Sitting of 12 March 2003

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

    TRANSAS GROUP BILL (BY ORDER)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Wednesday 19 March.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Police Recruitment
    Rev. Martin Smyth: If he will make a statement on the Police Service of Northern Ireland recruiting patterns. [101440]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy): Since February 2001, 644 recruits have been appointed to the Police Service of Northern Ireland on the statutory 50 per cent. Catholic, 50 per cent. non-Catholic basis. The fifth recruitment campaign was launched on 7 March.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister agree that in competition three, for example, the training has been undersubscribed by about 70, that none of the targets has yet matched up to requirements, and that we are haemorrhaging more officers than we are getting in? Does she also agree that the Chief Constable's desire to have more bobbies out serving the people would be best achieved not by abolishing the PSNI band but by changing the 50:50 recruitment requirement?
    Jane Kennedy: No, I do not agree with that. The figure to which the hon. Gentleman referred in the third competition is not one that I recognise, although I will investigate what he has said. It remains true, however, that more than 530 recruits entered training in the first year. That is well in excess of the figure of 370 suggested by the independent policing commission—Patten's figure.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the Minister agree that the constitution of the new local policing partnership boards will have an effect locally on how recruitment will go? If the boards do their duty well, it
    272
    will improve the status of the police force in their area. Will she, however, take on board the fact that there is a great deal of concern in Northern Ireland about how the boards have been appointed? Is it the Government's rule that ex-members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary should not be appointed to them? A prominent former member of the RUC—an assistant chief constable—was banned, as was the former chairman of the Police Federation. [Interruptioni.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Minister can now reply.
    Jane Kennedy: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman's opening comments about the importance of the establishment of the district policing partnerships. This is an important and positive step forward for policing in Northern Ireland, which will develop the accountability of the police to their local communities and improve the working relationships between them. It is impossible for me to comment on the individual cases that he raised about appointments to the DPPs, but if he cares to write to me on the subject, I will look into it.
    Mr. Adrian Bailey: As a member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, I was recently in Belfast, where we had discussions with Hugh Orde, the Chief Constable. He said that one great obstacle to better recruitment from the Catholic or nationalist community would be removed if Sinn Fein lifted its objections to joining the police force in Northern Ireland. What assessment has been made of the likelihood of that happening?
    Jane Kennedy: Obviously, the establishment of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, with the support of the Social Democratic and Labour party, the Catholic Church and, internationally, the Irish and US Governments, has transformed the nature of policing in Northern Ireland. As a result of that new beginning, the proportion of Catholics applying to the PSNI has been unprecedented. My hon. Friend is right, however: it is now time for all political parties and all community leaders to support policing and to encourage young Catholics to join the police service and take up a career in policing.
    Lembit Öpik: How successful have the policing action plans been in increasing the number of female applicants and recruits to the PSNI? Also, given that an almost exclusively Catholic and Protestant police service is little more representative of the whole community, would the Minister be willing to have at least a discussion about the prospect of action plans to encourage applications from those who do not categorise themselves as either Catholics or Protestants?
    Jane Kennedy: As the hon. Gentleman knows from the discussion in Standing Committee yesterday with the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela Smith), and myself, we have made it clear that we constantly review the success of recruitment arrangements, but the success of the Police Service of Northern Ireland in attracting women to join

    273
    the police service, not just to apply but to complete training successfully and start as regular police officers, has been phenomenal.

    Strategic Investment Programme
    Dr. Brian Iddon: If he will make a statement on the strategic investment programme. [101441]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Ian Pearson): The strategic investment programme is a key product of the reinvestment and reform initiative. It will provide the most radical infrastructure investment in Northern Ireland in a generation, backed by a major reform agenda. The programme will involve additional investment totalling about £2 billion over the next five years for new schools, hospitals, roads and improved water and public services.
    Dr. Iddon: That £2 billion of extra expenditure is certainly needed in Northern Ireland, but can my hon. Friend assure me that the money will be spent effectively and will benefit all the communities in Northern Ireland in improving the infrastructure that he mentioned?
    Mr. Pearson: Obtaining good value for money for public funds is obviously a key priority for the Government. That is why we decided to set up the Strategic Investment Board, which was formally constituted on 17 March. It will bring in a team of experts to advise on the delivery of the strategic investment programme and will add value to the whole process to ensure effective public procurement of badly needed investment in Northern Ireland's infrastructure.
    Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson: The Minister will be aware of the strategic importance of the site of the former Maze prison in my constituency. I welcome the recent establishment of the advisory panel, but will he give me an assurance that the local community will be fully consulted before any final decision is made about the development of the Maze site?
    Mr. Pearson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments on the advisory panel. It is very much the right way to go, and decisions will be taken some time in the future about the Maze site which, as he knows, is of regional significance, so we need to ensure that there is wide involvement. The views of the local community are clearly important in that process, and I can certainly give him an assurance that they will be heard.
    Mr. Iain Luke: I am sure that the Minister will agree that the announcement last month of £70 million in investment in the Lame to Stranraer ferry, with new terminals in Northern Ireland and Scotland and improved crossing times, will indeed be of benefit to strategic investment in Northern Ireland. Hopefully, it will encourage more trading links between
    274
    Northern Ireland and Scotland and investment in the two countries, and will be the basis for further trading opportunities.
    Mr. Pearson: I very much welcome the recent announcement of improvements to the Lame to Stranraer line. Those links are important, as is air access to Northern Ireland. There is an agenda there that needs to be developed. In addition, we are having discussions with our colleagues in Scotland about the Ballycastle to Campbeltown ferry and what can be done to ensure that there is a ferry service over the summer.
    Mr. Gregory Campbell: Can the Minister confirm that while many people in Northern Ireland welcome the strategic investment programme, there is concern among ratepayers about the possibility of significant and substantial rate increases to pay for that programme?
    Mr. Pearson: Nobody likes to pay extra, whether in rates or income tax. I understand the concerns in Northern Ireland, and I want to confirm absolutely that the £2 billion strategic investment programme does not rely on any increase in the regional rates other than that previously agreed by the Executive. I also want to take the opportunity to say that some politicians in Northern Ireland are living on a fantasy island if they believe that they can get money from the GB taxpayer to invest in all Northern Ireland's future infrastructure requirements. The clear message is that if improvements in infrastructure are wanted by people in Northern Ireland they will have to go some little way themselves to pay for the cost of them.

    Decommissioning
    4. Miss Anne McIntosh: What recent progress has been made towards decommissioning terrorist weapons. [101442]
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Paul Murphy): The Loyalist Volunteer Force engaged in an act of decommissioning in 1998 and the Provisional IRA engaged in two acts of decommissioning in 2001 and 2002. However, no paramilitary organisations are currently in contact with the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning. It was clear to all involved in the discussions at Hillsborough last week that much more needs to be done to ensure that both republican and loyalist organisations complete the transition to exclusively peaceful means—real, total and permanent.
    Miss McIntosh: I wish the Secretary of State well at this crucial stage of the peace process. Does he agree that we need not just a verbal commitment—from the IRA in particular—but visible proof of decommissioning, and does he share my disappointment that the IRA has not even been in touch with the commission to prove that it has started decommissioning?
    Mr. Murphy: I thank the hon. Lady for her good wishes. It is indeed regrettable that no paramilitary organisation has been in contact with John de Chastelain's commission. I also agree that we must

    275
    ensure that whatever acts of decommissioning take place occur in such a way that people across Northern Ireland can trust and have confidence in the process.
    Mr. Eddie McCrady: Does the Secretary of State agree that the continued existence of paramilitary groups, armed and organised, is an affront to basic democracy in Ireland and the legitimate Governments of Ireland, north and south? Is not the decommissioning of all paramilitary weapons by all those groups an essential factor in the current negotiations if the current political impasse is to be broken, progress made and trust re—established? Will not a drip-feed of decommissioning for purely party political gain destroy any remnant of trust between the parties in Northern Ireland, destroy our devolutionary institutions and destroy political progress?
    Mr. Murphy: I entirely agree. My hon. Friend will know, because both he and I were involved in the run-up to the Good Friday agreement in 1998, that decommissioning is very much part of that Belfast agreement, and that it is a vital element of the means by which trust and the institutions can be restored. Illegal weapons have no place in a modern democratic and peaceful society.
    Mr. Nigel Dodds: Does the Secretary of State agree that more mere statements and stunts from the IRA will do nothing to increase the confidence of the people of Northern Ireland that the IRA is committed to exclusively peaceful and democratic means? Will he now give details of the paper published for the Hillsborough parties but denied to the people of Northern Ireland and their representatives in the House—details, that is, of the concessions now on offer to IRA—Sinn Fein and approved between the Government and the pro—agreement parties, in return for IRA—Sinn Fein's doing what they should have done years ago and for which they should receive no reward?
    Mr. Murphy: Of course it is important for us to tackle the whole issue of paramilitary activity, in whatever form. The Prime Minister has said, the Taoiseach has said, all of us who are involved in these issues have said, that it must end. As for the other issue, I ask the hon. Gentleman to be patient. It is pretty clear that he has only a few weeks to wait before the papers are published for everyone in Northern Ireland, and indeed everyone in the House, to consider.
    The hon. Gentleman will know that the parties that drew up the agreement at Hillsborough wanted time to reflect on the details of the proposals, along with the membership. That is why next week we will consider postponing the election for a few weeks, so that discussions with the membership—including members of his party—can take place.
    Kevin Brennan: What assessment has the Secretary of State made of loyalist efforts towards decommissioning—and, in particular, of the recent announcement of a ceasefire by the UDA and the handing over of pipe bombs?
    Mr. Murphy: I agree that we must address the decommissioning issue across the board, and that
    276
    includes loyalist paramilitaries. We welcome the UDA's statement as far as it goes. I am also glad that over the past few weeks there has been relative peace on the streets of Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, those groups, together with all the other paramilitary groups, must engage with the international commission.
    David Burnside: The Secretary of State is right to say that decommissioning is not enough to restore confidence in the peace process. Will he comment on his answer to me yesterday to a question about the break-in at Castlereagh police station, which was investigated by Sir John Chilcott? The Secretary of State said that he would inform the House when he has received the Chilcott report. According to my information, he has received the report—which incriminates Adams, McGuinness and Bobby Storey, the IRA's head of information and intelligence in Belfast—and it appears to me that there is a cover—up.
    Mr. Murphy: There certainly is no cover—up, and I shall, of course, issue that report in due course, when it has been given to me. My office and my predecessor decided to commission it, and it will be made directly to me. I will inform the House at the appropriate time. There will be an opportunity in the coming weeks to consider all the issues, including paramilitary activity. In due course, I will inform the House when the report is ready.
    Mr. Tom Harris: What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of the threat posed to the peace process by terrorist groups such as Continuity IRA and the Real IRA, and what impact will that assessment have on the Government's plans for a reduction in the number of British troops in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Murphy: We in no way underestimate the difficulties posed by the continuing activity of so—called dissident republican groups. A fortnight ago, I visited Mr. Michael McDowell, the Minister for Justice in the Republic of Ireland, to see how we can co—operate to deal with dissident republicans. There is no place in Northern Ireland for dissident republicanism, and there is no place for violence. We shall certainly engage in ensuring that we work together with the Irish Government to do our best to overcome those difficulties.
    Mr. John Taylor: Will the Secretary of State confirm that decommissioning must indeed be visible, verified and complete before all parties can have the confidence to re—join the Executive in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Murphy: I repeat what I said to the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh): the importance of decommissioning is the political process is that it is an essential part of restoring trust and confidence in the politics of Northern Ireland across the board. [Interruption.] It is a hugely important issue, and it was part of the Belfast agreement. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There is far too much noise in the Chamber.

    Peace Process
    Mr. Alistair Carmichael: If he will make a statement on the peace process. [101443]
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Paul Murphy): As a result of talks with the parties last week in Hillsborough, we believe that there is now a large measure of shared understanding among pro—agreement parties on the way forward in the restoration of stable and inclusive devolved Government. However, I repeat that this can be realised only in the context of a complete cessation of paramilitary activity. We need to give these developments every chance of success. To provide time for parties to reflect and to take soundings among their organisations, we propose to defer elections to the Assembly to Thursday 29 May, and we will introduce a Bill tomorrow to that effect. I am optimistic that these developments can deliver a breakthrough in the search for a lasting and stable settlement.
    Mr. Carmichael: The little of last week's talks that is in the public domain is generally welcomed by Liberal Democrats, but what assurances has the Secretary of State been given that any acts of completion by paramilitary groups will include a statement to the effect that those who have been exiled from their homes will be free to return, without fear of threat or intimidation from such groups?
    Mr. Murphy: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his party's support in this matter. The question of exiles was discussed at Hillsborough last week, and the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne), is dealing with these issues with groups such as Maranatha. The fact that he is also the Minister with responsibility for victims shows that we see a correlation between these different issues. [Interruption.] This is a hugely important matter, and the hon. Gentleman can rest assured that we have been discussing it.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that special arrangements for on-the-run terrorists can—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Chamber is far too noisy, and it is unfair to those who are in for Northern Ireland questions. No private conversations should be taking place in the Chamber.
    Mr. Davies: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that special arrangements for on-the-run terrorists can be considered only in the context of the completion of decommissioning and disbandment by the relevant paramilitary organisations, and a judicial process? That process would involve a guilty plea before a court or a determination of the facts by a court, and a verdict.
    Mr. Murphy: I agree. The act of completion on the part of the IRA is an essential precondition in relation to OTRs. I also agree that the matter should be dealt with in a judicial fashion rather than by way of amnesty.
    Mr. Davies: That is very welcome confirmation that the Secretary of State now supports a judicial process.
    278
    Will he have the grace to acknowledge that it is a thoroughly good thing that the Opposition were able successfully to oppose the unilateral offer of an amnesty made by the Government at Weston Park, as that would not have involved judicial process? The Opposition's action means that that important card remains in the Government's hands, and there is a chance of getting the judicial process that both he and I want.
    Mr. Murphy: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we agree.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: On 10 April 1998, the Prime Minister wrote to my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), the leader of the Ulster Unionist party, in the following terms:
    "Dear David,
    I understand your problem with paragraph 25 of Strand 1 is that it requires decisions on those who should be excluded or removed from office in the Northern Ireland Executive to be taken on a cross-community basis.
    This letter is to let you know that if, during the course of the first six months of the shadow Assembly or the Assembly itself, these provisions have been shown to be ineffective we will support changes to these provisions to enable them to be made properly effective in preventing such people from holding office."
    Is the Prime Minister any nearer to delivering on his promises? When can we expect action to be taken to ensure that the Assembly will be effective if it comes together again?
    Mr. Murphy: Of course, the issue of sanctions is very important. We discussed it last week at Hillsborough, and it is an important part of any agreement that might have to be forged in the weeks ahead. The hon. Gentleman knows that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spent nearly 32 hours at Hillsborough last week and is deeply committed to the peace process in Northern Ireland.
    Mrs. Iris Robinson: Will the Secretary of State confirm that there will be no more tinkering with the date for the Northern Ireland Assembly elections, which are set for 29 May? Will he further confirm that he will ignore parties that will try, for selfish reasons, to get those elections postponed?
    Mr. Murphy: The hon. Lady will know that the elections in Northern Ireland will be held on 29 May, as long as the House agrees to that next week. However, the elections were postponed for 28 days to allow all parties to reflect on the proposals and papers that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach will give to the people of Northern Ireland sometime at the beginning of April.

    Terrorist Activity
    Andrew Selous: What recent representations he has received about (a) punishment beatings and (b) forced exiles in Northern Ireland. [101444]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy): Both the Secretary of State and I hold regular meetings with our senior security advisers, and with

    279
    elected representatives and those with influence within their communities, to discuss a wide range of security issues, including paramilitary attacks.
    Andrew Selous: What steps is the Minister prepared to take to make the ending of all forced exiles and exclusions a condition of any future agreement with the paramilitaries?
    Jane Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman will have heard the replies to that question given just now by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. In many cases, these vicious attacks have left victims physically and mentally scarred for life. They are the exact opposite of what the Belfast agreement is all about. Those who sanction and carry out the attacks are the enemies of the transition to a peaceful society in Northern Ireland, which is what we are seeking to establish.

    Bill of Rights
    Lady Hermon: If he will make a statement on progress on a future Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland. [101445]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Desmond Browne): As set out in the Belfast agreement and the Northern Ireland Act, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission is undertaking work with a view to making recommendations to the Government on the scope for a Bill of Rights in Northern Ireland. At this stage, the Government's position is only to encourage broad participation in the process. To that end, I welcome the engagement of the Northern Ireland political parties in response to the request of the chief commissioner and would urge those who have not yet done so to become actively involved.
    Lady Hermon: I appreciate the Minister's response, but may I encourage him to go further and tell the House whether the Government intend to include the controversial issue of Drumcree and other parades in Northern Ireland in any future Bill of Rights?
    Mr. Browne: It would be entirely inappropriate for the Government to anticipate the advice that we will be given by the Human Rights Commission, but the hon. Lady can rest assured that the Government's position is that all issues of relevance to the people of Northern Ireland that could be broadly covered by the description of being within the scope of a Bill of Rights, taking into account the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland, are issues that ought to be discussed in the context of the process.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Peter Bradley: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 12 March.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.
    Peter Bradley: Which is the lesser threat to global security: allowing more time for Iraq's disarmament or, in disarming Iraq—particularly in view of the French President's commitment to exercise his veto—dividing the international community? Will the Prime Minister give an assurance to the House that so long as there is a prospect of rebuilding an international coalition under the authority of the United Nations, he will resist US pressure for precipitate action?
    The Prime Minister: I will certainly do everything I can to make sure that the international community stays united at this time and that we achieve a second UN resolution. The reason why we should have such a resolution, as my hon. Friend's question implies, is that, for many months now, we have been waiting for Saddam Hussein to come fully into compliance with the resolution that was passed unanimously by the UN. It is time that he did so. If he does, even now conflict can be averted. But the worst thing that could happen is for the will of the UN to be expressed so clearly, for him to defy that will and for no action to follow at all.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Can the Prime Minister guarantee what he said to me last week: that there will be a vote in the UN on a second resolution?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, it is our intention to put a vote to the UN on a second resolution. We continue to work for that, flat out, and we will do that in a way that most upholds the authority of the UN.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: If such a vote takes place, it may not be carried or it may even be vetoed. The House of Commons and the British people have a right to know now where the Government stand in that event. Is it now the case that if there is no second resolution, the United States will go to war without the UK?
    The Prime Minister: In respect of the latter part, where the right hon. Gentleman asks about the United States going it alone, let me say this to him and to the House. It is true that the United States could go alone and, of course, this country should not take military action unless it is in our interests to do so. It is the British national interest that must be upheld at all times. But I believe that it is important that we hold firm to the course that we have set out because what is at stake is not whether the United States goes alone or not, but whether the international community is prepared to

    281
    back up the clear instruction it gave to Saddam Hussein with the necessary action. That is why I am determined to hold firm to the course that we have set out.
    Mr. Duncan Smith:The Prime Minister will therefore be aware that, particularly overnight, there has been some confusion among our allies and among various parties including his own. To clear up that confusion, will he confirm today that he could commit British forces to a war without the backing of a second resolution, although he still intends to go for that, and we agree with him?
    The Prime Minister: I have set out on many occasions the circumstances in which we would take action. At the moment, however, the best thing is to go flat out for that second UN resolution. I am trying to do so, and it might help if I were to tell the House the types of things that we are discussing with other partners in the UN at the moment. What we are looking at is whether we can set out a clear set of tests for Iraq to meet to demonstrate that it is in full compliance—not partial compliance but full compliance. For example, based on what the inspectors have already found, it should produce either the thousands of litres of anthrax unaccounted for or the documentation showing that it is destroyed. For example, given that, since the last resolution in November, not one Iraqi scientist has been interviewed outside Iraq, where they and their families can be guaranteed safety, we should make sure that Iraq is allowing those interviews to take place. For example, Iraq should produce the unmanned aerial vehicles, which can spray chemical and biological poison, or, again, produce the documentation showing that they are destroyed. If we set out those conditions clearly, and back them with the will of a united UN, we have a chance, even now, of averting conflict. What we must show, however, is the determination to act if Saddam will not comply fully.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: I agree with the Prime Minister, and he has confirmed in that answer that he keeps the option of committing British troops to war with or without a second resolution. Does the doctrine of Cabinet collective responsibility therefore apply to that position?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, of course it does.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The Secretary of State for International Development said that she would not support military action without a second resolution. I remind the Prime Minister that, amazingly, she called him "reckless". The Prime Minister can either have Cabinet collective responsibility or his Secretary of State for International Development. Which will it be?
    The Prime Minister: I agree that it is an embarrassment to find myself in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman, or him in agreement with me, on the issue of Iraq, but we are agreed. Rather than scoring points, which are perfectly acceptable and which I
    282
    understand, at this point, when we are facing momentous decisions for the country, it is probably better that we discuss the substance.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister knows that we agree about the principles of what he has been trying to do. I must remind him, however, of exactly what the Secretary of State for International Development said. It is remarkable. She said that
    "the current situation is deeply reckless; reckless for the world, reckless for the undermining of the UN … reckless with our government, reckless with his own future".
    Surely if the right hon. Gentleman cannot convince his Cabinet, it will be very difficult to convince the British people. Surely the Prime Minister's big tent is not big enough to include both the Secretary of State for International Development and Donald Rumsfeld. It is time for him to choose: which will it be?
    The Prime Minister: The one thing that I have found in the last few weeks is that I have not been short of advice from anyone on this issue. The most important thing for us to do as a House, never mind as a Government or a country, especially with our armed forces facing the potential of action, is to come together, to work hard in the United Nations to secure the second resolution and to try to make sure that we send the strongest possible signal to Saddam Hussein that he must disarm or face the consequences. I say again to the right hon. Gentleman that it is better to concentrate on that than on the points that he has just made.
    Tony Wright: The whole House will want to pay tribute to the Prime Minister for his tireless efforts to resolve the present crisis through the United Nations. But may I take him back for a moment to January 1998, more than five years ago, and to a letter written by several members of the Republican right in the United States, including Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, to President Clinton? In one sentence of that letter, having said that American interests in the Gulf now require military action to get rid of Saddam Hussein and to produce regime change, they say:
    "American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council".
    It says nothing about disarmament, nothing about human rights and nothing about terrorism. Is not that the smoking gun?
    The Prime Minister: Again, one of the things that I have found is that I cannot actually answer for the comments of every member of every Administration around the world—including, occasionally, even my own, as has just been pointed out. I would say to my hon. Friend simply this. Rather than debate the wealth of conspiracy theories and comments from the Republican right or the Democrat left, or this part or that part, why do we not just work out what is the right thing to do and do it? We should work out the right thing to do, whatever anyone else may say. We went through the United Nations because we believe in it, but I said at the beginning—when we went down the UN route in September last year—the UN must be the way of dealing with this, not the way of avoiding dealing with it. That is why it is important now, four and a bit months

    283
    on when Saddam is not fully complying, that we come to the crunch and take a decision. We have tried to provide, within the UN framework, a set of conditions that allow us to test clearly, based on what the UN inspectors have said, whether he is fully in co-operation or not. What I urge, even at this stage, is for countries to get behind that and help us with it, because that is the best way to achieve disarmament peacefully.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: Has the Attorney-General advised the Prime Minister that a war on Iraq in the absence of a second United Nations resolution authorising force would be legal? What advice has the Attorney-General given?
    The Prime Minister: I have said on many occasions that we as a country would not do anything that did not have a proper legal basis to it.
    Mr. Kennedy: This week UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has said that in the absence of a second UN resolution we would be acting in a way that breached the UN charter. Is Kofi Annan wrong?
    The Prime Minister: No. what Kofi Annan has been saying—and I agree with him—is that it is important that the UN comes together. That is why we are trying to provide a basis, a compromise even at this stage, that allows us to resolve the matter properly. I say to the right hon. Gentleman and to the House that it is complicated to get that agreement at the UN when one nation is saying that whatever the circumstances it will veto a resolution. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman would accept that we cannot have such a situation and that we have to ensure that we deal with the issue in the terms of resolution 1441, which we all—including the right hon. Gentleman—agreed upon.
    Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: While the attention of the world is understandably focused on Iraq, the everyday crisis in Israel and Palestine continues and worsens, particularly for millions of Palestinians but also for many Israeli citizens. Can my right hon. Friend tell the House what steps he is taking to keep alive what faint hope exists in the middle east peace process, and in particular, will he call on the new Israeli Government not to take the opportunity of the focus on Iraq to further undermine the already precarious position of Palestinians and their society?
    The Prime Minister: I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend says and I emphasise to him that we remain firmly committed to taking forward the middle east peace process. I welcome the decision to appoint Abu Mazen as Prime Minister for the Palestinian Authority. That is a good, forward and progressive move, and I hope that it will get an echo from the Israeli side. I believe that there will be very few people in the middle east and the Arab world who shed tears for Saddam
    284
    Hussein, but people everywhere—not just in the Arab and Muslim world—genuinely want to see the middle east peace process back on its feet and going forward.
    Mr. Richard Shepherd: What was the legal basis in international law for war against Yugoslavia, and if that did not require a UN resolution why does the Iraqi situation require one?
    The Prime Minister: As the Foreign Secretary has pointed out, resolul ion 1441 gives the legal basis for this. The reason we have been seeking a second resolution is, as I said to the Liaison Committee when I appeared before it, that it is highly desirable to demonstrate the unified will of the international community.
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us believe that he has done the right thing over many months in restraining the American President from taking precipitate action, and in working instead through the United Nations? Is it not important, as the hours and days tick by, that he use all his efforts to tell President Bush that we need another UN resolution and that there is no need for an unseemly haste to war?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right in saying that it is important that we do everything that we can to achieve that second UN resolution. To be frank, many people thought thai we might be in action even now, but we are not. We have delayed precisely in order to try to bring the international community back round the position that we set out in 1441. I go back to that the whole time. It was at the heart of the agreement that the United States take the multilateral path of the United Nations. The agreement was very simple. The United States had to agree to go through the United Nations, and to resolve this through the United Nations, but the other partners inside the United Nations agreed that, if Saddam did not fully comply and was in material breach, serious consequences and action would follow. The fact is, he has not complied. Four and a half months on—indeed, 12 years on—he has not complied. That it why it is important that we bring this issue to a head now and get it resolved. I remain, as I say, working flat out to get it resolved through the United Nations. That is easily the best thing. It will be a tragedy for the UN, when faced with this challenge, if it fails to meet it. However, we have to ensure that the unified will, as set out in 1441, is implemented.
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: May I bring the Prime Minister to matters domestic, and in particular education, education, education? Is he aware that Leicestershire is the worst funded education authority in the country under the new education formula spending shares? Last week, I had a meeting with some 30 governors, all of whom will have to set deficit budgets because their funding from the Government this year is 1 per cent. less in real terms than it was last year. The governors are talking about redundancies. Will the Prime Minister address this matter, and is he surprised that people in Leicestershire believe very little that he says?
    The Prime Minister: We have increased education spending by a massive amount. All authorities have

    285
    received an above-inflation allocation in their grant. As we are, for a moment, discussing domestic issues, the other point to make is that, while the hon. Gentleman is getting to his feet and calling for even more money for our education service, he appears not to be aware that his Front Bench is calling for 20 per cent. less money.
    Mr. Colin Challen: Given that, tomorrow, there will be a day of action across the European Union opposing the general agreement on trade in services; and given that the EU's requests for the liberalisation of services under the current GATS negotiations have recently been published, does my right hon. Friend agree that the time has come for a moratorium on the negotiations until we in the developed world can carry out detailed and thorough impact assessments—of the environmental impact, for example—that wit; result from a liberalisation of services?
    The Prime Minister: I understand the concerns of my hon. Friend and some non-governmental organisations on GATS. When we talk to the developing countries, they tell us that they are keen for things to move forward. Whatever we do, it is important to put their interests first, because they are desperate to get the markets liberalised.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: When will this House have a vote on whether to commit troops to war in Iraq? Does the Prime Minister agree with his defence Minister, who said yesterday that war was "pretty damn inevitable"? If so, why?
    The Prime Minister: I think that what my hon. Friend said was that, if Saddam Hussein refuses to disarm voluntarily, conflict becomes inevitable. That is the position that we have set out throughout.
    I have made it clear on many occasions, as has the Foreign Secretary, that—subject to the security and safety of our troops, which must come first—we believe that it is right that this House has a say on this issue. People will then be able to see the stand that we take, and people will then have to make up their minds as to the stand that they take.

    Indonesia
    Mr. Win Griffiths: What plans he has to visit Indonesia to discuss with the President of Indonesia the campaign against international terrorism.
    The Prime Minister: I have no plans at present to visit Indonesia but I have been in contact with President Megawati. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed counter-terrorism with President Megawati when he visited Indonesia in January.
    Mr. Griffiths: I recognise my right hon. Friend's desire for a peaceful outcome to Iraq's compliance with United Nations Security Council resolutions, so will he accept that Indonesia—the largest Muslim nation in the world and emerging from dictatorship to take on the virtues of democracy and tolerance, but the victim of extremist Islamic international terrorism in Bali last October—desperately needs a peaceful outcome to the present
    286
    Iraqi crisis, and support from the United Kingdom Government for its reform programme and in combating extremist Islamic terrorists?
    The Prime Minister: First, I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend has done in this area and to the inter—faith work that he has carried out to promote greater understanding between the Muslim and Christian religions. I agree entirely with what he says about Indonesia. We are funding, to the tune of several million pounds, the transition of Indonesia to full democracy, helping it to develop the institutions that it needs and making sure that democratic participation in Indonesia is as full as it possibly can be. I agree with him entirely. Indonesia is a very important country for all sorts of reasons, not least because it has such a large Muslim population. It is important that we in the western world work closely with Indonesia to assist its progress.
    Mr. Julian Brazier: I echo the remarks of the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths). Will the Prime Minister accept that the key to stability and moderation in Indonesia and other similar Islamic states lies in the west—in particular, America and Britain—being seen to be even-handed in those situations in which Muslims are oppressed, especially those in Palestine and Kashmir?
    The Prime Minister: I agree that the even-handedness of our approach is essential. That is why we have worked as far as we can—it is obviously a bilateral dispute—to assist the parties to reach agreement in Kashmir. I can only repeat what I said earlier about the middle east process. The plight of the Palestinians—and, indeed, the plight of innocent Israelis blown up in terrorist attacks—is dire and requires our attention. It would be the best signal of even-handedness that we could give right across the Muslim world if we were prepared to show the right energy and commitment to the middle east peace process. I will do everything that I can to ensure that we and others do that.

    Engagements
    Kate Hoey: May I thank my right hon. Friend for taking two days last week out of his very busy schedule to spend in Northern Ireland? Does he agree that it is important that, when dealing with terrorism, we do not operate with double standards? Can he give me and the people of Northern Ireland an assurance that he will not allow any deal to be entered into with the Irish Republican Army that allows terrorists on the run to evade the criminal justice system?
    The Prime Minister: We have said that the issue of so-called on-the-runs has to be dealt with, and we have said that it should not be dealt with by way of an amnesty. We are looking at the right way of doing that. I hope that my hon. Friend will also agree that, for all the difficulties, the Northern Ireland peace process over the past few years has yielded enormous benefits. The fact that we are actually talking about a situation in which

    287
    we can have a permanent end to violence in Northern Ireland is a huge tribute to everyone who has been involved in the process since 1997.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: Is the Prime Minister aware that, yesterday, the American Government issued invitations to five American corporations led by Mr. Cheney's Halliburton group to bid for the reconstruction of post-war Iraq and pointedly excluded British and foreign firms? Is the Prime Minister not embarrassed to have given such unstinting loyalty to an American President who regards international co-operation with such contempt and war as an opportunity to dish out contracts to his cronies?
    The Prime Minister: I do not agree at all with the hon. Gentleman in relation to that. In respect of the American President and international co-operation, I remind the hon. Gentleman that it was as a result of many requests made to the US President that he went through the United Nations last year. I think that it is right, now, that the will of the UN is upheld. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree with that.
    Ms Dari Taylor: The contract for the aircraft carriers has been placed—the first stage—and offers great investment opportunities for our manufacturing industry. What advice would my right hon. Friend give to all involved so that we see maximum benefit from this contract in terms of new products and new markets and not just excellent employment opportunities but greater employment opportunities?
    The Prime Minister: What my hon. Friend says is right. There is an additional point to consider, too. As a result of what is happening in, for example, the shipbuilding industry generally, skills and technology are being developed in this country. The order has had an enormously beneficial productive impact on our manufacturing base, and I congratulate all my hon. Friend's constituents who have been involved in it.
    Mr. James Gray: The Prime Minister still commands majority support in his Cabinet, but does he feel that he needs support from the parliamentary Labour party, this House or, perhaps, the country as a whole before he commits us to war?
    The Prime Minister: I have said all the way through that it is important, as I said a moment or two ago, to have a vote in the House, subject to the caveat I have always entered. I hope that the hon. Gentleman also understands, however, that it is important that I set out, as Prime Minister, what I believe to be right in this country's national interest. I have tried to do that over the past few months and believe that I have set out my position. I think there is a real threat to this country from the twin sources of international terrorism and weapons of mass destruction and if we do not deal with them, our world and our country will be a less secure and more dangerous place. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members will join us in that endeavour.
    Alan Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that divisions in the UN, NATO, the European Union and, indeed, this House only give comfort and opportunity to Saddam? Does he also agree that a deadline receding into the summer heat haze is not a serious interpretation of "serious consequences" for incomplete compliance which were unanimously resolved by the Security Council last November? Given that Saddam has both motive and capacity to equip terrorists with chemical and biological weapons, does he further agree that it is an urgent necessity to disarm him whether or not there is another UN resolution?
    The Prime Minister: I think the point that my right hon. Friend makes is absolutely right and he sets out precisely why we need to take action. The idea that we could leave British and American troops down there for months on an indefinite time scale, without insisting clearly that Saddam disarms, would send not only a message of weakness out to Saddam, but a message of weakness right across the world. That is why it is important that it is dealt with. I hope that even now those countries that are saying they would use their veto no matter what the circumstances will reconsider and realise that by doing so they put at risk not just the disarmament of Saddam, but the unity of the United Nations.
    Mr. John Randall: Does the Prime Minister accept that I, and many of my constituents, would like to be convinced of and to believe his stance on Iraq? Does he also accept that it would greatly assist us if he published the legal advice that his Government have received?
    The Prime Minister: It is not the convention to publish legal advice, but it is the convention to state clearly that we have a legal base for whatever action we take, and of course we must have such a legal base. I understand the concern and the strong arguments on the other side, but the argument for the hon. Gentleman's constituents and others is surely this: in circumstances in which we believe Saddam is a threat I think most people believe that—and in circumstances in which we demanded that he co-operate fully with the United Nations and he has not—and everyone accepts that—unless we act and enforce that co-operation, we are setting the will of the United Nations at naught and are also saying to Saddam, "You can carry on building these weapons of mass destruction and we will do nothing about it." If we send the message to Saddam that he can carry on and that we do not have the will to stop him, I ask the hon. Gentleman and his constituents what credibility the will of the United Nations will have the next time either he or another tyrant or dictator tries to arm themselves with such weapons? That is why we have to act.
    Mr. Derek Foster: In these momentous times, by his heroic efforts to seek a second resolution in the United Nations, I believe that the Prime Minister has the overwhelming support of

    289
    Members on both sides of the House. Are there not two great prizes for all his activities? The first is the credibility of the United Nations in seeking to enforce its resolutions because without that it will lose all credibility. The second is the ability to continue to persuade the President of the USA to go down the multilateralist route.
    The Prime Minister: The point that my right hon. Friend made at the end is very important. We all agreed to take the multilateral route last November. Let us be clear, not everyone in every part of every Administration may have wanted to take the multilateral route, but we did so, and on the basis that Saddam had a final opportunity to disarm and that if he did not comply fully, unconditionally and immediately with UN inspectors, he would be in breach and serious consequences would follow. Not a single person—not a single person in Europe; not a single person in the rest of the world—believes that he is co-operating either fully or unconditionally, and certainly not immediately. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. What is at
    290
    stake is the integrity of the multilateral process. Unless we uphold it now, we are never going to be able to uphold it in future times.
    Andrew George: On a domestic matter, the Prime Minister's chosen rural tsar, Lord Haskins, has said that it is a good thing that small farmers are having to leave the industry. Last year, 15,000 farmers left or were forced out of the industry. Was that a cause for concern or celebration in Downing street?
    The Prime Minister: I am afraid I have not caught up with Lord Haskins's comments, but of course not. The reason why we have tried to increase the amount of money going into agriculture is to support our farming industry, but it would be cruel to pretend to people in that industry that there does not also need to be change and reform. For that reason, we set up the commission headed by Don Curry, which has had immense support in the farming community. We are providing the funding to implement it, and I would hope that the hon. Gentleman would support us in doing so.

