far above the financial recompense that I receive for it.
Another important point was made by several hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) and for Amber Valley. It relates to how we encourage women—and indeed men—into sectors of employment in which they are under-represented. In delivering on gender equality, for the first time, we are setting a target and taking action in relation to that area. That is an important way in which to ensure that we address the gender pay gap that stems from job segregation and the historic approach to where men and women work. We should break down assumptions about men's and women's jobs.
I was glad that hon. Members on all sides referred to the national minimum wage. The national minimum wage—now welcomed by converts on the Opposition Benches—has been extremely beneficial to women at the lower end of the pay range. Some 70 per cent. of the beneficiaries are women.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Sandra Osborne) raised the important issue of term-time working. Colleagues in the Department for Education and Skills are currently considering future roles and career structures for school support staff. They are working closely with local government employers and with support staff unions.
The hon. Member for Twickenham asked how we could ensure that there were more women at the top. I am sure that he will be aware of the report published by Laura Tyson last week. We welcome that and want to build on its recommendations.
Unfortunately, I do not have time to talk about the other important ways—promoting flexible working, extending maternity pay and ensuring that women, and men, have the choices that they need to balance work and family life—in which we can tackle some of the issues of discrimination.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order—or indeed anything else. Time is up.

Stroke Care (Young People)
3.30 pm
Helen Jones: I welcome the Minister to what I believe is his first debate in Westminster Hall. I am glad to have obtained the debate, because it is important to remind ourselves that stroke does not affect the elderly only, and we must tailor our services to reflect that fact.
We are used to thinking of stroke as an affliction of the elderly, but every day 30 people of working age in this country have a stroke—10,000 a year, more than 1,000 of whom will be under 30. It is estimated, too, that between 250 and 400 will be children. However, the fact that we cannot be absolutely clear about the figures reflects the fact that very little money is spent on research into stroke, and particularly its incidence among younger people.
The Stroke Association, which I commend for its work, is currently funding a research project into the incidence of stroke among children, but its research budget is only about £2 million a year, and that is the bulk of money spent on stroke research in this country. If we compare that with the £50 million a year spent on research into heart disease or the £200 million spent on research into cancer—vital research in both cases—we see the extent to which stroke is the poor relation in funding terms. Yet stroke is the third most common cause of death in England and Wales and the largest single cause of disability. Despite the Government's efforts, it remains in some respects the Cinderella of the health service. That is particularly true of stroke services for younger people.
A stroke can be devastating at any age, but particularly when it strikes a younger person out of the blue. Younger people need special services. They often find it difficult, for instance, to get access to the right rehabilitation facilities, which are often designed for elderly people. They may also need family support—in relation to what has happened to their children or with parenting. The family may also suffer economic consequences if the wage earner has a stroke. Yet support for dealing with benefits, retraining and employment advice is thin on the ground.
I readily acknowledge the work that the Government have done to improve stroke services. The national service framework for older people, which contains the NSF for stroke, makes clear what we want to do to improve services. In particular, I welcome the requirement for all hospitals to develop specialist stroke units and for primary care trusts to ensure that all general practices have protocols in place to identify those at risk and to take preventive measures.
I know from my own experience how much our medical services have improved. My father suffered a stroke in his early 50s, 20-odd years ago. I can compare that experience with the recent experience of a friend of mine who suffered a stroke at a comparatively young age, and I know that things are getting better. However, my friend was lucky to be treated in a hospital with a specialist stroke unit run by a professor, and I think that the Minister will accept that not everyone is so lucky. We still have a long way to go.
For instance, the Commission for Health Improvement recently said that stroke patients are often at the back of the queue when it comes to access to
322WH
medical care. Professor Caroline Watkins from the north-west regional stroke taskforce has estimated that less than 30 per cent. of hospitals have a specialist stroke unit, and less than 70 per cent. have a proper rehabilitation unit. We could have a debate on what constitutes proper rehabilitation facilities because they can be variable.
That all accords with the recent sentinel audit of stroke services carried out by the Royal College of Physicians, which estimated that only 27 per cent. of people get treated in a specialist stroke unit. That causes 6,000 unnecessary deaths every year. Improvements can be made and it is important that as we improve services, we ensure that they cater for all age groups, including younger people. The very fact that the NSF for stroke is contained in the NSF for older people—although it says it applies to all age groups—means that often when people are designing services they forget about the needs of younger people. The result of that can be seen in a survey that the Stroke Association carried out among the younger client group, their families and carers.
The survey showed that the issues for younger people were: insufficient information at the time of diagnosis, a failure to assess properly the need for continuing care and treatment, and feelings of helplessness not just for the person who had had a stroke, but for their family. People found it very difficult to access the support they needed to deal with what is a life-changing situation.
The survey also showed clearly that there are often failures of communication among health professionals that make it very difficult for people to access the services that they need. As a result, that age group often feels marginalised and struggles with services that are not designed for it. The medical care of that age group in hospital is affected. Young people are still treated on wards that are designed for the care of the elderly. What happens when they come out of hospital is also affected. When the Stroke Association held a conference in 1999 among young stroke victims, some of the comments made were very revealing, and they still apply today. One participant said:
"If I were over 65 the care I receive would be great."
He added that there are no facilities for helping younger people with strokes, such as child care or even a child-friendly visiting area when one goes to a clinic.
The result of that conference and the surveys show that when dealing with younger stroke victims, we must look not just at the person but at the family situation because, according to the Stroke Association survey, 32 per cent. of young people who have had a stroke experience the failure of a close relationship afterwards. Problems with parenting are experienced by 70 per cent. of that group.
However, we provide very little support for families to help them get through that difficult time. I remember how difficult it was to adjust when my father came home from hospital, and I was grown up. How much more difficult it must be for a young child who cannot understand what is happening, or for a teenager who is going through a difficult phase of their own life. Of all those people who reported problems with parenting, 76 per cent. said they got no help or support to enable them to cope.

323WH
There is a difficulty, too, for the carers of people who have suffered strokes, particularly younger people. Often they are not only trying to care for their partner, but trying to cope with child care as well. Little help is given with respite care or child care.
Another problem, according to what I have seen and the evidence, is that people often experience difficulty in obtaining the aids that they need to help them to function and in having adaptations made to their homes. It emerged clearly from the Stroke Association survey that many younger people do not even receive a full community care assessment on leaving hospital. The sad fact is that many people can rebuild their life and lead a productive and useful life if they are given the right help and support. That entails not only ensuring that they receive the right medical care and rehabilitation facilities, but giving them facilities to help them to plan their future life when they are ready to do so.
It is striking that the Stroke Association's survey showed that among the younger age group 80 per cent. had lost their job and had not found other employment. Only 10 per cent. remained in their previous employment and 10 per cent. had lost their job but had found other jobs. Very little advice is on offer about employment retraining, employment facilities or, for those who cannot return to employment, educational facilities or suitable voluntary activities that can help them to rebuild their confidence and self-esteem.
It is not surprising that 76 per cent. of the people in the survey said that they had received no help with retraining or employment and that they felt discriminated against in the employment market. That is devastating for younger people, who feel that they have been put on the scrap heap at a young age, and economically devastating for their families because 58 per cent. end up relying on state benefits, which means not only that they are in poverty, but that more children are growing up in poverty.
I want to make a plea to the Minister, who has an interest in such matters, for our old friend joined-up government. Will he seriously consider funding for stroke research, and particularly into the incidence of stroke among young people? I know that it takes time to find more money and that there are always competing priorities, but I hope that in the next spending round the Department of Health will consider the issue seriously when it negotiates with the Treasury. There is a moral argument because of the amount of death and disability that stroke causes, but there is also an economic argument because it was estimated that the cost of stroke to this country in 2002 was £2.3 billion a year and that is rising every year.
May I also ask the Minister to look carefully at the care people receive in hospital and the progress that is being made towards providing proper stroke units? In the meantime, will he look seriously at the problem of young people being treated on elderly care wards? That is not beneficial to patients or staff because it does not allow staff to do their job properly and is not comfortable for patients. Will he see what can be done to end that practice?
324WH
In addition to care in hospital, will the Minister consider what happens to people when they leave hospital? What is needed is what we have tried to achieve in so many areas: a breakdown of the barriers between primary care trusts and acute trusts, and between health and social services. People who have had a stroke may need a whole package of services according to their condition: physiotherapy, speech and language therapy, aids to help them to cope with their daily life, family support, help with retraining and so on. In common with everyone else that I have met in similar circumstances, they do not want to traipse between different departments. They do not care which part of government delivers the services, but they would like them delivered in one easily accessible package.
May I suggest to the Minister that primary care trusts should work with acute trusts to ensure that when people leave hospital following a stroke, they receive a whole package of information on the services that they may need to access as time goes on. That may be in a booklet or some other form but it should tell them about their diagnosis, the preventive measures they can take and how to access other services that they might need, either immediately on leaving hospital or later on.
I suggest to the Minister that the services need to consider the cross-boundary issues carefully, as people who have suffered a stroke are often treated in a hospital that is in a different PCT from their home. It is no use giving people information about services in an area where they do not live. I suggest, too, that we try to ensure that everyone who leaves hospital after a stroke has a named key worker, so that they know whom to contact for information on the services available to them. People should be told when they leave hospital of their right to a proper community care assessment, as many people do not know that they are available and fail to have such an assessment.
In conclusion, I ask the Minister to examine the links between primary care trusts and social services in respect of providing help with child care and respite care for the families of stroke victims. We owe a tremendous debt to carers, as things can be particularly difficult for the families of younger stroke victims. A little respite care and time to oneself can make all the difference to the people involved and help them to keep going, but the contact that would enable that care to be provided does not exist.
We should consider liaison with the Department for Work and Pensions to educate personal advisers in the effects of stroke and in knowing how to give the right advice to people as they recover and rebuild their lives. Of course more money is needed, but we must carefully consider how the resources already available are being used.
The key to the issue for younger stroke victims is, first, remembering that they exist; it is not only elderly people who have strokes, but middle-aged and young people and children. When those groups cease to be invisible it will be easier to think about their needs and thus produce better services for them.
I hope that the Minister will take note of what I say and do what he can to help this large but neglected group of people.
3.47 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. Stephen Ladyman): I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) for securing this Adjournment debate. There are two types of Adjournment debate: those that are a continuation of the party political battle and those that are about genuine issues of interest to hon. Members' constituents. This debate clearly falls into the latter category. I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing the matter to the attention of the House and I thank her for giving me the first opportunity to appear at this Desk in Westminster Hall.
The real benefit of an Adjournment debate is not what happens in the Chamber but the fact that it forces Ministers to do some homework and focus on an issue before they respond to the debate; that is certainly true in this case. I was astounded by some of the figures that my hon. Friend drew to my attention. About 10,000 people under the age of 55 have a stroke every year, 1,000 of whom are under the age of 30. That brings home the scale of the problem. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the consequences of a stroke and the process of recovery are different for a young person. The stroke survivor and their family have to come to terms with the physical and emotional changes as well as making significant lifestyle adjustments, which can involve issues such as mobility, employment, income and dependence. As my hon. Friend rightly points out, there can be a severe impact on relationships. It is important that stroke rehabilitation services for younger people focus on the goals that young people want to achieve. Those will include vocational rehabilitation so that ultimately and if possible, the person can return to work. Clearly, those issues are different from the issues that may affect older people who have strokes.
Stroke is the third biggest killer and the largest cause of serious disability in the United Kingdom. In the 1990s, age-standardised rates of mortality from stroke in people aged under 75 in England fell by just over a third, from 30.3 deaths per 100,000 of population in 1990 to 19.9 deaths per 100,000 in 2000. That continues the declining trend that we have witnessed in the rate of mortality from stroke since at least the 1960s, and demonstrates that our understanding of the causes of stroke and the best way to treat it is improving.
I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said about the need for research and the disparity between the amounts going into research into certain conditions and the amount going into stroke research. Last year, the Medical Research Council invested more than £3 million in stroke research. That council responds to bids for research, so if someone puts together a good bid for a research project, it will consider funding it, but it does not necessarily seek new bids and try to ramp up the level of spending. My hon. Friend made points on which my Department needs to reflect, and we will ensure that the Medical Research Council is aware of her comments. If we are to continue the drive to improve care and treatment for people who have suffered stroke, we need to do the research that my hon. Friend identified.
The Government are committed to reducing the number of disabilities and deaths resulting from stroke. We are making changes and improvements in access to,
326WH
and delivery of, care and treatment. That includes the key areas of prevention and education about risk factors and the care and rehabilitation services that people receive immediately after a stroke.
When we launched the national health service plan in 2000, we said that it would take time to deliver a genuinely patient-centred service. That is why from the start it was a 10-year programme of investment and reform. The extra investment that we are making will help the NHS to deliver on the plan. I am referring to the money to increase capacity and recruit extra staff, and the tools to deliver far-reaching reforms. We want to ensure that people who have a stroke can return, as far as possible, to the lifestyle that they enjoyed before. The needs of stroke patients span a wide variety of services, and we recognise that younger patients have different needs from older patients.
The development of stroke services has brought about an enormous change in the care of stroke patients. There is growing evidence that dedicated stroke care greatly improves outcomes, reduces mortality and is cost-effective. A specialist multidisciplinary team is a key factor in providing successful stroke care. My hon. Friend pointed out the success of the treatment that her father received as a result of being able to access specialists.
The national service framework for older people, published in March 2001, provided a major driver for improved stroke services. It set specific standards and milestones and established the development of integrated stroke services and improvements in the delivery of stroke care as a priority. It is important to note that although the risk of having a stroke increases with age, stroke can affect younger people, so the standards of care and service models in the framework apply equally to young and old. I accept my hon. Friend's point that as the standards are incorporated in the national service framework for older people, we may sometimes miss the emphasis that should be placed on the needs of younger people. I shall ensure that the Department reflects on that problem to see how we can deal with it.
The implementation of specialist stroke services is required in the document entitled "Improvement, Expansion and Reform". That is the priorities and planning framework for 2003–06. It makes it clear that implementing the older people's national service framework is a top priority, and that the 2004 milestone relating to specialist stroke services is a key target. The document also includes important milestones to assess the improvements in stroke services that are required. From monitoring against the April 2002 milestones for the national service framework, we know that 83 per cent. of hospitals plan to have a specialist stroke service in place by April 2004. Although we recognise that some services need to increase their capacity, significant improvements have already been made and stroke patients of all ages are already feeling the benefits.
The aim of the national service framework stroke standard is to reduce the incidence of stroke in the population and ensure that those who have had a stroke have prompt access to integrated stroke care services. The stroke standard requires:
"The NHS will take action to prevent strokes, working in partnership with other agencies where appropriate. People who are thought to have had a stroke will have access to diagnostic

327WH
services, will be treated appropriately by a specialist stroke service, and subsequently with their carers, participate in a multi disciplinary programme of secondary prevention and rehabilitation."
Implementation of the national service framework stroke standard will achieve the situation in which fewer people will have a first or repeat stroke; there is early identification and preventive action for those at risk of stroke, and general advice and support on how to reduce risks; there is access to specialist stroke services based on best evidence, better care, better outcomes, reduced death and disability from stroke; there is co-ordinated rehabilitation and improved chances of regaining independence; and there is support for carers.
My hon. Friend made a valid point about the need to deal with respite care for the carers of people with long-term disabilities or those who have become disabled. I have a personal interest in that matter and I shall be following it up. We must not overlook the possibility that, without those carers, we could not provide the standard of service that people need. In the coming months, I shall certainly be looking closely at the issues that my hon. Friend raised.
However, we are aware that the organisation of stroke care throughout the country remains variable and that there is still much to do to ensure that the standards in the national service framework for older people are met. The third national sentinel audit of stroke, carried out by the clinical effectiveness and evaluation unit of the Royal College of Physicians and led by the intercollegiate working party for stroke, has given a detailed picture of the way in which hospitals provide care for stroke patients.
The audit demonstrates that 73 per cent. of hospitals now have a stroke service, which is an increase from 43 per cent. three years ago. However, there is still insufficient capacity in that 36 per cent. of patients admitted with strokes spend some of their time on a stroke unit. There have, however, been increases in the number of stroke physicians and the number of patients returning home following hospital treatment. The next audit is planned for April 2004, in partnership with the new Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection.
Currently, many initiatives to help develop stroke services are supported by the Department of Health. Last year, the Department carried out a mini review of
328WH
what makes a good stroke service, following visits to several sites throughout the country. The results of that review are available on the Department of Health website. The report sets out key elements that need to be in place to establish good stroke services and provides examples of good practice.
"Pursuing perfection" is a project that is managed through the Modernisation Agency. It involves communities that are aiming to transform the levels of care that are currently provided to patients and service users. Four communities are involved at present and they are expected to seek out current levels of good practice to help them frame their goals. The stroke pilot is in Devon. By setting stretching targets and, it is hoped, reaching them, Devon will set a model for others to follow.
The Bradford changing work force pilot is exploring new ways of working in the care of stroke across health and social care teams. The principal players are the Bradford hospitals NHS trust, the three Bradford primary care trusts and Bradford social services. The benefits expected from new ways of working are greater continuity of care for patients, faster access to treatment, fewer communication problems and unnecessary reassessments, less pressure on scarce staff resources and greater staff satisfaction. The lessons that come out of that project will go a long way to deal with some of the issues raised by my hon. Friend in respect of what happens after the discharge and the need to receive the joined-up government response.
The Department of Health and NatPaCT—the national primary and care trust development programme—are working with seven pilot primary care trusts to help them to commission in order to deliver on the requirements of the older people's NSF. One of the projects is looking specifically at commissioning to deliver on the stroke standard. In 2001, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence was commissioned to develop guidelines for the management of hypertension in primary care. When published, the guidelines will help to ensure that the treatment that patients receive is of a consistent standard, and will identify cost-effective approaches to managing patients with hypertension, including the threshold for initiating drug therapy. High blood pressure is a risk factor in stroke, coronary heart disease and chronic renal failure, and the guidelines on that are expected in February 2004.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Time is up.

Dr. Adrian Garfoot
4 pm
Mr. Henry Bellingham: I am conscious of the fact that this is the Minister's first appearance on the Front Bench in Westminster Hall with her current brief. [Interruption.] It seems that it is not. Well, I should like to congratulate her on her move anyway—she has been kept busy. I had the pleasure of seeing the Minister in action when she was at the Department of Trade and Industry and was most impressed by what I saw. I wish her well with her new post.
I should like to examine not only the case of my constituent Dr. Adrian Garfoot, but the Government's wider drugs policy. The tragic, sad case of Dr. Garfoot has received a great deal of local publicity but must be aired in Parliament, at least to record what marvellous work he did and what has happened since.
Dr. Adrian Garfoot was trained at the Royal Free hospital school of medicine. He was a general practitioner in Great Yarmouth and Kilburn, and during that time he developed a deep interest in and awareness of the drugs crisis and the plight of drug addicts. In 1990 he opened the Laybourne clinic in east London. He was brought up in Norfolk and his father is the well known Methodist minister in King's Lynn, the Reverend John Garfoot.
The Laybourne clinic soon became a renowned centre of excellence. During the 10 years from 1990, the clinic treated more than 1,200 patients, the typical age of whom was 37 and a half, which was substantially older than the average age of patients in NHS drugs clinics, which was 29. The overwhelming majority of Dr. Garfoot's patients were long-term addicts who had been injecting themselves for anything between 20 and 30 years, and maintaining their habits through crimes, such as theft, burglary, dealing in drugs, prostitution and so on.
4.2 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
4.16 pm
On resuming—
Mr. Bellingham: I had made a bit of progress in my speech; I had spoken for two minutes when the Division was called. I had said that the overwhelming majority of the patients whom Dr. Garfoot was treating had been injecting themselves for between 20 and 30 years, and had maintained their drug habit through a life of crime. Most had already spent lengthy periods in prison; at one point, it was calculated that 270 patients had, between them, spent more than 600 years in prison—a pretty staggering figure. Many had been committing up to four crimes a day—well over 1,000 crimes a year.
However, what is interesting about the Laybourne clinic is that the recidivism rate for the drug addicts at the end of treatment was only 7 per cent., whereas for those coming out of the Prison Service, recidivism was more than 50 per cent. Dr. Garfoot was able to rebuild
330WH
the lives of many people, deal with serious medical conditions and restore family relationships. Most important, he enabled those people to get on with a normal life and keep out of trouble. I calculated, with the help of several independent experts, that Dr. Garfoot probably saved the country more than £10 million. Many testified that he saved their life in the process.
I shall mention some of the achievements of addicts who underwent treatment at the Laybourne clinic. One reformed addict ended up playing the violin in an orchestra, another founded a national charity, another completed an MA degree in computer studies at the age of 30, several ran in the London marathon and two gained places at medical school. Those are remarkable achievements.
I should like to read to the Chamber a tribute paid by Gary Sutton, who was one of the addicts treated at the Laybourne clinic. I met him on one of my visits to the clinic. His account refers to a particular occasion in 1996. A patient who was in the clinic with him was, at that juncture, being treated at St. Mary's hospital, and discharged himself with a butterfly needle still in his arm. A few hours later, laboratory results were returned showing that he had a potentially life-threatening infection. The police were alerted and called to the patient's address, but were unable to find him. The hospital rang up Dr. Garfoot; as it was a Sunday morning, Dr. Garfoot was at his home in Sevenoaks. He drove from Sevenoaks to London and spent seven hours trying to track the patient down. He eventually found him, and took him to Homerton hospital. The following day, the consultant rang up Dr. Garfoot and personally commended and thanked him for saving this person's life. That is one example; I could give many others.
Dr. Garfoot had a prescribing policy that was based on harm reduction and non-coercive user-friendly protocols. Above all, he used his clinical independence. What he was putting in place were voluntary and supervised withdrawal programmes, and, yes, methadone was often used. It is interesting to examine the latest May 2003 guidelines from the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse. When they refer to injectable prescribing, they make it clear that the recommended daily dosage of between 60 and 120 mg is within the effective therapeutic range. Certainly, what Adrian Garfoot prescribed was within that limit. No patient died of an overdose during his time at Laybourne clinic. There was one suicide when medication was seized by the police, and the result was that the local hospital refused help. That was, of course, tragic, but no patient died from overdosing.
The doctor's philosophy was one of maintenance prescriptions with gradual reductions. Let us not forget that many of his patients had been on 12 or more failed oral treatment courses over periods of addiction of up to 25 or 30 years. It is worth examining exactly what the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse has said in its recent guidelines and press releases. Professor John Strang, the chair of the NTA heroin expert group, said:
"The message for specialist clinicians is that yes, injectable heroin and injectable methadone have a role to play in the treatment of drug misuse—but it's a limited role and one that needs to be developed very carefully".

331WH
The NTA's press release states that the guidance now offered is
"based on a fresh examination of the latest national and international evidence and best practice and represents a consensus of expert opinion on injectable prescribing".
The summary to the guidelines states, first, that
"injectable maintenance treatment is most appropriate for long-term heroin addicts who have not responded to oral maintenance treatment";
and secondly, that
"where injectable heroin and methadone maintenance prescriptions are provided as part of a comprehensive treatment programme, both may have beneficial effects on health, social functioning and crime reduction".
Those guidelines entirely sum up and endorse what Dr. Garfoot had been doing in his clinic.
There was no evidence at all, during Dr. Garfoot's time at the clinic, of any diversion of drugs. He was always incredibly assiduous in preventing the diversion of prescribed drugs to the wider community. That was recognised on a number of occasions when he had clashes with the authorities. Back in 1992, there were complaints. Later there were further allegations, and he was summoned before a Home Office misuse of drugs tribunal on charges of alleged irresponsible prescribing. There was a disgraceful raid on the Laybourne clinic that was heavily criticised at the time, in Parliament among other places.
After the analysis of 1,500 prescriptions, there was no sign of any discrepancies whatever. Dr. Garfoot was cleared by the Home Secretary, and there was also a finding of "abuse of process" against his accusers. The cost of that case ran into thousands of pounds. In 2000, the interim orders committee of the General Medical Council imposed serious restrictions on Dr. Garfoot. He then went to the professional conduct committee of the GMC in September 2001, and there was a finding that he should be erased from the medical register on the grounds of serious professional misconduct. He took the decision to appeal to the Privy Council, and unfortunately lost. It is worth pointing out that more than 20 other doctors were also struck off in 2001.
It goes without saying that this has been a total disaster for Dr. Garfoot. I shall return to that in a moment. It has, however, been an even bigger disaster for the patients of that clinic. The clinic carried on for a while after Dr. Garfoot left, but it was unable to continue providing the same level of treatment. A number of patients left. Six of those have subsequently died. Many others have gone back into a life of crime and prostitution and are now back on the conveyor belt that leads to crime, inadequate treatment and back to crime again. There have been six tragic deaths as a consequence of that. I could outline all those, but the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) has mentioned them in a previous debate in the House.
One should also consider the tragedy affecting Dr. Garfoot. He has been struck off. It is extraordinary that
332WH
in Norfolk, in my constituency, where there are many GP shortages—in the Heacham, Dersingham and Snettisham practice there are two—Dr. Garfoot is living in Gaywood with his father, a Methodist minister, and doing his best to find ways of earning a living, although he is finding it difficult. He would love to do locum work and help in the community.
The extent to which the goalposts have been moved is absurd. Dr. Garfoot could have been reinstated after 10 months, until the new guidelines were issued by the Secretary of State in April 1999, when that period was altered to five years. That is the case, even though the GMC dealt with the alleged offences in a tribunal that was, in my opinion, flawed in many ways—and that decision was upheld on appeal by the Privy Council, with procedures that were likewise flawed. The alleged offences related to events and incidents that took place before the Secretary of State changed the guidelines.
There is an overwhelming case for natural justice; for the Secretary of State to say, "Look, the old 10-month rule can apply to those doctors whose alleged offences were complained of and dealt with by the GMC before the guidelines were changed." I ask the Minister to consider carefully the situation of doctors like Dr. Garfoot, who is badly needed back in the community dealing with drug addicts. That is vital. He also needs to earn a living. It makes no sense for him to be sitting around not helping patients in the community when we have GP shortages.
There are a number of flaws in the way in which the GMC conducted the hearings and the Privy Council conducted its hearing. I will not deal with those now, because they are detailed and complicated. I shall give just one example. One of the allegations made to the GMC was that Dr. Garfoot's patients were very different from others and difficult to treat, but it heard from non-expert witnesses, who gave evidence that I find totally unconvincing. The fact is that many of Dr. Garfoot's patients were much older than those attending NHS clinics. Consequently, they had a longer drug-taking history and a much more severe set of conditions. None of the so-called expert witnesses examined during the hearings had any contact with people who had seen the patients. They did not look at any independent evidence that was made available to the hearing. That was just one example of how slapdash the committee was, and how unprofessionally, in my judgment, it dealt with Dr. Garfoot. There were many other procedural flaws, which I will not trouble the Chamber with now.
I would like the Minister to say clearly that she will consider this case. We have a drugs crisis in this country. The Government are making some progress, but we dearly need people like Dr. Garfoot to be rehabilitated from the appalling slurs on his character. He needs to be allowed to go back into general practice, and the drugs communities in this country certainly need him to set up another clinic like the Laybourne, which did so much to help its patients and saved so many lives.
4.29 pm
Dr. Brian Iddon: I will not hold up the Chamber for long.
We must remember that this doctor was practising before the National Treatment Agency for Substance Abuse was set up. Only 6 per cent. of heroin addicts were

333WH
in treatment at that time and they were mainly desperate people. It is not often that I would defend a doctor practising in the private sector, but in this case I do. Without Dr. Garfoot and the 18 or 19 other doctors who have similarly been struck off, we would have had some very chaotic heroin addicts wandering around places such as London. Everything went wrong after the Shipman murders. He was correctly convicted of misusing opiates, but the General Medical Council then set up the interim orders committee, which started to pick off those doctors one by one. That has been very unfair. Will the Minister look at the case of Dr. Adrian Garfoot and the procedures adopted by the General Medical Council to pick off those private doctors one by one?
There has been nowhere else for such patients to go. They are chaotic patients. I know Dr. Adrian Garfoot personally and I defended him at the interim orders committee of the General Medical Council, which shows how strongly I felt about his case. Dr. Garfoot told me that one of his patients came at him with an axe one night. He talked him down, got him stabilised and kept him that way.
The national health service was not—at that time—capable of dealing with that type of patient. I do not believe that it is capable of doing so now. We are talking about long—standing heroin addicts, many of them middle-aged. As soon as the doctors, including Dr. Adrian Garfoot, stopped practising, one by one their patients began to die. Within a few days, certainly under two weeks, at least three of Dr. Garfoot's patients were dead because he was no longer available to treat them. I make the plea again to the Minister to look at this case, but also to examine why the General Medical Council is taking that action.
4.31 pm
John Mann: Only 5 per cent. of all drug addicts currently receiving treatment are being treated by doctors, according to a response that I received from the Department of Health only two weeks ago. I have three points to make. The first is that this is an individual case, but at the heart of it is the philosophy that we have in this country about drugs treatment. In congratulating the Minister on her new post, I urge her to look at a fundamental overhaul of the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse and the philosophy behind it. I question why there is no medical majority on the agency's board, which I think is a fundamental flaw.
Secondly, only two weeks ago a GP in my constituency, where we have above the average number of heroin addicts, told me that she was not prepared to prescribe, because she was terrified of being struck off. That is something that I have heard repeatedly throughout the country. Instead, social workers and psychiatrists are taking medical decisions in the place of GPs.
My third point is that, at a conference on this subject attended by 200 people three weeks ago, the prescribing of methadone cited ranged from 25 to 50 mg. The Government recommend a minimum dose of 60 mg. The Dutch suggest that 80 to 100 mg should be the minimum dosage prescribed. That is happening under our system at present and we must look at that, rather than penalising those GPs who are valiantly battling to
334WH
keep people out. The alternative happens in my constituency. The drug action team and the treatment agency have achieved 0 per cent. success. They cannot cite one person that they have successfully treated during their existence. That is the fundamental flaw. The case, which has been most eloquently put forward, has much wider implications.
4.33 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Miss Melanie Johnson): I congratulate the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) on securing a debate on this important topic and my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) and for Bassetlaw (John Mann) on their contributions. I hope that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman and my colleagues that the Government are committed to tackling drug misuse with all the resources at their disposal.
First, I must make it clear that I cannot make comments on the individual case of Dr. Garfoot. I understand that the case has been subject to disciplinary proceedings at the General Medical Council, as the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk mentioned. It was subsequently looked at by the Privy Council. Therefore, it would be inappropriate for me to comment or to intervene.
I understand, however, that the issue underlying the case was one of prescribing to drug misusers. I will give more detailed information on what is being done by the Government to support those GPs and other professionals who are involved in that activity. The remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw are relevant to the concerns that people have expressed.
In Government, we recognise the challenges for health professionals in engaging with drug misusers. Many of those drug misusers have chaotic lifestyles associated with their addiction. The benefits of successful engagement with treatment services are enormous, both for the individual and for their community. We have no doubt that treatment works, and that view is supported by research. The national treatment outcome research study—the most important United Kingdom research into drug treatment—shows the enormous benefits to individuals who have completed treatment. We know that most drug misusers who are retained in treatment show a significant improvement in health and social functioning, and reductions in criminal activity and drug use. In addition, from an economic perspective, the findings show that every£1 spent on treatment saves£3 of expenditure within the criminal justice system.
We are the first Government to allocate substantial funding for the purpose of treating drug misusers. In this financial year alone, the pooled drug treatment budget has risen to £243.1 million, allowing an average increase to primary care trusts of 23 per cent. That supplements minimum increases of 30 per cent. in the previous financial year. I am pleased that Norfolk primary care trust has benefited greatly from the increased funding, receiving an increase in its pooled drug treatment budget of 33 per cent. in 2002-03, with a further increase in excess of 20 per cent. in this financial year.
As the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk must be aware, the additional funding for treatment has a target attached to it, which is to double the number of drug

335WH
misusers in treatment by 2008. There is also an interim target. Although there is no room for complacency, I am pleased that the latest figures show that we are currently on track to meet that target. We also recognise that it is not enough to get more people into treatment; we must also improve the quality of treatment and, for that reason, have also set a target to increase the numbers who successfully sustain or complete treatment programmes. To support the Government's commitment to increasing the quality and availability of drug treatment services, in April 2001 we set up the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse, which has the specific remit of driving forward improvements in the quality, availability, accessibility and effectiveness of drug treatment in England.
I listened carefully to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw, and his comments on the treatment services available through his local drug action team. I give him an undertaking to look closely at what is happening in his area. He has been a passionate advocate of the need to tackle the problem of drug misuse in his community.
However much money the Government put into drug treatment services, it can be effective only if we can meet the demand for treatment in every area of the country. One of the biggest barriers to increasing both the quality of, and access to, drug treatment is the need for sufficient trained staff to work within treatment services. That should not surprise us, as shortages of staffing are experienced in many other areas within the NHS. The National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse is implementing a work force strategy to encourage professionals to work in drug treatment, and I am pleased to inform you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that drug action teams have reported an increase of 1,088 people working in drug treatment services in 2002-03 and are projecting a further 680 between 2003-04. That is ahead of expectations.
The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk will appreciate how important it is that the medical profession is fully trained to respond to patients with drug problems. The Royal College of General Practitioners has been funded by the Government, with a total of £3 million being made available to provide accredited training for GPs and other health care professionals to help them in their work with drug misusers. In the first year, 440 GPs completed that course, and with the additional funding that the Department of Health has made available, more than 1,000 health care professionals will have completed the course by the end of this year. I am particularly pleased that the course has been adapted to allow other groups supporting primary care—such as pharmacists and nurses—to take part.
To ensure that treatment is available to those who need it, we must also reduce the time that anyone who needs drug treatment has to wait before that treatment begins. That is crucial, as a delay in being able to offer treatment can lead to the drug user losing their
336WH
motivation to enter treatment, with the result that, by the time the place is available, they are no longer interested and it is a missed opportunity. That is why the NTA set maximum waiting time targets against which DATs will be measured.
I should say a few words about prescribing, as hon. Members have focused on it. We place importance on the role of safe and effective prescribing in the delivery of drug treatment services, and that is particularly pertinent here. Research evidence clearly shows the effectiveness of prescribed opiate substitutes to replace the need for illicit heroin. Oral methadone maintenance treatment has the strongest evidence base in the treatment of heroin addiction in order to reduce harm and is recommended in Department of Health expert guidelines on the clinical management of drug misuse and dependence. The guidelines also include recommended dosages of methadone and other treatments, based on the evidence of their effectiveness.
We recognise that health professionals require support when delivering services to drug misusers. That is why the various initiatives that I have mentioned have been put in place. In addition, the NTA and Department of Health are currently developing support networks for specialists in the field.
We recognise that, while stable abstinence is the preferred goal of treatment for opiate addiction, patients may require prolonged maintenance treatment with oral opiate substitute medications as part of an overall package of care. A small number of heroin users who require treatment are currently stabilised on injectable methadone or heroin. That is accepted clinical practice in the UK in a group of about 350 severely dependent heroin addicts who have not responded to treatment and care with oral medication.
Mr. Bellingham: If I had had more time, I would have elaborated on this point in more detail. The Minister is now referring to the NTA recommendations on prescribing contained in the report published in May. If those guidelines had been in place when Dr. Garfoot went before the GMC, surely the outcome would have been different. I am not asking the Minister to comment on a specific case, but a number of doctors have been judged on the established thinking and philosophy at the time in cases of so-called prescribing offences, but the world has moved on. It is vital to bear that in mind.
I should be grateful if the Minister would touch on one other point in the closing few minutes. Could she consider the possibility of the Secretary of State examining the cases of the 21 doctors, who in the past have been struck off for only 10 or 12 months rather than five years?
Miss Johnson: The hon. Gentleman is trying to tempt me down a path that he knows I cannot go down. I have already said that I cannot comment on the judgment that was made and the GMC's decision. That is a matter for it, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware.
The decision to prescribe heroin is based on the clinical judgment of the prescribing doctor, who must be licensed for that purpose. The Department of Health's clinical guidelines recommend that it should be initiated by a specialist practitioner.

337WH
In the last year, at the request of the Department of Health and the Home Office, the NTA has convened a consensus group of national and international experts to help it to develop guidance for practitioners on injectable heroin prescribing and to assist local DATs, commissioners and service providers. As a result of that work, the NTA issued guidance on the prescribing of heroin earlier this month.
I appreciate that the prescribing of heroin raises some concerns with those who believe that the aim of Government policy is substantially to increase the number of drug misusers who are prescribed heroin. In fact our aim is to ensure that the small number with a clinical need for heroin treatment can access it.
Local DATs and commissioners of services, including primary care trusts, are responsible for assessing local needs for GP involvement. That includes such issues as
338WH
supervised consumption schemes, availability of the range of opiate treatments and the most appropriate service configuration.
I have described in detail how the Government have gone about providing drug treatment and guidance and training for doctors. While I cannot comment on the individual case, in the rare and unfortunate event that a medical practitioner appears to have failed to maintain the high standards expected of their profession, they are likely to be suspended and investigated by the GMC's professional conduct committee, an independent process over which, quite properly, I have no influence. It exists to ensure we can expect the highest standards from our medical practitioners.
It being fifteen minutes to Five o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the Sitting lapsed, without Question put.

TRANSPORT

  Motorways
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will make a statement on his assessment of the merits of widening motorways; [121022]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the environmental impacts of increased road building in the midlands. [121023]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The merits and impacts of individual proposals, including motorway widening, are assessed as part of the appraisal and decision taking process. The appraisal covers the expected impact on road safety, journey time and reliability, regeneration, accessibility, integration and the environment. Among the environmental impacts measured in the appraisal are the effects on the scheme on noise, local air quality, greenhouse gases, biodiversity, heritage, landscape and townscape. Full details are provided in the Department's Guidance on the Methodology for Multi-Modal Studies, available on the Department's website.

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many instances there were of vehicle excise duty evasion in(a) England and (b) London broken down by local authority, in each year since 1997. [121523]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The estimated number of vehicles evading Vehicle Excise Duty in each year since 1997 in(a)England and (b)London is as follows:

  Thousands

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  England

  1,424.1

  1,472.7

  1,336.3

  1,403.1

  1,481.4

  1,559.6

  London

  178.8

  184.6

  161.8

  171.0

  179.1

  187.2

  A breakdown of evasion by local authority area could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Minister

  Date

  Engagement

  Region

  Minister for the Cabinet Office, Lord Macdonald

  12 July 2002

  Hermitage education lecture, Durham

  North-east

  Minister for the Cabinet Office, Lord Macdonald

  5 August 2002

  Duchy of Lancaster reception, Preston Visit to Yorkshire Forward and launch of Yorkshire

  North-west

  Minister of State, Cabinet Office, Douglas Alexander

  9 September 2002

  Grocers' website Commonwealth Association of Public Administration event:

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  Minister for the Cabinet Office, Lord Macdonald

  10 September 2002

  "Getting Service Delivery Right", Glasgow

  Scotland

  Minister for the Cabinet Office, Lord Macdonald

  26 November 2002

  Visit to Emergency Planning College, Easingwold

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  Minister for the Cabinet Office, Lord Macdonald

  29 November 2002

  Visit to Brighton College and Brighton and Hove Council

  South-east

  Minister for the Cabinet Office, Lord Macdonald

  6 December 2002

  Government Procurement Service Conference, Brighton

  South-east

  Minister of State, Cabinet Office, Douglas Alexander

  13 March 2003

  Speech on devolution, Oxford

  South-east

CABINET OFFICE

  Civil Service
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office from which employment sectors outside appointments to the senior civil service were recruited in the last two years. [116829]

  Mr. Alexander
  Information is published annually by the Office of the Civil Service Commissioners. Their breakdown of appointments to the senior civil service through open competition is as follows:

  Number

  2000–01

  Civil service

  77

  Other public sector

  98

  Private sector

  27

  2001–02

  Civil service

  77

  Other public sector

  86

  Private sector

  37

  2002–03

  Civil service

  42

  Other public sector

  47

  Private sector

  56

  Voluntary sector

  1

  Since 16 July 2002 the commissioners have only collected information on open competitions for SCS top management posts as Departments were given authority to run their own open competitions for former grade 5 posts. Prior to this date they collected information on all SCS posts that were put out to open competition. For consistency this answer refers to the commissioners figures.

  Ministerial Visits
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list the Cabinet Office Ministers' UK visits broken down by region for May 2002 to May 2003. [120244]

  Mr. Alexander
  Details of UK visits undertaken by me and Lord Macdonald of Tradeston, between May 2002 and May 2003 are set out in the table.

  Visits within England are broken down by Government office administrative region. Internal meetings held at locations outside London are not included.

TREASURY

  Drug Seizures
  Mrs Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimates he has made of the quantity of(a) heroin, (b) cocaine and (c) cannabis that escaped detection while being imported into the UK. [121680]

  John Healey
  The National Criminal Intelligence Service's published Organised Crime Threat Assessment 2002 estimates that around 30 tonnes of heroin and 40 tonnes of cocaine are smuggled annually into the UK. There is no estimate for cannabis.

  Unpaid Carers
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many unpaid carers there are in(a) England, (b) Suffolk, (c) Norfolk, (d) Cambridgeshire and (e) Essex; and what percentage of unpaid carers are working over 50 hours per week. [120417]

  John Healey
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. David Ruffley, dated 25 June 2003:

  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking how many unpaid carers there are in (a) England, (b) Suffolk, (c) Norfolk, (d) Cambridgeshire and (e) Essex; and what percentage of unpaid carers are working over 50 hours per week.

  The number of people providing unpaid care and percentage of people who provide unpaid care for 50 or more hours a week recorded in the 2001 Census is shown in Table KS08 of the 2001 Census Report on Key Statistics for Local Authorities in England and Wales, which was published on 13 February. A copy of this report was placed in the House of Commons library and is also available or the National Statistics website at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk statbase/Expodata/Spreadsheets/D6565.xls(Table KS08 Health and Provision of unpaid care).

  I have extracted the following figures from the published table.

  Provision of unpaid care in the 2001 Census

  Number of people who provide unpaid care

  Percentage of people who provide unpaid care, who do so for 50 or more hours a week

  (a) England

  4,877,060

  20.48

  (b)Suffolk

  66,486

  18.92

  (c)Norfolk

  81,653

  20.62

  (d)Cambridgeshire

  50,673

  17.01

  (e)Essex

  129,236

  18.71

  source:

  2001 Census Report on Key Statistics for Local Authorities in England and Wales, Table KS08, ONS

  Aviation Fuel
  Geraint Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate how much the Treasury would receive per year if aviation fuel was taxed at till same rate as fuel used by the private motorist; and how much income was received from passenger taxes in 2002–03. [121614]
  764W
  John Healey
  Levying duty on commercial aviation turbine fuel in the UK at the same duty rate as that charged on ultra low sulphur petrol which is currently 45.82 pence per litre, would have raised approximately £6.3 billion in 2002–03, assuming no impact on demand or supply.

  The revenue raised by the Exchequer from the Air Passenger Duty in 2002–03, as published in this year's Financial Statement and Budget Report (HC 500), is estimated to be £0.8 billion.

  Credit Unions
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he is taking to promote and develop the use of credit unions; and if he will make a statement. [121632]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government support credit unions, and the role they play in providing access to affordable credit and alleviating financial exclusion. We are keen to create an environment in which the movement can grow and prosper. For example, we have undertaken a programme of legislative reform to help improve the operational flexibility of credit unions and increase the number of services they can offer their members.

  We are continuing to work with the sector to see how we can support and encourage its future development.

  Energy Efficiency Investment
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on delay in the instigation of the second phase of the consultation exercise on fiscal instruments to promote investment in energy efficiency. [121058]

  John Healey
  The Government consulted on the case for using economic instruments to improve household energy efficiency during 2002 and a summary of responses was published on the Treasury website it January 2003.

  As announced in Budget 2003, having full considered the responses the Government intend to undertake further detailed consultation on specific measures to encourage household energy efficient shortly.

  European Economic Convergence
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his statement of 9 June 2003,Official Report, column 411, on economic and monetary union what discussions he has had with the Deputy Prime Minister concerning his intention to build on and extent the reforms already announced in respect of planning and supply in the housing market. [121436]

  John Healey
  The Chancellor and the Deputy Prime Minister are in regular and frequent contact on a wide range of issues including the proposals announced in the statement of 9 June concerning planning and supply.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what research he has commissioned into the link between the growth in house prices and consumption in countries in the eurozone. [121526]
  765W
  Mr. Boateng
  I refer the hon. Member to the EMU study 'Housing, consumption and EMU' published alongside the assessment of the five economic tests on 9 June 2003.

  Heavily Indebted Poor Countries
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 4 June 2003,Official Report, column 429W, if he has made an assessment of why companies have not taken advantage of these tax incentives. [119208]

  John Healey
  At the recent Evian Summit the G8 agreed to ask the IMF and World bank to intensify their efforts to secure the full participation of all creditors, and to explore further options to deal with the issue of creditor litigation. The Government are absolutely committed to the rapid and full implementation of the HIPC initiative and will continue to use future meetings of the IMF and the World bank to push for greater efforts on debt relief.

  In the UK, tax relief is available to commercial creditors on bad debts owed by overseas states, including HIPCs, and the sovereign debt legislation provides certainty that debts owed by sovereign states could meet the conditions for bad debt relief.

  The Government encourage all commercial creditors to make full use of all the reliefs available to them under this legislation and play their full part in the HIPC process.

  Inflation
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the implications for the proposed move to HICP of the trend in the gap between the RPIX measure of inflation and the HICP measure of inflation. [121566]

  John Healey
  I refer the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 9 June 2003,Official Report, column 412, in which he said that the advantage of the internationally recognised index of consumer prices—HICP—is that it is a better measure, will improve the quality of our target, is in line with best international practice and is used by every other G7 nation but Japan, and by our neighbours in Europe. The Chancellor also said (Official Report, column 414) that, subject to confirmation at the time of the Pre-Budget Report, he intends to change the inflation target at that time.

  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of changing the measurement used for the Monetary Policy Committee's inflation target on(a) the effectiveness of future monetary policy and (b) the credibility of monetary policy. [121441]

  John Healey
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 9 June 2003,Official Report, column 412 in which he said that the HICP was a better measure of inflation for setting monetary policy, would improve the quality of our target, and was in line with best international practice.

  Inland Revenue (Scottish Charities)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will instruct the Inland Revenue to investigate the compliance with Scottish charity law of(a) Solutions RMC Ltd. and (b) Breast Cancer Research Scotland. [121202]

  John Healey
  In Scotland, responsibility for the supervision and regulation of charities is exercised by the Scottish Charities Office, on behalf of the Lord Advocate. The Inland Revenue has no responsibility for the conduct of charities, other than in respect of their tax affairs.

  Sniffer Dogs
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many hours a week sniffer-dogs are used to identify illegal meat imports at(a) ports and (b) airports. [121628]

  John Healey
  The information requested is not available; Exemption 4 (Law Enforcement and legal proceedings) of the Open Government Code applies to all such information about Customs anti-smuggling activities.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Air Pollution
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action will be taken by the Environment Agency in respect of the air quality problems suffered in Castle Point over the last five months. [121541]

  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency will continue its investigations into the cause of recent air quality problems and when completed, will decide on action in accordance with it's enforcement and prosecution policy.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what plans she has for improved air quality monitoring for Castle Point and the surrounding areas; [121542]

  (2) what contingency plans she has put in place to deal with future air quality problems in Castle Point and surrounding areas. [121543]

  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency confirm that there are improved procedures in place at the Pitsea landfill site to monitor and respond to odours produced by the site. Odour checks are carried out by the site operator twice daily, with off site checks carried out weekly. More comprehensive surveys are undertaken bimonthly. The site's odour action plan has been revised in the light of recent events to provide a better response to any odours identified.

  Bushmeat
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the quantity of bushmeat that has arrived in the United Kingdom from African countries in each of the last three years. [120587]
  767W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Veterinary Laboratories Agency published a risk assessment report on 25 March 2003. This estimated the amount of illegal meat of any type imported annually, on average, to be 7,500 tonnes, with 90 per cent. certainty that the amount of illegal meat imported will range from 2,800 tonnes to 17,500 tonnes per year. Table 6–6 indicates that bushmeat contributes on average 6 per cent. of the estimated total flow of illegal meat. Table 6–1, which shows the contribution by world region to the total estimate of illegal flow of meat into GB, indicates that about 23 per cent. of the total comes from African countries. Most—but not all—bushmeat comes from African countries.

  Copies of the report have been placed in the House Libraries.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for International Development on controlling the commercial exploitation of bushmeat. [121080]

  Mr. Morley
  We are in regular contact at Ministerial and official level with the Department for International Development. Most recently, I met the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Hilary Benn), on 10 June to discuss a range of issues, including action to deal with the trade in bushmeat.

  Compensation Claims
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many Rural Payments Agency and British Cattle Movement Service claims remain outstanding; what steps are being taken to clear these claims up; and if she will make a statement. [120536]

  Alun Michael
  All claims under CAP Bovine Schemes in England are paid by the Rural Payments Agency. All involve cross checking of claim details with records maintained by the British Cattle Movement Service on the Cattle Tracing System.

  As at 20 June there were 41,762 advance payments outstanding compared with a scheme total of 242,817 for 2003. At the same date there were 191,358 balance payments outstanding.

  Outstanding advance payments will be paid with the balance payment as a single payment.

  Although the Regulations require payments to be made by 30 June, the UK and several other member states have made representations to the European Commission for extra time in which to complete the process because the introductions this year of a system of aggregated penalties has necessitated extensive redevelopment of the computer system needed to process claims and make the payments.

  Every effort is being made to clear the outstanding payments as quickly as possible. Up-to-date information is posted on the RPA's website www.rpa.gov.uk and information is provided to the press from time to time.

  Dairy Farmers
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether it is her 768W
  policy that direct payments made to dairy farmers under the single farm payment scheme will be allocated only to active producers. [120266]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We agree that, at the outset, dairy compensation payments should be directed to dairy farmers rather than to those who have already left the sector. But with decoupling proposals, single farm payments would not require recipients to remain in dairy thereafter, providing that their land remained in cross compliance. This is all subject to the continuing negotiations on the CAP reform package.

  Euro Roadshow
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the events she plans to attend as part of the Government's euro roadshow. [121387]

  Alun Michael
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), on 20 June 2003,Official Report, column 458W, by my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey).

  Farming Subsidies
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 11 June 2003,Official Report, column 875W, on farming subsidies, if she will break down the figure for subsidy in 2001–02 indicating (a) what was subsidised, and by how much and (b) how much of the subsidy was supplied from each funding source; and if she will make a statement. [120014]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  In 2001–02 public expenditure under the CAP and on national grants and subsidies was £4,664 million. The amount is broken down in table 9.1 of the Defra publication "Agriculture in the United Kingdom 2002", which is available in the Library of the House. This indicates the amounts falling either to the EU or the UK budget. Payments for market support and certain payments for rural development will not all have been received directly by the farming industry.

  In addition, UK farmers benefited from the effect of the market regimes and import tariffs, which kept the price of many commodities in the EU higher than elsewhere. The cost of this will have fallen to consumers. In 2000, the latest year for which UK figures are available, we estimate that the CAP cost UK consumers around £3.5 billion through higher prices.

  GM Crops
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the antibiotics to which marker genes used in the production of genetically modified crops convey resistance and the medical uses of those antibiotics. [121657]

  Mr. Morley
  The following table lists antibiotics to which marker genes used in the development of genetically modified crops convey resistance and their medical uses in the UK.
  769W

  Antibiotic

  Medical uses

  Kanamycin

  very little therapeutic use, no licensed products in the UK

  Neomycin

  Various eye drops, dermatology preparations for topical treatment, bowel sterilisation before surgery

  Ampicillin

  A broad spectrum antibiotic, urinary and respiratory tract infections

  AmoxyciUin

  A broad spectrum antibiotic, urinary and respiratory tract infections, prevention of endocarditis

  Hygromycin

  Not licensed in the UK

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) which antibiotic marker genes are no longer in use in the genetic modification of plant crops; [121658]

  (2) what progress has been made in phasing out the use of antibiotic marker genes in the genetic modification of plant crops. [121660]

  Mr. Morley
  There is no current list of antibiotic resistance markers that cannot be used in the genetic modification of plant crops. Article 4(2) of Directive 2001/18/EC refers to the phasing out of genes expressing resistance to antibiotics which may have adverse effects on human health and the environment or are of use in medical or veterinary treatment. This phasing out must take place by 31 December 2004 in the case of GM crop plants for marketing and by 31 December 2008 in the case of the release of GM crop plants for research and development purposes. In accordance with this requirement the Commission has established an expert working group to address the use of antibiotic resistance marker (ARMs) genes that GMOs may contain and will aim to produce a list of ARMs which must be phased out.

  The Advisory Committee on Release to the Environment (ACRE) encourages the avoidance and minimisation of the use and expression of superfluous transgenes or sequences in the development of GM crops, including reduced use of marker genes such as ARMs1. Antibiotic maker genes which are considered to have adverse effects on human health or the environment have not been approved for either research and development or commercial releases of GM crop plants.
  1 Guidance on Principles of Best Practice in the Design of Genetically Modified Plants; available at http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/ acre/bestprac/guidance/index.htm

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the antibiotic marker genes, and the antibiotics to which they convey resistance, that are in use in the genetic modification of plant crops. [121659]

  Mr. Morley
  The table lists the antibiotic resistance marker genes and the antibiotics to which they convey resistance, which have been used in the genetic modification of crop plants for research releases in the United Kingdom.

  Gene

  Antibiotic

  nptll or neo

  Kanamycin and Neomycin

  bla

  Ampicillin and Amoxycillin

  hptll

  Hygromycin

  770W
  The intact nptll gene is present in some of the GM crop plants which have received marketing authorisation. The bla gene has been used in the development of some commercial GM crop plants however a fully functional coding gene is not present in any GM plants which have received marketing authorisation in the EU.

  Marine Stewardship Council
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list those fisheries which have been awarded grants towards attaining Marine Stewardship Council certification; and what plans she has to publicise them. [117811]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 9 June 2003]: Defra has awarded grants under the European Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance towards four fisheries seeking or renewing Marine Stewardship Council fisheries accreditation: the South West handline mackerel fishery; and Dover sole, mackerel and herring caught by the Hastings fishing fleet. South West PESCA Ltd, the Objective 1 grant facilitator in Cornwall, has issued a news release in connection with the former, and Hastings Borough Council is planning to issue a news release shortly in connection with the latter three.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to publicise the work of the Marine Stewardship Council on her Department's website. [117813]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 9 June 2003]: The Government welcome the fact that the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) encourages and rewards environmentally responsible fisheries management and practices. However, responsibility for publicising the work of the MSC—an independent organisation—lies with the MSC itself.

  OSPAR
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many times OSPAR Radioactive Substances Committee met between the OSPAR Conference in Sintra in July 1998 and 31 May 2003; how many reports the Committee published; what the subject matters addressed by the Committee were; and if he will make a statement. [120113]

  Mr. Morley
  The Radioactive Substances Committee (formally the Working Group on Radioactive Substances) has met on six occasions since the OSPAR Conference in Sintra in July 1998 to discuss matters relating to the implementation of the OSPAR Strategy for Radioactive Substances. Copies of the Summary Records of the RSC meetings are available on the OSPAR website at: www.ospar.org The Committee has published eight reports since 1998, as follows:Liquid Discharges from Nuclear Installations in 1996. ISBN 0 946955 85 9, published 1998;
  Summary of the Report on Sources, Inputs and Temporal Trends on Radioactive Discharges from Nuclear Installations for the years 1989 to 1995. ISBN number as above, published 1998;
  Liquid Discharges from Nuclear Installations in 1997. ISBN 0 946955 91 3, published 1999:

  771W
  Summary of the Reports Submitted in the Second Round of Implementation Reporting in Accordance with PARCOM Recommendation 91/4. ISBN number as above, published 1999;
  Liquid Discharges from Nuclear Installations in 1998. ISBN 0 946955 97 2, published 2001;
  Liquid Discharges from Nuclear Installations in 1999. ISBN 0 946956 63 4, published 2001;
  Liquid Discharges from Nuclear Installations in 2000. ISBN 0 946956 91 X, published 2002; and
  Discharges of Radioactive Substances into the Maritime Area by Non-nuclear Industry. ISBN 0 946956 90 1, published 2002.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs why OSPAR's Radioactive Substances Committee was unable in February 2003 to reach agreement on the baseline for discharges of radioactive waste from the Sellafield Nuclear Re-processing Plant into the Irish Sea; and if she will make a statement. [120114]

  Mr. Morley
  The establishment of a baseline in relation to the OSPAR Strategy for radioactive substances covers radioactive discharges from all nuclear and non-nuclear sources into the marine environment, concentrations in the marine environment and resulting doses to members of the public. Broad agreement has already been reached by the Radioactive Substances Committee on the methodology for establishing a baseline, including the principle that it should use annual values averaged over a period of several years. I am confident that agreement can be reached at the forthcoming OSPAR meeting in Bremen on the spread of years this period should cover.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the United Kingdom policies on radioactive discharges that will be put to the OSPAR ministerial meeting in Bremen; and if she will place in the Library copies of documents being submitted by the UK to the OSPAR meeting. [120786]

  Mr. Morley
  Radioactive substances is one of a number of issues being considered at the OSPAR Commission meeting in Bremen from 23 to 27 June. There will be a Ministerial session on 25 and 26 June.

  The meeting will consider the progress made in implementing the commitments agreed at the last ministerial meeting in 1998. All Contracting Parties have submitted national reports to the OSPAR Commission. The United Kingdom's report—the UK Strategy for Radioactive Discharges 2001–2002—was published in July 2002. Copies were placed in the Library at the time.

  Agriculture Funding
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how she estimates British agriculture is likely to benefit through Pillar 2 funding in the next 12 months. [121269]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 23 June 2003]Pillar 2 of the CAP is aimed at strengthening the agricultural and forestry sectors, improving the competitiveness of rural businesses and preserving the environment and rural heritage. Rural Development Programmes drawn up by EU member states set out how the Pillar 2772W
  measures, as detailed in the EC Rural Development Regulation, will be implemented over the period 2000 to 2006.

  Copies of the England Rural Development Programme (ERDP) and the separate programmes covering Wales and Scotland are in the Library, and they may also be viewed on the websites of the respective Departments. The programmes define the scope and objectives of a number of grant schemes, the expected benefits to the environment, the rural economy and rural communities which are expected to have been secured by the end of the Programmes, together with indicative financial budgets. In the 2003–04 financial year, the total budget allocated to the ERDP is approximately £255 million, of which almost £100 million is from the EU.

  The agricultural sector is the principal recipient of ERDP funding, but the benefits will accrue to rural communities as a whole; those benefits accruing to agriculture alone cannot be identified separately.

  Recycling Targets
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list local authorities that are(a) failing to meet Government recycling targets, (b) expected to meet them and (c) exceeding them; and what estimate she has made of performance against targets for recycling in England in (i) 2003–04 and (ii) 2004–05. [120778]

  Mr. Morley
  Local authority Statutory Performance Standards (`targets') for recycling and composting of household waste have been set for the years 2003–04 and 2005–06. Local authorities will submit performance data, against which the 2003–04 targets will be measured, to the Audit Commission in Summer 2004 and audited performance figures will be available towards the end of 2004.

  Targets for individual authorities are published on Defra's website at http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/ waste/management/guidance/mwms/10.htm.

  The most recent data on progress to targets are for 2001–02. According to those figures there is a big difference amongst authorities in their progress to their individual 2003–04 targets: 12 per cent. of authorities are already recycling at the individual target level, but 16 per cent. have over 15 per cent. to go.

  The intention to set targets for local authorities was set out in Waste Strategy 2000 and it is likely that many authorities have put, or are putting, schemes in place, the effects of which will not show up in data until 2002–03 or 2003–04.

  The Audit Commission will make audited performance figures for the year 2002–03 available later this year.

  Regulatory Impact Assessments
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the Department's Regulatory Impact Assessment procedure; and how many RIAs have been reviewed in respect of the Department over the last year. [120847]
  773W
  Alun Michael
  A Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) must be completed for all policy proposals that have a potential impact on businesses, charities or the voluntary sector. It includes details of the arrangements for monitoring and evaluating policy proposals and their impact.

  Information on the number of RIAs that have been reviewed in the last year is not held.

  From this year the National Audit Office (NAO) has a new role in independently evaluating a selection of RIAs. In their Annual Report, published in February 2003, the Better Regulation Task Force put forward suggestions of RIAs for the NAO to review.

  The NAO review will focus on the quality of analysis in the RIAs and the thoroughness with which the RIAs have been undertaken. The findings and recommendations of best practice will be fed back to departments. It will play a valuable part in driving up standards of RIAs.

  Sewel Motions (Scottish Parliament)
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list Sewel motions passed by the Scottish Parliament since May 1999 that apply to her Department's responsibilities and Government Bills she has sponsored. [120694]

  Alun Michael
  Since Defra came into being on 8 June 2001, the Department has sponsored one Bill that was the subject of a Sewel motion in the Scottish Parliament on the date indicated.Waste and Emissions Trading Bill (28 November 2002).

  MAFF sponsored
  Food Standards Bill (23 June 1999), which is now the responsibility of the Department of Health.
  Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Bill (8 December 1999).

  Sickness Absence Targets
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessment she has made of whether the sickness absence reduction target for 2002–03 in her Department will be met. [120898]

  Alun Michael
  Our target is based on the calendar year rather than the financial year. The Department is committed to the effective management of sickness absence, and to working towards its Service Delivery Agreement target of an average of 6.9 days per year, by 31 December 2003.

  Looking back to before the creation of Defra, available data show a reduction from 9.8 days in 1999 to nine days in 2000 and 7.4 days in 2001. The data for 2001 are not broken down to take into account the creation of Defra in June of that year. Figures for sickness absence in 2002 will be available, via the Cabinet Office, in July 2003.

  Sunset Clauses
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make it 774W
  her policy to include a sunset clause in all new legislation promoted by her Department unless a specific case can be made to exclude a sunset clause. [120849]

  Alun Michael
  The revised RIA guidance 'Better Policy Making: A Guide to Regulatory Impact Assessments' was published on 28 January 2003. It advises policy officials to consider time limiting or sunsetting at an early stage of policy development and gives specific examples of where sunsetting may be appropriate.