Antisocial Behaviour
12.31 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): With permission, I should like to make a statement on tackling the scourge of antisocial behaviour.
In recent years, we have made significant progress in tackling crime and disorder. In the past six years, crime has fallen by just over a quarter and street crime has been reduced dramatically. The chance of being a victim of crime is the lowest for more than 20 years, yet the fear of crime remains high. No one will believe that crime has fallen unless they experience it in their own lives and those of family and friends. More than one in three people consider that antisocial behaviour is still affecting their quality of life. Over 30 per cent. are intimidated by gangs hanging around their neighbourhood. Too many lives are affected by the irresponsibility, disrespect and loutishness of others.
Antisocial behaviour can affect people physically and emotionally, undermining health and destroying family life. It can also hold back the regeneration of our most disadvantaged areas, creating the environment in which crime can take hold. Where enforcement is poor and antisocial behaviour goes unpunished, criminals learn that they can get away with lawlessness. That is why we are now leading a new drive to work with individuals, families and communities to build effective action against antisocial behaviour.
Rights and responsibilities must go hand in hand. The White Paper and the legislation to follow aim to put in place support and help for those who are prepared to accept it, and clear, speedy, and effective enforcement when they are not. Our public spaces should be open and free for everyone to use. Our streets should be free of loutishness, gangs and drunken hooligans, or drug dealers capturing the lives of young people. Neighbours creating noise and nuisance and those intimidating others are a blight on our society. Those who do not suffer should not get in the way of protecting those who do.
That is why we will crack down on noise and nuisance. Fixed penalty notices of £100 will be available to environmental health officers. Persistent abuse will lead to a reversion to probationary tenancies. Court action and fast-track eviction will follow. Automatic rehousing is no longer an option. Children of persistently antisocial and dysfunctional families will be offered new intensive fostering. Tenants and landlords must share responsibility. Antisocial tenants will lose their right to buy.
We intend to go further. Tenants must not be allowed to make the lives of others a misery. We will empower local authorities to license designated private sector landlords so that they no longer automatically receive direct benefit payments. We will also consult on the appropriateness of measures to withdraw from individual tenants the automatic right to be granted housing benefit. Where the problem is caused by pubs or clubs, environmental health officers will have the power to close them. Unscrupulous drug dealers can exploit weak tenants and owners of property. New fast-track closure powers will be put in place so that crack houses can be closed and decisive action taken to seal those properties.
292
Gangs of youths can often be the catalyst for further crime, as well as intimidation. We will enable the police to designate areas experiencing high levels of antisocial behaviour, within which new powers to disperse groups causing problems will be available. We will merge these powers with those of child curfews to enable unaccompanied children out late at night to be removed and returned to their homes.
We are all aware of other forms of behaviour threatening our neighbourhoods. We have already announced measures to tackle the misuse of air weapons and the availability of replica guns. We will make carrying an air weapon, or an imitation one, in a public place an arrestable offence. We will support wholeheartedly the new proposals to restrict the sale and misuse of fireworks.
However, we recognise that family problems, poor educational attainment, unemployment and alcohol and drug misuse can all contribute to unacceptable behaviour. Those do not constitute an excuse, but we must act to enable people to rebuild their lives. We will take cross-government action to provide support, while upholding the principle of "something for something". No longer should an individual child disrupt a school, nor should inaction by parents disable that child for the future through non-attendance at school. Parents have a duty to ensure that their children are in school and behaving. Persistent failure will result in parenting orders, fines or fast-track court action. We will support families in overcoming their problems, through parenting classes and new fast-track parenting orders. We will examine residential provision as a compulsory part of education and rehabilitation.
At the heart of antisocial behaviour is a lack of respect for others—the simple belief that one can get away with whatever one can get away with. We need the help of the community as a whole in changing the culture. We need parents to instil a sense of responsibility and respect; communities to build the confidence to provide witnesses and to stand up to the thugs; and businesses to help in overcoming unacceptable and irresponsible behaviour.
Record police numbers, the historic reform of police pay and regulations, the new extended police family, including community support officers, specials and street and neighbourhood wardens, all have their part to play. We have an effective armoury of measures: fast-tracked, slimmed-down antisocial behaviour orders, acceptable behaviour contracts and parenting orders. Since August, almost 2,000 fixed penalty notices have been issued in the four pilot areas. We are clear that breaches of orders must be treated decisively. We must slim down bureaucracy, free up the police and enforcement agencies to do their job and engage the public, businesses and landlords in creating a safer and saner world.
I should like to thank all those who have contributed to the White Paper and also give my thanks for the co-operation of ministerial colleagues in this cross-government drive to rebuild civic society. I know that every Member of this House believes that families should teach respect, that bad behaviour must be dealt with decisively and that there is a need to restore pride in our communities. That is the challenge that we face in

293
the decade ahead. I ask the House to support the measures that I have outlined today as a contribution to that endeavour.
Mr. Oliver Letwin: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for his usual courtesy in providing us with early sight of his statement.
For the past 18 months or so, I have been talking about re-establishing the neighbourly society and recapturing the streets for the honest citizen. The Home Secretary's admirable catchphrase "respect and responsibility" is remarkably similar. That similarity of phrasing is no coincidence; it arises from the fact that he and I share the same diagnosis of the same problem. We both recognise that there has been, and is in too many parts of Britain, a retreat from civilisation. We both recognise the truth behind the broken windows thesis that has guided American cities in their successful efforts to reduce low-level disorder and crime. We both recognise that, if our children are to grow up into the people whom we want them to be, they need to grow up in a society that is orderly and respectful and not on streets that are controlled by gangs, hoodlums, drug dealers and pimps.
The difference between the Government and the Conservative party consists not in a difference of diagnosis, but in a difference of views about the cure. Since the Government came to power, we have seen the introduction of some 15 Bills and Acts dealing with crime and disorder. Legislation is seeping out of every pore of the Home Office, and now we are to have another Bill. I doubt, alas, that this next accretion of the Home Secretary's prodigious legislative energy will do any more to cure the problems that we both diagnose than have his and his predecessors' previous endeavours.
The fact is that the boys in the gangs on the streets are strangely unaware of the Home Secretary's laws, because they are so little enforced. I snail not go quite so far as one of my right hon. Friends, who described the Home Secretary as fostering a police state without the police, but on a day when the snoopers charter is reintroduced and the Home Secretary publicly derides my commitment to providing 40,000 additional police officers, the House could be forgiven for wondering whether that right hon. Friend is rather too close to the mark for comfort.
In the absence of police on the streets, I wonder who will really enforce all those new measures. Or will they go the way of the child curfew orders that have never been issued? Will they go the way of the night-time courts, which now appear to have been abandoned after costing £6,000 an hour and £7,000 a case? Will they go the way of the mandatory sentences that have never been handed down? Will the new spot fines be enforced? Alas, the record of enforcement on existing fines, which is terrible, gives no grounds for optimism on that score. Will parenting contracts be any less bureaucratic than the antisocial behaviour orders, which have made strong men weep with frustration? Will the new crackdown on crack really have any impact if the police are overstretched and no effective, intensive abstinence-based treatment is available for young crack addicts? Will the new measures against begging, of which the
294
Home Secretary has made so much today on the airwaves, actually do any more to diminish aggressive begging than could already be done under existing vagrancy laws if they were effectively enforced?
We are told in the press, from which, I regret to say, we nowadays learn more about the Government's intentions than we are ever vouchsafed in this House, that Downing street now wants to "under-promise and over-deliver" by concentrating on "specific, achievable policies" rather than targets.
The Home Secretary has put forward a plethora of specific policy intentions, but I fear that in the absence of police on our streets, and in the absence of coherent long-term programmes to lift young people off the conveyor belt to crime, the Home Secretary will find that the vast new range of powers that he announced will do no more than mask his failure to enforce effectively the laws that already exist.
Mr. Blunkett: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's commitment to having similar policies and his acknowledgement that we agree that the broken windows theory is correct—that is, that if one does not start by dealing with the activity taking place in the immediate neighbourhood, it grows into unacceptable crime. I had better make it clear, however, that I have not read ex-Mayor Giuliani's book, in case anyone thinks that I have plagiarized him in the same way that the right hon. Gentleman plagiarises me. [Interruption.] It is the Opposition's job to poke me with a stick rather than the other way round, so I thought that I would have a go.
The right hon. Gentleman was doing fine until he got to the word that he had done his best to avoid—"but". I want to take the "but" out of the way that things are done. I want to stop the police saying, "We'd like to do something, but we don't have the power." I should like housing authorities to stop saying, "We'd like to deal with your unacceptable neighbour, but we don't have the power." To those who see mayhem on their streets and say, "We want something doing, but nobody's going to do anything", I should like to say that from now on, they are going to do something.
The issue of legislation is an interesting one. Is it a fault, given that legislation may have failed in the past, to legislate in future for things that we want to do, that we know will work, and that we know that people out there want us to put in place? Is it wrong, because there has been a failure to enforce in the past, to put measures in place to ensure that enforcement—through fixed penalty notices, eviction, closure of premises or dispersal—is at the very cutting edge of what we do? I cannot guarantee that the police, the housing offices or the environmental health service will always use their powers. The Daily Telegraph, never mind the Opposition, would certainly take me to task if I had the power to determine the powers of every single official in every single housing office or police station. But I can give them the powers and I can ask them to use them alongside the community.
Yes, we do need more police, but who cut the police service when they were in office? The Opposition were responsible for a fall in numbers in the police service, which we inherited. We are building on that, and we now have record numbers. I have no intention of wiping out

295
the entirety of our immigration and border controls to switch the money into policing. I am, however, intent on making sure, with the Chancellor, that we have the money in future—as we do now—to ensure that year on year there will be increases not only in the trained uniformed police service, but in community support officers, street wardens and all those who are prepared to work alongside the police in doing their job.
I am asked whether these orders will go the same way as the others. Will they be like, for example, the drug treatment and testing orders, of which there have been 11,000 so far? Will they be like the parenting orders, of which there have been almost 4,000? What about the reparation orders, of which there have been more than 18,000? What about the fixed penalty notices that I mentioned? There have been 2,000 in just the few months of the pilot in four areas. What about acceptable behaviour contracts, of which there have been more than 1,800? What about the young people? There have been more than 3,500 intensive supervision and surveillance orders. So, yes, I do intend the new measures to go the same way as those orders, which represent thousands of measures saving thousands of incidents of antisocial behaviour. They ensure that our streets are free and clean, that our homes are quiet and protected and that people know that this House is determined to work on their behalf, and alongside them, to create a Civilised society.
Simon Hughes: The Home Secretary will know that Liberal Democrat Members support the aims and objectives that he has set out. We want a less violent society and a more civil and respectful society. He knows, too, that we shall judge each proposal on its merits, which is why proposals for dealing with crack houses and unscrupulous landlords will be welcome, but why further criminalising beggars, most of whom are on drugs, drunk, homeless, mentally ill or all of those, seems to us a wholly misguided way of tackling a problem that requires people to be brought back into society rather than being given a longer criminal record.
Will the Home Secretary tell us why he has not followed the advice of the Government's social exclusion unit, which made clear, in its most recent report, that we need effective use of existing powers? We need to allow them to settle down and to work across the country rather than to introduce new legislation. Why do not the Government heed the advice that I certainly receive, and which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman receives? There is a panoply of legislation. What we need is not more legislation but more people: more police, more community wardens, more special constables and more youth and community workers. We need more people in the community to help to manage the community and to follow successful examples.
Before the Home Secretary makes more proposals for more laws that are less likely to be enforced, will he look at the projects in my borough—in his city—that work but need more resources? Those projects have been shown to be successful; they are local answers, devised in the community with the support of the community, and are far more effective than legislation passed by Parliament, which, to be honest, goes over the heads of most people in urban Britain.
296
Finally, will the Home Secretary tell us how we can hold realistic consultation on a White Paper produced in the second week of March when he proposes to introduce a Bill in the first week of April? Is not the reality that this is more about dressing the window for a local election in May and to cover up the Government's six years of inadequate law and order policy, rather than the long-term solutions that the right hon. Gentleman knows work better—as does everybody else?
Mr. Blunkett: God forbid that I should spoil the campaign of the Liberal Democrat candidate for Mayor of London, but if the hon. Gentleman's campaign is that we do not need those measures, that we should not take action and that nothing more needs to be done or could be done, he will not get very far.
I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's questions. The honest truth is that he is entirely right to say that we need to take measures to help people on the streets who suffer from drug misuse or alcohol abuse. That is right and proper; it is what we should do. However, if giving people money and leaving them in the subways had been the cure and had put them in appropriate residential facilities and got them off drugs, we should not have the problem on our streets at present. A combination of actions will be needed, including offering people refuge, as we do already, and also drug and alcohol treatment, as we shall do. We must ensure that children who are used by beggars as a means of getting people to give money are treated and supported properly rather than being kept in cold subways as a means of raising cash.
Let me deal with the perfectly reasonable issue raised by the hon. Gentleman—that we need more of everything that he listed. Yes, we do. Why is there more? Why do we have new initiatives, such as those in his constituency to which he referred? Why are diversionary programmes being set up between my Department, that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, who is present this afternoon, the Department for Education and Skills and the Department for Health? Why do we have all those new programmes? I t is because the Labour Government have funded them and put them in place. Why do we need more? Because many of them are working.
However, that is no reason not to match what we are doing positively with the enforcement that was mentioned a few moments ago and which will help those who constantly complain to us that they would do something about the problems if only they had an easy-to-implement power. I am determined to give it to them.
Mr. Chris Mullin: I give today's announcement a hearty welcome. If we are to make a difference to the lives of our constituents, especially those who live in the less leafy areas of the country, we must defeat the vast yob culture that is, I often think, our greatest inheritance from the Thatcher decade.
I especially welcome measures to deal with air weapons, fireworks and spray paints. Far from thinking such things irrelevant, our constituents are more likely to wish that we had implemented them years ago.
I especially look forward to measures to cut off the flow of housing benefit to rogue landlords—probably the most important aspect of my right hon. Friend's announcement. It is extraordinary that for years

297
housing benefit has been used to destroy our inner cities, and we have to put a stop to that. What is the timetable for the housing benefit measures?
I agree with my right hon. Friend that enforcement is the key. There is no shortage of policemen, but sometimes there is a shortage of policemen on the streets. We need to ensure, as he is doing, that there will be more policemen on the streets—on bicycles, perhaps, but not in helicopters.
If more children are to be excluded from school, it is important that alternative arrangements are made for their education. Although big improvements have been made, there is still a gap between children being excluded from school and the alternative arrangements for them. Will my right hon. Friend bear that in mind?
Mr. Blunkett: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend and I am grateful for his support, which he gives sparingly and only when he agrees, so I particularly welcome it.
I am in favour of policemen on bikes—even on tandems, although we are trying to break up the two-by-two regime. I am strongly in favour of ensuring that children have alternatives when they are excluded from school. There is universal coverage for children who are permanently excluded, but we do not yet have that for those excluded only for a few days. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills is working hard to ensure that we achieve that later this year.
I agree entirely that the measure to deal with the very small number of rogue landlords, which will be targeted on designated areas, will make a real difference. It will get the message across that people cannot freeload on the state—what Aneurin Bevan once described as sucking at the teats of the state. If w: can get that right, everyone will be playing their part in overcoming that scourge.
Mr. Nick Gibb: Given the low rate of payment of fines, with only 63 per cent. of fines levied by magistrates actually being paid, how will the Home Secretary ensure that the fixed penalty notices are paid by their recipients? The right hon. Gentleman referred to the 2,000 fixed penalty notices that have been issued since August: how many of those have been paid?
Mr. Blunkett: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right that enforcement of enforcement must be the order of the day. That is why the Courts Bill, currently with the House of Lords, actually ensures that deduction from pay or benefits will be an automatic option rather than a long—term struggle.
On the pilot for fixed penalty notices, 60 per cent. were paid within 21 days and a further 38 per cent. were either paid or withdrawn, leaving only 2 per cent. That defaulted. That is a tremendous record and if we can build on it we shall have a success on our hands.
Lynne Jones: One of my constituents, an alcoholic, received detoxification treatment in hospital but could not get rehabilitation
298
services on discharge. He subsequently died. Other constituents, drug addicts, have to wait inappropriately long periods before receiving rehabilitation services. Although the Government have given additional resources, parliamentary answers suggest that the number of people receiving rehabilitation treatment is not growing. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is essential to put adequate services in place and that, in order to do so, we must assess the need for such services? Will he ensure that an assessment of that need is undertaken so that adequate services can be set up?
Mr. Blunkett: Yes, I will. The establishment of the national treatment agency, the co-ordinated approach that we spelled out in the autumn, the £500 million extra that we are putting into resourcing the services, and the targeted approach—including the £30 million that we have put into the basic command units and police divisions most affected by the relationship between crime and drugs will make a difference. My hon. Friend is entirely right to speak of the speed with which not only treatment but rehabilitation needs to be made available. We have a mountain to climb, and I ask not for patience but for support in going forward to ensure that that happens much more quickly and effectively than it does at present.
Mr. John Horam: Is the Secretary of State aware that antisocial behaviour is a big problem in the leafy suburbs as well as in the inner cities and rural towns? I received an e-mail only an hour ago from a constituent in St. Mary Cray who was complaining about a neighbour who had been forced out of their house as a result of constant harassment. Half the problem is that, when people go to the police to complain about this sort of behaviour, the constant refrain that they hear is, "We don't have the resources to do anything about it."
In Bromley, for example, the number of police has gone down in the last five years, and the number of police stations in my constituency—one of which was in St. Mary Cray, where that incident occurred—has been reduced from three to one under this Government's regime. Does the Home Secretary not see that, unless the Government tackle the number of police on the level that my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) outlined only a day ago, and encourage them to go down the path of zero tolerance, this statement will be just another litany of feeble and inadequate responses?
Mr. Blunkett: I would be happy to look at the number of police in Bromley and raise the matter with the Met commissioner. Secondly, we now have a national policing plan, which includes antisocial behaviour. We have also given a clear direction from the centre that we want police out on the streets. But let me take the hon. Gentleman head on. Is he suggesting that I should determine the number of police stations in each division? Is he saying that I should determine how the chief constable and superintendents in charge of the police in each police force area should direct them? If so, he is contradicting everything that his Front Benchers said when the minimal powers that we chose to take in the Police Reform Act 2002 were being debated. I was told time and again by the Conservative party that it was

299
none of my business to interfere with how the police deployed their resources locally. I believe that it is my business, on behalf of the people we represent. I believe it a lot more than his party does.
Mr. Frank Field: May I assure the Home Secretary that there will be quiet pleasure in many Birkenhead homes this afternoon at the announcement that he has made today? May I ask him a further question about taking away housing benefit from absentee landlords and neighbours from hell? I welcome his intention to consult on these proposals, but will he consult more widely than the normal list of suspects, who usually advance a defence for people whose behaviour is indefensible? May I suggest that one or two panels of ordinary citizens might give him different views from those of the people whose first cry is about the violation of civil liberties? If he asked for volunteers in Birkenhead, his only problem would be one of crowd control as decent citizens came forward to volunteer to support his policies.
Mr. Blunkett: I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for the enormous amount of work that he has done and the campaigns that he has been running. I was pleased, some time ago, to be in his constituency to experience the quiet enthusiasm of the people there—quiet only so that we did not have to issue fixed penalty notices for noise nuisance-for sorting out the mayhem around them. As he would expect, I entirely agree with his final remarks, and I have invited the head of Liberty to join me in my constituency in representing just such people.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman asked for support for his proposals, but that will of course depend on their detail. He outlined a battery of new sanctions and penalties, many of which will depend on the discretion of officials. Does he understand that, unless his proposals provide for proper safeguarding of civil and political rights, they will he strongly resisted? Consequently, before he publishes his Bill, will he consult widely and genuinely on the incorporation of proper legal and civil safeguards into his statutory proposals?
Mr. Blunkett: There will always be proper rights in our society to protect the interests of those who are accused, so that we can avoid wrongful accusation and wrongful conviction. Those rights will exist, whether in relation to fixed penalty notices, the measures that I have outlined that will be consulted on in relation to housing, the powers relating to individual tenants—I did not answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) properly: those powers will be consulted on alongside the draft housing Bill which will be published in the summer—or the powers that we shall take in relation to rogue landlords, having consulted on the detail of how best to apply them. Of course we will ensure that those rights are incorporated in the legislation, as they always will be. The whole thrust of the proposals is to ensure that the rights of the decent, law-abiding community are safeguarded, not at the expense of the right to avoid wrongful conviction but at the expense of those who make a mockery of our existing laws.
Chris Ruane: I thank my right hon. Friend for an answer to a written question that his
300
Department gave me last week on the number of antisocial behaviour orders issued by police authorities in England and Wales. The top number was 95; the bottom number was nought. My own authority, the North Wales police authority, had issued one, which placed it second to bottom. What help, encouragement and—dare I say—pressure can my right hon. Friend apply to ensure proper take-up of the slimmed-down, fast-track ASBOs that he has announced today?
Mr. Blunkett: Progress has already been made. I have made it clear all along, over the last 18 months, that I thought that the number of orders being taken out was unacceptable. The slimmed-down orders that we already have in place, namely the interim orders, are beginning to bite. We have figures only through to November, and they are disappointing, but since the new interim orders came in in November there has been a dramatic change. We want to ensure that there is immediate access to the existing courts and, in future, to the criminal justice centres, so that immediate action cart be taken. We want the police, housing officials and social landlords to be able to use those orders quickly and, above all, we want to ensure that people know about them.
One thing that has struck me over recent months is how little those who have the power to implement these policies know of what they have at their disposal. Even last Friday night, in my own constituency—in a most deprived and difficult part of the city in terms of crime—I found that people were not aware of what was already on the statute book. We have a major task to inform people simply and clearly about how the police and housing and environmental health officials can do their job.
Annabelle Ewing: Will the Home Secretary clarify what plans he has to consult the Scottish Executive on the matters that might impact on Scotland, and when any such consultation is planned to take place?
Mr. Blunkett: Yes, I certainly will. Obviously, the issues around housing and housing benefit are most relevant to the question of reserved powers and to the relationship with the Parliament in Edinburgh. We will begin those consultations immediately.
Jonathan Shaw: I welcome the confirmation that the Home Secretary is to introduce new laws to restrict the use of air weapons, which maim thousands of people every year and, in extreme cases, can kill. People are simply too young to use them at the age of 14. I also welcome the other measures that he has announced today. People experiencing antisocial behaviour in some areas feel that nothing can be done, and that they have to endure it week in, week out.
Lordswood in my constituency was having particular difficulty with antisocial behaviour. The Kent police responded, and the local community has seen a difference. That is giving the community the confidence to work with the police in the way that my right hon, Friend has described today. It is essential, however, that

301
we have the necessary powers to stop the antisocial behaviour that so many of our communities have to endure.
Mr. Blunkett: I know that my hon. Friend has campaigned long and hard on that since entering the House, and I welcome his support. I am pleased that the Kent police have responded in the way that he described and I hope that the new powers will help them to do so even more effectively in future.
Tim Loughton: In order to have a system of on-the-spot fines, the Home Secretary knows that on-the-spot policemen are needed. In Sussex, we still have fewer policemen than we did six years ago despite all his assurances. What assurances can he give that this will not just be another way of further stretching police officers and distracting them from other duties? He also mentioned the culture of getting away with it. Does he acknowledge that we still have the same number of youth offenders in custody as we did five or six years ago, and that last year 77,700 people failed to turn up to court—that is, 13 per cent. of magistrates court cases? What is he doing to make sure that penalties stick when they are issued?
Mr. Blunkett: The Criminal Justice Bill and the Courts Bill are designed to incorporate measures to deal with cracked and failed trials, defendants' failure to attend court and the prolonging of court cases. On policing, the run-down in Sussex was part of a policy of the last but one chief constable. Within weeks of taking office, I had the pleasure of ensuring that he found other pastures in which to exercise his liberal views.
Ms Ann Coffey: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, which will also be warmly welcomed by my constituents. He mentioned dysfunctional families whose children are beyond control. I am sure that he is aware that some of them are as young as six or seven, and that their behaviour terrorises whole communities. That is a particular problem in council estates in my constituency, and I am sure that he agrees that social housing tenants, who often have no choice about where they live, should not have to put up with antisocial behaviour as part of their tenancy. How does he propose to increase the effectiveness of local agencies in dealing with those families because, as he will appreciate, it is not a matter for the police alone?
Mr. Blunkett: Yes, it is important that we take every possible step to remedy the problem and not just enforce the law, which is a last resort. We therefore want to experiment with new ways of intervening, such as with the co-operation of social services. We want to build on the Family Welfare Association and home start examples in which people move into the home so that they can assist families. When I was leader of Sheffield city council, home makers were liter ally undermined by professional bodies that did not like the idea of a practical scheme that did not involve counselling services but involved people going to the family, supporting and helping them to change their behaviour. If we cannot get through that way, we should ensure
302
that, as part of parenting orders, residential provision is made available. In the end, people have to live in a civilised society. If we cannot do that by persuasion we will have do it through enforcement.
Mr. Mark Prisk: In Hertfordshire, tackling antisocial behaviour is a question not of not enough police powers but not enough police officers. Given the £5 million shortfall between what Hertfordshire police need simply to stand still and what the Home Office has just given us, can the Home Secretary tell the House and my constituents how his new powers will be enforced, because we are short of more than 200 officers?
Mr. Blunkett: By continuing with record recruitment, we achieved a 40 per cent. increase in recruitment last year—the largest ever increase in recruitment in this country. What do we get when we recruit? Either we are accused of not recruiting enough, or the Opposition say that there are too many probationers in relation to experienced police officers. The Opposition cannot have it both ways—how can somebody become a policeman if they do not first become a probationer? That is an absurd argument and an example of doublethink. We are recruiting at record levels; we are putting the money in; there will be more police in the coming year than has ever been the case in our history; and we will carry on.
Ms Karen Buck: My right hon. Friend is right to maintain a focus on the spectrum of criminal and antisocial behaviour that blights the lives of residents in neighbourhoods in my constituency. I particularly welcome his commitment to speeding up proposals on the closure of crack houses. I commend the excellent enforcement work in my own boroughs, including the neighbourhood warden scheme in Westminster and the rapid reaction crack protocol developed by police and housing providers in Kensington and Chelsea.
On crack houses and many other forms of antisocial behaviour, one of the biggest problems is encouraging people to come forward and give evidence. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that more is being done to encourage and support people who give evidence against individuals guilty of operating crack houses and other antisocial behaviour?
Mr. Blunkett: My hon. Friend is right about the excellence of those schemes, and I commend them. She is also right that, unless we can provide protection for witnesses, particularly in London, where people sometimes have to be moved away from the situation that puts them at risk, provide professional support for witnesses, ensure that we use technology more effectively and, above all, give people the confidence to be able to come forward knowing that they will not suffer retribution, we will fail. That must be a priority, and we all need to work together to ensure that that is the case.
Lady Hermon: I assure the Home Secretary that the Ulster Unionist party supports much of his statement, so much so that I seek confirmation that the measures will extend to Northern Ireland. As he knows, criminal justice is not a devolved issue, and was

303
not devolved before the suspension of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I would therefore welcome clarification.
Will the Home Secretary also look at something that has worked well in Northern Ireland—restorative justice schemes? Disappointingly, there was not a single mention of them in the statement. There is a good lesson to be learned from Northern Ireland, and I urge the Home Secretary to extend the measures to our Province.
Mr. Blunkett: As ever, the hon. Lady is right. Restorative justice is critical and is covered in the White Paper. We have had more than 11,000 restorative justice orders so far on the mainland, which is welcome. She always charms me into agreeing that excellent schemes that she welcomes should be extended to Northern Ireland. I will obviously consult colleagues on making sure that we get that message across.
Geraldine Smith: Thanks to Government funding, we now have street wardens and community support officers out on the streets of both Morecambe and Lancaster. Does my right hon. Friend agree that seaside towns such as Morecambe have particular problems with antisocial behaviour, usually caused by large amounts of privately rented accommodation and absentee landlords who do not care what sort of tenants live in their properties and have no commitment to the towns. Can he assure my constituents that the measures that he is introducing will help to deal with rogue landlords in Morecambe who cause so much misery to my constituents?
Mr. Blunkett: Yes I can. My hon. Friend is right—the local authority will be able to designate the areas that she described and can take action by providing proper licensing, by insisting that there are proper terms, conditions and contractual arrangements for those tenants, and by ensuring that action is forthcoming if tenancy agreements are breached.
Mr. David Cameron: In his response to my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), the Home Secretary said that to get 40,000 extra police officers, we would have to abolish the immigration service altogether. Is it not the case that in 1993, when there were 20,000 asylum seekers coming to this country instead of the 100,000 that we have now, the immigration service cost £230 million, or £1.5 billion less than it costs today? Does that not prove that if we had a sensible asylum policy we could have thousands more police officers? Is it not time that the Home Secretary started to look at some imaginative schemes instead of things that are failing?
Mr. Speaker: Order. That question is a bit wide of the subject.
Clive Efford: I welcome the statement. Last month I chaired a public meeting with 200 angry residents of the Middle Park estate in my constituency, who called for just the sort of powers that my right hon. Friend has described.
The problems that undermine ASBOs also undermined earlier laws against antisocial behaviour that did not work, chiefly because those who commit
304
acts of violence and vandalism in our communities are prepared to intimidate and threaten victims to a point at which they will not come forward to give evidence. That applies even to the new powers. We must become more proactive in gathering evidence, so that we can tackle those individuals.
Mr. Blunkett: My hon. Friend is right. That is why professional witnesses matter. It is also why—this has been raised with me on my own patch—the ability to provide signed and affirmed written statements, commonly but wrongly known as hearsay, will be important, preventing people from being faced down in court or intimidated or beaten up on the way out.
As for enforcement, the more criminals we have the more police we need on the streets, and the more clandestines we have the more immigration and security we need on our borders, which of course costs us more. That answers the earlier question that I was not able to answer.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: Will the Home Secretary join me in congratulating our new area commander in West Norfolk, Chief Superintendent Alan Hayes? He has introduced a policy of zero tolerance on, for instance, graffiti and minor criminal damage. That is already rebuilding public confidence in the police, but we have a serious problem with abandoned and burnt-out cars and fly-tipped fridges, which encourages the production of more rubbish. Time and again, no one takes responsibility. Those problems were not mentioned in the statement; what is the Home Secretary going to do about them?
Mr. Blunkett: We have tightened the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency regulations and the automatic number plate recognition scheme. We have given community support officers powers to deal with abandoned cars, and the White Paper refers to new powers on fly tipping and graffiti. I am sure that the chief superintendent's excellent work in his division will be supported, and that he will welcome the extra powers in the White Paper.
Colin Burgon: As a Member who believes that our main task is to build stronger communities, I welcome the Home Secretary's statement. I was particularly pleased with his comments about education, because I think that we should give teachers 100 per cent. support, and with what he said about parenting orders and fines. I am interested in the idea of residential provision; will he expand on that and on the need for parents to admit their responsibility for the kids they have brought into the world?
Mr. Blunkett: Not one of us who has been a parent does not sometimes say "There but for the grace of God go I." Let me say, with some temerity, that we want to tell parents, "If you want help, ask for it, and we will ensure that you get it. If we can support you, in both parenting and dealing with family situations, we will do so. But if you refuse to accept help and continue to cause havoc to your own children and the lives of others, we will intervene."
The idea of residential provision stems from the view that it is sometimes necessary to take families away from one situation and into another in which they can receive