  Defra actively promotes the better regulation agenda and the use of sunsetting where appropriate.

  Waste Regulations
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the total cost since May 1997 including(a) employment on-costs and (b) legal advice commissioned by her Department in connection with action taken following contact received from the European Commission in respect of the UK's non-compliance with EU Directives and Regulation relating to waste. [120519]

  Mr. Morley
  Employment and legal costs associated with infraction proceedings are not separately identified in the Department's accounts and it would not be feasible to compile these costs from historical records. The requested information is not therefore available.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what the United Kingdom's performance was in 2002 against the recovery and recycling targets in the EC directive on packaging and packaging waste; and if she will make a statement; [120777]

  (2) what new recovery and recycling targets for packaging waste for 2003 have been set; and if she will make a statement. [120899]

  Mr. Morley
  The EC Directive on Packaging and Packaging Waste set targets of 50 per cent. recovery, 25 per cent. recycling and 15 per cent. recycling of each specified material which had to be met by 2001.

  Provisional figures for the United Kingdom for 2002, which were made public on 16 May, suggested a 53.6 per cent. recovery and 47.5 per cent. recycling rate had been achieved. However, as noted then, some figures may have to be adjusted in light of a fact-finding mission to look at possible inappropriate issue of Packaging Waste Recovery Notes in 2002. In addition, as the Information Bulletin noted, the figure for the amount of wood flowing into the waste stream might have to be adjusted. Such changes will affect the final level of recovery and recycling.

  Targets for 2003 were set in October 2002 and remain as announced then, that is 59 per cent. for recovery and 19 per cent. material-specific recycling. We are preparing a consultation document on possible future targets for 2004 to 2008 and hope to publish this next month.

  Windows
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent
  775W
  research has been conducted by and for her Department on the environmental impact of (a) wood, (b) plastic and (c) other material used in windows; and if she will place copies of documents published in the Library. [120521]

  Mr. Morley
  A life-cycle assessment of PVC and a range of alternative materials was published by the then DETR in September 2000. It included an assessment of the environmental impact of a wooden window frame in comparison to a PVC frame. Comparisons with other materials were made for other common uses of PVC ie packaging, drain pipes and flooring material. A copy of the report was placed in the Library at that time and a summary document aimed at the non-specialist is available on the Defra website at (www.defraweb/environment/consult/pvc/index.htm

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

  Graduates (Earning Differences)
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Minister for Women what recent assessment she has made of the differences in earnings between male and female graduates during their working lives and the reasons for such differences. [120515]

  Ms Hewitt
  The table shows recent analysis of the differences in earnings between male and female graduates in the UK.

  Average annual earnings of graduates, 1999–2000

  Age

  Men (£)

  Women (£)

  Percentage by which average male earnings exceeded those with females

  20 to 24

  16,738

  14,592

  14.7

  25 to 29

  23,302

  20,154

  15.6

  30 to 34

  30,448

  24,939

  22.1

  35 to 39

  36,948

  27,774

  33.2

  40 to 44

  36,949

  26,691

  38.4

  45 to 49

  36,696

  26,113

  40.5

  50 to 54

  38,153

  26,549

  43.7

  All ages under 60

  32,555

  23,630

  37.8

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey, September 1999 to August 2000 (pooled data).

  This is a complex area and recent surveys offer various opinions for such differences. Relevant factors which contribute to an earnings gap between men and women at the early stages of their careers include the different career choices made by men and women and their different academic backgrounds and skills. The largest recent survey of final year under graduates indicates that women have systematically lower expectations than men of the salaries they will earn, both in their first posts and five years later.

  Earnings differentials widen with age. This can be explained to some extent by the differences in labour market participation rates, employment continuity records, longer hours worked by male than female full-time employees and women's greater likelihood of having worked part-time for some or all of their careers.

WALES

  Departmental Ministers
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many Ministers there were in the Welsh Office and Office of the Secretary of State for Wales in each year since 1996. [120985]

  Peter Hain
  The Welsh Office had one Secretary of State and two Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State from 1996 until its demise in 1999; since then the Wales Office has had one Secretary of State and one Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the impact of the foot and mouth epidemic and 11 September on tourism into Wales. [118526]

  Peter Hain
  None; responsibility for tourism is devolved to the National Assembly for Wales. However, figures released by the Wales Tourist Board for the Easter holiday weekend 2003, suggests that with 78 per cent. of the businesses contacted in the survey fully occupied, Wales has had a successful start to the 2003 tourist season.

  Sub Post Offices
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many sub-post offices there were in Wales in(a) 1997 and (b) 2002. [117520]

  Peter Hain
  In 2002 there were 1,355 sub-post offices in Wales.

  No figures were collected for 1997.

  Source:

  Royal Mail Group PLC

  Wales Office
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the estimated(a) administrative costs and (b) budget for the Wales Office are for 2003–04; and how these have changed following the changes set out in the Prime Minister's statement of 18 June. [121479]

  Peter Hain
  The Wales Departmental Expenditure Limit for 2003–04 is £11.055 billion, within which the running costs of the Wales Office amounts to £4.154 million.

  These figures have not changed since the 18 June statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what his London office address is. [121476]

  Peter Hain
  Gwydyr House, Whitehall, London SW1A 2ER.

  Welsh Affairs
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of his time he expects to spend on Welsh affairs following his additional responsibility as Leader of the House. [120787]
  777W
  Peter Hain
  I intend to spend as much time as is necessary to fulfil my responsibilities as Secretary of State for Wales, including spending the same proportion of time in Wales as has been the case previously.

SCOTLAND

  Health Service
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how much has been paid by Scottish NHS trusts to English trusts for the treatment of patients in NHS hospitals in England, broken down by trust areas, in each of the last five years; [114770]

  Out of area transfers from Scottish health boards to English NHS trusts

  £

  Health board

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Argyll and Clyde

  729,513

  618,678

  495,338

  424,812

  446,496

  Ayrshire and Arran

  764,038

  585,990

  682,494

  489,166

  514,135

  Borders

  131,897

  228,943

  164,756

  198,718

  208,861

  Dumfries and Galloway

  326,272

  197,639

  286,811

  195,343

  205,314

  Fife

  705,143

  577,732

  573,035

  382,915

  402,460

  Forth Valley

  400,443

  296,704

  417,482

  255,692

  268,744

  Grampian

  797,133

  1,127,993

  960,777

  593,643

  623,944

  Greater Glasgow

  1,414,425

  1,394,629

  1,104,867

  836,195

  878,878

  Highland

  391,627

  621,367

  345,01 1

  38,979

  251,177

  Lanarkshire

  649,313

  636,880

  714,627

  411,806

  432,214

  Lothian

  1,463,307

  1,503,903

  1,289,186

  744,715

  782,728

  Orkney

  25,423

  21,078

  33,982

  66,005

  69,375

  Shetland

  35,389

  86,195

  19,933

  15,998

  16,815

  Tayside

  806,135

  889,940

  25,825

  423,813

  445,446

  Western Isles

  33,343

  76,394

  17,566

  54,827

  57,625

  Total

  8,673,401

  8,864,066

  7,731,690

  5,332,628

  5,604,212

  Note:

  The information relating to 2002–03 and 2003–04 are estimates based on previous costs, rather than actual figures.

  Information for the last five years on the number of episodes of admitted care for patients normally resident in Scotland treated in England, split by NHS trust in England, is available. Given the lengthy nature of this information, I have placed it in the House Library. This information relates to admissions to hospitals: treatment in accident and emergency clinics and outpatient attendances are not included.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when she last met the Paymaster General to discuss the implementation of the new system of tax credits. [118330]

  Mrs. McGuire
  My right hon. Friend and I have discussions, as the need arises, with the Paymaster General and our officials are in regular contact with the Inland Revenue to discuss implementation of the new Tax Credits.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment she has made of the number of tax credit claims outstanding in Scotland. [118331]

  Mrs. McGuire
  I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General's remarks during the debate in Westminster Hall on 4 June 2003,Official Report, columns 120–22WH. No breakdown of the figures that my right hon. Friend gave is available below UK level.
  778W
  (2) how many patients normally resident in Scotland have been treated in NHS hospitals in England, broken down by regional NHS trusts, in each of the last five years. [114772]

  Mrs. McGuire
  [holding answer 20 May 2003]: The information readily available is outlined in the table.

  The table shows the transfers since 1999–2000 to fund –Scottish residents out of area treatment in English NHS hospitals. These transfers primarily relate to emergency admissions (for example, when a patient is on holiday) where no service level agreement exists in relation to a patient's treatment.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  11-Year-olds
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of 11-year-olds reached the level expected of their age in English in each year since 2000 in the Bury St. Edmunds constituency. [120428]

  Mr. Miliband
  The table shows the percentage of pupils achieving level 4 or above in the Key Stage 2 English tests in maintained schools in the Bury St. Edmunds constituency between 2000 and 2002:

  Bury St. Edmunds

  England

  2000

  79

  75

  2001

  79

  75

  2002

  77

  75

  A-Levels
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his answer of 19 May 2003,Official Report, column 550W, on A-levels, whether he has set a date for publishing the Memorandum of Understanding. [119911]
  779W
  Mr. Miliband
  The Memorandum of Understanding between the Department and QCA was published on QCA's website on 19 June. I placed a copy in the Library on 18 June.

  Area Child Protection Committees
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to put Area Child Protection Committees on a statutory footing. [121620]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Joint Chief Inspectors' report, "Safeguarding Children", published in October 2002, recommends that the Department of Health should review the current arrangements for Area Child Protection Committees. The substantive response to the Joint Chief Inspectors' report, together with that to the Victoria Climbie Inquiry report, will be published as part of the Green Paper on Children at Risk.

  Arson
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many malicious fires relating to maintained school premises there have been in each year since 1997(a) by LEA and (b) as a proportion of all maintained schools across England and Wales. [119438]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department does not collect these figures.

  Breakfast Clubs
  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what funding is available to schools to provide breakfast clubs for children in poor socio-economic areas. [120467]

  Miliband
  Breakfast clubs are available in a number of schools as part of study support or childcare provision, and will form an important element in our extended schools programme. They promote healthy eating, can offer learning opportunities, and help working parents by providing a safe environment for their children.

  My Department assists breakfast clubs through the Standards Fund grant for study support (out-of-school-hours learning). This amounts to £75 million this year, including a 'top up' element going to Excellence in Cities areas. Our new Sure Start Out of School Programme will also be available from August to fund new childcare places, including breakfast provision. We have announced plans to provide over 63 million in the next three years to create 96,000 new out of school places. Nearly half of these places would be in disadvantaged areas where funding would be available for up to three years.

  In addition breakfast clubs can be supported through the National Healthy Schools Standard, the New Opportunities Fund, voluntary organisations and commercial sponsorship, such the scheme run by Education Extra and sponsored by Kellogg. In disadvantaged areas, regeneration and neighbourhood renewal funding may be available. Schools can also fund breakfast clubs from other programmes or from their own budgets.

  Car Parking (Schools)
  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of the cost per space of providing car parking places within school grounds. [120450]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department does not publish any official guide costs for parking places, but it is estimated that the cost per space is currently in the range £2,000–£4,000 per place depending on the layout of the car park and ground conditions.

  Classrooms
  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate his Department has made of the cost of constructing standard classrooms of 50 square metres. [120451]

  Mr. Miliband
  A single standalone classroom of traditional construction of 50 square metres including fitting out and design fees could be in the range £80,000–£90,000 at current costs. The cost will vary according to geographical region.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average cost of an individual Criminal Records Bureau check incurred by schools has been. [119430]

  Mr. Miliband
  The cost of a CRB check falls to individuals: schools which decide to pay their fee are expected to meet this cost from within their existing budgets. The fee for both Standard and Enhanced Disclosures is currently 12. Disclosures for volunteers are free of charge. From 1 July Standard Disclosures will cost £24 and Enhanced Disclosures £29. Disclosures for volunteers will remain free of charge.

  Drugs (Schools)
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what plans he has to introduce random drug testing in schools; and what assessment has been made of levels of drug taking in schools, and its effects; [121517]

  (2) what punishment may be given to pupils found to have (a) dealt drugs and (b) taken drugs on school premises; and if he will make a statement on measures taken since 1997 to reduce drug abuse in schools; [121518]

  (3) what lessons on the dangers of drugs and drug taking are given to school pupils as a part of the curriculum; and what assessment he has made of the value this form of information. [121519]

  Mr. Miliband
  Drug education should be a part of every school's curriculum. There is a statutory requirement for drug education in the National Curriculum Science Order. Pupils should be taught about the role of drugs as medicines; the effects on the human body of tobacco, alcohol and other drugs, and how these relate to their personal health and how the abuse of alcohol, solvents, tobacco and other drugs affects health. This represents the statutory minimum. Schools are expected to use the non-statutory frameworks for PSHE and Citizenship at key stages 1
  781W
  and 2, PSHE at key stages 3 and 4 and the Citizenship programme of study at key stages 3 and 4 as the context for developing drug education. We believe drug education in schools has an essential role to play in enabling pupils to develop their knowledge, skills, attitudes and understanding about drugs.

  Since 1997, we have taken a range of measures to tackle drug misuse in schools. We have allocated over £68 million to support drug alcohol and tobacco education and prevention in schools, including £17.5 million this year. From April 2001, we have supported the appointment of Schools Drug Advisors to help them deliver drug education and support tailored to the needs of pupils. We have supported the development of training packages to support professionals deliver effective drug education. We are also supporting a national five year research programme called "Blueprint" to test the effectiveness of drug education initiatives in schools. It will make a significant contribution to developing a UK evidence based for drug, alcohol and tobacco education.

  It is for schools in full consultation with local partners, including the police, to decide on appropriate strategies, including drug testing, for detecting illegal drug possession or use by pupils. Where schools adopt such strategies they should make sure, in advance, that they have clear evidence of consent. We have offered guidance on this issue in the draft document "Drugs: Guidance for schools (April 2003)". The Department of Health conducts regular surveys on the level of drug taking among young people. Data on the levels of drug taking in schools is not collected separately. The adverse effects of drug taking among young people are well documented and are highlighted in the Government's "Updated Drug Strategy 2002".

  Schools should develop a range of options for responding to the identified needs of those involved in a drug incident. These could range from early intervention work with pupils through to fixed period and permanent exclusions. The response should always be appropriate to the seriousness of the incident, the needs of the pupil, other pupils, the school and the community and be consistent with school rules. Responses to drug use and sanctions should be contained in the school's drug policy and be developed through wide consultation with members of the school community.

  Early Literacy Programme
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his answer of 12 June 2003,Official Report, column 1022W, when he will place in the Library a copy of the Go Karts video of the Early Literacy Support programme. [121553]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 12 June 2003,Official Report, column 1022W. I have also sent the hon. Member a copy of the video.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the annual cost of the proposed Office of Fair Access. [119960]
  782W
  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 17 June 2003]: This matter will be addressed in the explanatory notes which will be published when legislative proposals are presented to the House. We have proposed, in "Widening Participation in Higher Education" that OFFA will be separate from but supported by HEFCE.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the revenue to be raised from tuition fees and top-up fees, between 2003 and 2010,(a) in gross terms and (b) net of assistance given to students from low income backgrounds, on the assumption that all universities charge the maximum top-up fees allowed each year. [119961]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 17 June 2003]: No such assessment has been made: it will be for universities to decide what level of fees they set from 2006/07 onwards, subject to a maximum fee of £3,000; and they will also decide what level of bursaries to offer, as required by their Access Agreements, which will require approval by the Office of Fair Access before they can raise their fees. The table sets out estimates of fee income per year using the following fixed data and assumptions: a standard tuition fee of £1,125; a maximum tuition fee of £3,000; estimated numbers of students; estimated grant for fee remission of £416 million. All figures are for students at English HE Institutions for 2003/04. The grant has been netted off against the standard fee income.

  Fee income

  1Gross (£ million)

  2Net of fee remission (£ million)

  From standard fee

  847

  431

  Income if maximum fee charged

  2,259

  1,843

  Additional from maximum fee

  1,412

  1,412

  1 Represents fee income to universities from the standard fee of £1,125, not including full time post graduates (apart from PGCE students).

  2 Net of fee remission of £416 million (for undergraduate and Initial Teacher Training students at English HEIs). The new HE grant to be introduced in 2004/05 (£300 million for England and Wales) has not been netted off, and neither has spend on bursaries offered by universities under their access agreements.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to his answer of 3 June 2003,Official Report, column 215W, when he plans to publish the Regulatory Impact Assessment; what plans he has to consult the business and public sectors on its contents; and if he will make a statement. [120721]

  Alan Johnson
  The Regulatory Impact Assessment of the higher education white paper is due to be published in the summer.

  Officials in my department are consulting with Cabinet Office colleagues, the Inland Revenue, and the higher education Better Regulation Review Group to assess the costs and benefits of the proposals in more detail.

  Local Education Authorities
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the local education authorities that have not passported 100 per cent. of
  783W
  allocated resources to schools for 2003–04 and have failed to give him an explanation for withholding resources that he deems adequate. [120970]

  Mr. Miliband
  In the analysis of local education authorities' (LEA) budget returns, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State published on 2 May 2003, 19 LEAs were shown as failing to pass on, or passport, the full increase in their schools formula spending share to their schools budgets. The non-passporting LEAs set out their reasons for not doing so in their responses to my Department's letter to them of 2 May 2003. My Department is in discussion with a number of LEAs about the passporting situation.

  I have made clear that I expect LEAs that are not passporting this year to make every effort to passport in full next year and over the three years 2003–04 to 2005–06 taken together.

  Nannies
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) if he will create a register of people unsuitable to work as nannies; [118622]

  (2) if he will make it his policy to give statutory backing to the draft Code of Practice for Nanny Agencies. [118655]

  Margaret Hodge
  There are no current plans to introduce a registration scheme for nannies or to give statutory backing to a code of practice for nanny agencies. However, my noble friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for Sure Start, has received a number of proposals and representations on this issue. We are in the process of assessing the best way in which the extension to the Home Child Carers' Scheme can be managed. The extension will increase the regulated childcare available within people's homes which is eligible for tax credits. The study will look at how we can achieve this and who will provide the care once the scheme is widened.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether the Minister for Higher Education will be introducing new Public Service Agreements. [121001]

  Alan Johnson
  We have no plans to set any new Public Service Agreement (PSA) targets before the next spending review. The PSA targets which the Department for Education and Skills will be taking over with its new, additional responsibilities for children and families will be published on its website in due course.

  Pupil Referral Units
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many SEN registered children there were within pupil referral units in each LEA in each year since 1997. [119425]

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

  School Budgets (Leicestershire)
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether schools in Leicestershire that use money from building budgets to maintain teachers in post will be required to repay that money. [121012]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 23 June 2003]: On 15 May, my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, announced that in response to exceptional pressures this year on some school budgets he has decided to help schools manage their budgets by allowing them, in discussion with their local education authorities (LEAs), to use their devolved capital funding to support their day-to-day running costs. This is to be for this year only and must be a decision taken by the school with the agreement of the LEA.

  If schools decide that they wish to take advantage of this flexibility they will not be required to repay any of the funding. However, as the guidance issued by my Department to LEAs on 16 May to enable them immediately to discuss locally where this capital flexibility can be used makes clear, any school which seeks to use this flexibility would irrevocably forego their capital allocation. They would, therefore, lose the benefits over the longer term of the capital investment in their school buildings to pupil standards. This flexibility has an opportunity cost, and should only be used where failure to do so would lead to excessive instability within the school. We did not intend to increase the total funding available to any school.

  My Department is working with representatives of local government and schools to consider what changes to the schools funding system are needed from 2004–05 to ensure that every school receives a reasonable per pupil settlement next year.

  School Playing Fields
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what area of school playing field space was available in(a) Shrewsbury and Atcham and (b) Shropshire in each year since 1997; and what area of school playing field space was lost in (i) Shrewsbury and Atcham and (ii) Shropshire in each year since 1997; [120478]

  (2) how many school playing fields there were in (a) Shrewsbury and Atcham and (b) Shropshire in each year since 1997; [120479]

  (3) which schools in (a) Shrewsbury and Atcham and (b) Shropshire have lost school playing field space in each year since 1997; [120480]

  (4) how much was raised from the sale of school playing field space from schools in (a) Shrewsbury and Atcham and (b) Shropshire in each year since 1997. [120481]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  There are no central records that show (i) the area of school playing field space that was available or (ii) how many school playing fields there were in either(a) Shrewsbury and Atcham or (b) Shropshire in any particular year.
  785W
  Section 77 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 was introduced in October 1998 to stop the indiscriminate selling of school playing fields that had occurred in the 1980s and early to mid 1990s. Before then, there were no central records of how many playing fields had been lost. Local authorities and schools now need the Secretary of State's consent before they can sell any part of a school's playing field. Applications to sell school playing fields are only approved where it is clear that they meet published criteria and, in particular, that any proceeds will be used to improve school sports provision or education facilities.

  Since October 1998 we have approved only one application in Shropshire that resulted in the net loss of school playing field that was capable of forming at least a small sports pitch. In October 2001 the Secretary of State gave consent to the sale of the surplus lower school site at the Grove School in Market Drayton to help the School to amalgamate onto its main site. The sale of this site raised approximately £1,000,000 which contributed towards the cost of providing a brand new building on the School's main site.

  We have not approved any applications where there would be a net loss of sports pitches in Shrewsbury and Atcham.

  Schools (Extensions)
  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage on-cost is allowed in his Department's calculations for school extensions for(a) architects and (b) other administration and consultation fees. [120452]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department does not set fixed levels for architects and other administration and consultation fees. For grant aided projects, we would expect overall fee levels to fall within the range 13–15 per cent. of the building cost, although this would be dependent on the size and complexity of the project.

  Schools Curricula
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will assess the effectiveness of(a) competence-led curricula and (b) separate-subject curricula. [121258]

  Mr. Miliband
  It is important that children learn a range of skills as well as covering a broad and rich curriculum in terms of content. But these two things are complementary and not in competition. Our primary strategy sets out how we will be developing a framework for learning and teaching which will focus on skills development across the whole curriculum. Our forthcoming skills strategy will set out proposals for ensuring that generic skills are developed throughout the education system. It is also important to remember that schools can choose how they teach the National Curriculum, including whether to do it in separate subject lessons or not. They can choose to focus on learning skills without abandoning the breadth and richness of content that is guaranteed by the National Curriculum.

  Schools Procurement
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will publish the risk assessment of the procurement process for new schools introduced by Building Schools for the Future. [121000]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department is currently developing the commercial propositions involved in the Building Schools for the Future programme. Risk assessments have been undertaken in accordance with OGC best practice guidance. As is customary in such cases, the risk assessments are treated as commercial in confidence as the Department's position in subsequent negotiations with prospective partners would be seriously weakened by their release.

  Sex Education
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many schools in England make forms of contraception available to pupils; what counselling is given; and what plans he has to abolish the practice of making contraception available; [121511]

  (2) what consultation takes place with parents of school children before deciding whether their schools will be allowed to make forms of contraception available to pupils; [121512]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the effect of easy access to contraception in schools on sexual promiscuity in underage teenagers; and if he will make a statement. [121513]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The Department of Health is currently collecting data on the number of local authorities in which schools are providing, or planning to provide, an on-site service which includes contraceptive advice. The data will be available at the end of June. We welcome the provision of school based health services where the school identifies a need. The decision to provide such services, and the range of the service, is for governing bodies in consultations with pupils, parents and the wider community. Guidance to schools states that trained staff in secondary schools should be able to give young people full information about different types of contraception, their effectiveness and where advice and treatment can be obtained. This should be made clear in the school's sex and relationship education policy which is discussed with parents.

  Contraception, including emergency contraception, is provided to young people under aged 16 only under medical supervision. This includes the supply by health professionals such as school nurses and community pharmacists. Health professionals can provide contraception to young people under 16 if they are satisfied that the young person is competent to understand fully the implications of any treatment and to make a choice of the treatment involved. Health professionals work within an established legal framework which involves assessing the young person's competence to understand the choices they are making and encouraging them to talk to their parents. All professionals are bound by their professional code of confidentiality. A young person's request for confidentiality is respected unless there are serious child protection issues.
  787W
  There is no evidence that access to contraception increases rates of sexual activity among young people under 16. Over the 1990s while the national figure for under 16s attendance at family planning clinics in England increased, the proportion of young people having sex before 16 remained stable. (Wellings, K. et al (2001) Sexual Behaviour in Britain: Early Heterosexual Experience. Lancet, 358: 1843–50)

  Specialist Schools
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his answer of 10 June 2003,Official Report, column 784W, on specialist status schools, if he will make a statement on the statistical significance of an added value measure of (a) + 1 percentage point for specialist sports colleges and (b) - 1.5 percentage points compared with all non-selective, non specialist schools and non-selective sports colleges. [119794]

  Mr. Miliband
  This difference is statistically significant.

  Student Drop-Outs
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action is taken in the event of a student dropping out from a course of higher education(a) during and (b) at the end of an academic year to recover costs for the institution involved in respect of (i) uncollected private tuition fees and (ii) transfers from the Higher Education Funding Council in respect of the education of that student. [120958]

  Undergraduate

  Postgraduate2

  First Year

  Final Year

  First Year

  Final Year

  2000/01

  Number

  Percentage3

  Number

  Percentage4

  Number

  Percentage3

  Number

  Percentage4,5

  Primary

  405

  6.0

  16

  0.3

  353

  5.5

  2

  1.3

  Maths

  13

  9.0

  2

  1.3

  106

  9.7

  6

  6.5

  English and Drama

  8

  10.1

  0.0

  152

  7.8

  1

  5.9

  Science

  7

  4.5

  1

  0.5

  201

  9.3

  5

  6.8

  Modern Languages

  3

  18.8

  2

  6.1

  155

  9.5

  0.0

  Technology5

  14

  4.1

  4

  1.1

  109

  8.2

  0.0

  History

  —

  65

  7.4

  Geography

  0.0

  0.0

  63

  7.3

  —

  PE

  24

  4.1

  1

  0.1

  18

  2.9

  —

  Art

  0.0

  1

  7.1

  57

  7.1

  0.0

  Music

  1

  3.8

  0.0

  30

  5.8

  0.0

  RE

  0.0

  0.0

  40

  7.6

  0.0

  Other6

  —

  —

  31

  9.3

  Total secondary

  70

  5.1

  11

  0.7

  1,027

  8.1

  3.8

  All

  475

  5.8

  27

  0.4

  1,380

  7.2

  14

  3.0

  Note:

  —no one training in subject

  1 95 per cent. of entrants to PG courses in 2000/01 were on a 1 year course

  2 As a proportion of those entering ITT

  3 As a proportion of those entering final year of course

  4 Those on PGCE courses which are more than one year in duration

  5 Technology includes Design and Technology, Information Technology, and Business Studies and Home Economics

  6 Other includes Social Studies, Economics, and Classics

  Source:

  TTA Peformance Profiles 2002

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what evidence he collates on the relationship between prior academic attainments and the drop-out rate of students. [120589]

  Alan Johnson
  A number of research studies have explored the factors associated with dropping out of higher education. These include:
  788W
  Alan Johnson
  Guidance issued by Universities UK (UUK) and the Standing Conference of Principals (SCOP) in July 2002 recommends that where a student withdraws from a course during an academic year, the institution should charge the student a reduced fee contribution fixed in proportion to the number of weeks that the student attended. In particular, the total fee contribution due for the year is divided by 30 and multiplied by the number of weeks the student spent at the institution. Students who complete a full year would be liable for the full fee. Higher education institutions are responsible for pursuing any uncollected tuition fees.

  The Higher Education Funding Council for England's (HEFCE) teaching funding method provides funding for students who complete their year of study. Students who do not complete the year of study are not fundable.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of students in each subject area dropped out after(a) one year, (b) two years, (c) three years and (d) before the completion of their course in the last year for which figures are available. [118124]

  Mr. Miliband
  The table shows the number of trainees who dropped out of undergraduate and postgraduate courses of initial teacher training at institutions in England in their first or final year in 2000/01, the latest year for which data are available. Data on wastage in other years of teacher training are not collected.

  Improving student achievement in the English higher education sector HC 486, Parliamentary Session 2001/02;

  "Dropping Out: A study of early leavers from Higher Education" (2003) Rhys Davies and Peter Elias, DfES Research Report 386; and

  789W
  Smith J. and R. A. Naylor, "Dropping out of University: a statistical analysis of the probability of withdrawal for UK university students", Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 2001, vol. 164, pp. 389–405.

  Several of these have investigated the effect of prior attainment and found that students with lower prior attainment are where they do not receive appropriate support are less likely to complete their higher education course. However, the evidence also shows that non-completion is a complex process that cannot normally be explained by any single factor. Other important factors (many of which are inter-related) include

  incompatibility between the student and their course or institution;

  lack of preparation for higher education;

  lack of commitment to the course;

  financial hardship;

  poor academic progress;

  health or other personal reasons;

  age;

  gender; and

  whether or not the individual applied through clearing.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action his Department is taking in conjunction with higher education institutions to reduce student dropout rates. [120590]

  Alan Johnson
  In spite of a considerable expansion of student numbers, the UK non-completion rate has stayed broadly the same at 17–18 per cent. since 1991–92, representing one of the highest completion rates in the world. We are determined to maintain that performance as we increase participation towards 50 per cent. The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) has allocated £265 million to higher education institutions in 2003–04 for widening access and improving retention. This figure recognises the additional costs of supporting students from non-traditional backgrounds.

  Research indicates that there is no single cause of non-completion. However, students making the wrong initial choice of course or institution is a major factor. Under our plans set out in The Future of Higher Education' (Cm 5735), more information will be available about institutions and their performance to assist prospective students. We are also working with HEFCE to develop an electronic portal to give faster access to all available information. In addition, HEFCE is working with institutions to improve retention rates, and to disseminate good practice.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the student percentage drop-out rates were for each academic year since 1992/93. [120591]

  Alan Johnson
  Since 1996/97, information on non-completion rates has been published annually by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) in "Performance Indicators in Higher Education". The latest figures giving overall non-completion rates for students starting full-time first degree courses in the UK are as follows:
  790W

  Percentage

  Students starting courses in:

  Non-completion rate

  1999/00

  17

  1998/99

  17

  1997/98

  17

  1996/97

  18

  Non-completion rates for earlier years were calculated and published by the Department and are shown in the following table. These figures also cover students on full-time first degree courses but the methodology and institutional coverage used by the Department was different to that used by HEFCE, so the two sets of figures are not directly comparable.

  Percentage

  Students starting courses in:

  Non completion rate:

  1995/961

  18–19

  1994/951

  17–18

  1993/941

  17–18

  1992/93

  17

  1 A range is given for these years because the introduction of a new data source in 1994/95 made it difficult to measure non- completion, as it was then calculated, accurately.

  Figures published in 2002 by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) show that the UK as a whole has one of the lowest non-completion rates among OECD countries.

  Students (Non-academic Work)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the frequency distribution of non-academic term-time work carried out by students enrolled on full-time courses. [120592]

  Alan Johnson
  The Department does not have up-to-date and reliable information on the frequency distribution of paid term-time work undertaken by full-time students and does not have any information on the proportion of work that is non-academic. However, findings from the 1998/99 Student Income and Expenditure Survey (SIES) show that more than 50 per cent. of full-time students do not undertake paid term-time employment and of those that do work, over half work 10 hours or less a week only.

  Student Loans
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many former students have had their student loan liabilities cancelled owing to bankruptcy. [120385]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 19 June 2003]: No loans have been written off since Margaret Hodge's written statement to Parliament on bankruptcy and student loans, made on 15 May. The Student Loans Company (SLC) are now taking this forward.

  The SLC have identified 633 bankrupt borrowers, with a total of £2.4 million in outstanding loan balances to be written off. Against a customer base of 2.4 million and a total loan book of £10 billion, the proportion of affected borrowers is very small.

  Teacher Education
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to put mechanisms in place to support advanced skills teachers who specialise in teacher education. [120230]

  Mr. Miliband
  In 2002–03 the DfES funded ASTs to work in Initial Teacher Training in the context of the Teacher Training Agency-led partnerships project, which was designed to encourage providers of initial teacher training, schools and LEAs to work together to improve provision. As funding at 100 per cent. grant rate would last for only a year we encouraged LEAs to absorb the ASTs recruited in support of the scheme into their cadre of ASTs once the year was up. In order to facilitate this we included sufficient funding in the allocation of the AST match funded Standards Fund grant for 2003–04 to enable each LEA to continue to fund posts previously funded at the 100 per cent. grant rate.

  Teachers
  Mr. Keith Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teachers were employed in England in the last 10 years; and how many were made redundant in each of these years. [120011]

  Mr. Miliband
  The following table shows the number of full-time equivalent teachers in the maintained schools sector in England in each of the years shown. Definitive information on teacher redundancies is not collected centrally.

  Regular teachers

  2003

  423,900

  2002

  419,600

  2001

  410,200

  2000

  404,600

  1999

  401,200

  1998

  397,700

  1997

  399,200

  1996

  399,800

  1995

  399,600

  1994

  397,000

  Source:

  DfES annual 618G survey

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to allow graduates to teach in UK schools without(a) teacher training and (b) qualified teacher status. [121589]

  Mr. Miliband
  Regulations to be made shortly under section 133 of the Education Act 2002 will define the circumstances under which staff without Qualified Teacher Status can undertake specified work in schools in England. These provisions have already been the subject of extensive consultation with teachers' employers, the teaching unions and other interested parties.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will define qualified teacher status and instructor status for people wishing to teach in schools in England and Wales. [121590]
  792W
  Mr. Miliband
  The definition of a qualified teacher is set out in the Education (Teachers' Qualifications and Health Standards) (England) Regulations 1999. Instructors are teachers without QTS but with special qualifications or experience, or both, who can be employed when there are no suitably qualified teachers available.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many graduates were teaching in English schools without qualified teacher status in each year since 1997–98. [121591]

  Mr. Miliband
  The table shows the number of new entrants to the Graduate Teacher Programme and the Overseas-Trained Teacher Programme in each academic year since 1997/98. The rising numbers reflect the growth and success of these programmes, which allow graduates to be employed as teachers in schools in England while working towards Qualified Teacher Status. Information on the qualifications held by other categories of unqualified teachers is not collected centrally.

  New entrants to the Graduate Teacher Programme

  1997/98

  1998/99

  1999/2000

  2000/01

  2001/02

  2002/031

  GTP2

  81

  193

  365

  1,507

  3,216

  3,750

  OTTP3

  0

  0

  0

  249

  921

  821

  Total

  81

  193

  365

  1,756

  137

  4,571

  Notes:

  1 Figures to date.

  2 Graduate Teacher Programme, introduced from January 1998

  3 Overseas-Trained Teacher Programme, introduced from April 2001.

  Source:

  Teacher Training Agency

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what additional resources he has made available to local education authorities to prevent the loss of(a) teaching and (b) non-teaching staff as a result of this year's budget settlement to schools. [120968]

  Mr. Miliband
  The funding of schools is a shared responsibility of central and local Government. In 2003–04, there have been a number of very significant pressures on LEA and school spending. Nationally, the additional resources provided for education more than match those pressures. However, changes to the distribution formula for Education Formula Spending, together with the ending of a substantial body of ring-fenced grants from my Department's Standards Fund, have meant that different LEAs and schools have received a wide range of year-on-year increases in overall support for education.

  The Department has taken steps through an additional grant of £28 million to ensure that all LEAs have at least a minimum increase of 3.2 per cent. per pupil, in addition to taking account of the effect of the Standards Fund and teachers' pension changes. We have also provided a special grant costing £11 million to 18 London LEAs to help them fund this year's increases in London weighting. In addition, LEAs and schools will be given the additional flexibility to use their devolved formula capital funding from the Department to support revenue expenditure. The decision to use a school's capital funding in this way will need to be made

  793W
  jointly by the school and its LEA, and should be taken only in those circumstances where failure to do so would lead to excessive instability within that school.

  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average salary of a teacher in(a) Blackpool and (b) Lancashire was in (i) 1997 and (ii) 2003. [121348]

  Mr. Miliband
  The table provides the average salary of full-time1 regular qualified teachers in the maintained schools sector, as at March of each year shown. The figures shown for former Lancashire for 1999 and 2001 are based on the boundaries prior to local government reorganisation in April 1998. In April 1998, due to local government reorganisation, Lancashire split into three separate local education authorities, Lancashire, Blackburn with Darwen and Blackpool. The figures shown for former Lancashire for 1999 and 2001 are based on the boundaries prior to local government reorganisation.

  1 Figures cover all grades and include any allowances paid. The average salary figures include some threshold payments that were made before March 2001, following the introduction of the threshold in September 2000. Some threshold assessments were not made in time for the associated payments to be reflected in the March 2001 data, but these were ultimately backdated to September 2000. As a result the figures in the table will be an under estimate of the actual average salary in March 2001.

  £

  1997

  1999

  20011,2

  Former Lancashire

  22,690

  24,220

  27,140

  Current Lancashire

  —

  24,260

  27,330

  Blackpool

  —

  23,800

  26,670

  1 2001 is the most recent information available.

  2 Provisional figures based on pensions data that will be updated.

  Significant changes are not expected.

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  Source:

  Database of Teacher Records

  Truancy
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidance he has given to local education authorities on truancy reduction initiatives. [120160]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  In addition to the examples of good practice in this area highlighted on our school attendance website www.dfes.gov.uk/schoolattendance 794W
  we have within the last year disseminated guidance on the effective operation of truancy sweeps and issued advice on initiatives to meet specific truancy targets to the 61 areas involved in the Behaviour Improvement Programme. We are also providing expert advice and guidance in reducing truancy to 56 local education authorities with relatively high truancy rates.

  This month we are issuing guidance on the legal measures available to secure regular school attendance to local education authorities, schools and magistrates to promote more-effective handling of truancy cases. This guidance has been produced jointly with a wide range of partners including the former Lord Chancellor's Department, the Magistrates' Association and the Association of Chief Police Officers.

  In the autumn we will be producing updated school attendance guidance for schools and local education authorities as part of a package of training materials designed to help improve behaviour and attendance.

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students in(a) Suffolk, (b) Norfolk, (c) Essex, (d) Cambridgeshire and (e) the Bury St. Edmunds constituency are exempt from tuition fees. [120427]

  Alan Johnson
  Student support data on the numbers of students contributing to tuition are collected from local education authorities (LEAs) through a voluntary survey. However, the data are only robust enough to be published at the national level. My Department does not collect student support data at the constituency level.

  University Admissions
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent representations he has received regarding(a) socio-economic diversity in university admissions and (b) the setting of Government targets on socio-economic diversity in university admissions. [120780]

  Alan Johnson
  The Department receives many representations on Higher Education, including matters relating to university admissions. The Government have set out their views on targets in this area in "Widening Participation in Higher Education" available in the Library and on the Department for Education and Skills' website at www.dfes.gov.uk/highereducation.

PRIME MINISTER

  Care Standards Act
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Prime Minister which Minister is the appointed Minister under section 23 of the Care Standards Act 2000 in respect of children. [121488]

  The Prime Minister
  The Minister for Children is the appointed Minister.

  Children's Trusts
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Prime Minister which department will be responsible for the implementation of Children's Trusts. [120952]

  The Prime Minister
  Children's Trusts will bring together education, social care and some health services for children. The policy will continue to be a joint responsibility of the Department of Health and Department for Education and Skills to ensure the full involvement of all three services.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Prime Minister how many new entrants to the Civil Service were employed in his Office in each of the last five years; and how many in each year were aged 50 or over. [119820]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office gave to him on 24 June 2003.

  Devolution
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Prime Minister which Minister will answer for issues relating to the overall devolution settlement in the Commons. [121684]

  The Prime Minister
  My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie), Under-Secretary of State for the Department for Constitutional Affairs, will answer in the House of Commons for issues relating to the overall devolution settlement.

  Engagements
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 25 June. [121383]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) at Prime Minister's Questions today.

  Euro Roadshow
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the events he plans to attend as part of the Government's euro roadshow. [121394]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer my hon. Friend, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury gave to the right. hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) on 20 June 2003,Official Report, columns 458W—59W.

  Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Prime Minister what his estimate is of the total costs of the reorganisation of Government announced on 18 June, assuming all items are implemented as proposed. [121482]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave to him during my statement on Changes to Government Departments on 18 June 2003,Official Report, column 369.

  Justices of the Peace (Manchester)
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Prime Minister which Ministry in which Department is responsible for Justices of the Peace in Greater Manchester. [121430]

  The Prime Minister
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is responsible for the appointment of Justices of the Peace in Greater Manchester.

  Lord Chancellor
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Prime Minister whether the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs is barred from returning to legal practice on leaving office due to his holding the office of Lord Chancellor; and if he will make a statement on the circumstances in which a former Lord Chancellor may return to legal practice. [120021]

  The Prime Minister
  As the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs holds the office of Lord Chancellor for the transitional period, then the convention by which former Lord Chancellors cannot resume legal practice will apply to my right hon. and noble Friend. The rules, set out in the Ministerial Code, relating to the acceptance of appointments after leaving ministerial office, also apply.

  Referendums
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list those referendums(a) which have taken place and (b) which have been pledged since May 1997; if he will list (i) the votes in favour and (ii) the votes against, and calculate those figures as a percentage of eligible votes; and if he will make a statement on his policy towards identifying criteria for holding referenda. [121466]

  The Prime Minister
  The list of referendums and associated statistics requested are contained in the following tables.

  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his statement, Economic and Monetary Union, in this House on 9 June 2003, Official Report, column 415, that the Government propose to publish a draft referendum Bill this autumn.

  The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA) provides the generic statutory framework for the conduct of referendums in the United Kingdom, or a referendum held in Scotland, Wales, England or Northern Ireland, but there are no criteria for determining when it is appropriate to hold a referendum on a particular issue.
  797W

  National and regional referendums since 1997

  Year

  Referendum area

  Referendum

  Result

  1998

  Northern Ireland

  Do you support the agreement reached at the multi-party talks on Northern Ireland and set out in Command Paper 3883?

  Yes 676,966 (71.1%) No 274,879 (29.9% Turnout 81%

  1998

  London

  Are you in favour of the Government's proposals for a Greater London Authority, made up of an elected mayor and a separately elected assembly?

  Yes 1,230,715 (72%) No 478,413 (28%) Turnout 34.1%

  1997

  Wales

  1. I agree that there should be a Welsh Assembly; or 2. I do not agree that there should be a Welsh Assembly

  Yes 559,419 (50.3%) No 552,698 (49.7%) Turnout 50.1%

  1997

  Scotland

  1. I agree that there should be a Scottish Parliament; or 2. I do not agree there should be a Scottish Parliament; 1. I agree that a Scottish Parliament should have tax-varying powers; or 2. I do not agree that a Scottish Parliament should have tax-varying powers

  1,775,045(74.3%) 614,400(25.7%) 1,512,889 (63.5%) 870,263 (36.5%) Turnout 60.4%

  Mayoral referendums since 1997

  Date

  Council

  Result

  7 June 2001

  Berwick-upon-Tweed

  Yes 3,61 7 (26%) No 10,212(74%) Turnout 64%

  28 June 2001

  Cheltenham

  Yes 8,083 (33%) No 16,602 (67%) Turnout 32%

  28 June 2001

  Gloucester

  Yes 7,731 (32%) No 16,317(68%) Turnout 31%

  12 July 2001

  Watford

  Yes 7,636 (52%) No 7,140 (48%) Turnout 25%

  20 September 2001

  Doncaster

  Yes 35,453 (65%) No 19,398 (35%) Turnout 25%

  4 October 2001

  Kirklees

  Yes 10,169(27%) No 27,977 (73%) Turnout 13%

  11 October 2001

  Sunderland

  Yes 9,375 (43%) No 12,209 (57%) Turnout 10%

  18 October 2001

  Brighton & Hove

  Yes 22,724 (38%) No 37,214 (62%) Turnout 32%

  18 October 2001

  Hartlepool

  Yes 10,667 (51%) No 10,294 (49%) Turnout 34%

  18 October 2001

  Lewisham

  Yes 16,822 (51%) No 15,914(49%) Turnout 18%

  18 October 2001

  Middlesbrough

  Yes 29,067 (84%) No 5,422 (16%) Turnout 34%

  18 October 2001

  North Tyneside

  Yes 30,262 (58%) No 22,296 (42%) Turnout 36%

  798W

  Mayoral referendums since 1997

  Date

  Council

  Result

  18 October 2001

  Sedgefield

  Yes 10,628 (47%) No 11,869(53%) Turnout 33%

  8 November 2001

  Redditch

  Yes 7,250 (44%) No 9,198 (56%) Turnout 28%

  20 November 2001

  Durham (City)

  Yes 8,327 (41%) No 11,974 (59%) Turnout 29%

  6 December 2001

  Harrow

  Yes 17,502 (43%) No 23,554 (57%) Turnout 26%

  24 January 2002

  Plymouth

  Yes 29,559(41%) No 42,811 (59%) Turnout 40%

  24 January 2002

  Harlow

  Yes 5,296 (25%) No 15,490(75%) Turnout 35%

  31 January 2002

  Newham

  Yes 27,263 (68%) No 12,687 (32%) Turnout 26%

  31 January 2002

  Southwark

  Yes 6,054 (31%) No 13,217 (69%) Turnout 11%

  31 January 2002

  West Devon

  Yes 3,555 (23%) No 12,190 (77%) Turnout 42%

  31 January 2002

  Shepway

  Yes 11,357 (44%) No 14,438 (56%) Turnout 36%

  21 February 2002

  Bedford

  Yes 11,316 (67%) No 5,537 (33%) Turnout 16%

  2 May 2002

  Hackney

  Yes 24,697 (59%) No 10,547 (41%) Turnout 32%

  799W

  Mayoral referendums since 1997

  Date

  Council

  Result

  2 May 2002

  Mansfield

  Yes 8,973 (55%) No 7,350 (45%) Turnout 21%

  2 May 2002

  Newcastle-under-Lyme

  Yes 12,912(44%) No 16,468 (56%) Turnout 31.5%

  2 May 2002

  Oxford

  Yes 14,692 (44%) No 18,686(56%) Turnout 34%

  2 May 2002

  Stoke on Trent

  Yes 28,601 (58%) No 20,578 (42%) Turnout 27%

  1 October 2002

  Corby

  Yes 5,351 (46%) No 6,239 (53%) Turnout 31%

  12 December 2002

  Ealing

  Yes 9,454 (45%) No 11,655(55%) Turnout 9.8%

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Arms Exports
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many arms export licences for armoured vehicles, aircraft and naval vessels have been granted by the Department since 2001; and what their value was. [121139]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The details of all export licences are published by destination in the Government's Annual Reports on Strategic Export Controls. A copy of the 2001 Annual Report is available from the Libraries of the House. The 2002 Annual Report will be published shortly.

  It would entail disproportionate cost to establish the number of export licences for armoured vehicles, aircraft and naval vessels that have been granted since 2001.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action can be taken by the Department against the purchasers of UK arms exports if the arms are used in undesirable circumstances. [121142]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Government refuse export licence applications where there is a clear risk that the goods will be used in contravention of the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria. The surest way of preventing diversion or misuse is by a thorough risk assessment at the licensing stage, where all information available at the time can be considered including the end user's track record, before the goods are exported.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to which African countries her Department has granted export licences for arms in the last six months. [121272]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 23 June 2003]: Between 1 January 2003 and 17 June 2003 the Department of Trade and Industry's Export Control
  800W
  Organisation granted export licences, covering the export of items on the Military List to the following African countries:

  Algeria

  Angola

  Benin

  Botswana

  Chad

  Djibouti

  Egypt

  Eritrea

  Ethiopia

  Gabon

  Gambia

  Ghana

  Kenya

  Malawi

  Mauritius

  Morocco

  Mozambique

  Nambia

  Niger

  Nigeria

  Senegal

  South Africa

  Tanzania

  Tunisia.

  Company Insolvency
  Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on her plans for reform of the framework for company insolvency in cases where a service provider on a contingent fee basis has ceased trading because it is insolvent. [121286]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The corporate insolvency provisions of Part 10 of the Enterprise Act 2002 are likely to be brought into force at some point during September 2003, but there are no plans for further reform of the legislative framework relating to company insolvency.

  Departmental Ministers
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many Ministers there were in her Department in each year since 1996. [120988]

  Ms Hewitt
  Including the Secretary of State, the number of Ministers in my Department since 1996 were as follows:

  Number

  24 July 1996 to 5 May 1997

  7

  6 June 1997 to 27 July 1998

  17

  28 July 1998 to 22 December 1998

  18

  23 December 1998 to 4 January 1999

  18

  5 January 1999 to 28 July 1999

  8

  29 July 1999 to 10 June 2001

  7

  11 June 2001 to 28 May 2002

  8

  29 May 2002 to 12 June 2003

  28

  13 June 2003 to date

  27

  1 One Minister shared with the Treasury.

  2 One Minister shared with the Foreign Office.

  Developing Countries
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will propose(a) restrictions on the size of the delegations of rich countries to the WTO and GATS meetings, (b) that the money saved be passed directly to countries which cannot afford to send delegations to these meetings and (c) that the voting at these meetings be proportional to the size of the populations they represent. [120405]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government believe that it is important that all WTO Members are able to participate effectively in WTO negotiations. We are therefore working to strengthen the capacity of developing countries to participate in the WTO and in the international trading system. In doing so, we are helping developing countries and development agencies to build trade policy capacity in both national capitals and in Geneva, where many of the least-developed country Members of the WTO still have no permanent representation. Since 1997, we have committed £45 million to trade-related technical assistance and capacity building.

  £

  Market

  Amounts at risk

  Unrecovered claims

  Moratorium interest

  Total (incl. MI)

  Abu Dhabi

  25,792,665

  0

  0

  25,792,665

  Algeria

  47,412,908

  143,703,262

  0

  191,116,169

  Angola

  0

  54,037,320

  55,760,006

  109,797,326

  Anguilla

  135,735

  0

  0

  135,735

  Antigua and Barbuda

  0

  3,197,134

  0

  3,197,134

  Argentina

  14,507,659

  34,097,429

  2,973,142

  51,578,230

  Australia

  66,086,995

  4,582,107

  0

  70,669,103

  Austria

  16,597,685

  0

  0

  16,597,685

  Azerbaijan

  13,881,235

  0

  0

  13,881,235

  Bahrain

  142,282,270

  69,466

  0

  142,351,736

  Bangladesh

  65,208,062

  0

  0

  65,208,062

  Barbados

  6,807,567

  0

  0

  6,807,567

  Belgium

  85,408,750

  9,956,409

  0

  95,365,159

  Benin

  0

  2,491,246

  169,666

  2,660,912

  Bosnia and Herzegovina

  0

  975,089

  535,784

  1,510,873

  Brazil

  251,528,094

  219,870,948

  86,506,905

  557,905,948

  Brunei Darussalam

  85,784,186

  0

  0

  85,784,186

  Burma (Myanmar)

  0

  23,053,590

  0

  23,053,590

  Cameroon

  0

  26,719,101

  32,412,449

  59,131,551

  Canada

  246,479,473

  787

  0

  246,480,260

  Central African Republic

  0

  144,746

  198,513

  343,259

  Chile

  330,129,806

  0

  0

  330,129,806

  China

  1,802,641,883

  0

  0

  1,802,641,883

  Colombia

  16,479,702

  0

  0

  16,479,702

  Congo

  0

  58,027,462

  98,419,660

  156,447,122

  Congo, Democratic Republic of

  0

  24,887,981

  24,824,518

  49,712,499

  Costa Rica

  203,654

  0

  0

  203,654

  Cote D Ivoire

  539,974

  24,067,789

  10,304,976

  34,912,738

  Croatia

  43,263,244

  55,560,452

  3,486,477

  102,310,173

  Cuba

  0

  52,619,660

  52,349,579

  104,969,239

  Cyprus

  14,188,934

  1,400

  0

  14,190,333

  Denmark

  18,823,979

  0

  0

  18,823,979

  Dominica

  7,770,045

  806,108

  0

  8,576,154

  Dominican Republic

  44,520,996

  0

  0

  44,520,996

  EC Market n/k

  8,544,922

  0

  0

  8,544,922

  Ecuador

  0

  28,693,116

  31,560,208

  60,253,324

  Egypt

  98,596,530

  138,460,494

  18,319,561

  255,376,585

  Egypt (Business to 31/12/93)

  123,785

  0

  0

  123,785

  El Salvador

  51,228,945

  0

  0

  51,228,945

  Ethiopia

  0

  10,996,464

  437,028

  11,433,492

  Finland

  24,711,201

  0

  0

  24,711,201

  France

  12,811,724

  86,752

  0

  12,898,476

  Gabon

  0

  75,090,151

  56,957,478

  132,047,629

  Ghana

  73,442,414

  39,440,596

  834,664

  113,717,673

  802W
  WTO meetings generally operate on a consensus basis, with agreement reached only when all WTO Members are content with the outcome. As a result, occasions for formal voting are rare but, when they do occur, take place on the basis of one member, one vote, regardless either of the size of countries' populations or of their economic power within the international trading system.

  ECGD
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the total outstanding debt owed to the ECGD is, broken down by country. [119835]

  Ms Hewitt
  The total outstanding debt as at 31 May 2003 in respect of ECGD guaranteed business, broken down by country of obligor, is detailed in the following table. The total is further broken down between Amounts at Risk (payments of principal and interest which have yet to fall due), unrecovered claims (whether rescheduled or not) and moratorium interest accrued on the unrecovered claims.
  803W

  £

  Market

  Amounts at risk

  Unrecovered claims

  Moratorium interest

  Total (incl. MI)

  Greece

  112,472,105

  120,556

  0

  112,592,660

  Grenada

  0

  1,632,609

  0

  1,632,609

  Guinea

  0

  922,419

  2,777,849

  3,700,268

  Guyana

  0

  11,484,683

  22,819,448

  34,304,131

  Hong Kong

  424,593,722

  0

  0

  424,593,722

  Iceland

  24,123,150

  0

  0

  24,123,150

  India

  204,540,159

  2,157,228

  0

  206,697,386

  Indonesia

  703,031,240

  726,279,983

  0

  1,429,311,222

  Iran (Islamic Republic of)

  106,074,814

  28,447,671

  0

  134,522,485

  Iraq

  0

  622,559,366

  0

  622,559,366

  Israel

  21,109,891

  0

  0

  21,109,891

  Italy

  4,214,416

  214,131

  0

  4,428,547

  Jamaica

  19,000,371

  1,751,701

  275,374

  21,027,446

  Japan

  86,314

  0

  0

  86,314

  Jordan

  0

  291,604,871

  85,723,436

  377,328,308

  Kazakhstan

  43,057,499

  7

  0

  43,057,506

  Kenya

  1,079,953

  16,575,040

  2,337,469

  19,992,462

  Korea, Democratic Peoples Republic of

  0

  5,864,356

  0

  5,864,356

  Korea, Republic of

  221,108,688

  0

  0

  221,108,688

  Kuwait

  29,142,276

  1,993,296

  0

  31,135,573

  Lebanon

  14,412,903

  77

  0

  14,412,980

  Lesotho

  4,393,619

  0

  0

  4,393,619

  Liberia

  0

  8,325,991

  11,583,679

  19,909,670

  Libyan Arab Jamahiriya

  0

  25,372,379

  0

  25,372,379

  Lithuania

  6,299,751

  0

  0

  6,299,751

  Luxembourg

  65,377,087

  0

  0

  65,377,087

  Macedonia

  0

  2,954,699

  619,106

  3,573,805

  Madagascar

  0

  11,166,827

  11,502,222

  22,669,049

  Malawi

  0

  345,746

  6,404

  352,150

  Malaysia

  1,040,867,295

  0

  0

  1,040,867,295

  Maldives

  1,507,337

  0

  0

  1,507,337

  Mali

  0

  3,426,888

  244,882

  3,671,770

  Malta

  23,068,620

  0

  0

  23,068,620

  Mauritania

  0

  3,238,861

  1,841,890

  5,080,751

  Mauritius

  36,861,980

  0

  0

  36,861,980

  Mexico

  187,784,531

  1,358,314

  0

  189,142,845

  Morocco

  3,147,164

  28,878,537

  0

  32,025,701

  Mozambique

  0

  159,513

  0

  159,513

  Netherlands

  129,765,016

  0

  0

  129,765,016

  Nicaragua

  0

  398,383

  807,365

  1,205,749

  Niger

  0

  3,370,319

  4,061,460

  7,431,779

  Nigeria

  122,731,490

  1,800,706,416

  2,480,429,550

  4,403,867,455

  Oman

  276,107,333

  0

  0

  276,107,333

  Pakistan

  83,796,779

  6,226,898

  201,333

  90,225,010

  Panama

  10,576,194

  0

  0

  10,576,194

  Papua New Guinea

  34,265,475

  0

  0

  34,265,475

  Paraguay

  1,594,479

  0

  0

  1,594,479

  Peru

  0

  62,284,227

  58,296,159

  120,580,385

  Philippines

  799,595,793

  9,002,261

  2,169,274

  810,767,328

  Poland

  0

  398,751,515

  368,215,401

  766,966,916

  Portugal

  41,935,972

  47,071

  0

  41,983,043

  Qatar

  261,413,786

  0

  0

  261,413,786

  Romania

  84,099,359

  0

  0

  84,099,359

  Russian Federation

  270,840,483

  585,609,189

  34,564,505

  891,014,177

  Saint Kitts and Nevis

  9,800,867

  0

  0

  9,800,867

  Saint Lucia

  267,344

  0

  0

  267,344

  Saudi Arabia

  1,015,166,892

  1,400,582

  0

  1,016,567,474

  Senegal

  0

  620,544

  845,429

  1,465,973

  Serbia and Montenegro

  0

  165,342,615

  112,658,820

  278,001,435

  Seychelles

  1,418,882

  391,423

  0

  1,810,305

  Sierra Leone

  0

  885,396

  2,832,239

  3,717,634

  Singapore

  78,016,682

  5,326

  0

  78,022,009

  Somalia

  0

  11,552,718

  16,937,948

  28,490,666

  South Africa

  1,298,166,773

  0

  0

  1,298,166,773

  Spain

  4,531,720

  64,867

  0

  4,596,587

  Sri Lanka

  85,045,108

  0

  0

  85,045,108

  Sudan

  0

  91,089,944

  242,925,356

  334,015,300

  Sweden

  174,311,468

  0

  0

  174,311,468

  Switzerland

  162,366,128

  12,880,453

  0

  175,246,580

  Taiwan

  179,410,025

  1,681,549

  0

  181,091,575

  Tanzania, United Republic of

  0

  16,366,761

  50,437,853

  66,804,614

  804W 805W

  £

  Market

  Amounts at risk

  Unrecovered claims

  Moratorium interest

  Total (incl. MI)

  Thailand

  134,470,986

  0

  0

  134,470,986

  Togo

  0

  9,464,036

  7,867,593

  17,331,629

  Tunisia

  34,585,457

  0

  0

  34,585,457

  Turkey

  634,574,412

  993,563

  0

  635,567,975

  Turkmenistan

  11,959,680

  0

  0

  11,959,680

  Uganda

  0

  619

  0

  619

  United Arab Emirates

  466,891,056

  0

  0

  466,891,056

  United Kingdom

  21,308,889

  0

  0

  21,308,889

  United States

  625,884,634

  3,205,084

  0

  629,089,717

  Uzbekistan

  23,321,521

  0

  0

  23,321,521

  Venezuela

  107,093,170

  0

  0

  107,093,170

  Vietnam

  53,355,945

  5,615,979

  4,453,483

  63,425,407

  Zambia

  0

  83,387,206

  113,461,745

  196,848,951

  Zimbabwe

  42,771,086

  71,477,938

  0

  114,249,025

  Total

  14,194,730,789

  6,171,295,687

  4,116,947,886

  24,482,974,362

  IT Specialists
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment the Government have made of the difference in pay rates between(a) British IT specialists and (b) Asian IT specialists who are working in the United Kingdom. [120301]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Government have made no such assessment. The UK's work permit arrangements require that the pay and other conditions of employment that apply to an overseas worker coming to work in the UK should be at least equal to those normally given to a 'resident worker' doing similar work. The host employer must also ensure that the employment terms meet all UK legislation. The employer will be expected to operate PAYE and class 1 national insurance contributions.

  Personal Loans
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will introduce a maximum interest rate on personal loans; and if she will make a statement. [120275]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  We have recently consulted on making the extortionate credit provisions within the Consumer Credit Act 1974 more effective. This consultation closed on 6 June 2003, and the responses are currently being analysed. Statutory interest rate controls are just one approach to tackling the burden of extortionate credit agreements on more vulnerable members of society and I remain to be convinced that they would be effective. I will, however, be commissioning research on how interest rate caps operate in other countries.

  Supermarkets
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to seek an investigation by the Office of Fair Trading into the market behaviour of supermarkets in non-food retail sectors. [119350]

  Ms Hewitt
  None. The OFT is of course free to establish its own enquiry if it has cause for concern.
  806W
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her estimate is of market share held by supermarkets in the non-food retail sector. [119351]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Department has not carried out an assessment of the share of the non-food retailing market held by the supermarkets.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations she has received from retail trade bodies on market behaviour of supermarkets in non-food sectors. [119352]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have received no recent representations from retail trade bodies commenting specifically on the market behaviour of supermarkets in non-food sectors. But submissions received from such bodies regarding the Office of Fair Trading's report on the control of entry regulations and retail pharmacy services in the UK have speculated on the possible market behaviour of supermarkets should the OFT's deregulatory proposals be implemented.

  Technical Textiles
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many projects have been supported by her Department's Innovation Budget involving technical textiles; and what funding was provided in each case. [120095]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Department has supported 25 Technical Textile projects under the Innovation Budget with a total of £4,136,121 in financial support. The projects related to the application of technical textile technology and innovation in the following sectors:

  Construction and Geo-textiles

  3 projects with total of £391,981insupport

  Electronics and communications

  2 projects with total of £292,772 in support

  Medical

  I project with total of £155,400 in support

  Personal Protection

  3 projects with total of £441,982 in support

  807W

  Sport and Leisure

  3 projects with total of £881,175 in support

  Transportation and defence equipment

  3 projects with total of £346,386 in support

  Multi-sectoral

  10 projects with applications in more than one sector with total of £1,636,425 in support.

  In addition my Department has provided £1.2 million support to the TechniTex Faraday partnership. The project will run for five years with a total fund of £10.6 million for technical textiles collaborative research.