305
instruction, direction and education if they are to cope with even the most basic tenets of civilised behaviour. There are not many in such situations, but the very few cause havoc to the very many.
Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: Many environmental health departments struggle to provide a full out-of-hours service with their existing resources. Clearly the proposals will raise expectations in relation to, for instance, noise control. Has the Home Secretary discussed the funding of environmental health departments with the Deputy Prime Minister? Will they be expected to divert resources, or will they be given more resources to finance their new powers?
Mr. Blunkett: I continue to have discussions with the Deputy Prime Minister, and with the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, about how resources raised from, for example, fixed penalty notices can be used for reinforcement and reinvestment. I entirely agree with the hon. Lady about environmental health, which is close to my heart and, indeed, my family. My family includes an environmental health officer, who tells me of all the things that he needs to do and that I hope to be able to help him to do.
Caroline Flint: The people of Don Valley will welcome the White Paper. I pay tribute to them, for without their agitation and support we would not have had the antisocial behaviour unit in Doncaster that is serving us so well. We have issued antisocial behaviour orders there, but our police officers say that the threat of such orders has contained behaviour in many cases.
I welcome what the White Paper nays about private landlords, parenting orders and much more; but legislation, past, present and future, will work when the agencies concerned listen to the people and respond to their demands. Can we ensure, even more than we do now, that information about what works well elsewhere is passed to those on the ground so that they can meet the expectations of those whom they serve?
Mr. Blunkett: That was excellently put. At yesterday's conference for the new local criminal justice boards and the national board, I said—I think t he message is now getting across—that there can be no excuses. It is no good saying that others should have acted; it is up to those at local level to work together to ensure that the system is effective in practice.
Mr. Mark Francois: I recently accompanied special constables in my constituency on a night patrol in support of a Home Office campaign for recruitment of more special constables. From my discussions with them, I gleaned the information that if they arrest a young man for urinating against a wall it takes five hours to process the paperwork back at the station. Does the Home Secretary agree with me, with my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin)—the shadow Home Secretary—and with the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, who raised the issue today, that if we are to have more effective
306
policing the Home Office must play its part by radically reducing bureaucracy to give our coppers a chance to do their job?
Mr. Blunkett: I am pleased to be able to agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am glad that he went on a night patrol during the specials weekend that we organised. As for his example of—I am choosing my words carefully—urination in the street, which is both an affront and a criminal offence, I am delighted to tell him that we shall be able to cut out all those hours of bureaucracy when the offender is taken to the station. Rather than spending a penny, he will have to pay £80 for a fixed penalty notice.
Mr. Gordon Marsden: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on what he has said about air weapons in particular. Over the past three or four years, tenants' and residents' groups in Blackpool have told me that they did not know about the powers and that they have not been working quickly enough. They now tell me that they are working quickly enough.
In a letter to me, Blackpool's chief superintendent writes:
"It appears that the recent changes in legislation have allowed for a much less bureaucratic approach to be adopted … We have maximised the opportunities available to us under this legislation and in recent weeks have seen the courts granting 5 interim orders and 1 full order."
Is my right hon. Friend confident that the current legislation and the proposed new initiatives will be sufficient to deal with the specific issue of antisocial behaviour of transient groups, which has caused difficulties in the past, especially in coastal towns?
Mr. Blunkett: Excellent work is being done in Blackpool. The Tower project, for instance, has been very effective.
It will be possible to attach ASBOs to an individual rather than a locality—to follow the person. That will, I think, make a difference to enforcement.
On a lighter note, I take the point that was made at the beginning of the debate by the shadow Home Secretary. I am learning all the time how best to amend and to re-legislate Home Office legislation, so that whatever was intended in the first place happens in practice.
Matthew Green: I listened very carefully to the Home Secretary, but I heard nothing about extra resources for what the Home Office calls "diversionary activities" for young people. It is a shame that the Government cannot fund activities for young people on the basis that they are good for them, rather than regarding them as a means of cutting crime. Can he reassure me that he respects young people as individuals, rather than simply regarding them as criminal statistics?
Mr. Blunkett: They are victims as much as they are people involved in crime. We are devoting £370 million that did not exist before 1997 to the Youth Justice Board and to the youth inclusion programmes. Through the Department for Education and Skills, some £420 million—again, that money did not previously exist—is being spent on the massive expansion of the Connexions

307

programme. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is working with the DES, the Department of Health and ourselves to develop summer and holiday programmes. All those measures, along with the New Opportunities Fund and after-school activities, are the beginning of a process of getting our act together, so that there is an alternative. People are expected to take that alternative, rather than creating mayhem for others.
Mr. David Clelland: One manifestation of antisocial behaviour is car crime. Does the Home Secretary agree that in the wrong hands, a car can be as lethal a weapon as a gun, and that death or injury caused by the illegal or reckless use of either ought to carry the same, very heavy penalty?
Mr. Blunkett: My hon. Friend and his parliamentary colleagues from the north-east have been running a very effective campaign on this issue. I am deeply sympathetic to ensuring that we get the penalties and the signals right, and individual cases have highlighted the fact that, at the moment, they are not right.

Points of Order
1.32 pm
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If there is a debate on a substantive motion before ground troops are committed in Iraq, and given the clear disquiet that exists in the House at the prospect of war, can you confirm that it would be both in order and advisable for a free vote to take place on such a motion when it is brought before the House?
Mr. Speaker: That is a hypothetical matter and has nothing to do with me. Free votes have absolutely nothing to do with me—I seldom get a vote these days.
Mrs. Alice Mahn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Now that the Bush Administration have blatantly given contracts to American corporations to rebuild Iraq once they have bombed it, and despite the spin from No. 10 that Donald Rumsfeld was trying to be helpful to this country when he made it clear that they do not need United Kingdom troops for such bombing—in fact, on the basis of that, the Prime Minister could now bring our troops home—how can we go about securing a debate on what are momentous events by any standards?
Mr. Speaker: I have no responsibility for the actions of American politicians or of the American President's officials. They have absolutely nothing to do with me.
Mr. Tony McWalter: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have just received a pager message saying that the Prime Minister of Serbia has been shot dead. I should be grateful if the House would take cognizance of that fact in the way that it organises its affairs.
Mr. Speaker: I am very sorry to hear about that.
Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At times of national debate and national crisis, the House looks to you to represent it, and the public look to the House to represent them. You will undoubtedly be aware that throughout this country people are talking about the possibility of British troops being deployed in Iraq in the next few days. Can you assure us that as soon as there is any firm news from the United Nations or about the deployment, the House will be given the opportunity to have a debate—if need be, on an application for an emergency motion—so that it can represent the views of the ordinary people of this country, who are deeply concerned about the danger of going to war?
Mr. Speaker: It is my duty to protect the rights of Back Benchers. As a Back Bencher of long standing, the hon. Gentleman will know that tomorrow's business questions perhaps provides an occasion for him to raise those matters.

Points of Order
  BILLS PRESENTED
    HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE (COMMUNITY HEALTH AND STANDARDS)
    Mr. Secretary Milburn, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Margaret Beckett, Mr. Secretary Murphy, Mrs. Secretary Liddell, Ms Secretary Hewitt, Secretary Peter Hain and Mr. John Hutton, presented a Bill to amend the law about the National Health Service; to make provision about quality and standards in the provision of health and social care, including provision establishing the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection and the Commission for Social Care Inspection; to amend the law about the recovery of NHS costs from persons making compensation payments; to provide for the replacement of the Welfare Food Schemes; to make provision about appointments to health and social care bodies; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed. [Bill 70].
    LOCAL COMMUNITIES SUSTAINABILITY
    Sue Doughty, supported by Gregory Barker, Dr. Vincent Cable, Mrs. Patsy Calton, Mrs. Helen Clark, Mr. David Drew, Mr. Don Foster, Paul Holmes, Alan Simpson and Ms Joan Walley, presented a Bill to require the drawing up and implementation of a strategy to promote sustainability among local communities; to make provision for the inclusion of targets and indicators in the strategy; to make provision for councils to implement the strategy in their area; to make provision in respect of the powers of electors in relation to the implementation of the strategy; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 28 March, and to be printed. [Bill 71].

Prevention of Driving Under the Influence of Drugs (Road Traffic Amendment)
1.35 pm
Mr. Nick Hawkins: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make it an offence to drive a motor vehicle while under the influence of a controlled drug; to provide powers for police officers to undertake roadside drug tests on drivers; to provide that statistics of drug-related road accidents and deaths are collected and collated; and for connected purposes.
I introduce this Bill not simply because of the views that I hold—although they are very strong views—but because the shadow Home Office team collectively believes that this is an important issue that has been neglected for far too long. We are therefore adopting a recent change in strategy whereby, although this is a ten-minute Bill, we are taking the matter seriously and we hope that it will progress to become law. Indeed, a counterpart Bill will be introduced in another place tomorrow by my noble Friends Lord Dixon-Smith and Baroness Anelay of St. Johns. We very much hope that it, along with this Bill, will receive all-party support.
I have been concerned about this issue for many years—long before I came to this House. I began in practice at the Bar in the late 1970s, and as with all barristers on circuit, I dealt with many cases involving motoring offences. Tragically, many of the most serious involved very serious injury or death. In recent years, we have seen increasing incidences of death or serious injury caused to entirely innocent, law-abiding drivers as a result of dangerous driving by motorists under the influence of drugs, or of a combination of drink and drugs. I shall say a little more in a moment about the particular problems arising from a cocktail of drink and drugs, and about the reasons why there is an increase in such incidents.
I want to pay particular tribute to Rhiannon Sadler and Anarhali Moonesinghe, who are two researchers in my office. In preparing the shadow Home Office team's work on this issue, they contacted every police force in the country and all of Her Majesty's coroners. They asked very detailed questions about the increasing incidence of serious injury and fatal accidents caused by, or contributed to by, one or more drivers being under the influence of drugs, or of drink and drugs. I should stress that we have also had enormous support from the AA, the RAC Foundation and the British Medical Association, all of which—like the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), myself and the rest of the shadow Home Office team—have pursued this issue for years.
The big problem that we understood from our research is that nobody is required to collate the statistics on this issue. Indeed, almost every one of Her Majesty's coroners said, "We'd love to get more information about this, but we haven't got the resources." That is why the Bill would require that funding be provided to every coroner and to every police force in the country, to ensure that these statistics are collected properly. Once we know the scale of the problem, we will be able to address it more rapidly and accurately.
Traffic officers are at the sharp end of this problem and have to deal with the horrendous consequences of serious injury and fatal traffic accidents. I want to stress

311
that every officer to whom we spoke said that people who are addicted to drugs or are regular drug users and who are planning to drive will often choose to drink alcohol as well. If they are stopped because an accident has happened, or for any other reason, they will merely be breathalysed and dealt with only as a drink driver. Although that will probably lead to a ban in court, it will not lead to an investigation by drugs squad officers, which might lead to much more serious criminal sentences, and perhaps a lengthy period of imprisonment. That applies especially to those who deal drugs as well as take them. As one officer said, drug addicts who do not drink as well are crackers. If they drink as well, they will get away with a lower penalty if they are stopped or if there is an accident.
The Opposition have pursued the matter in various debates, notably in two debates on the Government's drugs policy either side of the recent Christmas and new year recess, in which the Government effectively promised jam tomorrow. They said that they would do something about the matter when parliamentary time allowed. Opposition Members are convinced that the problem is far too serious to be kicked into the long grass in that way, and we are strongly supported in that by the AA, the RAC Foundation and the BMA.
The Bill gives the Government an opportunity, as I told the Home Office Minister who responded to one of the Government drugs policy debates that it would. We hope that the Government will allow this Bill, or its equivalent in another place, to proceed.
I also thank the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) for his support for the Bill, and for all the work that he has done to highlight the extent of the drugs problem. It is an issue that I hope will attract all—party support.
We need to protect law-abiding motorists from being seriously injured or wiped out by drug-crazed drivers. The BMA says that the use of illegal drugs by the younger generation is frequent and increasing. Talking to young people at secondary school or in their late teens, one finds that they have been persuaded by the media that the Government have legalised cannabis already. They are stunned when they are told that cannabis is not legal. Unfortunately, the Government have given out all the wrong signals on the matter.
The BMA reports that nearly half of all 16 to 24-year-olds in England and Wales have used cannabis at least once. Because they are going to be the young drivers of the immediate future, it is even more worrying that 39 per cent. of that age group said that they had taken hallucinogens. Rather fewer of them had taken other
312
drugs. However, a separate survey of club goers in Scotland found that 69 per cent. had taken cannabis, and that 85 per cert. had at some time driven a car after using illegal drugs.
The problem of drug driving is not only related to the misuse of illegal drugs, as prescription drugs may also cause drivers' judgment to be impaired. However, this Bill concentrates specifically on the illegal, controlled drugs. That is not to say that we ignore the other serious aspects of the matter, but I wanted to keep the Bill's scope within bounds, in the hope of attracting all-party support.
Recent research from the transport and road research laboratory in Crowthorne, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay), next door to mine, shows that between 1987 and 1999, there was a significant increase from at least 3 per cent. to 12 per cent. in the detection of illegal drugs in the blood of drivers in road accidents. However, coroners and police forces need to be able to use roadside tests.
I pay tribute to forces such as those in Hampshire, Surrey, Strathclyde and Northamptonshire for piloting the field impairment test. Specific legislative provision can be given for such tests. The roadside impairment test takes place at the side or the road and can form the basis for the arrest of a driver, after an accident or moving-traffic offence, who may have taken drugs. That person can then undergo a full medical blood test, and in that way we will detect people who take drugs and drive, and deter people from doing that.
I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Nick Hawkins, John Mann, Mr. Oliver Letwin, Mr. James Paice, Mr. Dominic Grieve, Mr. Humfrey Malins, Mr. Mark Franois, Angela Watkinson and Mr. Iain Duncan Smith.

Prevention of Driving Under the Influence of Drugs (Road Traffic Amendment)
  PREVENTION OF DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF DRUGS (ROAD TRAFFIC AMENDMENT) BILL
  Mr. Nick Hawkins accordingly presented a Bill to make it an offence to drive a motor vehicle while under the influence of a controlled drug; to provide powers for police officers to undertake roadside drug tests on drivers; to provide that statistics of drug-related road accidents and deaths are collected and collated; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 4 July, and to be printed [Bill 72].
Orders of the Day

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (NO. 2) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (NO. 2) BILL

    Welsh Affairs
    [Relevant documents: The Third Report from the Welsh Affairs Committee, Session 2002–03, The Work of the Committee in 2002, HC 263, and the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Welsh Affairs Committee on 15th October 2002 [The Wales Office Departmental Report 2002], HC 1216, Session 2001–02.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
    1.47 pm
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Peter Hain): May I say, Madam Deputy Speaker, how good it is to have a Welsh Deputy Speaker in the Chair for this debate?
    Wales is raising its profile as never before—we have the first Welsh Archbishop of Canterbury for 1,000 years. It is hard to open a newspaper these days without reading about a Welsh celebrity or sports personality, whether it be Tom Jones or Catherine Zeta Jones, Ryan Giggs or Colin Jackson, Julian McDonald or Huw Edwards. Now even the manager of the Liverpool football team, the Frenchman Gèrard Houllier, after his team won another trophy at Cardiff's millennium stadium, has joked that he might apply for Welsh nationality. He is a wise man—and that comes from me, a Chelsea fan.
    There are people in Wales today who are at the top in all walks of life—doctors, scientists, engineers and entrepreneurs. I have met some of them in my first few months as Secretary of State, and I have been greatly impressed by their commitments, talents and confidence. They are world-class people, striving to create a world-class Wales. That is why we are determined that we should never go back to the time when a generation of young people in Wales were denied employment and hope by Tory economic mismanagement and ideological dogma. Never again will the Thatchers and the Redwoods tear up the jobs and public services that we cherish—although I see that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) may be in line for a comeback. He was the most unpopular Secretary of State in history, and I hope that he is dispatched to Wales to campaign full time for the Conservatives, especially in Monmouth and the Vale of Glamorgan.
    This has been a challenging year for the Welsh economy, with stagnant global trade and many of our trading partners in or near recession. However, there are more than 60,000 more people in employment in Wales than there were a year ago. That is a better record than
    314
    in any other UK region. Levels of economic activity are increasing sharply, and the 2.8 per cent. rise over the past year is an equally welcome sign for a valleys MP like me, as economic inactivity there has been so high for so long. Unemployment in Wales has fallen to 5.2 per cent., the same level as the rest of the UK and lower than in countries such as the United States, Canada, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Portugal and Spain. We are building on a base of economic stability and the lowest inflation, mortgage rates and unemployment for more than a generation; a base developed not by accident or by fluke, but by the process of taking tough and sometimes unpopular decisions about spending and by the maintenance of firm principles of fiscal and monetary discipline.
    Our stable economic fortunes have delivered record levels of sustained investment in public services in Wales through the 2002 spending review. We have also brought forward new measures to encourage enterprise in deprived areas and spread prosperity throughout Wales. We are making work pay through measures such as the child and working tax credits, which could benefit 350,000 families in Wales, and the national minimum wage, benefiting 70,000 Welsh workers. Wales is a leader in broadband technology with the Assembly Government investing £115 million to spread broadband use across Wales and to help our companies secure the technological advantage necessary to succeed in the global marketplace.
    The objective 1 programme, together with other European structural fund programmes in Wales, has attracted projects of more than £1 billion, regenerating the economy of west Wales and the valleys and creating an estimated 6,000-plus jobs so far.
    Mr. Simon Thomas:The Secretary of State cannot get away with that. The 6,000 jobs created by the objective 1 programme include 800 jobs created at a call centre in Pembrokeshire that immediately disappeared. That is part of the picture as published by the National Assembly. Also, Wales is still at the bottom of the league in terms of broadband link-up. There is a lot of work to be done on broadband and job creation in Wales.
    Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that the 6,000 jobs included those at the call centre. If he checks, he will find that that those jobs are not included. I hope that he will correct his researchers on that point. Of course there is a lot to do on broadband but, as I shall say, we are driving it forward. In parts of south Wales—especially south—east Wales—there is more broadband than anywhere else in Europe. He should be welcoming that and praising it. Broadband access has been spread out across Wales. It is interesting; the nationalists always demand more but never provide the funding. That is the politics not of government, but of opposition, where they will remain.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: For ever.
    Peter Hain: For ever, as my hon. Friend says so powerfully.

    315
    More than 27,000 young unemployed people have found work through the new deal, with youth unemployment cut from 12,000 under the Tories to just 1,500. More than 12,500 people in Wales are benefiting from high-quality training through modern apprenticeships; over 50 per cent. more than under the Tories.
    Gareth Thomas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that unemployment in my constituency has fallen by no less than 63 per cent. since 1997, a figure surpassed by the decrease in unemployment in the seat represented by the leader of the Welsh nationalists? Is that surprising?
    Peter Hain: It has nothing to do with the MP in that constituency; it is to do with the Government's brilliant economic record. If we look at the constituencies of all Welsh MPs—those here and absent from the House this afternoon—we will find that unemployment has fallen dramatically during the last six years of Labour government.
    Wales is at the cutting edge of industrial collaboration. Already there are 20 centres of excellence for technology and industrial collaboration throughout the nation. As an enthusiast for manufacturing, I particularly welcome the creation of the Welsh centre for manufacturing excellence, which will help 2,000 firms in its first three years. According to the purchasing managers index commissioned by the Royal Bank of Scotland in January, businesses in Wales continue to outperform the UK average in terms of securing new orders.
    Welsh towns and cities have some of the fastest-growing companies in Britain; Newport, Cardiff and Swansea are among the cities with the highest proportion of firms growing by more than 25 per cent. a year. Cardiff is one of the fastest developing cities in Europe, proud of the contribution that it makes to the world of business and commerce yet with its sights firmly set on winning the European capital of culture 2008 with an excellent bid. The latest forecasts on farm incomes indicate some optimism and confidence returning to the industry, with a distinctive Welsh strategy for the long-term future of farming, centred on high-quality produce and economic, environmental and social sustainability.
    We have an historic opportunity to develop a world-class Wales with a high-quality, highly skilled economy. The Assembly elections on 1 May will be a critical factor in whether we are able to grasp this opportunity. By choosing a world-class Wales, people will be rejecting once and for all the second-class Tory Wales of low wages, low skills, low aspirations and low achievements. We have a significant advantage, in that the partnership principle works much better in the Welsh economy than in any other part of Britain. We must build on this; not just in relation to obvious examples of co-operative endeavour like Tower colliery, but with a firm acceptance that the best companies are those that work in partnership with employees to achieve the highest standards. The Wales TUC has always been a strong partner in economic development in Wales and both the TUC and the CBI Wales have responded positively to the opportunities presented by devolution. For
    316
    example, they recently presented a joint report to the Assembly on priorities for raising skills and improving productivity.
    The "team Wales" approach, bringing together all the key agencies, is a primary reason why inward investors have found Wales such an attractive place to locate. It is why companies based in Wales, like British Aerospace at Broughton, General Dynamics at Oakdale and the Ford motor company at Bridgend are succeeding in world markets and are at the forefront of technological development. All have recently made big new investments; all big votes of confidence in a Wales that is fighting off intense international competition.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: I hope that the Secretary of State is going to say something about Corus because I am sure that the House would like to hear directly what action he will be taking to ensure that the jobs there are maintained.
    Peter Hain: I have been in touch with Corus management in Wales, the Department of Trade and Industry, the First Minister and the trade unions. We are all working together to make sure that the Welsh plants at least survive this very difficult situation. It is extraordinary that the Corus management board is having to take its Dutch-based supervisory board to court to get a decent policy and strategy for the industry. I am sure that all Welsh Members, including the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), will join me in saying that it is time for the Corus supervisory board to support the loyal work force of Corus in Wales and to give the most productive and competitive steel industry in the world a chance to flourish and grow.
    Devolution is an essential part of the "team Wales" approach. When the chief executive of British Telecom recently told me that he had received a better response from the Welsh Assembly Government and agencies to investing in broadband than any other part of Britain, I asked him why. He said, "Because you can get to the decision makers more easily, because they immediately grasp the vital role of broadband and because they act quickly." The "team Wales" approach is vital in generating self-confidence in our economic future. More than 3,000 new businesses were created in Wales last year, 20 per cent. more than in the previous year and an increase larger than in any other part of the UK.
    Last year, more than 800 new products and processes were introduced by Welsh companies. We need to accelerate that and to develop a spirit of self-confidence and entrepreneurialism that will help to ensure that the small and medium-sized businesses that comprise the vast majority of Welsh firms have the commitment to invest, to innovate and to grow. It is because I am concerned that we should succeed through partnership and through striving to be the best that I am outraged by the way that the Tories and the nationalists continually talk down Wales and the achievements of hard-working Welsh employers and employees.
    Take, for example, our objective I money, secured by a British Labour Government negotiating in Europe. First, the Welsh nationalists claimed that we would not get objective 1 status. Then, when we did, they said that we would not get support from the Treasury to make proper use of it. Then, when we did get that extra

    317
    Treasury funding, they said that the programme would be a failure. Four years ago, in the St. David's day debate, the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) told the House of his grave concern that the whole objective 1 programme would come to nothing,
    "like a handful of sand seeping through one's fingers."—[Official Report, 25 February 1999; Vol. 326, c. 575.]
    Is not it time that he and his colleagues apologised, and stopped spreading doom and gloom? Is not it better to aim to be the best, instead of constantly predicting the worst? Instead of the party of Wales, they are the whingers of Wales—their leader, Ieuan "Whinge" Jones.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: In 1989, the GDP of Wales was 89 per cent. of the UK average. The latest figure is 82 per cent. That is not a success.
    Peter Hain: Is the hon. Gentleman saying—[Interruption.] I am about to answer, unless he wants to have another whinge. It is true that parts of the United Kingdom, especially the south-east, have raised their GDP per head much faster, but in real terms GDP per head has been rising swiftly in Wales. That is obvious in terms of employment, which is at record levels compared with recent decades; it is also obvious in the increased wealth and income spreading throughout Wales.
    The Labour-led Assembly Government are succeeding not only because of their partnership with business, trade unions, local authorities and voluntary groups, but because of their strong partnership with the Government at Westminster: Labour working for Wales. That partnership is delivering record levels of sustained public investment. By 2005–06, the Assembly budget will increase to £12.5 billion, almost double what it was when Labour took office in 1997, with record increases in funding for the national health service in Wales. As a result, 700 more hospital consultants and GPs, 6,000 extra nurses and 2,000 other health care professionals will be recruited in the coming years. Education spending in Wales, which passed the £1 billion mark for the first time this year, will rise to £1.4 billion in two years. We could not have a clearer demonstration of the benefit to Wales of both devolving power to the Assembly and pooling resources at a United Kingdom level where appropriate. The firm legislative partnership between Westminster and Cardiff Bay has also produced this year's Health (Wales) Bill, giving patients a stronger role in the improvement, development and running of our health services.
    As well as the specific Wales-only Bill, the Government's legislative programme for the current parliamentary Session contains several Bills that include Wales-only provisions, which have been developed in close consultation with the Assembly Government. Those include the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, which improves planning in Wales; the Local Government Bill, which gives more flexible powers to Welsh local authorities; and the Licensing Bill, which repeals the outdated provisions allowing polls to be called every seven years in Wales on the question of Sunday opening of pubs.
    318
    The partnership between the Assembly and the UK Governments reaps benefits abroad as well as at home. The Assembly is able, through the devolution settlement, to form part of the UK delegation to the European Council of Ministers, ensuring a strong voice for Wales yet at the same time enjoying the benefits of being part of an influential member state. Since the advent of devolution, the Welsh Assembly Government have been an active participant in the EU, and have joined with the Scottish Executive in tabling proposals that take forward their strong claims for a louder voice in Europe. Last month, I was delighted to present on behalf of the UK Government a paper demanding a stronger voice in Brussels for Europe's regions such as Wales to the Convention on the Future of Europe. It had been drawn up by the Assembly and the Scottish Executive, working in partnership with UK Government Departments.
    Partnership is the right approach to another of the challenges that we currently face: building stronger, safer communities. The UK Government are working with the Assembly to tackle the crime that blights our communities. We have already delivered record numbers of police officers in Wales, and we are equally determined to give them the powers to deal with antisocial behaviour, and to ensure that resources are effectively deployed to prevent crime and catch criminals.
    Partnership is not, however, just about co-operation between levels of government. It must work downwards to generate an open, inclusive and participatory relationship with groups in society. The Government recently allocated more than £4 million to the local crime and disorder reduction partnerships in Wales, which involve the police, local councillors and other representatives of the community joining together to develop a crime reduction strategy that meets local needs. Through its Communities First programme, targeted on the most deprived areas of Wales, the Assembly places the power of change in the hands of community members.
    How much more beneficial is that co-operative and positive approach than the Tories' Eurosceptic isolationism and the nationalists' antiquated separatism? Indeed, that kind of partnership is the very opposite of what the Tories and the nationalists offer people in Wales. On a recent visit to Wales, the Conservative party leader displayed his party's traditional distaste for devolution when he talked of
    ""an extreme Labour-controlled Assembly".
    He said that
    "way out to the left there in extreme territory lies Rhodri Morgan and his friends."
    How, I wonder, does that extremism manifest itself? Is it in free bus passes for pensioners and the disabled? Is it in free access to the national museums and galleries of Wales? Is it in free prescriptions or Assembly Learning Grants? Which of those "extreme" measures would the Tories revoke if they ever came to power in the Assembly? They should answer that question. Those ridiculous comments show how out of touch with mainstream opinion in Wales the Tory party and its leader continue to be. As long as they stay out of touch, they will stay out of office.

    319
    The Tory leader went on to claim that the Conservative party does not believe that
    "ideology has any part to play in the health service."
    Everybody in Wales knows, however, that Labour has spent five years trying to redress the damage done to the national heath service by 18 years of Tory ideology. People in Wales know that Tory ideology meant the closure of 70 Welsh hospitals. They also know that Labour ideology has already seen eight new hospitals opened or under way. People in Wales know what the Tory agenda on health is because Tory leaders have told them: 20 per cent. cuts, meaning fewer nurses, fewer doctors and fewer hospitals. It means cuts, charges and privatisation, school and hospital closures, and thousands of jobs lost. The same old Tory wreckers are trying to wreck Wales again. Wales does not want to go back to the 10 per cent. Tory inflation, the 15 per cent. Tory interest rates and Tory mass unemployment.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: On that subject, has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to cost the impact of the Conservative party's proposed 20 per cent. cuts on the public services provided in Wales?
    Peter Hain: That is an interesting suggestion, which I may deal with, as a result of my hon. Friend's wise advice, sooner rather than later.
    Those cuts will mean up to 20 per cent. cuts in nurses, teachers, police officers and all the services that we have sought to rebuild in Wales. Conservative Front-Bench Members may shake their heads, but we have experienced Tory cuts before. At last, teachers feel that they are able to do their jobs. At last, nurses and doctors feel that they have a Government on their side. At last, police officers feel that they have a Government on their side to fight rising crime.
    The hon. Member for Ribble Valley has often questioned me about the problem of waiting lists in Wales, which is difficult in some areas, although in many areas it is improving. If it is difficult now, imagine what it would be like after the Tories' 20 per cent. cuts in the health service budget.
    Mrs. Jackie Lawrence: Does my right hon. Friend think that some of the confusion among Conservative Members arises from the fact that, according to their latest leaflet, they do not seem to be able to tell the difference between Belgian francs and pounds?
    Peter Hain: Indeed.
    Mr. Evans: Will the Secretary of State explain to the House, as I am confused about the matter, why, in 1997, waiting lists in Wales were dramatically lower than they are now?
    Peter Hain: I was trying to provoke the hon. Gentleman to ask a question such as that, and he has duly obliged, for which I am grateful. What is interesting about those figures and the overall picture is that 200,000 more patients are being seen, and were seen last year, than in the last year of Tory government. That is a sign of the extra throughput in Welsh hospitals and other health institutions.
    320
    The figures speak for themselves: an increase of 7 per cent. in the number of patients being seen since the Tories left office. Other waiting list achievements include a reduction in the target for cardiac surgery: the total number of people waiting has fallen to its lowest level since February 1999. The target for bringing down angiogram waiting times has also been reduced, and that applies equally to orthopaedic and cataract surgery. A lot more is needed to improve the situation, but 200,000 more patients are being seen, and if the Tories were to introduce 20 per cent. health cuts, far fewer patients would be seen and waiting lists would lengthen out of sight.
    Adam Price: While I applaud the fact that the Labour Administration in Cardiff will not go down the dangerous route to foundation hospitals, such hospitals along the border will probably have the right to set their own rates of pay for medical staff, including nurses. Is not there a danger that the already severe crisis in retention of nursing staff in Wales could be made even worse as they are poached from over the border by high rates of pay?
    Peter Hain: No. Wales has decided to use a different model because Welsh needs, interests and values are different. The hon. Gentleman seems to think that the border can just be abolished, as though Wales can be floated off—which is his policy, of course. We have cross-border treatment now and that will continue, whatever the hospital structure.
    Adam Price: Unlike the Secretary of State, I oppose foundation hospitals in Wales and in England. That is the contradiction that I am trying to tease out. Foundation hospitals in England will have a detrimental effect on the provision of health services in Wales.
    Peter Hain: That is simply not proven. The hon. Gentleman does not even want to be a Member of this Parliament in Westminster; he wants Wales to be independent, hived off as a separate state. So his assertions on the matter are as unfounded as his objectives are indefensible.
    The choice for Wales is between Labour's goal of full employment for our generation and economic prosperity for all, and the Tory policy of scrapping the new deal, higher unemployment and returning Wales to the same old failed Tory policies. The choice is between millions benefiting from our goal of ending child and pensioner poverty, ensuring prosperity not for the few but for the many, and the Tory policy of cutting the minimum wage, abolishing the child and pensioner tax credits and privatising the basic state pension. As the Government who created the minimum wage and equal pay, new rights to take time off work, new rights for part-time as well as full-time workers and new rights for women workers, we know that an enterprising economy on the one hand, and workers' rights, women's rights and equal rights on the other, are not opposing objectives but inseparable allies to create a stronger Wales. That is why we will shortly raise maternity pay to £100 a week, extend statutory time off for mothers to 26 weeks, and introduce paternity pay for the first time. We are also ending the Tory two-tier workforce in private