  Regional Development Agencies have also provided financial support to this technologically innovative and dynamic sector.

  Temporary Workers Directive
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the latest draft of the EC temporary workers directive contains significant references to pay that are outside the scope of Article 141 of the Nice Treaty. [120430]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  Article 137 of the EC Treaty is the legal base for the proposed Agency Directive. Article 137(1)(b) provides that"With a view to achieving the objectives of Article 136, the Community shall support and complement the activities of Member States in the following fields:
  (b) working conditions;".

  Veterinary Medicine
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of 5 June 2003,Official Report, column 538W, on veterinary medicines, what period will be allowed for public consultation; when it will commence; what methods of public consultation will be undertaken; and whether the consultation will be undertaken before the publication of the Government response to the Office of Fair Trading report. [121004]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  [holding answer 23 June 2003]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has asked the Office of Fair Trading to consult informally with relevant parties on the appropriate terms of orders to implement the Competition Commission's remedies under the Fair Trading Act 1973. After the OFT have reported back in July, the public consultation will begin.

  The public consultation will last for 13 weeks. A consultation document will be placed on the DTI website and we will write out to interested parties.

  The Government response to the regulatory recommendations addressed to it in the Commission's report will be published before the Department consults publicly on the terms of the order to implement the Commission's proposed remedies under the Fair Trading Act 1973.

  Voluntary Organisations
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what funding programmes are operated by 808W
  her Department to support voluntary organisations working with young people; and what the level of support has been in each of the last three years. [120533]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 20 June 2003]: The Department does not operate any funding programmes aimed solely at supporting voluntary organisations working with young people and, therefore, the specific data requested about funding for such organisations are not available. However, the Department does support more general programmes that include an element of support for organisations working with young people, including those described later.

  The Small Business Service (SBS) promotes entrepreneurship among young people specifically by providing funding to the following programmes which are run by not-for-profit organisations:
  Shell LiveWIRE aims to encourage young people (aged 16 to 30) to consider starting a business by providing information and advice about the initial stages of starting up in business. SBS provides funding to support the LiveWIRE inquiry hotline service and to meet the costs of supplying business kits to young people; £65,000 was provided in 2001, £140,000 in 2002 and £140,000 is being provided in 2003; and
  SBS also supports Young Enterprise, by co-sponsoring the Young Enterprise's Entrepreneurship Masterclass and Graduate Programmes and their Innovation Awards with funding of £56,000 in 2001–02 and £250,000 in 2002–03. Young Enterprise aims to inspire and equip young people to learn and succeed through enterprise by giving them the opportunity to gain personal experience of how business works.

  Although it does not specifically target voluntary organisations working with young people, the Small Business Service's Phoenix Fund provides funding to voluntary and other organisations which help encourage entrepreneurship in disadvantaged communities and under-represented groups throughout England.

  Additionally, the DTI is one of the main funders of the Regional Development Agencies, which in turn, provide support to a wide range of voluntary organisations, including those working with young people; this support contributes towards delivery of the RDAs' regeneration, skills development and other objectives.

  Working Time Directive
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what plans she has to publish in draft Regulations giving effect to the Horizontal Working Time Directive in the transport industry; and when she expects to(a) make and (b) lay before Parliament Regulations giving such effect; [120712]

  (2) what estimate she has made of the effect upon the transport industry of a delay in making Regulations giving effect to the Horizontal Working Time Directive; [120713]

  (3) what plans she has to consult with the transport industry in advance of implementation of the Horizontal Working Time Directive; and what assessment she has made of the time needed by the transport sector to prepare for implementation. [120714]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  I hope to make and lay the Regulations covering all sectors affected by the Horizontal Amending Directive in early July 2003. I have made no
  809W
  formal assessment of the effect of any delay in doing so on the transport industry as I expect that the Regulations will come into force on 1 August 2003, the date set by the Directive. The transport industry have contributed extensively to consultation on this subject, and I am aware that they are already working with Department of Trade and Industry officials to prepare for implementation.

  World Trade Rules
  Mr Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to ensure that world trade rules do not prevent developing countries from using targeted interventions to support(a) their infant industries and (b) vulnerable producers. [120157]

  Ms Hewitt
  WTO rules already allow developing countries considerable freedom. In particular, Article XVIII of the GATT allows developing countries to use a wide range of measures to protect infant industries (and has often been used in the past) and Article 27 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (ASCM) exempts developing countries with a GDP of less than $1,000 per head from certain disciplines of the Agreement. There are no plans to tighten these provisions.

  However, although developing countries may choose to support their infant industries and vulnerable producers with subsidies and protect them from competition with high tariffs and non-tariff barriers, the evidence suggests that the success of such protection is

  Grade/nationality

  SCS (L)

  SCS (EK)

  Band A (L)

  Band A (EK)

  FS (L)

  FS (EK)

  Band B (L)

  Band B (EK)

  Band C (L)

  Band C (EK)

  Grant totals

  British

  36

  3

  241

  23

  26

  0

  117

  39

  59

  42

  586

  English

  12

  0

  123

  6

  14

  0

  91

  4

  80

  2

  332

  Irish

  1

  0

  6

  0

  0

  0

  4

  3

  4

  2

  20

  Scottish

  0

  1

  30

  39

  2

  0

  22

  147

  1

  157

  399

  Welsh

  1

  0

  10

  1

  2

  0

  5

  1

  0

  0

  20

  Other

  2

  0

  39

  0

  6

  0

  8

  1

  13

  0

  69

  Not known1

  10

  0

  113

  4

  23

  1

  54

  24

  27

  31

  287

  Totals

  62

  4

  562

  73

  73

  1

  301

  219

  184

  234

  1713

  1 Completion of questionnaires covering nationality is voluntary.Where staff have not provided the information, their nationality is categorised as 'not known'.

  Note:

  Legend: L = London; EK. = East Kilbride; FS = Fast Stream.

  Development Assistance Application Criteria
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what criteria his Department provides for(a) prospective countries and (b) development NGOs against which they may apply for development assistance; and if he will place them in the Library. [120490]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID does not set formal criteria for prospective recipients of UK aid. Our support is based on a judgment taken after consideration of a number of factors. These include: the extent of poverty in the country (we currently spend over 80 per cent. of our bilateral aid in the poorest countries), the recipient government's commitment to poverty reduction, the likelihood that the resources provided will contribute to poverty reduction and other donor involvement.
  810W
  mixed. In general, therefore, we do not consider such an approach to be the most useful tool for fostering economic growth and poverty reduction.

  We recognise that trade reform can have adverse effects on particular sectors and groups particularly in the short term. This is why it is important that trade reform is properly sequenced and accompanied by complementary policies to help manage the process of change. In this context, it is important that Special and Differential Treatment provisions within WTO rules are effective and binding and that any new WTO rules reflect different countries' implementation capacities.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Departmental Employees
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development if he will list the nationalities employed by the Department, broken down by(a) numbers, (b) locations and (c) job titles. [120482]

  Hilary Benn
  Nationality of DFID Home Civil Service staff is recorded against the categories approved by the Cabinet Office for use in the 2001 Census.

  Details, in the table, provide a breakdown by location in the UK and by grading band. Information is not available by job title.

  DFID also employs some 874 Staff Appointed In Country, in its 36 country and regional offices located overseas. No record of nationality is maintained for these staff.

  Our approach to contributing to poverty elimination through achievement of the Millennium Development Goals is set out in two White Papers on International Development (both available in the Library). The decision to provide—support—as well as details of our programmes—in individual countries is set out in a series of Country Assistance Plans. These are available at: www.dfid.gov.uk

  There are many ways in which Development NGOs can apply for funding from DFID, including our centrally-managed funding schemes such as the Civil Society Challenge Fund and Partnership Programme Agreements, and through individual country offices and country programmes. Detailed criteria have been developed for each funding scheme, to ensure that public funds are used to the best effect. Country offices

  811W
  can provide criteria for their specific funding schemes on request, and details of all centrally-managed schemes are also available on our website at: www.dfid.gov.uk

  Euro Roadshow
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development if he will list the events the Secretary of State for International Development plans to attend as part of the Government's euro roadshow. [121391]

  Hilary Benn
  I refer the hon. Member to the response given by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, to the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) on 20 June 2003,Official Report, column 459W.

  Kenya
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development how much the Government have given(a) directly and (b) indirectly to educational projects and programmes in Kenya in each year since 1997. [121160]

  Hilary Benn
  The following amounts have been given directly to educational projects and programmes in Kenya since 1997:

  Financial year

  Amount (£000)

  1997–98

  2,299

  1998–99

  2,823

  1999–2000

  1,788

  2000–01

  4,322

  2001–02

  4,472

  2002–03

  15,162

  In addition DFID has provided support through multilateral agencies, including the World Bank.

  Regulatory Impact Assessments
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development if he will make a statement on the Department's Regulatory Impact Assessment procedure; and how many RIAs have been reviewed in respect of the Department over the last year. [120835]

  Hilary Benn
  A regulatory impact assessment (RIA) must be completed for all policy proposals that have a potential impact on businesses, charities or the voluntary sector. It includes details of the arrangements for monitoring and evaluating policy proposals and their impact.

  DFID's has not reviewed or carried out a regulatory impact assessment on its work in the last 12 months. The development assistance programme has limited impact on businesses in the UK.

  Sunset Clauses
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development if he will make it his policy to include a sunset clause in all new legislation unless a specific case can be made to exclude a sunset clause. [120837]
  812W
  Hilary Benn
  The revised RIA guidance 'Better Policy Making: A Guide to Regulatory Impact Assessment' was published on 28 January 2003. It advises policy officials to consider time limiting or sunsetting at an early stage of policy development and gives specific examples of where sunsetting may be appropriate.

  The Department for International Development actively promotes better regulation and the use of sunsetting where appropriate.

  Sustainability (Departmental Projects)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what percentage of the Department's projects were in countries which were(a) found to have achieved sustainability, (b) found to be too early to judge sustainability, (c) found to have doubts as to their sustainability and (d) were not assessed for sustainability in each year since 2000. [120483]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID does not make judgments about the sustainability of our partner countries.

  All our projects are designed to be sustainable so that they will continue to deliver benefits in the long term. DFID's projects under implementation above a certain threshold (£1 million from April 2002) are assessed annually through DFID's Performance Reporting Information System for Management (PRISM).

  To give us a more accurate picture of performance, we break our projects down according to a risk assessment.

  It is not possible to produce reliable, comparable data on project success for each year since 2000. Figures since April 2002 are as follows:

  Financial year 2001–02

  Percentage

  High risk projects judged likely to be successful

  24

  Medium risk projects judged likely to be successful

  56

  Low risk projects judged likely to be successful

  81

  Source:

  Performance Reporting Information System for Management (PRISM).

  Financial year 2002–03

  Percentage

  High risk projects judged likely to be successful

  33

  Medium risk projects judged likely to be successful

  52

  Low risk projects judged likely to be successful

  84

  Source:

  Performance Reporting Information System for Management (PRISM).

  Each project is given a score ranging from one to five, based on the likelihood of their achieving their intended objectives. For the purposes of this exercise, we judge projects receiving a score of one or two to be successful. Projects receiving a lower score may have achieved some of their objectives and so brought some sustainable development benefits.

  We have a target in our 2003–06 Public Service Agreement to improve the performance of our projects in each risk category.
  813W
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what percentage of departmental projects worth over £1 million initiated in each year since 1997 have long-term sustainability mandates. [120493]

  Hilary Benn
  All of DFID's projects are designed to be sustainable so that they will continue to deliver benefits in the long-term. Our Performance Reporting Information System for Management (PRISM) system measures the success of our projects (above £1 million) against a range of criteria, one of which is sustainability. Headline progress in evaluating the success of our projects is reported in DFID's Departmental Report.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Staff Creche
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Solicitor General if she will make a statement on the creche facilities made available by the Department to the children of the Department's staff. [121115]

  The Solicitor-General
  None of the Departments for which the Attorney General holds ministerial responsibility provide creche facilities. However, the Treasury Solicitor's Department has a contract through the Cabinet Office, with Childcare Enterprises Ltd. This company provides a holiday play scheme to which Treasury Solicitor's staff can apply at a cost, currently, of £30 per day. Half the cost is subsequently met by the Department. In the current financial year, 2002–03, seven staff have used the play scheme service, at a cost to the Department of £1,476.00.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Afghanistan
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of the terrain of Afghanistan is pacified and under full control of the Kabul Government. [120473]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Afghan Transitional Authority (ATA) is the legally recognised controlling authority for the entire country. It was appointed by President Karzai after his election at the June 2002 Loya Jirga by regional representatives from all parts of Afghanistan. There continue to be attacks in several parts of the country against ISAF, Coalition and ATA targets, as well as UN demining teams and NGOs. But these attacks remain limited, sporadic and do not constitute attempts by other forces to take control of an area.

  British Consulate (San Francisco)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what offers have been received for the British Consulate in San Francisco; what the cost is of the proposed replacement including fees for advisers and realtors; and whether the newly purchased building is leasehold. [121455]
  814W
  Mr. Rammell
  We have no plans to sell the Consulate-General offices, which are leased. No offers have been received for the present Residence of the Consul-General, which has not yet been placed on the market. The replacement Residence is expected to cost £3.3 million after allowing for the cost of ongoing work, such as security measures, and fees for professional advisers. Under local practice the vendor pays the property broker's fee. The new Residence has been acquired on the local equivalent of freehold.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what size the present consulate in San Francisco is in square feet; and what the size is of the replacement building. [121554]

  Mr. Rammell
  The present Residence of the Consul-General in San Francisco has a net internal area of 10,241 square feet; the house purchased as the future Residence has a net internal area of 4,905 square feet.

  British Prisoners
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British citizens are in prison in each Commonwealth country. [120608]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office collates prisoner totals on a quarterly basis. For the quarter ending on 31 March 2003, we were aware of 411 British nationals detained in Commonwealth countries.

  The table gives a breakdown of the number of prisoners detained in each Commonwealth country.

  British Nationals Imprisoned in Commonwealth Countries as of 31 March 2003

  Country

  Total imprisoned

  Antigua and Barbuda

  7

  Australia

  91

  Bangladesh

  1

  Barbados

  26

  Belize

  0

  Botswana

  0

  Brunei Darussalam

  0

  Cameroon

  0

  Canada

  16

  Cyprus

  16

  Dominica

  1

  Fiji Islands

  0

  Ghana

  1

  Grenada

  17

  Guyana

  2

  India

  22

  Jamaica

  124

  Kenya

  1

  Kiribati

  0

  Lesotho

  0

  Malawi

  1

  Malaysia

  1

  Maldives

  0

  Malta

  7

  Mauritius

  0

  Mozambique

  0

  Namibia

  0

  Nauru

  0

  New Zealand

  12

  Nigeria

  1

  Pakistan

  6

  Papua New Guinea

  0

  Samoa

  0

  815W

  British Nationals Imprisoned in Commonwealth Countries as of 31 March 2003

  Country

  Total imprisoned

  Seychelles

  0

  Sierra Leone

  0

  Singapore

  11

  Solomon Islands

  0

  South Africa

  19

  Sri Lanka

  0

  St Kitts and Nevis

  1

  St Lucia

  6

  St Vincent and the Grenadines

  2

  Swaziland

  0

  The Bahamas

  0

  The Gambia

  0

  Tonga

  0

  Trinidad and Tobago

  18

  Tuvalu

  0

  Uganda

  0

  United Republic of Tanzania

  0

  Vanuatu

  0

  Zambia

  1

  Zimbabwe*

  0

  Total

  411

  * Zimbabwe currently suspended from the Commonwealth

  Cayman Islands
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what investigation was made by his Department into the recent resignations of(a) the Attorney General of the Cayman Islands and (b) the Head of the Financial Reporting Unit in the Cayman Islands. [120272]

  Mr. Rammell
  This department has made no formal investigation as such into either the early departure from office of the former Attorney General of the Cayman Islands or the resignation of the former director of the Financial Reporting Unit. But, as the then FCO Minister responsible for the Overseas Territories, my noble Friend the Baroness Amos was fully informed of the events and considerations leading to these departures and visited the Cayman Islands on 16–17 February 2003 to discuss the issues involved with the Governor and elected representatives.

  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what financial settlement the Attorney General of the Cayman Islands received upon resignation. [120273]

  Mr. Rammell
  The financial settlement agreed on the Attorney General's departure from office is a matter for him and his former employers, the Cayman Islands Government.

  EU Communications Activities
  Mr Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library a list of the organisations in EU applicant states which have been in receipt of Community funds in the past 12 months under the Information and Communications Strategy; what proportion of those bodies(a) favour and (b) oppose accession; and if he will make a statement. [121467]

  Mr. MacShane
  The European Commission publishes monthly reports on the implementation of the communication strategy for Enlargement on its website 816W
  (www.europe.org.uk). This includes details of organisations in the accession states that have received funding under this strategy. The Commission Delegations in the accession states administer the funding under strict guidelines as set out in the communications strategy. Their activities are closely monitored by the Governments of the Candidate Countries.

  Mr Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if his Department has, since 1997, raised objections to aspects of European Commission communications activities(a) in the UK and (b) in applicant states; and if he will make a statement. [121468]

  Mr. MacShane
  This information is not held centrally and to research the situation in each of the 13 candidate countries for the past five years would incur disproportionate cost.

  The FCO and European Commission Representation to the UK have a good working relationship and cooperate on activities to raise UK public awareness of EU enlargement—an objective we share.

  Mr Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the documents received by his Department on the management of the European Commission's communications activities in EU applicant states over the past 12 months. [121469]

  Mr. MacShane
  Documents relating to the management of the Commission communication strategy for EU Enlargement are published on its website (www.europe.org.uk) and include monthly updates on activities in the accession countries.

  EU Information Campaigns
  Mr Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 5 June 2003,Official Report, column 515W, on EU information campaigns, if he will deposit in the Library copies of (a) county profiles, (b) personality and political party or group assessments and (c) campaign strategies arising from the application of the Commission's Information and Communication Strategy for the EU; and if he will make a statement. [121525]

  Mr. MacShane
  Country profiles are available on the FCO website (www.fco.gov.uk) and include information on political parties, government and recent political developments. Details of the FCO's EU communication activities are also on the FCO website. The European Commission provides full details of its implementation of the Communication Strategy for Enlargement on its public website (www.europe.org.uk).

  Euro Roadshow
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the events he plans to attend as part of the Government's euro roadshow. [121402]

  Mr. MacShane
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has no current plans to attend the Government's euro roadshow. Officials from Her
  817W
  Majesty's Treasury will be undertaking a number of "roadshows" to our European and other partners to explain the assessment of the five economic tests, the supporting studies, and the subsequent announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the House on 9 June, Official Report, column 407.

  Family Visit Visas
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will provide clearer and more comprehensive information on the(a) family visitor appeal right and (b) appeal process to refused family visit visa applicants. [120603]

  Mr. Mullin
  All unsuccessful applicants receive written notices informing them about their right to appeal, and the procedure they need to follow should they choose to exercise this right, at the time of refusal. Where this is necessary it can be explained in the applicant's own language by an interpreter. Furthermore, by definition, all family visitor applicants will have a UK sponsor who can advise and assist with the appeal.

  In response to the discussion paper published to inform the Interdepartmental Review of Family Visitor Appeals the review team has produced a leaflet for family visitors and their sponsors, which is available on the Home Office website. UK visas produce a general information leaflet on Appeals: 11,500 of these have been sent to overseas posts in the past six months.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will inform refused family visit visa applicants of the relative chances of success of appellants who opt for(a) an oral appeal and (b) a paper-only appeal. [120604]

  Mr. Mullin
  We do not as a matter of course inform refused applicants or their sponsors of the relative chance of success of different types of appeals, but the leaflet for family visitors and their sponsors does point out that "people who ask for their appeals to be decided on the papers are only about half as successful as people who ask for an oral hearing". The leaflet explains that the sponsor and other witnesses can speak to the adjudicator at an oral hearing, and that a legal representative can attend to put the appellant's case. All appeals are determined on their merits by an independent Adjudicator.

  As paper appeals are prioritised, and because family visits are often to attend a specific event, it may be in the applicant's interest to opt for a swift decision by choosing an appeal on the papers.

  Entry Clearance Officers (ECOs) do not usually have the benefit of seeing the applicant's sponsor at interview. If an oral hearing is chosen, the adjudicator will have the advantage of hearing the sponsor's evidence in addition to the evidence provided to the ECO at the time of the application, allowing the appellant and the sponsor the opportunity to make a fuller case.

  By definition, all family visitors will have a sponsor in the UK who can seek advice on their behalf about appealing, including which type of appeal to choose.
  818W
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will amend the visit visa application form to include an option to indicate that the purpose of the visit for which a visa is sought is to visit family members in the UK. [120605]

  Mr. Mullin
  An amended visit visa application form has been produced which will enable applicants to indicate that the purpose of the visit for which entry clearance is sought is to visit family members in the United Kingdom.

  The revised application form will be in use from 1 August 2003.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will provide additional guidance to entry clearance officers on(a) how to assess multiple-purpose visit visa applications and (b) which relationships qualify as family members for the purpose of family visitor appeals under the immigration rules. [120606]

  Mr. Mullin
  All new Entry Clearance Officers (ECOs) undergo an intensive course of training provided by UK visas. As part of an ECO's training, specific instruction is given concerning visit visas. Guidance about visit visa applications is contained in the Diplomatic Service Procedures, Entry Clearance, Volume 1, Chapter 10. The Diplomatic Service Procedures are available to ECOs both during their training and while at post, and are available to the public online through the UK visas website (www.uk visas.gov.uk).

  Applicants wishing to visit the United Kingdom for more that one reason are issued with a multiple entry visa, valid for six months, for the main purpose of their visit.

  Any secondary purpose of a visit can be undertaken using the same visit visa. The relationships which qualify as family members, for the purpose of family visitor appeals, are clearly defined in the Diplomatic Service Procedures, Entry Clearance, Volume 1, Chapter 23.3 and were redefined in SI 518 on 5 March 2003.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will take steps to establish regular meetings between UK Visas and the Immigration Appellate Authority to provide a forum for discussion of issues of joint concern. [120607]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Head of UKvisas already meets with colleagues from the Immigration Appellate Authority to discuss issues of joint concern. UKvisas attaches great importance to this relationship.

  Ghana
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Ghanaian Government concerning the visit of the President of Liberia to their country. [121667]

  Mr. Mullin
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Meriden (Caroline Spelman) on 23 June 2003,Official Report, column 591W.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received on Zimbabwe Government pensioners in the United Kingdom not receiving their pensions; and if he will make a statement. [121206]

  Mr. Mullin
  We receive regular representation from pensioners in the UK who are not being paid their Zimbabwean Government pensions. Our High Commission in Harare speaks regularly to the Zimbabwean pension authorities, reminding them of their obligations to pay these pensions in full and on time. The Zimbabwean authorities say that the current lack of foreign currency in the country means that they can no longer pay pensioners living outside of Zimbabwe. All payments to pensioners living in the UK were suspended from January this year. Regrettably, this situation is unlikely to change until Zimbabwe's economy improves.

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with sub-Saharan African counterparts regarding the situation in(a) Zimbabwe and (b) the Great Lakes region. [121288]

  Mr. Mullin
  We are in regular contact with African leaders on Zimbabwe. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed the crisis there with Botswana's President Mogae in London on 11 June; and with South Africa's President Mbeki in South Africa on 14 May. We support regional efforts to promote inter-party dialogue as a first step towards restoring good governance and economic prosperity in Zimbabwe.

  We regularly discuss the situation in the Great Lakes with regional governments including Rwanda, Uganda, South Africa and Angola. We remain concerned about the Democratic Republic of the Congo, particularly the humanitarian crisis in the north-eastern Ituri region. We were active in encouraging the governments of Rwanda and Uganda to respond positively to the UN Secretary General's request to send an Interim Emergency Multinational Force to Bunia (Ituri region).

  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent measures have been taken to support British citizens in Zimbabwe. [121301]

  Mr. Mullin
  The British High Commission in Harare provides guidance and assistance to British nationals resident in Zimbabwe and those visiting the country. It offers a full range of consular services.

  The High Commission also runs a website enabling it to maintain good communications with the resident British community. The Consul visits the main regional centres at regular intervals to offer advice to those unable to travel to Harare.

  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what provision is being made to assist the repatriation to the United Kingdom of former British nationals whose Zimbabwean passports and residents' stamps have been withdrawn. [120610]
  820W
  Mr. Mullin
  We have a civil contingency plan for Zimbabwe, as we do for many other countries which can be activated if there is an emergency affecting the safety of British nationals. Any evacuation would be a last resort and by whatever means available at the time.

  Anyone wishing to move to the UK to take up residence who is not a British citizen will need to arrange this before leaving Zimbabwe. Anyone wishing to resume British citizenship can do this by submitting their original Declaration of Renunciation form, evidence of their present nationality and a completed application form for Registration as a British citizen, to the British High Commission in Harare, together with the current fees. The Home Office is responsible for considering such applications. If successful, a Certificate of Registration will be issued after which a British passport may be applied for.

  All those with a valid British citizen passport are free to enter the UK for an indefinite period.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Appointments
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the people appointed to ad hoc posts within her Department bearing the titles of advocate, tsar, adviser, champion and comparable titles since May 1997; what their job title is or was; what their role is or was; whether they were or are being paid; what the total cost of each such person was in each financial year, including expenses and benefits; what the expected cost of each such person is in 2003–04; to whom they are accountable; and if she will make a statement. [112461]

  Mr. Caborn
  All Special Advisers employed from May 1997 are listed as follows:

  Burnham, A. M.

  Bush, B.

  Eccles, J.

  El Nusairi, S.

  French, P. M. W.

  Hunter, S.

  Mackenzie, R.

  Newbigin, J.

  In addition, S. Campbell and L. Phelan were appointed as Ministerial Sports Advisers; R. Cotton and S. May were appointed Ministerial Tourism Advisers; and S. John and S. Navin were appointed as Ministerial Music Advisers.

  Remuneration details cannot be disclosed in order to protect the privacy of the individual concerned, and Exemption 12 of the Code of Practice on Information to Government Information applies.

  Bookmakers Industry
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent discussions she has had with representatives of the bookmakers industry regarding the future regulatory treatment of fixed odds betting machines; and if she will make a statement. [121290]
  821W
  Mr. Caborn
  We meet representatives of the bookmaking industry regularly to discuss matters of current interest, including the regulation of fixed odds betting machines. The position remains as set out in the written statement which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made on 8 January 2003,Official Report, column 7WS.

  EU Regulations
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many regulations originating from the EU have been implemented by her department over each of the last five years. [120857]

  Mr. Caborn
  DCMS has not implemented any EU Regulations during the last five years.

  Gaming Board
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what requests for information about the lottery activites and(a) Solutions RMC Ltd., (b) Breast Cancer Relief and (c) Breast Cancer Research Scotland the gaming board has made of Mr. Robert Winter of Wendover, Buckinghamshire; [121416]

  (2) what representations the Gaming Board has received from Mr. Robert Winter of Wendover, Bucks, about the activities of Solutions RMC Ltd; [121198]

  (3) if she will request that the Gaming Board carry out an investigation into Solutions RMC Ltd. [121200]

  Mr. Caborn
  Mr. Winter has e-mailed the Gaming Board on two occasions this year about Solutions RMC. Information which he provided is being considered by the Board as part of an investigation into the way two charities conducted their lotteries and the capacity in which Solutions RMC acted on their behalf. The Board's inspectorate are liaising with the police and the Charity Commission; but I understand that the Board has not yet asked Mr. Winter for further information.

  Licensing
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has for the storage and archiving of past records of licensing magistrates after licensing responsibility is transferred to local authorities. [121574]

  Mr. Caborn
  None. Under the transitional arrangements in Schedule 8 to the Licensing Bill, applicants for the conversion of existing licences and club certificates will be required to include their existing licence or club certificate with their application. The past records of licensing justices' will not be required. Once the transfer of responsibility for alcohol licensing to licensing authorities comes fully into effect at the end of the transitional period new licences and certificates will be granted in accordance with the provisions of the Bill and without reference to any previous licence that was granted by the licensing justices.

  Licensing Bill
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans there are to ensure 822W
  that the costs to local authorities arising from the administration, inspection and enforcement of licences, as proposed in the Licensing Bill, are met (a) from the fees payable and (b) by direct central Government funding. [119863]

  Mr. Caborn
  The fees for licences, certificates and notices under the Licensing Bill will be set at a level which provides for full cost recovery in respect of administration, inspection and enforcement. The Government will monitor the levels of fees and it will be open to bodies such as the Audit Commission, after a reasonable period, to report to the Secretary of State on any indications that the level of fees might not be leading to full cost recovery for licensing authorities. Where an exemption from fees has been granted by Government, the associated costs will be met from central Government funds.

  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport whether events covered by a temporary event notice, as set out in the Licensing Bill, will be covered by fire and safety legislation. [119867]

  Mr. Caborn
  There is nothing in the Licensing Bill which exempts permitted temporary activities taking place under a temporary event notice from the provisions of existing fire and safety legislation.

  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what measures will be put in place to ensure that licences issued under the terms of the Licensing Bill by one local authority will be recognised as valid by other local authorities. [119868]

  Mr. Caborn
  Personal licences must be issued by all licensing authorities in accordance with the provision of the Bill. Further, regulations made by the Secretary of State will prescribe a standard form for a personal licence. No discretion is given to a licensing authority to reject the validity of a personal licence properly issued by any licensing authority. The Government are also committed to setting up a central licensing register, which would allow licensing authorities to check the issue of a personal licence with another licensing authority. Work with local authorities and other key partners to set up such a database is in hand and we will drive the work forward in parallel with the Bill to ensure that a database is available at the earliest opportunity.

  A premises licence is also granted in accordance with the provisions of the Bill by the licensing authority in whose area the premises is situated. The form of a premises licence will also be prescribed by the Secretary of State in regulations. The issue of recognition of the validity of a premises licence by another licensing authority may only arise when premises straddle the area of more than one authority. If the other authority made relevant representations on an application for a premises licence, and is aggrieved by the licensing authorities decision, it may appeal that decision to the magistrate's court.

  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what measures will be put in place to ensure that the enforcement of the terms of licences issued under proposals in the Licensing Bill will not increase the burden on police officers. [119869]
  823W
  Mr. Caborn
  The police have existing responsibilities for the prevention and detection of crime and the enforcement of current alcohol licensing law. The Licensing Bill will not alter this or impose any additional burdens in relation to enforcement. The Government believe, however, that the removal of permitted hours and the anticipated reduction in crime and disorder problems at the current fixed closing times could help to reduce the burden on the police.

  Live Music
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what measures she is taking to increase the opportunities to hear live music in the UK in(a) pubs, (b) public halls and (c) public open spaces. [119479]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Licensing Bill will provide a unified system for the regulation of licensable activities, removing the need for the current system of separate annually renewable, public entertainment licences. Under the Bill a pub, qualifying club, community hall or indeed any other premises applying for authorisation under a premises licence for the sale and supply of alcohol will be able to apply, at the same time, for authorisation under that licence for the provision of regulated entertainment, such as live music, without incurring an additional fee. Once granted, a premises licence will have effect until the licence is revoked or surrendered, but otherwise will not be time limited unless the applicant so requests. We believe that this unified system will open up more opportunities for live musical events.

  Also the Government have made plain their intention to exempt church halls, village halls and other community buildings from the fees associated with the provision of regulated entertainment, including live music. However, a fee will be payable if the applicant also seeks authorisation for the sale or supply of alcohol. We believe that these exemptions from the fees associated with the provision of regulated entertainment will also broaden the opportunities for live musical events.

  The Bill provides that a premises can be any place and live music or other regulated entertainment on public open spaces would be licensable, subject to satisfying the conditions in Schedule 1 to the Bill and any exemptions being relevant. We will, however, be encouraging local authorities to obtain premises licences authorising the provision of regulated entertainment for public open spaces, such as village greens, on which many performances take place. No additional licence would then need to be obtained by anyone wishing to provide regulated entertainment on premises covered by such a licence, although the consent of the local authority holding the licence would be required.

  All short-term small scale events, whether in a pub, public hall or public open space could also benefit from the more informal system of permitted temporary activities under the Bill, which would require a simple notification to the licensing authority and the police and a small fee of around £20. The Bill has been amended to increase the number of temporary event notices that can be given in respect of the same premises from five to 12, subject to a maximum number of 15 days for that
  824W
  premises during which permitted temporary activities may take place in a calendar year. The Bill has also been amended during its passage to increase the period permissible for any temporary event from 72 hours to 96 hours.

  National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment has been made of the returns generated by projects funded by the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts. [121338]

  Estelle Morris
  Of the 338 people and projects supported to date by NESTA, they have taken a financial stake in 106 through their Invention and Innovation programme. Of these 106 projects, in 78 cases this has been a royalty stake, and in 28 cases an equity stake. None of the equity stakes have yet been realised, and it is difficult to predict with any accuracy the market value of these companies at any given point in time. The 78 projects in which NESTA has a royalty stake have produced royalties for NESTA totalling approximately £57,000. However, in the majority of cases NESTA has chosen to defer payment of royalties to maximise the chances of the project's success. In total £2,699 has been received in royalty payments to date. The value and status of NESTA'S portfolio is assessed on a 6-monthly basis.The remainder of NESTA's projects are supported because of their social, artistic or other potential, rather than because they are expected to make a profit.

  National Lottery
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many lottery awards, and of what total value, were allocated to projects(a) in the UK and (b) in the City of Edinburgh local authority area in each year since 1997. [121300]

  Estelle Morris
  The information in the table is derived from the Department's Awards Database which contains information supplied by the Lottery distributing bodies. The figure for the year 2003 represents awards up to 1 June.

  UK

  City of Edinburgh

  Number of awards

  Value of awards (£)

  Number of awards

  Value of awards (£)

  1997

  14,779

  2,403,172,676.00

  205

  25,138,409.00

  1998

  29,873

  2,493,993,688.00

  192

  25,232,659.00

  1999

  20,491

  1,392,743,642.00

  272

  26,672,871.00

  2000

  24,099

  1,154,319,056.00

  209

  3,572,761.00

  2001

  21,627

  1,455,245,450.00

  264

  34,795,749.00

  2002

  27,207

  1,351,465,150.00

  182

  11,978,552.00

  2003

  8,429

  588,410,891.00

  17

  16,273,895.00

  Places of Worship
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what grants her Department makes to improve places of worship in need of structural repairs. [120522]

  Estelle Morris
  The Department administers the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme, which returns in grant aid the difference between 5 per cent. and the
  825W
  actual amount of Value Added Tax (VAT) paid on eligible repairs and maintenance to the structure and fabric of the building. This is a demand-led scheme which has been extended to 31 March 2004. To date over £11.5 million has been paid out in grants.

  The Department also provides funds to English Heritage, which, jointly with the Heritage Lottery Fund, funds the Repair Grants for Places of Worship in England 2002–05. In this financial year £30 million is available in grants for urgent repairs to listed places of worship in regular use.

  English Heritage also runs a Cathedral Repairs Grant Scheme for Church of England and Roman Catholic Cathedrals which are listed grade I or II* and/or are situated within a conservation area. A budget of £2 million was made available for this scheme in the present financial year.

  Rugby Union
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the nature of the recent Rugby Union Summit meeting. [121412]

  Mr. Caborn
  I attended the Rugby Summit meeting on 9 June 2003 with representatives of the Rugby Union authorities, the Home Office, HM Treasury, Camelot and UK Sport. A useful discussion included Lottery funding for the sport, player visa issues, major sporting events and charitable status for amateur Rugby Union clubs. I intend to consider the points made in detail, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) for organising and chairing the Summit.

  Rural Sport and Recreation
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many people participate in rural sport and recreation in England; and if she will make a statement on(a) the value of rural sport and recreation to rural tourism in England, (b) the value of rural sport and recreation to the rural economy in England and (c) the value of Sport England's grant aid to rural sport and recreation. [120961]

  Mr. Caborn
  The General Household Survey for 1996 measured the percentage of the population which participated in sporting activity in a natural setting which is defined as in the countryside, on rivers or lakes or at the seaside. The survey showed that:20 per cent. of men, 9 per cent. of women and 14 per cent. of all adults had participated in sport in one of these locations in the past four weeks.
  51 per cent. of young people (6–16) had participated in sport in one of these locations in the past year.
  6 per cent. of ethnic minority groups had participated in one of these locations in the previous four weeks.
  35 per cent. of young people with a disability had participated in one of these locations in the previous year.

  No specific studies have been undertaken on the value of rural sport and recreation to rural tourism or the rural economy in England. However, I understand that the Countryside Agency is considering a proposal to undertake a study on the economic aspects of recreation in the countryside. Data from the Great Britain Day
  826W
  Visit Survey 2002/03 indicates that of day trips made to the countryside 40.5 per cent. were for the purpose of physical activity, including walking and cycling.

  Sport England has allocated the following funding to rural sports in 2002–03:

  £

  Lottery

  Exchequer

  Angling

  —

  128,000

  Caving

  —

  5,000

  Equestrian

  359,182

  46,000

  Gliding

  95,634

  —

  Mountaineering

  45,000

  65,000

  Orienteering

  —

  90,000

  Sailing and yachting

  1,514,813

  137,000

  Surfing

  —

  9,000

  Water skiing

  —

  38,000

  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the impact on rural sport and recreation of plans to concentrate sports council funding on selected sports. [120962]

  Mr. Caborn
  No such assessment has been made. The decision by Sport England to prioritise its funding of National Governing Bodies of Sport will not mean that other sports and physical activities will no longer receive funding. Sport England will continue to work with the governing bodies of these sports including those which involve rural sports. When funding decisions for community projects are devolved to the regions it will be open to the Regional Sports Boards to support rural sports where these meet the objectives of their regional sports strategies.

  Senior Departmental Posts
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many senior departmental posts were advertised in each year since June 1999; and how many of those were advertised in the Scottish press. [120668]

  Mr. Caborn
  The number of senior departmental posts which were advertised since June 1999 are as follows:

  Number

  1999

  1

  2000

  1

  2001

  1

  2002

  3

  To date in 2003

  11

  1 Currently being advertised.

  These posts were advertised in national newspapers, which are available in Scotland.

  Sewel Motions
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list Sewel motions passed by the Scottish Parliament since May 1999 that apply to her Department's responsibilities and Government Bills she has sponsored. [120691]
  827W
  Mr. Caborn
  Of the bills sponsored by this Department, the Culture and Recreation Bill was the subject of a Sewel Motion in the Scottish Parliament (passed on 8 March 2001). This bill, however, did not go on to receive Royal Assent. No other bills sponsored by the Department have been the subject of a Sewel motion.

  Sport England
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the divisions between regions for Sport England funding(a) were between 2001 and 2003 and (b) will be between 2004 and 2006; and if she will make a statement. [121305]

  Mr. Caborn
  The details of the split of funding across the regions during 2001–02 and 2002–03 are shown in the following table. The funding situation within Sport England is currently under review and therefore I am not in a position to give detailed figures for the future years. It is the intention of Sport England to delegate to regions 70 per cent. of available lottery funds.

  Sport England lottery awards April 2001 to March 2003

  £

  North-east

  13,882,182

  Yorkshire

  15,398,115

  East Midlands

  18,515,567

  East

  23,873,577

  London

  48,348,438

  South-east

  22,522,931

  South-west

  34,641,418

  West Midlands

  20,585,529

  North-west

  66,798,951

  National Awards

  191,989,562,

  Awards not regionalised

  98,084,795

  Total

  554,641,067

  Sport England regional analysis of grant in aid April 2001 to March 2003

  £

  North-east

  6,855,000

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  7,316,000

  East Midlands

  8,188,000

  Eastern

  6,660,000

  London

  29,455,000

  South-east

  9,732,000

  South-west

  7,048,000

  West Midlands

  11,271,000

  North-west

  35,546,000

  Total

  122,071,000

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what funds were available to Sport England in(a) 2001, (b) 2002 and (c) 2003; and if she will make a statement. [121307]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Exchequer funds available to Sport England over the period 2001–02 to 2003–04 are shown in the following table.

  Sport England funding

  £000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Exchequer Funding

  38,323

  43,162

  80,324

  Lottery Funding

  224,300

  237,600

  221,700

  Sports Clubs
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations she has made to ministerial colleagues in the(a) Treasury and (b) Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on rate relief for sports clubs; and if she will make a statement. [121406]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government recognise the desire of many in sport for a rate relief measure for community amateur sports clubs. Under revised Charity Commission guidance announced in April 2002, amateur clubs may benefit from 80 per cent. mandatory relief from business rates if they successfully apply for charitable status.

  This Department has considered the case made by some in sport for a more general rate relief measure, as part of a wider consideration of possible financial incentives for sport at all levels. This has informed my discussions with Ministers in other interested Departments.

  Sunset Clauses
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make it her policy to include a sunset clause in all new legislation unless a specific case can be made to exclude a sunset clause. [120858]

  Mr. Caborn
  The revised RIA guidance 'Better Policy Making: A Guide to Regulatory Impact Assessment' was published on 28 January 2003. It advises policy officials to consider time limiting or sunsetting at an early stage of policy development and gives specific examples of where sunsetting may be appropriate.

  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport actively promotes the better regulation agenda. When we do regulate we aim to do so in a light touch way. We will use sunsetting where it makes sense to do so.

  Tyntesfield Estate
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which Government Departments were consulted by the National Heritage Memorial Fund in advance of the decision to provide a grant to the National Trust to purchase the Tyntesfield estate. [120419]

  Mr. Caborn
  The National Heritage Memorial Fund consulted the following Government Departments and Government agencies/national museums during the assessment of the application from the National Trust to purchase the Tyntesfield estate:

  The Department of Culture Media and Sport;

  The Capital Taxes Office;

  Resource: the Council for Museums, Archives and Libraries;

  District Valuation Office (Executive Agency Inland Revenue);

  English Heritage:

  The Countryside Agency; and

  The Victoria and Albert Museum.

  Volleyball
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps she is taking to promote increased participation in volleyball in schools and sports clubs. [121407]
  829W
  Mr. Caborn
  Games activities (which may include volleyball; the National Curriculum does not specify which games must be taught) are a compulsory part of the Physical Education National Curriculum and must be taught to all pupils aged 5–16. School Sport Co-ordinator partnerships are encouraged to make links with local clubs, which may include volleyball clubs.

  Beyond schools, Sport England supports the English Volleyball Association (the recognised national governing body in England) with an Exchequer grant that includes an allocation for youth development and adult participation. Sport England has also included volleyball in the DCMS project for volunteers "Step into Sport" As a designated Sport England Partnership sport, volleyball can also benefit from services provided by County Sports Partnerships.

HEALTH

  Acute Healthcare (East Kent)
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the report of the Independent Review Panel investigation into acute healthcare in East Kent will be published. [119721]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 17 June 2003]: The Independent Reconfiguration Panel will publish its report on the modernisation of hospital services in East Kent shortly.

  Care Standards
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 19 June 2003,Official Report, column 427W, on care standards, when he expects to commence consultation on draft guidance. [121746]

  Dr. Ladyman
  We plan to consult on draft guidance towards the end of the summer.

  Childhood Diseases
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children suffered from(a) chickenpox, (b) measles, (c) mumps, (d) rubella and (e) whooping cough in each year since 1997. [120102]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The numbers of laboratory confirmed cases of measles, mumps, rubella, and pertussis (whooping cough) between 1997 and 2002 are shown in the table. Notifications (clinical diagnosis only) of whooping cough are also given. The data for 2002 are provisional and therefore subject to change.

  Laboratory confirmed cases

  Year

  measles

  mumps

  rubella

  pertussis

  Notifications of whooping cough

  1997

  177

  180

  99

  715

  2,989

  1998

  56

  118

  122

  375

  1,577

  1999

  94

  366

  161

  330

  1,139

  2000

  100

  697

  60

  199

  712

  2001

  71

  767

  41

  298

  888

  20021

  308

  482

  63

  245

  882

  1 Provisional data

  830W
  Chickenpox is not a notifiable disease and laboratory reports are not available. Since chickenpox is so common in childhood, 90 per cent. of adults are immune.

  Communicable Disease Report
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 10 June 2003,Official Report, column 831W, on the Communicable Disease Report, what the previous circulation of paper copies of the report was. [119910]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The geographical distribution figures for the circulation of paper copies of the Communicable Disease Report (CDR) for 1999 (the latest available) were:

  England and Wales

  3700 copies

  Scotland

  100 copies

  Northern Ireland

  80 copies

  Irish Republic

  100 copies

  Europe (EU)

  100 copies

  Europe (non-EU)

  60 copies

  Rest of World

  200 copies

  The distribution policy was that copies were distributed to the following organisations and personnel:

  Public health laboratories

  Other reporting microbiology laboratories

  Consultants in Communicable Disease Control DCs

  Directors of Public Health

  Environmental health departments

  UK armed forces laboratories

  Other reporting and collaborating physicians

  Veterinary investigation centres

  Appropriate academic departments

  Appropriate Government departments

  Distribution of paper copies of the CDR stopped at the end of 2000.

  Comparative Costs
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost to the NHS was in each of the last two financial years of treating(a) hypertension, (b) varicose veins, (c) cataracts and (d) muscular degeneration. [120679]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 20 June 2003]: This information is not collected centrally.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) on how many occasions since May 1997 the Department's vote in the Council of Ministers against a legislative proposal(a) was sufficient and (b) was not sufficient to achieve with other member states a blocking minority; [117220]

  (2) on how many occasions since May 1997 the Department abstained in the Council of Ministers on a legislative proposal which was passed by qualified majority voting; [117227]
  831W
  (3) on how many occasions since May 1997 the Department has been outvoted by qualified majority voting in the Council of Ministers; and if he will list the legislation by year; [117243]

  (4) on how many occasions since May 1997 the Department indicated dissent from a proposal in the Council of Ministers but did not register a vote or abstention. [117262]

  Mr. Hutton
  Since 1997, our records indicate that the United Kingdom Government have voted against a legislation proposal only once in the Health Council and subsequently, the health element of the Employment, Social Policy Health and Consumer Affairs Council. This was for the Advertising and Sponsorship of Tobacco Products Directive in 2002, the text of which we believed could have been clearer and could have gone further. We were outvoted, by a qualified majority, and the measure was adopted. We have not abstained or indicated dissent on a proposal in that time.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS dentists there were per head of population in(a) Suffolk, (b) Norfolk, (c) Essex and (d) Cambridgeshire in each year since 1997. [120425]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The information requested is shown in the table. These figures are on a headcount basis rather than a whole time equivalent (wte) basis and therefore take no account of part-time working. NHS dentists cover dentists working in the general dental service (GDS), hospital dental service (HDS), community dental service (CDS), personal dental service (PDS) and salaried service of the GDS. Dentists have been counted in each dental service in which they practice, apart from dentists working in the PDS and GDS, who are counted as GDS dentists.

  NHS Dental Services: Number of dentists per 100,000 population of Suffolk, Norfolk, Essex and Cambridgeshire 1997 to 2001

  Number of dentists per 100,000 population

  At 30 September

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Suffolk

  36

  38

  39

  39

  38

  Norfolk1

  n/a

  n/a

  40

  40

  42

  Essex

  36

  36

  37

  38

  39

  Cambridgeshire1

  n/a

  n/a

  38

  39

  42

  Cambridgeshire and Norfolk1

  31

  32

  39

  40

  42

  1 Separate information is not available for Norfolk and Cambridgeshire for 1997 and 1998 because the health authority data cannot be separated into the two county areas. An HA re-organisation in April 1999 allows separate data to be produced.

  Note:

  1. Dentists in the General Dental Service are assigned to the main area in which they work.

  2. Population estimates are based on the 2001 census

  Diabetes
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many vacancies there are for diabetes specialists; and when he expects all posts to be filled. [118877]

  Mr. Hutton
  The table shows the three month vacancy rate and three month vacancy number for consultants specialising in endocrinology and diabetes mellitus taken from the National Health Service vacancy 832W
  survey. The vacancy rate of 2 per cent. is lower than the average vacancy rate across all specialties, which was 3.8 per cent. as at 31 March 2002.

  The number of consultants in endocrinology and diabetes mellitus has increased by 59 per cent. between September 1997 and March 2002. By September 2004, we expect to see further increases in the number of trained specialists of around 160, over a 2000 baseline, as part of the substantial planned expansion of the consultants workforce.

  Department of Health Vacancies Survey, March 2002 Consultant Vacancies in Endocrinology and diabetes mellitus in England 3 month vacancy rates, numbers and staff in post

  3 month vacancy rate %

  3 month vacancy number

  England (excluding HA staff)

  2.0

  9

  3 month vacancy 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. Percentages are rounded to one decimal place

  Source:

  Department of Health Vacancies Survey, March 2002

  The NHS vacancy survey has been conducted in March each year since 1999. The survey collects information on the number of posts, which trusts are actively trying to fill, which have been vacant for three months or more.

  Drugs
  Mark Tami
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much needle exchange programmes have cost the NHS in each of the last three years. [113022]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Needle exchange schemes are one of a number of harm reduction activities carried out in support of the Drug Strategy. Spend on needle exchange schemes is not separately identifiable but a total of £27 million of Government funding was spent on harm reduction activities in 2001–02. We do not have figures for the previous two years. Other harm reduction activities include work to reduce the spread of blood-borne diseases, including HIV and Hepatitis B and C, and the Government's Action Plan to reduce drug related deaths.

  Substantial funding is also made available for needle exchange schemes from National Health Service mainstream resources but we have no way of estimating the actual amount, as this is based on local decision-making by drug action teams and primary care trusts.

  Drugs Policy (Brain Report)
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the relevance of the recommendations of the second Brain committee report to UK drugs policy. [119667]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The second Brain Committee Report dates back to 1965, when the nature of drug use, both in the numbers misusing drugs and the types of
  833W
  drugs being taken were very different from today. Since then a number of reports into drug misuse have been written, particularly the Home Affairs Select Committee Third Report on the Government's Drugs Policy "Is it Working". A large number of the recommendations in this report have be accepted and used to inform the development of the Government's current policy. Therefore, we do not believe that an assessment of the recommendations in the Brain Report would be appropriate.

  Elderly Care (Cleethorpes)
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on funding for care for the elderly living in Cleethorpes constituency. [121536]

  Dr. Ladyman
  It is for the North East Lincolnshire Council to decide, in the light of its priorities, how much to spend on social care for elderly people in the Cleethorpes constituency and how to make available the necessary funds. North East Lincolnshire's personal social services formula spending share increased by 6.1 per cent. in cash terms, to £34.925 million in 2003–04. In addition, the social care grants which North East Lincolnshire has been allocated for 2003–04 have increased substantially. In particular, the council has been allocated £527,000 from the new access and systems capacity grant and £155,000 from the delayed discharges grant.

  Food Supplements
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that the maximum permitted levels for nutrients in food supplements as stated in Article 5 of the Food Supplements Directive are set on the basis of safety; and if he will make a statement. [120765]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 20 June 2003]: Article 5 of the Food Supplements Directive sets out principles for setting maximum permitted levels for vitamins and minerals in food supplements. The Government's view is that these should be based on consideration of safety rather than supposed need, so as to neither unnecessarily limit consumer choice nor unduly restrict trade.

  The Food Standards Agency (FSA), which is responsible for negotiations on this issue, takes every opportunity to press this case bilaterally with other Member States. In May, the FSA wrote to other Member States to advise them of the conclusions of the United Kingdom Expert Group on Vitamins and Minerals (EVM) on safe intakes of vitamins and minerals. The EVM's advice will form the basis of the UK's position when substantive discussions at EU level take place in due course.

  Healthy Start Initiative
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library a list of those focus groups consulted about the Healthy Start Initiative proposals, including(a) methods of recruitment, (b) reports of the meetings and (c) conclusions reached.[120261]
  834W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Details of the focus groups are provided in Annex A of the report on the Healthy Start consultation exercise. A copy of the report, which summarises the outcome of the consultation, is available in the Library.

  Copies of the 500 individual responses to the consultation, including feedback from the focus groups, can be obtained on request from the Department at healthvstart@doh.gov.uk or from Healthy Start Team, Room 702, Wellington House, 133–155 Waterloo Road, London, SE1 8UG.

  Hormone Replacement Therapy
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent research he has assessed on links between hormone replacement therapy and susceptibility to Alzheimer's; what research is being conducted into this in the UK; and what guidance has been issued to GPs and hospitals prescribing HRT about advising patients of the risks of dementia. [118239]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The main Government agency for research into the causes and treatments of disease is the Medical Research Council (MRC), which receives its funding from the Department of Trade and Industry via the Office for Science and Technology.

  The MRC WISDOM (Women's International Study of Long Duration Oestrogen after Menopause) trial was to assess the balance of risks and benefits of long-term hormone replacement therapy (HRT) on conditions such as heart disease and dementia to allow women and their doctors to make informed choices about treatment. The decision was taken on 23 October 2002 to stop the trial for scientific and practical reasons.

  The Committee on the Safety of Medicines (CSM) considered a pre-publication copy of the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) study (a USA study, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2002, demonstrating that HRT doubled the risk of dementia in women over 65 years) and gave advice that the information confirmed the known risks of long-term HRT. The CSM had issued advice on the safety of HRT in 1997 and did so again in 2002. Product information, including patient information leaflets, gives clear advice on the indications and risks of HRT. In the light of the WHI study, the Department of Health issued an urgent communication to primary care trust chief executives, medical directors of trusts and directors of public health to cascade to general practitioners, alerting them to the study's findings and to deal with queries from women who were concerned about HRT following publicity about the study.

  Hospices
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospice beds have been taken out of service in the last year. [120371]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  We do not hold this information centrally.

  Industrial Disease
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence he has collated on possible links between
  835W
  industrial processes and installations and specific cancers, broken down by (a) cancer type and (b) geographic region; and if he will make a statement. [120630]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  For people occupationally exposed to industrial processes, I am advised by the Health and Safety Executive that the highest profile industrial processes definitively linked to cancer by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, are as follows.

  Industrial process

  Cancer type

  Aluminium Production

  Lung, bladder

  Destructive distillation of coal

  Skin, bladder, respiratory tract

  Iron and steel founding

  Lung

  Boot and shoe manufacture and repair

  Nose

  Furniture and cabinet making

  Nose

  Manufacture of isopropyl alcohol

  Paranasal sinuses

  Production of paint and work as a painter (and decorator)

  Lung cancer

  Manufacture of rubber and rubber compounds

  Bladder

  Manufacture of dyes containing aromatic amines

  Bladder

  Manufacture of mustard gas

  Lung, upper respiratory tract

  In addition, there are many agents and substances that have been proved to cause cancer, irrespective of industrial process. The highest profile of these are:

  Agent or substance

  Cancer type

  Asbestos

  Lung, pleura, peritoneum

  Ionising radiation

  Wide variety including breast, leukaemia, lung, thyroid

  Benzene

  Leukaemia

  Chromium VI compounds

  Lung

  Nickel compounds

  Lung, nose

  Vinyl chloride

  Liver

  Coal tar pitches

  Lung

  Arsenic and arsenical compounds

  Skin, lung

  Ultraviolet radiation

  Skin

  Bischloromethyl ether

  Lung

  Mineral acid mists

  Larynx

  Diesel engine exhaust

  Lung

  Cadmium

  Lung

  There are hundreds of other chemicals and processes for which there is some evidence of a link with cancer, but for which a causal association has not been confirmed.

  The Government have funded a number of studies by the Small Area Health Statistics Unit at Imperial College, London, of cancer rates in people living near industrial installations. Details of the cancers and the geographical regions studied are given in the published reports of these studies, details of which are given.

  Cancer incidence and mortality near the Baglan Bay petrochemical works, South Wales; by S. Sans, P. Elliott, I. Kleinschmidt, G. Shaddick, S. Pattenden, P. Walls, C. Grundy and H. Dolk, published in Occupational and Environmental Medicine (1995), volume 52, pages 217–224.

  Lympho-haematopoeitic malignancy around all industrial complexes that include major oil refineries in Great Britain; by P. Wilkinson, B. Thakrar, P. Walls, M. Landon, S. Falconer, C. Grundy and P. Elliott, published in Occupational and Environmental Medicine (1999), volume 56, pages 577–80.
  836W
  Incidence of cancer of the larynx and lung near incinerators of waste solvents and oils in Great Britain; by P. Elliott, M. Hills, J. Beresford, I. Kleinschmidt, D. Jolley, S. Pattenden, L. Rodrigues, A. Westlake, G. Rose, published in the Lancet (1992), volume 339, pages 854–58.

  Angiosarcoma of the liver in Great Britain in proximity to vinyl chloride sites; by P. Elliott and I. Kleinschmidt, published in "Occupational and Environmental Medicine" (1997), volume 54, pages 14–18.

  Cancer incidence and mortality around the Pan Britannica Industries pesticide factory, Waltham Abbey; by P. Wilkinson, B. Thakrar, G. Shaddick, S. Stevenson, S. Pattenden, M. Landon, C. Grundy and P. Elliott, published in "Occupational and Environmental Medicine" (1997), volume 54, pages 101–107.

  In its third report, the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) recommended an investigation of the geographical distribution of childhood cancer and leukaemia in Great Britain and how the pattern of cases around nuclear installations compares with the national pattern. This study in nearing completion. The database will also allow investigation of other environmental factors and their potential relevance to the temporal and spatial distribution of childhood cancer.

  Medical Negligence
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the total cost was to the NHS of medical negligence in each year since 1997, broken down by Government Office region; and if he will make a statement. [121640]

  Ann Winterton
  The total cost of medical negligence in each year since 1997, as prepared by the National Audit Office and presented in the national health service summarised accounts for England, is shown in the table. This information is not available by Government Office Region.

  £ millions

  In year expenditure

  1996–97

  235

  1997–98

  144

  1998–99

  221

  1999–2000

  373

  2000–01

  415

  2001–02

  446

  Note:

  Changes to accounting policies imposed by the NAO over the years mean that these amounts are not directly comparable.

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent research he has commissioned on possible increased risks of contracting cancer arising from exposure to mobile phones. [118991]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Stewart Report in May 2000 comprehensively reviewed the possible health effects of radio frequency (RF) exposure from the use of mobile phones. The group's website address is www.iegmp.org.uk. Although experimental and
  837W
  epidemiological studies gave no indication of a risk of cancer on the basis of evidence available, the Stewart group noted the limited amount of time that phones had been in use and the need for more research.

  In response to the Stewart recommendations, the LINK Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research (MTHR) Programme was set up with funding from both industry and Government, including the Department of Health. The MTHR website address is www.mthr.org.uk. The programme includes three population (human health) studies that are designed specifically to look for cancer incidence in relation to mobile phone use. Two of these form part of the multinational INTERPHONE study being conducted by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Results from this are expected in 2004 and more information about this study is available on the IARC website at http://www.iarc.fr/paqeroot/UNIT5/RCA4.html

  A recommendation in the Stewart Report was that there should be a further comprehensive review of the science related to possible health effects of exposure to RF radiation within three years. The Government asked for this review to be carried out by the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) and the board of NRPB asked for this to be undertaken by its independent Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation. This review is nearing completion and will be finalised by the end of 2003. It will include a review of the totality of scientific evidence related to concerns about the risk of cancer.

  Out-patient Waiting Times
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average waiting time was for an out-patient appointment in England in the last five quarters for which figures are available. [116791]

  Mr. Hutton
  The table shows information on the average waiting time for a first consultant outpatient appointment from a general practitioner referral.

  Average (median) waiting time for first outpatient appointment

  Year

  Quarter

  Median waiting time (weeks)

  2001–02

  4

  7.58

  2002–03

  1

  7.03

  2002–03

  2

  7.15

  2002–03

  3

  7.22

  2002–03

  4

  7.34

  Source:

  Department of Health form QM08

  Prosthetics
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will relax the three year rule for issue of a CE mark for prosthesis so as to enable amputees to test new products while remaining supported by the NHS; [118455]

  (2) if he will make it his policy to allow an NHS provided and supported socket to be fitted to a J-leg prosthesis that is privately made and not CE marked to allow it to be tested in use by above knee amputees. [118456]
  838W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Medical devices placed onto the United Kingdom market must comply with the provisions of the Medical Devices Regulations 2002 and be CE marked by their manufacturers to demonstrate this compliance. The Regulations impose various obligations upon manufacturers designed to protect patients and users by ensuring that devices are safe and fit for their intended purpose. There is no time limit imposed by the Regulations on when devices can be CE-marked.

  The Regulations allow non-CE-marked devices to be placed on the market in three specific circumstances. These are: where the device is custom-made for an individual patient on the basis of a prescription from a duly qualified medical practitioner; where the device is made available as part of a controlled clinical trial run by the manufacturer to gain evidence to support its eventual CE-marking; and for use for an individual patient where no suitable CE-marked device is available. In these latter two situations, the agreement of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, which is responsible for enforcing the Regulations, must be obtained in advance.

  Regulatory Impact Assessments
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the Department's Regulatory Impact Assessment procedure; and how many RIAs have been reviewed in respect of the Department over the last year. [120841]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  A Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) must be completed for all policy proposals that have a potential impact on businesses, charities or the voluntary sector. It includes details of the arrangements for monitoring and evaluating policy proposals.

  Information on the number of RIAs that have been reviewed in respect of the Department in the last year is not held.

  From this year the National Audit Office (NAO) has a new role in independently evaluating a selection of RIAs. In its Annual Report, published in February 2003, the better regulation task force put forward suggestions of RIAs for the NAO to review.

  The NAO review will focus on the quality of analysis in the RIAs and the thoroughness with which the RIAs have been undertaken. The findings and recommendations of best practice will be fed back to departments. It will play a valuable part in driving up standards of RIAs.

  Waiting Lists/Times
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines the NHS Information Agency issues about the adjustment of waiting time statistics to reflect periods of suspension from a list where a patient indicates that they may be away on holiday. [110954]

  Mr. Hutton
  When a patient is away on holiday and has informed the hospital beforehand, the time the patient is away on holiday counts as a period of
  839W
  suspension for social reasons. A patient cannot be classed as suspended if they have already agreed a date to come in.

  The waiting time is calculated from the decision to admit date to admission date or end of reporting period and any periods of suspension deducted from the total length of wait.

  This guidance on social suspensions pre-dates this Government coming to power in 1997.

  Further information can be found on the NHS Information Authority's website at www.nhsia.nhs.uk/ datastandards/paqes/ddm/index.htm.

  Welfare Foods Scheme
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the administrative costs of the Welfare Foods Scheme; [120259]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the take-up of the Welfare Foods Scheme; [120260]

  (3) what assessment has been made of the likely take-up of schemes to provide Welfare Foods under the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill, Part 5; [120262]

  (4) what assessment has been made of administrative costs of the Welfare Foods Scheme under the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill, Part 5. [120263]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Welfare Food Scheme currently costs £142 million per annum. Administration costs total £17 million, including a £7 million block allocation to the National Health Service.

  An assessment of take-up is provided in Chapter 6 of Report 51: Scientific Review of the Welfare Food Scheme by the Panel on Child and Maternal Nutrition of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition Policy (Ref: DH RSS51, 2002), copies of which are available in the Library.

  Proposals for reform were published for consultation in October 2002 and secured wide support. Details of the reformed scheme will be published by the end of 2003, and draft regulations will be consulted on in 2004.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Benefits
  Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in what circumstances income related benefits are payable to families where one parent is abroad for a period of time. [117839]

  Maria Eagle
  Entitlement will depend on whether a family had an existing claim to benefit when one of the parents went abroad.

  To be entitled to income support a person must live in Great Britain. In some circumstances a person already in receipt of income support who goes abroad for a temporary period may be paid benefit for the first four or eight weeks of their absence from the country depending on the reasons for the absence.
  840W
  If one parent leaves Great Britain temporarily and is absent for more than four or eight weeks but less than 52 weeks the remaining parent can continue to claim income support. The couple will continue to be treated as a couple and the conditions of entitlement must continue to be met by the parent in Great Britain and the parent absent from the UK. The parent remaining in Great Britain is paid as a lone parent and receives any relevant premiums. If the parent absent from the UK has a change of circumstances this must be reported and might affect the claim to income support.

  If the family was not claiming income support prior to the absence of one parent the remaining parent can make a claim to income support. The remaining parent would have to satisfy the conditions of entitlement and if other parent's absence was temporary they would still be classed as a couple so the remaining parent would not be treated as a lone parent.

  Full details of the rules applying to absences abroad are contained in the Decision Makers Guide, Volume 2, paragraphs 071940–071948 and Volume 4, paragraphs 24548–24561, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much(a) an asylum seeking couple with two children and (b) a couple with two children in receipt of income support and the new child tax credit receive in total each week in state benefits. [117968]

  Maria Eagle
  Since 3 April 2000, asylum seekers cannot claim social security benefits but instead receive accommodation and a cash allowance from the Home Office's National Asylum Support Service (NASS). The cash allowance is the equivalent of up to 70 per cent. of the income support personal allowance.

  The exact amount a couple with two children would receive under the NASS scheme or income support will depend on the particular circumstances of each case. However, the basic rates of payment are as follows.

  An asylum seeking couple with two children would be entitled to £137.03 a week under the NASS scheme. They may also receive an additional payment of £50 per person for every six months for which they remain eligible for support. Those families in NASS accommodation have their accommodation and services provided for. They also receive certain travel costs associated with their asylum claim.

  A couple who are not claiming asylum, both aged over 18, with two children aged under 16, would be entitlement to £178.50 income support per week. They could also receive housing benefit and council tax benefit. From 6 April 2003 to 5 April -2004, child tax credit will be taken into account on a pound-for-pound basis when assessing entitlement to income support.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people are in receipt of(a) jobseeker's allowance and (b) income support in Scotland, broken down by local authority. [120132]

  Maria Eagle
  The information has been placed in the Library.
  841W
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what measures have been taken to reduce cases of overpayment of benefits; what action is taken when a recipient of benefits is overpaid; and how long after a recipient has been overpaid the Department will continue to seek a return of money; [119608]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the financial problems experienced by recipients of benefits overpayments when they have benefits reduced at a later date to compensate for overpayment; and how this can be limited; [119609]

  (3) what action can be taken by persons who have been repeatedly overpaid benefits that face financial and emotional stresses as a result of having to repay monies; and if compensation will be paid to them for mistakes made by the Department. [119610]

  Maria Eagle
  We are making great efforts to reduce overpayments by ensuring that the right benefit is paid to the right person right from the start. Latest figures show that we have reduced the level of error and fraud in income support and jobseeker's allowance by 24 per cent. since 1998.

  An overpayment of benefit may be recoverable if it is decided that it has been caused by misrepresentation or failure to disclose a material fact by a benefit recipient. Recovery may also be sought if the overpayment has been caused by the error or omission of an official, but only where it is considered reasonable to assume that the recipient should have realised that they had been overpaid.

  The Department can recover the overpayment from on-going benefit in cases of misrepresentation or failure to disclose a material fact by the benefit recipient. Where benefit is no longer in payment or the overpayment is a result of official error, the customer will be invited to repay the amount overpaid. Failure to do so may result in the Department seeking recovery through civil action. If a benefit recipient states that recovery of an overpayment from their benefit would cause hardship, officials will consider on a case-by-case basis whether the customer's weekly outgoings merit recovery at a reduced rate.

  There is no time limit for the recovery of overpayments by deductions from benefit. Where recovery is through court action, there are time limits of 20 years from the date of the overpayment decision in Scotland, and six years from the last contact with the customer in England and Wales.

  Under the terms of the Department's scheme for financial redress for maladministration, a consolatory payment may be made to compensate a customer who suffers gross inconvenience or severe distress as a result of official errors. Details of the Department's scheme can be found in the guide, "Financial Redress for Maladministration" (Revised April 2003), a copy of which is in the Library. It is also available in every DWP office for the general public to read upon request and in the Publications section of the DWP internet site at: http://www.dwp.gov.uk

  Child Support
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the use of the appeals process by people to delay payments required of them by the Child Support Agency. [119523]

  Maria Eagle
  A non-resident parent's liability to pay maintenance is not affected by an outstanding appeal. Action to collect existing liability will normally continue pending the outcome of an appeal.

  Councillors' Expenses
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what impact receiving expenses has on a councillor's application for income support; and if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on local councillors' expenses. [116068]

  Maria Eagle
  A local authority councillors' work is not treated as remunerative work for assessment purposes. However, councillors' allowances and expenses may be taken into account as income, thus reducing the amount of benefit they may receive.

  When assessing a claim for income support, any allowances paid for necessary expenses are not treated as income and are disregarded. Any allowances paid for a councillor's time are regarded as income, and are taken into account after applying appropriate disregards.

  Councillors are entitled to some allowances whether they are claimed or not. If a councillor has not claimed an allowance they could expect to receive, it is treated as notional income and taken into account as if it had actually been paid.

  Further details on the treatment of local councillors' earnings can be found in the "Decision Makers Guide", Volume 3 (paragraph 15096); Volume 4 (paragraph 20485); and Volume 5 (paragraph 26066), which is available in the Library.

  Job Retention and Rehabilitation Pilot
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people are involved, and what conclusions have been reached in the Job Retention and Rehabilitation pilots. [116253]

  Mr. Browne
  The Job Retention and Rehabilitation Pilot is a research project that aims to test the effectiveness of three different ways of helping people to get back to, and remain in, work. The pilot is open to employed and self-employed volunteers who have been off work for at least six weeks but no longer than 26 weeks.

  As the pilot went live on 1 April this year, it is too early to draw any conclusions at this stage.

  National Savings
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether pensions and benefits can be paid directly into National Savings accounts. [121273]
  843W
  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 23 June 2003]: There are three types of National Savings accounts: Investment, Ordinary and Individual Savings Account. Of these, only the Investment Account can accept direct payment of pensions and benefits.

  Pension Credit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will write to men aged 60 to 64 as part of his campaign to inform them of possible entitlement to the pension credit. [121126]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Pension Service has begun to write to potentially eligible households to explain pension credit and to invite applications. Men aged 60 to 64 are included in this process.

  Pension Service
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on levels of staff turnover in the Pension Service. [121500]

  Malcolm Wicks
  In the year to April 2003, 823 staff left The Pension Service. This equates to 6.1 per cent. turnover.

  The level of leavers is considered relatively low when taking into account that The Pension Service is comparatively a new organisation, where 3,750 staff were recruited externally in the past year.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the incidence of stress-related illness among Pension Service staff. [121501]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information requested is not available. We are currently developing existing staff guidance to further improve staff awareness of occupational stress and how this may be prevented and managed.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Explosive Device (Londonderry)
  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the recent interception by the Police Service of Northern Ireland of an explosive device in Londonderry. [120570]

  Jane Kennedy
  I congratulate the police on their interception of the bomb in Londonderry last weekend. Their alertness and quick actions prevented serious injury or loss of life. I utterly condemn this attempt by dissidents to derail the political process through violence and terror.

  Decommissioning
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the extent of verifiable decommissioning of illegally held weapons and explosives in Northern Ireland. [120571]

  Jane Kennedy
  There have been three acts of decommissioning to date; one by the Loyalist Volunteer Force and two by the Provisional IRA. Each has been 844W
  verified by the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning in accordance with the Government's scheme and regulations.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent progress has been made on decommissioning. [120573]

  Jane Kennedy
  To date there have been three acts of decommissioning carried out by paramilitary organisations, one by the Loyalist Volunteer Force and two by the Provisional IRA. In 2002 the UVF, UDA and Provisional IRA broke off contact with the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning. However, in 2003 the Provisional IRA resumed contact and the Loyalist Commission, along with the UDA representatives, met the IICD. The Prime Minister stated clearly in his speech on 1 May 2003 that an undertaking is needed that all arms will be put beyond use through the IICD.

  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Good Friday agreement in achieving the decommissioning of paramilitary weapons. [120574]

  Jane Kennedy
  It is important that we do not lose sight of the fact that two acts of decommissioning by the Provisional IRA and one by the Loyalist Volunteer Force have taken place since the Agreement. That was the start of a process that must continue until all the apparatus of terrorism, in all its forms, is dismantled. The Prime Minister stated clearly in his speech on 1 May 2003 that an undertaking is needed that all arms will be put beyond use through the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning.

  Republican Terrorism
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent assessment he has made of terrorist activity by republican organisations. [120572]

  Jane Kennedy
  Despite the recent activity by dissidents, our overall judgment is that the ceasefire of the IRA remains in place. It is time for republicanism to complete that final, unambiguous transition to democratic politics.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the overlap between membership of the IRA and other republican terrorist organisations. [120577]

  Jane Kennedy
  I cannot comment on matters of national security and intelligence.

  Good Friday Agreement
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what further progress has been made towards the restoration of the political institutions and the implementation of outstanding elements of the Good Friday agreement. [120575]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer).

  Ceasefire Monitoring Body
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress in appointing the members of the ceasefire monitoring body. [120576]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Both we and the Irish Government are clear that the Independent Monitoring Body is a central aspect of our proposals to bring about the restoration of trust and confidence in Northern Ireland. We hope to make swift progress on its establishment, including the appointment of its membership.

  Agriculture
  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the prospects for the agriculture industry in Northern Ireland. [120578]

  Mr. Pearson
  The Government are negotiating hard for a comprehensive reform of the EU Common Agricultural Policy which will put the agricultural industry on a sustainable footing, economically, socially and environmentally. It is implementing a comprehensive range of measures arising out of the Vision exercise to help the Northern Ireland industry and will be providing an additional £33 million over the next three years in support of these initiatives. It is also moving forward on an animal health strategy to help underpin the future viability of the livestock sector and is engaging in an ambitious modernisation agenda within the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture and Rural Development to ensure that its structures and services are best positioned to help the industry move forward.

  Organised Crime
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on measures to tackle organised crime in Northern Ireland. [120579]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Government are leading the fight against organised crime in Northern Ireland through the work of the Organised Crime Task Force which brings the various responsible agencies together to set the strategic priorities for concerted multi agency action.

  The multi agency approach has made a significant impact and as a result of law enforcement activity 75 networks were disrupted or dismantled during the past year.

  South Strand
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in the South Strand area. [120580]

  Jane Kennedy
  The interfaces between protestant and catholic communities have been quiet, although tension continues and the potential for conflict simmers under the surface. The additional physical security measures, identified following the sustained violence last summer, have now been completed. In addition, five new CCTV 846W
  cameras have been erected at interface locations. These measures have provided some reassurance to the beleaguered communities and aided policing in the area.

  Acute Hospitals
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to ensure that the Health Service in Northern Ireland has sufficient resources to meet demand at each of the acute hospitals in Northern Ireland. [121057]

  Angela Smith
  The overall level of resources for the Health and Personal Social Services (HPSS) is planned as part of the annual Budget process. Following the last Budget, the HPSS baseline was set at £3,033.3 million for 2003–04—an exceptional increase of some 15 per cent. on the previous year. The bulk of this money is allocated to the four area Boards, who are responsible for funding individual Trusts for the hospital and other services that they provide to the local population.

  Asylum Seekers
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) successful and (b) unsuccessful applications for asylum there were in Northern Ireland in 2002; and how many of those unsuccessful applicants have left the country. [120891]

  Beverley Hughes
  I have been asked to reply.

  Information on asylum applications in Northern Ireland is unavailable. Asylum applications data are not available at regional level except by port of application. Information on initial decision outcomes, appeals outcomes, and removals relates to the UK as a whole and is not available by region of application and therefore the requested information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost by examination of individual case records. Information on the numbers of failed asylum seekers who have left Northern Ireland is not available, because some individuals leave the UK without informing the Immigration Service.

  Disabled Children (North Antrim)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what respite care facilities are available to support children with disabilities within the East Antrim constituency. [120945]

  Angela Smith
  A range of respite services to support children with disabilities in the East Antrim area are available, including Whitehaven Respite Unit, Whitehead, the Challenge Unit, Ballymena and a family based respite scheme in Carrickfergus/Newtownabbey.

  The development of respite care services is included in the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety's Priorities for Action 2003–04. Additional funding has been allocated for this purpose.

  Flooding Assessment Report (Carrickfergus and Newtonabbey)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the recommendations from the
  847W
  WS Atkins Flooding Assessment Report, covering areas of Carrickfergus and Newtownabbey, will be published. [120944]

  Mr. Pearson
  I am pleased to confirm that the preliminary Flooding Assessment Report, sponsored jointly by DARD Rivers Agency and DRD Roads and Water Services, is now complete. Officials from each Agency are prepared to discuss the recommendations with interested organisations and Rivers Agency has already written to Carrickfergus and Newtownabbey borough councils offering to give a joint presentation on the Report and the way forward.

  General Practitioners
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many trained general practitioners have provided locum cover in primary care in the past 12 months in Northern Ireland. [120981]

  Angela Smith
  Information is not held centrally on the number of general practitioners who have provided locum cover in primary care. There are currently approximately 160 trained GPs available to provide locum cover.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland pursuant to his answer of 9 June 2003,Official Report, column 698W, on GPs, how many vacancies exist among the permanent general practice posts; and how many have required locum cover for more than six weeks in the past 12 months. [121008]

  Angela Smith
  The Department does not hold information on vacancies in multi-handed GP practices.

  In the case of a vacancy in a single-handed GP practice the relevant Health and Social Services Board would be responsible for the arrangement of locum cover until a replacement is appointed. In the last 12 months there has been one such case, which lasted more than six weeks.

  Selection of a doctor for partnership in a multi-handed GP Practice is a matter for that practice and information about locum cover for such posts is not held centrally.

  Historic Buildings
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in the second survey of historic buildings in Northern Ireland; how many properties have been delisted through the survey; and how many have been added to the listed stock. [120645]

  Angela Smith
  Since the Second Survey began in 1997, 98 electoral wards in Northern Ireland have been surveyed by contractors working on behalf of the Environment and Heritage Service (EHS) of the Department of the Environment. The findings in respect of 58 of these wards have been processed by EHS to date, resulting in 157 delistings and 91 new listings.

  Further information on the results of the Second Survey is available on the EHS website (www.ehsni.gov.uk)

  Hospital Beds
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many acute hospital beds there were in Northern Ireland on 1 January(a) 1983, (b) 1993, (c) 2002 and (d) 2003. [120972]

  Angela Smith
  The average numbers of available acute hospital beds are provided in the table.

  Average number of acute beds

  1983

  7,404.3

  1993

  5,218.2

  2002

  4,292.6

  2003

  4,351.0

  Notes:

  1. Figures for 1983 are the average number available across the year.

  2. Figures for 1993, 2002 and 2003 are the average number available in the quarter from 1 January to 31 March.

  3. Figures for 2003 are provisional.

  4. Figures on the average number of available beds along with other information on hospital activity in Northern Ireland are published each September in the Department's annual Hospital Statistics publication. This is available in the House of Commons Library and from the Department's website: http://www. dhsspsni.gov.uk/stats&research/order.html

  The decrease in the average number of acute beds reflects the greater number of procedures undertaken as day cases, higher occupancy rates and a reduction in the average length of stay.

  The average number of available beds refers only to those in wards which are open overnight, measured at midnight. Hospitals may also have a number of beds in wards which are only open during the day. Beds reserved for day care admission or regular day admission are not included.

  The figures for 1983 may not be entirely consistent with those for later years as the descriptions of the specialties that make up the acute programme of care have changed.

  Hospital Treatment
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what his policy is on the treatment of NHS patients from Northern Ireland in the Republic of Ireland. [121928]

  Angela Smith
  I am happy, in principle, to draw on hospital services available in the Republic of Ireland and elsewhere in the interests of patients. The health and social services already make very good use of services in Dublin, Glasgow, London, and other centres, as part of the overall services available to patients. In doing so, of course, there is the issue of how that impacts on the overall financial resources available to services here. There needs to be an appropriate balance to ensure that services which people need are accessible and readily available.

  Irish-medium Schools
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many children attend Northern Ireland's Irish medium schools; how many attended in each of the
  849W
  last five years; and what the estimated number of children expected to attend is for each of the next ten years, including annual percentage changes. [120941]

  Jane Kennedy
  Information on the number of children expected to attend Irish Medium schools in the next 10 years is not available. Information for this year and the past five years is as follows:

  Number

  Change from previous year (%)

  1997–98

  1,375

  +18.7

  1998–99

  1,512

  +9.6

  1999–2000

  1,657

  +9.6

  2000–01

  1,846

  +11.4

  2001–02

  1,971

  +6.8

  2002–03

  2,019

  +2.4

  Nuts
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to ban the sale of products containing nuts in hospitals in Northern Ireland. [120893]

  Angela Smith
  The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has no formal policy about the sale of nuts within the hospital environment. I have no plans at present, therefore, to ban the sale of nuts in hospitals here.

  Police Ombudsman
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many complaints have been made against the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland's investigators; what the nature of each complaint was; and what action has been taken in respect of each complaint. [120365]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Police Ombudsman has advised that, to date, 22 formal complaints have been made against her investigators, three from members of the public and 19 from police officers. It is not the policy for the Police Ombudsman to comment on the details of each complaint. However complaints concern issues such as: the length and nature of the investigation process, the outcome of the process not meeting expectations, and other administrative issues. The action taken in response to a complaint can range from amendments to procedures, through to disciplinary action against staff under the Police Ombudsman's internal disciplinary policy.

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many staff of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland have been dismissed; and what the reasons were. [120366]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Police Ombudsman has advised that, to date, two members of staff have been dismissed following internal disciplinary investigations. Due to legal and confidential reasons, the Police Ombudsman does not comment on the specific details of each case.

  Primary and Post-primary Education
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many teachers are expected to be employed 850W
  in (a) primary and (b) post-primary schools in Northern Ireland in each of the next 10 years, including annual percentage changes in each school sector. [120942]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Department does not project pupil teacher ratios. Accordingly figures on the number of teachers expected to be employed in each of the next 10 years are not available.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many children are expected to attend(a) primary and (b) post-primary schools in Northern Ireland for each of the next 10 years, including annual percentage changes in each school sector. [120949]

  Jane Kennedy
  Projected figures are available only up to 2008–09. These are as follows:

  Post-primary schools

  Primary schools

  Grammar

  Secondary

  2003–04

  171,500

  63,000

  89,900

  Change1

  -1.5

  -0.2

  -3.0

  2004–05

  169,100

  63,000

  87,600

  Change1

  -1.4

  0

  -2.6

  2005–06

  166,400

  63,000

  85,600

  Change1

  -1.6

  0

  -2.3

  2006–07

  163,000

  62,900

  83,500

  Change1

  -1.6

  -0.2

  -2.5

  2007–08

  161,500

  63,000

  81,000

  Change1

  -1.4

  0.2

  -3

  2008–09

  158,200

  63,000

  79,700

  Change1

  -2

  0

  -1.6

  1 Percentage from previous year

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for what reason parents are not represented on the Costello working group on post-primary education; and if he will make a statement. [120946]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Department of Education gathered parents' views on the Burns' Report through response forms issued to every household in Northern Ireland and further consulted parents on the way forward through a series of focus groups. The clear message from the focus groups was that parents were satisfied that extensive consultation had taken place and the Department should proceed with developing proposals based on the emerging consensus. The Working Group comprises the main representative organisations and managing authorities that will be responsible for developing and implementing future arrangements and has been charged with taking account of the responses to the consultation on the Burns' Report and providing advice on options for future arrangements for post-primary education, with disabilities.

  School Buses
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he is taking to tackle overcrowding on school buses in Northern Ireland; and what plans he has to make the wearing of seatbelts compulsory on these buses. [120904]

  Jane Kennedy
  Safety issues relating to school buses were the subject of an extensive inquiry instigated by the Northern Ireland Assembly's Environment Committee. The Department of the Environment is at present engaged in the early stages of a Regulatory Impact
  851W
  Assessment on the recommendations made by the Committee, including the wearing of seatbelts and issues related to overcrowding. The way forward will be considered in light of the findings arising from this exercise.

  Water Fluoridation
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the use of fluoride in the water supply in Northern Ireland; and what plans he has to extend such use. [121084]

  Angela Smith
  Fluoridation is recognised as a safe and effective means of preventing dental decay. Under the Water (Fluoridation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, Health and Social Services Boards can decide whether or not to apply to the Department of Regional Development for the introduction of fluoridation schemes following local consultation and approval from the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. There are, however, no schemes here at present and I am not aware of current plans in any Board area to apply for a scheme.

  Water Meters
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money was raised in the last financial year in Northern Ireland through water meters. [120622]

  Mr. Spellar
  £32.8 million.

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the estimated cost is of installing water meters into each residential home in Northern Ireland; and how long it would take. [120623]

  Mr. Spellar
  It is estimated that it would cost in the region of £120 million, and take at least some five to 10 years, to install water meters in all domestic properties in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) residential properties and (b) commercial properties have water meters installed in Northern Ireland. [120624]

  Mr. Spellar
  The information requested is as follows.

  (a) Residential properties

  Water meters are not installed in properties in Northern Ireland, which are used exclusively for domestic purposes. However around 32,000 properties, which have a mixture of domestic and business use, are metered.

  (b) Commercial properties

  Around 72,000T properties are metered in Northern Ireland. Almost 7,300 of these would be classified as commercial. The remainder are mainly agricultural, industrial, and public sector.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Audit Commission
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, how many conferences were organised by the Audit Commission in each of the last five years; and what the cost of each was. [113554]
  852W
  Yvette Cooper
  The information requested is tabled as follows:

  Number of conferences held by the Commission

  Total net cost of conferences (at constant 2001–02 prices) (£)

  Average cost of each conference (£)

  1997–98

  21

  171,800

  8,180

  1998–99

  22

  184,300

  8,380

  1999–2000

  50

  269,100

  5,380

  2000–01

  22

  94,100

  4,280

  2001–02

  23

  137,000

  5,960

  The majority of conferences arranged by the Audit Commission are self-financed from fees paid by delegates. The Commission also however arranges a number of free conferences and seminars with the aim of disseminating the findings of their work to target audiences or to consult relevant stakeholders.

  Charter Flights (Ministers)
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister on how many occasions aircraft have been chartered for(a) himself and (b) other Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Ministers; when each charter took place; what the cost was; and what aircraft was used in each case. [113568]

  Yvette Cooper
  A helicopter was chartered for my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister to view the Thames Gateway on 16 January 2003 at a cost of £4,658.63. He was accompanied by Sir Sandy Brace Lockhart, leader of Kent county council.

  A helicopter was also chartered for my right hon. Friend, Lord Rooker to view the Thames Gateway on 23 September 2002. He was accompanied by David Watts, Director of Technical Services at Southend on Sea borough council. On this occasion, Southend-on-Sea borough council met the cost.

  Use of a helicopter was considered to be the only viable way of viewing the complete Thames Gateway in order to get an idea of the scale of the potential development.

  Departmental Website
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much it cost to develop the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Best Value Performance Indicators website. [115489]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Best Value Performance Indicators website (www.bvpi.gov.uk) puts a wide range of information into the public domain and demonstrates our commitment to facilitating better public understanding of local service delivery. The information it holds includes Best Value Performance Indicator data for 2000–01 and 2001–02, Comprehensive Performance Assessment scores for upper-tier authorities, data from the Index of Multiple Deprivation, and details of authorities that have been designated as Neighbourhood Renewal Fund areas. There is a statutory requirement on local authorities to publish their BVPI data and the website brings this information together into one easily accessible place. The data can be analysed interactively
  853W
  enabling users, including local authorities and the general public, to compare performance between authorities and over a period of time. On average, the website receives over 130,000 hits per month.

  The contract to develop the Best Value Performance Indicators website in its current format was awarded in November 2001 following a competitive tender and amounted to £62,450.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what targets his Department has for improving energy efficiency; and how he intends to achieve these targets. [116642]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has adopted the cross government interim target of 1 per cent. per annum reduction in (weather-corrected) CO2 emissions from its estate, relative to the base-year 1999–2000. The Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs will agree new targets for 2010, based on benchmarking the performance of individual buildings where possible by the end of the year.

  This approach should provide central and local energy managers with an effective management tool to identify the best opportunities for efficiency improvements. Detailed measures will be a matter for individual circumstances.

  Government Agencies
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his policy on the role of devolving Government agencies to the regions as a tool of regeneration. [120739]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Government recognise that decisions made at the regional level can take better account of the unique opportunities and challenges faced by an individual region. This can lead to improvements both for the region in question and the country as a whole.

  The Government have already begun to implement its strategy of decentralisation, strengthening the regional tier to provide the catalysts for growth in every region. In particular:

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has created eight Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) and the London Development Agency to promote economic development and regeneration in the regions. The RDAs have significant powers, funding and flexibility to allow them to develop and deliver tailored economic strategies to secure better and more sustainable economic performance and regeneration for their region;

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has encouraged and facilitated the creation of voluntary, multi-party regional chambers in all of the English regions (outside London), made up of local authority and other stakeholder representatives, to contribute to regional economic strategies and scrutinise their delivery. All eight chambers will take on the role of the regional planning body for their region, ensuring closer integration with other regional strategies, in particular the regional economic strategy;
  854W
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has improved the delivery of central Government activity in the English regions by bringing more responsibilities into the ambit of the Government Offices for the Regions, and by strengthening the capacity of these offices;

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has strengthened the role of local authorities, for example, through the introduction of Business Planning Zones, and more generally, through the Government's localism agenda;

  A Rural Affairs Forum, supported by eight regional forums, has been formed to bring together rural stakeholders to contribute to the development of rural policies at national level;

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has recently announced that regional housing boards will be established in England, involving key stakeholders in the region;

  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced on 16 June 2003 that the North East, North West and Yorkshire and the Humber would proceed towards referendums for elected assemblies. Assemblies will have powers to make a difference in key areas such as jobs, planning, housing, transport, culture and environment. Their block grant will give them freedom to allocate spending according to regional priorities. Regional Development Agencies will be accountable to their elected assemblies;

  In his 2003 Budget speech, the Chancellor asked Sir Michael Lyons, Professor of Public Policy at Birmingham University, to make recommendations for the relocation of civil service and other public sector workers in the light of the need to improve delivery and efficiency of public services, and the regional balance of economic activity. This review will take account of updated Government departmental pay and work force strategies. Sir Michael Lyons will make his recommendations by the end of the year, in time to inform the next Spending Review. These actions will strengthen the building blocks for economic growth and regeneration in all regions and give the regions powers to address their particular needs.

  Local Elections
  Jeff Ennis
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many candidates stood for election in the recent local parish and town council election; and how many candidates stood in the 1999 election. [121054]

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

  Local Government Funding
  Valerie Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what the Government's policy is on ring-fenced funding for local government; [121107]

  (2) what target he has for reducing the amount of local government funding which is ring-fenced. [121108]
  855W
  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government's policy on ring-fencing of grant to local authorities was set out in the White Paper, Strong Local Leadership—Quality Public Services of December 2001 (Ref: CM5237). While recognising that ring-fencing can be an important tool for bringing about change, we are aware that a proliferation of ring-fenced grants erodes local discretion and diverts resources on bureaucracy. So our policy is to reduce the total of ring-fenced grants.

  In the 'Freedoms and Flexibilities' paper of 26 November 2002 we made it clear that for revenue funding councils awarded 'excellent' and for capital funding councils awarded 'excellent' or 'good' would receive all funding as unfenced grants, except for those grants passported to schools.

  On current plans, revenue ring-fencing will be less than 10 per cent. by the financial year 2005–06. For capital funding, the target is to increase the level of resources funded through the unfenced Single Capital Pot to two thirds of relevant finance.

  Pay Audits
  Angela Eagle
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what progress has been made on completing a pay audit in his Department and its non-departmental public bodies to measure any disadvantage in terms of remuneration for(a) women, (h) ethnic minorities and (c) people with disabilities; and if he will publish the results of such an audit. [117444]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and its agencies have completed the review of their pay systems encompassing women, ethnic minorities and people with disabilities. Action plans for each have been produced. These will be placed in the Library of the House in due course after full consideration has been given to the issues identified.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's non-departmental public bodies have carried out reviews as a matter of good practice. Summaries of the main findings of these will be published after consideration has been given to any issues identified.

  Poulton
  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much Government funding has been allocated via the Neighbourhood Management Pathfinder Scheme to the Poulton ward in Morecambe. [120457]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Poulton Neighbourhood Management Pathfinder received funding of £134,186 in 2001–02 and of £518,926 in 2002–03. It has authorisation to spend up to a maximum of £614,154 in 2003–04. Under the provisions of SR2002, the Pathfinder has an overall maximum funding level of £2.lmillion for the period 2002–05. Subject to the provisions of SR 2004 and 2006, the Pathfinder will be eligible to further funding up to a maximum of £1.4 million in the period 2005–09.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps the Department has taken to publicise its Public Service Agreement targets; and at what cost to public funds. [114457]
  856W
  Yvette Cooper
  Information on Public Service Agreement targets is published on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's website and included in routine publications such as our Annual Report and Autumn Performance Report, which involves no significant extra cost.

  Regional Assemblies
  Andrew George
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what support he received from respondents to the soundings exercise from or about Cornwall and Scilly(a) in favour of a South West Assembly and (b) in favour of a Cornish Assembly. [121485]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The soundings exercise was to establish information, evidence and views on interest in a referendum about whether to establish an elected regional assembly on existing Government Office boundaries. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has only recorded information relevant to those questions and so did not record views for or against any assembly.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister in what circumstances and at what stage he plans to review the boundaries of the current Government-defined regions for the purpose of future discussions about directly elected Regional Assemblies. [121486]

  Mr. Raynsford
  As made clear in the White Paper, "Your Region, Your Choice", the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has not ruled out in the longer term the possibility of adopting boundaries for regional assemblies that do not follow the existing boundaries. However we have no plans to amend boundaries in the short to medium term. Referendums on elected regional assemblies in the North East, North West and Yorkshire and the Humber regions will be based on Existing Government Office Regions. Any future proposals to change regional boundaries would follow the existing mechanism for changing Regional Development Agency (RDA) boundaries and would be the subject of legislative procedure in the Bill to establish elected assemblies. We will introduce a Bill when at least one region has voted to establish an assembly and parliamentary time allows.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister with reference to each consultation his Department has had on Government policy to create regional assemblies, how many, responses from or about Cornwall and Scilly he has received(a) in total, (b) which support the option of a referendum on a Cornish Assembly, (c) which support a proposition for a Cornish Assembly, (d) which support the option of having a referendum on a South West Assembly, (e) which support a South West Assembly, (f) which oppose any referendum and (g) which oppose the creation of any directly planned assembly. [121487]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Not all of the information requested is available. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister received 130 written and e-mailed responses to the White Paper, "Your Region, Your Choice" that expressed an opinion on a Cornish Assembly. Of these, 122 supported either a Cornish Assembly or a referendum for a Cornish Assembly, while eight opposed any form of Cornish Assembly. We also
  857W
  received 1,636 postcards in support of the Cornish Constitutional campaign for a referendum on a Cornish Assembly.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister received 187 relevant responses to the soundings exercise to determine the level of interest in a referendum on establishing an elected regional assembly from individuals and organisations that identified themselves as coming from Cornwall or Scilly. Of these, 55 supported a referendum on an elected South West Assembly, and 129 opposed such a referendum. 335 preprinted responses that called for a referendum on a Cornish Assembly were received.

  Regulatory Bodies
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the(a) number of staff employed by and (b) budget of each regulatory body for which his Department is responsible in each year since 1997. [117789]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister sponsors two executive non-departmental public bodies that have regulatory functions—the Audit Commission and the Housing Corporation.

  The annual accounts for both the Audit Commission and the Housing Corporation, which include information on the number of staff employed, for each year since 1997 are available in the Library of the House.

  Right to Buy
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what criteria were used to decide which local authorities in the South East Region could temporarily suspend the Right to Buy; and which have been granted this power. [120320]

  Keith Hill
  There has been no suspension of the Right to Buy in any area, but nine local areas in the South East Region were included in the Housing (Right to Buy) (Limits on Discount) (Amendment) Order 2003—Statutory Instrument 2003 No. 498—which came into effect on 27 March 2003. These areas were

  Chiltern;

  Epsom and Ewell;

  Hart;

  Oxford;

  Reading;

  Reigate and Banstead;

  Tonbridge and Mailing;

  Vale of White Horse;

  and West Berkshire.

  The Order lowered the maximum Right to Buy discount available to tenants from £38,000 to £16,000 in 41 areas under the greatest housing market pressure as evidenced by high levels of homelessness and high local house prices. This was determined on the basis of two measures:
  homelessness—reflecting high demand for social housing. Using information provided by local authorities themselves in their regular Housing Investment Programme returns, the
  858W
  number of homeless households in temporary accommodation was compared with the number of local authority lettings and nominations to Registered Social Landlord dwellings given to households who were not homeless. A high value for this ratio indicates high homelessness and/or a low number of available lettings; and
  house prices—reflecting the demand for private housing and affordability. The Land Registry lower quartile house price for the third quarter of 2002 was used, to indicate likely availability for first time buyers.

  The model was rerun subsequently to take into account local earnings information. The effect was marginal and insufficient to justify further changes.

  Social Exclusion and Urban Policy Units
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, how many conferences have been organised by the(a) Social Exclusion Unit and (b) Urban Policy Unit in each year since each was established; and what the cost of each was.[113552]

  Yvette Cooper
  The number and cost of conferences organised by the Social Exclusion Unit are as follows:

  Number of events

  Cost (£)

  2000

  36

  154,815

  2001

  10

  20,678

  2002

  1

  1,000

  2003

  3

  17,500

  The number and cost of conferences organised by the Urban Policy Unit are as follows:

  Number of events

  Cost (£)

  2000

  10

  32,337

  2001

  10

  24,604

  2002

  4

  1472,832

  1 Includes an estimated £450,000 net cost for Urban Summit— attended by over 1,600 delegates—after taking account of income from ticket sales, sponsorship and exhibition sales. This includes the cost of the contractors, consultants and agency staff recruited to work on Summit organisation. Urban Summit accounts are currently being finalised.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many publications have been issued by the(a) Social Exclusion Unit and (b) Urban Policy Unit in each year since establishment; and what the cost was of each. [113559]

  Yvette Cooper
  The information requested on the number and cost of publications issued by the Social Exclusion Unit and Urban Policy Units are tabled as follows:

  Social exclusion unit

  Number ofs publications

  Cost (£)

  1998

  3

  55,412

  1999

  1

  48,169

  2000

  10

  242,512

  2001

  6

  243,288

  2002

  8

  234,240

  2003

  3

  102,562

  859W

  Urban policy unit

  Number of publications

  Cost (£)

  2000–01

  9

  92,307

  2001–02

  8

  19,172

  2002–03

  31

  105,589

  2003–04

  2

  2,915

  Timber
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether his Department's procurement policy includes timber used on and in the construction of departmental building projects; and if he will make a statement. [116849]

  Yvette Cooper
  It is the policy of the Office of Deputy Prime Minister to purchase only timber and timber products from sustainable and legal sources. This policy is in line with commitment made by the UK Government and is as set down in the departmental Greening Operations Policy Statement, published in October 2002.

  This policy is applied to construction projects by including a Model Contract Specification Clause for timber procurement within the works specification.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Inquests (Prescribed Drugs)
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will broaden the remit of inquests so that coroners can take into account the influence of prescribed drugs in suicide. [119776]

  Paul Goggins
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Courts have confirmed that, under the current law, the purpose of an inquest is to ascertain how the deceased came by a violent or unnatural death. It is a matter for the coroner to decide on the scope of the investigation but in most cases coroners will take evidence of what drugs were prescribed and commission tests for the presence of drugs which may have been a factor in a death apparently due to self harm.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Court Dress
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs, what plans he has to review court dress; and if he will make a statement. [120008]

  Mr. Leslie
  The consultation paper "Court Working Dress in England and Wales", published on 8 May 2003, is due to close on 14 August 2003. In its foreword Lord Irvine of Lairg wrote:"I hope this consultation exercise will encourage as high a response rate from members of the public as from legal professionals. I want to establish the extent to which court working dress impacts on public confidence, on court users and on the wider public esteem in which our courts are held, either positively or otherwise."
  860W
  The paper is available on the official website of the Department for Constitutional Affairs.

  I am arranging for a copy of the paper to be sent to the hon. Member.

  Immigration Appeals
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will place in the Library a copy of the guidance issued on 1 October 2001 to immigration adjudicators by the Chief Adjudicator in relation to the proper determination of paper-only appeals. [120598]

  Mr. Lammy
  A copy of the relevant Chief Adjudicator's guidance note of 1 October 2001 to immigration adjudicators has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what plans he has to provide feedback from adjudicators to entry clearance officers on the quality of decision-making in relation to family visit visa applications. [120600]

  Mr. Lammy
  It is not the role of independent judicial officers to provide feedback to entry clearance officers on the quality of decision-making. Decision makers receive a copy of the adjudicator's determination in every case and it is for the entry clearance managers to address any issues of concern over the quality of decision making. If adjudicators identify a matter giving rise to a more general concern then the Chief Adjudicator may write to the head of UK Visas to address that specific issue.

  Immigration Appellate Authority
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will take steps to establish regular meetings between the Immigration Appellate Authority and UK visas to provide a forum for discussions. [120601]

  Mr. Lammy
  Representatives from UK Visas and the Immigration Appellate Authority (IAA) attend the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) managed migration sub-programme board. This board oversees delivery of the IND plans for managed migration and already provides both UK Visas and the IAA with a regular forum for discussions.

  Judicial Appointments Commission
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs, whether the Judicial Appointments Commission will fix judicial salaries. [120248]

  Mr. Leslie
  Judicial salaries are determined by Government in the light of recommendations by the Senior Salaries Review Body. We are not proposing to change this arrangement with the establishment of a Judicial Appointments Commission.

  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many hon. Members hold judicial appointments [120830]
  861W
  Mr. Leslie
  The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Legal Aid
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs, what powers the Lord Chancellor has in relation to the granting of legal aid support in civil actions. [120932]

  Mr. Lammy
  Legal aid in civil cases is granted from the Community Legal Service (CLS) fund according to criteria set by the Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor and approved by Parliament. However, although Noble and Learned Friend and I have Ministerial responsibility for the CLS scheme, individual decisions about funding in civil cases are entirely a matter for the Legal Services Commission, which is an independent body.

  The only involvement that Ministers have in individual cases occurs when the Commission, under s.6(8)(b) of the Access to Justice Act 1999, requests the Lord Chancellor to authorise exceptional funding to a case which is outside the scope of the CLS scheme. In such cases decisions are made according to the standard means and merits tests and according to criteria specific to exceptional funding applications.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs in what circumstances a court can deny payment of legal aid in civil actions where a legal aid certificate has previously been granted. [120933]

  Mr. Lammy
  When a legal aid certificate is issued, the acting legal representatives are entitled to be paid what is considered to be reasonable when the costs are

  Political affiliation

  Commission area

  Total

  Conservative

  Labour

  Liberal Democrat

  Plaid Cymru

  Other

  Uncommitted

  Avon and Somerset

  838

  270

  178

  139

  0

  32

  219

  Bedfordshire

  277

  105

  57

  30

  0

  12

  73

  Cambridgeshire

  358

  141

  78

  42

  0

  23

  74

  Cheshire

  476

  160

  127

  56

  1

  62

  70

  City of London

  132

  52

  25

  13

  0

  8

  34

  Cleveland

  464

  165

  147

  38

  0

  35

  79

  Cumbria

  309

  104

  58

  24

  0

  6

  117

  Derbyshire

  430

  160

  116

  55

  0

  21

  78

  Devon and Cornwall

  708

  260

  111

  133

  0

  72

  132

  Dorset

  322

  130

  39

  67

  0

  25

  61

  Durham

  294

  61

  107

  19

  0

  19

  88

  Dyfed

  263

  63

  63

  37

  40

  21

  39

  East Sussex

  396

  146

  78

  46

  0

  33

  93

  Essex

  620

  245

  115

  99

  0

  52

  109

  Gloucestershire

  270

  131

  40

  43

  0

  25

  31

  Gwent

  284

  69

  78

  20

  7

  2

  108

  Hampshire

  780

  266

  142

  124

  0

  45

  203

  Hertfordshire

  457

  147

  114

  63

  0

  46

  87

  Humberside

  444

  173

  115

  47

  0

  34

  75

  Inner London

  767

  283

  246

  97

  0

  79

  62

  Isle of Wight

  65

  29

  5

  10

  0

  3

  18

  Kent

  815

  335

  152

  115

  0

  47

  166

  Leicestershire

  511

  171

  119

  60

  0

  15

  146

  Lincolnshire

  381

  157

  70

  52

  2

  48

  52

  Middlesex

  952

  329

  298

  91

  0

  73

  161

  Norfolk

  441

  152

  94

  65

  0

  30

  100

  North-east London

  528

  118

  190

  46

  0

  27

  147

  North Yorkshire

  362

  138

  70

  55

  0

  20

  79

  862W
  assessed (either by the court or the Legal Services Commission). Payment may be substantially reduced if a lawyer has acted outside the scope of his instructions, outlined in the terms of the funding certificate; or, if a lawyer was negligent in some way causing the courts to strike out a claim.

  It is possible for costs to amount to nil when it is assessed that work done had no value or was unnecessary.

  A lawyer has the right of appeal, if their payment is denied.

  Lord Chancellor
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what research the Department has commissioned on the abolition of the post of Lord Chancellor. [120832]

  Mr. Leslie
  None. I refer the hon. Member to the statement I made on 19 June 2003,Official Report, column 19WS.

  Magistrates
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs, if he will list for each magistrates bench where his Department is responsible for appointments(a) the political balance of the bench and (b) the voting pattern for the area. [121100]

  Mr. Leslie
  Information at bench level is not readily available. However, the table sets out the breakdown of magistrates political affiliations by commission area as at 1 April 2003. My officials do not maintain a central list of the corresponding voting patterns, which could be compiled only at disproportionate cost.
  863W

  Political affiliation

  Commission area

  Total

  Conservative

  Labour

  Liberal Democrat

  Plaid Cymru

  Other

  Uncommitted

  Northamptonshire

  344

  169

  77

  53

  0

  4

  41

  Northumberland

  189

  65

  41

  28

  1

  3

  51

  North Wales

  387

  129

  101

  66

  46

  22

  23

  Nottinghamshire

  652

  229

  181

  69

  0

  8

  165

  Powys

  83

  26

  11

  16

  3

  12

  15

  South East London

  413

  147

  101

  58

  0

  13

  94

  South Wales

  557

  117

  170

  71

  19

  24

  156

  South-west London

  369

  158

  74

  74

  0

  28

  35

  South Yorkshire

  728

  191

  242

  106

  0

  25

  164

  Staffordshire

  563

  199

  179

  47

  0

  46

  92

  Suffolk

  289

  91

  52

  44

  1

  11

  90

  Surrey

  364

  152

  63

  37

  0

  41

  71

  Thames Valley

  1,046

  380

  200

  140

  0

  42

  284

  Tyne and Wear

  793

  204

  280

  102

  0

  50

  157

  Warwickshire

  216

  76

  53

  39

  0

  18

  30

  West Glamorgan

  251

  69

  103

  30

  11

  1

  37

  West Mercia

  657

  270

  156

  107

  0

  40

  84

  West Midlands

  1,697

  571

  554

  169

  0

  109

  294

  West Sussex

  356

  119

  80

  57

  0

  18

  82

  West Yorkshire

  1,252

  363

  424

  154

  0

  41

  270

  Wiltshire

  269

  110

  47

  46

  0

  29

  37

  Totals

  24,419

  8,395

  6,221

  3,199

  131

  1,500

  4973

  Percentage

  100

  34.4

  25.5

  13.1

  0.5

  6.1

  4973

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Unpaid Fines
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total amount of unpaid fines imposed by magistrates courts was on 31 March. [120922]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.

  Magistrates' Courts Committees (MCCs) have a responsibility for the collection of a range of debts imposed by the magistrates courts and the crown court. Debt collected includes not only fines but also fees, compensation, confiscation orders, legal aid contributions and some maintenance orders. It is not at present possible to separate fines from the total. The England and Wales closing arrears total at 31 March 2003 was £276,870,306.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer of 12 June 2003 from the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd),Official Report, column 1005W, on animal welfare, what research his Department has commissioned into the effectiveness of (a) the interdepartmental Concordat on Data Sharing and (b) measures in finding alternative methods of testing other than using animals; and if he will make a statement. [120445]

  Caroline Flint
  The inter-Departmental Concordat on Data Sharing was announced in August 2000. Its aims included minimising data requirements for animal tests as far as possible, encouraging data sharing between clients, wherever appropriate, and seeking to overcome any procedural and legal barriers to data sharing. As it has now been in place for almost three years, we are reviewing its effectiveness. Accordingly, my hon.
  864W
  Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), invited ministerial colleagues to review implementation of the Concordat and provide views on how it might be up dated.

  As to other measures, every year the Home Office makes available to the Animal Procedures Committee (APC) a budget for the development and promotion of the 3Rs—alternatives which replace animal use, reduce the number of animals used, or refine the procedures involved to minimise suffering. Details of completed research are published in the Annual Report of the Animal Procedures Committee, which is available from The Stationery Office and on the Committee's website. The amount being made available to the Committee for 2003—04 is £280,000.

  In addition, the Home Office leads the inter-Departmental Group on the 3Rs, whose terms of reference are to improve the application of the 3Rs and promote research into alternatives, reducing the need for toxicity testing through better sharing of data, and encouraging the validation and acceptance of alternatives. The Group is currently preparing revised guidance on the conduct of regulatory toxicology and safety evaluation studies and, arising from the Government response to the House of Lords Select Committee on animals in scientific procedures, has also been tasked with exploring the scope for a United Kingdom Centre for research into the 3Rs.

  We were also a co-sponsor of the fourth World Congress on Alternatives and Animal Use in the Life Sciences held in New Orleans in August 2002, publish a number of guidance and best practice documents on the Home Office web site and contribute regularly to events and activities intended to develop or promote work relating to the 3Rs.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many people have applied for asylum in Northern Ireland in each year since 1997; [121158]

  (2) what the average length of time is for the processing of applications for asylum made in Northern Ireland. [121159]

  Beverley Hughes
  Information on asylum applications in Northern Ireland is unavailable. Asylum applications data are not available at regional level except by port of application. Similarly information on the average length of time of initial decisions is also unavailable. The requested information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost by examination of individual case records.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 8 April 2003,Official Report, column 201W, on asylum seekers, if he will list the figures given in that answer in respect of the financial year 2002–03; and what estimate he has made of the amounts in 2003–04. [120358]

  Beverley Hughes
  Provisional figures for 2002–03 are reproduced in the table. Figures for this financial year 2003–04 are not yet available.

  £ million

  2002–03

  Local Authorities

  99

  Private sector (including non-profit making organisations)

  241

  Total

  340

  Note:

  All figures are provisional and rounded to nearest £ million

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people who entered the UK on a temporary work visa in each of the last three years subsequently claimed asylum. [120915]

  Beverley Hughes
  It is not possible to say precisely how many people who entered the UK on a temporary work permit and then subsequently applied for asylum. However the numbers are likely to be small. The nationalities of most people granted work permits are generally different from the nationalities of asylum seekers. The requested information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost by examination of individual case records.

  Burglary
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average sentence, in months, was for(a) low level burglary and (b) standard burglary in each year from 1995 to 2002. [109583]

  Paul Goggins
  The available information, relating to the average custodial sentence length for persons sentenced for burglary and aggravated burglary in England and Wales, 1995 to 2001, is contained in the table.

  Further details about offences of burglary are not collected centrally, so that offences of low level burglary cannot be distinguished from standard burglary.
  866W
  Statistics for 2002 will be published in the autumn.

  Average custodial sentence length imposed at al courts on persons convicted of offences ob burglary,England and wales,1995 to 20011

  A veraga custodial sentence length (months)

  Burglary

  Aggravated burglary

  In a dwelling

  Other than in a dwelling

  In a dwelling

  Other than in a dwelling

  1995

  13.2

  8.0

  244.9

  27.1

  1996

  15.6

  7.8

  44.0

  51.3

  1997

  18.1

  8.4

  45.5

  30.7

  1998

  17.9

  8.6

  46.0

  38.8

  1999

  18.3

  7.9

  45.5

  39.2

  2000

  18.6

  8.3

  48.6

  49.0

  2001

  19.7

  8.4

  50.2

  40.9

  1 These data are on the principal offence basis

  2 Excludes one person sentenced to life

  Care Home Owners
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy that care home owners who had volunteered to participate in the Criminal Records Bureau and their staff pay the existing fees rather than the proposed increased rate. [119808]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 17 June 2003]: The new Disclosure fees will apply to all applications, for which a fee is payable, received by the Criminal Record Bureau (CRB) on or after 1 July. Volunteers will continue to receive free Disclosures. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced on 5 June 2003, Official Report, column 27WS, subject to consultation, applications for Disclosures for existing care home staff (that is, staff who were in post just before 1 April 2002) will need to be submitted to the CRB between 1 October and 30 November 2003. The Care Homes Regulations 2001, which came into force on 1 April 2002, require new care home staff to obtain a disclosure before starting work.

  Criminal Justice Bill
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many clauses were(a) fully, (b) partially and (c) not debated during the Committe Stage of the Criminal Justice Bill. [119582]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 16 June 2003]: The debate of the Criminal Justice Bill was programmed. Of the 280 clauses contained in the Bill as amended in Standing Committee B, 174 clauses were fully debated. To dispose of business to be concluded at the times specified in the programme motion 7 clauses were partially debated and 99 clause were not debated before the question that they be ordered to stand part of the Bill was put to the Committee.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of Criminal Records Bureau standard searches have been outstanding for(a) over two weeks, (b) over four weeks and (c) over 10 weeks. [118510]

  Paul Goggins
  The information sought by the honourable Member is not available in the format requested. There are no IT procedures at present to
  867W
  differentiate between the number of outstanding Standard disclosures and the number of outstanding Enhanced Disclosures. The following is a breakdown of the total number of outstanding Disclosures held by the Criminal Records Bureau, for the periods requested. These figures do not include those applications where individuals have been asked to provide further information.

  Over 2 weeks—12,981

  Over 4 weeks—6,424

  Over 10 weeks—12,612

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the change in demand for checks for the Criminal Records Bureau after 5 June 2003. [118892]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 12 June 2003]: The Home Office is continuing to maintain close contact with the major stakeholders and key players to gauge the level of demand for the Disclosure service. Taking into account the introduction of checks on care workers, announced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 5 June 2003, Official Report, column 27WS, the Criminal Record Bureau forecast demand for £2.6 million Disclosures in 2003/04.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the income through charging of the Criminal Records Bureau,(a) prior to the implementation of proposed measures and (b) subsequent to this. [119335]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 13 June 2003]: Since its launch on 11 March 2002, the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) has generated the following income from Registration and Disclosure fees:

  £ million

  2001–02

  1.5

  2002–03

  18.3

  The Bureau has forecasted that its anticipated income through charging will be:

  £ million

  2003–04

  56.1

  2004–05

  86.6

  As with all Government fees And charges, the CRB operates on a cost-recovery basis and the rules preclude the Bureau from making a profit. This principle, laid down in Section 2 of Her Majesty's Treasury's "The Fees and Charges Guide" states that charges should normally be set to recover the full cost of the service. In all years, the CRB's operating costs are projected to exceed its income.

  The Government made it clear when the £12 fee for a criminal record Disclosure certificate was originally announced in 2001 that the intention was for the CRB eventually to become self-financing and that fee levels would be regularly reviewed.
  868W
  It should be noted that volunteers will continue to receive free Disclosures. The CRB issued 202,000 Disclosures to volunteers up to 31 March 2003. This represents a saving of over £2.4 million to the voluntary and community sector.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criminal records checks are carried out in respect of new personnel in each of the probation areas in England and Wales; and if these checks changed after the creation of the Criminal Records Bureau in April 2002. [119782]

  Paul Goggins
  Since the creation of the Criminal Records Bureau in April 2002, all new employees who have direct contact with offenders, including probation officers, probation service officers, prison staff (including admin and clerical staff) and hostel workers are checked through the Bureau.

  Prior to this they were checked via the relevant police force for the Probation Area.

  Death Certification
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 7 May 2003,Official Report, column 751W, on death certification, what progress has been made on the consideration of the review into death certification. [121079]

  Paul Goggins
  My colleagues and I are currently considering the Report of a Fundamental Review, published on 4 June. The next reports of the Shipman Inquiry will also comment upon the death certification system. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has asked Tom Luce, the Chair of the Fundamental Review, to carry out further work linking the recommendations of the Review Group and those made by Dame Janet Smith, the Chair of the Shipman Inquiry. In the autumn, when this work is complete, we will be in a position to outline a programme of reform.

  Entry Clearance Posts
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to ensure that entry clearance posts are promptly notified by Home Office Presenting Officer units of the outcome of family visitor appeals. [120760]

  Beverley Hughes
  In cases where the appellant's appeal is dismissed the Immigration Appellate Authority (IAA) sends a copy of the appeal determination (including family visit visa appeals) directly to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for onward transmission to overseas posts. All allowed Entry Clearance and Visit Visa appeal determinations (including family visit visa appeals) are sent to the Home Office by the IAA so that the Home Office can consider whether to seek Permission to Appeal (PTA) to the Immigration Appellate Tribunal (IAT). The Home Office notify the relevant Entry Clearance post of the final appeal outcome once it has been confirmed whether the Home Office will seek PTA to the IAT. The Home Office also informs posts if an unsuccessful appellant successfully pursues PTA to the IAT. The Home Office is working closely with UK Visas to improve methods of communicating Entry Clearance and Family Visit Visa appeal information to posts.

  Extradition
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 19 June 2003, ref 118911, how many outstanding extradition requests have been made by the United Kingdom to each member of the European Union and EU accession states; and when the original extradition request was made in each case. [121557]

  Caroline Flint
  [holding answer 24 June 2003]: The information requested is as follows:

  UK* extradition requests request outstanding as of 31 May 2003 and year of request

  To EU countries

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Belgium

  —

  —

  —

  2

  4

  France

  —

  1

  1

  1

  2

  Germany

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Italy

  1

  3

  1

  —

  —

  Luxembourg

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Netherlands

  1

  2

  —

  4

  2

  Denmark

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Greece

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Portugal

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Spain

  2

  2

  13

  13

  15

  Austria

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Finland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sweden

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  * The figures do not include:

  UK requests made to Ireland which are not collected centrally, requests made to EU and accession States by Scotland and Northern Ireland.

  In relation to EU accession States, there is one outstanding request which the UK made in 2002 to Cyprus.

  £ million

  Police Authority

  Police Grant1,2

  Police Capital Grant

  Crime fighting Fund3

  Rural policing3

  Airwave1,2

  Street Crime3

  Basic Command Units3

  Community Support Oficers3

  Avon and Somerset

  97.50

  2.09

  5.35

  0.98

  0.51

  1.20

  1.75

  0.27

  Bedfordshire

  37.17

  0.84

  2.56

  0.16

  0.28

  0.00

  0.52

  0.07

  Cambridgeshire

  45.70

  1.02

  2.28

  1.10

  0.34

  0.00

  0.58

  0.26

  Cheshire

  65.77

  1.45

  3.98

  0.23

  4.44

  0.00

  0.66

  0.13

  City of London

  32.47

  0.71

  1.29

  0.00

  0.12

  0.00

  0.08

  0.00

  Cleveland

  47.52

  1.04

  2.04

  0.00

  0.56

  0.00

  0.64

  0.12

  Cumbria

  34.88

  0.76

  2.01

  1.36

  0.00

  0.00

  0.31

  0.00

  Derbyshire

  59.79

  1.31

  4.31

  0.41

  0.31

  0.00

  0.77

  0.00

  Devon and Cornwall

  101.22

  2.21

  6.37

  3.12

  0.39

  0.00

  0.84

  0.24

  Dorset

  39.69

  1.05

  2.31

  0.44

  0.16

  0.00

  0.47

  0.00

  Durham

  46.76

  1.03

  2.63

  0.24

  0.18

  0.00

  0.51

  0.13

  Dyfed-Powys

  30.12

  0.65

  2.16

  2.62

  0.65

  0.00

  0.27

  0.00

  Essex

  94.67

  2.12

  5.79

  0.50

  2.33

  0.00

  1.03

  0.03

  Gloucestershire

  36.00

  0.78

  2.33

  0.78

  0.19

  0.00

  0.40

  0.17

  Greater Manchester

  219.35

  4.81

  16.13

  0.00

  1.13

  2.09

  3.53

  0.23

  Gwent

  40.90

  0.91

  2.22

  0.20

  0.16

  0.00

  0.48

  0.16

  Hampshire

  114.03

  2.52

  6.90

  0.22

  8.19

  0.00

  1.23

  0.00

  Hertfordshire

  64.82

  1.49

  3.14

  0.00

  0.29

  0.00

  0.56

  0.23

  Humberside

  64.95

  1.42

  3.75

  0.70

  0.34

  0.00

  0.95

  0.00

  Kent

  106.11

  2.37

  7.32

  0.60

  7.15

  0.00

  1.05

  0.41

  Lancashire

  105.22

  2.29

  6.19

  0.06

  0.54

  0.44

  1.15

  0.30

  Leicestershire

  60.03

  1.35

  3.83

  0.43

  0.31

  0.00

  0.82

  0.15

  Lincolnshire

  36.92

  0.78

  2.07

  2.03

  0.43

  0.00

  0.39

  0.07

  Mersevside

  134.48

  2.83

  9.03

  0.00

  3.87

  0.78

  1.39

  0.28

  Metropolitan Police

  1,082.40

  24.40

  70.46

  0.00

  15.02

  8.01

  9.91

  1.47

  Norfolk

  49.98

  1.11

  3.07

  2.08

  3.23

  0.00

  0.47

  0.13

  Northamptonshire-

  39.93

  0.90

  2.44

  0.71

  2.63

  0.00

  0.53

  0.00

  Northumbria

  123.56

  2.72

  6.91

  0.00

  0.64

  0.00

  1.35

  0.33

  North Wales

  44.71

  0.99

  2.85

  1.54

  0.87

  0.00

  0.43

  0.07

  Immigration Holding Cells
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) police and (b) immigration holding cells there are at each London airport. [120919]

  Beverley Hughes
  There are eight Police Holding Cells at Heathrow Airport and two detention rooms. There are three Police holding cells at Stansted Police Station which is situated within the airport perimeter. There are no Police holding cells at London City and Gatwick airports.

  There are no immigration holding cells at any of the London airports. There are immigration holding rooms where passengers may be held in a secure communal room for short periods pending interview or removal. There are nine holding rooms in total. These comprise two at Gatwick (one at each Terminal), four at Heathrow (one at each Terminal), one at London City, one at Stansted, and one at Luton. Additionally, there is a removals holding room for outgoing detainees at Queen's Building at Heathrow Airport.

  Local Authority Funding
  Mr. Iain Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what specific or direct grants have been made by his Department to local authorities for 2003–04(a) in England and (b) broken down by local authority, identifying whether the grant is (i) ring fenced, (ii) a specific formula grant, (iii) within aggregate external finance and (iv) outside aggregate external finance. [114920]

  Ms Blears
  The Home Office pays a variety of grants to local authorities. Details, first for police authorities, then for local councils, are given in the tables.

  The following specific or direct grants are being or will be paid to police authorities in 2003–04:
  871W

  £ million

  Police Authority

  Police Grant1,2

  Police Capital Grant

  Crime fighting Fund3

  Rural policing3

  Airwave1,2

  Street Crime3

  Basic Command Units3

  Community Support Oficers3

  North Yorkshire

  44.62

  0.96

  1.85

  2.02

  0.23

  0.00

  0.45

  0.30

  Nottinghamshire-

  72.42

  1.56

  4.32

  0.00

  1.13

  0.85

  1.31

  0.30

  South Wales

  93.45

  1.99

  4.33

  0.00

  0.55

  0.00

  1.11

  0.35

  South Yorkshire

  98.45

  2.19

  5.44

  0.00

  5.60

  0.76

  1.22

  0.04

  Staffordshire

  64.44

  1.38

  3.99

  0.27

  4.36

  0.00

  1.01

  0.05

  Suffolk

  40.32

  0.88

  2.25

  1.41

  0.21

  0.00

  0.41

  0.09

  Surrey

  53.95

  1.22

  3.93

  0.01

  3.45

  0.00

  0.51

  0.05

  Sussex

  94.85

  2.06

  5.86

  0.54

  2.06

  0.00

  1.17

  0.34

  Thames Valley

  132.22

  3.03

  9.52

  1.25

  1.01

  1.35

  1.71

  0.06

  Warwickshire

  30.65

  0.67

  1.61

  0.56

  2.14

  0.00

  0.35

  0.11

  WestMercia

  66.71

  1.47

  4.13

  2.34

  0.34

  0.00

  0.88

  0.21

  West Midlands

  231.26

  5.17

  14.40

  0.00

  15.55

  1.80

  3.70

  0.34

  West Yorkshire

  170.18

  3.70

  8.11

  0.00

  4.09

  1.37

  2.76

  0.75

  Wiltshire

  37.83

  0.84

  2.06

  1.10

  0.20

  0.00

  0.32

  0.08

  Yet to be allocated

  0.00

  22.04

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  6.35

  0.00

  32.70

  Total

  4,288.00

  117.11

  263.52

  30.01

  96.18

  25.00

  49.98

  41.00

  1 Police grant is a specific formula grant within Aggregate External Finance (AEF), which includes the Special Payment to the Metropolitan Police, but does not include grants the Home Secretary pays to Dyfed Powys [£0.5 million] and South Wales [£4.7 million] to bring them up to the general grant "floor". It is not ring-fenced.