    321
    finance initiative projects. We are doing more to ensure rights and fairness in the workplace—the foundation of a fair and successful economy.
    We also stand ready to raise the minimum wage. Tory Ministers claimed that a minimums wage would cost a million jobs. In fact, with the minimum wage in place, we have not destroyed a million jobs; we have created more than a million jobs in Britain. The only jobs that the minimum wage cost were those of I he Tory MPs who opposed it.
    As for the nationalists, we know that they want the devolution settlement that people in Wales voted for to fail. Their actions in the Assembly over the past four years have shown them rejecting the path of partnership, preferring narrow oppositionalism. They prioritise constitutional wrangling and the costly trappings of a nation state over health, jobs, education and fighting crime. Their narrow separatist vision of a Wales set apart from the rest of Britain would divide communities, not unite them, and make Wales poorer, not richer.
    Take any Labour Government spending commitment and the nationalists would double it—promising the earth and delivering nothing. The people of Wales are tired of such dishonesty, such opportunism, such posturing. [Interruption.] They know that the nationalists are fit only for opposition, never for government. [Interruption.]
    Madam Deputy Speaker(Sylvia Heal): Order.
    Peter Haim: I am grateful for your protection, Madam Deputy Speaker, although I rather enjoy the heckling. It keeps them off the street.
    Look at Plaid Cymru's record in office. In Rhondda Cynon Taff, for example, it has closed day centres for the elderly and ended free parking for the disabled in council car parks. That is why Rhondda will come back to Labour on 1 May. In Carmarthenshire, it has closed day centre kitchens. That is why Llanelli and Carmarthen, East will come back to Labour on I May. The nationalists would rather put Tories into power than back Labour, as happened in the Vale of Glamorgan.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: While the Secretary of State is examining Plaid Cymru's performance in local government, will he consider Rhondda Cynon Taff, which I used to work for when it was run by the Labour party? The council got into trouble with the district auditor, but he gave a clean bill of health to the authority after Plaid Cymru took over and put its finances into order. He should also consider Gwynedd and Caerphilly, where we might win in the May elections. One can get very good odds on that. In Gwynedd and Caerphilly, the GMB had an independent report on where the best economic development had occurred in Wales and—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is very long for an intervention.
    Peter Hain: Caerphilly cut services under nationalist control. That is why we will win back Islwyn and retain control for Labour in Caerphilly.
    Mr. John Smith: My right hon. Friend may have noticed that, in that long intervention,
    322
    the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) did not mention the role of Plaid Cymru in propping up the Conservative council in the Vale of Glamorgan for the past five years. It has cut support for disadvantaged communities and distributed it elsewhere.
    Peter Hain: My hon. Friend is right to point out what happens if the nationalists get the chance in power. Only recently, the nationalist presiding officer in the Assembly, Lord Elis-Thomas, said that he would find it impossible to have a coalition with Labour, but could envisage one with the Conservatives. They are not just Welsh nationalists but Welsh Tories, too. The Tories and the nationalists have collaborated in the past, both in local government and at Westminster, against Labour. Given the opportunity, they could do so again, so no one should be fooled into thinking that the Assembly elections do not matter, or that their vote will not make a difference. Our hard-earned economic progress, the record investment in public services and the partnership between Westminster and Cardiff that is enabling us to work together to tackle crime and poverty—and more—will all be at stake on I May in Wales's general election.
    As for the Welsh Liberal Democrats— [HON.MEMBERS: "Ah!"] I did not want them to feel left out. Those of us with experience of their activities in local government will know that they are never backward in claiming credit for achievements, regardless of who may have initiated them. A recent guide for their council candidates advised:
    "Don't be afraid to exaggerate."
    I fear that they have adopted that policy at a Welsh level, with their claim that they are the "driving force" behind the Assembly Government—not so much a driving force, but more a piggy-back ride that will end on 1 May.
    The Assembly elections will provide people with an opportunity to judge the Liberal Democrats on their own terms and policies, which in the past have often been uncosted and impractical. It is a party that has clung onto office but could never govern alone.
    Lembit Öpik: I thank the Secretary of State for including us in his speech, which is a relief to us. The crucial question for him—in the spirit of the type of politics that he promotes—is whether he is seriously suggesting that the Labour party could have implemented a significant proportion of the programme for government that was agreed between the Liberal Democrats and Labour, had we not entered into that coalition. The evidence that the Liberal Democrats were crucial in the arrangement is the fact that there is a divergence between Welsh Labour party policy and—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the Secretary of State will have got the point that the hon. Gentleman is making.
    Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman is right to this extent: the coalition has brought stability to the Welsh Assembly Government, and that has been essential in delivering our programme. However, the policies are Labour policies. They are being implemented on a basis

    323
    of stability. Our decision to create a stable Government was taken in the national interest; we did not form a coalition with the Liberals because we wanted to. We are determined to get an overall majority and we are working flat out for it. We want to win back the seats that we lost to the nationalists—in the Rhondda, Islwyn, Llanelli and Conwy—and to ensure that we hold our existing seats, and perhaps take Monmouth from the Tories. Those are our objectives to establish an overall Labour majority.
    Mr. Llwyd: Earlier, the right hon. Gentleman spoke at length about the employment situation in Wales, in which there has been great improvement. Such has been the improvement that I am sure we could afford to have one other person on the slide—the statistical slide. It is time for the Secretary of State to sack his speech writer. This is rubbish.
    Peter Hain: I take that as a compliment. I invite the hon. Gentleman to train the person who drafts his interventions a little better.
    Only Welsh Labour offers a coherent vision for a world-class Wales—a vision of high-quality jobs and high-quality public services, a vision of social justice and economic success, and a vision of Wales going places, not going backwards.
    Lembit Öpik: I think that I heard the Minister say that only Labour policies had been implemented through the partnership. Where in Welsh Labour's manifesto did it say that the partnership would diverge from Westminster Labour Government policy on student funding, and where did it say that it would provide free school milk? Those are two examples to show that what the Minister said was factually incorrect.
    Peter Hain: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. Those are Labour policies—although I acknowledge that they were given a bit of assistance by the Liberals.
    I believe that, at the Wales general election on 1 May, people will look at Labour's solid record of achievement over the past four years, look at Labour's exciting plans for the next four years, and decide that Wales's future must lie not in going back to the days of boom and bust or to standing alone in separatist isolation, but in continuing a partnership for social justice and prosperity to build a world-class Wales—a future of working together for Wales and not pulling us apart, of winning together, not losing apart.
    2.22 pm
    Mr. Nigel Evans: It is good to see Madam Deputy Speaker in her traditional place for this traditional debate. I enjoyed the spat between the Secretary of State for Wales and Plaid Cymru as to who would gain the most seats at the next local elections. [HON. MEMBERS: "National elections."] We will not have to wait long for the Assembly elections on 1 May.
    I was not surprised that the Secretary of State left the Liberal Democrats until the bitter end because there is very much a Lib-Lab pact. Not only do the Liberal Democrats have to take the credit for the things that
    324
    they do not do and the things that they do, they have to take the blame when things go wrong. They are not prepared to do that.
    The Secretary of State started by mentioning famous Welsh people a rid said that the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, was a good Welshman. I am delighted that the Secretary of State mentioned the archbishop, because he went to the same school as I did—Dynevor school in Swansea. It is a proud school with a proud history, but despite its proud record it was closed last year by a Labour council, under a Lib-Lab Assembly and a Labour Government. I find it amazing. Brian Ludlum, the chairman of the governors, was a Labour councillor when I was a councillor on West Glamorgan county council, but at least in those days we were accused only of selling off the school playing fields. This Government are selling off the schools. Brian Ludlum said that he had to take into account the fact that the school was on a prime site and would fetch a lot of money. How ridiculous that was. Dynevor school had a proud history and it is a great shame that it has closed.
    At the start of this St. David's day debate, it is important to say that our thoughts are with our troops in the Gulf—allied troops, British troops, and of course Welsh troops. They are preparing to take whatever action is deemed necessary to ensure that Saddam Hussein complies with resolution 1441. We know that these are hugely difficult times and we fully support the Prime Minister on the build-up and preparation for action. I have no doubt that, if it were not for the actions that have been taken so far, Blix and the weapons inspectors would have been nowhere near Iraq now.
    Welsh service people have a proud record of service to their country. I was in the Falkland Islands three weeks ago, where I laid a wreath for our service people who were killed in action. As the House knows, Welsh servicemen and women were at the forefront of that war. We are proud of their record and their contribution to the British armed forces.
    I want to focus on a few areas, including the economy, education and training—which has been mentioned—the national health service and the future of Wales under this Government and the Welsh Assembly. I will start with Swansea airport. The Secretary of State knows that I have campaigned long and hard for the expansion of that airport and the opening of a London-Swansea route. It is import ant that that should come about, not only for Swansea but for west Wales as a whole. I congratulate Air Wales and Swansea airport on the announcement that there will be a London City-Swansea route. It will open on 28 April. Two new 50-seater aircraft have already been bought, one of which will be used on that route.
    Air Wales hopes to expand its number of employees from just 50 to more than 200 when the expansion is fully operational. When I was a lad, Swansea airport employed just three people, and I think that they were mostly employed to keep the sheep off the runway. It is now hoped that I DO people will be employed there. It is a success story.
    Peter Hain: I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's close interest in the development of Swansea airport and I applaud him for it. He has been a great source of support. I am visiting Swansea airport on Friday, partly

    325
    on his suggestion. I am very excited by the developments. The London link shows what can be done. I would like to see a Cardiff link and the expansion of airports across Wales, including north Wales and mid-Wales.
    Mr. Evans: I am grateful to the Secretary of State. I think that everybody in the House would applaud him on this issue. Although they do not mind coming to Newport and Cardiff, a lot of businesses seem to have a mental block about going further west or to the north. The expansion of regional airports—led by Swansea and Valley airport, which I have also supported—will be very important.
    Mr. John Smith: I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman has said about airports, but does he also acknowledge the success of Wales's international airport at Cardiff, which is one of the fastest growing airports in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Evans: Of course I will join the hon. Gentleman in acknowledging that success. We both deplored the actions of British Airways in pulling out of Cardiff airport, which was a grave mistake. I also applaud BMI Baby for coming in and considering a number of routes, which I hope it will take over from British Airways.
    Not everything is as great a success as Swansea airport and Air Wales. Businesses in the United Kingdom have had £47 billion of extra taxes foisted on them; they have also had to bear more than £5 billion of extra rules and regulations in every year that this Government have been in power. The latest tax—the tax on jobs—will hit them next month. It will hit employers and employees. I will deal with the impact that the tax will have on local authorities and the public a bit later on, but the 1 per cent. extra tax on jobs will raise the equivalent of a 3p rise in the basic rate of income tax. That means that a burden of more than £4 billion will fall on businesses in the United Kingdom including Wales.
    When the Government introduced the climate change levy, we were told that it would be a neutral tax and that we should not worry. The CBI, along with the Engineering Employers Federation, has done a report on the climate change levy. They have found that manufacturing has been hit hardest, with a £328 million rise in their energy bills. The Secretary of State will know that Wales is more reliant on manufacturing than any other part of the United Kingdom, but this tax was still introduced.
    In the survey, the CBI and the Engineering Employers Federation found that some firms were not able or willing to absorb the extra tax and have moved production abroad. That cannot be right. Manufacturing has faced an enormous slump before and since the introduction of the climate change levy. I could list a huge number of manufacturing companies in Wales and the jobs that have gone. Hon. Members will know about them, because the job losses will have occurred in their constituencies—in Swansea, Bridgend and Llanelli. We have suffered manufacturing job losses throughout Wales.
    Paul Flynn: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the cost of the climate change levy to
    326
    manufacturing industry, but is it not right to mention the amount that the Government have given to industry to compensate it for its losses? They are giving £2 billion that has been taken from the national insurance fund.
    Mr. Evans: My point is that the energy tax fell disproportionately on manufacturing industry. It has been hardest hit, and it is proportionately more important to Wales. It has suffered the extra job losses. One cannot open a newspaper these days without reading that there have been further job losses.
    I referred to Corus in an intervention. I wanted to get that point on the record, so that the Government know how important it is that these jobs are preserved not just in Wales but throughout the United Kingdom. I agree with everything that the Secretary of State said in response, but it is a shame that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry seemed to be caught on the hop by the announcement. She spoke to the all-party steel group the night before, and she seemed to believe that all the jobs would be preserved. The announcement obviously came as a huge surprise and shock to her.
    Peter Hain: I do not intend to abuse the opportunity to intervene, but I wish to respond to the point about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The announcement was made in the early hours of the morning and the information was not available to her when she spoke to members of the all-party steel group. Indeed, the Corus managers present were not in possession of that information, either.
    It is important to get the issue of manufacturing into perspective. Although 26,900 manufacturing jobs have been lost since 1999 in the objective 1 area, more than 20,000 have been created. New manufacturing jobs are being created all the time even though older manufacturing jobs are being lost as part of the process of global restructuring.
    Mr. Evans: I am grateful to the Secretary of State, but people sometimes wonder where all the jobs have gone. Unemployment is not going up, but we read about manufacturing jobs disappearing. My figures for the whole of Wales show that, in November 1999, there were 247,000 jobs in manufacturing, whereas in November 2002, the figure, which includes the jobs created and those that have gone, was 206,000, so 41,000 manufacturing jobs have disappeared in Wales. In November 1999, there were 361,000 jobs in public administration in Wales, but by November 2002, the figure was 415,000, so there are 54,000 extra jobs in public administration. One has only to read the many pages in The Western Mail that advertise jobs in local authorities, the Welsh Assembly, the Welsh Development Agency and the quangos that have been so berated by Government Back Benchers. Such jobs are advertised every day. However, manufacturing is vital to Wales and it is a shame to see jobs in that sector under threat. In fact, in many cases, the jobs have already disappeared.
    Objective 1 has been mentioned, and we welcome the money that has gone to support the most disadvantaged areas of Wales. However, it is a great shame that the impetus behind that money was not quicker and that industry throughout Wales was not involved at an earlier stage. That would have enabled objective 1 money to have come on stream much earlier.

    327
    The Secretary of State did not refer to agriculture, but he must recognise that that sector has suffered an appalling downturn. The figures for those employed in agriculture, hunting, forestry and fishing have fallen from 21,000 in 1999 to 14,000 today. That is extremely alarming. Indeed, the Prime Minister was asked today about the importance of agriculture. Jobs in that sector are important.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: I must say in passing that one job lost in Wales is that of Conservative candidate for Llanelli. [HON. MEMBERS: "Tell us morel Look in the newspapers.
    On agriculture, is it not the case that the Liberal Democrat Assembly Member, Mike German, is responsible for agriculture and that he has failed time and again to make on time and in full the payments that farmers deserve? That is one of the reasons why farming faces such a crisis today.
    Mr. Evans: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning late payments. I am sure that we have all received letters from NFU Wales, which has listed the areas where there are problems. Late payments clearly are a problem, and that brings us back to the fact that the Liberal Democrats, a party in the Administration in Cardiff, must take responsibility for the plight of the farmers in Wales who have simply had to wait for their payments.
    Mr. Roger Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Evans: Of course, I will give way, so that the hon. Gentleman can say sorry to the farmers in Wales.
    Mr. Williams: We all concede that there have been difficulties in making the payments. However, the Assembly Government have addressed the European Union's new requirements for making those payments and have put in place the mechanism for doing that. Some 98 per cent. of payments have now been made. When the suckler cow payments are made shortly, that will complete the process.
    Mr. Evans: It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to be sympathetic to the plight of farmers in Wales, but he must recognize that farmers cannot bank sympathy. They need hard cash. The money has been paid late and the Liberal Democrats must take responsibility for those late payments and understand the stress that farmers have gone through.
    Mr. Williams rose—
    Mr. Evans: If the hon. Gentleman wants to say sorry, I will give way to him again.
    Mr. Williams: I will not say sorry, but perhaps I should declare an interest: I am a recipient of the payments. At least the farmers in Wales will receive the money. When the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) was Secretary of State for Wales, he sent a lot of that money back to the Treasury.
    Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman is, at least, a recipient of the money. I hope that he received it on time.
    328
    [Interruption.] No, he did not get it on time. He knows whom to blame—Mike German and the Liberal Democrats in the Welsh Assembly.
    We have also received letters about other key issues. Red tape and TB—I am not referring to the Prime Minister, as some might think—are real problems. Tuberculosis in cattle must be tackled. In addition, we face the problem of the ban on farm burial from 30 April. The French already have a scheme under way that is fully funded by their Government, but we have nothing in the United Kingdom or Wales to deal with the problem of fallen stock. We must address that problem sooner rather than later, because the ban will come into effect on 30 April.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer is daily becoming a rabid Eurosceptic, and he believes that there should be more flexibility in Europe. I have read many of the articles in which he has said that. Nations are doing their own thing, so let us do our own thing, but let us not do nothing. Sitting idly by while another industry goes to the wall cannot be allowed to happen. Wales was known for its manufacturing and for its agriculture, but the Government are waving goodbye to both.
    I hope that the:Minister will deal with insurance in his winding-up speech, because that affects agriculture and manufacturing. Many businesses find it incredibly difficult to obtain insurance or they find that the premiums have gone through the roof. That is not simply the result of 11 September. Part of the problem relates to the claims culture that now exists in this country, but some firms have seen their premiums rise by as much as a factor of 10. That is totally unacceptable and creates serious problems for firms and employment prospects.
    Another thing that affects the people of Wales is the increases in council tax that will shortly drop through their letterboxes. The Secretary of State did not mention those. They represent one of the most cruel stealth taxes and come on top of other tax rises introduced by the Government since 1997 on petrol, stamp duty and air travel. In addition, the job tax increase comes into effect next month. The increase in council tax is one of the most iniquitous of them all. It is not as if the quality of public services is improving. Local authority homes are closing and the free bus pass scheme, which the Secretary of State mentioned, is not fully funded by the Welsh Assembly.
    I am sure that the latest figures will interest hon. Members. I wondered which local authority would be the first to hit £1,000 for a band D house, and it is Merthyr Tydfil, with a council tax of £1,003, an increase of 6.9 per cent. On last year's charge. That is an increase of 65 per cent. on the rate in 1997 when the Government came to power. The increases are staggering. In Blaenau Gwent, the council tax is up 10 per cent., taking the bill for a band D house up to £975. In Denbighshire, it is up 12 per cent., taking the bill up to £944. Inflation is running at 2.5 per cent., but the local authority in Torfaen is imposing a tax rise of 14 per cent. The bill for a band D house in that area in 1997 was £483; this year, it will be £816. That is an appalling record. The increase is a stealth tax and it hits ordinary people throughout Wales.
    Albert Owen: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Tory leader of the council in Ynys Môn

    329
    backed a 9.4 per cent. increase in council tax, but Tory Assembly Members voted against changes to the standard spending assessment that would allow extra resources from Cardiff to help needy areas like mine? The Tories voted against extra money in Cardiff, yet they voted for an increase in council tax in my constituency.
    Mr. Evans: In Monmouthshire, the increase—[HON.MEMBERS: "Apologise."] No. The increase in Monmouthshire is 13.8 per cent. We know that rigging has taken place to remove money from shire counties so that it can go elsewhere. Even with all the rigging, however, every local authority area faces inflation-busting increases this year on top of the massive inflation-busting increases since 1997. The Government said that they would not increase income tax, but they have ensured that there are increases in council tax, which hits everyone, especially poorer people in some areas.
    Llew Smith: Although the hon. Gentleman is right to mention the problems in Blaenau Gwent and Merthyr Tydfil, will he accept that they have nothing to do with the efficiency or otherwise of those local authorities? They arise because the local government formula, determined by the Welsh Assembly, discriminates against the poorest communities. That being so, does he support a revision of that formula so that we reverse the situation to take from the rich and give to the poor?
    Mr. Evans: In Monmouthshire, we know that money is being taken from people and given to other areas. Surely what we need is a fair distribution of the money available. I also recognise that the Welsh Assembly has imposed extra responsibilities on local authorities and has not passed on the extra funding 100 per cent. of the time, so if local authorities wish to deliver those services, they have to put up council tax, and that is unfair to people who live in homes on fixed incomes.
    Llew Smith: I will reword my question. Will the hon. Gentleman support a local government formula, determined by the Welsh Assembly, that is driven by need as opposed to greed?
    Mr. Evans: I would support any formula that ensures that everyone gets their fair share of the money and that the local services that are supposed to be delivered in those areas are properly funded. No area should be penalised simply because of social engineering.
    Mr. Llwyd: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Evans: No. I want to make some progress because other hon. Members wish to speak.
    The Secretary of State is concerned about the turnout at the Assembly elections on 1 May. I too am worried that people will boycott them, perhaps because they never supported the Assembly or because it has not delivered on its promises. I hope that people do vote and punish the Labour and Liberal Administration in that Assembly by voting for change. The coalition has
    330
    comprehensively wasted millions of pounds on, for instance, the bureaucratic reform of the national health service, which will come into effect shortly. It is also wasting millions of pounds on the new Assembly building, which only Lord Rogers and some politicians want, and on embassies in capitals around the world so that Mike German can visit them, which seems to be his reason for being on this earth.
    Lembit Öpik: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Evans: I will, but I am only half way through my list.
    Lembit Öpik: I cannot wait to hear the rest, but let us handle the issues one by one. Is the hon. Gentleman opposed to the Assembly building? If so, why can he never explain satisfactorily why he is willing to take a place in Portcullis House, which cost £231 million? I believe he voted against it, which makes his position even more hypocritical.
    Mr. Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman, who believes in proportional representation, explain why he has taken a seat in this place under the first-past-the-post system? He has done that because it exists and we work with the system that is in place. I took an office in Portcullis House because that is where the offices are, and we were asked to go there. I opposed the expenditure because of the way in which it was handled, just as I oppose the expenditure—perhaps as much as £40 million—on a new Assembly building in Cardiff, when the money could go to front-line services.
    Let me continue listing examples of where the Lib-Lab Administration has been at fault. Although industry is declining, the training body ELWa—Education and Learning Wales-has given millions of pounds to a pop factory without following proper procedures—and, of course, there has been the interference by the permanent secretary, Sir John Shortridge. I find that disturbing, and I congratulate Jonathan Morgan, our Assembly Member, for exposing that incompetence and demanding a full and transparent copy of the report. Four senior executives on that quango, which has £500 million to spend, have been disciplined. In addition, the Administration turned a blind eye when British Airways pulled out of Cardiff airport. If there is a low turnout, it will be for those reasons. The Assembly offered so much and has delivered so little that even the extra spin doctors employed by Rhodri Morgan will not be able get them out of that mess.
    Mr. Llwyd: The hon. Gentleman said that he, like every hon. Member, wants a high turnout. Are his disparaging and insulting remarks helpful in that respect?
    Mr. Evans: It would be more disparaging than helpful to have a conspiracy of silence when things go wrong. I am condemning those who run the Administration for making those decisions. I encourage people to vote on 1 May because they need to consider what the political parties are offering and decide which of them will provide what people really want, which is better frontline public services.
    Gareth Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Evans: Not at the moment, but I will shortly.

    331
    Lord Richard's commission, which is a sop to the Liberal Democrats, is considering whether more powers should be given to the Welsh Assembly. Irrespective of what the commission suggests, it will be up to the Secretary of State and the Cabinet to decide whether they will recommend extra powers. Will the Secretary of State give a commitment that, should that be the case, the people of Wales will be able to vote in a referendum on whether the Welsh Assembly should have primary—indeed, tax-raising—powers?
    Mr. Simon Thomas: How much would that cost?
    Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman may ask that, but this is about democracy, which is vital. The people of Wales must be consulted. The last thing that we want to be implemented is the Liberal Democrat plan to have 80 Members of the Welsh Assembly—an extra 20. The Liberal Democrats would also like to reduce the number of MPs here in Westminster, which would be a great shame. They want to belittle what is going on in Westminster in order to glorify events in the Welsh Assembly.
    I also want the Minister to address a problem at the heart of further and higher education. I welcome the project announced yesterday, in which a bus will go round 195 schools in Wales with the purpose of encouraging youngsters from disadvantaged backgrounds to go to university. What I do not welcome is the socialist engineering that artificially disadvantages youngsters from middle-class backgrounds—and, indeed, those from working—class backgrounds-and turns them into victims.
    Parents who work all the hours that God sends to save money in order to send their youngsters to fee-paying schools—or parents such as the chairman of the Welsh Language Board, Rhodri Williams, who has been able to get his son on a scholarship to Eton—should not be punished by universities aiming to secure Government funding by favouring youngsters who have inferior academic qualifications. We all want youngsters from disadvantaged backgrounds to be given every opportunity, but surely the way to do that is by ensuring that they receive good primary and secondary education, so that they can attain academic qualifications. We should not punish youngsters simply because they went to fee-paying schools. The Government need to raise the aspirations of youngsters from disadvantaged backgrounds and ensure that they can fulfil their potential. Replacing merit with malice as a cornerstone of education policy is a disgrace, and will go down in the annals of time as one of the most appalling examples of new Labour going completely off the tracks.
    Gareth Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman disown the comments made at the end of last year by the shadow Chief Secretary to the effect that his party could cut funding by 20 per cent? What effect would that have on schools, hospitals and educational attainment in Wales?
    Mr. Evans: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for enabling me to put the record straight. That will mean, of course, that I will never be asked about the 20 per cent. again—will I?
    332
    The fact is that my hon. Friend the shadow Chief Secretary said that in certain areas savings could be made. I will give the hon. Gentleman some perfect examples. I could save 100 per cent. of the money spent on the Welsh Assembly building—not just 20 per cent. I could save 100 per cent. of the money spent on all those embassies around the world for Mike German to visit. The fact that he is out of the country is generally a good thing; none the less I could save 100 per cent. of that expenditure. Jane Hutt said that her NHS reforms would be cost-neutral, but we now know that they will cost £15.5 million. We could save 100 per cent. of that money. All that wasted money could go into front-line services, ensuring that we got extra police, nurses and doctors. We would be cutting not front-line services but waste and unnecessary expenditure.
    Mr. Roger Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Evans: No, I want to make some progress; I want the Minister in his winding-up speech to answer some questions about tuition fees, about which we have heard much.
    When the Secretary of State for Education and Skills announced the funding of further and higher education, we were told that the likelihood was that powers would be devolved to the Welsh Assembly. There followed an embarrassing silence. When I wrote to the Education Secretary, I was told in reply how complex the issue was and how it had to be looked into carefully. That sounded like a perfect recipe for kicking the matter into the long grass. The long grass no longer needs to be that long, because we now understand that in a couple of months' time when the elections are over, a decision will be made on what exactly will happen.
    Peter Hain: May I correct the hon. Gentleman? Is he seriously suggesting that examination of the transfer option should be conducted quickly just to complete it ahead of an election campaign, and that perhaps we should short-change Wales? Surely not. If such a transfer were to be agreed, we would have to bottom out the costings in very detailed terms. There are about 8,000 English students studying in Wales and about 6,000 Welsh students studying in England. There are all sorts of issues like that. Officials at the Assembly and in the Department for Education and Skills are getting to the bottom of those cost implications and working out how much money would follow students if the transfer took place.
    Mr. Evans: It is the money that follows the students that we are interested in. On one hand we have the Treasury, which might not provide the full amount of money for Welsh universities, and on the other we have the Assembly, which might want to say no to any top-up fees. That would put universities into a straitjacket. We know that there will be a black hole of many millions of pounds, which means that many English students might attend universities in Wales but there will be no investment in those universities because they will not be able to raise funds.
    Mr. Williams: I am sure that everyone in the House would want to give young people from disadvantaged

    333
    homes and areas the opportunity to go into higher education. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree, however, that the problems started with the abolition of maintenance grants for students and the introduction of student loans, which were his party's idea? Did he support that at the time?
    Mr. Evans: That is rather ridiculous. When I went to Swansea university, I received a small maintenance grant, and of course was charged no tuition fees whatever. When I entered the House to sit on the Government Benches—as we shall shortly do again—I had to listen to Labour politicians shouting at us for attempting to introduce tuition fees to top up maintenance grants. Maintenance grants have been abolished under this Government, and tuition fees have been introduced. I find that amazing. The Dearing report on funding universities recommended that the Government should do one or the other, but they chose to do both. It is appalling and shocking that people who themselves received free education, and maintenance grants as well, should have have removed the ladder from beneath many students.
    Mr. John Bercow: My hon. Friend's historical lecture is entirely correct; the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) seeks to misrepresent the position. Does my hon. Friend recall that on 14 April 1997—Welsh students will be conscious of this—the Prime Minister said:
    "We have no plans to introduce tuition fees in higher education",
    and his position was reinforced 10 days later by the Leader of the House of Commons?
    Mrs. Jackie Lawrence: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it not a convention of the House that those who wish to participate in the debate should be present for the opening speeches? I believe that the hon. Gentleman wandered in towards the end of the speech of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans).
    Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Lady is correct: Mr. Speaker has made it clear that he wishes to see hon. Members in the Chamber for opening speeches—but on this occasion the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) was allowed to intervene by the Opposition spokesman.
    Mr. Evans: We are always grateful for the expertise and wisdom of my hon. Friend :he Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who has reinforced my point. I suspect that the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence) is embarrassed by what her Government did. How can she say to her constituents, "Yes, we are the Government who removed your grants. We are the Government who introduced tuition fees, and we will be the Government who introduce top-up fees." Let us see how she gets on with that line in elections to the Assembly and at the general election. I look forward to visiting her constituency and to debating that issue with her.
    334
    On the national health service—another subject that I look forward to debating with the hon. Lady—we have heard all the statistics from the Secretary of State for Wales, but we know that the number of people waiting for in-patient and out-patient treatment has gone up since 1997; 82,460 people have been waiting more than six months for outpatient treatment. That figure is up 221 per cent. since 1999. The 1999 Welsh Labour manifesto stated that by the end of a Labour Assembly's first term, no one would wait more than six months for out-patient treatment or more than 18 months for in-patient treatment. The Assembly elections are on 1 May. The target has not been met.
    However, the number of bureaucrats in the NHS has gone up dramatically—three times the rate of the increase in the number of nurses and doctors in the NHS. We heard the Secretary of State for Wales proudly say how wonderful the health service was, and how wonderful the doctors and nurses thought it was—but why do we see in the The Western Mail the headline, "A third of Welsh nurses to quit early"? The article states:
    "The first survey of working conditions in Wales by the Royal College of Nursing paints a picture of a disillusioned and short-staffed front-line army of nurses struggling to care for patients in the face of bureaucratic and administrative pressures on the NHS."
    The same edition quotes a nurse as saying:
    "There are so few staff, we run around trying to fit everything in".
    No wonder so many nurses say that they will retire early from the NHS. Those are the very people whom we should support.
    All that is happening despite the fact that in Wales, the amount of money spent per head of population is £822, whereas in England it is £740. The Secretary of State mentioned the cross-border issues that need to be confronted, particularly in the NHS. The Maelor hospital in Wrexham is at risk of losing £840,000 that it receives from English trusts if it does not meet the targets set in England. The problem is that the targets are lower in Wales than in England, but they are more readily met in England, in spite of the extra funding going into Wales. I find that appalling. It is a disgrace that £15 million is to be wasted on bureaucratic change.
    The Secretary of State paints a rosy picture of Wales, but the reality is far from that. Wales needs a dedicated, strong voice at the Cabinet table to fight its cause. In The Independent on Sunday the right hon. Gentleman is quoted as saying:
    "I'm real left, as opposed to posturing left. There are poseurs and doers. I am a doer."
    Yet we find out from another article that he still has a CND membership card in his wallet, next to his heart. Is he a member of CND or is he just a poseur? If the Secretary of State wishes to intervene to clarify that, I shall be more than happy to give way. Is he still a member of CND?
    Peter Hain indicated assent.
    Mr. Evans: The right hon. Gentleman is still a member of CND, so he is not a poseur. That probably makes him unique among his fellow Cabinet members—apart from one, about whom we have heard much in

    335
    recent days. I am staggered that the right hon. Gentleman acknowledges that, but at least we have put it on the record.
    Mr. Bercow: Given that in this debate we are concerned about the interests of the people of Wales, would they not be intensely disturbed to discover that they are represented by a Secretary of State for Wales who remains a member of an organisation whose initials, CND, were memorably described by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) as standing for communist, neutralist and defeatist?
    Mr. Evans: The Prime Minister himself might be staggered to find out that his Secretary of State for Wales is still a card-carrying member of CND. After all, the Prime Minister let his membership lapse a long time ago, when he thought it was convenient. Membership may not be the most career-enhancing move.
    Peter Hain: This is old news. The Tory Front Bench came up with this dramatic discovery a couple of years ago and made a fuss about it. I do not intend to withdraw my membership from Wales CND, to which I pay £15 a year, just because the hon. Gentleman gets up and has a rant about it.
    Mr. Evans: Many others will have a rant about it after today.
    Mr. Llwyd: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) has taken 42 minutes so far, whereas some of us are restricted to 14 minutes. That is an abuse, especially when the hon. Gentleman is talking about matters such as membership of CND, which has nothing to do with the debate in hand. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The Chair has no control over the length of Front-Bench speeches—nor their content, unless they go out of order. Nothing out of order has occurred so far.
    Mr. Evans: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The record will show how many interventions I have taken, which I have been happy to do. I am coming towards the end of my contribution—[Interruption.] That usually brings a cheer—possibly the only cheer during my speech.
    The Secretary of State was quoted as saying that he was absolutely certain that his No. 1 task in Wales was Wales, and that when he had some hours left, he would do some work on the Convention on the Future of Europe. That explains why the Convention has gone pear-shaped for us. Both jobs are important. The Convention needs 100 per cent. attention, not divided time and divided loyalties.
    One newspaper headline states, over an article by the Secretary of State, "The people of Wales must decide where the nation belongs in a future Europe". Now is the time for the Secretary of State for Wales to decide where his future lies—in looking after Wales or in looking after Europe. So much is at stake in Wales, and so much has already been lost.
    336
    Let us help our businesses make profits and make sure that they are fairly taxed and the taxes are efficiently spent. The Government, both in Cardiff and in Westminster, are heaping extra taxes and extra regulations on our businesses and taxing the people by stealth at every turn, and the money raised is not getting through to the people in improved services.
    "The key is to root out unnecessary administrative cost, and to spend money on the right things-frontline care."
    Those are not my words; they are the words of the Prime Minister in the Labour party manifesto of 1997. That was six years ago. The words were right then, but sadly, that has never been delivered. People pay the extra taxes and receive poorer services. Businesses are taxed to the hilt and tied up in extra red tape. People working in the public services are fed up with huge extra bureaucracy and overload in their work. They are all saying the same thing: enough is enough. It is time for the Government finally to listen to the people.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that there is a 14-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches from here on.
    3.7 pm
    Mrs. Jackie Lawrence: The only comment that I will make about the contribution from the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) is that it clearly demonstrates why the Tories have no Members of Parliament in Wales. An extra 54,000 public appointments is a sign of investment, not of waste. Until the Opposition learn that lesson, I hope that they will have no parliamentary representation in Wales.
    I turn to parochial issues relating to Pembrokeshire that have national implications for Wales. There are two projects currently under way in Pembrokeshire that are vital to our local economy and which can bring tremendous benefits to the whole of Wales. The first is the plans of Petroplus for a liquid natural gas importation terminal in west Wales, and the second is the Bluestones project, which has been proposed as a unique top-quality tourist project in west Wales.
    Those are important to our area, first and foremost because of the jobs and opportunities in the locality. Petroplus will also put Wales in the forefront of UK energy infrastructure. Bluestones will create and support 600 direct—and potentially 400 indirect—jobs in the tourism industry locally, and also help Wales to meet national Welsh criteria for quality tourism.
    I want to refer back for a moment to Pembrokeshire in 1997. In some areas of my constituency, we had a legacy of unemployment affecting two or three generations in individual families. In Milford Haven, male unemployment was 20 per cent. and there was an increasing reliance on declining industries. In the 1960s and 1970s, Pembrokeshire had five oil refineries; there are now only two. There is little diversification in the local economy, which relies almost entirely on agriculture, tourism and the oil-related industries around Milford Haven waterway.
    We have had our share of disappointments since 1997. In respect of ITV Digital, 868 full-time equivalent jobs were created and lost. Let us face it—who would