  2 From time to time the Home Secretary may pay special grants to police authorities to assist with extraordinary pressures. These grants may be allocated at any time during the year. They are not within AEF.

  3 These grants are ring-fenced and inside AEF.

  4 The Airwave grant includes £0 million of capital provision.

  In addition, Home Office funding totalling £61.5 million is being made available to the police service in England and Wales for specific counter terrorist operations and other counter terrorist measures. Of this sum, some £47 million is allocated to the Metropolitan Police and £14.5 million to other forces to counter the increased threat from international terrorism since the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001. For security reasons it is not possible to disclose details of the grants made to individual police authorities for these activities.

  The individual allocations for the following specific grants to police authorities have yet to be finalised:

  £ million

  Outer London Pay

  29

  Lead and Free Travel1

  London and SE Allowance1

  13

  PNB1

  38

  DMA1

  55

  Retention of officers over 30 years1

  1

  Special Constables1

  8

  Occupational Health1

  5

  Reform Deal1

  8

  National Non-Emergency Number1

  3

  Model1

  2

  Total

  162

  1 Notes:

  These grants are ring-fenced and inside AEF

  The following grants are being, or will be, paid to local councils.

  Councils that receive asylum seekers are eligible for the Adult and Family Asylum Seekers Grant and/or the Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children Grant. The amounts payable are dependent on the number of asylum seekers received and are not known at this stage. The grants are outside AEF.
  872W
  Community Cohesion Pathfinder grant will be paid to the following local authorities, who will each receive £75,000 in 2003–04.

  Bury Metropolitan Borough Council

  Charnwood Borough Council

  East Lancashire Partnership1

  Kirklees Metropolitan Council

  Leicester Qty Council

  Mansfield District Council

  Middlesbrough Council

  Peterborough Qty Council

  Plymouth Qty Council

  Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council

  Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

  Stoke-on-Trent Qty Council

  London Borough of Southwark

  West London Alliance2

  The grant is outside AEF.

  Notes:

  1 Lancashire County Council and Burnley, Hyndburn, Pendle and Rossendale Borough Councils. The grant is paid to Pendle.

  2 The London Boroughs of Brent, Ealing, Hammersmith and Fulham, Harrow, Hillingdon and Hounslow. The grant is paid to Ealing.

  Outstayers
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of visitors to the UK who overstayed their visa in the last 12 months, broken down by nationality. [120918]

  Beverley Hughes
  The information requested is unavailable.

  Those who overstay their visas form part of the illegally resident population. There is currently no official estimate of the size of the illegal population in the UK as there is no defined method in the UK for

  873W
  producing estimates. However, the Government have commissioned research into the methods used in other countries to estimate the size of their illegal populations (which would by definition include those overstaying their visas) in order to define methods appropriate for the UK.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to answer the Question of the hon. Member for the Vale of York due for answer on 3 June concerning the Entitlement Cards consultation. [120454]

  Beverley Hughes
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 17 June 2003,Official Report, column 153W.

  Passports
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 14 May 2003,Official Report, column 251W, on lost passports, what assessment he has made of the reasons for the loss of passports by Immigration and Nationality Directive staff; and what proportion of the lost passports were subsequently found. [120762]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) at any one time hold many thousands of passports (spread across several different locations). They are currently being asked to return between 600 to 900 of these every week to their owners. Sometimes, despite every effort, it is not possible to do this within the timescale stipulated by the applicant. This does not necessarily mean that the passport is lost. Previously, officials have offered to issue a lost passport letter (LPL), that would enable the person to obtain a replacement for their Embassy.

  Under the new arrangements, no LPL is issued now without a thorough search having being made for the document, initially by the unit receiving the request and, if necessary, by the Return of Passport Unit. If the search is unsuccessful, a serial-numbered LPL is issued. As a result, the Integrated Casework Directorate (ICD) now keeps a much tighter control on the issuing of letters and robust statistics are now maintained.

  However, there are currently no available statistics of how many passports are subsequently found.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 11 June 2003,Official Report, column 945W, to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow), on passports, how many investigations relating to the criminal trading of passports have been authorised in the last five years. [120763]

  Beverley Hughes
  There have been three investigations into losses of a total of 15 passports from passport offices in the last five years. A police investigation was undertaken into a single incident in Glasgow when 13 passports could not be accounted for. The other two investigations each involved the loss of a single passport. All three investigations occurred during 2000 and each involved a full and thorough investigation by UK Passport Service's (UKPS) security 874W
  personnel. None of these investigations was able to prove conclusively that the passports concerned had been stolen. None of the 15 passports have yet been recovered but in all cases the details have been passed to the Immigration Service.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 11 June 2003,Official Report, column 946W, to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) on passports, if he will place a copy of the UKPS Fraud Action Plan in the Library. [120910]

  Beverley Hughes
  The UK Passport Service's (UKPS) Fraud Action Plan is a working document used by the UKPS Fraud Prevention Board to monitor progress on various fraud related programmes and activities. I am therefore arranging for a summary of the Fraud Action Plan to be placed in the Library. This summary will contain an outline of all of the projects and activities currently within the plan, together with timescales for delivery.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many successful prosecutions were brought against individuals who made fraudulent passport applications in the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [120911]

  Beverley Hughes
  The figures recorded by the UK Passport Service (UKPS) for the number of prosecutions made against individuals who have fraudulently applied for passports are given in the table.

  Number

  1998

  9

  1999

  10

  2000

  7

  2001

  16

  2002

  5

  It should be noted that UKPS does not routinely receive feedback from the police or prosecution authorities on cases of passport fraud which are referred to them. The figures given in the table are therefore likely to be a significant under representation of the number of prosecutions brought. UKPS is working with the police to develop a more effective feedback mechanism. The figures collated by UKPS do not distinguish between successful and unsuccessful prosecutions.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 11 June 2003,Official Report, column 946W, to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) on passports, how many cases are subject to major and ongoing investigations. [120912]

  Beverley Hughes
  The UK Passport Service (UKPS) considers an investigation to be a major investigation when it involves multiple instances of fraud or attempted fraud, which are related to each other in some way. Currently UKPS has six such investigations in progress. As investigations may involve instances of suspected as well as actual fraud it would not be appropriate to publish a figure on the number of cases under investigation.
  875W
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are taken to ascertain whether an individual who applies for a new passport to replace a lost passport has indeed lost the original. [120913]

  Beverley Hughes
  An individual applying to replace a lost passport is required in completing the passport application to provide details of the lost passport, and explain how, when, and where the passport was lost. The individual in signing the application declares that "all information given in this application is correct to the best of my knowledge and belief". There is a caution on the application form reminding passport applicants that it is a criminal offence to make at, untrue statement for the purpose of obtaining a passport.

  In seeking to strike an appropriate balance between maintaining high standards of customer service and fraud prevention the UK Passport Service's (UKPS) current practice is generally to accept what the applicant has declared to be true at face value. In every case the passport history is checked. Further inquiries would only be made if there was for example an inconsistency between the information on the application form and that contained in UKPS records.

  In cases where newly issued passports are declared lost in the post UKPS does not routinely require the submission of a fresh passport application unless a period of time has elapsed. In all cases UKPS requires a signed letter from the passport holder declaring the loss. An untrue statement in the letter would be a criminal offence. The UKPS then carries out validation checks with records held on UKPS systems. Details of losses are passed on to Royal Mail for investigation.

  To ascertain with absolute certainty that an applicant was no longer in possession of the passport is probably unachievable. It would require a search which would obviously be impractical and an unwarranted intrusion in almost all cases.

  All passports reported lost are cancelled in the UKPS's records to which the Immigration Service has access.

  As indicated in the UKPS's 2003–08 Corporate and Business Plan the UKPS is planning to introduce a more comprehensive system for recording and disseminating information on lost, stolen and recovered passports. This will enable the timely and accurate collection and dissemination of information on lost, stolen and recovered passports in the United Kingdom and by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) posts abroad; and will require the applicant to provide more detailed information in notifying the UKPS of the loss of the passport. The new forms associated with the loss and recovery notification will be placed in the Library once they have been finalised.

  Police Records
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which private companies are to be given access to confidential police records; whether they will be given access to police files; what undertakings a private employee must give before being given access to confidential information; and what protection is available for private individuals where malpractice is proved against a private employee. [115279]
  876W
  Paul Goggins
  In line with a recommendation of the Independent Review Team that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary appointed last September, we have come forward with a provision in the Criminal Justice Bill specifically to empower the Secretary of State to delegate functions under Part V of the Police Act 1997 under which the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) has been established. The power is purely discretionary, but will give us the flexibility, should it be needed, to deploy both civil service and private sector staff working in the CRB to best effect. No decision has been taken to delegate any functions currently undertaken by civil servants, including those functions that require access to police records. Were such functions to be delegated they would be subject to appropriate contractual safeguards to prevent any unauthorised disclosure. In addition, under the provisions in the Criminal Justice Bill it will be a criminal offence for any person to whom the Secretary of State's functions are delegated to disclose any personal information save in the course of the person's duties.

  Prisons
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many additional prison places have been provided and at what cost in each of the last 10 years; and what the average cost of building a new prison place is. [118780]

  Paul Goggins
  The following table gives information on the number of additional places and an estimate of the cumulative cost of providing them, from 1995 onwards: this is the earliest date for which information is available. The data includes places both at new prisons and those provided at existing prisons by building houseblocks, Ready to Use Units (RTUs) and Modular Temporary Units (MTUs). It does not take into account any places taken out of use, or places provided by subsequent overcrowding.

  Costs are based on an estimate of the total capital and cumulative operating costs and includes new prisons provided under the Private Finance Initiative. The average cost of building a new prison place is around £100,000. This is an average unit cost for providing public sector prison places through houseblocks and RTUs.

  Places

  Cost (£ million)

  1995–96

  1,165

  103

  1996–97

  1,857

  206

  1997–98

  4,635

  231

  1998–99

  1,697

  258

  1999–2000

  2,071

  225

  2000–01

  800

  264

  2001–02

  1,103

  317

  2002–03

  1,902

  426

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department of the entrants to detoxification programmes in prisons in England and Wales in 2001–02, what proportion were completed; what proportion were carried out in designated prison health centres; and what the average duration was. [118561]
  877W
  Paul Goggins
  The current practice is to recommend nine to 10 day programmes for the clinical management of opiate with drawal and seven-day programmes in respect of alcohol. All such recommended timescales are kept under review in the light of developments in clinical practice.

  Information about the proportion of detoxifications started and completed is not available centrally. Between 1 April 2001 and 31 March 2002, 41,916 drug and alcohol detoxifications were carried out. Unless there are compounding risk factors, it is not generally necessary for the treatment to be carried out in prison health centres. During 2003–04,the Prison Service is establishing new detoxification units at eight establishments with the capacity to undertake over 9,000 treatments a year. The clinical effectiveness of the programmes provided will be evaluated.

  During 2003–04, the Prison Service is establishing new detoxification units at eight establishments with the capacity to undertake over 9,000 treatments a year. The clinical effectiveness of the programmes provided will be evaluated.

  Proceeds of Crime
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total value is of the assets seized from convicted offenders since the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 came into force; and if he will make a statement. [120921]

  Caroline Flint
  The confiscation provisions in the 2002 Act are triggered by offences committed after the provisions were brought into force on 24 March 2003, so it will be a while before cases are dealt with by the Crown Court in numbers. To date, one confiscation order with a value of £38,000 has been made against a convicted offender. The value of cash seizures made under the new cash seizure provision in the Act which came into effect on 30 December 2002 and which are not dependent upon a conviction is £25.6 million.

  Tuberculosis
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons were screened for tuberculosis at points of entry to the UK in the last year for which information is available; and what proportion of those were found to be carriers. [120406]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  In 2001–02, 59,749 people were x-rayed for tuberculosis at ports of entry to the United Kingdom. 146 of these people were identified as having TB.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons were the subject of notifications to their local health bodies that they should be screened for tuberculosis following entry to the UK in the last year for which information is available; what proportion was undertaken; and in what proportion of the latter those persons were found to be carriers. [120407]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Department of Health does not collect this data centrally.
  878W
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what mechanism exists to ensure that persons requiring testing for tuberculosis but not tested at their point of entry to the UK are in due course so tested; and if he will make a statement. [120408]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  Medical inspectors working at ports of entry pass the contact details of persons requiring further examination or testing for tuberculosis to the national health service at their destination address. It is the responsibility of the NHS locally to follow up these contacts.

  Victim and Witnesses Bill
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his timetable is for(a) consultation in preparation for the Victims and Witnesses Bill, (b) the publication of a draft Bill and (c) the publication of the Bill itself. [118788]

  Paul Goggins
  One of our 2001 manifesto commitments was to legislate for a Victims and Witnesses Bill during the course of this Parliament.

  Since October 2001, officials from across government have been working with the voluntary sector and other interested organisations to develop measures which will lead to the delivery of nationally consistent, high quality services to victims, and put their interests closer to the heart of the criminal justice system.

  The draft Bill will be published, and subsequently introduced, as soon as parliamentary time allows.

  Woodhill Prison
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has asked for a report into the arrangements for dealing with high security prisoners in the hospital wing of HMP Woodhill. [119798]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 17 June 2003]: The Deputy Director General of the Prison Service commissioned the Governor of Leicester prison to undertake an urgent investigation into the circumstances leading to the overdose taken by Mr. Huntley, while in the health care centre at Woodhill prison. The report was submitted to the Deputy Director General on 13 June and passed to me on 17 June together with a Prison Service response.

  Following careful consideration of the findings, I issued a written ministerial statement on 19 June 2003, Official Report, column 13WS, dealing with the content of the report and the actions taken as a consequence of the various recommendations made.

DEFENCE

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much has been(a) spent on and (b) allocated to the British Provincial Reconstruction Team in Afghanistan. [120048]
  879W
  Mr. Ingram
  Costs incurred by the Ministry of Defence from deploying and supporting the British-led Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) in Mazar-e Sharif will be charged to the Reserve. As such, there is no formal allocation of the Department's resources. In addition, other costs will fall to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development reflecting their own contribution to the PRT. While some preparatory work has been carried out, the PRT has still to deploy and it is too early to say what has been spent to date.

  Aircraft Carriers
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to change the number of aircraft carriers in service; and if he will make a statement. [120269]

  Mr. Ingram
  It is planned that the Navy's three existing CVS class carriers will be replaced by two larger and more capable CVF class carriers from early in the next decade.

  Annual Reports and Accounts
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library(a) the Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency Annual Report and Accounts for financial years 1999–2000 and 2000–01, (b) the Joint Air Reconnaissance Intelligence Centre Annual Report and Accounts for financial year 1999–2000 and (c) the RAF Signals Engineering Establishment Annual Report and Accounts for financial year 1997–98. [121493]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Annual Report and Accounts for the Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency for financial year 1999–2000 are available in the Library of the House and can be found under classified set 895. No agency Annual Report and Accounts were produced for financial year 2000–01 as the organisation ceased to be a Defence agency on 1 October 2000.

  The Joint Air Reconnaissance Intelligence Centre Annual Report and Accounts for financial year 1999–2000 and the RAF Signals Engineering Establishment Annual Report and Accounts for financial year 1997–98 are also available in the Library of the House, and can be found under classified set 943 and 870 respectively.

  Armed Forces
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the effect on overstretch of a difference between the target number of armed forces personnel and the actual number of personnel. [120815]

  Mr. Caplin
  As at 1 May 2003 the shortfall against the current trained requirement of the armed forces stood at 6,450. This is an improvement on the same time last year with an increase in the overall trained strength and a decrease in the deficit. All three Services are working hard to address the shortfalls so that the targets set out in the current Public Service Agreements can be met.

  Details of shortfalls by individual Service as at 1 May 2003 are shown as follows.
  880W

  Trained requirement

  Trained strength

  Shortfall

  Naval Service

  38,500

  37,460

  -1,040

  Army

  106,980

  102,430

  -4,540

  RAF

  49,640

  48,770

  -870

  Cluster Munitions
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what records have been kept of the locations in Iraq at which cluster bombs were used by British forces. [117760]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 19 June 2003,Official Report, column 343W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock).

  Drugs
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which units have been subjected to compulsory drugs testing since January 2002; and how many personnel tested positive in each unit, broken down by substance. [121331]

  Mr. Caplin
  I have today placed a copy of the information requested in the Library of the House.

  HMS Sheffield
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 11 June 2003,Official Report, column 911W, on HMS Sheffield, what the original cost of building HMS Sheffield was; what the cost of her refit was in 1996; what her annual operating cost has been; how much was raised by her sale to Chile; and if he will make a statement. [119992]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) on 4 February 2003,Official Report, column 174W.

  Negotiations concerning the disposal of Ministry of Defence surplus equipment are matters of commercial and customer confidentiality and I am therefore withholding details of the revenues received under Exemption 1 and 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Infantry Deployment
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which infantry regiments have been deployed to contribute to SFOR and KFOR in each of the past five years. [120875]

  Mr. Ingram
  The following infantry regiments have been deployed to contribute to the Stabilisation Force (SFOR) and Kosovo Force (KFOR) over the past five years:

  Kosovo

  1999

  1 Battalion The Irish Guards

  1 Battalion The Royal Irish Regiment

  1 Battalion The Parachute Regiment

  2 Battalion The Royal Green Jackets

  881W

  2000

  2 Battalion The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers

  1 Battalion The Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment

  2001

  1 Battalion The Duke of Wellington's Regiment

  1 Battalion The Black Watch

  1 Battalion The Royal Regiment of Wales

  2002

  1 Battalion The Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment

  1 Battalion The Staffordshire Regiment

  1 Battalion The Duke of Wellington's Regiment1

  Bosnia

  1998

  2 Battalion The Royal Green Jackets

  1 Battalion The Worcestershire & Sherwood Foresters Regiment

  1999

  1 Battalion The Royal Highland Fusiliers

  1 Battalion The Royal Regiment of Wales

  2000

  1 Battalion The King's Own Royal Border Regiment

  2 Battalion The Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment

  2001

  2 Battalion The Royal Green Jackets

  2 Battalion The Royal Gurkha Regiment

  2002

  1 Battalion Welsh Guards

  1 Battalion The Royal Scots

  2003

  1 Battalion The Highlanders

  1 Company level only

  Iraq
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British armed forces personnel are stationed in Iraq from(a) regular and (b) reserve forces. [121304]

  Mr. Caplin
  As at 24 June, there were 10,250 personnel deployed in Iraq, of whom approximately 1,400 were members of the Reserve Forces.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to enable British forces in Iraq to operate effectively under extreme temperatures. [121415]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 24 June 2003]British forces deployed on operations in Iraq are provided with guidance for working in extreme temperatures. Acclimatisation and a sensible approach to the working environment mean that personnel can operate effectively. Most of the United Kingdom forces' equipment is capable of operating in high temperatures. However, a number of enhancements have been made to ensure that operational effectiveness is not degraded.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the findings of the investigation into the mobile laboratories in Iraq. [121021]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer my hon. Friend to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's answer on 20 June 2003,Official Report, column 444W, to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn).

  Low-wave Radar
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he is having with his EU counterparts on restrictions on the use of low-wave radar by military vessels in the seas around the British Isles. [120673]

  Mr. Ingram
  I presume the question refers to low frequency active sonars. Neither the Ministry of Defence nor its agencies is engaged in discussions with European Union counterparts on restrictions on the use of such sonars by military vessels in the seas around the British Isles.

  Maintenance Contracts
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent cost effectiveness reviews have been conducted of maintenance contracts. [104337]

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

  Married Quarters (Warminster)
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress to update married quarters in Warminster. [121334]

  Mr. Caplin
  I refer the hon. Member to my predecessor's answer to him of 22 July 2002,Official Report, column 752W, the improvements planned for last year have been completed.

  It is still our intention to carry out a full upgrade of some 400 properties to 'Standard 1 for Condition'. Furthermore, a number of improvements are being carried out this financial year, including:

  installation of 150 showers to soldiers' quarters;

  replacement rear doors to 101 soldiers' quarters;

  upgrading electrical supply to Officer's quarters area—Elm Hill upgrading and repairing roads

  replacement of fascias, soffits and rainwater goods at 111 Officers' quarters

  external redecorations to 10 quarters

  Minehunters
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to reduce the number of(a) Hunt and (b) Sandown class minehunters; and if he will make a statement. [121205]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are currently no plans to reduce the number of Hunt and Sandown class minehunters.

  Procurement
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what factors underlay the decision to purchase ship systems to improve the navigational capability of the Hunt and Sandown class of minehunters; and if he will make a statement. [120725]

  Mr. Ingram
  The decision to make this purchase for the Hunt and Sandown classes was taken to improve minehunting and minesweeping capability. The procurement will enable these ships to more precisely fix their position in relation to objects detected in the sea.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who drew up the specification for the desert boots and uniforms that were ordered for use in the war in Iraq; who manufactured them; and if he will make a statement. [120731]

  Mr. Ingram
  The specification for the desert boots ordered for use in the war in Iraq was drawn up by the manufacturer and approved after evaluation by the Ministry of Defence. The specifications for the other principal uniform items (i.e. lightweight jacket and trousers) were drawn up by qualified Ministry of Defence personnel. The suppliers were as follows.
  883W

  Item

  Contractor

  Desert Boots

  Iturri S.A. (Seville)

  Lightweight Jacket

  Cookson & Clegg; Feuchter Workwear Gmbh

  Lightweight Trousers

  Cookson & Clegg; Feuchter Workwear Gmbh

  Sea Harriers
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Sea Harriers are in storage; and what plans he has for the disposal of Sea Harriers. [120873]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are currently no Sea Harrier aircraft in storage. Aircraft being withdrawn from service are being used for spares recovery before being disposed of through the Disposal Services Agency. In

  RAMC—Medical officer posts

  Figures as at 1 March 2003

  Ind Hosp

  Fd Amb

  Med Sqns

  Specialists

  Ser

  Status/Profession

  Est

  Strength

  Est

  Strength

  Est

  Strength

  Est

  Strength

  1

  Medical Officer

  140

  136

  42

  38

  29

  24

  33

  23

  2

  Anaes and Resus Cons

  80

  31

  0

  0

  4

  3

  35

  14

  3

  Anaes and Resus (Neuro)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  0

  4

  A&E Cons

  50

  6

  0

  0

  1

  2

  10

  2

  5

  Surgical Cons

  20

  14

  0

  0

  4

  0

  20

  9

  6

  Orthopaedic Surgeon

  20

  10

  0

  0

  0

  0

  10

  3

  7

  Burns and Plastics Cons

  0

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  7

  2

  8

  Neurosurgery

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  8

  1

  9

  Surgeon Urology

  0

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  3

  10

  Obs & Gynae

  0

  7

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  3

  11

  Otorhinolaringology

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  6

  2

  12

  Medicine Cons

  100

  12

  0

  0

  3

  0

  10

  0

  13

  Opthalmologist

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  6

  0

  14

  Neurologist

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  15

  GU Med Cons

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1

  16

  Cardiologist

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  17

  Dermatologist

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  18

  Gastroenterologist

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  19

  Infectious Diseases

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  20

  Respiratory Medicine

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1

  21

  Renal Medicine

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  22

  Public Health

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  4

  1

  23

  Paediatrics

  0

  5

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  0

  24

  Rheum & Rehabilitation

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  25

  Psychiatric Cons

  20

  5

  4

  0

  0

  0

  7

  3

  26

  Radiology Cons

  20

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  1

  27

  Path Cons (Clin Chem)

  10

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  0

  28

  Path Cons (Haem)

  10

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  0

  29

  Path Cons (Micro—Bio)

  10

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  1

  30

  Path Cons (Histiopath)

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  31

  Med Offr NYQ

  0

  93

  0

  3

  0

  4

  0

  0

  32

  Total

  480

  339

  46

  42

  41

  33

  203

  71

  33

  Percentage Manned

  71

  91

  80

  35

  Amb Regt

  Med Gp

  Total

  Est

  Strength

  Est

  Strength

  Est

  Strength

  1

  Medical Officer

  1

  1

  0

  0

  245

  222

  2

  Anaes and Resus Cons

  0

  0

  0

  0

  119

  48

  3

  Anaes and Resus (Neuro)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  0

  4

  A&E Cons

  0

  0

  0

  0

  61

  10

  5

  Surgical Cons

  0

  0

  0

  0

  44

  23

  6

  Orthopaedic Surgeon

  0

  0

  0

  0

  30

  13

  7

  Burns and Plastics Cons

  0

  0

  0

  0

  7

  5

  8

  Neurosurgery

  0

  0

  0

  0

  8

  1

  9

  Surgeon Urology

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  6

  10

  Obs & Gynae

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  10

  11

  Otorhinolaringology

  0

  0

  0

  0

  6

  2

  884W
  the future some of the aircraft may be retained for ground-instructional use while others may be used as gate guardians at Service bases or offered to museums.

  Service Manning
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the establishment of(a) doctors by speciality, (b) nurses and (c) technicians required by (i) field hospitals of the TA AMS, (ii) medical squadrons of the TA AMS and (iii) TA AMS specialist units, stating in each case the number of (A) doctors by speciality, (B) nurses and (C) technicians serving in each category; and if he will make a statement. [118810]

  Mr. Caplin
  [holding answer 19 June 2003]: Overall recruiting and retention in the Territorial Army (TA) Army Medical Services (AMS) has improved over the past three years following a targeted advertising campaign in September 1999, and continuing this effort remains a priority. The information requested is detailed in the tables:
  885W

  Amb Regt

  Med Gp

  Total

  Est

  Strength

  Est

  Strength

  Est

  Strength

  12

  Medicine Cons

  0

  0

  0

  0

  113

  12

  13

  Opthalmologist

  0

  0

  0

  0

  6

  0

  14

  Neurologist

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  15

  GU Med Cons

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1

  16

  Cardiologist

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  17

  Dermatologist

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  18

  Gastroenterologist

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1

  19

  Infectious Diseases

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  20

  Respiratory Medicine

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1

  21

  Renal Medicine

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  22

  Public Health

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  2

  23

  Paediatrics

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  5

  24

  Rheum & Rehabilitation

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1

  25

  Psychiatric Cons

  0

  0

  0

  0

  31

  8

  26

  Radiology Cons

  0

  0

  0

  0

  25

  4

  27

  Path Cons (Clin Chem)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  13

  3

  28

  Path Cons (Haem)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  13

  2

  29

  Path Cons (Micro—Bio)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  13

  3

  30

  Path Cons (Histiopath)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1

  31

  Med Offr NYQ

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  100

  32

  Total

  1

  1

  0

  0

  771

  486

  33

  Percentage Manned

  100

  0

  RAMC—Professions allied to medicine

  Ind Hosp

  Fd Amb

  Med Sqns

  Specialists

  Ser

  Status/Profession

  Est

  Strength

  Est

  Strength

  Est

  Strength

  Est

  Strength

  Officer Posts

  1

  Tech Officer Rad

  20

  17

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1

  2

  Tech Officer Lab

  20

  20

  0

  0

  0

  0

  8

  5

  3

  Environmental Health Offr

  10

  24

  4

  3

  1

  0

  18

  6

  4

  Pharmacist

  20

  23

  0

  0

  0

  0

  12

  3

  5

  Physiotherapist

  80

  64

  0

  1

  0

  0

  11

  3

  6

  PAM NYQ

  0

  6

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  7

  Sub Total

  150

  154

  4

  4

  1

  0

  51

  18

  8

  Percenrage Manned

  103

  100

  0

  35

  OR Posts

  9

  Radiographer

  40

  5

  0

  0

  0

  0

  7

  5

  10

  Lab Technician

  70

  21

  0

  0

  0

  0

  26

  4

  11

  Op Dept Prac

  80

  29

  0

  0

  16

  2

  48

  12

  12

  Sub Total

  190

  55

  0

  0

  16

  2

  81

  21

  13

  Percentage Manned

  29

  0

  13

  26

  14

  Total RAMC

  340

  209

  4

  4

  17

  2

  132

  39

  15

  Percentage Manned

  61

  100

  12

  30

  Amb Regt

  Med Gp

  Total

  Est

  Strength

  Est

  Strength

  Est

  Strength

  Officer Posts

  1

  Tech Officer Rad

  0

  0

  0

  0

  22

  18

  2

  Tech Officer Lab

  0

  0

  0

  0

  28

  25

  3

  Environmental Health Offr

  0

  0

  0

  0

  33

  33

  4

  Pharmacist

  0

  0

  0

  0

  32

  26

  5

  Physiotherapist

  0

  0

  0

  0

  91

  68

  6

  PAM NYQ

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  6

  7

  Sub Total

  0

  0

  0

  0

  206

  176

  8

  Percentage Manned

  0

  0

  OR Posts

  9

  Radiographer

  0

  0

  0

  0

  47

  10

  10

  Lab Technician

  0

  0

  0

  0

  96

  25

  11

  Op Dept Prac

  0

  0

  0

  0

  144

  43

  12

  Sub Total

  0

  0

  0

  0

  287

  78

  13

  Percentage Manned

  0

  0

  14

  Total RAMC

  0

  0

  0

  0

  480

  254

  15

  Percentage Manned

  0

  0

  0

  886W 887W

  QARANC—Nursing posts

  Ser

  Status/Profession

  Ind Hasp

  Fd Amb

  Med Sqns

  Specialists

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (d)

  (e)

  (f)

  (g)

  (h)

  (i)

  (j)

  Officer posts

  1

  OC & 2i/c Nursing Sqn

  20

  17

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  2

  RGN (Adult)

  1,230

  604

  26

  29

  22

  31

  117

  113

  3

  Theatre Sister (ENB 183)

  40

  49

  0

  0

  0

  0

  23

  9

  4

  A&E(ENB199)

  140

  90

  0

  0

  0

  0

  14

  5

  5

  ITU (ENB 100)

  220

  85

  0

  0

  0

  0

  22

  11

  6

  Orthopaedic (ENB 219)

  100

  24

  0

  0

  0

  0

  10

  4

  7

  Gynaecology (ENB 225)

  20

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  8

  GU Med (ENB 276)

  40

  9

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  1

  9

  Burns (ENB 264)

  40

  11

  0

  0

  0

  0

  10

  3

  10

  Neurosurgical (ENB 148)

  20

  9

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1

  11

  Opthalmology (ENB 346)

  20

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  2

  12

  Registered Midwife

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  6

  0

  13

  RSCN

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  6

  1

  14

  Community Psych Nurse

  40

  32

  8

  2

  0

  0

  4

  3

  15

  RMN

  40

  50

  4

  2

  0

  0

  9

  8

  16

  NO NYQ

  0

  75

  0

  3

  0

  4

  0

  2

  17

  Sub total

  1,970

  1,061

  38

  36

  22

  35

  295

  165

  18

  Percentage manned

  54

  95

  159

  56

  OR Posts

  19

  RGN (Adult)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  17

  5

  1

  1

  20

  Sub total

  0

  0

  0

  0

  17

  5

  1

  1

  21

  Percentage manned

  0

  0

  29

  100

  Total OR and Officer posts

  22

  Total

  1,970

  1,061

  38

  36

  39

  40

  296

  166

  23

  Percentage manned

  54

  95

  103

  56

  Amb Regt

  Med Gp

  Liab

  Str

  (k)

  (l)

  (m)

  (n)

  (o)

  (p)

  Officer Posts

  1

  OC & 2i/c Nursing Sqn

  0

  0

  0

  0

  22

  19

  2

  RGN (Adult)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1,455

  777

  3

  Theatre Sister (ENB 183)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  63

  58

  4

  A&E(ENB 199)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  154

  95

  5

  ITU (ENB 100)

  0

  0

  0

  242

  96

  6

  Orthopaedic (ENB 219)

  0

  0

  0

  110

  28

  7

  Gynaecology (ENB 225)

  0

  0

  0

  22

  3

  8

  GU Med (ENB 276)

  0

  0

  0

  44

  10

  9

  Burns (ENB 264)

  0

  0

  0

  50

  14

  10

  Neurosurgical (ENB 148)

  0

  0

  0

  22

  10

  11

  Opthalmology (ENB 346)

  0

  0

  0

  24

  5

  12

  Registered Midwife

  0

  0

  0

  6

  0

  13

  RSCN

  0

  0

  0

  6

  1

  14

  Community Psych Nurse

  0

  0

  0

  52

  37

  15

  RMN

  0

  0

  0

  53

  60

  16

  NO NYQ

  0

  0

  0

  0

  84

  Sub total

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2,325

  1,297

  18

  Percentage manned

  0

  0

  OR Posts

  19

  RGN (Adult)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  18

  6

  20

  Sub total

  0

  0

  0

  0

  18

  6

  21

  Percentage manned

  0

  0

  Total OR and Officer posts

  22

  Total

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2,343

  1,303

  23

  Percentage manned

  0

  0

  Tri-service Bill
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) armed forces personnel, broken down by (i) service and (ii) rank, and (b) civilian staff, broken down by grade, are working on drafting the new tri-service Bill; and under whose command, and at what location, the work is progressing. [121296]

  Mr. Ingrain
  The team working on the policy and legal issues for the tri-Service Bill is based in London, within 888W
  the Directorate General of Service Personnel Policy, and reports to a senior civil service official. It consists of the following staff:

  Royal Navy: One Captain

  Army: Two Colonels

  Royal Air Force:one Group Captain and one Wing commander

  Civil Service: One Bl (formerly Grade 6/Senior Principal) and one Cl (formerly Senior Executive Officer).

  889W
  The team is also able to draw on a large proportion of the time of a senior lawyer from Ministry of Defence legal advisers; and on extensive assistance from the single Service legal and personnel policy staffs.

  Type-23 Frigates
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to reduce the number of Type-23 Frigates; and if he will make a statement. [121204]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 12 June 2003,Official Report, column 1018W, to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin). There are currently no plans to reduce the number of
  890W
  Royal Navy Type-23 Frigates before the end of their scheduled service life around the middle of the next decade, from which point they will be progressively withdrawn.

  Weapons of Mass Destruction
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what definition the Government uses of what qualifies as a weapon of mass destruction. [120733]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence gave on 22 May 2002,Official Report, column 367W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Llew Smith).

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Waveney District Council
  The Minister for Pensions (Malcolm Wicks)
  On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (BFI) inspection report on Waveney District Council was published today and copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  In its response to the Housing Green Paper of November 2000, the Department for Work and Pensions developed a performance framework for housing benefits. The "Performance Standards for housing benefits" allow local authorities to make a comprehensive self-assessment of whether they deliver benefit effectively and securely. They are the Standards that the Department for Work and Pensions expects local authorities to aspire to and achieve in time.

  The BFI inspected Waveney Council against the Performance Standards. The report finds that the council is not at Standard for any of the seven functional areas of the Performance Standards—strategic management, customer services, processing of claims, working with landlords, internal security, counter-fraud, and overpayments.

  The report finds that the council's overall level of performance for its administration of benefits and counter-fraud activity was poor, and identifies many significant and serious failings.

  A lack of strategic vision and poor operational planning had hindered the council's ability to deliver an effective benefit service. This was clearly evident during 2001–02 with long delays in processing new and renewal benefit claims.

  The council's processes, procedures and systems were inadequate to secure the benefit service from fraud and error.

  However, the report finds enthusiasm and support for the benefit service from the council's senior officers and staff. Additional management posts had been created and new members of staff appointed to these key positions.

  The council acknowledged that significant improvements in the administration of housing benefits were needed and that this is a key priority. The council has been very receptive to the inspection findings, implementing a number of minor changes and introducing new procedures to improve the benefit service during the on-site phase of the inspection.

  In 2001–02, Waveney District Council administered some £28 million in housing benefits, about 44 per cent. of its total gross revenue expenditure.
  38WS
  The report makes recommendations to help the council address weaknesses and to further improve the administration of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, as well as counter-fraud activities.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and will be asking the council for its proposals in response to the findings and recommendations of the BFI.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Planning Delivery Grant 2003–04
  The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill)
  In a written statement on 10 February, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Mr. McNulty) set out the amounts of the allocations of planning delivery grant that had been made to local authorities and other bodies for 2003–04,Official Report, column 35WS. Those allocations did not take account of the growth area status of five authorities whose allocations were therefore incorrect. Additional allocations of planning delivery grant for 2003–04 are being made to these authorities and are tabled below.

  Authority

  Amount (£)

  London Borough of Enfield

  62,500

  London Borough of Hackney

  62,500

  London Borough of Haringey

  62,500

  London Borough of Redbridge

  62,500

  London Borough of Waltham Forest

  62,500

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is writing to these authorities and will make the payments in due course.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Liberia (Humanitarian Situation)
  The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Hilary Benn)
  The humanitarian situation in Liberia has deteriorated significantly in recent weeks. Increased fighting between Government troops and rebel opposition forces came to within 5 km of Monrovia between 6 and 10 June. This led to the displacement of 200,000 civilians into Monrovia. There are reports of cholera and measles in Monrovia, and there are already food shortages. UN expatriate staff have been evacuated. Following the ECOWAS-brokered ceasefire on 17 June, it is essential that as soon as possible, the Liberian parties arrange access to all areas from which humanitarian agencies have been excluded by fighting.

  On 16 June, we allocated £1.5 million for support to humanitarian agencies in Liberia. Of this £500,000 has been allocated to the ICRC Emergency Appeal for Liberia. This is in addition to £550,000 which was committed to the same appeal earlier this year. We have also allocated £374,000 to Merlin for the provision of emergency health care. This will supplement £450,000 already committed to Medecins Sans Frontieres for Secondary Health Care provision in Monrovia in 2002.

  39WS
  We expect to allocate the balance to support other funding requests that strengthen the geographical and sectoral coverage of the relief programme. We are in regular contact with a number of organisations operating to meet humanitarian needs in Liberia, including Oxfam, Save the Children UK, Medecins Sans Frontieres and World Vision. We expect to receive proposals from these organisations in the near future.

HEALTH DEPARTMENT

  Dentists' Remuneration
  The Secretary of State for Health (Dr. John Reid)
  I am responding on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the Supplement to the Thirty-second Report of the Review Body on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration (DDRB) which is being published today.

  Copies of the Report are available in the Vote Office and the Library. The supplement covers general dental practitioners (GDPs), those in the salaried primary dental care services, general medical practice (GMP) registrars and salaried GMPs employed by a primary care organisation. The DDRB will report later on general medical services.

  I am grateful to the Chairman and members of the Review Body for their hard work in dealing with their remit groups.

  The Review Body has recommended an increase to the out of hours supplement payable to GMP Registrars which is in line with our pre-existing commitment to this group. It has also recommended a pay range for salaried GMPs employed by primary care organisations for the first time.

  Salaried dentists accepted a three-year pay offer in March, linked to a review of salaried dental services. For GDPs, the DDRB has recommended an increase in the feescale of 3.225 per cent., from 1 April 2003 and an increase in the National Health Service commitment scheme of £9 million for Great Britain.

  The Review Body's pay recommendations are being accepted in full and without staging.

DEFENCE

  Hydrographic Office (Key Targets)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin)
  Key Targets have been set for the Chief Executive of the UK Hydrographic office for the financial year 2003–04. The targets build on the already high standards of service provided by the agency and are as follows:

  Key Target 1. Safety.
  Safety Index to exceed 90 per cent. with all radio navigational warnings issued to timescale.

  Key Target 2. Defence.
  To achieve an index rating of more than 95 for the defence programme as set out in the tasking authorisation forms.
  40WS
  Key Target 3. Customer Service.
  Customer and end user satisfaction to exceed a scale rating of 80, and distributor satisfaction to exceed a scale rating of 70 by the end of financial year 2003–04.

  Key Target 4. Wider Markets.
  To deliver plans to maximise access to UKHO material for re-use, including the implementation of a licensing system that allows most re-users to reproduce UKHO material free of charge for non-commercial and low-values purposes by August 2003, and to secure additional profitable revenue from wider markets, including the implementation of a plan produced by September 2003 which will deliver revenue from financial year 2004–05 onwards.

  Key Target 5. Finance.
  To break even taking one year with another, and to achieve a return on capital employed of 7.5 per cent. averaged over the past five years.

  Key Target 6. Finance.
  Efficiency, as measured by added value, to improve by 5 per cent. from 2000–01 to 2005–06.

  Key Target 7. People.
  To achieve an improvement in employee engagement of 10 per cent. to 3.8 by 31 March 2004.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Fine Enforcement
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie)
  Too many fines are not paid. In the year 2002–03, an unacceptable 45 per cent. of fines were not paid. In some areas the level of default was as high as 60 per cent. The authority of the courts must be enforced. We are announcing today a new approach to the collection of fines.

  First, fines will no longer be written off. They will be chased until they are paid, no longer being written off, as they often are, after 12 months.

  Secondly, we will make it easier to deduct the fine directly from the offender's pay or benefits.

  Thirdly, if the offender really cannot pay, we will allow the fine to be paid off by unpaid work in the community.

  Fourthly, where courts have been ineffective in the collection of fines, we will allow the private sector to be brought into the collection of fines.

  Fifthly, we will introduce a new offence of failing to provide details of income and expenditure to allow deduction orders to be made.

  Sixthly, we will consider allowing deductions for earlier payment, but we will increase the fines for late payment.
  41WS
  Seventhly, we will work with the courts to ensure that there are incentives for those individual fine officers who collect fines effectively.

  This seven-point plan will be driven personally by the Ministers in DCA. They will intervene personally with any Magistrates' Courts Committees that continue to perform badly.

  Fine enforcement is a priority. The DCA's job is now, actively, to ensure the courts are effective in fighting crime.
  42WS
  A report on the annual performance data was placed in the Libraries of both Houses today entitled "Fine Enforcement Performance in 2002–03". The report shows that performance overall was poor, with the 42 independent Magistrates' Courts Committees (MCCs) failing to deliver the overall national target of a payment rate of 68 per cent.

  The Government commissioned an independent review "A Review of Magistrates' Courts Enforcement Strategies" which we are also placing in the Libraries of both Houses today.

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

Cyprus
Lord Maginnis of Drumglassasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether European Union sanctions against the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus have created a significant disparity of incomes between Turkish Cypriots in the north and Greek Cypriots in the south.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, there are no EU sanctions against the north of Cyprus. The self-declared "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" is not internationally recognised, except by Turkey. That has created practical barriers to trade. We welcome the recently published EU measures to promote economic development in the north of Cyprus and to bring it closer to the EU. But we believe that the best way for Turkish Cypriots to achieve peace and prosperity is through a just, comprehensive and lasting settlement on the basis of the United Nations proposals.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer, but does she acknowledge that that is, in essence, a quibble and that there is an average annual wage differential between southern Cyprus, where it is the equivalent of £15,000 per annum, and northern Cyprus, where it is only £3,000 per annum? Does the Minister acknowledge that that wealth differential is an insurmountable barrier to integrated resettlement, as proposed by the United Nations, and that such an agreement would result in 80,000 Turkish Cypriots becoming refugees? Is that what the Government want?
On a more promising note, is the Minister aware that President Denktash has been invited, in his own right, to the prestigious Crans-Montana international conference in Switzerland this weekend? I am privileged to be part of his delegation. Is it not time that the Government in this country made a similar gesture?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, in relation to the first half of the noble Lord's question, I do not agree. Of course the Government of the United Kingdom do not want to see that kind of difficulty in Cyprus. I do not agree with the noble Lord that this is a question of a quibble. The facts are as I have stated. Because northern Cyprus is not recognised, there are real difficulties concerning trade.
284
I acknowledge what the noble Lord said about the differences in income. With that in mind, the EU brought forward some very promising proposals on 3rd June. The Commission stated that it was putting forward a package as a strong political signal of support for the Turkish Cypriot community. The package includes 9 million euros of financial assistance to boost economic development. It also provides for some proposals on trade, which I hope will help to overcome some of the difficulties. I am sorry that the noble Lord did not concentrate on what I consider to be very much a package of good news from the EU in respect of northern Cyprus.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords—
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords—
The Lord President of the Council (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, we have plenty of time. Perhaps we may start with the noble Lord, Lord Howell.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, while we are talking about Cyprus, will the noble Baroness join me in congratulating one of our own number—the noble Lord, Lord Hannay—on the honour that he received in recognition of his tireless work in trying to bring together the communities in Cyprus?
As to the Question, the noble Baroness is absolutely right that there are no direct sanctions. She is also right that, unfortunately, northern Cyprus recently rejected a substantial offer of aid from the European Union. However, would it not he possible for the European Union to make exports from northern Cyprus a little easier and to ease some of the regulations so that some of the prosperity enjoyed by the Republic of Cyprus could be shared in the north and perhaps pave the way for surmounting the appalling political difficulties?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, of course I join the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, on his very well deserved honour. All your Lordships are well aware of the tireless work that he has put in through the United Nations. I believe that it is a matter of great regret to most of your Lordships that his work did not meet with immediate success, but we hope that, in due course, there may be some settlement along those lines.
On the question of what the EU can do, I hope that your Lordships will spend a little time considering the 9 million-euro package of financial assistance, which will help to develop the economic infrastructure in the north. It is introducing grant schemes for SMEs and conducting feasibility studies on economic integration. But there is also a package of proposals on trade, stating in particular that the Turkish Cypriot Chamber of Commerce could be given the authority to issue movement certificates for goods from the north of the island to the south and then on to the EU. I believe that that move by the EU to try to facilitate trade is very positive.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, has my noble friend seen reports of the encouraging remarks

285
made yesterday by Abdullah Gül, the Foreign Minister of Turkey, on local Turkish television, who said, after meeting Kofi Annan, that Ankara would have no objection to the United Nations plan, with changes, being the basis of a Cyprus settlement? Is that not a far more realistic approach than the one being followed by Mr Denktash, who dares not put that plan to the Turkish Cypriot people in a referendum and who, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, is stuck way back in history?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, any encouragement that Turkey can give to northern Cyprus to move in the direction of the United Nations' plan is to be encouraged. As to the specific issue of what Mr Gül said, it depends on the sort of changes necessary to meet the point that Turkey wants to meet. In our experience, when changes are made by one side, another side in the discussion wants changes of a reciprocal nature in other parts of the programme.
I agree that it is the UN that holds the key. The UN Secretary-General has made clear that he remains at the disposal of the parties, should they request UN assistance in any further negotiations for a settlement; but a settlement based on the UN plan.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, for his kind words. Does the Minister agree that Mr Denktash, when he rejected the UN plan last March, turned his back on what is by far the quickest and easiest way to start narrowing the gap between the prosperity of his community and the rest of the island? Doe she agree that the way to achieve that now is to come back to the table on the basis of the UN plan and not to try to make conditions for that, or to rubbish the UN plan?
Does she also agree that the European Union has shown over many years that its instruments are the best for narrowing the gaps between prosperous parts of a country and less prosperous parts of a country, and the same would be likely to happen in Cyprus should a reunited island join the EU?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree with a great deal of what the noble Lord said. After all, he is best placed among all your Lordships to make that sort of judgment. It is indeed the best way for the northern part of the island not only to find peace but prosperity. The people of northern Cyprus recognised that when they demonstrated in favour of the UN proposals.

Middle East Road Map
2.46 p.m.
Lord Blakerasked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made with the road map for peace in the Middle East.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli Government
286
have accepted the road map that was presented to them on 30th April. At the Aqaba summit on 4th June, Prime Minister Sharon and Prime Minister Abbas made public commitments to implement the road map. Phase one of the road map has begun, with action including the appointment of Prime Minister Abbas and the dismantling of some settlement outposts. Much remains to be done.
Her Majesty's Government are ready to support all efforts towards a just and settled peace.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, the noble Lords will welcome the fact that the noble Baroness is able to report some progress. However, are there not still too many killings?
The killing of members of Hamas by the Israeli forces—targeted killings—are conducted on the instructions of the Government of Israel; whereas the killing of Israeli people by extremists on the Palestinian side is conducted against the wishes and the efforts of Mr Abbas. Is not that the difference? Is not the danger that the actions of the Israeli Government are making the efforts of Mr Abbas to secure a ceasefire on his side, more difficult?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, there is some progress, but as the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, points out, it is very fragile at the moment. I hope that I stressed that when I said that much is still to be done.
The killings carried out by Hamas are clearly terrorist actions. I hope that your Lordships understand that discussions are taking place between Hamas and the Palestinian Government to try to work towards a ceasefire. I am sure that we all support those strenuous and continuing efforts.
As regards the Israeli actions in carrying out assassinations, it is regrettable that the Israelis feel that they are trapped into a security situation in which that action seems necessary. However, I am bound to say that the belief of Her Majesty's Government is that such actions do not help the path of peace, and may well mitigate against the very thing that Israel is trying to secure—namely, its own security.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: As the Minister rightly confirmed yesterday, the Aqaba summit was the beginning of an extremely important discussion on the possibility of a ceasefire by Hamas. Can the Minister comment on yesterday's pre-dawn round-up of the largest number of Hamas suspects ever undertaken by the Israeli Defence Force, which might jeopardise the chances of that negotiation?
In her view, is there any possibility that both sides might accept the presence of international monitors who could inform the international community as to the repercussions on both sides, across the border, which are of such importance in trying to create new trust?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, these are indeed huge questions. The fact is that there

287
was an enormous round-up of Hamas suspects. We know that terrorist activity is carried out by Hamas and that Israel has the right to do everything that it can within international law to make itself and its citizens as secure as possible. It is very important that those who carry out acts of terrorism are put as far away from their objectives as possible.
We are at a very delicate phase in the whole road map. What happens over the next few weeks is crucial to whether or not the road map is able to succeed. I choose my words extraordinarily carefully, particularly at the moment, in answering these questions.
I hope that I have been clear to the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, about extra-judicial killings. However, we must be clear that extra-judicial killings are very different from rounding up terrorists who themselves may he perpetrating terrorist actions.
On the need for international monitors, I understand that the United States is planning to send a nine-person team to the region to carry out some of the monitoring that will be necessary for the road map. That will be headed by John Wolf, who is a State Department official. We are very pleased with that development.
Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld: My Lords, while it is very encouraging that the Israeli Government and the Palestinian Authority are committed to the road map, it remains a fact that the only road map in the possession of Hamas terrorists is the road map to Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, where they perpetrate their terrible crimes. Does the Minister agree that there is little moral difference between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the United Kingdom pursuing a war against terrorism and Israel pursuing a war against terrorism when it is in the very front line of that terrorism? Is it not right that we should encourage the Arab nations and the Islamic countries to give as much encouragement as possible to the implementation of the road map?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, if noble Lords will forgive me, I will not gel drawn into the question of moral equivalence. However, terrorism is terrorism wherever it is carried out. I believe that what we undertook in Iraq was of a rather different nature. In phase one of the road map, it is clear that the Palestinians themselves must act against terrorism and that they must do what they can to prevent attacks, to dismantle terrorist capabilities and infrastructure and to rebuild their own security infrastructure in Palestine. That is a very clear objective of phase one of the road map.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the erection by Israel of a security fence and wall in its present position is extremely unhelpful? If it is required, should it not be moved back to the green line? Will Her Majesty's Government raise the issue with all members of the quartet?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, while we fully understand Israel's need to take steps
288
within the law to protect itself from terrorist attacks, we have concerns about the seizure of more Palestinian land and the isolation of Palestinian villages, which resulted from the construction of the security fence. Our embassy in Tel Aviv has raised those concerns with the Israeli Government about the location and likely impact of the fence.

Judicial Appointments
2.53 p.m.
Lord Lamont of Lerwickasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the Lord Chancellor's remarks in an interview in the Guardian on 16th June about diversity of gender, race and experience among the judiciary represent government policy.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, we must continue to appoint judges on merit. However, there is no inconsistency between ensuring that judges are appointed on merit and seeking a more diverse judiciary. The Government are making progress and my noble and learned predecessor did much to increase the diversity of the Bench. There is more to be done to ensure that appointments are accessible to the widest possible range of candidates. The creation of an independent judicial appointments commission is a vital step in that process.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, I thank the Lord Chancellor for that reply and congratulate him on his appointment. I hope that he will remain Lord Chancellor for much longer than he intends.
Will the Lord Chancellor confirm that in his interview in the Guardian he in no way meant to diminish the contribution of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, when he described the post of Lord Chancellor as always being occupied by a 50-plus member of the English Bar? I thank the Lord Chancellor for his reply. Is it not the case, as he said, that while diversity of age, gender and experience may be important, the most important point is, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, did, to continue the most important principle of selecting the most qualified personnel for the judiciary?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his congratulations. I unreservedly apologise to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. As the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, said, I referred to all previous Lord Chancellors as being members of the English Bar, whereas the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, was a very distinguished member of the Scottish Bar. I apologise for that; it was a mistake on my part.
I make it clear that merit must be the guiding principle in relation to appointments to the Bench. We need to encourage a more diverse Bench; we need to encourage more people of quality to apply—more

289
females and more people from black and minority ethnic groups—so that we have a more diverse Bench, but without compromising on merit.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, we very much approve of the Lord Chancellor's remarks. Clearly, if there is to be full confidence in the system of justice in this country, all members of our society must be able to see on the Bench those whom they can regard as representing the whole of the United Kingdom. We on these Benches therefore very strongly support what he said.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for those remarks. I believe that we are entirely agreed on the need for quality and diversity on the Bench and for a Bench that is representative of the society that it seeks to serve.
Baroness Howells of St Davids: My Lords, does the Lord Chancellor agree that whatever government are in power, they will seek to ensure that the Race Relations (Amendment) Act is implemented?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, our Government introduced the Race Relations (Amendment) Act after the Lawrence inquiry suggested that. It is extremely important that in all areas of life it is given effect to; that is obviously the case in relation to the public sector, at which it is primarily directed, but also in relation to the way in which the courts operate.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, while merit is clearly the guiding principle on appointments to the Bench, is the Lord Chancellor aware that a committee of Justice—the Stevens committee—reported some 10 years ago that a judicial commission would be the best way forward? While congratulating the Government on that decision, is it not clear that the time has more than arrived by which a far more transparent method of appointing able, qualified members of the Bar and the solicitors' profession should be achieved?
The Lord Chancellor: Yes, my Lords, I entirely agree with the question. On 14th July, we will publish a detailed consultation paper on how we propose to move forward to the next phase.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, political correctness is one fear but political interference is another. From a government who have given us an access regulator for the universities, what can the noble and learned Lord give us in terms of comfort that he is not about to introduce an access regulator for the Bench?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I entirely agree with the first part of the noble Lord's question; of course the time has come, as he will be the first to agree, to separate politics from appointments to the Bench. That is why the time has come for an
290
appointments commission. We will consult widely on issues connected with that, including removal and discipline in relation to the Bench.

NHS: Contracted-out Workers
2.59 p.m.
Earl Russellasked Her Majesty's Government:
To what extent contracted out workers in the National Health Service, such as those at present on strike at the Royal Bolton Hospital, are denied the rights and pay available to National Health Service employees, and at what cost to Her Majesty's Government.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner): My Lords, where NHS staff are transferred, the provisions of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 usually apply. That ensures that, apart from pensions, all aspects of an employee's existing terms and conditions of service continue to apply and can be changed only with the agreement of employees. Terms and conditions for any new staff are the responsibility of the new employer and are settled locally.
Earl Russell: My Lords, may I congratulate the noble Lord on his promotion to his present position, which we warmly welcome? He has learnt, because he has worn enough hats to do so, that savings carry costs. Is he aware that his reservation "apart from pensions" is a very considerable one? Will he tell us how many of the contracted-out workers affected are making contributions to an occupational pension scheme? Will he confirm that for every one who is not, Richmond House is darkened by the shadow of an approaching MIG?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I draw the noble Earl's attention to the fact that we are not running the NHS centrally from Richmond House. Much of this area has been devolved to local decisions and local contracting negotiations and we would not be collecting centrally the information that he requests. I also draw his attention to the fact that I think this Question has its roots in past decisions. The future lies with Agenda for Change, which represents a totally new approach to determining pay and conditions of service for staff in the NHS, based on the principles of fair pay. That has been warmly welcomed by many of the members and union negotiators and will shortly come into operation.
Earl Howe: My Lords, is not the problem at the Royal Bolton Hospital—a two-tier workforce and differential pay rates—the same problem as the one that for many months has been holding up the final

291
signature on a considerable number of PFI hospital-building contracts? If that is so, what are the Government doing to unblock the logjam on those contracts?
Lord Warner: My Lords, staff other than managers who are transferred under PFI services such as catering, laundry and portering services, of the kind involved in some of the disputes dealt with in the Question, remain on an NHS contract and continue to have the rights of NHS staff through the new retention of employment model. Under the agenda for change which I mentioned, that new system will apply to those staff.

EU Enlargement: Social Security Benefits
3.2 p.m.
Baroness Seccombeasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, on enlargement of the European Union, access for eastern Europeans to Britain's benefit system can be restricted by introducing a qualifying period.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey)No, my Lords. From the date of accession, people from the acceding states who move to the United Kingdom or any other member state will be subject to the same qualifying rules for social security benefits which apply to all EU citizens. Discrimination on grounds of nationality will not be permitted.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, why was not the Government's research and analysis on this sensitive matter published before the accession Bill was before another place? Can we be assured that all the facts will be available before we debate it next week? Can he say on what basis the Government decided not to impose a two or seven-year qualifying period?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I cannot be responsible for the fact that Mr Letwin, and indeed apparently the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, have misunderstood the facts, which have always been clear. Right from the beginning there has never been any doubt that member states cannot impose a qualifying period for social security benefits. I understand the confusion in some people's minds between that and the ability to work, where a qualifying period is possible, but it is not our responsibility that some people insist on misunderstanding the position.
Earl Russell: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that this point was exhaustively covered during the discussions on the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill? Will he further confirm that, according to
292
Eurostat statistics, British benefits are below the European average and are therefore not quite so attractive as some may hope and others may fear?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the combination of the noble Earl's elephantine memory and his involvement in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act, neither of which I share, lead me to believe that he must be right on the first point that he makes. As for benefits, I am sure that the thrust of what he says is right. However, clearly there are differences in different benefit levels in different member states. To generalise, I think, would be unwise.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I remain absolutely astonished at the noble Lord's versatility on these issues. However, as concern was expressed in another place about a lack of information on these issues, may I inquire what further information will be provided with regard to the cost of social security benefits? Can he tell us now which social security benefits will be available to those coming from eastern Europe to this country and which will not?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. Of course he will know that I am here because my noble friend Lady Hollis has an appointment with her eye consultant this afternoon. I am sure that we all wish her well.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, on the question of costs, I am sure that all the information will be available. On the question of which social security benefits apply to all EU citizens, I referred in my initial Answer to the qualifying rules. Of course the qualifying rules include the habitual residence test which was introduced, in 1994, into income support, housing and council tax benefit and, from 1996, into income-based jobseeker's allowance. That is specifically to deal with those whose main purpose in coming to the United Kingdom is to claim benefits.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: If I may, my Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord a question on a particularly sensitive issue. In the eastern European countries there are large numbers of Romany people, many of whom have a hard time in their home countries and for whom free movement westwards in the European Union may prove very attractive indeed. Can the Minister tell us whether the Government are taking account in assessing their future benefit costs of the possible increase in the number of asylum seekers who may come from that quarter?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords, of course we are doing that. At the same time, however, the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, will be aware that there has been very considerable pressure, particularly on the Czech Republic, Slovakia and, indeed,

293
Hungary, to improve the conditions of Roma people in their countries as part of the process of accession to the European Union. There have been some successes in that area, although I am sure nothing like enough yet.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, perhaps I may join the noble Lord in wishing the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, well in the light of the circumstances that he described.
Do the Government have any estimate of the total cost to the British taxpayer in, say, each of the next five years of the changes envisaged under the accession treaty?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we do not have an estimate of the cost, but there are estimates of the numbers concerned. Research carried out by the former Department for Education and Employment estimated a range of between 55,000 and 278,000 migrants from the new member states per year across the whole of the European Union after accession. Extrapolating down, and bearing in mind the fact that 80 per cent of those nationals from the new member states are in Germany and Austria, the total flows to the United Kingdom could be in the range of 3,000 to 14,000 per annum. It will be seen, therefore, that the costs are not going to be extravagant.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that we should not always regard migrants as a burden on our society and that many of them come with great entrepreneurial assets and make a great contribution? I think particularly of those who came from East Africa and the Indian subcontinent who have proved to be invaluable to our country.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I agree very strongly with that. I think that these people from the acceding countries should be welcomed and treated as friends. Indeed, it is for exactly that reason that the United Kingdom has decided not to seek a qualifying period for citizens of those countries to come here as workers. It will be known that some of the member states are imposing qualifying periods. We, like five other members states, have decided not to do so. We believe that it is to our economic and social advantage to have those people in this country. That view, I may say, is shared by the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress.

Speaker of the House of Lords
3.9 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall make a further Statement concerning the Government's proposals for the Speakership of this House.
294
On Thursday 12th June the Government announced proposals to reform the office of Lord Chancellor, including a proposal that this House should choose its own presiding officer. Last Monday I announced a week of consultation on that proposal.
I am very grateful indeed that many of your Lordships from all around the House have contributed to that consultation, by either walking through my open door or writing to me. I have also gathered views from others by less formal means. This consultation has served a useful purpose in giving me and the usual channels a fair idea of where consensus may be found and how we may move forward.
I suggested last week that the main question was, shall we take this opportunity to set up a mechanism to appoint our own Presiding Officer? There are many who think that we should. I do not pretend that there is consensus. Some see no case for change at all and some believe that the House benefits from having a member of the Government as its presiding officer.
Many of your Lordships advised me that the question of the appointment of our Presiding Officer cannot be separated from the question of powers and functions. I accept that. Some of your Lordships favour a Speakership with significant powers of order, but I have to say that they are in a minority. More favour either a Presiding Officer with no more powers and functions than the Lord Chancellor exercises at present, or a Presiding Officer who would take from me and my colleagues on the Government Front Bench our role as upholders of the conventions of the House set out in the Companion. Either way, there is strong support for continued self-regulation, and strong feelings against a Speakership in this House on House of Commons lines. So I believe that the process of consultation, which was very extensive and very helpful, has been useful.
It is not strictly relevant, but I ought to mention that several noble Lords on all sides of the House took the opportunity to give their view that in recent months self-regulation has slipped a bit in the direction of self-indulgence.
Of those who commented on the method of appointment of a Presiding Officer, most favour election. Some proposed safeguards, such as a minimum number of nominations from each group in the House. But there are other views, including the view that an elected Presiding Officer would inevitably be too powerful for self-regulation to survive.
In short, there is plainly not a level of consensus which would allow me to put proposals straight to the Procedure Committee. On the contrary, there is very strong support on all sides of the House for a Select Committee on the speakership, and that is what I now propose. I shall shortly table a Motion to set up a committee, with a remit as follows:
"To consider the future arrangements for the Speakership of the House in the light of the Government's announcement that it is intended to reform the office of Lord Chancellor".
That remit will allow the committee to consider not only the role of the Presiding Officer, and the method of appointment, but also the following issues which

295
your Lordships have identified as important: the Presiding Officer's title, pay, term of office and accommodation—the latter was a topic of keen interest, particularly among those of your Lordships who assured me they had no interest in occupying the particular post—Deputy Speakers; the relationship with the Chairman of Committees, the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Clerks, and the House authorities generally and, of course, State Opening and other ceremonial functions.
As your Lordships will understand, I am not proposing today a Select Committee on the Government's proposals for the Supreme Court and judicial appointments. As my noble and learned friend said in answer to the earlier Question from the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, the Government's proposals on those matters will be published on 14th July. Of course the committee will be able to have regard to them if it considers them relevant to the question of the Speakership.
As to timetable, I envisage that the committee will start work before the recess, and report by the end of the Session, with a view to changes being introduced early in the new Session, subject, of course—I underline that if I may—to the committee's recommendations and the wishes of the House. The House will, of course, have a full debate on the committee's report.
My Lords, copies of this Statement are available as usual.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble and learned Lord for making the Statement. I also thank him for the trouble that he has taken to consult widely across the House in the short time that he allowed himself. Perhaps he will give us an idea of the number of representations that he received. All I shall say is: if only the Prime Minister had done the same; life would have been a lot easier.
For myself, when there is so much other pressing business. I find it hard to see the urgency in this matter. After all, we have a system that works. It is old certainly but it is not bad just because it is old; it has become old because it works.
From our perspective, this is a House matter. It is certainly in no sense a government matter, and in that sense I think that a Select Committee is the right response. I also have no quarrel with the terms of reference suggested by the noble and learned Lord, if he will underline the point made in his Statement that the Select Committee must have regard to the whole range of changes proposed to the role of Lord Chancellor.
Can the noble and learned Lord say when the House will be able to debate the promised Motion to set up a Select Committee? Can he promise us that when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is in a position to tell us what should be done with the other parts of his office, he will make a Statement to this House—certainly in advance of any press briefing on 14th July? He might also give an opinion as to whether or not he believes that will be in the form of a White
296
Paper. This may be a point better made when we debate the terms of reference, but I see no need to make any changes to the role of Speaker of this House until the Lord Chancellor is divested of his other responsibilities.
The noble and learned Lord proposed examination of the State Opening. Are the Government proposing any other change in that great ceremony other than in the role of the Lord Chancellor? Will he confirm that the noble and learned Lord will play the usual role in the State Opening this year?
The noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House must be under no illusion as to the importance we attach to the freedoms of Peers in this House and to the value of self-regulation. He added a gentle poke about our self-indulgence. I agree it is important that noble Lords on all sides display restraint if self-regulation is to work as it always has. But the answer I suspect lies not in changing the system or subjecting us to a Chair but in each of us knowing and respecting the rules. I certainly subscribe to the importance of that. Perhaps I may be allowed my own aside. Self-regulation might sometimes work better if Ministers answered the questions they were asked, and did so briefly.
We have to look at the issue of the Speakership; the Government have placed it on the agenda. But there is no case for haste. We on this side of the House are content with the role played by the Lord Chancellor in this House, but if the House agrees to establish a Select Committee, we shall play our full part in it. But the Select Committee must do its work thoroughly and should resist any blandishments from the Government.
3.18 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House. He has, indeed, been a paragon of consultation in the past week or so. We are grateful to him for keeping his door open to all Members who wished to consult with him. However, that, in the view of these Benches, does not detract from what I can only describe as a disgraceful handling of this matter—one that in our view was unfair to a very distinguished former Lord Chancellor and also unfair to Members of this House who should in our view have been consulted much more thoroughly before such a huge constitutional change was made.
Having said that, we on these Benches strongly support the idea of a Select Committee. We believe that it is the right way to go forward. We believe that that Select Committee will examine very carefully all the various considerations that have been raised by Members of this House. Having said that, it would be very helpful—-perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House can assist us on this matter—if we could have a list of all the functions of the Lord Chancellor that will remain with that post, with the exception of those posts that pass to the Minister for Constitutional Affairs, and also the judicial responsibilities of the Lord Chancellor. Members of this House will know that there are, as the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition indicated, many functions pertaining to the Lord Chancellor,

297
including even such rather controversial issues as the appointment of certain members of the Church of England clergy. It would be extremely helpful if Members of the House could know what those functions are, and if the Select Committee could know what they are before it starts its work.
I have two final points. In our view, serious consideration should be given to retaining the title. The person who will preside over this House will also in many instances represent this House, particularly abroad. We should think very carefully before abandoning a title that has great historic reverberations associated with it, and that enables those persons who preside over this House to establish themselves as very major personalities when they visit other parliaments and other senates in other parts of the world.
With regard to the understandable expression of some concern about self-indulgence by Members of this House in continuing to discuss matters, for example, on Report and at Third Reading that have already been dealt with in Committee, many noble Lords would be more than happy to co-operate in assisting in speeding up the business of the House, but we require a serious commitment from the Government. The largest number of new amendments to legislation going through this House are presented by the Government themselves, literally in the thousands in the course of a Session.
If we could receive an assurance from the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House that he will ask Ministers who bring forward legislation to do so in the most complete form possible, recognising therefore that amendments should come up only if there are urgent reasons for doing so, all of us in the House would be able to handle the business much more efficiently and effectively. We would therefore continue the excellent tradition of self-regulation.
3.22 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I was very shocked that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, proposed without consultation of any sort revolutionary constitutional changes; namely, that Ministers should be expected to answer the questions put to them. He is quite right, of course, and I am very grateful for the tone of his remarks and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and also for the tone with which all noble Lords came for consultation. There are different views, but no view was expressed other than in a spirit of co-operative amity, and I am very grateful for that.
There were a large number of respondents. I cannot give the precise number. because responses were still pouring in as I left my room to come to the Chamber, but there were well over 80 very deeply considered and well thought-out proposals. Of course, there were informal ones as well. Our attendance is perhaps of the order of 300 to 350, so that is quite a significant tribute to the interest that all noble Lords have shown and taken. Many noble Lords said that they came with a generalised view, representing views additional to their own, so in that sense 80 is a shade of an underestimate.
298
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that the matter is for the House. I will not be proposing any Front Bench representation from our side on the Select Committee, and I hope that that strikes noble Lords as appropriate.
The question of the Motion for the Select Committee is intended to be first business on Thursday 3rd July, in answer to the noble Lord's specific question. We have no proposals for altering the occasion of State Opening. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has made it plain himself, and also through me with his authority, that he is perfectly content to discharge such duties for such a time as your Lordships think appropriate. I know that his generosity of heart and approach has been welcomed by all noble Lords.
The noble Baroness asked about a list of the manifold duties of the Lord Chancellor. Urgent work is in hand on that. Speaking on behalf of my noble and learned friend, I can say that, although I think that he has to appoint 500 or 600 vicars to the Church of England, he has nothing at all to do with the appointment of Bishops.
A number of noble Lords had different views about the title, to return to the specific point of the noble Baroness. There was very little support for "Presiding Officer". It reminded your Lordships too much of Scotland—or Wales. There was some support for "Speaker", but that was underlined by the fact that we did not want any confusion with the sort of beast that the Speaker is in the House of Commons. I was happy to note that there was some support for "Lord President", and I heartily endorse that.
A Noble Lord: Boo!
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Oh dear, my Lords. Who said boo? There was some support for a novel title but, it being novel, I think that it ought to be immediately discarded. That was "Lord Speaker". There was more support for "Lord Chancellor". All those ideas, as the noble Baroness and the noble Lord said, are matters for the committee to look at it in detail at the appropriate time.
3.25 p.m.
Lord Carrington: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House and the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition bear in mind, when the time comes, that ex officio we have always had two members of the Cabinet? On more occasions than not, we have had only those two. If we abolish one of those ex officio members. we might have only one member of the Cabinet. For the second Chamber, that would really not be enough.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. That observation was contained in the proposals put to me. I have had every observation collated. They are not to be identifiable in the sense of who made the proposals, as that would be a breach of confidence, but a very full log has been kept,

299
and that aspect will feature in the papers that we are happy to provide to the committee if it so wishes. At the moment, thanks to the immaculate helmsmanship of the Prime Minister, we rejoice in having three Cabinet Ministers.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that, in the 88 Standing Orders of the House, the role of the Lord Chancellor as Speaker is mentioned in only five, and that he appears only four times in the index to the companion? I make that point became it seems to me that the role of the Lord Chancellor in this House is entirely a matter of convention. That means that if the House decides to agree on new conventions and amend its Standing Orders, it is entirely free to do so. Is it also true that the role and title of the Lord Chancellor, excluding the Speakership, must remain until it is changed by statute?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, there will be statutory requirements, as I think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, has pointed out. I am aware of the fact that, of the 88 Standing Orders, only five refer to the Lord Chancellor as Speaker. I am aware of that because, of course, my noble friend Lord Carter told me that he was going to ask me the question before I came in.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that, not so long ago, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland argued that there could not be proper scrutiny of the Bill on the Northern Ireland Assembly in the House of Commons because the House of Lords insisted on scrutinising it properly itself? Does that absurd position not underline how important it is that we do absolutely nothing that could weaken our ability to scrutinise legislation properly? Is it not essential therefore, among other things, that any Presiding Officer should not have the power, for instance, to select amendments?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I believe that we scrutinise Northern Ireland legislation extremely well. It is a tribute to the flexibility of our procedures that, within 10 days or fewer of the suggestion being made that we ought to have a Standing Order on Northern Ireland legislation, we introduced one. I agree entirely. We scrutinise legislation well, and it is no coincidence that sometimes very difficult, intricate and sensitive legislation in the Northern Ireland context is introduced into this House.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, will consideration be given to the position of those employed to render various services to the Lord Chancellor? At the moment, they are in a position of total misery, uncertainty and distress.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord's observation is right. No one likes uncertainty, and it is a duty on those who employ others or work with others to keep them as fully informed as possible.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I congratulate the noble and learned Lord on having decided to set up a Select
300
Committee. I am sure that that is the best way out of the problem. During the Statement, he slipped between talking about the Speaker and then the Presiding Officer; and about the Presiding Officer and the Speaker. He also said that the majority of people did not like the term "Presiding Officer" and I agree. Would the noble and learned Lord be kind enough not to refer to Presiding Officer? I do not know what the difference is between the two, but I am sure that there is a significant one.
Secondly, will he bear in mind the fact that whereas the present Speaker puts only formal questions—for example, moving that the Question be now agreed—once one pays a Speaker, even if he is elected, he will be much more intrusive? There must of course be a Deputy Speaker, a Chairman of Ways and Means and so forth, so the bureaucracy will grow. I hope that the noble and learned Lord agrees that that would be a bad thing.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I used the phrase "Presiding Officer" neutrally, as the noble Earl will readily accept and understand, in order to describe the person who presides on the Woolsack. It would have been deeply presumptuous of me to have used any particular denomination for the successor to my noble and learned friend because it would have appeared to be usurping the function of the role of the committee and your Lordships' decision.
We have a paid Speaker at the moment. He sits not far away from me to the left. His predecessor was paid, I remind myself. Your Lordships will have rejoiced to know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, was paid a distinct component of his salary for being Speaker. So for once—I can hardly remember such a thing happening previously—the noble Earl is wrong.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, when the committee examines the functions of the new post—I do not know what to call it for the purposes of today's discussions—will it also examine the accommodation requirements that go with it? I do not mean merely the residential accommodation, but the whole range of accommodation at this end of the building. Some of it might go begging, might it not?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, if it does, I shall bear my noble friend Lord Dubs firmly in mind. With the best will in the world, I believe that all these issues are matters of detail rather than for today.
Lord Elton: My Lords, turning to a slightly larger issue—
Lord Naseby: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, when this happens, there is a large undertow shouting, "Speaker!". Shall we take the noble Lord, Lord Elton, first and then the noble Lord, Lord Naseby?
Lord Elton: My Lords, thank you. My noble friend Lord Carrington made an important point in referring

301
to the possible discarding of one of the two ex officio Cabinet seats in this House, which are sometimes the only seats we have. That strongly links the decision the Select Committee will have to take with other decisions relating to the office of Lord Chancellor.
I was therefore reassured when the noble and learned Lord explained that the present Lord Chancellor had said that he would be happy to discharge such functions for such time as your Lordships might wish. However, I was disturbed to note that the Statement indicated that the timetable set would provide for the implementation of the changes soon in the new Session.
Is it not the case that there are at least 5,000, and possibly 15,000, references to the Lord Chancellor, his duties and powers in statute and that every one will have to be amended or reallocated by statute? Is it also not the case that until the possibilities are understood, no reasonable decision can be taken? Can we therefore have an undertaking that the decision we make will not be finalised until at least those components are known and published, as they will be when my four Questions for Written Answer are answered?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I used to be well versed in the art of selective quotation when I was at the Bar. I shall complete the quotation that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, did not finish:
"subject to the committee's recommendations and of course the wishes of the House".
I respectfully suggest that we take it step by step. No one dissents from setting up the committee. I have already said that our Front Bench will have nothing to do with it—it is a matter for others to decide about their nominees. But we must not try to resolve everything today.
Lord Naseby: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that his decision that the committee shall consist only of Back Benchers is greatly welcomed across the whole House? Will he therefore go further in the spirit of co-operation and consider that the chairmanship of the committee should rest with its members or, preferably, that it should go to a Member from the Cross Benches?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that latter suggestion was put to me vigorously and firmly by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley. I promised to give it every consideration. I hope that your Lordships will be satisfied about the identity of the Peer who chairs the committee.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, in order to inform further consideration of the problem, can the noble and learned Lord the Lord President say whether there is any reason—constitutional, legal, conventional or other—why the future occupant of the Woolsack should not be called Lord Chancellor?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not believe there is. Ultimately, the Lord Chancellor in his modern
302
guise is in many ways a creature of statute—in the sense that the responsibilities discharged by him are given to him by statute. But these matters should be considered in some depth by the committee.
As soon as I gave an impromptu answer, I realised that I should not have done so. I noticed the unfortunate coincidence, from my point of view, that sitting immediately next to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, and I thought that I should not be offering legal answers in such august company.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, when I was first appointed a government Whip, I had drummed into me that it was not the Minister on the Bench but the Whip who was in charge of keeping order in this House—unless the Leader was present in which case he naturally took that role. Will that role of the Leader of the House be examined by the Select Committee?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, certainly. It seems to me that anything relevant to any possible change in our arrangements should be considered. Speaking on behalf of the committee, of which I shall not be a member, we welcome representations from all quarters.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I congratulate the noble and learned Lord on reaching the conclusion to which many of us have come following informal soundings around the House. However, the questions addressed to him today show that the work of the Select Committee will encompass very complicated matters. Given that there are likely to be only 50 more sitting days before the state opening, how can he possibly expect the Select Committee to complete its work in the time-scale he envisages?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, first, I do not believe that Select Committees operate only on sitting days. Secondly, no one could suggest that the vast spectrum of alternatives has not been canvassed, at least on an initial basis. When we look at the work of other Select Committees, not least that which the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, was significantly responsible for setting up, I have no doubt that they work extremely efficiently and well, not least because they are extremely well served by the Clerks of this House, who do extremely good work.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, given that members of Select Committees are paid only when they meet on sitting days, we shall require some very noble Lords to sit on this committee. Is the noble and learned Lord aware that the Lord Chancellor's appearance in statute is about to be increased by one as a result of the draft civil contingencies fund Bill? There is therefore clearly a role for the Lord Chancellor beyond the mere Speakership of this House and his role in the judiciary and the conduct of law in this country. The committee might consider whether some additional powers which the Lord Chancellor now exercises should remain with

303
him because they are not central to government but properly exercised by someone who also has the role of the Speakership of this House.
Perhaps I may take up a remark made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. When the noble and autolytic Lord on the Woolsack was taking the Sexual Offences Bill through this House, he introduced many government amendments, mostly in response to points made by the Liberal Democrats and ourselves. I should be sad if the Government ceased to bring forward amendments on that basis.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I was tempted to make that last point earlier but, not wishing to be unduly partisan, I did not. The ethos of this place appears to be more accommodating to accepting amendments where appropriate than the other place. That is one of the virtues of the way we work. My understanding is that the assumption of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about remuneration is not correct.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, following the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, it is not the Leader of the House or the Whip on the Bench who keeps order. They merely voice the views of the House on who should speak. The House keeps order itself. They merely articulate what they perceive to be the views of the House.
When I first entered the House 23 years ago, there was no problem whatever. If two Peers—particularly at Question Time—stood at the same time on opposite sides of the House to ask a supplementary question they would both sit down and say, "After you". Nowadays Peers stand and shout. I am sorry but it is a matter of manners. We need to return to the previous position.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I mentioned that it had been detected and reported to me, to my shock, that a tendency towards self-indulgence had been creeping in.
Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, when the terms of reference for the Select Committee are drafted will the Leader of the House seek to ensure that the issue of ceremonial functions outside the House is not overlooked? Such functions are often more than just ceremonial. When I was warden of St Antony's College, Oxford, it was a great pleasure to have the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, as visitor of the college. An interesting question is: who, in future, will undertake those functions? It may be the wish of the House that they should be undertaken by the Lord Chancellor on the Woolsack.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, that that is within the terms of reference as drafted following advice from the Clerk of the Parliaments. Visitors of universities
304
have other functions which are not purely ceremonial. Apparently I am now the visitor of 17 universities and I imagine that I shall shortly discover which ones. The functions are not purely ceremonial, but the disciplinary functions will soon be transferred to a more open, transparent and reformed system.
Recently, visiting Ottawa to speak to the Canadian Senate the point raised by the noble Lord was reinforced to me. Very often the Speaker of the Commons attends Speakers' Conferences and the existence of the House of Lords is sometimes overlooked. All those matters are appropriate for consideration.

Iraq: Incidents Involving British Forces
3.43 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made yesterday evening in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission I shall make a Statement on two serious incidents involving British forces in Iraq today.
"One incident occurred at around 7.30 this morning UK time. It involved members of the 1st Battalion The Parachute Regiment, who were conducting a routine patrol in the town of al Majar al Kabir, some 25 kilometres south of the town of al Amarah in the province of al Maysan. The two vehicles in which they were travelling were attacked with rocket-propelled grenades, heavy machine guns and rifle fire from a large number of Iraqi gunmen. Our troops returned fire, and called for assistance from other UK forces.
"A quick reaction force, including a troop of Scimitar vehicles, additional troops, and a Chinook CH-47 helicopter, was dispatched to the scene to provide assistance. They also came under fire. A total of eight British personnel sustained injuries, one on the ground and seven in the helicopter. They were taken initially to 202 Field Hospital, south-west of Basra. Two have since been transferred to a United States field hospital in Kuwait to receive specialist treatment for very serious injuries. The other six are being treated in 202 Field Hospital.
"Separately, the bodies of six British personnel, who appear to have been killed in another incident, were recovered from the town of al Majar al Kabir at around midday UK time. These personnel were not part of the Parachute Regiment patrol but were members of the Royal Military Police. Local information suggests that they may have been involved in an incident at the police station in al Majar al Kabir. I regret that at this stage I am unable to provide any further information. British commanders are investigating the circumstances.

305
"We are in the process of informing the next of kin of all those who have been killed or injured. I know that the House would want to join me in sending our condolences to the families. Our thoughts are with them at this dreadful time.
"We are investigating whether there is any connection between these two incidents. British commanders in theatre are assessing the situation and have been in contact with local leaders. It would not be right to speculate further at this stage. I would certainly caution against reaching any wider conclusions about the overall security situation in southern Iraq, particularly in the United Kingdom's area of responsibility. Coalition forces have worked hard to secure Iraq in the aftermath of decisive combat operations. They will not be deflected from their efforts by the enemies of peace".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.46 p.m.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement and from these Benches we wish to extend our deepest sympathy at this tragic time to the families of those who have been killed or wounded. Is the Minister able to tell the House whether the next of kin have now been informed of these two incidents and, if not, how long will it take for all next of kin to be informed?
Little information has been released relating to the sad deaths of the six members of the Royal Military Police, as stated in the Statement last night. I wondered whether the Minister is now in a position to be able to let the House know more details of that appalling tragedy.
While welcoming the proposed review of force levels for the Basra region there have been reports that the Government intend to review what protective clothing our troops should wear. I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm that report. If that should be the case, perhaps I may remind him that the people who should make those kind of decisions are the local commanders on the ground through the chain of command where the situation will be different from area to area. I do not believe that it is right to interfere with the chain of command and it would be most unwise for Ministers to dictate tactics from Whitehall. We must not suffer from some of the same problems that the US Army has suffered from due to interference by Congress.
We have the best trained and the best equipped troops to deal with the current situation within the British area of responsibility in the Basra region. This is a very sad setback for our troops, but one which they will quickly overcome and their determination to bring peace and security to the people of Iraq will continue unabated.
Finally, will the Minister confirm that the Ministry of Defence has provided everything that commanders have requested, and that military reinforcements will be sent, if asked for, to conduct operations as efficiently as possible to ensure the safety of the lives of
306
our troops? That is the least that we can do for our units in Iraq and is without any doubt what they deserve.
3.49 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. Our thoughts are with the injured and with the families of those injured and unfortunately killed. I was not alone in feeling shock yesterday when I heard the news about this event. That is perhaps because we have become complacent about the dangers in Iraq, due to the success of the British forces in their operations.
We have heard much about the operation to win hearts and minds, part of which is to swap body armour and helmets for berets. Obviously, that is an operational decision for the commanders in the field. For anyone in the situation of having to wear body armour, being safe depends not on the amount of body armour worn, but on the number of people who are prepared to shoot at you.
I have some questions. Following these attacks, will the British Government review with the Americans the strategy being undertaken and conducted in Iraq as to how the peace will be won? With the continued loss of American, and now British, soldiers there is a very real fear of an ongoing and sustained guerrilla campaign, which although small-scale seems to be consistent.
Do we have enough troops in Iraq—not just British but American troops? Is it realistic to believe that the number there, which seem pressed to meet all the needs being set out, will be sufficient? Will the Government push for further efforts to involve the international community and work with our American allies to make sure that as many countries as possible supply not just troops on the ground, but police units to rebuild the policing of Iraq? Obviously, the security of our troops depends on a return to a politically stable and peaceful Iraq.
3.50 p.m.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their expressions of condolence, which will of course be passed on. The noble Lord, Lord Vivian, asked about the next of kin. The next of kin, both of those who died and those who were injured, have now been informed. Indeed, the names of those who died have now been released.
I am not able to give the noble Lord more details—I do not think that he will be very surprised—even those which have arisen since last night. An inquiry is going on. We feel that it is absolutely essential that we do not comment until the facts have been put together by those on the ground. Those facts will be made public and we shall then all be in a better position to discuss what actually occurred.
So far as concerns protective clothes—again I am not speaking about this particular incident—I just do not know—none of us knows—what those soldiers were or were not wearing at the time the tragedies occurred. I can say that special efforts have been made

307
by British forces in their area of operations, in the south of Iraq particularly, to be as normal and natural and as helpful to the local population as possible. That means that they sometimes do not wear what other soldiers might wear in different situations. As I say, that is quite separate from these two incidents, about which no one yet can talk with any knowledge.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, asked about numbers. We are satisfied that the number of British troops now in Iraq and in theatre is sufficient; 14,000 remain in Iraq and Kuwait—10,250 of whom are in Iraq. Other troops could be sent if requested by commanders on the ground. We certainly have troops to send. I remind the House that the 19,000 troops who had to be retained for Operation Fresco have now been stood down.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, made an excellent point about the dangers involved. It is a very long time now—I think it was 6th April—since the last British fatality occurred. This absolutely shocking news brings us all up short and tells us what we really in our hearts knew; that at present Iraq is a fantastically dangerous place for our troops.
I want to end by saying that those who died will be remembered for a long, long time for having given their lives for their country and in the hope of building a better world.
3.52 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I preface my question by saying that there may be more than one reason why the Minister cannot or will not answer it. If so, I shall quite understand. Can he say how the soldiers of the Royal Military Police died?
Lord Bach: My Lords, no, I am not in a position to be able to tell the noble Lord that. I would of course if I could. I am sure that in due course there will be an answer to that question.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, is there not a strong argument for involving elements from within the peshmerga in all UK and indeed many American operations in the field, for reasons which I am sure we would all understand? What can my noble friend report on the earliest possible reformation of a properly maintained and equipped Iraqi army?
Lord Bach: My Lords, we shall take away and consider my noble friend's point about the peshmerga. As far as concerns an Iraqi army, I know that the United States have started to put together an Iraqi army. That process is in its early stages. A number of people now make up that force, but there is no doubt that it has a long way to go.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us what is the exit strategy after this appalling incident?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I shall not go into details concerning exit strategies. Perhaps I may just say to the
308
noble Baroness, that, although yesterday was an appalling day—an enormous tragedy for all those involved and shocking to this country—the fact is that some excellent work has been and continues to be done by our troops in Iraq. It would be dreadful to allow yesterday's incident to deflect us from our efforts to make Iraq a better place.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, is it not clear that armed attacks on allied forces must be resisted by military means? However, the amount of looting and smuggling that continues surely indicates that the first priority in the civil sector must be to reorganise and retrain an Iraqi police force. That, in my view, is far more important than recreating an Iraqi army. That can happen later. Will the noble Lord report to and consult his colleagues on the need to draw into Iraq Arabic-speaking police officers from the rest of the world?
Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very important point. We have been doing a great deal of work on that issue. The Chief Constable of Hampshire has been advising. Of course, our own Royal Military Police—and again I am not talking about this incident—along with civilian police officers have been busy trying to assist to build up a police force in Iraq. For example, not in our own area of operations but in Baghdad, 18 police stations are now running and five more are due to open in the next month. In the south of the country, in our area of operations, since the middle of April we have helped to set up a police force that is already having an influence on securing civil life.
Lord Desai: My Lords, before the war started many of us were afraid that there might be hand-to-hand combat and much guerrilla fighting during the first phase of the war. That first phase was mercifully short but the tail of the war will be long. We must be prepared for a long engagement. We should not lose heart at this stage just because of this dreadful occurrence.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend. We hope that the engagement will not be very long, as he surmises that it may, but we must not lose heart. It is important to keep going. Otherwise, the forces of evil really will win.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the vast majority of Iraqis want peace and must now feel regret about the loss of our servicemen? Is it not a matter of great regret that our media are unable to report the feelings of that majority?
Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Earl is right. I am sure that the vast majority of the Iraqi people want nothing more than peace and freedom and are as appalled by yesterday's events as we are. As for the media, some properly report that fact, but perhaps they should do so a little more prominently.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I remind the House that I am still technically an officer serving in her Majesty's regular Armed Forces. Next week I shall be unmuzzled. I did not hear the Minister agree with my noble friend Lord Vivian or the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that the tactics of the operation are a matter for the General Officer Commanding and his staff in theatre. It is essential to get that right.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I have never known the noble Earl to be muzzled, but he is absolutely right to remind me of a question that I did not answer, which I should have done. Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, is right: tactics must be a matter for commanders on the ground. There is no suggestion—I do not think that the noble Lord thinks this is so—that Ministers in Whitehall will start issuing orders for British troops on the ground in Iraq.
Lord Inge: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for what he said. First, I associate myself with the condolences to the families of those who were killed. I say that having at one stage in my life had the privilege of being the Colonel Commandant of the Royal Military Police. I endorse what was said. I also endorse what has been strongly argued: it must be the local commanders on the ground who dictate tactics.
The main lessons that we should draw from that tragedy are, first, that Iraq is a much more dangerous country and operation than many people have been prepared to accept. It is unfortunate that we have had a sort of beauty contest between ourselves and the Americans, which helps no one. Secondly, I heard what the noble Baroness said about an exit strategy, but if we talk about an exit strategy now—although we may think about one—we send a terrible message to the people on the ground. We must recognise that if we are to be there, as the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said, we must be there for the long haul. That is enormously important.
I was relieved to hear the Minister say that there are plans for reinforcement. I know that some people among the American forces and our own feel that we do not have sufficient troops on the ground to deal with the situation. Finally, as the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, suggested, we must be careful about getting some troops from here and some from there. If we get a mismatch of forces, without any clear concept of operations, we shall make the situation worse rather than better.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and gallant Lord, especially for his condolences, bearing in mind the positions in which he has served in the Royal Military Police. I agree with all his comments about the dangers in Iraq and the stupidity of having a beauty contest between the Americans and ourselves. I agree with every point that he made.

Steel Industry
4.3 p.m.
Lord Brookmanrose to call attention to the state of the United Kingdom steel industry and of United Kingdom manufacturing generally; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, first, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham on his elevation to Deputy Chief Whip. From having campaigned with him in South Wales, I know that he has a keen interest in steel and manufacturing in general. So I await with interest what he has to say on the Government's behalf when he sums up. I should also like to say how much I appreciated the telephone call that I received yesterday afternoon from my noble friend Lord Sainsbury of Turville, who is in America seeking further inward investment. He apologised for being unable to be here, but apologies are unnecessary, because the work that he is doing in America is vital for jobs in this country. I hope that he has success.
I am pleased to have this opportunity to raise the state of the steel industry and other manufacturing industries, many of which depend on steel. I speak as the former general secretary of the ISTC, the community union, which has in its membership the great majority of employees in the British steel industry, as well as an increasing number of people in other manufacturing sectors.
Your Lordships might think that I should have applied the adjective "former" to the British steel industry, as well as to my earlier job, as what appears most in the media is news about cuts in employment and closures. Indeed, some take the view that we have no steel industry, saying. "Steel industry? What steel industry?". However, the truth is quite different. The steel industry of this country is among the very top national industries in terms of adding value to inputs. Although steelworkers are relatively well paid throughout Britain, less than one-fifth of the operating costs in steel are employment costs and the people who are employed are, according to the Iron and Steel Statistics Bureau the best in the world in terms of output per employee.
Further, it may come as a surprise to some to know that productivity in the British steel industry has improved at, on average, a rate of 10 per cent annually during the last quarter of a century. So if the question of the failed productivity challenge is raised, I sincerely hope that steel is not cited. Unfortunately, among the manufacturing industries, steel has lost as high a proportion of jobs as any other sector. Indeed, steel companies employ only a tenth of the people whom they did 30 years ago. They produce only a slightly reduced tonnage, but Britain has declined from being the second largest producer of steel in Europe to fall behind France, Italy, Turkey, Spain and, this January, even Belgium.
Closures of plant have resulted in Britain becoming, in 2001, a net importer of steel for the first time in history. Would that that were all. At the end of April, Corus, once British Steel, announced that it would

311
close its plant at Stockbridge in Sheffield and cut off its major steel-producing plant in Teesside from the main company, to fend for itself, it would seem, as a producer of slabs. If all that comes to pass, a further 3,300 jobs could be lost directly in the steel industry and several times more would be lost in the communities depending on steel plants for their livelihood.
I hope that your Lordships will forgive me the observation that the steel industry has gone the way of other strategic sectors of the economy that have been privatised. In telecommunications, water, electricity generation and supply and other key industries, companies are experiencing serious problems, suggesting to me, at least, that there must be better ways of ensuring that strategic national interests are properly protected than the present arrangements. That is just an observation.
In the case of steel—and here I speak of Corus—no informed and impartial observer would deny that its present plight is due to a variety of factors, one of which, I am sad to say, is strategic decisions, or rather the lack of them, taken at board level at Corus during the past three or four years.
Yes, of course, throughout nearly all that period sterling was at a rate against the euro that made it difficult for British production to compete, but the paying out of £700 million to shareholders, the accumulation of massive debt, the frequent switches of strategy and misreading of the signals, in my view—and, more importantly in the view of those working for the company—significantly contributed to the serious financial situation.
I am sure that, like me, all noble Lords wish the new chief executive, Frenchman Philippe Varin, and the new chairman, Jim Leng, every success in their daunting task of turning the company around. However, it is worth noting that, since the privatisation of British Steel in 1988, two previous chairmen have made their position abundantly clear. They said, "We are in the business of making money and not steel". In my capacity at the time I saw that comment as insensitive, given that thousands of jobs were lost. I hope that noble Lords share my view that there is an urgent necessity for the board of that company, the trade unions and the Government to ensure that, from the current weak position, they take appropriate action so that both the company's and the nation's interests are safeguarded.
I speak today not with nostalgia—although I wish to show why that matters—but with a desire to discuss the present position of manufacturing. In February, 3,449,000 people were employed in manufacturing—154,000 fewer than at the end of 2001 and 272,000 fewer than at the end of 1999. Manufacturing output has fallen by over 5 per cent since 1995. In the same period, the United States saw an increase of 21 per cent and even the so-called sclerotic euro-zone saw an increase of 17 per cent in manufacturing output.
The most significant reason for that decline has been a deplorably low rate of investment in plant and equipment. As a result, American employees have a
312
quarter more capital stock than British workers; French employees have 40 per cent more, and Germans have 60 per cent more.
I hope that noble Lords share my view that we have an opportunity to reverse the decline. The exchange rate against the euro has moved sharply in favour of British manufacturers—by 10 per cent since the beginning of the year. That makes it much more difficult for competitors in the European Union to export to the United Kingdom and to make a profit, given the heavy cost of transport. We know that we have lost so much of the market share in Britain and that there are therefore vast areas in which to recover sales. That applies to the whole of manufacturing. If sales follow the improvement of British competitiveness, all British companies will be better placed to win back home markets and to penetrate markets overseas. Many people—probably some noble Lords—will say that the pound has appreciated against the United States dollar. But for steel and many other products, that, too, is an advantage because raw materials and energy resources are priced mainly in US dollars.
If we do not take this chance, the economic and social outlook for the whole country will be grim. Few Peers on these Benches—and, I am sure, across the Chamber—would argue against the Government's response to the crying need for investment in schools for our children, and in the NHS to provide medical services that our ageing population needs and deserves. It is a question of services vis-à-vis engineering, and so on. From 1979 to 2000, British manufacturing productivity more than doubled while productivity in services increased by a third, and in the whole economy by a half.
Without the contribution of manufacturing to the increase in national productivity and economic growth, Britain will not be able to raise the revenue to sustain the expenditure needed to pay for the improved NHS, schools, universities and other public services that the nation needs.
Without the recovery of manufacturing, the trade deficit will continue to widen. We already have a trade deficit of £52 billion, and sooner or later the inflow of foreign funds will dry up, leaving us with an insoluble foreign payments problem. My key point is that Britain will not have a manufacturing base to sustain employment and production on a scale necessary to be competitive unless it has a successful national steel industry to supply it.
The cost of importing steel is a major part of the package. The costs of nearly all our manufacturing output would be increased by a significant margin. There would be an attendant substantial cost on the future demise of the British steel industry stemming from the deep wounds that closures inflict on the communities that have provided the workforce for the blast furnaces, mills and all the other jobs surrounding steelworks.
Noble Lords know the communities involved and appreciate the human damage in places such as Ebbw Vale, my home town, where 50 years ago I joined my father and brothers in the steelworks. Even before the

313
closure of that works in 2002, it was an area of high unemployment and social deprivation. The situation is extremely difficult, and I seriously applaud the National Assembly for Wales and Blaeneau Gwent Council which are both working tirelessly to alleviate the consequences of the closure of a works that once employed 13,000 people. My heartfelt wish is that the people of Teesside are not to have a similar fate. It must not happen.
That degree of human misery is bad enough, but it comes with a further price. Costs to social services and the funds that must be allocated for employment, regeneration and training are huge. The Prime Minister, whom I applaud, and other Ministers have already shown awareness of those problems. They readily support trade unions and the regional initiatives to generate employment and to equip former steelworkers with new skills. But only so much can be achieved through training and investment packages.
In that respect, I regret that Ministers in different administrations since 1979 have promoted mistaken ideas about the decline. I am reminded of a colleague who once looked at me and said, "You should understand, we live in a post-industrial society". I do not know how noble Lords feel about those words, but they haunt me. Should we really accept such a prospect, if it is a prospect at all? I think not.
"Steel as a material remains vital to economic development, indispensable to construction and the raw material of choice for a vast range of industrial applications".
They are not my words, but those of UK Steel, a division of the Engineering Employers' Federation giving evidence to the Trade and Industry Select Committee in another place.
I feel more comfortable with that approach, as I do with the words of my successor, Michael Leahy, to the same committee:
"The British Steel Industry is a capital-intensive, strategic asset operating in a highly cyclical sector. Without a national steel industry of at least present dimensions, crucial national and public interests would be jeopardised".
I share his views and hope that noble Lords do, too.
It helps nobody to say that services have replaced manufacturing in the scale of economic assets. A further interesting statistic is that, during the period 1979 to 2000, British manufacturing productivity more than doubled, while productivity in services increased by a third and in the whole economy by half. I say that because I strongly believe that services will simply not be able to generate the level of growth we need.
We know that the scope for the Government to help is, in some ways, limited. But much more could be done to stimulate research development; more could be done with public purchasing policy to ensure that UK-based manufacturing takes full advantage of the long-term orders being generated in the public sector, and much more could be done to match the public resources offered in active industrial policies in nearly
314
all the other European companies. We must work to change the culture of "short-termism" that is destroying manufacturing.
It was pleasing for me—I am sure that it was pleasing to all noble Lords—to be told that the Cardiff steelworks, Allied Steel and Wire, where 900 workers were made redundant in July 2002 will re-open. As noble Lords know, the Spanish steel maker, Celsa, stated that it would definitely start making steel next month. It may be ironic that it has to be a Spanish steel manufacturer, but it is welcome news. It will invest £100 million in Cardiff in the steel plant Allied Steel and Wire and produce higher tonnages than was previously the case. From my perspective as a former general secretary of a trade union who has a warm affection for the people there, I hope and wish that the pension situation can be resolved to the satisfaction of those who lost their jobs last year.
I want to be optimistic, not pessimistic or defeatist, about the future of manufacturing in general and the steel industry in particular. I want the Government to give support in every conceivable way. I want employers and employees—particularly the new team heading Corus—to consult the trade unions properly. By that, I mean that it should happen before decisions are taken, not after—in partnership, if you like. Together with a proactive government, they can sustain and maintain a viable industry, which is vital to the future well-being of our country.
What is the alternative?
"We are literally staring into the abyss".
Again, those are not my words. They are those of Derek Simpson, joint general secretary of Amicus, the main trade union in engineering. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
4.21 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I compliment the noble Lord, Lord Brookman, on securing this much needed debate. He has spent his life in the steel industry and knows its past as well as its present. I hope that I do not sound too patronising when I say that we had an excellent opening of the debate from the noble Lord. I found myself in agreement with a great many of the points that he made.
Those of us who remember a thriving steel industry and a growing manufacturing sector in the United Kingdom are concerned about their evident decline. We are not reassured by the fact that they are similarly in decline in the United States, in their share of gross domestic product. That only extends and deepens my concern about the future.
Some may wonder about my credentials for speaking in the debate. They are based on the fact that Wales was a major producer of steel. It still has Port Talbot—I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, in his place. Some of our place names are synonymous with steel: Ebbw Vale, where the noble Lord, Lord Brookman, was brought up, Port Talbot, Llanwern—I was present at the opening of the Llanwern works in the 1960s. There is Shotton—I am delighted to see the noble Lord,

315
Lord Jones, here—Brymbo, Trostre, Velindre and so on. I visited them more than once, and I know that much of our manufacturing industry was drawn to neighbouring areas by the proximity of the steel plants. Ford at Bridgend is a good example of that.
It is sad to see Shotton and Llanwern today. So much investment is idle, so many skilled jobs have been lost. The Brymbo steelworks was sold to China and transported there bit by bit. I am sure that it now contributes to the increase in Chinese steel output. However, I shall not dwell on the past.
I am concerned about certain present matters. The first is the growth of competition in the steel trade world-wide and the obvious need to ensure that there is a level playing field, especially as far as concerns subsidies. I understand that talks are under way, under the sponsorship of the OECD, and I hope that the Minister will be able to report progress and possible lines of action, particularly with regard to EU candidate countries who are steel producers.
We all know that demand for steel in the United Kingdom has fallen by 35 per cent in the past 30 years. Since 2001, however, imports have accounted for more than half of our consumption, compared with 13 per cent in 1973. Another fact to which noble Lords will want to pay some attention is that, although demand fell by 12 per cent between 1998 and 2002, the import share rose by 7 per cent in just two years—from 1999 to 2001. Was that entirely due to the strength of the pound, or were there other factors at play that account for that enormous increase in imports and their percentage share?
We know that the Americans have taken a tough, protectionist stance and have imposed tariffs of up to 30 per cent on foreign steel imports. The EU retaliated, and I am happy to compliment the DTI on the part that it played in that. The United States has not adopted the Kyoto Protocol; neither have the Australians. Here in the UK, we appear to be more complacent. We are prepared to tolerate the cost penalties of environmental inhibitions and measures. I am not sure that we have the balance of our interests right in that regard.
As the Engineering Employers' Federation pointed out, much of the benefit of energy market reforms has been eroded by the imposition of the climate change levy and the obligation to purchase escalating amounts of highly expensive electricity from renewable sources. Those requirements are already adding to the steel industry's costs. In the longer term, the effect of the environmental measures will be to raise industrial electricity prices by up to 25 per cent by 2020 and gas prices by 30 per cent. Is that inevitable? Is it avoidable? Can it be ameliorated?
I am told that the German Government recently approved special arrangements for firms, including steelmakers, whose competitiveness is threatened by high-cost green electricity. Without something similar here that is not regarded as a subsidy, the situation hardly augurs well for the future of the steel industry in the United Kingdom. Sooner or later, the conditions of steel manufacture will have repercussions for steel users,
316
including the construction and manufacturing industries. We face a serious situation, unless something is done to alleviate the high costs of energy to the steel industry.
I shall be brief in my comments on manufacturing industry. We all know that manufacturing output fell by 4 per cent last year, according to this year's Budget Statement. It was the sharpest fall since 1991. Other sources indicate that manufacturing investment is at its lowest point since 1984.
As your Lordships know, on a number of occasions I warned the Government that the Chancellor was over-optimistic even when he described himself as "cautiously optimistic" in his growth forecast for the economy as a whole. I also warned about the debilitating effects of increased taxation on investments. I regret as much as anyone that these gloomy forecasts are now coming true, partly because of the burden of extra taxation and regulation on business, estimated at £47 billion and £20 billion respectively since 1997. These are very substantial sums to take out of industry and then expect a good performance on industry's part.
The Government should be very uneasy about our economic prospects. Alarm bells should be ringing at the DTI and the Treasury. For a start, the Government should be giving the economy the higher priority it deserves if this country is, as the noble Lord, Lord Brookman, said, to produce the wealth necessary to sustain our standards of living at work, in retirement and, of course, the social services on which we depend. Mr Peter Hain, the Leader in the other place and Secretary of State for Wales, part time—but would-be Chancellor of the Exchequer, full time—was not right to think that the answer to the problems of wealth creation is more taxation. I am glad that senior Government Ministers stopped him from uttering his thoughts. Public sector jobs are not the answer either. The service sector is fine so long as it has productive sectors to serve.
Finally, there are strong rumours that the United States will reduce interest rates in the very near future. If it does, I hope that we follow the example to stimulate growth and investment in manufacturing and other productive sectors of the economy. The Government cannot simply revel in their largely inherited prosperity. They must look to the future and do what they can to restore the steel industry and return manufacturing to the path of growth.
4.33 p.m.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, it is a great privilege to speak in this debate. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Brookman, on his fine opening and the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, on his contribution. I am a former leader of my party in Wales. More importantly in relation to this debate—iron and steel are very close to my roots—my ancestors worked in Cyfartha ironworks in Merthyr. They were blacksmiths. They made thousands of nonconformist chapel gates from wrought iron. They conducted the Cyfartha band—indeed, the composer Joseph Parry wrote for it—which celebrates its centenary this year. Some remained on the land, others in iron and steel.

317
By the end of the 20th century, the Crawshays had left Merthyr for Caversham Park, Reading, from which the BBC now benefits. All that was left was desolation and unemployment in Merthyr Tydfil. How many times has that been repeated in Wales? I can mention Dowlais, Blaenavon, Tredegar, Duport, Llanelli, and so forth and, in recent times, there were the cutbacks of the 1980s when thousands were laid off in Port Talbot, Newport, Ebbw Vale, Shotton and Brymbo. ASW and Corus have now closed plants in Ebbw Vale and Gorseinon and the labour force at Newport has been stripped out.
In the historical sense of the UK as a whole, it is a disastrous situation. Thirty years ago a quarter of a million people were employed in the steel industry. That figure decreased to 22,000 by 1999. Indeed, there were more successive waves of closure and some people estimate the current figure to be as low as 11,000. As noble Lords have said, there have been phenomenal increases in productivity. The labour force must be congratulated on that increase and on the flexibility with which it has operated. Sadly, the same cannot be said about the quality of the management of the industry. It is a very sad state of affairs. Since Corus took over the industry in the United Kingdom, it started at 18.5 million tonnes of steel produced. That has now gone down to 10.5 million tonnes—almost a halving of steel output since Corus has been in place.
There are many facets to the steel industry. There have been cutbacks on Teesside in the north-east of England and a complete shutdown of the industry in Scotland. From a once-great industry, we now have about 4,000 employees only left in Wales. I believe that employment in the industry has been squeezed down to the lowest amount possible. It cannot go any lower. Really, it is a frightening prospect with which we are confronted. One has only to look at the plight of that once famous steel town of Ebbw Vale and the real efforts being made by the National Assembly to create employment there. But, sadly, steel—an industry invested in by government to regenerate the community in the depression years—has gone for ever.
Steel is a fundamental building block of any economy. Manufacturing flows from it. The decline of manufacturing in the United Kingdom has resulted in a decline of demand for steel. The cause of that decline has been competition—some of it subsidised—which undercuts the steel industry. The tariffs put on by the US in protecting its own industry have had a devastating effect. Crucially, monetary exchange rates with the euro and the dollar have not helped, particularly in previous years—perhaps not in the past six months.
There has been poor management in the United Kingdom. Huge competition from large plants in Brazil, the Far East, India and eastern Europe has hit the UK steel industry very hard indeed. It is essential to have a strategy to keep the steel industry going. It is a crucial foundation of an industrial manufacturing base. It was a mistake for British Steel to amalgamate with Hoogovens of Holland in order to form Corus. But we are left with that situation; I wish the new management well in its efforts to rejuvenate the industry.
318
There must be an action programme if steel production is to be kept going in the United Kingdom. It is important to keep the steel manufacturing industry in British hands. There have been efforts to amalgamate Corus with producers in the Far East and with CSN, for example. Only two or three months ago that was a real possibility. The Government have to act to save what is an important industry. It may be necessary for public sector ownership on a temporary basis to see it through. After all, last April Corus was worth only £280 million, a futile amount. The shares were worth 8p. I understand that the share price has now risen to 26p. But the company is worth very small beer in terms of the valuation on its books. It is absolutely crucial to have greater investment in bigger integrated plant, in particular at the Port Talbot works, so that the industry can compete internationally with the steel industries based in South America, India and the Far East. Some investment plans have been made, but I reckon that they will be insufficient to enable the industry to remain competitive.
Given that we have just been discussing the second Gulf War, it is extraordinary to think that, in the future, we could be using Challenger tanks made from steel possibly produced in South America. That is not a prospect that I or any other Member of this House should welcome. We need our basic industry and we need a secure defence structure for this country. We need to continue to produce template and alloy steels as well as developing our heavy engineering.
We need to build end-product production lines alongside some of our steel plants. I say that because part of the problem is that there has been insufficient demand for steel in manufactured goods to utilise the production from our steel plants. I have never quite understood why a new car production line has not been built close to a steel plant either in South Wales or in the North East, resulting in an integrated production system and ensuring demand for British-produced steel.
The relevant development agencies face a huge task in encouraging more demand for steel. But of course our steel has to be competitive on the world market. That has been a considerable problem. I congratulate the All-Party Steel Group which was formed in the other place. I know that Members of this House belonging to that group have been very active in promoting the steel industry. Manufactured products are vital in relation to the industry. To that end, an example of good co-operation has now developed between Teesside and Llanwern for the hot-rolling of steel.
In the meantime, I believe that the board of Corus has been thrashing around in pursuit of mergers. There are deeper problems here in which the Government must involve themselves. They must help in a fundamental restructuring of the industry. There may be a case for doing an "MG-Rover" exercise on the steel industry to resolve the problems the industry faces.
As a Welsh Member sitting in this House, what is important to me is the fact that manufacturing activity in Wales represents around 25 per cent of all its industry

319
and employment. It is absolutely vital that both in Wales and in areas such as the north-east of England, where manufacturing is still an important factor for the local economy, we keep this fraction of the manufacturing base going. I know that greater value of output can be achieved in the service and high-tech sectors, but we must have a balanced economy.
Although I do not like to say it, I believe that both the steel industry and manufacturing generally have been victims of this Government's failure to join the euro. The Government, and in particular the Chancellor, have prevaricated over setting out the stall to ensure that the United Kingdom joins the euro. It is certainly vital for the survival of the steel industry. Of course the exchange rate has improved over the past six months, but that may be temporary. It is my belief that only by joining the euro will we see the business environment for steel and manufacturing improve and become secure for the long term.
4.44 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Peterborough: My Lords, I am conscious that many of your Lordships have a much closer acquaintance with the steel industry than I have—most noticeably the noble Lord, Lord Brookman. I associate myself with those who have thanked him for initiating this debate. Perhaps it is presumptuous of me to seek to add to the detailed comments already made, but I should like to draw attention to the social consequences of the decline in the steel industry and, indeed, the decline in manufacturing generally. Those are consequences of which we are all aware and which need to be addressed. In doing so, perhaps I can add an English voice to the Welsh ones we have so far heard.
The diocese of Peterborough contains the town of Corby. Along with Consett, a town I know well from my time in County Durham, along with others that have been mentioned, Corby is renowned for the major reduction in British Steel's activities in 1980. Corby was a small village in Northamptonshire until the workforce for the original Stewarts & Lloyds plant was imported from Scotland, Ireland and Europe. Indeed, the predominant accent to be heard in Corby is still Glaswegian; it still boasts a Lithuanian church, while the Church of England probably has fewer adherents than the Church of Scotland and the Catholic Church.
The effect of the closure of the Corby steelmaking plant in 1980 was to make some 5,500 steelmen redundant, which at the time represented a quarter of the town's workforce. Happily the tube-milling plant remained and continues to operate to this day, while Corby has made great efforts to create new jobs. But at the time, in April 1980, the Economist described the town as having,
"the social problems of a Clydeside ghetto in the midst of the squires and spires of Northamptonshire".
Corby was said to be the black hole of the East Midlands, sucking into itself any industry that moved. But two problems remained. First, it needed labour-intensive, male-employing industry, when much of the new industry was capital intensive and wanted a placid, female workforce. Secondly, it needed new business to start up before its skilled workers moved away, not after.
320
All that was 23 years ago. While some of the social problems remain, Corby has benefited from new investment and new business. But the effects of the decline in steel manufacture on the social fabric of the town were both devastating at the time and lasted for several years. In some cases the effects are still to be seen, such as the vast acreage on which the empty plant stands.
Steelmen do not immediately leap at the opportunity to produce Golden Wonder crisps, which was the alternative employment in Corby at the time; other brands, of course, now come from Consett. When those men's skills are in heavy industry, they need appropriate jobs to replace the ones that have been lost.
As noble Lords have reminded us, all manufacturing industries have been affected by major world trends, in particular technological change and the globalisation of purchasing. Nevertheless, my colleagues in Yorkshire tell me that we are still at the top of the world league in the production of high-quality steel and in the manufacture of specialist goods which use that steel. We still export scalpels from Sheffield all over the world. My right reverend colleague the Bishop of Sheffield has spoken of a hopeful future for the industry in South Yorkshire, but he has also drawn attention to the recently announced closures in Stocksbridge, to which reference has already been made, in Rotherham, in Tipton in the West Midlands, and in Teesside. While Corus may hope that many workers will take redundancy or early retirement, it cannot disguise the fact that another 700 well-paid jobs are to disappear from the South Yorkshire economy and will need to be replaced.
If we are to learn the lessons of Corby, Consett and other places which have faced substantial cuts in manufacturing industry, particularly in steel, three issues need to be addressed. Unless that happens we shall not be able to minimise or reverse the social consequences of industrial change.
First, while there is clearly a future for specialised engineering steels, it will require investment to remain competitive and the remainder of the industry will continue to require investment. We must recognise that, even given such investment, this may involve fewer jobs.
Secondly, if the shift away from manufacturing to knowledge-based economies is to be challenged and even reversed, it will require a collaborative approach involving governments, regions, cities and towns. We must create the right conditions in major towns and cities for economic, industrial and cultural regeneration. The last of those needs equal attention with the others. As I said in referring to Corby, we need to create appropriate jobs for those who have been made redundant in manufacturing industry—what the economists in 1980 called the "male employing industry".
Thirdly, the human consequences of change need to be managed effectively. The human spirit is, I am pleased to say, immensely buoyant and resilient, but we neglect the impact of industrial change on social conditions at our peril.
4.52 p.m.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Brookman for introducing this important, if somewhat overdue, debate.
United Kingdom steel production, on the one hand, and United Kingdom manufacturing, on the other, may well have differing characteristics, but the disastrous circumstances they face are not dissimilar—closures, contraction, lack of investment and job loss. That is the record—a record of which this country cannot be proud. That is not to say that those working in these industries have not worked well, co-operated with change and done all that has been required of them; but it does mean that those with the executive responsibility for running these industries have let us down.
Throughout my working life I have been associated with both steel production and manufacturing, for the first 20 years working in a steel plant in South Wales and then for the next 28 years as a trade union official representing manufacturing workers with USDAW—a trade union which, although described as the "shop workers union", had in 1978, when the union's membership was nearly 480,000, 60,000 members working in manufacturing industry. They were mainly employed in food manufacture and chemical/ pharmaceutical, working for companies such as United Biscuits, Unigate, Kellogs, Weetabix, Nestlé, Unilever, Glaxo, Boots and Fisons, to name but a few. I am now advised that the number of USDAW' s members working in manufacturing today is 30,000, half of what it was in 1978.
Let me deal first with the steel industry. In 1997, production of UK crude steel was 18.5 million tonnes. In every year since then production reduced dramatically until, in 2002, it had fallen to only 11.7 million tonnes. In one year, between 2001 and 2002, UK crude steel production reduced by 14 per cent and since 1997 it has fallen by a staggering 40 per cent. In 1975 the United Kingdom steel industry employed 184,000 workers. By 1990 that figure had reduced to 51,000 and today only 23,000 people are working in steel production in the United Kingdom.
No steel producing country in the world has shed labour as much as the United Kingdom. In the European Union today's labour force is 28 per cent of what it was in 1975; in the United States of America it is 31 per cent; but in the United Kingdom it is only 12.5 per cent. But, despite the job losses and reduced labour costs, steel production in Britain in 2002 was the lowest since 1938. And yet, at the same time, import penetration of steel into the UK reached 51 per cent in 2002, while our exports reduced by 10 per cent for the same year.
Is it any wonder, therefore, that executive responsibility in the industry, particularly at Corus, has been changing hands? But, as we all know, when executive managers fail in British industry their failure is not reflected in their remuneration. Having failed, they leave with a handsome package, whereas workers who are victims of their failure are cast aside with virtually nothing, very often after having given a life-time of conscientious service. I welcome the fact that the
322
Government are now giving serious consideration to curbing the means by which obscene benefits are provided to failed "fat cats".
It was in 1969 that I left the steel plant in Port Talbot, known then as the Steel Company of Wales. At that time, 17,500 workers were employed there. By 1997, although more steel was being produced, the number employed was down to 3,500. Without the co-operation and active support of the workforce, such an enormous reduction in the labour force could not have been achieved. No "Luddite" attitude could have existed there.
This observation reminded me of my own experience of productivity bargaining at the plant in the 1960s involving the introduction of new technology, work study and job evaluation. We recognised that, in the short term, this potentially meant a reduction in jobs. However, those of us representing the workforce in those negotiations were persuaded that increased productivity, leading to lower costs, would, in the long term, mean improved competitiveness and thereby a greater demand for our product, creating increased expansion and thus more job opportunities. But that never happened. As demonstrated, our steel industry has collapsed.
And why? We cannot blame the workforce. The workers have done all that has been asked of them. Can the Government be blamed? Perhaps there is some justifiable criticism for a failure to act as the state of the industry has unfolded. But I believe that the root cause is more fundamental. Can we simply blame the state of the world market, the euro, protectionism or government subsidies for our competitors overseas? That is what the executive management would have us believe. Although there may be some element of that, I firmly believe that the true source of our decline lies closer to home and that blame must be directed at those charged with the responsibility for executive decision making, for which they have been well rewarded.
Whereas United Kingdom steel industry production fell by 14 per cent to 11.7 million tonnes between 2001 and 2002, in the European Union as a whole, for the same period, production was unchanged at 159 million tonnes. Globally, the 2002 production figure was the highest ever at 902 million tonnes. The demand is there but we are not getting our share.
The picture of manufacturing as a whole is not, unfortunately, dissimilar. Britain was at the forefront of the Industrial Revolution and was at one time known as the workshop of the world, but not so today. At the end of the Second World War, less than 60 years ago, manufacturing accounted for 40 per cent of the United Kingdom economy. By 1980, it had reduced to 26 per cent and today it accounts for only 14 per cent. In 1982, almost 6 million people were still employed in manufacturing. By 2002, the figure had reduced to 3.5 million. That is 2.5 million jobs lost in 20 years, a reduction of over 40 per cent.
In this year alone, United Kingdom manufacturing has been shedding jobs at the rate of 400 a day. By the beginning of this month, another 42,000 jobs had gone this year. Import penetration of manufactured goods in 1982 was 23 per cent; in 1992 it was 56 per cent, more than double. The United Kingdom trade balance in

323
manufacturing between 1997 and 2000—just three years—deteriorated by a staggering £18 billion. Britain's share of the world trade in manufacturing reduced by approximately 23 per cent between 1950 and 2002. Between 1993 and 2000, manufacturing investment as a percentage of total investment in the United Kingdom reduced by 22 per cent. From these figures, is it any wonder that it is generally acknowledged that the UK manufacturing industry has suffered from years of under-investment?
In the sectors in which USDAW is involved, the job loss between 1992 and 2002 has been 32,000 in food manufacturing, 42,000 in chemical/pharmaceutical. One hundred USDAW members lost their jobs this year when the food factory at Rowallan Creamery closed. Some 700 will lose their jobs whey Glaxo closes its Merseyside plant in 2004. Another 1,000 will be made redundant when Boots shuts down its operation in Airdrie later this year.
It is clearly recognised that without expansion, the increasing introduction of new technology and improved productivity will result in lost jobs. But there can be no excuse for United Kingdom manufacturing output declining, despite increased productivity, when our competitors are improving their position.
Since 1995, the United States has increased its output by 21 per cent, the euro-zone by 17 per cent, but United Kingdom manufacturing, over the same seven years, has declined by 5 per cent. Again, the workforce, who have participated in productivity improvement and lost their jobs, cannot be blamed. Perhaps some criticism can be levelled at the Government for not maximising the aid that the DTI is legally entitled to provide. But I do not believe it is fair or just to direct blame towards the Government when the root cause of the industry's core problems arises from failed executive management over decades.
For a generation or more, when our international competitors were continuing to employ engineers with innovation and inventiveness in the top decision-making jobs, British industry has been engaging number-crunching accountants, who have different skills. They look at bottom line figures, even if it means contraction, with less, if any, thought about the inventiveness required to expand. It is short-term accountancy compared to long-term engineering vision. How many times have we witnessed British inventions being successfully commercialised abroad because there were no takers in British industry?
When I frequently visited manufacturing plants in which USDAW members were employed, I was constantly disappointed to observe that the machinery used was invariably from France, Germany, Italy or Holland, and the answers to my questions were always the same. They said, "We would love to have machinery built and installed by British makers, but nobody makes it, nobody will make it, no one can provide it on time, no one will provide after-sales service". What an indictment. It seems clear to me that if this approach does not alter, the only future we can look forward to is further decline.
324
We, my Lords, in our lifetime have witnessed the demise of once proud and thriving areas of British manufacturing, not because demand has disappeared but because overseas competitors have captured the market and we have been driven to the wall—or, perhaps more accurately, we have surrendered our position. Of course it can be argued that as manufacturing has declined, the service industry has expanded, and that is true. But in my view, that should not be used as an excuse. It would be much better if the service industry expanded but at the same time the manufacturing industry was prevented from such a disastrous decline. In any event, the service industry is now going through changes that will result in further job loss.
Both service and manufacturing are essential to our needs—both are crucial to this nation's well-being and quality of life. Therefore, it is my sincere hope that the Government will do all they can to stop the decline and support the rebuilding of our once great manufacturing industry.
Much more important, however, is for the industry to appoint those to the top decision-making executive management posts who have the vision, the innovation and the inventiveness—the risk-takers, with the initiative of those we had in the past—to drive forward the UK manufacturing industry once again.
5.5 p.m.
Lord Jones: My Lords, Mr Alan Jones, the distinguished industrialist and currently managing director of Toyota Motor Manufacturing (UK), made a keynote speech at a conference at Lumley Castle, Durham, last year, chaired, I think, by the right revered Prelate the Bishop of Durham.
From his experience, Mr Jones insisted that Britain's manufacturing's biggest need was to lower the fixed cost unit. He said that we need cost reductions, flexibility, the very best quality and the quickest delivery. Mr Jones stressed the need to recruit the right people. His recipe for a manufacturing revival included even more investment in the industrial infrastructure. He called for huge improvements in training levels. Above all, this industrial leader asked for a pro-manufacturing atmosphere in Britain. He said that there are danger signals. He fears that we are becoming designerless, headquarterless, technical-less. He instanced the car industry, where the supplier base is falling away. He said that when that happens, we lose competitiveness.
This distinguished industrial leader at the heart of British manufacturing stated that if we retreat to niches, then we are lost. The sad fact is that manufacturing, as a percentage of GDP, has slipped below 20 per cent and is falling fast.
The noble Lord, Lord Brookman, is to be congratulated upon obtaining the debate and on his speech. He was a very distinguished General Secretary. He gave leadership to British steelworkers, and he gave that leadership in very, very turbulent times. Personally, I am grateful to him for the help he gave me in the most desperate of situations.