    337
    have thought that ITV would run into the sort of problems that it encountered? It was seen as a blue-chip company that was bringing wealth to our area.
    What happened in the clothing industry and with regard to Dewhirst in the north was a classic example of an industry walking away from its loyal work force. I took representatives of Dewhirst's management to meet Rhodri, the First Minister, and he and the Assembly promised to give every bit of help they could to Dewhirst in overcoming its problems and in diversifying just as Laura Ashley did. Laura Ashley has now become more successful than it ever was when it sold only women's clothing. However, the Dewhirst management, who did not even tell me about their decision to close the Fishguard site until the announcement had been made publicly, simply walked away from their commitment to an area with a low-wage economy to maximize their profits.
    Despite our disappointments, it is interesting to note that between April 1997 and January 2003, there has been an overall fall in unemployment in my constituency of 37.7 per cent. If we had not lost those ITV Digital jobs, the picture would be considerably better. Youth unemployment has fallen by 80 per cent. and long-term unemployment by 75 per cent. However, Labour's goal is full employment, which is why the two projects to which I initially referred are especially important for my area.
    When Chevron ceased trading, Petroplus, a small Dutch company, bought the site for storage only and not for refining. The irony is that Pembrokeshire has always thought of itself as an isolated area. For Petroplus, which is involved in the storage and distribution of oil, the area was central. It was amusing that its perception was completely different from ours, and we must build on that.
    We have recently seen a review of security of supplies and energy culminating in the energy White Paper. Across the board, an assortment of predictions has been made about when the UK will become a net importer of gas. Some have said that that will happen in about 14 years, others that it could happen as early as 2005–06. Currently, interconnectors on the east coast of the UK provide our gas, but security of supply issues are important, with the liberalisation of other European gas markets still some way off. Security of the supply from Russia and Norway, which has had problems in recent months, is an important issue.
    The establishment of a liquified natural gas terminal on the west coast will allow supplies of LNG to be imported by vessel from other locations in the world. Pembrokeshire has the expertise to deal with that industry after 30 years in the oil industry. The site is one of the very few UK deep-water ports that allows good access to even the largest vessels, and planning consent was granted in February by Pembrokeshire county council. There is still some way to go and the process has not ended, as it is subject to IPPC—integrated pollution prevention and control—authorisation and to COMAH—control of major accident hazard—safety assessment.
    The development offers much to our locality and Wales as a whole. It will provide only limited jobs in our area, but the most important thing is that it will put
    338
    Wales at the beginning of a high-pressure gas pipeline, rather than at the end, as at present. It will provide security of gas supply for Wales in a changing global scene and sustain existing refinery businesses by providing a reliable supply of competitive fuel. Local industry has been crying out for years for a high-pressure gas line. The line currently finishes at Swansea, 70 miles away. The development will be a tremendous boost for existing industry and a magnet for new investment.
    The Secretary of State has given his support in principle and the project has passed the first hurdle, but my concern, which is shared by many people, including those in the company itself, is that unless Transco meets the challenges and time scale demanded by the project and the pipeline, we could lose out on this valuable infrastructure project for Wales as a whole. I ask him to do all that he can to ensure that Transco does not drag its heels and jeopardise the project.
    The second project, Bluestones, is located over the border from my constituency in that of my hon. Friend the Member for West Carmarthen and South Pembrokeshire (Mr. Ainger). It has tremendous implications for my area because of the job opportunities that it offers. It is very much a new-generation tourism project and offers the opportunity to turn seasonal part-time jobs into full-time year-round employment. The development straddles the border between the national park and the county council, so planning responsibility lies with both those authorities, which are currently considering the matter.
    I should like to mention national park purposes and duties. Unfortunately, there is a perception and a public rumour circulating in our county that the national park is determined to block the project. I sincerely hope that that is not true and I have every confidence and faith in the national park officer, Nic Wheeler, to ensure that the process is carried through correctly and as quickly as possible.
    We must remember, however, that the principles of the national parks are to conserve and enhance their natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage and to promote opportunities for the public understanding and enjoyment of their special qualities. Those are the national parks' two primary purposes, but they also have duties. They have a statutory duty to seek to foster the economic and social well-being of their local communities in ways that are compatible with their pursuit of national park purposes. They should also have regard to the principles of sustainable development. In formulating policies for the administration and management of the parks, they must have in mind the wide range of interests that can be affected by their decisions.
    Those responsible for the parks have a distinct duty of stewardship, but at the same time, they must recognise that the parks are a living and working environment for the people who live there. That is essential if they are to remain vibrant areas and not lapse into purely rural theme parks. The Government's creation of the sustainable development fund, which involves some new work for the parks, is a very positive move that demonstrates that the parks are taking on board those issues.

    339
    I ask both the national park and the local council to recognise the need to undertake their statutory duties without any unnecessary delays. As I said, in Pembrokeshire, the public perception is that there are commercial considerations and we do not want the authorities to be seen to hold back those processes and threaten the project. That would be a tragedy for Pembrokeshire and Wales as a whole, because of the 1,000 jobs that could emanate from the project and the services that would be available to local people as well as tourists. Given that the Carbon Trust, Ethical Pembrokeshire and other organisations are involved in seeking to ensure that the development proceeds in the most sustainable manner with the smallest footprint on the environment, any failure to proceed would be a tragedy. I also firmly believe that the project is an opportunity to create a top-quality tourist venture that abides by sustainable principles and could become a model not only for the whole of Wales, but for the whole UK. We must Capitalise on that opportunity.
    The Wales Tourist Board has identified seven main points that give priority to projects. Bluestones clearly matches every one of those targets by providing a strong competitive advantage for Welsh tourism, enhancing quality and service, extending the season and profitability, providing full-time job opportunities, demonstrating sound business planning, enhancing the environment and supporting Welsh culture.
    The project offers opportunities for the national park to bring more people to appreciate the value of national park areas. I fear that if we do not take the wider vision, and if there is a blinkered vision among local communities and individuals, we could miss a tremendous opportunity for our community and for Wales in terms of the importance of the tourist industry as a whole.
    I can best demonstrate that by giving two short examples. Oakwood, upon which the scheme is based, is a leisure park in Pembrokeshire that attracts daily visitors. It is, as its name suggests, primary oak woodland that is very valuable environmentally. The presence of Oakwood park has preserved that woodland, which, given the difficulties that farming is experiencing, could have faced being cut down.
    My second little story was told to me by a former colleague in this House who is involved with the Forestry Commission. He happened to mention that he had been approached by a very sound environmental group about diminishing the amount of Sitka spruce in Northumberland and replacing it with mixed deciduous woodland. On the face of it, that appeared to be sensible and logical until it was pointed out that it could destroy 80 per cent. of the UK's red squirrel population. Although deciduous mixed woodland might seem preferable, it can support the grey squirrel, which would chase out the red squirrel. Environmental matters are not always straightforward; they can be much more complex than they seem to be.
    I urge the Secretary of State on every level to support both projects because of the individual benefits that they can bring to my constituency and the tremendous opportunities that they offer to Wales.
    3.21 pm
    Lembit Öpik: First, I emphatically agree with the Secretary of State for Wales, who said how delighted he is to see Welsh celebrities doing so well in the media. Things are going very well for Wales in that regard; I also speak in a personal capacity.
    The St. David's day debate is always a great opportunity for hon. Members to remind ourselves of the vision of Wales with which most of us would agree. Our debates in the Chamber are inevitably partisan to some extent, but they do not diverge significantly in terms of the kind of Wales that we all feel we have been elected to try to achieve. It is a Wales that is economically, culturally and socially successful; where low unemployment is achieved, but not at the cost of unreasonably low wages; where there is a strong and confident culture that does not depend on the crutches of racism or exclusion; and where social diversity is humorous, lively, fresh-minded and experimental, as well as deep-thinking, wise and internally confident of its national identity. It is a Wales where the political structures are set not to rule the electors, but to serve them; where ideas are stronger than factionalism; where credit is given where it is due; and, crucially, where the public feel that those in politics know how to use the structures in the best interests of the people whom we are elected to serve. None of that is controversial, but we sometimes get so obsessed with arguing about the different process proposals that the parties make that we take our eye off the ball.
    A classic example of a dark age for Wales was the period between 1999 and 2000 when, in the first 18 months of the Welsh Assembly, there was little better than feudalism—a moribund system in which the party politics of the situation seemed to obscure the opportunity for a strategic programme for government. Then, in October 2000, the political sun rose and a new dawn arrived as the Liberal Democrats finally decided that it was time to enable the Labour party to free itself of its Westminster shackles and to create some stability in Welsh politics The seminal watershed in the effectiveness of the Welsh Assembly occurred when the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party took the mutual risk of attempting a partnership—a shared programme for government—that was intended to deliver outcomes rather than merely political stress between the parties.
    Llew Smith: I want to make a correction. The Labour party did not take the decision to go into coalition; the respective leaderships took that decision. I assume that the party would have opposed it.
    Lembit Öpik: I understand the bitterness experienced by the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, he might consider joining the Welsh. Liberal Democrats. As he will immediately remember, the Welsh Liberal Democrats put the partnership proposal to a full party conference in Wales, where it was voted on.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: How many people were there?
    Lembit Öpik: It was very well attended. [Interruption.] I am delighted to see the enthusiasm that Welsh Liberal Democrat processes spontaneously generate among nationalist and Labour Members.

    341
    Following the positive decision by the Welsh Liberal Democrats as a party to attempt to achieve that stability for Wales, profoundly important progress has been made. It was Lloyd George who said that the greatest eloquence is that which gets things done. I am fairly confident that, in our quieter and less confrontational moments, as we reflect on the achievements of Mike German and his team, we all accept that the whole has been greater than the sum of its parts in that partnership.
    Sadly, the Secretary of State seems to have left, no doubt to congratulate Mike German on his achievements. It was frustrating to hear him imply—not even imply, but explicitly claim—that all the results delivered by the Welsh Assembly Government in the past two and a half years were a direct consequence of Labour party policy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] If Labour Members—in many cases, I like to think of them as Labour friends—are willing to believe that, they need to compare the 2001 and 1997 Labour party manifestos with what appeared in the partnership agreement. They will find that the Welsh Liberal Democrat manifesto made a significant contribution in that regard. One example is the introduction of Assembly learning grants to higher education and further education students.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): The hon. Gentleman talks of the new dawn after his party came into coalition in the Assembly, but does he recall that, until the creation of that coalition, his party, like the Tories and the nationalists, pursued wrecking tactics in the Assembly? By pursuing their own party advantage, they put our fledgling Assembly at risk.
    Lembit Öpik: Although the Minister insists on making a partisan point when I was trying to make cross-party observations, I shall endeavour to draw a jewel from the mud of his intervention. I agree with his implication: all parties found it difficult to play a constructive role in the Assembly. The advent of the partnership agreement between the Welsh Liberal Democrats and the Labour party enabled the Conservative party and Plaid Cymru to settle their focus on outcomes. I shall be interested to hear what other Members think about that.
    Few deny that there was a lack of stability or that there were huge internal pressures in the Labour party. Surely, we can all agree that the improved stability that resulted from the decision of two parties to form a partnership Government has been advantageous to the interests not only of all four parties but of the Welsh public.
    Mr. Llwyd: To return to the Minister's intervention, it was in fact the Labour party that ditched the First Minister—nobody else. That is why there was confusion and difficulty during the first few months.
    Lembit Öpik: The hon. Gentleman is correct to highlight the fact that there was great pressure, which was widely acknowledged, in the Labour party as it
    342
    struggled to form an independent Administration. Ultimately, the project was not successful and the partnership came into being.
    There have been many successes in the Welsh Assembly Government. I have already referred to the learning grant arrangement for higher and further education students. This is the first time that the binary divide between further and higher education students has been breached, which is tremendously important news for people who believe that lifelong learning requires sensible funding.
    The Secretary of State talked of the increased number of doctors and nurses. That was one of the important early steps taken by the partnership to address some of the serious health difficulties, including the under-provision that was a direct consequence of underfunding since 1979 under successive Conservative and Labour Administrations.
    Few deny the importance of free school milk for children at key stage 1, a proposal that was explicitly promoted by Mick Bates, the Assembly Member for Montgomeryshire, who just happens to be a Welsh Liberal Democrat. There are other successes: free prescriptions for the under-25s; free dental checks for the old and young; and free personal care for up to six weeks after diagnosis. Crucially, prescription charges have been frozen, while they continue to rise in England; I imagine that, for residents of England, they will be going up again from April. There are 700 new teachers and many other proposals.
    I do not suggest that everything in the list of the Assembly's achievements came about because of the Welsh Liberal Democrats. However, if we are serious about the new politics of Wales, it is incumbent on our partners in government—the Labour party—to acknowledge that the Welsh Liberal Democrats have tried to play a constructive role, and that many of those achievements are a direct consequence of Welsh Liberal Democrat promises to the people of Wales, which, to the credit of the Labour party, it has enabled us to implement.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: The hon. Gentleman mentioned several important innovations made by the National Assembly. Can he tell us whether any of them were opposed by Plaid Cymru? Can he tell us which of them was not in Plaid Cymru's manifesto, or indeed that of the Labour party? Does he realize that Labour Members would drop the much-vaunted partnership on which he relies as quickly as they could if only they could get a majority in the Assembly—[Interruption.] They agree with me.
    Lembit Öpik: The Minister resists that acknowledgement except for a wry smile. Of course, other Members may be jealous of the power enjoyed by the Welsh Liberal Democrats in the Assembly, or perhaps they are showing humility or envy in the face of the enormous wisdom and maturity demonstrated by the Welsh Liberal Democrat-led Government in Cardiff.
    Mr. Roger Williams: Does my hon. Friend agree that the formation of the next Government in the Assembly is in the gift not of the Labour party but of the electorate? That is the important point.
    Lembit Öpik: I violently agree with my hon. Friend. However frustrating it may be for Members in this place, the decision will be made by the Welsh electorate. If there is no majority, the final decision on the future programme for government will be debated by Assembly Members and, I would hope, by the respective party conferences—although I suspect that will happen only if the Welsh Liberal Democrats do not actually win an overall majority. I would also go so far as to say that, on occasion, the stability that the partnership has brought has enabled Plaid Cymru and the Conservatives in Wales to come forward with some ideas of their own.
    Once again, the fact that some of the friction that existed in the early days of the Assembly has been lifted has enabled everyone in the Assembly to adopt a more external focus. That is to the benefit of all. Nevertheless, it prompts the question of whether we should seriously consider moving further primary legislative power to the Welsh Assembly. I do not want to dwell on that, but I believe that there is a strong case for devolving transport, further education and other powers to the Assembly, now that it has proved itself capable and manifestly desirous of exercising responsible government for the people of Wales. This all comes down to whether we believe that devolution is working. For an establishment that has been going for only four years—and has been operational in an effective sense for only two and a half—the Welsh Assembly has done extremely well.
    Looking ahead, we are about to have the elections, and much of what is said today will be tainted by that. However, it is important that we all recognise that, regardless of how the public in Wales vote, the Welsh Assembly does best when it focuses on outcomes. There will be a great opportunity to extend free personal care, further to cut junior class sizes to no more than 25, and to promote free access to sports centres for young people so as to promote health and fitness among youngsters and to reduce antisocial behaviour in young people. Those are some of the many opportunities that the Welsh Assembly has to diverge in its policy making from what goes on in Westminster. That brings me to an important point. As we see devolution take root, we see divergence in terms of local best practice—in this case, with regard to the three examples that I gave.
    I noted with great interest the comments of the Secretary of State for Wales on student funding. I see the potential for a dramatic rift in student funding policy between what happens in Westminster for English students and what happens in Wales for Welsh students. There has already been an improvement in access for many target groups in Scotland as a result of fairly progressive student funding arrangements introduced in the Scottish Parliament by the Scottish Liberal Democrats and the Labour party. If the Labour party achieved that idea independently, why has it not done it for the whole of England and Wales? Why have we had to wait for devolution?
    I suggest that one of the spin-off benefits of what has happened in Wales is that other party policies—for example, those of my own party, and occasionally those of Opposition parties—get more oxygen for their promotion, and can sometimes be passed on merit. Let none of us pretend, however, that if the Labour party had an overall majority in the Welsh Assembly and there
    344
    were no partnership, there would not be massively increased pressure on the Labour Administration in that environment to toe the party line from Westminster.
    While the first four years of Welsh Assembly government have been a learning process, in the next four years, we can really hit the ground running. There is great potential for the confidence of the Welsh Assembly Government to develop. The maturity of the established organisations and the flow lines of power make it possible for the Welsh Assembly to settle down and, crucially, for the relationship between Westminster Members, including the Lords, and Assembly Members based in Cardiff to become more relaxed and smooth-flowing. This is not a party political observation but something that I have noticed across all parties. If we are honest, I think that we have all felt that.
    There have been some teething troubles and frictions between parties, simply because the Welsh Assembly is new, and we have all had to rebalance the way in which we operate in the political environment that has ensued. Things have occasionally looked threatening to the Welsh Assembly, as the Welsh MPs have seemed unhappy about what it was doing, and vice versa. However, etiquettes have been established, and we increasingly recognise that working together, far from being a threat to the jurisdiction of either Westminster or the Assembly, results in better outcomes and right decisions at the right levels. Devolution is a process, and requires us progressively to give up more power as the Welsh Assembly develops and becomes more confident about the exercise of power.
    The focus of our debate should be positive, and I exhort hon. Members to consider another initiative that I hope is welcome from the Welsh Liberal Democrats—a campaign charter to try to improve the style of politics that we practise in Wales and, in the longer term, elsewhere. On previous occasions, I have said that I am not comfortable about embarking on negative campaigning and debates and, more than anything, running other parties down in a non-evidence-based way. Individual parties do not gain from that and, collectively, the body politic loses.
    Mr. Wayne David: Will the hon. Gentleman therefore publicly distance himself from the outrageous literature that his party produced in the Ogmore by-election?
    Lembit Öpik: The hon. Gentleman will know that I have often said that, although it can help an individual campaign in the short term, it does not help any party or politics in the medium to long-term to embark on unreasonable campaigning. We can debate those leaflets—I have looked at them and had debates about them. The hon. Gentleman is smart enough to realise that I am not going to conduct a witch hunt in my own party.
    Paul Flynn: Why not?
    Lembit Öpik: The answer is simple. I respectfully and humbly suggest to hon. Members that we cannot mandate people's attitude, but we can propose a way of looking at politics. Our campaign charter has seven points, which I shall not go through in detail.

    345
    Essentially, we focus on campaigning on positive records of delivery; positive policy proposals; and being willing to criticise other parties' weaknesses, but only where appropriate and in the context of party policy proposals. The charter says:
    "We will, on no account, comment or encourage comment on the personal lives of politicians … We will campaign honestly and fairly so that we can justify our statements"
    and back them up with facts. The charter continues:
    "We will seek to engage people in the political process through argument, issue and comparison … We will work with people from political parties and none when we share objectives and interests."
    None of that is very radical, and it would be a shame if any Westminster Member felt that it was an inappropriate form of campaigning.
    Mr. Llwyd: The hon. Gentleman spoke about the Ogmore by-election, which was held during his tenure as Liberal Democrat spokesman on Welsh affairs. It therefore behoves him and any other leader to ensure that that kind of thing does not happen. I am sure that we all agree with the broad thrust of what he is saying. We do not want personalised politics, but first we must clean out our own stables.
    Lembit Öpik: I am making that very appeal to right hon. and hon. Members. It would be neither feasible nor appropriate for me to attempt to clean out the stables of the Labour party, the Conservative party or Plaid Cymru. Perhaps I can do something to achieve a new style of politics among Welsh Liberal Democrats—we will find out. I am making not a mandate but a recommendation, and I urge hon. Members to bear it in mind. They do not have to respond to the charter today, but if they are interested in it they could quietly consider its content in their own time.
    We have written to the Conservative party, the Labour party and Plaid Cymru. I detected some scepticism in the responses of Nick Bourne and Ieuan Wyn Jones, but we all know that, at the end of the day, people who go into politics do so on the whole for the right reasons. It is a great shame that individuals are besmirched and dragged down in what, in my judgment, is a noble profession simply because we cannot resist cheap shots when it would be better to remain quiet.
    The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) laughs, which prompts me to do what I did not intend to do, and give an example. He will know that there has been some debate about the prospective Conservative candidate for Llanelli, who made what I consider outrageous homophobic and racist statements. I will not name him, but he says:
    "I would like to see Britain take a stronger line on 'normalising' incomers … deplore the way Britain subscribes to every damn 'human rights' act so strictly … I cannot convince myself of anything other than homosexuality being a medical mental condition … they need medical attention."
    There is no doubt whatever that the person who said that was a prospective Conservative candidate for Llanelli. If one intended to be cynical or opportunist one could give the impression that the entire Conservative party held those views, but I think that would be inappropriate, because I do not seriously believe that
    346
    even the majority of Conservatives hold them—and, although the hon. Member for Leominster may not know this, I understand that the Conservative party in Wales, to its credit, has taken swift action and fired the candidate.
    That is a practical example of what I am talking about. Any attempt to gain mileage from those views would rebound negatively on politics as a whole.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: Why did the hon. Gentleman quote them, then?
    Lembit Öpik: Because they constitute just one of many possible hostages to fortune that do not reflect the thrust of, in this case, Conservative party policy—although the same could apply to other parties.
    Let me end with a request. Members find it hard to resist poking fun at my continued idealism in raising the game of politics. I hope that, in a quiet and perhaps less charged environment, they will consider whether they would be willing to give it a chance, and see whether we can clean up politics. The ultimate winner would be politics as a whole, and we would be able to focus on outcomes rather than process.
    That said, the Welsh Liberal Democrats are here to get things done. We do not pretend to have a monopoly on good ideas, and we are willing to work with those who can add value to our views—even members of other parties. We regard politics not as an end in itself, but as a means to an end. We do not necessarily consider it to be a conflict; we see it as a competition rather than a war.
    I hope that those who feel comfortable about occasionally stepping out of the tired old box of politics that runs us all down will find some resonance in what I have said. Most of all, I hope that the Welsh public—the people who elected us to serve them—find some resonance in the fact that one party is genuinely willing to step outside the negativity that has sometimes bedevilled campaigning, is willing to risk working in partnership to achieve results as we have in the Welsh Assembly, and is trying to live out the creed of Lloyd George himself and get things done. If they do, I hope they will consider supporting us in the forthcoming elections.

    DEFERRED DIVISION
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I have now to announce the result of the Division deferred from a previous day.
    On the Question of social security, the Ayes were 279, the Noes 58, so the Question was agreed to.
    [The Division Lists are published at the end of today's debates.]
    3.48 pm
    Denzil Davies: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was right to mention the growth in the Welsh economy that has taken place during the last five or six years. He was also right to mention the dramatic fall in unemployment that has occurred in most of our constituencies. In Llanelli it is now half the level in Germany, and I suspect that the same applies in many if not most constituencies.

    347
    My right hon. Friend was courageous to point out that economies in the euro area are in a much worse state. I believe that when he was a full-time Foreign Office Minister he used to travel around Wales extolling the virtues of the euro; but the Welsh, being sensible people, did not really listen.
    We have better growth than the euro area partly—perhaps wholly—because of the Government's policies and the sensible economic policies of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, we have not solved all of Wales's economic problems, and no one believes that we have done so. We cannot solve in a short time the problems of a country whose infrastructure was built up over 100 years, but practically disappeared within 10 years; however, a good start has been made. We were told during the Assembly elections that it was to be an economic powerhouse. Without wishing to show any disrespect to it, that was one of the more exaggerated statements that were made. Sadly, these days no Government can be an economic powerhouse, given the global economy, the constant pressure on costs and the movement of industry to low-cost areas. It is far more difficult than it was in the 1940s or 1950s for a Government to interfere or intervene, in order to rebuild an economy such as Wales's; however, a good start has been made.
    On the other hand, we should not fool ourselves: Wales is still one of the poorer areas of Britain. Some four or five years ago, I looked at budget figures showing the income raised and expenditure spent in Wales. Those figures will have changed, but I doubt whether the underlying position will have changed very much. On taking a percentage of the gross domestic product from those figures, the difference between income raised and expenditure spent—the Maastricht-type deficit-was 15 per cent. One does not have to be a slavish follower of balanced budgets or of the growth and stability pact to know that Wales on its own—I am not making a political point—simply could not finance or sustain a deficit of 15 per cent. It saddens me, as it undoubtedly saddens most of us, to note that according to the figures, Wales still has such a substantial deficit. One priority for the future should be to try to increase the wealth generated in Wales, and thereby to try to fund more of our public expenditure within Wales.
    There are those who want to change the Barnett formula. I have no objection to that, although I have yet to see any positive alternatives. I suspect that those who want to change it are looking to obtain more money for Wales—I doubt whether they would be very happy if a new formula produced less money—but were we so to change it, the 15 per cent. deficit would undoubtedly increase. In the past four or five years, public expenditure in Wales has probably grown by between 4 and 5 per cent.; in the next few years, it will certainly grow by that amount. The economy is growing by 2 to 2.5 per cent, so I suspect that current figures would show that the deficit is even higher than 15 per cent. I am not saying that that should not be the case, but that is the reality of the position in Wales. We could use that as the benchmark in examining the progress of the Welsh economy, in order to establish whether it is improving.
    Leaving aside the economic consequences of such a deficit, there are also constitutional consequences. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) mentioned increasing the powers of the Welsh
    348
    Assembly. In looking at that issue—as the Richard commission is—we must also consider the financing behind it, because in effect, there would be a considerable democratic deficit. If we transfer more power from this Parliament to the Assembly in Cardiff bay, it will spend more money but we will have no control over how it is spent. Yet much of the money that will be spent in Cardiff bay is raised not in Wales, but by taxpayers in other parts of the United Kingdom, and although Members such as I represent Welsh constituencies, we represent those people as well. I doubt whether it would benefit Wales to have such a total dependency culture. Nor would it benefit democracy if we in this House, who have to vote on the use of other people's money, were not to be consulted at all, and the money were simply transferred.
    I hope that the Richard commission will take that into account. I am not suggesting that one cannot change various anomalies, but major transfers of power from this House to the Welsh Assembly must take account of the economic democratic deficit that would be created because Wales does not raise enough money to finance public expenditure.
    The main consequence of that deficit is that we must make every effort to increase wealth in Wales so as to produce more income to pay for our infrastructure. That is not easy: we are an economy that depends heavily on public expenditure. I am not proposing cuts in that expenditure, as we have to have it, but the growth in public expenditure in the past few years has probably been greater than the growth of the economy. Expenditure on health and education has grown, but the growth in welfare expenditure—such as income support, housing benefit and the working families tax credit—reflects the relative poverty of the Welsh economy.
    We all welcome the working families tax credit. It is needed in Wales, which has a low income base. However, it subsidises our fairly low wages, and I do not believe that it is sustainable in the medium or long term. Governments sometimes have to retrench. Recessions happen, not necessarily for internal reasons. An economy that is so dependent on what may be called subvention payments, however necessary, does not promise to be sustainable in the future.
    I hope that we do not get carried away with the growth that has been achieved. I am sure that we will not. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was right to point out the successes, but we need more companies in Wales that make more money and create wealth. Of course, we need the public expenditure as well, but on its own that will not provide the wealth creation that the market sometimes can produce.
    One area of growth in the Welsh economy is quangoland. We have quangos, executive agencies, non-governmental public bodies and governmental public bodies, although all of them exist throughout Britain, not just in Wales. We also have a strange entity that I find difficult to understand—the not-for-profit company. I am sure that other hon. Members receive in their mail from time to time glossy sheets of paper describing the creation of another new not-for-profit company. Such sheets usually have lots of logos at the bottom, saying that the new not-for-profit company is in partnership with lots of other such companies.

    349
    I am not sure what not-for-profit companies do. I do not know whether they spend their money wisely, and I am not sure about their accountability, but the not-for-profit company is a very post-modern, new-Labourish concept. What Wales needs is profit companies, not—and I hope that the House will excuse the double negative—not-for-profit ones.
    Still, not-for-profit companies exist, and no doubt some perform a useful function. However, they do not come on their own. I am told that they come with social entrepreneurs—another concept that I, in my old-fashioned way, find difficult to understand. I suppose that the social entrepreneur is another post-modern, new-Labourish concept. I suspect that many are more social than entrepreneurial, as they are receptacles for much Government money.
    There is no doubt that we must keep our eye on the growth of bureaucracy in Wales. We are a country that loves the committee, and the partnership fits into our culture nicely. We love to sit down and talk about such things, but we must be careful and remember the need for wealth creation.
    Whatever their faults, the mining industry, the steel industry and the manufacturing and farming sectors created wealth in Wales. Somehow or other, we must make sure that we get into the new wealth-creating industries and we should not believe that by distributing money to all the various bodies that I have described, we will, in the end, improve the basis on which the Welsh economy is built.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: The right hon. Gentleman makes a valid point about getting wealth-creating companies into Wales, but we must ensure that that wealth is not sucked out of Wales, as happened in the past. The right hon. Gentleman mentions mining, steel and farming, but the money from those sectors went out of Wales and into other institutions. The one valid job that we have—whether in an Assembly or a Parliament in Wales—is to ensure that that money is retained within the Welsh economy.
    Denzil Davies: I accept much of what the hon. Gentleman says. Much of the investment in mining, steel and iron was made by people who came from outside Wales; naturally, they took their dividends back to where they came from. It is certainly important that we try to generate local Welsh industries to produce the wealth to fund infrastructure and public expenditure. A good start has been made but we must not get carried away. There is much still to be done.
    4 pm
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I intend to talk about health and the economy. First, I refer Members to Labour's 1999 manifesto and the pledges therein. Many have said that those pledges were hostages to fortune—there were no ifs or buts—because they announced that by the end of the Assembly term, no one would wait more than six months for their first out-patient appointment. In 1999, the figure was 21,828; today it is 82,574. The manifesto said that no one would have to wait more than 18 months for in-patient treatment. In 1999, the figure was 2,197; it is now 4,715.
    350
    Targets are supposed to be attainable. The doubling or quadrupling of waiting lists is not acceptable, and breaking a promise to end waiting lists is not acceptable. It was probably not possible to meet the 1999 manifesto promise and, perhaps, it was misleading, but the increased waiting times are catastrophic failures, condemning thousands to wait in pain and misery. At last week's Prime Minister's Question Time, the Prime Minister proudly said that
    "we have a situation whereby there is not a single waiting list national indicator, in-patient or out-patient, that is not better than it was in 1997." —[Official Report, 5 March 2003; Vol. 400, c. 812.]
    He was talking about the situation in England.
    Waiting lists in the health service are not the only problem. The number of NHS beds has fallen every year since the Assembly came into being, a drop of about 300 over that period. There are fewer full-time GPs in Wales, with vacancies for 130. We need to train 200 a year to replace those who are retiring or leaving; currently the level is 120. Things are improving slowly and, with the new training facility at Swansea, I hope that they will improve further, but we are struggling against a strong tide of disaffected NHS workers.
    Albert Owen: The hon. Gentleman says that things are improving. Will he acknowledge that he is talking about an all-Wales situation and that, in north Wales, the situation is a lot better than in the rest of Wales? He is doing his and my constituents a disservice by talking down that area when they are working hard and providing excellent services in comparison with the rest of Wales.
    Mr. Llwyd: I am trying to speak on an all-Wales basis, as the hon. Gentleman said. I will not go into figures about north Wales because I am not utterly sure—
    Albert Owen: They are better.
    Mr. Llwyd: I accept that he says that there is an improvement.
    We in Plaid Cymru believe that health is as much about well-being as about illness; therefore, we need to have a revolution in the way we think about health. It follows that we cannot expect the Department of Health alone in Government to do all that is necessary for Wales to ensure that it is a healthy country. Health and social services are resources of the community and the community is a resource in terms of the aims of health and social services.
    I shall suggest some things that might happen after I May to improve the position. We should put in place retention and recruitment measures for health professionals, including nurses, dentists, GPs and consultants. We should end the current Government's target culture, which merely steers funds away from more long-term strategic planning and empowers the system operating over the patient in such a way that it perpetuates the vicious cycle of poor services.
    We should practise aggressive health promotion to prevent disease and illness and focus on primary care, since, of course, 90 per cent of care is delivered at this level. We need to direct strategy and funding towards community-based organisations and initiatives, including incorporation of the voluntary sector into