325
Like the noble Lord, Lord Brookman, I, too, congratulate my noble friend the Minister upon his promotion.
The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, laboured for many years as a Minister to make a better Wales. The noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth, showed a grasp of the history of the steel industry in Wales. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough spoke with an English voice in a very caring way about the problems of the dispossessed steelworkers in Corby. Earlier, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gwydir, was in his place. As Secretary of State for Wales between 1970 and 1974, he worked very hard to defend the steel industry of Wales.
Mr Michael Foot once took aside a very new entrant into another place and told him that the politics of steel were brutal. He was right. Today, the large Ebbw Vale steel works that he served is closed, empty and silent. Shotton steel works, where it was my duty to serve, once employed nearly 14,000 people. Today it barely employs 700, and all the time it suffers salami-type cuts. Brymbo steelworks once employed 5,000 steelworkers. It was closed and exported lock, stock and vessel to the Republic of China, where it is now in production. I actually saw that steelworks on low loaders trundling on the Chester bypass to Birkenhead docks. The once mighty steelworks of Llanwern is but a shadow of itself—cut in half, and worse. The Cardiff East Moors plant is but a distant memory. That Welsh list of cutbacks and closures is not exhaustive.
Westminster Wales and Water, the cogent and fascinating memoir of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, who was a substantial and long-serving Secretary of State for Wales, describes the Cabinet manoeuvres that enabled the Scottish steel plant, Ravenscraig, to survive through two widely spaced general elections. The noble Lord leaves one in no doubt that a Secretary of State for Scotland, in all his pomp, was a big advantage in the fight to retain the "Craig".
We are now in danger of possessing a Cheshire Cat steel industry, of which only the grin remains. At one time the constituent parts of Corus were the engine-room of the industrial revolution, but the de-industrialisation of Britain has inevitably dragged steel down with it. Surely, as the Guardian said, Corus has fallen so low that it can only go upwards.
Since 1970, I have engaged and debated in a very minor way with every British Steel and Corus leader, from the legendary Julian Melchett through Sir Monty Finneston, Sir Charles Villiers, Sir Robert Scholey, Sir Ian McGregor to Mr Brian Moffatt. Not every one of those chairman was as good as his quality workers. The anxious workforce cannot swallow "fat cat" pay and botched strategies when redundancies rain down on their ruthlessly targeted plants. However, I wish the new chief executive and chairman well for the future. It is so vital for Britain for them to succeed.
It is the case that the social consequences of steel redundancies have been very distressing nationwide. In one fell swoop there were 8,000 redundancies at Shotton. They were said to be the largest ever in
326
western Europe, and even then there were thousands more later. Some Deeside estates and streets suffered 25 per cent male unemployment. The community was scarred. A drug culture emerged. Families came under pressure and some families fell apart. The tensions then entered our schools, and a whole generation was affected. The consequences remain. It is a fact that only tradition, loyalty and the essential goodness of Deesiders held social catastrophe at bay.
My plea is that the steelworks of Wales should now be rewarded for their productivity, co-operation, de-manning, flexibility, loyalty and technical success. They should be rewarded with stability. In Wales we are saying, "Enough is enough". We have given enough. Wales has made her sacrifice and must now have a respite and justice. What remains must remain.
A steel industry is the foundation industry of the economically viable modern state. Britain remains a military power, but how can Britain in the future promulgate a foreign policy and prosecute just wars if it does not possess a viable steel industry that remains in British hands? As Harold Macmillan said, our steelworkers and coal-miners helped to defeat the Kaiser and Hitler. In modern times, we have fought in Korea, Malaya, the Falklands, the Gulf, the Balkans and Iraq. Self-evidently, Britain is a martial nation. That is her history, and it remains so. How, in future years, can our country have battle honours such as those if our steel industry shrinks beyond viability and falls into foreign hands?
It is the case that steel is power. Steel is nationhood and independence. We are now in need of a national recovery strategy for steel. Britain now needs our Government to make steel and manufacturing a very real priority.
5.17 p.m.
Lord Jordan: My Lords, I commend my noble friend Lord Brookman for initiating the debate. Using his unparalleled experience of the steel industry, he catalogued the trials currently experienced by the industry. I shall concentrate on the wider manufacturing industry. The debate will help to reinforce the message of the vital importance of manufacturing to our country's economy.
For the past 250 years, manufacturing has been a crucible for scientific and technological progress and a source of sustained wealth and job creation. We will preside over its decline at our peril. Manufacturing's slide from its pre-eminent position is visible and dangerous. Three and a half million jobs have been lost from manufacturing in the past two decades. Manufacturing output is a mere 7 percentage points above the level that it reached 30 years ago. With manufacturing investment falling by 18 per cent last year, it is a matter of current concern that another 80,000 jobs are predicted to go this year.
The manufacturing industry is a value-adding industry. It creates mainly better paid, full-time jobs within the industry and. additionally, spawns valuable jobs in the service sector. It promotes research and development and is a breeding ground for ideas. And, in

327
a world of accelerating change, ideas will prove to be the competitive advantage. Significantly, manufacturing more than punches its weight in helping Britain to pay its way. Although it employs only 14 per cent of the total workforce in this country, it provides 62 per cent of our exports.
The globalisation of trade has had, and continues to have, a tremendous impact on the manufacturing economies of the developed world. The inclusion into the world's free market trading system of two-and-a-half billion people from the underdeveloped nations was an opportunity that the multinational corporations could not afford to ignore—nor have they.
For more than a decade, an average of 40 billion dollars of mainly manufacturing investment has been going each year into one country—China. This massive and sustained transfer of investment is understandable when one considers that the labour costs of the leading manufacturing industries in Europe and America can be anything from 10 to 20 dollars an hour, while in China they will be nearer to 1 dollar an hour, or less. And there are more than 150 million manufacturing workers in southern China alone.
If one also takes into account countries such as Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, the Philippines and Indonesia—the latter with a population of more than 200 million and all as destinations for manufacturing investment —one begins to realise the dimension that globalisation has added to the need for manufacturing competitiveness and the size of the challenge that Britain faces if it wants to stop the erosion of its manufacturing base. And stop it, it must.
Globalisation presents a challenge to our manufacturing industry to re-evaluate where its competitive advantage now lies in a radically changed market. It is clear that the manufacture of low-cost, unsophisticated products, where the labour cost significantly affects the selling price, is not a route that it can take. But globalisation has opened up a vast and growing market for more complex manufactured goods. And Britain, with its legacy of engineering experience and expertise, is well placed to take advantage of this development.
The aerospace industry and Airbus, in particular, are good examples of that. The aerospace industry makes a contribution of more than £18 billion to the UK economy, 60 per cent of which is composed of exports, creating within the industry a positive trade balance of £3.8 billion. The airbus is a product of a European manufacturing consortium in which the UK plays an important role and is establishing itself as a world beater.
The chattering classes, whose forte is making money for themselves rather than creating wealth for the country, would have us believe that manufacturing is yesterday's fashion. They are wrong. Of the world's 25 largest corporations, 15 manufacture large or complex products, such as cars, power station turbines, computer hardware and consumer electronics.
328
Governments, manufacturers and trade unions must form a more visible partnership to promote the manufacturing industry. They must tackle together the more tangible reasons for our failure to halt the shrinking of our manufacturing sector.
One of the principal reasons for our inability to improve our competitiveness is our productivity record. We lag significantly behind the United States and, worryingly, have failed to catch up with our principal European competitors—France and Germany. The factors underpinning high productivity are well known. It requires a sustained investment in technology, research and development, and skills. With regard to the first two, a recent DTI paper on competitiveness confirmed that UK companies on average operate with smaller capital stock and invest less in R&D than their competitors in Europe and the United States. It is to be hoped that business will respond to the export-encouraging fall in the value of the pound and the Chancellor's £400 million research and development tax credit by significantly raising investment in the much-needed new technology and research and development.
There has been a chronic shortage of manufacturing skills ever since the collapse of Britain's traditional engineering apprenticeship system. I have found that companies that dominate world manufacturing—those we call "world class"—demand a high level of skills throughout the organisation and are prepared to ensure that that happens through a regime of continuous training. To their credit, the Government are promoting a training infrastructure for industry that currently has 128,800 young people on foundation modern apprenticeships and 113,300 on advanced modern apprenticeships. But, even with an employers' national expenditure on training of more than £23 billion, we still have a position where one-third of all adult workers either have no qualifications or are qualified below level 2.
A tidal wave of technological change is sweeping through the manufacturing industry, transforming every product and service, and only adequate skills can transform its potential into productivity, quality and competitive products. The Government do take many initiatives to encourage the renaissance of manufacturing—if anything, too many initiatives, often lacking in depth, direction and funding. Government must concentrate on and stick with a small number of measures that affect the fundamentals of a manufacturing-friendly environment.
Employers and trade unions should resist the temptation to blame and battle with each other over events that neither caused and neither control. And employers and unions should thrust aside the culture of begging bowls and war drums and recognise that, unless they find a way to work together more effectively and harness the help that government are willing to provide, then the forces of globalisation will continue to eat away like a cancer their jobs and their industries.
I would like to finish on an optimistic but realistic note. Globalisation is exhibiting many of the characteristics of the industrial revolution. That

329
historic period saw this country emerge to dominate the world of manufacturing, through a combination of the will to work, a proliferation of skills, and an abundance of ideas. Those factors are just as potent in tackling the challenge of globalisation. This country still has those qualities; our job must be to harness them effectively—and we can.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, here come the chattering classes.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Brookman for introducing the subject of the steel industry and of UK manufacturing generally. It takes me back 12 years. On 19th June 1991, I made my maiden speech to you Lordships' House. It was about the manufacturing industry. I said then—if you do not mind my quoting myself—
" we must move away from metal bashing—I do not mean to offend anyone by that—to a more innovative line of products which are intensive in ideas".—[Official Report, 19/6/91; co1.178.]
I then said that we could not continue with the same mix of manufacturing. Until my noble friend Lord Jordan spoke, I was distressed that I would have to disagree with all the previous speakers; but in fact, I must only disagree with all but one.
I think that he is quite right. His message was not that we should preserve the steel industry, heartrending though the stories my friends tell me of what has befallen its glorious estate may be. We did not become as rich as we have by preserving industry. The noble Lord, Lord Jones, said that steel is very important for our army and our defence. For 1,200 years before that, the British Army fought not on steel, but on agriculture. When the Parliament passed Corn Laws in 1845, lots of people warned that to destroy agriculture would be to ruin the country, to make it weak. Of course not. We globalised our agriculture, and we prospered.
We have heard complaints about manufacturing shutting down. Are we poorer today than we were 20 years ago? No. The reason is that we are doing more value-added things; things that provide good jobs which survive in today's climate. If we only cared about physical productivity, we would be what East Germany or the Soviet Union used to be. The Soviet Union measured inputs—how much capital per worker. When Krushchev said in 1961 "we shall bury you", he was saying that the Soviet Union would produce more steel and cement in 25 years than the United States. He was right; the Soviet Union did produce more steel and more cement than the United States. However, it was an utterly useless thing to do, because real value-added activities had moved on.
In today's economy, people want what I would call abstract goods: goods which incorporate fashion, design, and ideas; goods which are light in material, but high in price. When one buys a pair of Nike shoes, which are usually manufactured in China or Indonesia, the labour cost is less than 10 per cent. The real genius is in the design, and the computer
330
translation of the design, which is transmitted across to China. Sixty per cent of the added value of that manufacturing good is here, not there.
So do not look at where manufacturing output is produced; look at how the value is divided between different locations. I said some 10 years ago—if only anyone would read what I said—that manufacturing has become a multi-location, multinational enterprise. We do bits here and bits there, and we combine it all in a third place.
The important thing for us to remember is not that manufacturing has declined. So it has; agriculture has also declined. So what? What matters is that we have profitable jobs and profitable companies. Whether they produce clay pigeons, steel, or corn, what is important is that someone out there will buy what we produce. It is not enough to have a strategy as we combine together. The market test is the severe and the correct test. This country became rich by passing the market test, not by defying the market test.
People talk about the glorious Industrial Revolution, but 50 countries were ruined by our Industrial Revolution. They were ruined because we could do things cheaper than they could. The challenge is not that we ought to preserve our glorious industrial structures. The challenge is to go on changing again and again, faster and faster, because change, progress and profits come from unexpected quarters.
All my life I have produced nothing concrete. I have talked; I have written; some people may say that I have even produced some ideas. The London School of Economics, where I work, has won a prize for export competitiveness. What do we export? I hardly move around—students come to us. If someone buys a product, it may be through computer software, films, or Harry Potter: that is British export.
British exports are not actually carried away in trucks. They may go across electronic waves; they may be television programmes, theatre, or opera. We must get away from this misplaced concreteness. The practical man, or the practical woman, thinks that it is had if something solid does not come out of production. No, it is neither solid nor liquid; it is what creates value, and what creates value is not necessarily good engineering. One can have the finest engineering—as the Soviet Union did—but if nobody buys it, it is junk.
Therefore, we must be careful. We should celebrate with my noble friend Lord Jordan that China is acquiring a huge manufacturing industry, because China will be the market for our sophisticated goods. Let China, India, Indonesia, Thailand and Malaysia produce simple, basic industrial products—we ought to get out of that. We ought to be in high research and development in terms of products; we ought to be in high value added products. We ought not to be devoted to the past. I know that the past is glorious, and I have a lot of practical experience of all the misery caused now.
However, your Lordships will notice that there is not a single speaker from Scotland in this debate. Remember when the Ravenscraig steel works were so

331
necessary that if we shut them down, the Scottish economy would fall apart? Who remembers Ravenscraig? It is shutting down, and the Scottish economy is more prosperous. People manage. People have to manage change. Rather than keep a declining industry in operation by subsidy, which is the worst disaster that we can think of, let us shut it down and move on.
There was a time when the leader of the mine workers expressed his ambition that his children and grandchildren would work as coal miners. Thank God, that did not prove to be true. Children and grandchildren of coal miners will be working as software engineers or ballet dancers. That is where the money is. We must realise that as much as we love our constituents, as much as we love Scotland, Wales, or England, these things came because when they were built, they were profitable. They were at the cutting edge of the technological frontier. When they stop being there, they should not cry or try to hang on; they should move on. If we continue to move on—if we adopt the strategy of never subsidising a failed industry or protecting what we should abandon—we will prosper.
Some people say that our EU rivals are producing more steel than we are. The state aid directive will come in very soon: next year. I promise noble Lords that steel production will decline. It is not worth Germany producing steel. It should redeploy its resources to do something that is higher value-added. That is what will happen. I do not believe that it is in the interests of developed countries to gel, stuck in low value-added simple technology products. That is not a very pleasant thought.
We have a world economy in which steel is no longer in buoyant demand, no matter who manufactures it. Products incorporate less and less physical material because people want light products, not heavy products. They want new material, not steel, plastic or glass. That gets us into nanotechnology and other issues.
Today, we have more people in employment. Our global exports for the past 10 years have been better than those of our rivals, who produce more steel. What matters to me is that people have good jobs and that our children can look forward to a prosperous growing economy in which they will get jobs because they go to school and acquire skills. Happy is the country in which the child does not have the job that his or her parent used to do. Let us hope that that long continues to be the case.
5.42 p.m.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and I have been opposite each other for many years. He has often confused me, although he has always interested me. However, he confused me from a much higher level, and I felt that it was appropriate that I should sit at the same level in the House as he does, on the Back Benches. From this lonely and very exposed position—as an hereditary Peer who is here by some strange Act of Parliament—I realise that I learnt much of what I know
332
in life from Wednesday debates in your Lordships' House. It saddens me now that when a political party initiates a debate, usually the only speakers are from its own side, whereas previously we might have had 20 or 30 speakers, all of whom informed each other.
I am very privileged today to recognise the great strengths of Welsh oratory and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Brookman, for giving me a chance to participate. I have been in your Lordships' House for so long and I spent my early days in manufacturing, speaking about the decline of the manufacturing industry and serving on Select Committees. There is a certain form of schadenfreude when one realises that everything that was predicted by those committees has come to pass.
I suppose that I should declare an interest and see whether I can speak first on steel and secondly on manufacturing. I started my life manufacturing asbestos and moved briefly to Germany, where I worked pouring steel for cast-iron baths. The wonderful thing about cast-iron baths is that they were outdated in every other country in the world except for England, where for years everyone wanted a cast-iron bath. They were so extraordinarily heavy that you felt warm in them.
By accident, I ended up for many years helping an Italian group as an international director. We made baths to begin with, and we ended up cornering 50 per cent of the British bath market. The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, wrote and complained when he was an MP that we had been guilty of dumping. I had to take that up and we went to the Commission and explained that the situation was rather embarrassing. We pointed out that the steel with which we had made the particular consignment of baths came from Wales, that the presses came from the United Kingdom and that the electrostatic enamelling process was the latest technology from the British. I suggested that because we had such good technology, they should come and look at things in England, buy a business and help to regenerate it.
We had already moved into washing machines by then, and we went and bought this nice company called Colston from a man called Charles Colston. He was a remarkable designer. His dishwashers lasted for far too long. The higher that one moved up the social scale, the less likely one was to change one's car, white goods or three-piece suite. Charles Colston's technology was rubber, which was based on the empire. The rubber seals that he made could stand hotter water than any other seal, which meant that he could put enormous quantities of very hot water in, which cleaned the plates much quicker and took off all the crests of the china of the chattering classes.
We thought that we would like to talk to other people who made washing machines in this country and turned to a company called Hotpoint. The name came from the ability to create the maximum heat at the end of the point of an iron. That was why it was called Hotpoint, and it made some of the first and most successful irons. In those days, that great company looked down its nose at an operation from southern Italy that received EU grants, that could not speak

333
English and that was part Communist and part everything else, and it said no. Fortunately, a couple of years ago we bought Hotpoint.
Over the years, I came to realise that white goods—fridges, diswashers, cookers and so on—are simply cheap steel boxes that are full of air. What goes with them is the technology that allows one to say that a washing machine is not a steel box but a computer, because that is its greatest technical part.
I learned much from the Italians and Germans. The Italians are full of competent engineering mediocrity with flashes of sheer brilliance and the Germans are full of very heavy engineering with no brilliance at all.
I thought that I should like to be in the steel business and, encouraged by the Italians and the Americans, went off to Albania. I realised that the highest quality steel that one could get in the world was effectively stainless steel. I did not know what stainless steel was but I was told that it came from a combination of iron and chrome. I think back to some of my earlier days and shall try to remember Kipling. He said:
"Gold is for the mistress—silver for the maid—
Copper for the craftsman cunning at his trade.
'Good!' cried the Baron, sitting in his hall,
'But Iron—Cold Iron—is the greatest of them all'".
That led me to think back to Thomas Jefferson, who said in the United States in 1809 that we should encourage manufacturers so that we can use the raw materials that we produce. In general, manufacturing in this country has been related to the availability of a large supply of relatively low-cost raw materials. As soon as those raw materials have moved away, the ability to create added value in-house is increasingly difficult.
On steel, and stainless steel in particular, Albania is the only country in Europe that has chrome. The world needs 15 million tonnes of stainless steel a year, often in the automotive industry and in the defence industry in particular. We in the United Kingdom probably produce about 600,000 tonnes a year, whereas Germany produces 1.2 million tonnes, Italy 1 million tonnes and France 800,000. None of them—I also refer to the Japanese and Americans—has ferro-chrome, which must be imported from South Africa or Kazakhstan.
Having looked at the source of raw materials, we should look at our own raw materials. Of them, we must say, "They have all faded away". The cotton that we had from our empire has gone, and with it the erosion of the wonderful textile machines that we made. Looking at the base of large industry, there is still colour roll and some of those machines. However, the textile machinery brigade has lost a market.
We had some of the best coal mining machinery in the world, including that for longwall mining, which was absolutely fantastic—it is still sold in China. However, the industry that went with it died and, with it, the manufacturing capability.
I hate to correct the noble Lord, Lord Desai, but he should know better by now. My name is Malcolm McEacharn Mitchell-Thomson, my great-grandfather
334
was provost of Edinburgh and my grandfather held the last Conservative seat in Glasgow; 50 per cent of the ships of the world were made in Glasgow at the time of my birth. I am a Scot through and through and I still believe that the Scots are the best engineers in the world.
I turn to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Davies. A mentor of mine, Sir Monty Finniston, was chairman of the Engineering Industries Association, with which I was involved—I had some of its representatives to lunch here the other day. He asked why more than 50 per cent of the inventions of the world were made in England but only 10 per cent were developed here. Should your Lordships wish, I could place in the Library a long list of all those inventions. The basic question is what is the basic resource of this country.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is not in the Chamber. Actually, I am pleased that he is not here because he has already heard what I am about to say—I have said it again and again. Our Select Committee investigated the issue of what happened when the oil ran out. This country had a natural resource but turned it into the most expensive energy commodity in the whole of Europe and the rest of the world. We need heat and energy, and we have gas and oil. Why do we therefore have a taxation policy which makes gas and oil so expensive that our transport costs are the highest per kilometre of any OECD nation? It is possible to produce hydroelectric power at less than two cents per kilowatt hour but we cannot use that raw material because of taxation.
Our real raw material still lies in the quality of the Scots and Welsh peoples. I have left out the English for the moment. In general, the Scots have long been extraordinarily interested in engineering. The trouble is that, despite all the training programmes, very few of those who study engineering at university go into the manufacturing sector. They may well instead become analysts, instructors or tutors.
The question is how to create the added value to which the noble Lord, Lord Desai, referred. If one sends a piece of textile machinery to India where it produces a product which we buy back for use in our health industry, one would create more added value than one would by selling masses of textile machines. In places such as Iran, and all around the world, the image persists that British machines are the best. Indeed, our machine tools were sufficiently good that the Japanese copied every one of them. Even in Sheffield added value is still being created in quality steel products, and that is creating greater added value as a proportion of turnover than ever before. We see Japanese and French knives in most of the kitchen shops, but we still have the skills in this country.
I do not know where the solution lies. I wish that I was an engineer. We can still design and manufacture here. JCB one of my favourite animals—is currently setting up a plant in the United States. It could not manufacture sufficient quantities here without Japanese co-operation. Mr Dyson created a technologically advanced hoover but is now manufacturing his machines in South East Asia. However, the added value from the sales of those products in Europe is substantial.

335
The solution lies not in trying to support the big battalions, who are often in yesterday's game, but in concentrating on what the DTI calls micro-businesses which have fewer than nine employees. The next largest businesses are called minor enterprises and have up to 50 employees, after which we have the SMEs with up to 240 employees each. Those businesses can do without bureaucracy. They are run by people who, in the engineering sector for example, established the entire base for Formula 1 motor racing. I should explain that my father, although supposedly a member of the chattering classes, spent his life racing cars. A consequence of their work is that 75 per cent of all Formula 1 cars, including Ferrari, were prepared in the United Kingdom.
We still have the skills. I therefore ask the Minister to do a few things. We need 100 per cent capital allowances on all businesses employing fewer than 250 people. There should be no inheritance tax on anyone who sets up a business of that sort. We should use taxation methods to provide greater freedom. Older people arc prepared to start small businesses now more than ever before because of the small pensions they receive.
It has been a great pleasure to attend this debate. I shall finish with a quote from a previous Prime Minister. In 1878, Gladstone promised all the peoples and all the subjects of the Queen much legislation, much prosperity and universal peace. Afterwards, a Tory, Randolph Churchill, asked what Gladstone had in fact given them. He said that he had given them nothing but chips. He went on to elaborate:
"Chips to the faithful allies in Afghanistan…Chips to the manufacturer and artisan…Chips to the agricultural labourer",
and so on. I did not understand what he meant by that, so I inquired at the Library. He was not talking about chips as we understand the term today. It appears that Gladstone used to chop trees and chop down institutions. Churchill was saying that that government, like the current one with regard to rural areas and the manufacturing industry, was giving nothing much more than chips.
5.55 p.m.
Lord Dixon: My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lord Brookman on initiating this debate and on the marvellous way in which he introduced it. He has fought hard all his life for the steel industry, not only before but since he became a Member of this House.
My noble friend spoke about Teesside. There is great concern about the future of steel on Teesside and Corus's plans for the Redcar and Lackenby works. Although Corus has decided to concentrate on the United Kingdom markets, it says that Teesside's slab and beam production will have to export to a highly competitive international market. They are supposed to do that without even the support of a sales unit on Teesside to sell the product. There are serious concerns about the 2,900 steel industry jobs and the 7,000 workers in the supply industry. All of those jobs will be placed in jeopardy.
336
Such is the concern on Teesside that Middlesborough's Evening Gazette organised a steel summit at the Redcar Bowl on 1st June. The event was well attended by workers and their families, politicians, government agencies, councils and unions. The Corus representatives were the only ones invited who did not attend. A great deal of anger was expressed at the summit. Someone said that Corus's plans for the industry were a death penalty postponed for three years. Ironically, others expressed the view that while thousands of workers and whole communities had a bleak future, Corus's chairman was about to retire with a £300,000 annual pension. It would be a tragedy for Teesside and the North East if anything happened to the Redcar and Lackenby works.
We have heard from various speakers about the loss of manufacturing jobs in this country. We are losing too many manufacturing jobs in the North East. Last month, in answer to a question asked in another place by my right honourable friend Derek Foster about the loss of a further 340 manufacturing jobs in his constituency—bringing to 1,600 the number of jobs lost in the past 12 months—the then Leader of the House of Commons, Dr John Reid, said:
"Manufacturing has been going through a difficult period for some time. The Government have tried wherever possible to support it. Every job loss is a tragedy".—[0fficial Report, Commons, 22/5/03; col. 1166.]
More than 175,000 jobs in our area depend on manufacturing. I do not underestimate the value of other employment, but we cannot live by call centres, retail and dotcom alone. Manufacturing has a key place in our economic future.
I should like to concentrate the rest of my remarks on the shipbuilding industry, which is so closely linked with steel. I was born and have lived for almost 75 years in the shipbuilding town of Jarrow. Like my father and grandfather before me, I worked in the shipbuilding and ship repairing industry, from the time that I left school at 14 until I was elected Member of Parliament for Jarrow in 1979. Britain is a maritime nation and it needs sea power. Shipping and the capability to build and repair our ships are a vital part of our prosperity.
From my many years in the shipbuilding industry I know that the industry has always, unfortunately, been subject to boom and bust. It is a highly skilled industry and cannot be employed intermittently—to be available only when required. When there is a downturn in orders, fewer apprentices are trained and skilled men leave the industry. When the industry recovers, there is invariably a skills shortage. To be effective, shipbuilding and ship repairing require constant improvement and continuous investment in men and materials. At present the warship sector looks good in terms of prospects over the next few years. Here I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Bach, the Minister for defence procurement, for his efforts in assisting the securing of the MoD's naval programme, which is the largest for a number of years. It includes three Astute class submarines, six Type 45 destroyers, four landing craft and the latest order of two aircraft carriers—incidentally, the two largest naval vessels

337
ever built in this country. Those two aircraft carrier orders will provide and maintain employment on the River Tyne and the River Tees for some 2,000 workers over the next decade. However, having said that, I put the following point to my noble friend—whom I congratulate—who is to reply to the debate. At the moment the MoD is discussing the MARS project—Military Afloat, Reach, and Sustainability—as the vessels will be involved in support for fighting vessels. Following our unfortunate experience with the order for the roll on, roll off ferries, will the Government ensure that these, and wherever possible ships that are ordered by the MoD, are described as naval vessels? That would ensure they are built in the United Kingdom.
At the moment there is a vast distinction between the MoD's current naval programme and the market prospects for merchant shipping. While the warship sector in the United Kingdom looks favourable in terms of its prospects over the next 10 to 12 years, the market for the merchant shipping sector remains difficult. On repair and conversion, the United Kingdom is generally competitive in northern Europe for routine refit and maintenance work and for the more complex conversion projects. On the River Tyne AMEC will soon have successfully completed the topside of the Bongo project—a floating production storage and offloading vessel. Incidentally, it is the largest vessel ever seen on the River Tyne. As my honourable friend Brian Wilson, the ex-energy Minister, said when he visited the Tyne last month,
"The Bongo demonstrates that the River Tyne can compete for, win and deliver world-class projects in an increasingly competitive market".
AMEC successfully completed a similar contract on the "Shearwater" on time and within price a couple of years ago.
However, the United Kingdom shipyards are generally unable to compete with the Far East on larger merchant vessels. There are allegations, for example, that Korea is winning orders at prices below production costs. Following a Question I tabled to my noble friend I was surprised that the shipbuilding intervention fund was closed to new applications in December 2000. To my knowledge that fund was set up primarily to deal with unfair Far Eastern competition. There are also allegations that some of the northern European shipyards are using cheap steel from the Ukraine.
Shipbuilding in the UK has always had to be competitive and has been subject to a number of examinations and reports. I recall when I worked in the industry we had in 1962 the Patton report, in 1966 the Geddes report, in 1972 the Booze-Allen report and then, of course, nationalisation in 1976. The shipbuilding industry has always tried to help itself to increase or even retain its market share which has meant sharpening its competitive edge.
It was against that background that the Shipbuilders and Shiprepairers Association put in hand in 2000 a comprehensive and interrelated programme of activities designed to improve productivity in United Kingdom
338
shipyards. To launch that improvement programme the DTI contributed some initial financial assistance as a Link project matched by an industrial contribution to the total costs. Activities within the overall programme include business improvement master classes; research and development; innovation; marketing services; special interest groups; and skills and education. Having engaged attention and having begun to rebuild the confidence of United Kingdom shipyards there is more to be done. The Link project expires at the end of this year and is fully committed.
Following a further Question I tabled to my noble friend last month I know that discussions are taking place between the DTI and the Shipbuilders and Shiprepairers Association. I hope that the Government will listen to its representations and continue their commitment to the programme.
When I first started my apprenticeship as a shipwright, my grandfather told me that I had chosen the right trade and that as an island nation there would always be work in the shipping and shipbuilding industry. He told me a tale which I believe is worth repeating. He said, "Mr Jenks used to deliver manure by horse and cart, and he did so, despite the arrival of gas turbine motor cars, aircraft, et cetera, because with his horse and cart he could deliver manure with the economy and certainty that pleased his customers. Manure for the fields of England and food and goods for the rapidly increasing number of underfed people in the world needed neither aircraft nor cars, just a safe and certain means of transport. If Mr Jenks's horse became a Pegasus and grew wings, it might be able to lift about 15 pounds and carry it through the air. However, if he taught his horse to swim, it could probably tow 9,000 pounds through the sea. Horse power is extremely important—only 15 pounds by air, but 9,000 pounds by sea". That is an important and common-sense view even today when we are so concerned about energy and conservation.
I make a final point about ports and shipping in regard to the unfair navigational taxes—light dues—which are disadvantaging United Kingdom ports. Most EU countries fund lights and navigational aids through general taxation. With the United Kingdom ports facing ever increasing competition from our continental neighbours, it is high time that the tax was abolished. It is a tax incidentally that we condemned when in opposition for causing commercial disadvantages to British port operators and shipowners in our policy document, Full Steam Ahead.
I have raised points on shipbuilding and ship repairs, which come under the DTI. I have mentioned MoD and naval vessels, which come under the Ministry of Defence. I have mentioned ports and shipping which come under the Department for Transport. I recall that in the early 1980s the Trade and Industry Select Committee report dealing with the then nationalised British shipbuilding industry made a recommendation:
"The Government should set up a high-level interdepartmental working group to consider the full implications of a maritime policy for the United Kingdom embracing both shipbuilding and shipping".

339
I agree with that policy and I hope that one day the Government will introduce such a policy.
6.8 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I join all noble Lords who thanked my noble friend Lord Brookman for his initiative in securing this debate and for the notable way in which he introduced it. It has been a very good debate. Many splendid points have been made. We shall certainly not forget Mr Jenks's horse even if we forget about the manure.
Interesting ideas have been put forward in the debate. My noble friend Lord Desai suggested that the death of industry—a view criticised by my noble friend Lord Brookman—had to be taken seriously. But I wonder how seriously we would take a plastic scalpel or a leather aircraft engine. It is wrong to compartmentalize—I know that my noble friend did not do that—and it would certainly be wrong to assume that we are in a different age and can forget all about industry.
I wish to speak largely about the engineering steel industry. I shall refer to Stocksbridge, as did the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough. I am grateful for his remarks. Stocksbridge is part of South Yorkshire some distance from my former constituency. It is an astonishing decision on the part of Corus to close down part of it but to leave part there. Indeed, I do not know what Sheffield will say if the lot is taken out because Sheffield still claims to be the city of steel. The city of steel, apart from Stocksbridge, is really Rotherham. The part at Stocksbridge that remains is vital in terms of securing added value for the industry. The only reason why part of it is being closed down but the other part is being left is that to transfer the adding-value part of Stocksbridge somewhere else would be ridiculous and extraordinarily expensive.
I was fortunate to represent my constituency, Rother Valley, from 1970 to 1983, and then, when it was divided, Wentworth from 1983 until 1997. Throughout that whole period, a great part of Britain's engineering steel was based in my constituency. Although I did not work in that industry, as my noble friend and my noble friend Lord Davies of Coity did, I was in very close contact with it throughout those years. I knew when there was cause for rejoicing—there were occasions when rejoicing was justified—and when there was cause for anxiety and, indeed, sometimes considerable anger.
For example, there was rejoicing when the Thrybergh Bar Mill was built in my constituency, and built as a result of co-operation of good management and first-class workers in a way that broke records for the speed in which a steel plant was built, established and commenced operation. There was cause for rejoicing when Thrybergh Bar Mill shattered world records in shift, day, week, month and year production for bar mills. It would have been able to maintain that record had there been some sensible investment policies by Corus in recent years. Unfortunately, Corus was far too keen to spread out the profit, declare a dividend, and pay salaries to the leaders of its business that those managers whom I knew in the
340
1970s and 1980s would not have dreamed of seeking for themselves, even though they would have earned them.
I am concerned about the high-quality work force in the engineering steel industry who have watched foolish decisions being made, watched lack of investment or misdirected investment, and then seen salaries increase while they themselves have been told not to have a real pay increase for some years. We have seen an appalling situation.
I recall when the crisis of electricity prices was faced. When the Conservative government privatised electricity, they put the prices up as a sweetener. The unfortunate consequence of that was that the cost of operating electric arc furnaces was enormous. The Rotherham engineering steel industry was the biggest customer for electricity in our region. I actually told it, "The best thing you can do is to tell them that you are going to build a power station yourselves if you do not have some sensible price". Management had changed, and it was not quite as vigorous in hostility to the ridiculous situation as it should have been.
However, the community, the industry and the workers got together and had a deputation of responsible trade unionists and responsible local representatives to the Department of Energy to see the then Minister. The management said, "We're not joining you, because we meet the Minister socially and we'll be able to have more effect in social contact". We met the Minister, and he was very courteous. We put the case for the enormous bills for using electricity to produce steel. The Minister and the officials listened and said, "We've got a suggestion. Why don't you consider installing off-peak storage radiators?". They thought that we were talking about keeping the workers warm inside the plant.
I was proud of those who were with me, because not one of them lost his temper. They all looked at the ceiling. Whether they were seeking divine comfort or trying to avoid catching the eyes of the rest of the delegation, I do not know. Anyway, profits were made on electricity, so the price came down and we went back to crashing world records at the Aldwarke electric arc furnace.
There has been co-operation, skill, ability and dedication, and all that they have seen is what can only be described as the greed and incompetence of those who direct the industry. The other day I was on a defence visit, and looked out of the window to see an hotel. It was called the Corus Hotel. I wondered whether Corus was going to extend into tourism, and what would happen with that prospect for Britain's future.
We have to accept that although many changes are taking place in industry, we have to have certain kinds of steel. We need cutting steel for tools. The noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, mentioned that. Some years ago, I recall being asked to open a small building at a steelworks in my constituency, and to declare a spectrometer open. I am not a technician, but we put a bit of steel in the spectrometer. A few seconds later,

341
it printed out a complete analysis of the contents of steel—so much banadium, tungsten, manganese and all the other various things that go in to make steel.
The next time I saw a spectrometer was when I looked at some tools—supposedly cutting tools—that had been imported. We put those in, and they came nowhere near meeting BS specifications. Some of what we automatically put into steel in South Yorkshire to make it a good cutting instrument was completely absent. The capacity of that tool to stand any pressure at all had gone. There is certainly a case for ensuring that we maintain the capacity to produce and make profits from those areas of steel that have ensured Britain's democratic survival.
Sometimes we have not been very happy about the speed at which governments have responded. When the supergun affair was proceeding and the people at Sheffield Forgemasters were fulfilling a contract to make some pipes, they knew that those pipes were of the same quality of steel as are used to make gun barrels. It has made gun barrels in that area for centuries. They were probably quite puzzled. They were even more puzzled when they loaded the pipes on to a lorry, the lorry got to Greece, the news broke, and the Select Committee in the House of Commons decided to embark on an inquiry.
I have never seen government move so rapidly and stealthily. At two or three o'clock in the morning, the people responsible at Sheffield Forgemasters found the Gestapo at their door. They were arrested and taken away, and their wives were mortified and horrified. The security forces were very bright. They did not put those people into cells in Sheffield where one would have expected. Instead, they were very quietly taken to be incarcerated in a small police station in my constituency. I was able to express my views on that matter in three minutes when the House of Commons debated the issue some time later.
Governments can move with speed, but they did not move with speed when we looked at the appallingly unfair competition from within the EU in the 1990s. The noble Lord, Lord Paul, will recall the situation. The Rotherham plants produced the best engineering steel, on the basis of world production records. Their particular competitors were two plants in Germany and one in Spain. They could not live with us, but there was no subsidy for South Yorkshire at all, merely the skills of the work force and better management than we have had since.
One German firm had its capital completely restructured when it changed hands for three deutschmarks. The other German firm was given vast public subsidies from central government for R&D in the electric arc furnace, which was already long-established technology. The Spanish government were even more bold-faced; they simply picked up the labour bill. We did not think that very fair. We thought that the government—not this Government, but the previous one—would listen, so we made representations and continued to make representations. Then the government
342
said, "We have achieved success. Brussels is going to establish a monitoring committee to look into the situation".
We were all supposed to express deep gratitude; we were relieved a little. However, nothing happened. About a year later, I had to table a Question to ask if the government had set up a monitoring committee to monitor the monitors. They did not seem at all happy about that. We are sometimes too supine to respond to unfair competition. We have to make gestures to the third world, but we have no reason to accept that we can subsidise malpractice in another advanced industrial nation.
I have one other point, because my constituency included an awful lot of coal as well. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, that we may be seeing the death of coal, but we should not be. It is now possible to burn coal cleanly. It is possible to burn coal cleanly and produce hydrogen, which may be the fuel of the future. It is possible to burn coal cleanly and trap CO2. That can be used to enhance production offshore if it is properly used instead of writing off oil and gas fields when more than half their reserves are left. Yet we are in danger of throwing away that technology, even though George Bush is providing billions of pounds from US federal funds to establish and develop the industry in the USA. The technology and the capacity exist and they should be pursued.
I am most anxious about that because another small-scale industry could have a similar experience. Five miles from my home is a colliery called Hickleton. The methane from that colliery is being extracted and it will produce the equivalent of 30,000 cars a year for 20 years. There are eight such schemes in Britain and there could be more than 100. We have seen three Ministers, but it is obvious that unless something is done the methane will continue to leak out from the coal fields of Britain. It has a poisonous effect, 22-times more obnoxious than those from the power stations about which we are mainly concerned.
For a modest sum, we could convert dirt, filth and waste into capital and wealth. We could continue to change our atmosphere and attitude. We would then be making a common-sense contribution. I did not think it sensible when an official blithely said, "Oh, I shall look at it and carry out a financial appraisal and finish it by the end of 2005". That kind of decision should be capable of being made within a fortnight and not after two years.
I have spoken at length. Again, I congratulate my noble friend and I hope that his speech is listened to most carefully. It ought to be.
6.22 p.m.
Lord Paul: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Brookman for initiating this debate, which is so important for the survival of the UK industry. On a personal note, let me pay tribute to my noble friend with whom I have had the pleasure of working since 1975 when he was an official of the Iron & Steel Trades Confederation. I have found him always very interested in the welfare of the UK steel industry and I am delighted to see that he continues to be interested today.

343
Your Lordships will excuse me if I do not talk today in my Welsh accent. I also declare an interest. I am chairman of Caparo Group, a company in the business of manufacturing steel and engineering products.
Noble Lords will be familiar with the continuing problems faced by the steel sector and UK manufacturing in general—and it is not my intention to repeat them. However, in my contribution today, I want to reiterate the importance of manufacturing to the UK economy and look at some of the issues that both government and industry need to tackle if UK manufacturing is to remain competitive and to thrive again.
Turning specifically to steel first, as a material it remains vital to economic development; indispensable to construction; and the raw material of choice for a vast range of industrial applications. Steel demand world-wide has been growing on average by 2.5 per cent a year. However, most of that growth has been concentrated in the newly emerging economies.
In 1972, the EU accounted for 26 per cent of world production, whereas today it is only 18 per cent. In the same period, the share taken by Asia, including China, increased from 20 per cent to 45 per cent.
In the UK, there has been a long-term decline in steel demand—a 35 per cent fall during the past 30 years. More significantly, demand in 2002 was 12 per cent below the 1998 level. This was accompanied by a steady increase in the share of the market taken by imports, which took 51 per cent of the market for the first time in 2001 compared with an import share of just 13 per cent in 1973. In the five years since 1997, steel output has declined by 40 per cent.
The fundamental cause of this decline has been, until very recently, the adverse sterling/euro exchange rate. That has impacted directly on the steel industry by making imports more competitive and by reducing the competitiveness of UK steel exports. Indirectly, the exchange rate has contributed to the weak performance of steel's major UK customer—manufacturing.
The fall in UK demand is therefore directly attributable to the state of UK manufacturing in general, which has struggled since sterling began its long rise against the Euro in 1996.
Between the beginning of 1996 and the fourth quarter of 2002, sterling appreciated by 35 per cent against the euro. This has had two major impacts on demand for steel. Manufacturing output stagnated and then contracted heavily, and manufacturers sought to move costs abroad by importing more components rather than sourcing them from the UK.
I am delighted that the euro has become stronger against sterling. And if it stays that way, I am sure that the UK industry will regain its export vigour both by increasing business and by reducing the country's trade deficit. As a matter of fact, the manufacturers have already started exporting quite an amount.
I hope that your Lordships will excuse me for raising this issue, but I have never been impressed by the argument about whether sterling is too strong, or the euro too weak, or vice versa, because, for manufacturers,
344
it is exactly the same. Indeed, we spend a lot of time in the UK worrying about the state of manufacturing and the value placed on it within the economy. Too often, this gives the impression of meltdown and disappearance of manufacturing altogether. In fact, only this morning Derek Simpson, the general secretary of AMICUS, warned that in 25 years all manufacturing jobs can disappear.
Yes, there are pressures on manufacturing and, yes, it is reducing as an overall percentage of GDP. However, in the UK, it still plays a large and vital role in the economy—18 per cent of GDP; 60 per cent of exports; and employs almost 4 million highly skilled people. A balanced economy needs an integrated manufacturing and service sector.
If we are to keep a strong, vibrant, skilled and high-tech manufacturing base in the UK, many of the solutions to the problems faced today are for business to resolve. But government must also provide the right economic environment for business to grow and prosper.
I believe that there are four key areas. First, government and industry need to address, as a matter of priority, the issue of innovation, not just in products but also processes. The Government have gone some way towards addressing this through the research and development tax credit, and plan to improve the supply of research scientists and engineers, as well as the increased spending on science. I congratulate the Government on that.
On investment, decades of under-investment are a key cause of the productivity gap. With so much of UK investment linked to internal finance, we are in a vicious circle that means that it is hard to break out of the cycle when margins are so low. I remain, to some extent, concerned that the Government have yet to grasp the extent of the decline that we have seen. Investment incentives must increase. I know that creating new jobs is important, but retaining manufacturing jobs should be considered just as important.
On skills, it is heartening to see the increased funding that the Government are devoting to education. Yet we still need to raise skills at all levels, including the alarming shortfall in modern apprenticeships; for example, removing the ceiling on funding for modern apprenticeships.
Finally, industry must increasingly embrace the lean manufacturing and high performance management techniques that research, conducted by the EEF and other groups, shows delivers higher productivity. It is imperative that we close the productivity gap with our major competitors as a matter of urgency. We must remember that today more cars and aircraft are being constructed, more roads being built, and more steel being made than ever before. As the 67 per cent of the world that earns less than 2,000 dollars a year develops, they will want more tangible, practical manufactured goods, and someone will need to make them.

345
There is no doubt that manufacturing will continue to face change at an ever-increasing pace and that British companies will need to adapt. Fortunately we have large numbers of very good and dedicated managers who are working very hard for very little money to keep the industry going. We are still fourth in the G7 most powerful economies, we still have fabulous companies competing across the world, in fiercely competitive fields. As Darwin said:
"It is not the most intelligent of species nor the strongest that survive, but those that are most responsive to change".
I am optimistic that manufacturing in the UK will thrive again.
6.32 p.m.
Baroness Golding: My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Brookman. I hope that he will forgive me as a Welsh woman wanting to make my contribution to this important debate by speaking of the industrial decline in the area that I now know best, North Staffordshire. North Staffordshire still has one of the highest percentages of its people employed in manufacturing in the United Kingdom despite the thousands of jobs that have been lost over the years.
When I first moved to North Staffordshire in the late 1960s there were mines such as Holditch, Hem Heath, Wolstanton, Florence, Silverdale; the steel plant at Shelton Bar; wires and cables at Lucas Rists; Michelin tyres; ceramics; brick and tile making; and of course pottery. There were world-famous names such as Royal Doulton, Wedgwood, Minton and many other factories producing ware.
What has happened? Gone are the mines; gone are the foundries; gone are the cable makers; gone are the tyre manufacturers; and gone are the steelmakers. The potteries have gone from employing 50,000 in the 1970s to employing fewer than 12,000 now. Manufacturers were told to modernise, reduce the workforce and invest or die. They did, but the cost and competition for many was far too high. To many firms the ease of world transport and the cost of foreign production with its low wages meant that to compete in the world market they had to make the decision to move some, or all, of their production abroad. That is called "outsourcing", which is a rude word in North Staffordshire.
What has remained in some areas of the country because of modernisation has resulted in fewer and fewer workers being needed; there are fewer and fewer job opportunities, leaving many areas desperate for help. I remember the last mine to close in my former constituency of Newcastle-under-Lyme; indeed, it was the last remaining pit in the West Midlands—Silverdale.
The mine owners called me in months before the pit closed and told me that they had hit a bad fault in one of the seams and had serious concerns about the future financial viability of the mine. However, there was still coal in the mine so they would keep mining and keep me informed. They gave me telephone numbers; they showed me plans; they talked about future plans; but
346
the mine had to close. They discussed everything and expressed deep regret that the last mine in the Midlands may have to close.
In contrast, what happened when Corus decided to close Shelton Bar, the steelworks in Stoke-on-Trent? There had been huge investment in the mill. It was highly efficient, the cost of production was low and the workforce was excellent. Then came the announcement that it was to close. The Stoke MPs, Mark Fisher, George Stevenson, Joan Walley and myself, were stunned. We demanded an urgent meeting but we need not have bothered. No effort would be made to keep the mill open. The company had not bothered to consult with the city council about the future of the land; in fact it was not at all certain who owned it. In any case, it was not the company's problem. As for the workers who had done everything asked of them, they too were someone else's problem.
I had never been so angry in my life when I came out of that meeting. Added to that, I was ashamed that it was a Welshman who had brought that uncaring view. How could Corus be so indifferent? It was a sign of things to come. The fight for Shelton Bar was over, so let us hope that the new management of which the noble Lord, Lord Brookman, spoke, have different attitudes towards the workforce now.
Regeneration has become the key word and for some it seems a long time coming, but not for all. My old constituency has been transformed. What has happened? Newcastle-under-Lyme, that area of mines and foundries, has been transformed into industrial sites, filling up as fast as they become vacant. New jobs are replacing old industry. Old industrial villages and the town are winning Britain in Bloom contests, even international contests. Council estates are being regenerated. Despite large out-of-town shopping sites surrounding the town, it has managed to keep its thriving village communities and a town centre and a new street of 30 shops has just opened. Its restaurants and pubs thrive during the day and swing for the young at night. Newcastle has succeeded thanks to early forward planning and to a good Labour council led by a hard-working leader, Councillor Eddie Boden.
However, that other area of North Staffordshire, the city of Stoke-on-Trent, has not thrived, but not for lack of effort. Three years ago we felt as though the regeneration of the whole area would get up and run and then the Minister, Stephen Byers, visited the area and the North Staffs task force and partnership was formed with £50 million to spend on co-ordinating ideas and achieving results. Unfortunately Advantage West Midlands held the purse-strings and failed to give the partnership the support that it needed.
Stoke-on-Trent is in urgent need of strategic regeneration. Not only has it suffered the loss of the steelworks, mines and Michelin tyres, but it suffers from the disadvantage of being the area where most of the potteries in this country have been based. As the pottery industry shrinks, so the knock-on job losses are concentrated in Stoke. Only a few weeks ago

347
Wedgwood announced that another 1,000 jobs are to go, and last week the effect was felt in a packaging factory that was to close with the loss of 140 jobs.
The Ceramic and Allied Trade Union is working non-stop to make sure that workers rights are protected and that they receive the money to which they are entitled. Its work never ends in trying to bring new jobs into the area, supplying training for redundant workers and lobbying all the government agencies. It works hard to protect its remaining workers on the issue of back stamping, so that all ware is stamped with the country of origin. Therefore, people who want to buy British and to support British manufacturing can do so. What happened to the "Buy British" campaign? Have we forgotten about it?
Who would be a CATU official or a shop steward these days? Not me, I can assure your Lordships. Geoff Bagnall and his members have had a hard job keeping the pottery industry going and high praise is needed for all their efforts.
Jobs keep leaving north Staffordshire. Yet, earlier this month Advantage West Midlands told the city council that it had spent only 13 per cent last year of what it could have spent in north Staffordshire—I repeat, 13 per cent of the total amount it could have spent. Stoke-on-Trent is one of the last big cities yet to see progress in large-scale urban renewal.
I do not blame the people of Stoke-on-Trent. The trade unions, MPs, MEPs, businessmen, councillors and government agencies have worked hard to regenerate the area and to keep down unemployment. Millions of pounds of government help have been put in for new schools, new hospitals and new roads, but there is a continuing crisis in manufacturing in north Staffordshire: 20,000 jobs have been lost in manufacturing alone in the past four years with all the knock-on effects. It is time that the Department of Trade and Industry examined what Advantage West Midlands is doing, or rather not doing, for Stoke-on-Trent. It has been one of the country's greatest manufacturing cities. We owe it and its people the means to become a truly great thriving, but still industrial, modern city. The people of the potteries deserve nothing less.
6.42 p.m.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Brookman, for initiating this extremely valuable and important debate and indeed for sticking to his guns when his previous debate was cancelled.
It is clear that all noble Lords who have spoken agree with the economic analysis that in recent years there has been a significant and—some would say—catastrophic reduction in manufacturing capability in the United Kingdom. We can disagree about the figures, but it would be reasonably common ground that only about 20 per cent of the UK economy now consists of manufacturing. A number of noble Lords have defined manufacturing as taking raw materials and putting them into a plant and producing an end
348
product. Clearly, manufacturing in that sense amounts to significantly less than 20 per cent because much of what passes for manufacturing in this country is actually the assembly of component parts, often brought in from oversees. So industries such as the steel industry and the mining industry are manufacturing industries in the purest sense, but they represent today only 10 per cent of the UK economy.
Between us, we would probably agree the reasons for that situation. I do not need to rehearse arguments made by other noble Lords. There is the continuous policy of global free trade—pursued by western governments for more than 100 years—which has significantly benefited UK consumers. It clearly has a knock-on effect on manufacturing capability in the United Kingdom, in particular the ability of other countries with cheap labour to compete with our higher-paid industries. A knock-on effect from that is that the strength of the UK currency, on which a number of noble Lords have commented, has not benefited the manufacturing sector. I suspect that even the noble Lord, Lord Desai, would agree that that matters.
A number of noble Lords referred to the typically and wonderfully hyperbolic comment today by Derek Simpson, that, if we continue the way we are going, by 2028 we shall have no manufacturing whatever in this country. Were that to be the case, I think that it would be common ground among noble Lords that that matters for two reasons. First, the process of reaching that position would result in an unacceptable degree of personal distress and destruction of people's lives. A number of noble Lords referred to that issue, including the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough.
Secondly, I am reminded of what occurred in the early 1980s when those on these Benches and noble Lords on the Government Benches fundamentally disagreed with the economic policies that were being pursued by the then Thatcher Government. Let us take a restaurant in a service industry and a steel plant or an engineering company in the North East. If the economy is run in such a way that a restaurant closes down because of recession and the absence of consumer demand, when the economy picks up again that restaurant will invariably re-open. It may be under different ownership, but it will re-open as the economy picks up. If, however, the economy is run in such a way that a steel plant closes down, it will take years and years before that steel plant will be recreated because the decision to open it again often has an eight, nine or 10-year time line. In the early 1980s, a great deal of manufacturing industry was destroyed. However, when the economy picked up, the industry was never replaced. It may have been replaced by service industries, but the skill-sets and the communities simply disappeared.
The noble Lord, Lord Desai, may well say that that process is a good thing. Indeed, no one would want to go back to 1918 when 800,000 people worked down mines. No one suggests that we should return to that world; it has gone for ever. No one would think that we should go back to 1918 when the biggest single

349
employment was of maids and butlers. I do not believe that even the hereditary Peers would think that we should go back to that world. Nevertheless, it clearly matters if we allow our manufacturing industry to be destroyed.
Is the process inevitable? I believe that most noble Lords think not. Let us take the mining industry. I was very interested by what the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, said. The mining industry in this country has almost disappeared. If one asks the Treasury to look at the productivity figures for the mining industry, or industry as a whole, it will say that the most productive industrial sector in this country is the surviving mining industry. It will also say that the least productive sector is the banking and financial services industry. That is not, however, an answer one would get if one went to a venture capitalist to try to persuade him to invest money in a mining project.
Northern Italy still has a thriving manufacturing base. There is absolutely no reason why this country's manufacturing capacity should not be on a par with northern Italy. It is now a high-wage, high added-value economy. There is absolutely no reason why we should not have the same. The Italian statistics are pulled down by what happens in the area south of Rome.
Most noble Lords would agree with what I have said so far. The trouble always with this kind of discussion is that we have speech after speech that bemoans what has happened. It is easy to analyse what has happened; the difficulty is deciding what we should do about it. If government do not do something about it in areas where they have the power, this steady decline will continue.
I want to suggest four remedies, some of which have been suggested by other noble Lords. First, several noble Lords have referred to the fact that if we are to operate a worldwide, free-trade, non-subsidy, global economy, everyone must be made to play by the rules. We cannot have hidden—or overt—subsidies from the United States, France and Germany. The Government must do everything they can to ensure that everyone is playing by the rules. Incidentally, it is significant that the one remedy that no one mentioned—had this debate taken place in your Lordships' House 10 years ago, everyone would have been suggesting it—is significant subsidy to "prop up" failing industry. Not one noble Lord suggested that; it is interesting that the argument has entirely disappeared because people now accept that it is just sticking a finger in the dyke, if that is not a mixed metaphor.
Secondly—a point on which no one has touched but that the Treasury has grasped—if the Government want to do something positive to help manufacturing industry, they need to stick to their commitment to give a high priority to the reorganisation of domestic housing finance. One factor—albeit on the margin—damaging British industry at present is high interest rates, which inevitably feed into a higher exchange rate.
One reason why the Bank of England does not cut interest rates to worldwide levels is because it is concerned about the effect on domestic inflation of the
350
housing market. So much of our housing market is geared to floating interest rates. For that reason, the Government's announcement last week, or the week before, that they are seriously committed to doing something about moving people from variable to long-term finance in the housing market will, paradoxically, feed through to help manufacturing industry on the margins.
I turn to the third area, on which several noble Lords touched. As the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said, the future of manufacturing in this country inevitably lies in increasing our capability in the high added value field. That requires a continuing commitment to the relation between industry and universities; to the development of parks such as those in Oxford and Cambridge and of scientific colleges; and for the Government to do nothing that will damage the ability of our intellectual capital to be mined. As the Japanese say, that is the mining of the gold in people's heads, which will in due course feed through to our engineers, scientists and those who will develop high added value products. The Government can give a commitment to that.
Finally, it is unsurprising that I should mention entry to the euro, as did the noble Lord—I almost said Lord Caparo, which would have been a Freudian slip—Lord Paul, and my noble friend Lord Livsey. I was struck when on the day of the euro announcement I listened on the "Today" programme to the managing director of the UK branch of Siemens, which has plants in this country. He said that it was taking decisions that week, next week and the week after about where plants would be located around the world in 2010, 2011 and 2012. He said that a major factor for the Siemens board that would be common to many multinational companies with plants in the UK was whether there was a firm commitment by the British Government to have entered the euro by then. If we are not in the euro and it is thought that we shall not be, that will be seriously deleterious to the decision-making process on where plants are located.
We should listen to the noble Lord, Lord Paul. He made the position extremely clear as a major industrialist. That is my fourth reason. I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Brookman, for introducing this extremely valuable debate to your Lordships' House.
6.54 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking and congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Brookman, on having secured this debate on two most important topics, and for the charming, courteous and informative way in which he opened the debate, which was followed by excellent contributions from all who have taken part.
The standard of debate in this House never fails to amaze me. I know that noble Lords who have been Members of the other place will forgive me when I say that listening to debates there sometimes one just cannot compare the two. It seems as though they must say something; but in this House, noble Lords say something only when they have something important to say. It was interesting to listen to people with

351
knowledge of Wales, of steel and of manufacturing, and to hear the right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness, Lady Golding, talking about what happens to towns and cities when industries close down. It was also interesting to hear the noble Lord, Lord Desai, say that things were not so bad and that we must think of niche markets and so on. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, who said that that involves many different agencies working together and takes time.
Having said all that, the tone of the debate gave a depressing picture of what has happened in the steel industry and manufacturing generally. Every noble Lord cited figures, and I have the same ones as everyone else, but they bear repeating because they bring home to all of us that something needs to be done. Again, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Razzall. Surely, the noble Lord, Lord Desai, does not think that all will be well and that it does not matter if our remaining manufacturing disappears because something will take its place. The situation is more involved than that.
We on these Benches share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Brookman, about what is happening to the steel industry. It has suffered enormously. There has been a 35 per cent fall in demand. If people are not asking for something, we cannot just continue to produce it. That fall in demand has increased substantially recently. In 2002, demand was 12 per cent less than in 1998; since 1997, steel output has declined by 40 per cent. That rate is frightening. At the same time, imports have increased. In 2001, they comprised more than half of the market. That had never happened in this country before. That is the real problem.
To try to get rid of that disastrous situation, British Steel decided to merge with its Dutch counterpart and came up with the name Corns. That has not stemmed the tide. As the noble Lord, Lord Brookman, said, there are more than 3,350 British job losses in the pipeline. That is another 13 per cent of an already depleted workforce. That is terrible. The company has lost a lot of money and the share price has plummeted.
Why has that happened? Apart from the agreement in some quarters about the level of the pound, the real problem is the slump in demand. We must face the fact that a high proportion of new cars is now imported and that those that are made here use less steel and more aluminium and plastics. The noble Lord, Lord Razzall, mentioned component parts being assembled. So there is a change in how things work in this country. We are also caught in the nutcracker of ruthless competition from the Far East and elsewhere on one side, and by punitive, possibly illegal, tariffs imposed by the United States of America, mentioned by many noble Lords, to protect its domestic steel industry.
In 1972, the EU accounted for 26 per cent of world steel production. Today, the figure is only 18 per cent. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Paul, cited the same figures. But the share taken by Asia has increased from 20 per cent to 45 cent. When we really consider them, those figures should cause terrible concern all over the
352
place. But that also throws up the issue of surplus production of steel, which, with lower labour costs, means that extra steel is available to export to the EU.
In terms of output per employee, the UK steel industry is broadly comparable to its major competitors in the EU, and productivity has increased by 340 per cent. So no one can say that the workforce has not done its best. It has, and it has produced good results. But, on the other hand, steel prices are 13 per cent lower than in 1987. That causes an enormous problem.
Despite that increased efficiency, the share of Corus's burdens, in the form of cutbacks and job losses, has fallen disproportionately heavily on the UK arm of the organisation due to the predominant influence of the Dutch main and supervisory boards. The Dutch supervisory board vetoed the sale of an aluminium plant for £518 million on the grounds that it would merely,
"prop up the loss-making United Kingdom operation".
What can the Government do to support this essential UK industry? The noble Lord opposite might be surprised when I say from these Benches that the Government have already been very supportive and have done what they wanted to do. Pressure was put on the United States Government to help to get some of our specialist steel and niche products exempted from the 30 per cent illegal tariff.
The DTI has supported the retaliatory counter-quotas that the EU imposed in reaction to the United States tariffs and then pressed for the broader product coverage introduced last September. That is good news. We also welcome the Government's support for the current talks under OECD auspices to try to discipline steel subsidies. The noble Lord, Lord Razzall, also mentioned that.
The Engineering Employers' Federation, in its recent evidence to the Trade and Industry Select Committee of the other place, urged yet further measures on the Government. In particular, it calls for a reduction in the disproportionate impact of its environmental measures on industrial energy costs, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, and others, which would improve the competitive position. Such a reduction would include removing the oppressive climate change levy, which will subject the industry to a double whammy when the electricity industry becomes subject to EU emissions trading in 2005.
Diverting from the subject of steel, I agree totally with what the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, said about clean coal technology. Drax has put a lot of money into having clean coal, and it does not produce terrible emissions, but it must still pay the climate change levy. It pays more to produce clean coal but gets hammered for having done so—that is terrible.
The EEF also calls for a reduction in the renewables obligation on electricity supplies to energy-intensive industries, of which steel is among the foremost sufferers.
I shall now discuss the second leg of the noble Lord's debate: the dire straits of the British manufacturing industry. I am not so happy with what the

353
Government have done in that respect. Since I have congratulated them on the help that they tried to give the steel industry, it is quite fair to point out what I think they have done wrong with manufacturing generally. In a way, it depends on the neighbourliness of the two residents of Downing Street.
The Director-General of the CBI recently said:
"The UK's reputation as a place to do business has never been under greater threat".
Therein lies the problem. Britain has fallen from ninth on the world competitiveness Scoreboard in 1997 to just 16th in 2002. Business investment is falling at its fastest rate for 36 years. To return to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Desai, without investment, none of the other wonderful things will happen. Half a million manufacturing jobs have been lost since Labour came to power. The UK has the largest trade deficit on record. Productivity is growing half as fast as under the last Conservative government. Since the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, mentioned the Thatcher years, it is only right that I try to put the balance into perspective.
In the 2002 Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer predicted that manufacturing output would grow by 2.25 to 2.5 per cent in 2003. By this year's Budget he had downgraded that prediction to a miserable 0.25 to 0.75 per cent. He also confirmed that manufacturing output fell by 4 per cent in 2002. That is the sharpest fall since 1991. In the 2002 Budget, the Chancellor predicted that business investment would grow by between 5 per cent and 6.25 per cent in 2003. But by this year's Budget he had downgraded that super-optimistic prediction to minus 1.5 per cent. That is terrible. Business investment fell by 8 per cent in 2002—the largest fall since 1991.
I apologise for bombarding noble Lords with all these statistics, but they illustrate some very important matters. First, it is no good for the Chancellor to make such predictions, making everybody think that everything is OK. Companies invest and work on the basis of predictions of changes that did not happen at all. At the beginning of his office the Chancellor had the opportunity to coast along on the very fine economies that the previous Conservative government left. Now the serious mistakes in the Budget predictions have ruined all the plans for meeting the ever-growing government expenditure. It is very important that we can do that. We need to generate capital for public services but we must do so properly.
What the Labour Government have done to British wealth creators is to milk business of no less than £47 billion in new taxes. That is a disincentive to have the money to invest. Meanwhile, £20 billion in the cost of new regulations have been piled on to commercial concerns. That is a problem; we must get manufacturing right. That extra cost is before what amounts to the new payroll tax in the form of an extra 1 per cent National Insurance to be paid by every employer on every employee's salary.
That brings me to the share of the blame for industry's woes caused by the other resident of Downing Street, the Prime Minister. The noble Lords,
354
Lord Livsey of Talgarth and Lord Razzall, and possibly the noble Lord, Lord Paul, may not agree with my next point because I know that they were talking about the euro. One of the problems is that no sooner had the Prime Minister got into 10 Downing Street than he had signed up to the Social Chapter, which removed the opt-out that John Major had secured for us.
In one stroke, out went flexible labour markets and in came social on-costs that, until then, had been strangling the rest of the EC. Now they were strangling the United Kingdom, too: we became indistinguishable from Germany and France from the point of view of providing incentives for inward investment—an issue that practically every noble Lord has spoken about. People will not invest if there is no incentive for them to do so. If noble Lords would care to listen carefully—they probably will not like what I say—they might hear the "shooshing" sound of all the UK jobs disappearing in the direction of Poland, the Czech Republic and all points east.
The noble Lord, Lord Jordan, talked about manufacturing in China, the Philippines and other countries that are there to do the work that we used to do but no longer have. The tax take has risen under this Government from £207 billion in 1996–97 to £405 billion this year. In 1997 the tax burden was 34.8 per cent of the GNP; it is now 36.3 per cent and is due to rise to 38.2 per cent in four years. When, as his first act as Chancellor, Mr Brown confiscated billions from the utilities as a so-called windfall tax, what effect did he believe it would have on their ability to invest in the necessary infrastructure and research and development?
When in the same act of piracy he imposed £5 billion pounds worth of taxes on pension funds, not only did he rob people of their savings but he discouraged further investment—here we reach the same point—and deprived industry of the vast amounts of investment that it depends on for future development. If there were ever a case of burning the seed corn those two acts of fiscal vandalism are it.
But that is not the end if it. There were stealthy back-door changes in corporation tax. I have also mentioned the climate change levy, which the Government say is "broadly tax neutral". But it has hit manufacturing industry the hardest, according to a joint study by the CBI and the Engineering Employers' Federation. Small businesses are being forced to close because of the burden of liability insurance, which the Government have imposed, but which the insurance industry is unwilling to provide except at a prohibitive cost. The agency workers directive will cost another 160,000 jobs in the United Kingdom. Increases in business rates, stamp duty, national insurance contributions—red tape—all take their toll of industry.
Several noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Brookman, mentioned today's article by Derek Simpson, the joint general secretary of Amicus, in which he said that, by 2028, manufacturing would be dead. He said that job losses were running at 20 an hour, or 13,000 a month. He made only one suggestion, which

355
no one has mentioned, as to how the situation could be improved. He said that we must strengthen employment protection. Some employment protection, some red tape and some of the regulations have caused the problem. We must try to stay competitive. That is not to say that we do not protect employees, but there has to be a level playing field. We must see that we do not go too far down that road.
The Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Brookman, ends with a call for Papers. The situation into which the Government have got the steel industry and manufacturing industry generally calls for more than papers. It calls for what Winston Churchill used to call "action this day". I hope that we will see that.
7.11 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Brookman for his kind remarks about my elevation. He probably knows it, but I assure him that flattery is completely wasted on Whips, and I remain of that body. I am grateful nevertheless. I am even more grateful, as are other noble Lords, for his introduction to the debate, which has been, as we will all agree, of a high calibre.
Some significant points have been made, not least by my noble friend, who set the tone for a stimulating debate that combined expertise in and knowledge of the issues with a proper degree of passion about the costs that communities pay for economic change. We all recognise that those costs must register with all those who take decisions, whether they are in government or in industry. If things go wrong for communities, it means terrible privation in sections of our land. I appreciate that several areas were specified in the debate. What I had not anticipated was what my noble friend Lady Golding said about the economy of north Staffordshire. That is another indication of why we need proper investment and structure in the economy to create and develop jobs.
In sharing the concerns expressed about the decline in the steel industry, I shall, I hope, rebut some of the more pessimistic contributions made this evening. The message is not only that the Government care about the steel industry and about manufacturing but that we have a contribution to make to improving things in the future. Of course, the Government want to see a successful and profitable steel industry that will underpin UK manufacturing and feed into the many supply chains that use steel in a vast range of applications. A competitive and prosperous manufacturing sector will depend on a reliable local source of high-value steel products now and well into the future.
Corus accounts for over 90 per cent of UK steel production. Its announcement in April that it must undertake further restructuring came as a blow, following the job losses, referred to in the debate, that the company announced in 2001.
As was recognised in the debate, steel remains an increasingly difficult market in which to operate. My noble friend Lord Paul described the situation most graphically. The problem is that the industry has been
356
beset by global over-capacity and weak prices for years. At a time when European Community demand has remained static, global production has been boosted by the rapid development of capacity in the emerging economies of Asia, especially China, and South America. The low cost of labour and raw materials, the exploitation of economies of scale and the latest technology have given those producers a competitive advantage.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Jordan, who presented that case in its most explicit form. He emphasised that we must recognise the comparative cost advantages of certain Chinese manufacturers as against Europe and ourselves. We cannot compete in those fields, with those statistics. That is why it is tremendously important that we recognise that, in our manufacturing development, we must look to the high value-added, high skilled areas in which we have a comparative advantage over such economies. That is where our future lies. I shall develop those things a little more in my speech.
It is true, as noble Lords testified, that some wonderful achievements in productivity were recorded in the British steel industry over the decades. UK workers are among the most productive in the industry, but we all know that we continue to have problems. Corus is still seeking to reduce costs. All the major European steel manufacturers are having a difficult time in a tough global market. The decision to restructure is a commercial one for the company to take. The job losses will be spread over the next two to three years, and the Government will, of course, do what we can to help the communities affected.
I stress that Corus will remain a major UK manufacturing company and steel producer, employing well over 20,000 people. We must welcome the investment decisions included in the announcement, which will strengthen UK sites. We note the positive statement on 4th June regarding the company's progress towards the renewal of its working capital financing. That is to be welcomed.
The noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth, said that it might be necessary for it to be taken into state control for a short time. That is not the position with Corus, given its financial position and the support from its bankers. Things are not as critical as that. We must have a degree of faith in the new management. We certainly had clear evidence of mistakes in the past, and we needed new management in Corus. However, there are indications that we should have some faith that lessons have been learnt. For instance, the lesson has been learnt that management will get nowhere unless they take the workforce with them, which requires consultation. That issue was raised in several contributions this evening.
The fact that there is a strong Dutch component to Corus emphasises the difference between, on the one hand, the effective consultation that they are used to in the Netherlands and the way that companies deal with Dutch workers and, on the other, the much less forthcoming position adopted throughout the steel industry and much of manufacturing and the failure to

357
engage the workforce and the trade unions in investment decisions and in the developing structure of the company. My noble friend Lord Jordan emphasised that point. We see the new leadership making progress.
I assure the House that the Government have not been and will not be dispassionate observers. We shall not stand idly by and watch development as regards Corus. That is why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has been in contact with the company at the most senior level on a number of occasions in recent months. To give some reassurance to my noble friend Lord Dixon. she visited the Teesside works last Friday to demonstrate our support for the plant, the workforce and the people of Teesside and to give recognition of the importance that Corus must attach to that particular path.
Of course, we have been talking to the unions. The company has been as open as it can be with us, given stock market rules, as its decisions emerge. We have also been in contact with Dutch colleagues about decisions there. There was a recent report from a delegation of four Members of Parliament who went to The Netherlands to discuss the developing situation there. They came back with as positive a report, given their obvious experience and detached scepticism, about the new plans for the company as we could reasonably expect.
DTI Ministers are actively encouraging the new management team to work in partnership with its outstanding workforce and the unions to optimise the company's assets in the United Kingdom and to put it on a much sounder basis. Attempts to shield domestic producers from foreign competition serve only to preserve inefficient industries. I think that has been appreciated in a number of contributions today. I am having difficulty in taking lessons from the Conservative Front Bench about the problems with regard to job losses and the loss of manufacturing industry at this time. My noble friends and others across the House depicted the collapse of British manufacturing and the descent of steel over the past two decades. Therefore, the party opposite might be just a little restrained in its present stance and the criticism voiced about the action of this Government.
This is not the end of the steel industry in Britain. Restructuring is a painful exercise. However, Corus assured us that this strategy is necessary for a continuing viable steel industry. Once the proposals have been implemented, the company will still be counted among the top five European producers in terms of output. Like all noble Lords, the Government wish to see a strong, innovative and profitable steel industry. For the most part, business success is down to the actions of businesses—a point emphasised by my noble friend Lord Paul.
The Government have a role to play in seeking to create the best environment they can for businesses to flourish. We recognise that the climate has been tough for all manufacturing—not just steel—but we firmly believe that the UK economic fundamentals remain a
358
strong foundation for industry when compared to Europe and the G7 countries. Business needs a supportive—
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. He has accepted that high energy costs are a factor in the competitiveness or otherwise of British steel. Will the Minister agree to have a look at what the Germans are doing to help those industries, including their steel industry, which are suffering a loss of competitiveness because of high energy costs?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, in that well known Welsh phrase, I was coming to that. The noble Lord has slightly pre-empted me. Because we already have the climate change levy in place at rates above those minimum levels—which I think was a significant part of the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts—we do not think that when the draft directive comes into force it will cause significant change to the UK's arrangements. It will narrow the differential between ourselves and our European competitors. In those terms the implementation of the directive across the EU will help to create a level playing field—a phrase which I am always reluctant to use, but I cannot think of another one. That is my response to the point made by the noble Lord. I recognise that there is a point of grievance at present which needs to be addressed.
In considering help for the steel industry, we have to take into account European state aid restrictions specific to the sector. These restrictions prevent government funding for investment, restructuring and rescue aid. Successive governments and the industry have supported this policy and they have been successful in eradicating state aid and in creating a common base for all European countries. None the less, the Government liaise closely with the sector and, where permitted by state aid rules, have supported a number of initiatives specifically designed to improve the industry's competitiveness and strengthen the UK customer base.
Perhaps I may illustrate the kind of things that the Government are doing. The creation of the Metals Industry Competitiveness Enterprise (MICE) is introducing best practice lean manufacturing and supply chain techniques to the metals sector and to downstream industries. The National Metals Technology Centre (NAMTEC) has been established. Following requests from the metals industry the DTI researched the feasibility of having a source of metals expertise in the UK and now supports the establishment of NAMTEC, launched in October last year. NAMTEC will be of particular benefit to small and medium-sized enterprises in terms of their needs.
A third initiative is the Advanced Metals Technology Initiative (AMTI) which is playing a significant part in an area to which a number of my noble friends drew particular attention; namely, South Yorkshire. The AMTI has emerged from the work of the Steel Task Force in South Yorkshire. It is a £10 million project funded by the DTI, Yorkshire

359
Forward and Objective 1 which has just started and will soon be producing results that firms in all the metals sectors in that part of the country can exploit.
We are working to ensure that the UK steel industry knows about opportunities, that purchasers know what the UK steel industry can do and that we can make progress in that respect. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, referred to the US restrictions which are a significant problem for all European countries that seek to export to the United States. Of course, British industry has the highest level of exemptions from United States restrictions. We are paying a price—let us not underestimate the price. Nevertheless, we should not underestimate the work that has been done to make progress on this, nor that we perhaps benefit from our closer relationship with the United States than France, for example, enjoys at present.
My noble friend Lord Brookman, although he concentrated on the industry which he has served all his life and knows so much about, also introduced aspects of the broader issues of manufacturing, to which I shall now turn. The current slowdown is obviously impacting upon the manufacturing industry world-wide. The three largest economies in the world are concurrently experiencing weak economic growth for the first time in more than 30 years. We are seeing the knock-on effects of that with the current situation at Corus and in so much of our manufacturing industry.
However, I cannot stress too strongly that manufacturing is absolutely central to our future as a high technology, high value, successful economy. We cannot follow the pattern that has been depicted from the Simpson comment. We are not getting to the stage where manufacturing will disappear from the British economy. Of course not. A leading economy cannot have a manufacturing industry—
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I did not say that. I commented on what Derek Simpson had said; that is, that by 2028, manufacturing industry will be dead. That was the headline.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I appreciate that the noble Baroness was quoting Derek Simpson, but I merely seek to emphasise the fact that we reject his conclusion as regards the future for British manufacturing. Of course there are significant problems at present, but a great deal of the Government's activity is directed towards ensuring that we protect and enhance our manufacturing base.
We should not be unduly pessimistic. My noble friend Lord Jordan mentioned the success of the Airbus. That represents a very significant achievement by British and French manufacturing, although it does not use quite as much steel as perhaps we would like in terms of the other topic in our debate. Nevertheless, here is a world-beating project which is taking on some of the most significant competitors in the world, such as the great American aircraft manufacturing companies, and beating them. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, who said that he could see no reason why the British economy should not match that
360
of northern Italy. He is absolutely right to say that. Matching that economy requires a high level of investment and a highly skilled workforce. It does not require a quest to bring unit costs down to the levels of those in third world countries. That is how the economy of northern Italy has progressed.
I say to my noble friend Lord Dixon, when he spoke about the shipbuilding industry, that I agree that it is well placed to make a bid for the aircraft carriers when it is possible to do so. I know that my noble friend will play his full part in seeking to ensure that the order is brought to the shipyards of the North East. However, let me make the obvious point that, tremendously important that those orders will be in terms of jobs and the economy of the North East, it is remarkable how little succour they will bring to the problems being faced by the steel industry. Consider what a fractional element even two large aircraft carriers are in relation to the total production of UK steel. Therefore, even big contracts of that kind are in reality quite marginal.
I turn to another area where people are prone to suggest that, because we are seeing great developments in aerospace and aircraft manufacture, that must be a boon to the steel industry. However, these days so many high-technology products use relatively small amounts of steel in their manufacture.
We would say that we are committed to our manufacturing strategy, which has been developed since the recent Budget. It has been welcomed as a strategy that will maintain the current economic stability. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, was critical of the Chancellor, but she should not underestimate the fact that the Chancellor's massive drive against the previous government's burden of public debt in this country releases levels of resources for potential investment which were not even remotely approached during their stewardship of the economy.
To further encourage innovation in the business process, tax credits have been introduced to keep the UK at the leading edge of science and innovation. I heard the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, about that wonderful, although perhaps restricted, feature in terms of a "Silicon Valley" industry: the wonders of Formula One motor racing. Indeed, it is not widely known that some 70 per cent of the motor cars used for racing at Formula One level are made in the United Kingdom. Not many industries are more highly technological and highly skilled than that.
We have had a long debate on a wide range of topics and I have much to cover. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough and other noble Lords commented on the significance of the skills agenda. It is that issue to which the Government are paying the closest attention in the development of their education policy and the establishment of sector skills councils. We cannot talk about "high value added" unless we have in place the competence in our workforce to produce that added value.
My concluding response to the debate is to say that I recognise that we have heard a certain degree of criticism of the Government, but much greater criticism of the position of governments over the

361
previous two decades when so many of these troubles were visited upon us. I hope that it has been recognised that there are reasons for optimism in the strategies being pursued, along with the assurance that the Government treat both steel production and the manufacturing base of this country with the greatest seriousness. That is why so many of our policies are directed towards enhancing those capacities.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Brookman: My Lords, I shall keep the House for only a moment because I see that noble Lords want to move on to the next business. I thank all noble Lords who have participated in the debate and thank them also for their kind remarks. I was interested in what was said by my noble friend Lord Desai. If I had heard his speech 12 years ago, colleagues such as my noble friend Lord Davies of Coity and myself would have thrown in the towel around 20 years ago.
This has been an interesting debate and I appreciate all the contributions that have been made. It will be a good read for many noble Lords tomorrow. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Patients' Protection Bill [H.L.]
7.36 p.m.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Knight of Collingtree.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (The Countess of Mar) in the Chair.]
Baroness Finlay of Llandaffmoved Amendment No. 5:
After Clause 1. insert the following new clause—
"EXCEPTIONS TO SECTION 1
(1) An offence will not have been committed under section 1 (1) if any of the requirements in subsections (2) to (6) below are met.
(2) The patient—

(a) consents to the withdrawing or withholding of sustenance;

(b) does not consent to the giving of sustenance; or

(c) does not consent to the recommended intervention to provide sustenance.

(3) The giving of sustenance—

(a) is likely to cause significant discomfort to the patient, or worsen his illness or debility:

(b) is likely to result in no improvement in the patient's illness or debility; or

(c) is not likely to alter the patient's illness or debility.

(4) The withdrawing or withholding of sustenance is intended to relieve patient's suffering.
(5) The primary purpose of the withdrawing or withholding of sustenance is not to hasten or otherwise cause the death of the patient.
(6) The withdrawing or withholding of sustenance is. in the opinion of the senior doctor responsible for the patient's care and the patient's next of kin or best friend, in the patient's best interest.
(7) For the purposes of subsection (6) above, the responsibilities of the senior doctor may be delegated to another medical practitioner.
(8) For the purposes of subsection (6) above, a "best friend" is a person, other than the patient's next of kin, so designated by the patient."
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 5. This amendment, together with my other amendment, is probing, and I do not intend to divide the Committee at this stage. However, I would like to explore the ways in which the Bill will work in practice. Amendment No. 5 is designed to ensure clarity and purpose and to avoid meddlesome interventions as defensive medicine.
In her introductory remarks on the Bill, the noble Baroness, Lady Knight of Collingtree, said:
"There is nothing in the Bill to force the patient to have a tube in his nose or a PEG in his stomach if he does not want that. Nothing in the Bill obstructs good medical practice. It does not make illegal withholding sustenance from a patient who is dying when placing feeding tubes would be unduly intrusive or the risk excessive. The Bill does not impose any requirement on doctors to strive to keep alive patients who are dying".—[Official Report, 12/3/03; col. 1403.]
The amendment seeks to ensure that those aims are clear. Without it, there will be difficulties for excellent clinicians, as was so clearly explained by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in proving beyond all reasonable doubt in a court of law that their purpose was not to cause death.
Subsection (2) of my proposed new clause encapsulates the issue of consent. A patient must consent to what is done, whether that is to be examined or investigated or to be treated. When unable to consent, the principle is the decision deemed to be in the best interests of the patient. Consent is valid only if it is voluntary, informed and the patient is competent. Competence requires that the patient understands the information, can mentally process the information—being of sound mind—and understands the consequences of each option, including the consequences of doing nothing, and the patient must be able to communicate his or her decision.
Forcibly to impose sustenance against valid refusal would be battery. However, the patient might consent to sustenance, but not to the optimal route. For example, a patient could decline a PEG and nutritionally enriched drinks, but wish for other drinks or soups. These would not provide optimum nutrition and may carry a risk, yet they are the patient's informed choice.
Perhaps I may give a specific clinical example. A woman with motor neurone disease was assessed as having an unsafe swallow. Her neurologist recommended PEG feeding, which she declined, as in subsection (2)(c). Her speech was very impaired but she was able to move independently and was reasonably strong. She wanted her drip taken down as

363
it was making her sore and she did not want it resited—as in paragraph (a). She wanted a cup of tea. She did not consent to sustenance, as in paragraph (b), as the cup of tea would not meet her nutritional needs. She and I knew the risks but this was her informed choice. She drank most of the cup of tea, by the way. Her husband agreed with her decision and she died peacefully a few days later—but without her drip being re-sited as that was her wish and remained so.
Subsection (3) covers decisions where the patient is too ill to be able to make a competent decision. If a patient has cerebral oedema. which is swelling of the brain, the patient can be made clinically dehydrated with drugs to decrease pressure inside the skull, as in paragraph (a), so sustenance is being withheld for a clinical reason. This also covers those patients with enteral feeding induced diarrhoea where all bowel loads must be withdrawn to stop the diarrhoea, even though the patient is already cachexic.
Paragraph (b) covers a patient who is dying imminently. Paragraph (c) covers those patients whose disease state is advanced but who are unlikely to die in the next 24 hours or so. However, pouring in calories is futile because at a cellular level they cannot cope with a huge nutritional load. For them, fluids and some calories are appropriate, but these will not reverse the loss of body mass. Very costly parenteral nutrition would be futile and it would be invidious to accuse the clinician of purposefully withholding nutrition.
Subsection (4) covers patients in heart failure. They will be given diuretics to draw off fluid through the kidneys to decrease fluid load. Unless the load on the heart is decreased, a patient's breathlessness will worsen, as will his or her distress.
Subsection (5) covers double effect. In this situation the primary purpose is not to cause death but electrolyte disturbance is a predictable risk. This predictable risk—though at the time thought to be the lesser of two evils—is the problem that causes death.
Subsection (6) allows decision making to occur for the patient who is unconscious or incompetent through delirium or other condition and who is dying and cannot give or withhold consent. It ensures that the decision is taken between the senior doctor and the patient's next of kin or best friend and that the decision is in the patient's best interests as a person. This means that such a decision would be unlawful if the next of kin stood to gain financially from the patient's death within a short time. It would, however, allow for the designated advocate to express what the patient would have wanted if he or she had been able to make and communicate a decision.
Subsection (7) ensures that the senior doctor or doctors to whom the patient's care has been delegated carries such responsibility. This allows for being off duty and so on. It protects the patient from another healthcare professional not involved in the chain of responsibility deeming that sustenance should cease. It makes clear the lines of answerability for clinical decision making.
Subsection (8) allows those who have no direct relative or who are very distant from them to determine their delegated representative but ensures that the delegated person cannot act alone. For example, a single lady who has fallen out with her brother, has no children or parent, may have a close friend who knows her well. This applies also to same sex relationships, where the people involved may be very loving and committed to each other; other family members may have become alienated and have no idea of the person's ideas, values and concerns. The best friend is the person the patient trusts.
I hope that I have explained the rationale behind the amendment. I beg to move.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: I understand where the noble Baroness is coming from. She is trying to improve the Bill. I have one or two points to raise on her amendment. I am neither a lawyer nor a doctor. So if I am mistaken in the points I raise, that is the reason; I am speaking purely as a layman.
Subsection (2) refers to the patient's consent. The noble Baroness will recall that when we were previously in Committee my noble friend Baroness Knight of Collingtree withdrew Amendment No. 4 because the issue of informed consent was not referred to in her amendment. I do not see that referred to in the amendment of the noble Baroness which is before the Committee today. I believe my noble friend intended that there should be informed consent on the part of the patient.
I believe that subsections (3), (4), (5) and (6) are covered by Amendment No. 2, which the Committee will recall was agreed to the last time we met. I may be wrong about that in legal terms.
As regards subsection (7), how experienced does the senior doctor have to be? Is there a misprint in that subsection? It states:
"For the purposes of subsection (6) above, the responsibilities of the senior senior doctor may be delegated".
Is there one "senior" too many there?
I can see where the noble Baroness is coming from but I have a feeling that the proposed new clause may need to be redrafted before we reach Report stage.
Baroness Andrews: Perhaps I may make my contribution at this stage. I shall be very brief. It has been some time since we were previously in Committee and I wish to restate the Government's position, which, as with all Private Member's Bills, is one of neutrality. Essentially, we are holding the ring.
As I understand it, the amendment seeks to make clear that no offence would be committed if a decision to withhold or withdraw sustenance was taken on the basis of the patient's own views or, where those views cannot be determined, the patient's best interests. We have stated at various stages of the Bill—certainly at Second Reading—that the Government believe it is important to maintain those principles in considering any change in the law. That is my major statement on this issue.

365
However, I raise one point that the noble Baroness may wish to consider. Subsection (5) of the proposed new clause states that an offence would not be committed if,
"The primary purpose of the withdrawing or withholding of sustenance is not to hasten or otherwise cause the death of the patient".
This suggests that it is possible to distinguish between the different purposes of a doctor in taking a decision to withhold or withdraw sustenance. I suggest that in practice this will create problems because of the difficulty in establishing what is a "primary purpose" when the outcome of a decision to withhold or withdraw sustenance will always be the same.
The amendment does not resolve that dilemma, which we have discussed in relation to other amendments at previous stages of the Bill. The withholding or withdrawal of sustenance will always lead to the patient's death. Therefore, in law, a doctor taking such a decision could under the Bill be held to have intended that death. The noble Baroness may wish to give further consideration to that part of her amendment.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: The Committee will recall that the last Committee stage of the Bill—in fact, it would be equally as accurate to call it the first Committee stage of the Bill—went on much longer than the Government wished. They needed that time for important business of their own and, when I saw the agonised expression on the face of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, I judged it wise to bring matters speedily to an end. In doing so, however, I made it very clear that I would return to the spirit of the amendment I had been moving at the end of that Committee stage. It was an amendment which sought to ensure that no offence would be committed if the patient asked or indicated that he or she did not wish to be fed by tube or PEG.
Members of the Committee will concede that I have listened with great care to everything that has been said. I have tried my utmost to meet all valid concerns, from whatever angle they came. To that end, I shall move an amendment on Report which I believe will meet the case, but it is rather different trying to meet other objections and concerns. I believe it will be a more straightforward and easy amendment than the one before us.
I am very troubled about subsection (2) of the new clause. I fear it would lead to great pressure being put on patients. If you are old, frail and ill, you have neither the stamina nor the courage to withstand pressure, especially from important people like doctors whom you believe are about one and a half steps down from the Almighty. You are a very easy target for those who, for one reason or another, prefer your space to your existence. There are many, many cases on record of families who will gain from a relative's death putting pressure on that person: "You really are a nuisance to everybody, you really are a burden, it's time you were gone". Or they use body language. If they are caring for a sick person. they put
366
the food down as if it has been a wretched nuisance to prepare. There are other ways of making the poor sick person think that he or she really ought to quit this world. These pressures frighten me.
The words in subsection (2)(a), (b) and (c) would be an encouragement to exert pressure and get the patient believing he was useless and a trouble to everybody. For doctors, the prize would be a bed freed—that is a goal devoutly to be wished if you have a health authority trust and a government screaming for shorter waiting lists.
What the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, told us is very enlightening, but I suggest that she described her intentions in her speech rather than in the wording of the amendment. So much of what she said I understand and agree with, but what she said is not what the amendment proposes, and that really worries me.
I am sure the noble Baroness meant subsection (2)(b) to apply to food being given artificially, but it appears to apply to all food. I could not help asking myself whether the noble Baroness was suggesting that people should sign a form to say they want to be fed before they are fed. People understand why they have to sign a form of consent if they are to have an operation or receive some other medical treatment. But do we want to send the message that people will not be fed in hospital unless they actually ask to be fed? I doubt it. But there is no doubt that the words imply precisely that. I tremble to think of the trouble and work—as well as the incredulity—that such a rule would cause.
I have no objection to subsection (3)(a), but I do not see any need for it. Listening to the noble Baroness, I can understand much more what she intends the amendment to do. But the amendment, in raw words, does not mean quite what she says it is intended to mean. Of course it would be reasonable and right to seek to avoid pain or to worsen illness. But a doctor would simply have to record in his notes on the case that the procedure would be harmful, and state why. I am told by lawyers—indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, was absolutely clear on this at Second Reading—that the courts would understand that the evidence, if it ever got to that stage, of having a written note showing why food and water were withheld was X, Y or Z was a very good and sound reason.
Lord Clement-Jones: It would be helpful if the noble Baroness referenced some of her points against some of the guidance that is currently available. In her criticism of the amendment, she seems effectively to be saying that the current GMC guidance should be scrapped in many areas. I should like to quote one area which is pertinent to subsection (2) rather than (3), although quite a lot of the guidance is pertinent to subsection (3).
Paragraph 13 of the guidance deals with the guiding principles on consent:
"Adult competent patients have the right to decide how much weight to attach to the benefits, burdens, risks, and the overall acceptability of any treatment. They have the right to refuse

367
treatment even where refusal may result in harm to themselves or in their own death. and doctors are legally bound to respect their decision".
It goes on:
"it is essential that doctors ensure that those involved in making the decision —
about nutrition and hydration specifically—
"are provided with clear and up to date information about what is known of the benefits, burdens and risks of providing nutrition and hydration through artificial means".
Those two points are absolutely four-square with the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, made. Much of the amendment is trying to read back into the Bill quite a lot of the safeguards that the GMC insists upon for medical practitioners. Those seem entirely reasonable. If there were time, I could take Members of the Committee through every aspect of the amendment and reference it to the GMC guidance. In that light, this seems an entirely reasonable amendment.
8 p.m.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: I do not doubt for one moment that the GMC guidance, along with the BMA guidance, was well intentioned. I made it absolutely clear at Second Reading that I was worried that, notwithstanding all the words in both sets of guidance, patients were still being done to death—there is no doubt about that whatever—by starving them or having them die of thirst in our hospitals.
When doctors originally wrote to me after hearing that I was going to introduce this Bill and said that they had the guidance, my response was, "Then it is not working, because this is happening every single day in our hospitals". That is what made me introduce the Bill and that is what makes me proceed with it, with all might and main. I cannot bear what is going on in our hospitals. I shall come later to the fact that the BMA and all doctors had ample opportunity to respond to the allegations I made on Second Reading about patients dying in hospitals, and not a single one did so.
As I was saying, subsection (3)(b) and (c) worry me deeply. I hope there is no quarrel about food and water being essential for life. If you do not have. them, you die. But they are not medicines to make you well. To be denied food and water because that will not cure disease, which is what the amendment is saying, would be extraordinary. Often, although not always, we feel quite good after an excellent meal, but we do not eat it to make us well. If patients are only to be fed if it improves their medical condition, which is what the amendment proposes, I have serious fears for the future of those hospitalised.
Subsection (4) proposes that no offence is committed if the intention of withholding food and water is to relieve suffering. I could agree, except that I have to be convinced that one relieves suffering by imposing it and starving people to death. How can one relieve suffering by starving them to death or having them die of thirst? I just do not understand. I am not saying that it is unreasonable to ask the question in the amendment. I am only saying, if it can be done in that
368
way, please tell me how. How can it be right to put people to that length of suffering and say that it is saving them suffering? By all accounts, a lot of suffering is caused in the deaths that I describe, and there is no shadow of a doubt that dying of thirst is a ghastly way to die. How does such dreadful torture relieve suffering? I suppose one could drug them senseless, but there would be no observable suffering then either way.
Subsection (5) refers to the purpose of withholding sustenance. Surely, that would be set down in the patient's notes, which, as I have repeatedly said, will be very important. The whole point of the notes is that doctors should record precisely why food and water is withheld. If there is a sound reason which is stated clearly and would he recognised and understood, that should be put down. NO such rules now exist. If doctors had to write their reasons, many patients would be saved much torment, because no doctor would then withhold sustenance without a good reason. Is that such an unreasonable thing to ask? If sustenance in hospitals is going to be withdrawn, there must be a clear and explained reason why.
The reasons for the exception in subsection (6) would also be set down in the notes. I hope that we can have an end to being told that doctors are too busy or have not the facilities to make proper notes. We are talking here about life and death. If people cannot make a note, or cannot be bothered to make a note, or do not have time to make a note about whether a patient is or is not being done to death in this way, then I despair—I really do.
Subsection (7) should not stand. When every patient is the responsibility of a named consultant, the situation is clear. If the consultant can, any old time he wants, go off early for any old reason and delegate his responsibility to any old doctor who happens to be passing—even a very junior one—it is making very light of a patient's life. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, would never do that. I know. If she were responsible for a patient, she would be there all the time. But the sad thing is that all doctors are not like the noble Baroness. That is what I am trying to counter in this Bill.
Senior doctors sometimes have to go off and do other things, because they are busy men, but they can and must always be contactable and responsible. We are not really playing a game of pass the parcel.
I was recently told that named doctors no longer take responsibility for individual patients. I rang a number of hospitals to check that, and so far I have not found one hospital where that was not the rule. The near universal response to my query was, "Of course someone takes responsibility, and that responsibility does not get farmed out or changed at will". I have tried to find as much evidence as I can of that. It may be that some hospitals that I have not contacted do that, but I do not believe that it is the general practice. For good reasons, a doctor or consultant—someone named and known—is responsible for each patient.
I have other concerns about this part of the amendment. Earlier, I stressed the dangers of allowing a relative or next of kin to say that sustenance should

369
be withdrawn. In this part of the amendment, it is suggested that even a friend should say that. I listened to the noble Baroness very carefully, and she said that the proposal was for people who are incapable of making decisions for themselves. Forgive me, but that is not actually in the amendment, although I have no doubt that it is in the mind of the noble Baroness. The amendment could be taken to mean any patient—it does not say "incompetent".
I can envisage doctors taking a relative into a side room and saying, "Old Bill is a bit of a nuisance now, you know. He is 78 or 84 or something, and it's really time he went". Doctors might talk like that, with the patient never agreeing. I know that the noble Baroness does not want that, and I do not believe for a moment that she intended it, but that is what the amendment says. We must not forget that relatives often have reasons of financial gain to want the person dead.
On Second Reading I cited three cases of unwilling patients being deliberately starved to death in hospital. I spoke of a TV documentary that showed several more. My allegations were made here, in one of the most public places in which one could ever make an allegation, and reported all over the place to interested people. If they had been groundless, I would have expected an outcry from the BMA and letters from hospital doctors saying, "We never, ever do that. Patients who wish to live are never done to death in that manner". Not one single word have I received disputing my accounts.
I have had letters referring to the guidance, and my answer is that however good the guidance is, I am concerned with what is actually happening. The only letters that I have had have been from individual doctors saying, "Yes, you're quite right, it is going on, and it ought not to go on".
Many have seen these amendments before us as wrecking amendments, seeking to kill the Bill. However, I have listened to what the noble Baroness said, and I accept her word that that was not her intention. I find it difficult if not impossible to believe that she really wants the cruel, ghastly and indeed unlawful killings of sick people to continue. I am always ready to meet her at any time to discuss any suggestions for further amendments, which would meet her concerns and still safeguard patients. That is the one thing from which I will not move. I must pursue my aim of safeguarding people from being done to death when they do not wish it. I say that to any noble Lord who has reservations about the Bill. It is a vital matter. If we can get together on any disagreements and sort them out, and still proceed, I should be the first one through the door.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I had not intended to speak tonight but I am emboldened to do so by the experience of a relation of mine by marriage, who died 16 years ago at the age of 76. She was a wonderful woman—she was highly talented and creative, a successful author and almost as successful a watercolourist. Unfortunately, she suffered a stroke a few months before her death, which entirely
370
deprived her of any ability to go on writing or painting. Suffering certain medical complications, she was taken to hospital, where, hating the idea of living the rest of her life as a passive observer—for her to sit watching television for 10 hours a day would be a living hell—and unable actually to do anything, she asked for sustenance to be switched off, in the full knowledge of what that entailed.
The noble Baroness, Lady Knight, said that she could not understand how the withdrawing or withholding of sustenance was intended to relieve the patient's suffering. I am afraid that it did. The undoubted physical suffering did not last very long after the withdrawing of sustenance and was far less than the suffering that she would have experienced had she continued to go on living. I support my noble friend's amendment but I suspect that the difference between the two sides is not perhaps as great as all that. I hope that a compromise can be reached.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I am moved to contribute to this debate solely by the contribution of the noble Lord. Sometimes we jump to conclusions about what people who cannot express themselves or may be very depressed feel momentarily or over a short period of time.
The noble Lord spoke movingly about his relative by marriage. My husband was in a similar situation. He suffered a massive stroke and wanted to end it all. Although he was not able to speak for almost 12 years and could not do anything other than sometimes feed himself with his left hand, he grew to have a very calm existence. Of course some of his abilities closed down: he was not able to read, write or talk. However, he had many periods of enormous happiness. He smiled a lot and he got great pleasure from seeing small children and being out in the garden.
I believe that part of the problem—we cannot put ourselves in the position of other people—was that my husband was suffering from real depression after his stroke. That was dealt with in a medical way; he was on a form of anti-depressants—I do not know the details of such things—for the rest of his life. However, it worked; it really worked. In 1989 he indicated with his left hand what he wanted, and I know that he hated me because he thought that I was keeping him alive. For many years, he got great pleasure and satisfaction and gave much pleasure and happiness to many other people. On another level—this may not be open to everyone—he came to have a deep Christian faith. He was previously what one would call a social Christian but Christianity became very much part of his existence. That in turn was a beacon to many other people. The issue is very difficult for those of us who have not suffered, and those who have suffered cannot tell us. I felt that I had to make that contribution.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, in Committee I said:
"None of us wants to see officious legislation directed at doctors or nurses which makes prosecution more probable or likely".—[Official Report, 20/5/03; col. 779.]

371
In addition, in response to my noble friend, none of us believes that we should go to heroic lengths to keep people alive who would otherwise die. I certainly agree with him that the officious feeding of patients against their will is outwith the terms of the Bill and is a repugnance to me. as it certainly is to him. I agree with him: I do not believe that there is a great deal between what the noble Baroness, Lady Knight of Collingtree, said and what my noble friend Lady Finlay of Llandaff said when she moved the amendment.
Subsections (1), (2), (3)(a) and—despite the comments of the noble Baroness—(5) of the amendment have much to commend themselves. For reasons that I shall explain in a moment, I would be more concerned about other aspects of the amendment. However, I think that the generous offer made by the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, to continue discussing these points with my noble friend should be accepted. Indeed, my noble friend made it clear at the outset that this was a probing, exploratory amendment which was put forward without the wish to divide the Committee on the issue today. In that spirit, I think that we can move forward to Report stage and try to build consensus around this sensitive and complex question.
I turn to the amendment and begin with subsections (1) and (2). The amendment builds on Amendment No. 4 which the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, moved in Committee. During our debates, it has become apparent that the Bill does not mention the issue of patient consent or refusal, the very point to which my noble friend alluded a few minutes ago. As drafted the Bill fails to acknowledge the patient who considers the possible benefits in the provision of sustenance to be outweighed by the burdens. So this part of the amendment helps to clarify the position. The noble Baroness, Lady Knight, said earlier that she would be very happy to accept much of the spirit of that. If a patient does not consent to the provision of sustenance then no offence will be committed under the Bill if the medical staff do not provide sustenance. It is very important to get that on the record and to get people to understand what the Bill does not do. I think that there is a legitimate fear that it might require officious feeding.
At the previous Committee sitting, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, and my noble friend Lady Masham expressed concern that we need to distinguish between patients with the capacity to make a decision and those lacking that capacity. I know that my noble friend Lady Finlay does not wish to see patients who lack capacity to take decisions for themselves put at any risk. I hope that, between now and Report stage, the amendment can be strengthened to deal with considerations of mental capacity.
The position of patients who may be put under pressure, however subtle—a point to which the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, also referred—to consent to the withdrawal or withholding of sustenance also needs to be considered. Consent given under duress represents an assault. The position is as clear as that. I know that my noble friend Lady Finlay would be adamantly opposed to the exertion of such pressure on
372
a patient. It would help the Committee if that point could be clarified and my noble friend could explain how she would intend to prevent the exploitation of vulnerable patients. I think that that also would help us to reach some sort of agreement.
I turn to subsection (3) of the amendment. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, I strongly support the spirit of what is expressed in subsection (3)(a). However, I have reservations about the rest of the provision. I know that my noble friend is concerned that the Bill as drafted would promote the inappropriate and unjust use of artificially delivered nutrition and hydration. Indeed, at Second Reading she spoke at length and very compellingly about that. Doctors, she said, would be so afraid of prosecution that they might well end up practising "defensive medicine". The noble Earl, Lord Howe, referred to that in his remarks, as did the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, when we discussed this earlier. I personally have said from the outset that I do not want to see good doctors being prosecuted at the behest of aggrieved relatives. I am sure that every Member of the Committee shares a dislike of vexatious litigation of any kind.
The Bill does not seek to make unlawful the withholding or withdrawal of sustenance from a patient who is in the process of dying and where the placement of feeding tubes would be regarded as unduly intrusive and inappropriate or where the risk of placing the feeding tube would be excessive. Again, it is important to set out what the Bill does not do. This is far removed from the deliberate withholding or withdrawing of sustenance with the purpose of causing the death of a patient who is not otherwise dying. The Bill would not force the provision of sustenance irrespective of predicated outcome and scientific evidence, nor would it promote the inappropriate and unjust use of TPN.
If subsection (3) helps to clarify the intention behind the Bill then I welcome it. Subsection (3)(a) offers a legitimate exception to an offence under the Bill. I hope that between now and Report stage we will be able to ensure that the wording of these amendments does not in any way dilute the protection that we are seeking to provide vulnerable patients, which is the whole point of the Bill, nor expose good doctors—my noble friend's point—to criminal prosecution.
I turn to subsection (3)(b) and (c). I do not believe that these provisions are necessary. I think that they wrongly imply—and from my noble friend's remarks, I suspect that she perhaps concedes this—that the provision of sustenance, for example, could cure strokes or other illnesses and so can be withheld or withdrawn if it is not having the desired curative effect. Rather, nutrition and hydration—as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, said at Second Reading—form the very basis of human life and should be given to all patients with the proviso to which I referred earlier.
I turn briefly to subsection (4). Again I think that, as drafted, the provision is too broad. I am utterly convinced of the motives of my noble friend Lady Finlay and know that she would do nothing that

373
inflicts suffering or pain. We are very fortunate in this House to have someone who is on the sharp end of having to deal daily with these matters. Moreover, we all listen to her knowing of her own deep convictions and the way in which she deals clinically with patients. The mover would do better to entrench subsection (3)(a), to which I referred earlier, on the face of the Bill and to discard the possible ambiguous interpretation of subsection (4).
Subsection (5) of the amendment states:
"The primary purpose of the withdrawing or withholding of sustenance is not to hasten or otherwise cause the death of the patient".
The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, mentioned that point earlier. I believe that subsection (5) is probably superfluous but if it helps to assuage the concerns of doctors that they will be exposed to the risk of malicious prosecution, I am not opposed in principle to it being included on the face of the Bill. We can reflect on that between now and Report.
As the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said, subsection (6) of the amendment is problematic from a technical point of view. It would enable the senior doctor and the patient's best friend or next of kin to withhold or withdraw sustenance if they consider this to be in the patient's best interests. However, like subsection (2), it fails to distinguish between the patient who has mental capacity and the patient who lacks mental capacity. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to clarify that point for us. Surely if a competent patient consents to the provision of sustenance, the views of any doctor, next of kin or best friend, whoever they are, should be wholly irrelevant. I appreciate the intention behind the amendment. I wonder whether the exception to an offence under the Bill that it seeks to provide can be found in subsection (3)(a). I know that the noble Baroness is sympathetic to that point.
Subsection (6) of the amendment would also appear to conflict with paragraph 17.4 of the BMA's guidance on withdrawing and withholding life-prolonging medical treatment. I remind the Committee of that guidance, which states:
"Except where the patient's imminent death is inevitable, a decision to withhold or withdraw all treatment is likely to be inappropriate and potentially unlawful".
Assuming subsection (6) deals with incompetent patients, it needs to be clarified whether or not it covers incompetent patients where death is imminent or incompetent patients who are not dying. If it covers the latter then it must be amended. I do not believe that it would be right to allow the senior doctor and the patient's next of kin or best friend to deem that sustenance be withheld or withdrawn from a non-dying incompetent patient on the grounds that it is in their best interests. We need to reflect further on the implications of that.
Subsection (7) of the amendment refers to,
"the responsibilities of the senior senior doctor",
for the purposes of subsection (6). That point was mentioned earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. Obviously, that needs to he tidied up. I have expressed
374
concern to the noble Baroness that this should not be just any doctor, and I think that she agrees. There has to be a clear chain of command. It is vital that if the responsibilities of the senior doctor are to be delegated to another medical practitioner they are delegated by the senior practitioner himself. There must be a clear chain of command. That does not exist in the amendment as it is currently drafted.
I hope that some of those points will be helpful to the Committee. Like my noble friend, I think there is a lot of common ground between the mover of the amendment and the mover of the Bill. It is a question of bringing the best interests of the patient and the best interests of the medical profession together. I hope that these two very formidable Members of your Lordships' House will be able to find a way forward between now and Report.
Lord Joffe: I support the amendment of my noble friend Lady Finlay, although I believe that some of the wording might need reconsideration. I am reassured by the intention of the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, to ensure that the Bill does not prevent competent patients from refusing sustenance. If I understood her correctly, it is her intention to introduce an amendment which she feels is preferable to the amendment before us at the moment. If that is so, it removes an important concern that I had about the original Bill.
I understand the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, about depriving competent patients of sustenance without their consent. I also think that deplorable, but I question whether there is any need for specific new legislation on it. As a non-practising ex-lawyer my understanding is, bearing in mind the duty of care on doctors, that there is no basis on which they could normally refuse to give sustenance to competent patients without their consent. I may be wrong, but I think that that is the position. In that event I cannot see the purpose of further legislation when, in my view, doctors could probably be prosecuted under existing law.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: The problem about legal action has been that it is quite impossible to get any lawyer to take a case against the NHS. It is the biggest business and, looking at it that way, probably the best-supported and funded body in the whole of Europe. Legal representatives simply will not take cases, as I have been told on the very best authority.
Most people do not have a lot of money and, if their relative has died, they are frightened of litigation because of what it may cost. Also, their nearest and dearest has gone. What will bring them back? Money will not help. The fear of legal action put forward in earlier arguments about the Bill is not well founded in fact.
Lord Joffe: Why then does the noble Baroness think that lawyers will take the cases under her legislation?
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: We know that what is going on at the moment is going on; people are being

375
done to death against their will. We also know that that is against our national law, and international law. We know that the existing rules, such as they are, do not stop it happening. Some kind of law is needed to protect people in that vulnerable situation.
Lord Swinfen: If the Bill becomes law and anyone draws a suspicion to the attention of the police, it will be the duty of the police to investigate. Then it would be a matter of public prosecution.
Lord Joffe: I do not want to pursue the point further other than to say that a report could be made to the police at the moment, and the police should take action. There would be a clear breach of current law. Perhaps we should leave the debate at that at this point.
In relation to the question of incompetent patients, the existing guidelines are fair, wise and compassionate. Again, I question why we should need any further laws to deal with a situation that is well under control.
I am perplexed about what would happen under the Bill. On the Anthony Bland case, if the doctors decided to withdraw sustenance and indeed were so ordered by the courts, there was no suffering involved on his part. He could not suffer any longer. Is it the intention of the noble Baroness that future Anthony Blands would continue to survive in a state where there was no suffering but no quality of life at all, and that that would carry on indefinitely?
8.30 p.m.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: As I understand it, the courts did not order that young Mr Bland should be done away with. They listened to the case and said that in that case it would be permissible for sustenance to be withdrawn. That is different from a court ordering a person to be killed. But it was clearly said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Must ill, that this ruling must not become a general one and adopted throughout the country for people who were ill.
The intention of my Bill—and it is clearly set out in the amendment to be debated—is that the patient who does not wish to have a tube or PEG in his stomach can say so and he will not be forced to have one. I can do no more than tell the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, what happened in the Bland case and what was feared to be a result of it. We must now keep to our laws on protecting people's lives.
Lord Joffe: I accept the correction about what the court said, but I have a simple question to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Knight. Does she believe that the recommendation in the Bland case was incorrect? Does she believe that the permission to deprive Anthony Bland of sustenance, which was given by the court, was wrong?
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: I am happy to answer that question because there has been a great difference of opinion on it. I happen to believe that there was an acceptable reason why the Bland case
376
decision was made and carried out in that way. I can speak only for myself. However, I am anxious about what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mustill. Following the Bland case, the BMA and the doctors called feeding people "giving them medical treatment". That was where the mischief all began. You can withhold medical treatment, but most people did not realise that that related to the withholding of food and they did not want that. We cannot live without food.
I hope that I have answered the noble Lord's question properly. I have certainly answered it as honestly as I can.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I want to say a few words in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, on all her hard work. I feel that her heart is in the right place. I also feel that it is now the responsibility of the Government to help in getting the Bill through. Many vulnerable patients feel even more vulnerable and they need protection.
We who take an interest in health services and hospices know that they are under a great deal of pressure. Bed availability and finances in hospices are under pressure. When there is a great deal of pressure, vulnerable patients need to be protected. The noble Baroness, Lady Knight, is trying so hard to get it right and I believe that everyone should help her. There are many vulnerable people whose relatives or best friends feel they need protection.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: I do not want to detain the Committee at length. My noble friend Lord Joffe raised the point about the Tony Bland case. I was perhaps the constituency MP most involved in 1993 when I was in another place. Your Lordships will recall the terrible tragedy at Hillsborough involving Liverpool Football Club. On the same day that Tony Bland went into a deep coma and became PVS—persistent vegetative state—a young constituent of mine called Andrew Divine, had exactly the same condition. His parents took an entirely different decision and food and fluids were not withdrawn in his case.
The Guardian newspaper has documented how after five years quite extraordinary progress was made in Andrew's case. At Second Reading I received permission from his mother to tell your Lordships what had happened to him and how, against the expectations of every prognosis, there were startling improvements in his condition. He was well able to eat solids, so was no longer on fluids only, and he had been in an identical position to Tony Bland.
The noble Baroness, Lady Knight, has referred to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mustill, who said at the time:
"It is a striking fact that in 20 of the 39 American states which have legislated in favour of 'living wills', the legislation specifically excludes termination of life by the withdrawal of nourishment and hydration".
He also said that the Tony Bland judgment left the law,
"morally and intellectually misshapen".

377
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, said:
"The giving of food to a helpless person is so much the quintessential example of kindness and humanity that it is hard to imagine a case in which it would be morally right to withhold it".
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, and I have differences about a Private Member's Bill that he has introduced in your Lordships' House, but I believe that those statements that I have just read to the Committee would be deeply influential with him and that he would accept the spirit of what the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, is trying to achieve. I hope that he will find it possible to support the provisions of the Bill.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I have listened carefully to what has been said and I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have commented on the wording of the amendment. I accept that there are corrections to be made to the wording, and that in particular there is a mistake: "senior senior doctor". However, there are other ways in which the wording can be improved.
I want to make a few brief comments. Consent must be informed to be valid, and it must be voluntary. If consent is given under duress, it is not valid consent. That is why I use the word "consent". Consent does not have to be written consent. In fact, written consent only records that the process of consent has occurred. Consent is a process that may be implied, such as the person who exposes his or her abdomen for it to be examined; such as the person who puts up his or her arm for blood to be taken; or the patient who opens his or her mouth when food is offered. That is implied consent. One would never consider requiring patients to sign for everything. That would be ridiculously burdensome.
If pressure has been put on the patient either way, that consent is not valid. That goes both ways. The issue of how experienced a senior doctor has to be was raised under subsection (7). A senior doctor is one who is deemed to be a specialist or one who is on the general practitioners' register with the GMC; they have completed their higher specialist training. However, I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, about doctors working 24/7 because fortunately the European Working Time Directive has arrived and has kept people from suffering the hours that I used to have to work.
Lord Swinfen: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Is there a definition in law of "senior doctor"? I am not aware of one. It may be understood within the National Health Service and the hospital system, but for the purposes of legislation we need a definition.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that comment. I shall bear it in mind in terms of any revision that occurs.
As to working hours, a doctor needs to work on a rota. Doctors need to decide with whom they work on that rota. It must be someone with similar competencies.
378
They also have junior staff to act on their behalf. That is the concept of delegated responsibility. It happens all day and every day in every part of the NHS.
When a doctor in training sees a patient and undertakes procedures, the consultant is de facto responsible even though he is not present at that process. If the consultant does not trust the junior doctor, it is his responsibility to state that that duty is no longer delegated in clinical care. The situation is similar with other colleagues. So there is a need to allow delegated care. I used the wording in order to avoid the situation in which a clinician from another team, or someone clinical who is not a doctor. could step in and stop a management plan without knowing the patient and knowing and being a party to the discussions that had taken place. It was precisely to stop someone coming in and wanting to clear a bed, as has been implied, that I used such wording.
I turn now to the issue of prosecution. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, for highlighting the current law. When cases are reported to the police they have a duty to, and do, investigate them. I am concerned about the possibility of vexatious litigation. That occurs in the United States. It is in the process of destroying healthcare there. I do not think that it contributes anything to care.
There have been some serious allegations about people being "done to death" in hospitals around the country. They are extremely serious allegations and warrant proper investigation. But I do not think that allegations on the Floor of the House without adequate evidence really contributes a great deal. My picture of patient care does not correspond with that.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: I wish to understand what the noble Baroness is saying. Is she saying that when information has come to us—and information has been given to us because of the public position we hold, even information from as good a place as from a Member of Parliament in the other place—we should not bring it out? Is she saying that we should not be angry or try to do something about it? Knowing where her heart is, she cannot mean that we have no right to bring forward cases that we know perfectly well have happened. I waited very patiently for objections to be raised to what I said. Not one came.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I ask forgiveness from the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, if she feels that that is what I have been saying. It is not. However, I am concerned that allegations are being made about cases that warrant investigation and which should have been investigated. Evidence should have been sought and if prosecutions by the police were warranted, they should have been brought.
However, I return to the amendment. I accept that it needs redrafting. I continue to have a concern that, without clarification, vexatious cases could be brought, which would not contribute to patient care. I

379
have a concern that the patient's wishes must be considered and that those wishes must be paramount. It was for that reason that I was so keen to include consent in the amendment. At this stage I do not wish to press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaffmoved Amendment No. 6:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
"DUTY OF CARE
There shall be a general duty on all those caring for a patient to offer sustenance to the patient which is appropriate to—

(a) the patient's clinical condition, and

(b) nutritional needs of the patient."

The noble Baroness said: The amendment is in line with the statement of the director-general of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation that the right to food is fundamental to human existence. The amendment was inspired by the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, and the fears expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth. It also recognises that the consultant or general practitioner does not control what happens on the ward, in the nursing home or in a similar place of care. Many other healthcare professionals are involved.
The amendment is designed to drive up standards of institutional care of patients everywhere. It is aimed at reaffirming society's respect for life and ensuring that that is an obligation in care. It is aimed to ensure that those with a stroke or other disability do not have their food left out of reach, receive assistance with feeding and drinking, and that fluid infusions are instigated or replaced in a timely manner, without delay. I beg to move.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: I have no objection to the general tenor of the amendment, but I wonder whether it could not have been better phrased. It does not specify those caring for a patient in hospital. There is an army of excellent ladies outside hospitals who care, and who call themselves carers of patients. Without those helpers, many sick people who are crippled or in some way unable to run their homes could not manage. Those carers may have no idea of what are the nutritional needs or clinical condition of the patient. They are not doctors or nurses.
With the greatest respect, the amendment needs more care in its framing. As with the previous amendment, I understand exactly what the noble Baroness is trying to achieve by it. I support much of what she said, but I submit that the amendment would benefit from more careful thought.
Baroness Andrews: As I understand it, the amendment is intended to clarify that all those caring for patients have a duty to offer sustenance to them appropriate to their clinical condition and nutritional
380
needs. I understand that the noble Baroness is concerned—as many of us have been throughout the Bill's passage—that a distinction is made between poor nursing and medical care that leaves patients to die in distress and withholding or withdrawing artificial nutrition and hydration where doctors do not consider that to be in the patient's best interests.
It is worth restating that we all believe that poor and neglectful care of dying patients is inexcusable. It should not happen. Indeed, causing death by gross neglect could amount to manslaughter. The Bill is not about gross neglect, as the amendment makes clear. The amendment also restates a basic tenet of medical practice: that any care is tailored to an individual's needs. It restates established medical practice. It is worth putting that on the record.
It may be helpful if I set out my understanding of the definitions that will inform the full meaning and implications of the amendment. "Sustenance" is defined in the Bill to mean the provision of nutrition and hydration, however delivered. That includes the range of methods by which sustenance can be provided, from simple oral nutrition and hydration to invasive intravenous and PEG methods.
The word "offer" in the amendment is not defined in the Bill, but the use of the word suggests that it refers to patients who are in a position to refuse. By inference, apart from that limitation, the amendment also implies that if, as the end of life is reached, it is not clinically and/or nutritionally appropriate to offer increasingly invasive methods of delivering sustenance, those caring for the patient do not have to make that offer. Where a person is not in a position to consent to treatment, or where they refuse an offer, the normal rules apply, and those providing care must act in the person's best interests. I offer that as the Government's view of the definitions.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, we believe that the clause is aimed at all those caring for patients. It seems to include not only healthcare professionals but family and lay carers also.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: Earlier in the debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, said that she would hold the ring in maintaining her neutrality. She has done that extremely well in her response to the amendment. Perhaps she should hold the ring further by taking up the suggestion of my noble friend Lady Masham that the Government assist with ensuring that the draftsmanship of the amendments matches the definitions that have been described. That would be of valuable assistance both to my noble friend Lady Finlay, whose amendment I support, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, who says that she accepts the spirit, if not the detail, of the amendment.
Much common ground can be made up before Report. I hope that it will be possible for the Government at least to provide neutral advice on ensuring that the draftsmanship is right so that any legislation we approve is valuable.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: I wish to express my gratitude and thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews. All noble Lords who have been engaged with the Bill so far are very pleased that she has been in charge on the Government Bench.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I feel that Amendment No. 6 is a little clinical. I would like to see added a paragraph (c) stating that it is a human right for patients to be offered sustenance. That would make the amendment less clinical.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I am grateful for those comments. Again, I accept that the wording could be
382
improved. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, for her very helpful clarification of the meaning and for restating that the clause underlines established clinical good practice. That was the intention behind the amendment so as to avoid confusion. I wish to take the matter away and consider the comments that have been made. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
House adjourned at six minutes before nine o'clock.

  Magistrates' Courts: Enforcement of Fines
  Magistrates' Courts: Enforcement of Fines
  North/South Ministerial Council: Interim Procedures
  North/South Ministerial Council: Interim Procedures
  SARS
  SARS
  Teacher Training Qualifications
  Teacher Training Qualifications
  Woodwork Classes
  Woodwork Classes
  Renal Isotope Scanning Facilities
  Renal Isotope Scanning Facilities
  Crown Prosecution Service: Cases of Sally Clark and Trupti Patel
  Crown Prosecution Service: Cases of Sally Clark and Trupti Patel
  Montserrat: Housing
  Montserrat: Housing
  Liberia: Humanitarian Situation
  Liberia: Humanitarian Situation
  House of Lords: Monitoring of Members' Communications
  House of Lords: Monitoring of Members' Communications
  Asylum Applicants and Immigration Detainees
  Asylum Applicants and Immigration Detainees
  RAF Fylingdales: Arrests
  RAF Fylingdales: Arrests
  Food Supplements: Permitted Nutrients
  Food Supplements: Permitted Nutrients
  Chiropodists/Podiatrists: Supply of Medicaments
  Chiropodists/Podiatrists: Supply of Medicaments
  Doctors and Dentists: Remuneration
  Doctors and Dentists: Remuneration
  Meat and Livestock Exports
  Meat and Livestock Exports
  Fly-tipping
  Fly-tipping
  Horse Passports (England) Order 2003
  Horse Passports (England) Order 2003
  National Parks
  National Parks