    351
    national administration and planning. Of course, we must urgently tackle the "inverse care law", which means that those who most need care are least likely, under the present circumstances, to have it.
    Julie Morgan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Llwyd: I am moving on to talk about the economy, and I regret that I will not take another intervention at this stage.
    The First Minster of the National Assembly was proud to boast in November last year that 33,000 jobs have been created in Wales since November 2001. That figure dropped by 8,000 to 25,000 when he was quoted a few days later in the The Western Mail. Be that as it may. In 1998, the average wage in Wales was 89 per cent. Of the UK average. I listened carefully to the Secretary of State, and agreed with much of what he said about the economy generally. Welsh workers, however, are getting 11 per cent. less than other workers in the UK. By the end of 2002, the level of their pay was worse: just 86 per cent. of the average. If we translate that into hard facts, a 3 per cent. decline has cost us about £100 a month each. If the First Minister's Government had kept things as they were, the average Welsh worker would be£25 a week better off. That is the true cost of this Government's current economic strategy.
    What of the 17,000 manufacturing jobs that have been lost in Wales since 1999? The true cost of that is seen in the appalling statistic that, unfortunately, a third of Welsh children now live below the poverty threshold, five years after the Labour Government said that that would be tackled properly. Labour still pretends to look after the socially inept and socially excluded, but voting Labour has an economic and social cost. The gap between the rich and poor in Britain is widening. Welsh gross domestic product figures show that, per capita, the current figure of 82 per cent. of the European average is likely to drop even further during the next few years.
    The Welsh Assembly Government have based their economic targets almost entirely on narrowing the gap in economic prosperity between Wales and the rest of the UK. The Chancellor refuses to acknowledge the regional need, and refuses full Treasury match funding under objective 1. I know that there have been arguments in the past about that, and there will undoubtedly be arguments about it in future. The hard fact, however, which anyone in any political party in the National Assembly will admit, is that full match funding is not occurring. We are not drawing down sufficient money, and we are not taking advantage of objective 1 as we could do.
    That means that Wales is forced to find from its own finances-the health, education and social services budget-about £100 million a year to finance objective 1. There is neither match funding for objective 1 from the Treasury nor operating aids as an additional tool that would stimulate business growth in objective 1 areas. Despite the constant boasting, nothing has transpired from the current co-operation between London Labour and Cardiff Labour. The Westminster Labour Government continue to ignore the needs of Wales, as did previous Tory Governments. To rub salt in the wound, it is the Welsh Labour Government who
    352
    reject a regional economic policy in Wales. There are neither regional direction nor regional employment targets.
    The main aim of objective 1 and "A Winning Wales" is to increase comparative levels of GDP. No official statistics are available for Wales since 1999, however, which is disgraceful. That suits London Labour, of course, because the regional GDP figures remind everyone of the inequalities in the UK economy. It also suits the objective of Cardiff Labour, because every independent report indicates that, in spite of objective 1 status, the gap is widening between Wales's GDP per capita and that of the rest of the UK, and that the coalition has failed to change that.
    The Chancellor was a strong supporter of the regions, and he probably still is. When he was in opposition, he regularly and tirelessly requested information about regional selective assistance from the Conservative Government. Unfortunately, that is no longer any concern of his. Payouts in 1997–98, when Labour came to power, were £295 million, two and a half times the estimated figure for 2002£03. The share of regionally targeted business support won by Scotland and Wales has fallen sharply in the past 10 years.
    Before somebody asks what can be done, I suggest—in the cross-party way in which the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) always deals with such matters—the following points for consideration. Plaid Cymru believes that we should create seven economic regions in Wales, more appropriately reflecting the economic and social patterns, and develop a sustainable economic development strategy in each region, together with set job targets. Within each region, we should identify special development centres that will provide the focus for economic growth in the area. That should give people quality job opportunities, provide social infrastructure and help to stem the outflow of young people. They frequently end up in Cardiff, which is that city's gain but the rural areas lose out.
    Albert Owen: The hon. Gentleman mentions a difference between London Labour and Cardiff Labour, but is there not a difference between London Plaid Cymru and Cardiff Plaid Cymru? The hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price), who is not in his place, proposed that we move the capital of the United Kingdom to Liverpool. Is the hon. Gentleman proposing that we should move the capital city of Wales to Caergybi or Anglesey?
    Mr. Llwyd: The hon. Gentleman knows that the comments made by my hon. Friend were not serious. If the hon. Gentleman had taken enough of an interest to read my hon. Friend's point in context, he might have understood it. As usual, he was not there for the debate, but if he had been he might have understood the point.
    Our vision is of creating some major counterpoints in Wales to provide a magnet effect for industry and to kick-start the economy in all parts of Wales. Some of us who have been here a while remember the arguments with the Welsh Development Agency and the need to shift inward investment from the south-east corridor and the north-east to west Wales and the rural areas. I am sure that the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) would agree with the need to do that, especially

    353
    since the Development Board for Rural Wales has gone. Policies were amended and people said, "Yes, it will be done, it is now part of our policy and half the moneys and half the effort will be put into those areas." Precious little effort was put in. It was far too easy, for example, for somebody behind a desk in the WDA to say, for example, "There are 4,000 unemployed within travelling distance of Newport. Let's get the semi-conductor plant in and soak up 3,000 jobs immediately." That is good luck for Newport, but bad luck for the rest of Wales. In one stroke, that person would achieve his or her targets for the next 18 months. That happens too often. We need to look strategically at the needs of the whole of Wales, not just some sectors of it.
    We should set up in the Assembly a jobs unit that would take over the strategic and policy-making roles of the WDA and ELWa—Education and Learning Wales. The latter is greatly discredited and I wonder what job it is doing at the moment. The jobs unit would identify areas and sectors of potential economic growth in each regions and set targets for job creation. We need to improve access to finance for businesses that will boost the Welsh economy—not just large amounts of finance, but smaller amounts as well. The problem with the current regime is that if someone wants a small loan from the WDA, it is not interested. The loans have to be big. Some 90 per cent. of businesses in Wales are in the small and medium sector: they do not want several million pounds but £10,000 or £20,000. That does not interest the people at WDA, and that is not good enough. We need to cater for everyone in the business sector. It is important to focus on home-grown, Wales-based businesses, so that we can provide the maximum benefit for the Welsh economy.
    We need to identify businesses with high growth potential and focus specialist funding on them so as to create a base of 10 to 20 fast-growing Welsh companies. I agree with the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies) on that point. Wales has one listed company per 130,000 people, but Scotland, for example, has one for every 30,000 people. Scotland is doing considerably better. We need to identify high-growth sectors and to focus resources more effectively on developing businesses within those sectors. I am thinking of businesses in optoelectronics and auto electronics, high-quality food, renewable energy and sustainable tourism—for all of which Wales is well placed.
    We need to get objective 1 funding back on track, cut the length of time for applications, cut the numbers of committees and partnerships, and get the thing moving, encouraging local firms to gain more and more public sector contracts. Hat could add £3 billion to the Welsh economy. We have to unlock the potential of the south Wales valleys and create a specific strategy for infrastructure, communications and environmental improvements to develop the valleys as an area of polycentric growth. We need to keep pushing for operating aids, which have been promised but not delivered by the Welsh Assembly Government. We will fight for Wales to receive the maximum possible operating aids to stimulate growth in indigenous businesses.
    354
    The unemployment situation in Wales has improved—it would be wrong of me to deny that—but much needs to be done. The figures for gross domestic product show that we are still slipping behind. The right hon. Member for Llanelli highlighted many things that have still to be done. It behoves us all to strive to close the gap so that no longer will we be the poor relations of the United Kingdom. One way of doing that will be to elect a Plaid Cymru Administration in Cardiff in May. At this moment, that seems extremely likely.
    4.16 pm
    Mr. Martyn Jones: I apologise to right hon. and hon. Members for not being here for the opening speeches. This debate was changed from last week to this week, and I wrote to Mr. Speaker to point out that I was a Privy Council appointee to the disciplinary committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons—it was a quasi-judicial meeting that I was not able to leave.
    I shall raise several issues, all of which are of great importance to Wales. I want to address the important principle of this House discussing more draft legislation for Wales. As Chairman of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, I believe that our Committee has some experience of those matters. I want to tell the House about some of the advantages that would derive from an extension to our discussions of primary legislation for Wales. As right hon. and hon. Members will know, the Health (Wales) Bill was an excellent start to the concept of draft legislation for Wales. The Welsh Affairs Committee was charged with providing the main pre-legislative scrutiny on behalf of this House. Even though I say it myself, the Committee did a good job of fulfilling the obligations set by the Government.
    I pay tribute to the Health and Social Services Committee of the devolved National Assembly for Wales, which mirrored our responsibilities. All in all, the process was a huge success. It proved that Cardiff and Westminster can work in tandem in the interests of Wales and for the benefit of Wales. That is why more draft legislation would be welcome. The Welsh Affairs Committee greatly welcomed the chance to lead on the draft Health (Wales) Bill and now looks forward to fulfilling the same task on other draft bills.
    In anticipation of the Government heeding my call, I would like to raise an issue that I have raised with the Serjeant at Arms in recent months, and will continue to press for. I would like this House to enter into a reciprocal arrangement with the National Assembly for Wales so that Members of both the Parliament and the Assembly may have security passes allowing them access to each other's buildings. Members may be interested to know that I and members of my Committee have security passes that allow us to gain access to the Assembly building in Cardiff. That came about because we spent a lot of time in the Assembly, taking evidence, meeting with Members and attending Committees. It makes excellent sense for MPs to have passes. Unfortunately, however, we cannot return the favour to Assembly Members. I find that very embarrassing. I am asking for a change not just as a reciprocal courtesy or a nicety, but as a practical convenience for Members of the Assembly who regularly visit this House on formal business. I look forward to the Secretary of State taking up this issue

    355
    with the House authorities on behalf of Welsh Assembly Members. It is more than just a gesture; it is rapidly becoming a practical necessity. I look forward to a positive outcome.

    I should like to give a brief outline of an element of work undertaken by the Welsh Affairs Committee that is not usually mentioned in the Chamber but, none the less, forms an important strand of scrutiny of the Executive by the House in respect of Wales. I refer to my Committee's scrutiny of the Wales Office's annual departmental report. As hon. Members know, a core function of the Committee is to take evidence on the departmental report. Unfortunately, for the sake of this annual debate, the report is invariably published nearly 12 months too late. I assure the House, however, that my Committee takes evidence on matters contained in the report and questions the Secretary of State closely on matters as they affect Wales.
    For example, following the publication of last year's report, the then Secretary of State answered questions on Corus's restructuring of steel production in Wales. Sadly, that is a topical subject following the news that broke earlier this week. We also questioned him on how he monitored the potential impact on Wales of Bills introduced in the House. Other subjects included the Wales and Border rail franchise; post offices in Wales—both urban and rural; and the Welsh language scheme. As the House can see, they are all issues of great importance, and I look forward to the publication of the current Secretary of State's first report, which I hope we will receive in the not-too-distant future.
    It may surprise some of my hon. Friends if I offer thanks to a Welsh nationalist Member, the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams), who is sadly not in his place. I was recently successful in securing a Westminster Hall Adjournment debate on employment in north Wales in which the hon. Gentleman and I had an interesting exchange about call centre jobs in Caernarfon. To put it in a nutshell, he complained that his constituency was not attracting enough call centre jobs. I intervened in his speech helpfully to point out that that was probably because the call centre companies had commissioned market research and concluded that some regional accents are more user-friendly than others. The fact that there is only one call centre in Caernarfon has nothing to do with Government policy and more to do with what the companies that run call centres perceive to be acceptable. My Committee initially discovered the research when it took evidence in our investigation of inward investment in Wales.
    Interestingly, after the Westminster Hall debate the hon. Member for Caernarfon took it upon himself to rush out a press release to local newspapers castigating me for being less than generous about the Caernarfon accent and alleging that I had said that it was "second class". If he senses some reluctance on the part of inward investors to put their money into north-west Wales, I suggest to him in all sincerity—
    Mr. Llwyd: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has been here a long while, but evidently does not understand much about how this
    356
    place works. If he is going to attack my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams), should he not have given notice of that?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: It would certainly be in accordance with the conventions and etiquette of the House to give notice in advance if sharp, critical comments are to be made about another Member. No doubt, the hon. Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones) will consider his remarks in the light of that ruling.
    Mr. Jones: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for that ruling. I did not think I was making sharp comments about the hon. Member for Caernarfon; I was defending my position on the matter. The hon. Gentleman was in his place but left as I got up to speak, so I am embarrassed by his absence rather than by the fact that I was raising the matter. I had assumed that he would be here, but he has left the Chamber. I apologise for the fact that he did not know that I was about to mention him in my speech, but it is difficult for me to anticipate his movements.
    I was trying to point out that the reluctance of inward investors to put their money into north Wales had nothing to do with accents, but more to do with extremist members of Plaid Cymru and others—I do not include the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) in this—who espouse anti-incomer and anti-English views to their economic detriment.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: The hon. Gentleman said that he was not present for the opening speeches. Had he been present, he would have heard me intervene on the Secretary of State to point out that an independent review by the GMB judged the Plaid Cymru-controlled authority of Gwynedd, which I think is the area to which he is referring, as having the third or second best rate of economic development in the country. His calumnious words have no basis in fact whatsoever. He should know that a new call centre has just opened in Caernarfon selling books throughout the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We might try to steer the debate into calmer waters. Mr. Speaker accepted what the hon. Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones) told him about needing to be absent. Considering the hon. Gentleman's seniority and role in Welsh affairs, it was perfectly proper to call him at the time that he was called. He has said nothing in reference to hon. Members that I judged to be out of order, although I always appeal for moderation of language at any time.
    Mr. Jones: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    I find the intervention by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) rather strange. I was making the point that in my Westminster Hall debate, the hon. Member for Caernarfon did not acknowledge that there was a huge upturn in economic activity—in fact, he did precisely the opposite. I am sorry that he is not present, but he did not even acknowledge what the hon. Member for Ceredigion just confirmed. There has been a huge amount of economic investment, but it happened under the Labour Government. It was churlish of the hon. Member for Caernarfon not to do that because the debate was about economic development and unemployment in Wales.

    357
    Youth unemployment in Caernarfon has gone down by 89 per cent. Caernarfon has done better than my constituency, which has experienced a reduction of 85 per cent. Caernarfon's overall unemployment rate has gone down by 43 per cent., which is better than that of my constituency, which has gone down by 31 per cent. However, the hon. Member for Caernarfon implied that that was not good enough. He must accept that we have a right to find out why he thinks that things could be better.
    Mrs. Lawrence: What does my hon. Friend think about Plaid Cymru's alternative budget, published on 11 April 2002? It proposes abolishing the upper limit for national insurance contributions, restricting personal allowances to the standard rate, introducing a new 50 per cent. top rate on taxable income, and increasing the basic rate of income tax. Does he think that that will assist economic development in Wales generally?
    Mr. Jones: Obviously I do not think that it would, but the document implies that Plaid Cymru would tax the rest of the UK just to fund investment in Wales. Given the party's separatist agenda of splitting Wales from the UK, I doubt whether the UK Government would allow the input of £13 billion from the Exchequer to Wales. Plaid Cymru Members would spend their time better by persuading those in their back yards to let go of the 1930s attitude of the founder of Welsh nationalism, Saunders Lewis. He hated the English-peaking people of these islands and had regular con tact with Mussolini.
    Paul Flynn: Having been taught by Saunders Lewis—I think that I am one of the few people in the House who knew him—I recognise him as one of the greatest literary figures in Wales. He was a man of genius and vision, and such slurs are cheap and unworthy of my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Jones: I was talking not about Saunders Lewis's literary abilities but about his contact with nationalist movements in Europe. That has nothing to do with his writing, which I am sure is very good.
    On the antics of the nationalists, a headline in The Sunday Times of 2 March screamed at readers, "Rail union plans to ditch Labour and fund Plaid Cymru". The article went on to say:
    "Britain's biggest rail union is preparing to sever a century-old link with Labour".
    I shall not read it all because the story turned out to be absolute rubbish. I asked my office to contact the RMT last week about its intention to
    "ditch Labour and fund Plaid Cymru".
    The reply was most interesting. My office was told unequivocally:
    "It is complete codswallop! There is absolutely no substance to that story!"
    Albert Owen: Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?
    Mr. Jones: I am afraid that I cannot, as I am about to be cut off.
    358
    If the nationalists are mounting a charm offensive on the unions, they should not tell untruths about senior union leaders, especially two weeks before such leaders are due to speak at their conference at their invitation. If the nationalists wants to be seen as donning the mantle of the people's party in Wales, they clearly have a great deal to learn.
    4.30 pm
    Mr. Simon Thomas: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones), Chairman of the Welsh Affairs Committee. I am sure that he would be delighted to attend our conference on Saturday in Llangollen in his constituency, where he would hear for himself the words of the RMT leader, who could explain exactly his views on the future funding of the Labour party.
    Mr. Martyn Jones: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman so early in his speech. I am grateful to him for telling me that, because neither he nor any of his hon. Friends had told me that they were going to my constituency on that day. If he issues an invitation and he tells me where, I shall be delighted to welcome him to my constituency.
    Mr. Thomas: That was an invitation. I should be delighted to welcome the hon. Gentleman to the conference—despite the fact that that part of Llangollen will be Plaid Cymru territory for a short period. I am sure that he recognises that before Saturday there are still several days in which right hon. and hon. Members could have given him notice of their presence in the town.
    I am delighted to follow the hon. Gentleman not because of what he said, most of which was absolute rubbish, but because I want to talk about a feature of the work of the Welsh Affairs Committee. Hon. Members who have served in this House much longer than I—possibly including the hon. Gentleman—will remember that about 10 years ago the Committee conducted an investigation into planning policy in Ceredigion. As a result, for the past seven or eight years, planning decisions that are out of line with the county of Ceredigion's local plan have been referred latterly to the Welsh Assembly and previously to the Secretary of State. That is in recognition of Ceredigion county council's failure to uphold planning policy and to act in accordance with planning guidelines. In the next few minutes, I shall explain to the House that the situation has not improved since the Committee's report. Indeed, it is about to worsen considerably.
    The collusion cabinet in Ceredigion—I would not call it a coalition—led by the independents but, unfortunately, supported by the Liberal Democrats has just produced a unitary development plan for the county that utterly fails to take into account the county's needs and the views expressed by its residents. We have had a draft version and then a deposited version of the plan, to which about 10,000 objections were made. The independents and the Liberal Democrats who try to run Ceredigion county council have failed to accept any of those objections and have pressed on regardless with a unitary development plan that the vast majority of residents hold in contempt.

    359
    It is worth hon. Members hearing a little of the reasoning—mine, at least—behind why those councillors are prepared to continue with a development plan that is so unacceptable to the people of Ceredigion.
    Mr. Roger Williams: I have listened to what the hon. Gentleman has said about the preparation of the unitary development plan in Ceredigion. Will not it reach a public inquiry at which people's objections can be heard by an independent inspector?
    Mr. Thomas: It will; I look forward to that public inquiry and to hearing the councillors' justification for their proposals. However, the hon. Gentleman surely would not close out the need for a democratic process before a public inquiry. Any responsible local authority should hear the views of its local people, especially when they are forcefully expressed in such numbers. I am sure that he would not wish to ignore that.
    I believe the process by which the unitary development plan has been arrived at in my county to be fundamentally corrupt—and I use my words advisedly. There has been a distortion of the planning process to the benefit, real and potential, of individuals. Those individuals happen to be councillors, so we must ask who will benefit from the plan in Ceredigion.
    Lembit Öpik: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Thomas: Not at the moment, I regret, but perhaps if I have time later.
    The planning process arrived at the conclusion that 6,500 new homes were needed in Ceredigion by 2016. How can a rural county support 6,500 new homes? What effect will that have on Welsh-speaking communities? What proportion of those new homes has been designed for local need? What proportion has been designed for social need? What proportion has been designed to go with economic development? What proportion has been designed to meet the needs of the student population in Ceredigion? All those questions need to be considered when we examine the unitary development plan for the county.
    The matter was the subject of an expose on "Week In, Week Out". We in Ceredigion are all grateful to the BBC for that expose on the planning processes that led up to the unitary development plan. How was it that so much extra land was allocated for housing in Ceredigion, and by what process was the figure of 6,500 new homes arrived at?
    I held a public meeting with the leader of the council, Councillor Dai Lloyd Evans. The meeting was called by the Farmers Union of Wales, which opposed the plans; when farmers oppose land allocation plans, one knows that something needs looking at. At the meeting, the local planning process was explained: local councillors walked round their wards with the planning officer and identified the land that would be good for housing. That was then put into the local plan for development. The council took the plan forward as the deposit version, and the whole council agreed the plans for the entire county.
    There are two fundamental problems with that, which is why I say that the whole process has been corrupt. First, local councillors who went round their wards
    360
    allocating land for housing had some of their own land allocated for housing. They did not declare an interest until after the whole plan was approved and discussed at individual ward level. My argument is that they should have declared an interest when they first allocated land that included their own land for housing development in Ceredigion.
    Secondly, the process is a nightmare. As any hon. Member knows, there is a local needs assessment planning process with guidelines from the National Assembly for Wales, which looks at local needs in terms of communities, and builds up from that the overall housing needs of the county. In the case of Ceredigion, one cannot depend on people of a certain age who have fought uncontested elections for the past 30 years deciding what proportion of land in the county should be allocated for housing, particularly when that land includes their own.
    That land included the council leader's own land. He allocated for development land in his ward that he owned, and told the "Week In, Week Out" programme that he saw nothing wrong with councillors making money on the back of land that was being developed under the local plan. That was before he had declared an interest in that land. The process has, therefore, been corrupt from beginning to end.
    Lembit Öpik: I would be interested in having a conversation with the hon. Gentleman outside. Can he confirm, for the record and for the avoidance of doubt, that he is not referring to a Liberal Democrat councillor? I should be grateful if he would make that clear.
    Mr. Thomas: I made it clear who ran the local authority in Ceredigion. I have named only one councillor so far. The record will show that he is an independent councillor. Whether Liberal Democrats had land allocated in any ward for housing is a matter for the record to show. I do not intend to speak about that.
    In an attempt to throw some light on a difficult situation, I have commissioned an independent report on the unitary development plan in Ceredigion, which I hope to publish next week. The report has been written by Mark Tewdwr-Jones, who, as many hon. Members know, is one of the foremost authorities in planning issues in Wales. He is a reader in spatial development at the Bartlett school of planning at University college London and has recently worked on two projects for the National Assembly for Wales. One of the projects dealt with second homes and he is currently working on a language planning project. His examination of the plan is fairly forensic. Although it is not yet available in its full version, it would be useful for me to tell the House what it has revealed to date.
    First, the report has revealed that no local housing needs assessment has been made, as I have already alleged. Secondly, it points out that the local plan produced by Ceredigion depends on things called language impact assessments to protect rural communities. It says that those assessments as yet have no basis in planning policy and that Ceredigion county council has done no assessment of how they might work in that context. Thirdly, the report points out that

    361
    Ceredigion has used something called the Norfolk model for working out student numbers in the county, but has not detailed how that model, which is literally a model from Norfolk, can work in an such an area.Finally—this is important not least in terms of socialjustice—the report has shown that the unitary development plan sets out no information about how much housing should be set aside as social or low-income housing or for the needs of local communities.
    In other words, a huge amount of land—sufficient to provide more than the 6,500 houses to which the local development plan refers—has been set aside without any allocation whatever on the basis of local need. The expectation and fear is that that land will simply be developed in a piecemeal way with maximum profit for the landowner and minimum benefit to the local community.
    The unitary development plan has now gone to the National Assembly, which has placed several formal objections, as indeed has the Welsh Language Board. I understand that the plan was very close to being called in by Sue Essex, as the environment and local government Minister, because she was so concerned about some elements of it. As the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) intimated, there will almost certainly be a public inquiry into the plan. More to the point, however, is the fact that that whole process will not happen until next April or May. Of course, that is when local government elections will occur both in Ceredigion and Wales as a whole and when a different Administration will—I hope—take over in Ceredigion and throw this ridiculous plan out on its sorry backside.
    There is one final sorry chapter in the history of the plan: the use of public office by Cabinet members in Ceredigion county council—and by one councillor, Ray Quant, in particular—to carry out a nasty political witch hunt against the Plaid Cymru leader on Ceredigion county council, Councillor Penri James. Councillor James was accused of breaking an agricultural restriction on his home. Indeed, the county council began enforcement action against him, and him only, out of 500-odd people in Ceredigion who were in the same position. The local government ombudsman investigated the matter and Councillor James was cleared. The officers eventually saw sense and reined back their more extreme councillors, and enforcement action was not taken against him. Unfortunately, however, the campaign of personal vilification against him has continued in the press in a series of letters from Councillor Quant. That has served only to besmirch and reduce public trust in the whole planning process in Ceredigion.
    The House has previously examined in detail, through the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, the planning processes in Ceredigion and found them severely wanting. I think that it is appropriate and right for me again to bring before the House on the occasion of this Welsh affairs debate the fact that things have not improved. I remind hon. Members in all parts of the House that the same individuals are involved and that the council leader who was found so wanting 10 years ago is the same one whom we now find wanting in the planning process. The Under-Secretary used to have
    362
    responsibility for planning in Wales and, although he no longer has such direct responsibility, he has a direct line into the Assembly. I ask him to ensure that he is fully appraised of developments in Ceredigion and to talk to Sue Essex as the Assembly Member responsible for those matters in Ceredigion. I ask him to ensure one thing. Whatever happens in the planning process in Ceredigion and in the final decision on allocating X amount of houses or land—it is important that we allocate new land for housing—I ask him to ensure that that process is seen to be above board, and above all else, is seen not to involve personal gain at the expense of our communities.
    4.45 pm
    Mr. John Smith: It is a privilege to be able to contribute, albeit briefly, to this important St. David's day debate. I want to start by repeating the comments of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), who said that as this is a Welsh affairs debate we should all be mindful of the Welsh service men and women who are in the Gulf. We all hope that they will not be engaged in military action, but if they are our thoughts will be with them.
    I intend to focus on the subject of Y Ddraig Goch, or the red dragon—not the red dragon on our national flag, but the Red Dragon project in my constituency—but I want first to talk about one or two points that have arisen so far.
    I agree with the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about how great it is to be Welsh and the success that we have recently enjoyed in Wales. One cannot open a newspaper without seeing a great Welsh film star or pop star—or even a great Archbishop of Canterbury. We should also recognise that that success attracts other success, and pay tribute to the adopted Welshmen who chose Wales instead of other countries. The name that comes to mind is that of John Fashanu, that well known Nigerian ambassador for sport and first-class soccer player, who could have had the choice of several Premier league or higher division clubs, but chose, just before Christmas, Barry Town football club—an excellent choice.
    Lembit Öpik: Will the hon. Gentleman celebrate the BBC's decision to broadcast League of Wales football scores on "Grandstand" for the first time in the history of Wales, which was the result of a campaign run by myself and the BBC all-party group?
    Mr. Smith: Given Barry's position in the league, I naturally welcome that decision.
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State talked about the great economic success that we have enjoyed in Wales over the past five years. That is undeniable. Unemployment has decreased and opportunities have increased, and a huge redistribution has taken place through a combination of the introduction of the working families tax credit and the minimum wage. That has affected Wales enormously owing to its weak position in terms of incomes compared with the rest of the United Kingdom. We have benefited more than practically any other region of Britain except Northern Ireland. It has been a hugely successful policy.
    In one area, however, we have not done enough. Welsh people who work are the hardest-working people in the whole of Europe. They work longer hours and

    363
    have fewer holidays. Trade union rights have been improved—that is right, and they should continue to improve—but it is time we addressed the issue of holidays. As this is a St. David's day debate, I return to the subject of a public holiday on St. David's day. We can use any excuse to give Welsh workers more time off, because they deserve it—they should have more leisure time and more time with their families—but what better reason is there for doing that than to celebrate our patron saint?
    Mr. Roger Williams: Would not one of the best excuses to give Welsh working people a holiday be the fact that it is a Liberal Democrat policy in the partnership Government of Wales?
    Mr. Smith: Had I known that, I might have thought twice about suggesting it. However, this is an important matter. The Minister will be interested to hear that on St. David's day itself, on Saturday, I carried out a poll among my constituents, and there was a 100 per cent. response in favour of the call for a public holiday on St. David's day. I am sure that he will take that into consideration.
    We have introduced some huge benefits, including the minimum income guarantee for our pensioners, the working families tax credit and one that has been very important for my constituents—the stamp duty exemption in less-favoured areas. Five wards in my constituency have benefited directly from that exemption, but unfortunately many of my constituents, like those of other hon. Members, have been unable to do so because the Inland Revenue, through its website and in response to telephone inquiries, continues to issue the advice that they are ineligible—because it is using out-of-date postcodes. There have been scores of inquiries in my constituency and we have recovered thousands of pounds for people who purchased houses since November 2001. We should take that matter up with the Treasury to ensure that people benefit from that exemption.
    Another important matter for Wales was the announcement last week by the Department of Transport that for the first time, the Civil Aviation Authority is to be given a statutory responsibility for the health of airline passengers. I understand that this is the first time that such a responsibility has been given to an aviation regulator anywhere in the world. It is especially welcome in Wales, as two years ago the tragic deaths of a number of young Welsh people raised public concern about the problem of deep vein thrombosis among long-haul air travellers. I am thinking of the tragic deaths of young Emma Christoferson, as a result of a return flight from Australia, and of my constituent John Thomas, while returning from his honeymoon in Honolulu. That case began my involvement with the DVT campaign two years ago, although I knew little about the condition at that time.
    The steps that the Government have taken are welcome. They have also announced the creation of an aviation health unit at CAA Gatwick, to be funded by a levy on the aviation industry and the airlines. The budget of £200,000 a year is modest, but it will ensure that there is a focus on public health concerns. The unit will be the first port of call for people who have concerns. Those steps are modest but they will be
    364
    important in enabling us to discover the extent, incidence and causes of thrombo-embolic disease among air passengers, which is also the purpose of our campaign. We are still a long way from discovering those things because the necessary research has not yet even begun. I hope that it soon will.
    My main focus is on the announcement on Tuesday 25 February of the go-ahead for the red dragon project at RAF St. Athan in my constituency. The project is not purely parochial; the benefits will spread throughout Wales. We shall all be able to take advantage of the project.
    The decision was courageous; the project is the first of its type in the world, and there was a great deal of difficulty in obtaining Treasury approval. The Defence Aviation Repair Agency, made up of NARO, the Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation, and MGDA, the RAF Maintenance Group Defence Agency, achieved trading fund status in 1999. In April 2004 it will become a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Ministry of Defence, trading on the open market. It will no longer be dependent on vote money but will operate entirely on customer income. The organisation will be owned by the MOD, but run purely on commercial lines.
    Getting the organisation together has been a long haul; it has taken five years and there have been many obstacles. It could not have been achieved without devolution, without the crucial role played by the Welsh Assembly Government. Interdepartmental differences in Whitehall would have delayed the necessary decisions indefinitely. However, the ability to work in partnership with the Welsh Assembly Minister for Economic Development, Andrew Davies, and with the Welsh Development Agency, which played a crucial role in bringing the project into being, has allowed it to happen.
    The project will turn the biggest military base in the whole of Europe, a 1,000 acre development, into a unique aeroplane hangar—a superhangar. It will cost £80 million, and the work has already started. It started as the marquee came down the other Tuesday morning. There will not be another hangar like it in the world. It will not only be capable of taking in up to 47 fast jets for repair, but will be adaptable to take just about any aircraft, from a C-130J at one extreme to small helicopters or commercial planes—Boeing 737s would fit into it—at the other. It will be able to meet any demand in the military aviation market.
    Alongside the hangar, an aviation business park will be built on this gigantic air force base, which had become largely redundant under the cuts made by the Conservative Government, who reduced defence spending by more than 30 per cent. In real terms. The development is a tribute to the Ministry of Defence, the Welsh Assembly Government and, most importantly of all, to the Wales Office Ministers, without whose constant direct intervention to push the project forward, it would never have happened. There will be nothing like this facility anywhere in the world, and it is in Wales. It will give the Welsh aviation and aerospace industry a critical mass that it has never had before, and it will become a centre of excellence in third-line military aviation—that is, garage maintenance.
    I have to declare to my colleagues that the capacity in this market is almost limitless, if for the wrong reason—the fact that the military aviation business throughout

    365
    the world is one of the most inefficient in existence. We have been courageous enough to commercialise ours. We have not privatised it; that was on the Tory agenda, and it would have been a disaster. The industry has to remain under the umbrella of the defence services, as the situation in Iraq illustrates. It has to have a surge capacity—which many private businesses do not—so that it can meet the needs of our front-line forces and pilots on demand. This was the best way to achieve that, and I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench, and the Welsh Assembly, on this courageous decision. It will put Wales on the military aviation map. I also congratulate all my right hon. and hon. Friends on helping us to get the project in the first place.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I would like to say to the House that, given the time available, if everyone were to take their maximum allocation, there would be many disappointed hon. Members. Perhaps a certain amount of mutual co-operation would assist in enabling everyone to participate.
    4.58 pm
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall certainly take that advice to heart.
    There are some 30,000 births a year in Wales.
    Gareth Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not one to make frequent points of order, but with the greatest respect, I seek your ruling on this. Is it in order for an Opposition Member to be called in this Welsh debate when he has not even been present for the opening speeches, given the pressure on the Government side for people to be called? A great many of us have been waiting anxiously to be called. I realise that there is a 14-minute limit, and I simply seek your guidance on that point.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should not question the decision of the Chair in that respect. The Chair always has to try to achieve political balance in a debate. Mr. Speaker has made clear—most recently in a letter to hon. Members—the basic courtesies to be observed. Equally, it is recognised that, with the pressure under which hon. Members work, having to be in more than one place at a time—we have already had an example of that explained to us today, and I also know that hon. Members have had duties in Westminster Hall-there has to be some relaxation of the very strict rules of courtesy that we normally try to achieve in the House.
    Mr. Swayne: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    There are 30,000 births a year in Wales, or 750 in each constituency. Maternity services are vital both in themselves and in colouring many young people's impression of the health service. That impression is marred by the current shortage of midwives in Wales. In Swansea NHS Trust, 11.4 per cent. of vacancies are for midwives, and have been unfilled for more than three months. Across Wales, long-term vacancies for
    366
    midwives account for more than 3 per cent. of all vacancies. That impacts on the care that can be given to women in Wales, and inevitably reduces the choice available to women.
    Birth is a natural experience for women—[Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but many women wanting natural births in Wales have to opt for intervention, whether a Caesarean birth or something less invasive, because there are insufficient midwives. An expectant mother who has opted for a natural birth may go into hospital and find on arrival that there is not a dedicated midwife to help her through childbirth. Instead, there is one midwife looking after three women, having to dash between three delivery rooms, so the expectant mother does not have the one-to-one supportive relationship that she was expecting. As the availability of midwives is a problem, it is highly likely that she will opt for an interventionist birth.
    It is extraordinary that, although 20 per cent. of women express an interest in having a home birth, in Wales, only 2 per cent. have such a birth. I suspect that that is largely a consequence of the shortage of midwives in Wales. Pregnancy is not an illness.
    Julie Morgan rose—
    Mr. Swayne: I am afraid that I shall not give way, as I wish to be brief and take up as little time as possible.
    Pregnancy is not an illness. It is a perfectly normal experience for women, who should be made aware of the choices available to them. The shortage of midwives in Wales has resulted in an inability to provide those choices, so women's options are restricted. From 2000 to 2001, nearly a quarter of the babies born in Wales were delivered by Caesarean section—an increase of 5 per cent. in five years. That figure is 5 per cent. higher than the figure for England, which itself has a high Caesarean birth rate—much higher than the rest of Europe, for example. Not only does the rest of Europe have a much lower level of Caesarean delivery, but that level is stable, whereas in England, and even more so in Wales, it is unstable and rising, from a much higher initial base.
    Caesarean deliveries involve a much higher cost both to the health service, in terms of intervention, and to the long-term health of the women involved. I am sure that there is a connection between the shortage of midwives in Wales and the high rate of caesareans. More skilled, one-to-one midwife support is needed; women receiving the present level of care are much less likely to experience normal vaginal births. I hope the Minister will tell us what the Government are doing to deal with the midwife shortage.
    Lembit Öpik: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Swayne: No.
    I hope the Minister will also give me the figures relating to breastfeeding in Wales. Although the Royal College of Midwives specifically requested me to ask that question, I have a personal interest: my wife is a breastfeeding counsellor for the National Childbirth Trust. Perhaps the Minister could at least give me the latest figures in writing. I know that there is a relatively high rate among those beginning to breastfeed, which tails off markedly after a few months.

    367
    As the Minister doubtless knows, the first week of April is real nappy week in both England and Wales. What are the Government doing to promote the use of "real nappies" in Wales? The issue is particularly important to low-income families, who spend a significant proportion of their income on nappies in supermarkets. It also has landfill implications. We are storing up problems with nappies that are not biodegradable. Hospitals should make parents aware of the perfectly acceptable, less expensive "real nappy" alternatives, which are biodegradable and environmentally friendly.
    5.7 pm
    Mr. Martin Caton: I shall concentrate on the fight against poverty that has taken place in Wales over the last six years and the situation of low-paid people and their families, and make a couple of helpful suggestions.
    Poverty affects every part of the United Kingdom, but all the statistics and our own observations show that the problem has been particularly acute in Wales for many years. Our gross domestic product is historically lower than those in England and Scotland, more people suffer from limiting long-term illnesses, and more claim related social security benefits. A higher proportion of the population receives meals on wheels, incomes are lower than those in both England and Scotland, and more income is derived from social security benefits. Things have improved in recent years, but we have not eliminated those comparative disadvantages, as others have pointed out.
    A great deal has been done since 1997, both by the Labour Government here in Westminster and Whitehall and by the Labour-led Government in the National Assembly. The first big difference, for which both levels of government can take a share of the credit, is the reduction in unemployment. Unemployment in Wales is at its lowest for 25 years. We are all contributing information about our own constituencies today. In Gower, the overall unemployment figure is down to 3.1 per cent. Just over 1,000 people still receive jobseeker's allowance: that is too many, and there is much more to do, but in 1997, about twice as many people in my constituency were on the dole.
    Since then, we have suffered our share of factory closures and job shedding, which has been traumatic for individuals and families; but there has been none of the desperation that was so evident in the same towns and villages when miners, steelworkers and others were thrown on the scrap heap under the Tory Government, with little prospect of alternative employment. The new deal, welfare-to-work tax credits, better child support, objective 1 and sound economic management have all contributed to those historic reductions in the jobless figures, and to the 61,000 new jobs created in Wales last year alone.
    There have also been targeted attacks on poverty in particular groups, such as pensioners, the poorest families and the most deprived and disadvantaged communities. Again, it is action by the UK Government and by the National Assembly that is making a difference. There have also been specific measures to help the working poor through the tax credit system, and through the introduction of the national minimum wage.
    368
    Like many Labour Members from the 1997 intake, I remember the vote to secure the minimum wage, after an all-night sitting, as a high point of that first Parliament. I suppose that it was especially significant for many Welsh Members, because Wales contained some of the worst low-blackspots in the country. Research by the Low Pay Commission in south Wales in 1998 showed that 27 per cent. of employees in Fishguard, in the west, got less than £3.50 an hour, and that 25 per cent. in Monmouth, in the east, got less than that figure. In the run-up to the 1997 general election, I remember visiting jobcentres in my constituency and noting down the worst cases. One example was, "Security guard required: £2.80 an hour; must have own dog." However, what appalled me even more than the worst cases was the sheer number of jobs for which the going rate was less than £3.00 an hour.
    Julie Morgan: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is, and always has been, a gap between women's and men's earnings, and that although it has reduced, it is still a major issue that needs to be tackled in Wales?
    Mr. Caton: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. She is sitting next to me and has clearly read my speech, because I was about to point out that the national minimum wage has made a real difference in my constituency. In particular, it has made a real difference to women in my constituency, especially those whose work involves caring for other people, such as the young or the elderly.
    The national minimum wage remains a notable achievement, but it has two weaknesses that we should now address: it does not apply to everyone to whom it should apply, and it is not enough. The people who are wrongly excluded from the minimum wage are young workers: 18 to 21-year-olds get a reduced rate, and 16 and 17-year-olds are not covered at all. When the Welsh Affairs Committee undertook its inquiry into social exclusion just over two years ago, we argued that the principle of equal pay for equal work should apply to young people, just as it should to everyone else. The evidence that we received then taught us that some unscrupulous employers would employ workers aged under 18 only to avoid paying the minimum wage. At that time, some were paying as little as £2.00 an hour. We called for the minimum wage regulation to apply to all workers aged over 16, and at the adult rate.
    The Committee is conducting an inquiry into the empowerment of children and young people in Wales, and the minimum wage issue has come up both in formal evidence, and in more informal discussions with young people during our visits to Wales. Of course, I cannot predict what our report will say when it is published, but this inquiry gives us a new angle. One reason why we looked into the empowerment question was the concern that so many young people appear to be disengaged from their communities or from wider society-and that includes, of course, democratic politics.
    A factor that has already been brought to our attention as a potential contributor to such disengagement is many young people's perception of how they are valued by society. All too often, they feel that they are not listened to, and that their contributions are undervalued in various ways. The message that they get from the current minimum wage rules is that they are

    369
    second-class citizens. Now is the time to make the minimum wage embrace all working people, and to increase it in such a way that it makes a greater contribution to the incomes of the families of low-paid workers.
    Compelling evidence for such an increase emerged in December, in the form of research commissioned by Unison from the family budget unit at the university of York, and by the national centre for public policy at the university of Wales, Swansea. I shall not go into too much detail, but the unit has established a methodology to calculate weekly minimum cost needs, taking into account food, clothing, housing, transport and all the other costs involved in maintaining a family at a range of standards of living. At the bottom of the ladder—level 1—is what is called the "low cost but acceptable" standard. The researchers have identified and costed the components of a minimum living standard designed to promote good health and enable lower-paid households to reach their full potential. It is tight, but more than survival standard. It recognises, however, that the income needed to reach that standard will vary according to where people live, as costs vary considerably between different parts of the country.
    The study published in December looked at the net incomes required to avoid poverty by one and two-parent families in my home town of Swansea, each with a boy aged 10 and a girl of 14. The incomes needed varied from £252 a week for a lone mum working 17 hours a week, to £310 for a two-earner couple.
    The good news is that, with working families tax credit, all the Swansea households with at least one person in full-time work were above that low-cost but acceptable threshold. Although the same was not always true in respect of part-time work, the Government's objective of decent incomes for families with work is in considerable part being met.
    The bad news is that the current minimum wage level, and the consequent reliance on working families tax credit, means that the poverty trap is almost inescapable for some families. As long as they are receiving the working families tax credit, the most that such families can gain from every extra pound earned is 31p. Two-parent households in Swansea paying basic rate income tax would need above-average male manual earnings to escape the poverty trap and benefit by 68p for each extra pound earned. The lone mother needs close to three times average female manual earnings.
    Unison has translated the £10 minimum needed for a minimum acceptable living standard for the one-earner family with two children into approximately £5.10 per hour. Is that so much?
    The Low Pay Commission will re port again in the near future. I welcome this afternoon's commitment by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to increasing the minimum wage. The figure of £5.10 an hour is the sort of amount that we need to secure to make a real difference to low-paid workers in Wales and across the UK.
    5.17 pm
    Mr. Roger Williams: It is a great privilege and honour to take part in this St. David's day debate, even though it has been delayed. Before I make my own comments, I should like to respond to some matters raised by other hon. Members.
    The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) is no longer in his place, but I am sure that the House listened with great attention to his description of the problems encountered in Ceredigion in ensuring that the planning process is carried out properly and honestly. Before I was elected to the House, I read the report from the Welsh Affairs Committee on rural housing. It dealt with the planning process as well, and made some good recommendations with which I agreed. Although the hon. Gentleman said that the cabinet in Ceredigion unitary authority was led by independents, with Liberal Democrat support, none of the councillors mentioned by him were Liberal Democrats. I am sure that he took great thought before he made his contribution, but I wanted to put that on the record.
    The debate has touched on manufacturing industry. There is great concern in Wales about the future of Corus and the huge redundancies that could happen as the company contracts. On a smaller scale, the Llanidloes aluminium casting company, KTH, looks like it is heading towards closure. That will have a huge impact on communities in the area. The company employs so many people in the local work force that its decline is very worrying, as is the fact that so many of the jobs have gone to parts of the EU and enlargement countries that have lower wage costs. That highlights what many hon. Members have said, which is that we need high-skilled, high value-added business to come to Wales. That will ensure that we will not be as vulnerable to such competition as we are now.
    Members have spoken of the importance of air transport to Wales. It has been overlooked for a number of years but economic development in Wales would have been much more rapid if it had been available. It will make Wales a much more inviting place to put one's business.
    Lembit Õpik: As my hon. Friend says, KTH is closing. Does he agree that there is a great opportunity to invest in mid-Wales to enhance opportunities for air travel at, for example, Welshpool airport, which—I observe wistfully—might be a good venue for British Airways to relocate its operations?
    Mr. Williams: The Minister will have noted that and will make representations. A little village outside Llandrindod called Llandegley now has a huge sign saying, "Welcome to Llandegley international airport, terminals one and two." That may be someone's aspiration, which may take more to achieve than my hon. Friend's suggestion about Welshpool.
    There has been political merriment today about ambassadors from Wales, but Wales has benefited over the years from an international outlook. We have had a huge amount of international inward investment that has benefited us greatly. Wales has a history of involving itself on the international stage and should not be too shy in encouraging that as we gain long-term benefits.
    Mr. Evans: But it is costing £2 million to set up embassies when we already have embassies throughout

    371
    the world; they are called United Kingdom embassies and high commissions. Should not Wales be working through those?
    Mr. Williams: If we are to be serious about getting added inward investment into Wales, we have to put serious amounts towards that investment, which will he beneficial in the long run. The payback period will he short.
    I want to turn to three issues that affect my constituency, Wales as a whole and the UK in general. The first is the criminal justice system and the importance of individuals having ready access to that system. The rights and privileges of individuals cannot be safeguarded unless they have the opportunity to defend themselves against charges of which they believe themselves to be innocent. I am thinking particularly about victims.
    The Government have said that they are putting the rights of victims and witnesses at the heart of the criminal justice system. Yet, in my constituency and rural Wales as a whole, magistrates courts are closing, which makes it difficult for victims or witnesses to get to court without undertaking long and difficult journeys because so little rural public transport is available.
    Hywel Williams: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is also a problem for magistrates in my constituency who have to travel considerable distances? Following the centralisation of magistrates courts, that problem is likely to get worse.
    Mr. Williams: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. In Llandrindod magistrates court, the youth court was closed. Two magistrates who had been trained and had a particular interest in youth justice work resigned because they now have to travel more than 30 miles to get to a youth court and were not prepared to continue making the great sacrifices that magistrates make to provide those services.
    Recently, I took a delegation to meet the Minister from the Lord Chancellor's Department with responsibility for magistrates courts and was accompanied by the hon. Members for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) and for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd)—as well as my hon. Friend the Member forMontgomeryshire (Lembit Õpik)—to make points on this issue. We were advised that the county council, as the funding body, must make representations if the decision to close Ystradgynlais and Llandrindod is not to be a foregone conclusion.
    I have grave doubts about the way in which magistrates courts committees operate. I do not know how accountable they are to the general public or how they perform their deliberations and consultations. The impression that was given—falsely, I think—by the magistrates courts committee is that investment in the courts in Newtown and Brecon may be lost if we oppose the closure of Ystradgynlais and Llandrindod. It is important that those courts remain open so that the criminal justice system is available to everybody in those areas. I hope that the Minister will join us in making representations on those matters, too.
    I would like to turn to an issue that I raised with the Minister in a debate in Westminster Hall a couple of weeks ago: two-tier employment in public services that
    372
    have been externalised or privatised. That has occurred in my constituency, and, I am sure, in other hon. Members' constituencies. In my constituency, residential homes for the elderly were externalised to BUPA. Although the staff who were transferred under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 to BUPA had their rights, conditions and pay retained, anyone employed afterwards was employed under much poorer conditions.
    For example, the basic rate of pay for carers from the protected staff was £5.50 an hour, whereas, for BUPA staff, it was £4.20 an hour. It gets much worse than that. For protected staff, the Sunday night working rate was £12.86 an hour whereas BUPA staff were on the flat-rate minimum wage of £4.20, which the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) mentioned.
    Not only that, the protected staff had 27 days' holiday plus eight bank holidays, whereas the BUPA staff had only 20 days. One can imagine the difficulty of staff working together on such differing rates of pay and conditions. It does not lead to good relationships among the work force. Those on poorer pay and conditions were not so loyal to the establishment in which they were working, which led to a greater turnover of staff. Hon. Members will agree that the quality of life of those in residential homes depends on building relationships between staff and residents. Obviously, that cannot be done if there is a great turnover of staff.
    I was therefore very pleased when the Prime Minister announced that he would deal with the two-tier system of employment. On Thursday, I believe, a code of conduct will be published for local authorities in England, under which contracts for externalised or privatised public services will ensure that not only transferred but new staff have the same pay and conditions. I understand the problems in this regard, but, unfortunately, the press release states:
    "The Code will not apply retrospectively to any contracts which have already been advertised or entered into. The Government intends to publish statutory guidance on this for local authorities in early March."
    Those who are locked into organisations that have already had contracts with local authorities seem more beleaguered and isolated than ever. I understand that Edwina Hart's office in the Assembly is considering the code of practice with a view to establishing it, or something better, in Wales. Will the Minister consider whether there is any way of dealing with people in such establishments who are on very different rates of pay and conditions from those who were originally transferred?
    5.29 pm
    Gareth Thomas: I know that many of my hon. Friends are anxious to make a contribution to this important debate and I am glad that the convention of having an annual Welsh debate has been observed, even in the context of these difficult times internationally. This debate is taking place closer to St. Patrick's day than to St. David's day, but we all know that St. Patrick was rumoured to be a Welshman.
    I was glad that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was able to open the debate. He has made a considerable impact in his new job and has been able to

    373
    bring his considerable flair, energy and communication skills to it. He follows in the distinguished footsteps of my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), whose great reserves of patience and diplomacy are now being put to such great use in Northern Ireland in an attempt to restore the devolved institutions there. My hon. Friend the Minister also does an excellent job getting around Wales—he has been to north Wales on many occasions and I hear good reports of him.
    It is important to acknowledge that devolution is working. We are getting a dividend from having a democratic, directly elected institution in Wales. Some of us, including myself, express frustration and exasperation on occasion at the way in which policy is formulated in Wales. As someone who is comfortable with the direction of the Westminster Government—putting the emphasis on investment and taking a robust approach to the need to reform public services—I sometimes feel frustrated, but I am glad that the campaign, in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State played such an important part, was successful. I seriously believe that devolution is working.
    The last four years have been difficult, but we are seeing a real difference. That is because the Labour group in the Assembly is working in partnership with the Labour Government in Westminster.
    Hywel Williams: Does the hon. Member agree with Mr. Rhodri Morgan that there is clear red water between the Labour-Liberal Government in the National Assembly and the Administration here?
    Gareth Thomas: I am relaxed about any differences. It follows the logic of devolution that the Assembly will take its own path, but there is a strong partnership between Labour in the Assembly and Labour in Westminster. Long may that continue.
    We know that on the horizon is a report from an institution called the Richard commission, which is considering the powers and efficacy of the Assembly. We know, too, that the chattering classes—or the Pontcanna pundits, as they may be described in Wales—many of whom are from various academic boltholes, such as Cardiff and Aberystwyth universities, are obsessed by the need to gain parity with Scotland. As a committed devolutionist, I think that we should be very cautious about calling for further powers for the Assembly at this stage. It is a new institution that has to prove itself. We should adopt the test of whether any extension of powers would improve the quality of life for the people we serve. Would it mean better schools and hospitals? If not, it would not pass the test. We have to be pragmatic and cautious.
    We are in an election period and I am sure that the electorate in Wales are interested in constitutional issues, but I intend to keep my powder dry. I expect that we will have a robust debate about further powers for the Assembly formulated by Labour members. We must also bear in mind the fact that Wales and England have separate legal systems and I cannot see how we could easily accord further primary legislative powers to the Assembly.
    374
    Very often, these debates concentrate on the negative comments of Opposition spokespersons. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) was rather less negative than usual. In the Tea Room earlier, I had a little joke with him, saying that his speech would be something approaching a whingeathon. It was not—because even he has to give credit where credit is due. The Government have been a big success for Wales. Wales is benefiting from sound management of the economy. We have heard some of the statistics from the Secretary of State: we have had the longest period of low inflation for 40 years; long-term interest rates are at their lowest since the 1960s; and new business growth is high and the survival and growth of small businesses is excellent. That is good news and no mean achievement. Contrast that with what happened under the Conservatives. In 1997, inflation was up at 10 per cent. and interest rates were at a very high level of between 10 to 15 per cent. Unemployment was also high. We should not underestimate the fact that unemployment has fallen considerably in Wales. In my constituency, it has fallen by 63 per cent. The new deal and the minimum wage have made a real difference.
    We can be justifiably optimistic. I know that a national characteristic of us Welsh is that of being somewhat melancholic, but I feel that we can be optimistic about the prospects for the Welsh nation, the Welsh economy, and the people of Wales whom we serve. It is a great time to be Welsh. The creative industries are doing well. We have massive extra public spending that is making a great difference to the health service, especially in my part of the world. There have been considerable achievements in education. The prospects are good and there is nothing wrong in talking up Wales. We should be positive.
    I want to mention a few figures that relate to the Conwy and Denbighshire NHS Trust. I pay tribute to the excellent work of the management team—in particular, to Hilary Stevens, who is the chair of the trust, and to Gren Kershaw. In the trust, no people have been waiting for more than 12 months for in-patient treatment. In-patient waiting list targets are being met in a wide range of areas—orthopaedics; ear, nose and throat; general surgery and many others. For Abergele hospital and Ysbyty Glan Clwyd, it is a good news story.
    On the economy., my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) has been active in promoting the St. Asaph business park. Many of my constituents work there. Let us not forget Airbus and let us pay tribute to Lord Barry Jones. Many of us consider him to be a great example. He has brought his considerable oratorical and people skills to bear and he has put Airbus on the map—as has his distinguished successor, my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami). Broughton is good news and Airbus is good news, for the whole of north Wales. Broughton has brought huge inward investment to the area, with a big investment in skills and opportunities. It is a genuine good news story.
    I will wind up now because I know that my hon. Friends want to contribute. Let us talk up the Welsh economy. The future is good; the future is Labour.
    5.38 pm
    Mr. Dai Havard: I will exercise discipline to try to give the rest of my comrades the opportunity to speak. It is a great privilege to contribute, as the first Member elected in 2001 to have the opportunity to speak in this debate.
    I want to talk about employment and economic activity. Official unemployment rates are dropping dramatically in Wales—in my constituency and elsewhere. That has been because of the success of the new deal and so on. It is also because of new employment. There are many positive things that I could say about the Welsh economy—there have been new opportunities that have gone beyond simply manufacturing jobs. For example, the General Dynamics investment in Oakdale with the Bowman radio project has brought science to the area. The Canadian ambassador made the point very well to me. He said that, "If you have got science, you can get science." Part of the problem in Wales is that we have not had the higher-order activities in terms of the employment base that we need. We should continue to try to get that.
    Oshkosh is developing its investment in Llantrisant to build heavy vehicles. If we can attract other Ministry of Defence investment contracts that are available, they could help to provide a new dimension to the vehicles economy in Wales and lead to the development of the heavy vehicle sector. Many good things are happening, so I certainly do not want to talk Wales down.
    I come from and live in the valleys and the difficulty that we face is that of economic inactivity. Merthyr is said to have the greatest problem in that respect, with 28 per cent. of the real unemployment rate according to the studies carried out by Sheffield Hallam university. That problem needs examination and action is taking place. Members of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions visited my constituency last week, and I was glad to welcome them. We considered what could be done to help disabled and incapacitated people back into work through projects such as workstep.
    The Committee met people from the local job service and some of the brokers involved. It visited the Merthyr Tydfil Institute for the Blind, which might sound like a strange place to visit. However, the institute goes beyond its terms of reference and makes a major contribution not only to Merthyr Tydfil but across the valleys by taking forward the workstep programme. I took my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), who was then in the Treasury team but who is now the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, to the institute a year ago. As a result, extra investment has gone in to try to cure the problems that we face and that are the result of a legacy that I do not have the time to explain. I am sure that everyone knows the reasons for it.
    New Members of Parliament have created opportunities ourselves. Several of my comrades and I commissioned research from the Bevan Foundation to try get a view as to what could be done and not just a measure of the angle of dangle of deprivation. We tried to get an idea of what policy initiatives could be taken to find solutions to the problems. The report should be published soon and I look forward to seeing it. I have not prescribed what it should say, so I shall be interested to read its conclusions. However, I know that it will say that investment is needed in the upper valleys.
    376
    Investment has gone in along the M4 corridor in Wales, but we need a strategic development plan that considers the development of the heads of the valleys and of the crescent across the old Welsh coalfields. That area needs sustained investment. In Merthyr, we will bring in the university of Glamorgan to create links with lifelong learning so that the community can develop a view of what it can do itself and how to achieve that. Our young people are back at work, but we need to develop the circumstances in which economic inactivity is addressed. To do that we need redistribution—I am not afraid to say the word. Indeed, redistribution is going on, and some Conservative Members have spotted that. They do not like it, but I think that there should be a damn sight more redistribution.
    We should also consider the tools that we need to achieve our aims, which include operating aids and the extension of employment zones. In Merthyr, we have a great problem with people on incapacity benefits, but we do not have Jobcentre Plus. Some of the tools and techniques need to be brought forward. We need step changes as well as incremental progression. Objective 1 is helpful, but what will come after it? We need to consider that issue.
    My predecessor in this place wrote a book entitled "Something Must Be Done", a phrase that originally came from a member of the royal family. He talked about sporadic and episodic investment in the valleys. We do not need that. We need sustained investment, and the Wales Office and its Ministers are well placed to help as brokers. We will bring the report that I have mentioned to the House so that it can be examined by all the Departments of the United Kingdom. We shall also take it to the Assembly, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will be able to act as a broker. Because he also represents us in Europe, I hope that he will be able to take our suggestions to Wales, the United Kingdom and Europe.
    5.44 pm
    Dr. Hywel Francis: The debate on Welsh affairs always affords us a time for reflection. One of my constituents recently gave me some advice. He quoted a distinguished predecessor in the House, Aneurin Bevan, as saying:
    "Instead of living in a Wales that possesses you, create the Wales you desire".
    In that spirit and as a representative of a steel constituency, I want to reflect on the centrality and importance of steel, despite all the problems that have, and continue to, beset it.
    As recently as December 2000, in the document "A Strategy for Modern Manufacturing in Wales", the Wales TUC highlighted the modern advanced nature of the industry. The report said:
    "With plants in Wales producing record amounts of quality steel with much fewer workers than even 10 years ago, it would be hard not to recommend steel as a shining light for manufacturing."
    The announcement this week that Corus is once again reviewing its UK operations with the possibility of, as it calls it, "significant capacity reductions", causes much anxiety and deep concern, especially in steel communities.
    I welcome the positive comments made this week by the Secretary of State for Wales and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in support of steel. We all

    377
    know that steel has a vital and strategic role within Welsh and British manufacturing. I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales to pledge that he will work to ensure that there are no further cuts in capacity in Wales, and in so doing secure the long-term future of Shotton, Llanwern and Port Talbot.
    Despite the current internal and external problems of Corus, especially in relation to the sale of its aluminium production in Holland, the economic indicators for Welsh and UK steel are promising. The exchange rates in relation to the euro are increasingly more favourable. The demand for steel in the UK is buoyant and strengthening, especially in the construction industry, and steel prices are stabilising and improving. Industrial relations are good, as evidenced by the recent significant efficiency savings in Welsh plants. Llanwern is in profit, and Port Talbot and Shotton are performing well.
    Steel workers in the UK are widely acknowledged as the most efficient in the world. In my experience, there is a growing optimism despite the trauma of recent capacity cuts and the explosion in the No. 5 blast furnace in Port Talbot. The rebuilding of that furnace in record time symbolises a rebirth of the Welsh steel industry. The new furnace very recently broke its production record by producing 33,000 tonnes of liquid iron during the month following its formal opening by the Prince of Wales. That was one of many records recently broken at Port Talbot in the hot mill, the cold mill and the "capl" line. Improved consistency in operations and in quality have been recorded.
    That sense of optimism for steel communities is also represented by the community leadership provided by the steel unions in highlighting the importance of skills enhancement and lifelong learning. The Iron and Steel Trades Confederation training arm, steel partnership training, has led the way in many centres from Shotton to Ebbw Vale and Newport. In my constituency, unions have come together with educational providers to form the Port Talbot union academy. Again in my constituency, as a result of support from the Wales union learning fund of the Wales TUC and the Welsh Assembly Government, Amicus and the local authority, Neath Port Talbot county borough council, have created a unique work-based learning initiative at the new Baglan learning centre. It is therefore critical that the Governments in Cardiff and Westminster work in partnership with the Welsh steel industry as never before to secure its long-term future by pledging, by every means possible, to secure all productive capacity throughout Wales.
    I began with the importance of reflection. As an historian, I am only too well aware that as the Welsh economy diversifies, there is potential for what is called cultural tourism, especially in the valleys of south Wales. That will be highlighted in a report by the Welsh Development Agency and in a report that colleagues and I commissioned, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Havard) referred, which will be published by the Bevan Foundation later this month.
    I recently heard the new Archbishop of Canterbury reflecting on what he called "political virtue", and how he defined that from the poetry of Waldo Williams, whose verse, in his words, exemplifies
    378
    "the Welsh double commitment to the local and the international in a framework passionately seeking peace".
    We meet at a time of local and international crisis. We should reflect in a Welsh way on that political virtue and that political legacy of the local and the international community, which we all share.
    If we are to develop cultural tourism in Wales, we could start by reflecting on the lives and ideas of two Welsh political thinkers who were both modernisers in their own ways. First, there was Richard Price of Llangeinor, friend of the American and French revolutions of the 18th century, who gently advised his American friends to conduct the kind of foreign policy that would make the United States respected in the world.
    Secondly, there was Henry Richard of Tregaron, a Liberal Member of Parliament for Merthyr. He was known as the apostle of peace. He initiated a debate in this House on 8 July 1873. His motion, which was carried, called on the Government of the day to contact foreign powers with a view to the improvement of international law and the establishment of a permanent system of international arbitration. In his own modernising way, he was a Welsh visionary who anticipated the necessity of the United Nations decades before its emergence.
    Today of all days, we should reflect on the political virtue of striving to secure the local—in our Welsh communities that are dependent on steel and other employment—and the international by securing peace through the United Nations. By doing so, we would achieve Aneurin Bevan's dream of a Wales we all desire.
    5.52 pm
    Mark Tami: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak in this debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to talk about manufacturing and training. I shall try to be brief to allow as many other hon. Members as possible to speak.
    Manufacturing accounts for 31 per cent. of gross domestic product in Wales—11 per cent. more than in Britain as a whole. It is clearly a key sector of our economy. Some would have us believe that manufacturing is dying on its feet and not really part of our future. Manufacturing is and always has been a dynamic sector of the economy. Innovation and change have always been part of its growth and, in some areas, part of its decline.
    Thirty years ago, the manufacturing base in my area was dominated by the steel industry, which employed more than 12,000 people, and the textile industry. By the 1980s, both those industries—the area's main employers—were devastated. Shotton Steel still holds the record for the largest single loss of jobs at one plant on one day. I hope that no other area ever has to suffer holding that record. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr. Francis) spoke of the fears that are again surrounding the 12,000 jobs in the steel industry.
    Steel and textile manufacturers needed to change and innovate, but importantly, both also needed the time and the economic stability to accomplish that. We are all aware of the Conservative party's economic policies, which meant that there was no such chance. The industries suffered the same fate as many other manufacturers during the years of the Thatcher Government.

    379
    Life is never easy for manufacturing, as I am sure every manufacturer would tell us. Manufacturers would also tell us that they need economic stability—an environment where they can plan for the future in the knowledge that they are not on the edge of another boom and bust, as we saw under the Tory Government. In Wales, as in Britain as a whole, work force productivity remains a major concern. We will improve it only if manufacturers invest not just in new technology but in their work force. Equally, our education system must work more closely with industry to equip our young people and some of our older people with the skills and know-how that they need today.
    Productivity gains are rarely made by people working longer or harder; they are made by people working smarter. About 30 per cent. of employers in Wales state that they suffer from skills shortages. Many more suffer from skills gaps in matching skills with the appropriate job. We need to tackle the problem in a number of ways.
    More than 13,000 people in Wales are taking up modern apprenticeships. Many of those young people will secure employment in manufacturing, putting their new skills into practice. I welcome the modern skills diploma for adults, introduced by the Welsh Assembly, which is delivering an apprenticeship-style training scheme for the over-25s in employment—a vital group in our work force whose training needs we have tended to ignore. Training and retraining those in employment is key to improving productivity.
    In my area, Deeside college has done a great deal of work to tailor its training packages to the needs of employers, not offering the one-size-fits-all solution that characterised further education in the past. Deeside college recently won the Queen's anniversary prize for its work with business and industry. Much credit goes to the college principal, Will Edmunds, for that achievement.
    As unemployment is, thankfully, very low in Alyn and Deeside—less than 2 per cent., thanks to the economic stability delivered by a Labour Government—work-based education and training is of paramount importance to our economic growth and regeneration. We must therefore ensure that its availability and success are not held back. ELWa must receive the level of financial support that it needs for training in the workplace via the further education institutions. It will receive the necessary investment only from a Labour-run Assembly that makes education a priority.
    One of Deeside's largest and most successful partnerships is with Airbus, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Gareth Thomas) spoke. It is probably the largest modern apprenticeship scheme in western Europe and is a good model that other companies and colleges could follow. At present, 274 apprentices are undergoing various forms of training, with a further 80 new recruits hoping to start in September this year.
    Airbus has a high retention rate—above 90 per cent. One major factor is the opportunities for apprentices. More than 70 per cent. of the senior management is made up of former apprentices, including Brian Fleet, director of manufacturing, Airbus UK. That important point demonstrates that an apprenticeship not only leads to a good quality job, but opens opportunities to progress in the company, even to the top levels of management.
    380
    Airbus rightly views training as a form of investment. Employees should be seen as valuable assets. Too many employers view employees as a form of disposable costs—something that can be put aside at the slightest change in the market. After the events of 11 September, which severely affected the market for airliners, one of the first things that Airbus did was to write to every apprentice in the company guaranteeing their job. Other British manufacturers would have written to apprentices telling them that they no longer had a future with the company. We have lost so many good people who could now be skilled workers, because they have been cast aside at an early stage.
    The company's recruitment strategy has led to a growing number of female apprentices coming through the system, in an industry that has traditionally been male-dominated. I was pleased that this year the apprentice of the year was a woman. The company's commitment to training and the value it places on the work force are an example to other companies in Wales. Importantly, the partnership between the company, the college and the schools is producing well-trained people for good quality jobs.
    As in Britain as a whole, education spending in Wales has risen significantly under Labour—a real-terms increase of some 6 per cent. in 2003–04 over the current year, with planned investment rising to a record £1.4 billion by 2005-06. That level of commitment is needed if we are to improve standards and produce youngsters able to work to the requirements that modern value-added manufacturers are looking for. Schools, colleges and universities have a major role to play in promoting a positive image for manufacturing and engineering. Too many youngsters still view a career in that sector as less valuable and important than one in the white collar, office-based professions.
    If we are to ensure that success is guaranteed, we need continuing investment in education and training. We must see real improvements in this area.
    6 pm
    Julie Morgan: I am grateful for the opportunity briefly to contribute to this debate. I am pleased that we have an opportunity to concentrate on domestic issues in Wales. At the moment, whenever I speak to constituents or other people in Wales, they talk about the international situation, so I am glad that we can concentrate today on domestic issues, which should not be forgotten.
    As many other right hon. and hon. Members, including the Secretary of State, have said, the great achievement that the Labour Governments in Westminster and Wales have achieved is the drop in unemployment in Wales, which has fallen by 40 percent. since 1997. Wales has had the biggest increase in employment of any region in the UK and the biggest fall in inactivity. Other hon. Members have mentioned what has happened in their constituencies. In mine, there has been a fall of 46.6 per cent. in unemployment, which is tremendous. The equivalent figures are minus 80.9 per cent. for youth unemployment and minus 84.8 per cent. for long-term unemployment, so it is clear that we are now reaching all parts of the labour market. That achievement is a tribute to the Labour Governments here and in the Assembly.

    381
    St. David's day was recently celebrated and last Saturday was international women's day. I attended the launch in the old library in Cardiff of a book produced by the Honno press and edited by Professor Deirdre Beddoe. Some remarkable contributions were made by women who read out extracts about experiences in their lives in Wales. We heard contributions from Elaine Morgan, Molly Parkin and Jane Salisbury. Many women in the audience had contributed to the book, including the mother-in-law of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr. Francis), who made a tremendous contribution. All of the women had remarkable stories to tell. While listening today to various hon. Members talking about the great achievements that Welsh people have made in becoming stars in sport, film and other areas, I thought about the women who read to us about their experiences last Saturday. In many cases, those experiences were very ordinary, but they were a tremendous tribute to the wealth of talent that we have in Wales.
    I thought that it would be interesting briefly to consider the position of women in Wales today. It is probably very much as hon. Members will imagine and as the jobs situation in Wales has always been stereotyped. In 2002, 46 per cent. of women were in part-time occupations, compared with 9 per cent. of male employees. That has not changed much. Women account for 69 per cent. of administrative, secretarial and consumer services occupations, while men account for 80 per cent. of skilled trades and plant and machine operators. A similar divide has existed for many years in Wales, so the situation has not changed very much.
    As other hon. Members have mentioned, however, the introduction of the national minimum wage has increased the wages of thousands of women and part-time workers. That is a tremendous achievement. Along with devolution, the introduction of the minimum wage was one of the great ambitions of Keir Hardie, and we have brought those two things about. So far, we have failed in reforming the House of Lords, but perhaps we can achieve that in the future. The minimum wage has helped thousands of women in Wales and, on its introduction, it narrowed the pay gap between men and women by 3 per cent. Nevertheless, there still is a pay gap. In 2002, full-time women workers earned 13.4 per cent. less per hour on average than male full-time employees. That is grossly unfair.
    In discussing the rise in employment and how well we are doing economically in Wales, we must bear in mind the disparities that still exist, especially between women and men. One of the main priorities of the Government women's unit here and the equal opportunities unit in Cardiff bay is to try to close the pay gap between men and women in Wales. The Welsh Assembly Government are putting their own house in order by carrying out a pay audit and planning over three years to equalise the pay of women and men, and they are setting money aside to ensure that that happens. Some Departments here are doing the same. Private bodies are being asked to undertake voluntary pay audits, but I am not sure whether that will work out in the long term.
    The position of women in terms of employment has been improved by the introduction of much more child care. Many more child care places are available in
    382
    Wales, although they are still too expensive for some women to be able to take advantage of them. Maternity and paternity rights have been increased and great efforts are being made to help people to manage the balance between their family responsibilities and work. That is crucial.
    Hywel Williams: On child care, does the hon. Lady agree that the problems in rural and dispersed areas are a significant barrier to women taking up employment? Can she suggest how those difficulties could be addressed?
    Julie Morgan: I agree that the provision of child care in rural areas is a key issue. The solutions that apply in urban areas do not apply in rural areas, where there has to be far greater emphasis on child minders and on provision for smaller children. The child care group in the Assembly is considering that.
    I want briefly to welcome two initiatives in Cardiff that have come about as a result of the partnership between the Labour Governments here and in the Assembly. One of those is the opening of the new ambulatory care unit in Heath hospital in Cardiff, which is the biggest of its kind in the UK. It means that 4,000 people will receive treatment for minor surgery much earlier than they would have done. Opposition Members throw a great deal at us about health, but there have been enormous improvements. That particular development will be a huge asset to the people of the region around Cardiff.
    Another initiative is the women's safety unit in Cardiff, which has had its funding secured by money from the Home Office and from the Welsh Assembly. It is a tremendous step forward in looking after the safety of women in Wales who suffer from domestic abuse.
    6.8 pm
    Paul Flynn: To experience at first hand the ugly reality of the threat that has come again to Wales as regards steel jobs, one has only to visit some of the four newly derelict sites in Wales. It is an eerie experience to go to Llanwern, which I know well. When the steelworks was laid out brand new in 1962, it was shining, vibrant and exciting, with the best people from steel plants all over Britain. Now, those gigantic structures are still standing, but they are silent and rusting where once there were jobs and prosperity. We should think about what has happened to the lives of thousands of our constituents. Not only have they lost their jobs and the scrap of dignity that comes from having a job, but the job itself has gone, because the skill has been destroyed. They have nothing to look forward to and no expectation of a similar occupation for their children. We have suffered grievously in Wales. In 2001, we lost 3,000 jobs, and now the sword of Damocles is hanging over our communities again. It is right that we should say in this debate that it is an awful threat that could have devastating effects on many of our constituents.
    That situation is not the fault of the steelworkers. In recent years, they have been part of an incredible success story for the steel industry in Wales; they have adapted, rationalised, and shared and lost jobs. At one time, there were 9,000 jobs at Llanwern. That number went down to less than 3,000, yet the workers achieved record production of steel of record quality.

    383
    The main message that the House should send today is that we are anxious about the current situation for the industry and want the Government and the Assembly to do their utmost to ensure that steel jobs are saved and that there continues to be work in the industry.
    My final point is on energy production. The most promising form of renewable energy in Wales—the most benign and non-polluting form—was not mentioned in the recent presentation made by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Indeed, it was hardly mentioned in the White Paper. That form of energy is tidal power, which is not intermittent, like solar or wind power, but continuous. The tides around our coasts produce constant pulses of energy, which could provide valuable baseload electricity.
    Many of us have supported the erection of barrages over the years. The barrage at La Rance has been a great success and produces the cheapest electricity on the planet. However, the environmental impacts, such as the disturbances to shipping and the effects on wildlife and tidal flows, mean that barrages are no longer the way forward. Lagoons are a far more effective way of tapping tidal energy. There are plans for three in Wales: one at Swansea, one off the north Wales coast and one at Uskmouth.
    We must embrace such developments, which are the only way that Britain will reach its energy targets by 2010. Lagoons can be built cheaply; they are low cost and are not blots on the landscape. They are especially of interest in Wales, where it is likely that the first tidal lagoons will be built. They take only three years to build and will give us clean, non-polluting, inexhaustible British power.
    6.13 pm
    Albert Owen: As a member of the Welsh Affairs Committee, I am pleased to be called to speak in this debate.
    One of the Committee's main inquiries recently was into transport in Wales. Although we investigated all modes of transport, I shall concentrate on ports and internal Welsh air services, as roads are a devolved issue. I shall do so in a positive light, given the exciting developments that have already occurred throughout Wales and those that are likely to occur in future.
    I shall not be able to afford that generosity to the railways, however—and I say that as someone who regularly travels with my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) on the west coast service from Holyhead to Euston. Although I welcome the increased UK spending, from £2.1 billion in 2001–02 to £4.3 billion in 2005–06, performance and reliability are not good. There is a general feeling that the fragmentation of the rail industry is hampering recovery, after more than 20 years of under-investment. The component parts of the industry—Railtrack, Network Rail, the regulator, the Strategic Rail Authority and the rail operators—merely seem to blame one another when confronted with difficulties.
    There are great concerns about the west coast main line service. On 9 October 2002, the SRA published its west coast strategy. Under the heading "North Wales", it states:
    384
    "From 2004 there will be a London-Holyhead through 125 mile/h Voyager service every two hours. There are further options to review the overall pattern of services on the route, including integrating the London timetable with services between Birmingham/Manchester and the North Wales Coast."
    That fine strategy was echoed by the chief executive of Virgin Trains in his evidence to the Select Committee and in a meeting with the north Wales group of Labour MPs.
    Excellent! That meant seven return journeys to the capital of England from north-west Wales. But in 2003, in a letter to me and other MPs and stakeholders, from which I shall quote selectively, the SRA stated:
    "The original plans by Virgin Trains were to provide a total of seven services each way between North Wales and London, but it has now become apparent from more detailed analysis that this level of services cannot be delivered to North Wales as originally planned … The core problem is that an inadequate number of units were ordered originally to operate the enhanced level planned by Virgin Trains, including its services to Holyhead … The current assumption is that there will be three or four new 125 mph trains each way from … 004."
    Why has Virgin Trains been awarded record compensation and made huge profits when it is unwilling to fulfil its original commitment?
    Hywel Williams: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the planned level of service is little better than the service from north Wales that we have at present, which is tempting people like me, who are committed users of the rail, to use cars? That is a disaster for Virgin Trains and for the environment, as well as for the economy in north Wales, because of the disincentive effect of such a poor service on inward investment.
    Albert Owen: I agree that the proposed service, as outlined in that last letter from the SRA, is not going to encourage people to use the railways. The new trains might be faster, but they might also be smaller and have less capacity than the present ones. That, too, is a great worry.
    The port of Holyhead is a major employer in my constituency, and it obviously relies on an efficient rail service just as much as it does on the new enhanced road service that has been developed since 1997 under the Labour Government. In recent months there has been excellent news of record investment in the port. Some £13 million has been invested in its infrastructure, and a £3 million objective 1 grant will be topped up with private cash, showing that objective 1 really is working for north-west Wales. I am going to make an overtly political point here, because whenever the Assembly Member for my constituency of Ynys Môn—the president of Plaid Cymru—gets to his feet in Cardiff, hesays that there is no evidence of objective 1 working in north-west Wales. Yet that same individual is happy to have his photo taken outside the port with the managers, saying how good the delivery is locally for Anglesey. That says a lot about the double standards of the president of the party of which the hon. Member for Caernarfon is a member.
    This investment will secure jobs and create new jobs, creating a world-class port—the largest on the westernseaboard of the United Kingdom and the fourth largest in the UK-which is dubbed the European Celtic gateway. This new investment has already been earmarked as a catalyst for a further £33 million in road,

    385
    port and town improvements. Some 2.5 million passengers travel through the port of Holyhead each year, and the planned expansion under objective I will result in a further 347,000. I pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) for his help in ensuring that the objective 1 bid was successful. Cruise liners berth in the port of Holyhead because it has excellent 24-hour tidal usage. Marine development is also taking place there, and it is well placed strategically to serve the Irish sea offshore wind industry, which I know will please my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn). Investment locations close to the port are also planned. This proves that investing in our transport infrastructure and our ports results in good news.
    In my remaining time I shall talk about air services—I realise that other hon. Members wish to speak. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) has been very helpful in supporting my bid for the Anglesey airport at Valley. The Liberal Democrats have also assisted us in our bid to get a link between north-west Wales and the south-east. Indeed, the Secretary of State for Transport, in a statement to the House on the future of air transport in the UK on 23 July, said:
    "Because two thirds of passengers living in Wales fly from airports in England, the consultation covers improved surface surface links to airports in both Wales and England, and looks at the potential to start up internal flights within Wales, which would improve access where surface journeys are lengthy."—[Official Report, 23 July 2002; Vol. 389, c. 848.]
    Anybody who has travelled on the A470 knows how lengthy the journey is between north and south Wales.
    Will the Minister in his winding-up speech reassure me that the idea of an airport in RAF Valley, with which he is familiar, will be part of the consultation, so that we can advertise the facilities there? If we are looking for a model in which an RAF airfield has been used commercially, we need go no further than Newquay and RAF St. Mawgan, which is now a major and successful airport on the periphery of Cornwall, bringing thousands of tourists to the area and helping to stimulate economic regeneration. I want to echo that in north-west Wales.
    6.20 pm
    Mr. Wayne David: The future of Wales depends on the success of our economy. We have heard a great deal over the years about objective 1 status for west Wales and the valleys, and it is extremely heartening that genuine results are being achieved in that programme. For example, 579 projects in Wales are funded by objective 1 resources, and £336 million has already been allocated to those projects. In my constituency of Caerphilly, the Tredomen business park, the new sports hall in Abertridwr, the new training courses at Ystrad Mynach college, the youth cyber cafe in Bargoed and many other projects have been funded by objective 1 moneys. That is one of the main reasons why there has been a dramatic 36.9 per cent. reduction in unemployment in Caerphilly. I was delighted by the announcement two weeks ago that 300 jobs would be
    386
    created in Caerphilly with a new computer manufacturer. The previous week it was announced that 149 extra jobs would be created by three employers. That is tremendous news, and it is a fair reflection of how well the economy is doing in major areas of south Wales.
    My constituents' quality of life is improving dramatically because of the policies of central Government and the National Assembly. More jobs have been created, and there are more training opportunities, more policemen on the beat and better health provision. However, there is still a huge problem: Caerphilly county borough council, a nationalist-controlled local authority. It is not just me, the people of Caerphilly and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State who say that it is a problem, but the external auditors.
    A few weeks ago PricewaterhouseCoopers prepared a devastating report that said quite clearly that Caerphilly county borough council was underperforming, and was one of the worst local authorities in Wales. In a third of all performance indicators the local authority was in the bottom 25 per cent. The report singled out poor education standards, and also said that the authority's social services regime was appalling. That nationalist local authority lacks coherent policies, vision and a sense of social purpose. It claims to be a listening council, yet only the other day, despite the presentation of a petition signed by 1,000 people against the location of a waste transfer station in the village of Bedwas, it went ahead, completely ignoring public opinion.
    The person who has to take responsibility for that underperforming council is the leader of the council, Councillor Lindsay Whittle. There is a saying in Caerphilly—"Antisocial behaviour is a real problem". It is, but it comes not from disaffected young people, but from an underperforming local authority. Lindsay Whittle, the leader of the nationalist council, having made a complete mess of the local authority, now wants to stand for the National Assembly for Wales and represent Caerphilly. I can tell the House that he has tried and tried again to secure a parliamentary seat, and lost every time. I can also tell the House that he will fail to be elected to the National Assembly.
    As we go into the elections we must not rest on our laurels, for although much has been achieved in Wales we should look to the future and what we might achieve over the next few years. We should concentrate on tackling economic inactivity, as my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Havard) has said. That means doing three things. We need innovative policies: we need, for instance, to develop intermediate labour markets to bridge the gap between welfare and work. We need more complementarity between policy areas such as health and economic development. Finally, we need better coordination between the Assembly and central Government, particularly the Department for Work and Pensions. I am confident that those things will be done in the future.

    387
    I can honestly say that I am proud of the Assembly's achievements since 1999. We have a proud record there—and, indeed, in central Government. I have no doubt that on 1 May we will secure a Labour majority in the Assembly—and we will, of course, hold Caerphilly.
    6.26 pm
    Llew Smith: I join the Secretary of State in congratulating Rowan Williams on becoming Archbishop of Canterbury. Anyone with the good sense and decency to oppose a war in the Gulf deserves to be listened to. I am sure that Rowan Williams would support those of us who say there is something wrong with our priorities when we are willing to devote some £ 1,750 million to preparing for war when that money could be used in communities not just in Wales but throughout the United Kingdom, to provide better homes, hospitals and schools. Indeed, the list is endless, but we could certainly use a lot of that money in Blaenau Gwent. It would enable us to transform our communities.
    We have real problems in Blaenau Gwent, many of which—such as bad health and poverty—areinterrelated. Everyone now accepts that although the national health service needs more money, and although we welcome the extra money that has been provided, tackling bad health is not enough: poverty must be tackled as well, and we have poverty in abundance in Blaenau Gwent. If we are to tackle poverty, we must tackle the causes of poverty, one of which is unemployment. Our unemployment rate is still unacceptable. We have lost big manufacturing plants-Bosal, Faurecia and Wyvern Furniture. We have lost the coal industry, and more recently we have lost Corus—and, indeed, the steel industry.
    It is interesting to hear the Secretary of State talk of possible further redundancies at Corus, and the need to try to persuade the directors to change their plans. In my opinion, talking to Corus is an utter waste of time. It was set up for one reason and one reason only: to asset-strip the industry—and in that regard it has been successful. Sadly, while the directors became millionaires overnight, the people who built the steel industry and took pride in it were thrown on the scrapheap. The Labour Government are doing as much as possible to begin to rectify that wrong.
    When we fought the 1992 election we used the slogan, "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime". I supported that slogan, and with it in mind I consider that what Corus has done for the steel industry constitutes a criminal act. I think, and I know that the rest of my community shares this sentiment, that we should jail the directors—jail the lot of them. They have not only inflicted a terrible crime on my community; they are increasingly doing the same in communities throughout the United Kingdom.
    It is clear that this Labour Government have done many good things to begin to rectify poverty, of which the minimum wage is one. If we build on that, it will be the most important legislation produced by this Government since we came to power in 1997. The Government have also negotiated objective 1 funding, and the central Government public spending settlement for the Welsh Assembly is certainly one of the best for Wales that I can remember since becoming involved in
    388
    politics. Sadly, much still needs to be done, and the Welsh Assembly needs to change its priorities in terms of how that money is spent. It is true that many good things have been done. In my community there is the reintroduction of the passenger rail service, the Cwm bypass, the redevelopment of the old Dunlop Semtex site, and the proposed new hospital. However, we must compare that with the money that is being invested in the millennium arts centre in Cardiff bay: £100 million, and a £2 million a year subsidy for ever and a day. The cost of that arts centre far outweighs all the investment in the projects that I have mentioned.
    Another problem that my local authority faces is the local government formula, which determines how much money goes to each local authority. Each local authority throughout Wales produces broadly the same range and level of services. However, council tax levels vary widely, with the poorest valley region often having to pay nearly twice the lowest level. Indeed, the valley regions suffer the highest levels of deprivation in Wales. For the poorest communities in Wales to have some of the highest council tax levels is an unsustainable position.
    Whatever criticisms I may have of the Welsh Assembly are as nothing, however, when compared with my criticisms of the nationalists. We all remember valley communities asking the Welsh Assembly two or three years ago for some form of damping grant, to begin to rectify the wrongs and deal with the deprivation that they face. Sadly, the Welsh nationalists refused to vote for that additional money. They refused to support an initiative that gave more money to communities such as ours.
    I suppose that the nationalists are in a somewhat difficult position. Deep down, they believe not in a partnership between the Welsh Assembly and this Parliament, but in separation and independence. I know that they are reluctant to put that argument, but it is difficult for them to hold back their enthusiasm for it. Some years ago, their glorious leader, Ieuan Wyn Jones, said:
    "Labour are clearly unable to win a general election and self-government for Wales is the only answer."
    I think that he got that slightly wrong.
    Sadly, Ieuan did not tell his good friend Cynog Dafis, who then said:
    "Plaid's aspirations remain full self-government … the status that used to be called independence."
    Not to be outsmarted, Ieuan hit back and declared:
    "I think self-government now needs to be redefined. I much prefer to use"
    the term "full national status."
    That seemed to resolve the problem and to overcome some of their difficulties. However, in a nationalist leaflet that was distributed to my home a few days ago—it was one of the first, if not the first, in the party's attempt to win the constituency—Ieuan declared that what his nationalist party stands for is "self-government". So national self-determination, home rule and the many other phrases that the nationalists have used in their lifetime have suddenly been thrown out of the window. They now accept that they stand for self-government, and as Cynog said, self-government actually means independence.

    389
    People are not stupid, and they understand what the nationalists are all about. No matter what words they use to hide their true feelings, the party wants Wales to be separated from the rest of the UK. That would be counter-productive. We must realize that there is no difference between unemployed people in south Wales and those in London, or between unemployed steel workers in south Wales and those in the north of England. Rural workers in mid-Wales are no different from rural workers elsewhere in the UK or England.
    The problem is not one of nationality. We must change the system under which we live. Sadly for the nationalists, what they argue for would cause further problems for us as a community. It would split one part of the UK from the rest, when we should be united in recognising who the enemy is. The English are not the enemy. The enemy are the Coruses of this world, and such companies are raping our communities, as they were raped many years ago.
    6.36 pm
    Mr. Bill Wiggin: It is a tremendous honour to wind up such a well-attended and wide-ranging debate. Hon. Members from all of Wales have contributed, and I shall try to do them justice.
    Contributions were made by the Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) and the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies). The hon. Members for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence), for Montgomeryshire (Lembit öpik), for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones), for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) and for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) also spoke. There was an excellent speech from my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) about the important subject of midwifery and childbirth in Wales—an important subject but, sadly, a short speech.
    Other speeches were made by the hon. Members for Gower (Mr. Caton), for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams), for Clwyd, West (Gareth Thomas), for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Havard), for Aberavon (Dr. Francis), for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan), for Newport, West (Paul Flynn), for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), for Caerphilly (Mr. David) and for Blaenau Gwent (Llew Smith). The last named made a weighty contribution.
    My personal fondness for Wales began when I attended Bangor university and served with the Royal Welch Fusiliers. All our thoughts will be with our service personnel in the Gulf, especially with those from Wales.
    I was delighted when the hon. Member for Aberavon said that my constituency, being on the borders, had a real Welsh name and he was kind enough to mention that that name is Llanllieni. In the true spirit of bilingualism, I thought that that would look very good next to the word "Leominster" on the annunciator screen. You can imagine my disappointment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when the powers that be in the House told me that such a gesture of unity with Wales was not allowed. I hope that you will look into that rather strict rule.
    390
    The Government have a passion for devolution. That is clear from the amount of money, time and effort that they have put into forming and funding the National Assembly. It is a shame that their enthusiasm for the institution has not been more widely shared by the people of Wales. Indeed, the coming Assembly election will be a litmus test for the Labour party in Wales and the Welsh Assembly itself.
    Before the siren voices of the nationalists call for more powers, I believe that the Welsh people will give credit where it is due. If they feel that the Assembly has used its powers wisely and credibly, I hope that they will turn out in support. Last time, turnout was only 46 per cent. If people see the Assembly as a stepping-stone for independence, they will be hesitant in their support. Hon. Members have rightly voiced their reservations, based on the problem that revenue earned in Wales does not equate to revenue spent in Wales.
    The Government have other problems to deal with in Wales, as well as across the UK. Their railway policy has changed dramatically. The Wales and Borders franchise has been delayed for bureaucratic reasons. That is unforgivable, particularly when the Government and their Liberal Democrat helpers have gone to so much trouble to blame previous Conservative Governments for difficulties with rail travel. Now we have the Labour-created Strategic Rail Authority—
    Lembit Öpik: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Wiggin: No, I will not.
    The hon. Gentleman spent his speech telling us how important it was to be inclusive and not personal and then decided to attack Conservatives by quoting directly. He always does that.
    In my constituency, we still do not have disabled access at Leominster station, so it is particularly disheartening when we find that the Labour-created Strategic Rail Authority is taking trains out of service and cutting£312 million from the rail budget. It is time for the Government to take some responsibility for undermining our railways.
    Everyone in Wales, in some way or other, is a victim of the way in which the Government run Welsh affairs. I wish to turn to crime—[Laughter.] Solely for the duration of the debate. Crime is another issue on which the Labour Government have failed. It is no secret that crime in Wales has risen significantly since Labour assumed power in 1997. There has been a 27 per cent. increase in robberies, a figure that has grown steadily and continues to do so. From 1998 to 2002, violent crime rose by 13.7 per cent.
    Those figures contrast with the fact that, since 1997, there has been a steady decline in the number of special constables serving in Wales. In 1997, there were 1,150 special constables, which decreased in 1999 to 940, in 2000 to 811 and finally to 701 in 2002. How can reducing the number of serving special police constables in Wales possibly be conducive to reducing crime in Wales?
    Increased gun crime and the illegal drugs trade are serious issues throughout Wales. The Western Mail reported that, in Gwent, firearms offences increased by more than 64 per cent. last year. Again, how can a reduction in the number of serving special constables be helpful in that regard?

    391
    I now want to turn to health, another example of how, despite taxes going up in this country, public services do not appear to be getting any better. The Conservatives continue to press the Government on the rising waiting lists and GP shortages in Wales. The Government, with their Lib Dem coalition partners in Cardiff, appear to be oblivious to the horrendous waiting lists in Wales, which have risen by an average of 1,000 people every month since 1997. The number of people waiting over 18 months for in-patient treatment has risen by 240 per cent. since 1997, while the number waiting over six months for out-patient treatment has grown by a staggering 1,300 per cent.
    The Welsh Assembly coalition has broken an important promise. They vowed that these waiting lists would be eradicated by the end of Labour's first Assembly term. We find that the Government have less than two months to fulfil that promise; it seems highly unlikely that they will. The latest figures, published last year, reveal that 1,747 NHS posts have been vacant for three months or more. That represents an 18 per cent. increase on the figure published just six months earlier.
    Despite all the overwhelming evidence that the Government's tax-and-spend policy is not working, the Welsh Assembly Government are continuing to press ahead with further plans to restructure the health service and further bureaucratise and regulate the activities of hard-working doctors and nurses. Jane Hutt, the Welsh Assembly Health Minister, promised that this so-called restructuring would be cost-neutral. The crystal-clear reality is that there is nothing neutral about it at all. As we learned from my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley, it will cost Welsh taxpayers at least £15.5 million.
    Economic issues in Wales must cause extreme concern to us all. A recently published report by the Institute for Public Policy Research, "A new regional policy for the UK", shows that Wales has the second lowest level of business start-ups in the UK, the third highest unemployment rate, the third lowest levels of income and the highest percentage of people on sickness or disability benefits.
    In manufacturing, the situation goes from bad to worse. Welsh manufacturers have been the victims of sharper falls in new orders than the rest of the UK. Orders fell by 24 per cent in Wales, compared with 19 per cent. in Scotland, the next worst affected area. That contradicts the Secretary of State's assertion that the Welsh economy continues to hold its own against the UK regions. Furthermore, the Welsh economy has lost 10,000 manufacturing jobs over the past year. I note yesterday's foreboding of a strong chance of closure of the Corus steel plant in Port Talbot, with the potential for another 3,000 jobs to be lost—[Interruption.] I am delighted if that is not the case, but that is what I read in the newspapers. That is what is published. I confess that I find it hard to reconcile such a gloomy outlook with the remarkable picture that the Secretary of State claims that he can paint of the Welsh economy.
    The CBI in Wales also points out a stark picture and states:
    "Welsh output … is predicted to decline over the next four months …business finances are significantly under pressure. This partly reflects the difficult economic climate, but policy-driven cost increases, including business tax rises, have also played a key role."
    If that is not proof that the Labour Government are a business-wrecking Government, nothing is.
    392
    I turn to the impending council tax increases. It is not only business that the Government are taxing into the ground but the ordinary people of Wales. Council taxes are set to increase by a staggering 14 per cent., which is yet another example of the Chancellor's tax-and-spend policies. The Welsh Assembly Government persist in telling us that council tax increases are nothing to do with them but are at the discretion of individual local authorities. The trouble is that local authorities must pay for the extravagant, wasteful policies initiated by the Assembly, not least the ridiculous, monstrous waste of money that is the plan for the new Assembly building in Cardiff bay.
    The bottom line is that this Government, in their capacity at Westminster and in the Welsh Assembly in Cardiff, have failed the people of Wales. The Government's approach to so many issues—crime, health, education, industry, agriculture, local government—is fundamentally flawed. Their policies are failing the people of Wales because they do not work.
    What would it take to reverse that pattern of decline in Wales? There is only one answer: a radical rethink of how Government policy is implemented in Wales, and a radical revision of the approach that this Government have taken. That radical revision and new approach can come only from the Conservative party. Only the Conservatives have the vision to take stock of what is happening in Wales and reverse the decline by radically changing the policy approach.
    6.47 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): This debate has once again demonstrated the important role that Welsh matters play in the affairs of the House. I am delighted that so many Members have taken the opportunity to contribute to a wide-ranging debate. Let me remind hon. Members of the progress relating to Wales that we have been making in this place in the last year.
    The Health (Wales) Bill has come before Parliament: the first Wales-only Bill to be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. Other Bills containing important provisions for Wales, such as the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill and the Local Government Bill, have been debated. In the post-devolution world, therefore, Wales's voice at Westminster remains strong, which is what the people of Wales want: a strong voice in Parliament and an influential and strong voice in Government. They would not support proposals from other parties to dilute that influence and weaken Wales's voice. The Tory sham of supporting devolution while constantly sniping at it is not the answer, nor is the nationalists' efforts to undermine it in their claims for separation and for the break up of Britain. The Liberal Democrats agree with everybodyb—as they always do, depending on whom they are speaking to—and have no answer either.
    Many of the speeches today have reflected the progress that the Government, working in partnership with the Labour-led Assembly, have made over the past year.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Touhig: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will not do so, as I must try to make many responses.

    393
    Let us make no mistake: we have a good story to tell. I am far happier talking about the record of our Government than about that of our rugby team at present. Confident and ever-optimistic, however, I believe that the Welsh rugby team, like the phoenix, will rise from the ashes.

    There are over 60,000 more people in employment in Wales now than there were a year ago. The agricultural and tourism sectors are making a strong recovery from the setbacks of previous years and exciting projects in both private and public sectors are being developed across Wales, such as Airbus, DARA. at St. Athan, the Wales millennium centre, the Baglan energy park, and the proposed film studios near Bridgend.
    General Dynamics' investment in my constituency is another success story. The Labour Government, working in partnership with the Labour-led Assembly, are delivering results in better jobs and more prosperity for the people of Wales. Those examples are part of our success story and they show the partnership between a strong Labour Government in Westminster and a Labour-led Assembly.
    I wish to highlight three areas in which I have personally witnessed the benefits of that partnership in recent weeks. Only last Friday I attended an event to mark the new deal helping 50,000 people into work. I remember the Opposition saying that the new deal would not help to reduce unemployment. What do they say now about the 50,000 people in Wales who have jobs as a result of Labour's new deal initiative? They have no answer. Secondly, we are delivering results in fighting crime. Our investment has delivered a record 600 extra police officers in Wales and overall crime levels are down by 15 per cent.
    Thirdly, by working together, we are delivering compensation to miners, and their widows and families, whose lives were damaged by working in the coal industry. Under the two miners' compensation schemes, we have seen almost 25,000 claims settled and £281 million paid out. We are now paying out £3 million a week to miners and their widows in the Welsh coalfields. However, there is much that still has to be done and we must not give up until justice has been delivered to all our miners and their families.
    The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) talked about the problems in manufacturing, and I agree that it has had problems. However, 20,000 new jobs have been created in manufacturing in Wales. One in eight jobs in manufacturing have been created since 2000. The Welsh economy is now much more diverse than it was 20 or 30 years ago. Public investment is important to that, and it is enabling the building of new schools and hospitals as well as providing work in the construction industry. What would a 20 per cent. cut in public investment do for the economy of Wales? Not much. The hon. Gentleman also complained about the council tax. As a result of the support given by this Government to our colleagues in the Assembly, funding for councils in the next year will increase by more than 9 per cent. in Wales, which is almost three times the rate of inflation. The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) mentioned council tax increases, but one of the biggest increases is in the Conservative-run Vale of Glamorgan. Its council tax will go up by 10 per cent.
    394
    It is important that we ensure that funding goes to our local authorities to deliver improvements in services. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley also expressed concern about waiting lists, but 200,000 more people have been treated in Wales since Labour came into government. We have had to correct 18 years of under-investment. We remember the Conservatives in government, when 70 hospitals were closed between 1979 and 1997 and 8,000 general acute beds were lost as a result of their policies. The hon. Gentleman is also clearly at odds with the Tory health spokesman in the Assembly who has said that the NHS needs extra resources, which should be funded from taxation. That is not what the Tories say when we increase national insurance to fund the health service.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence) made two important points. She talked about the exciting Petroplus project in her constituency. I recently visited it and I wish it every success. She also mentioned the Bluestone development, which is an important tourist initiative. I hope that the planning authorities will do everything possible to speed up the decision on that development.
    The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit öpik) outlined the achievements of the National Assembly, and they are Labour achievements. Labour promises were made and delivered by the National Assembly.
    Lembit öpik: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Touhig: I regret that I cannot give way, because I have to respond to so many contributions to the debate.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies) talked about the economic problems that we still have, but he acknowledged that we have made a good start. He made a powerful case for exercising caution before making the further constitutional changes advocated by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire.
    The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) also raised the issue of waiting lists. Long waiting lists are not acceptable and my colleagues in the Assembly are taking steps to meet that challenge. Vast sums of money are going into the NHS, and reforms are being made, so that we can deliver. My colleague Edwina Hart, the Assembly Minister for Finance, Local Government and Communities, has called in Derek Wanless, who will carry out a review of NHS spending in Wales, and we look forward to that.
    The hon. Gentleman also talked about the problems of match funding. Well, this Government said that we would not let Wales down when we won objective 1 funding, and we did not. The spending review in 2001–02 delivered above-Barnett consequentials for funding in Wales, and we have benefited from that. His criticism of the WDA was unfair. The WDA is setting higher targets; next year, it aims to create or safeguard 48,000 jobs in Wales. That is important to the Welsh economy and we should welcome it.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones) welcomed the way in which pre-legislative scrutiny has been handled. He mentioned the Health (Wales) Bill in particular and I thank his Committee for its work. I suspect that further work for it will be coming down the track.

    395
    The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) raised concerns about his unitary development plan. New legislation that is going through the House may help his constituency, but I was very concerned about his remarks. If he has not already done so, I suggest that he brings these matters to the attention of Assembly Ministers. I will undertake to ensure that a transcript of his comments is passed on to Assembly Ministers.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) welcomed a number of measures, such as the working families tax credit and the minimum income guarantee, mentioning the benefit that they have brought to his constituents. I pay tribute to him for his campaign to improve the health of air passengers on long-haul flights. He has done a tremendous job.
    The hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) popped up and made a contribution. He was concerned about maternity services. His party, when in Government, presided over a 25 per cent. cut in nursing and midwifery training. That is his party's record. We were left to clean up the mess and to overcome the nursing shortages that we inherited. Our target is to employ 6,000 more nurses in Wales by 2010. We are on target.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) spoke about the dramatic cut in unemployment in his constituency and about the importance of the minimum wage. I agree with what he said. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) spoke about KTH at Llanidloes. I know that Team Wales has been asked to see what it can do to save those jobs. My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Gareth Thomas) mentioned that today's debate is closer to St. Patrick's day than St. David's day. He should not worry too much about that because St. Patrick was a Welshman. He came from Gwent. I know that for a fact.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Havard) talked about economic inactivity. He is right: 300,000 people in Wales are economically inactive. We have to use projects such as workstep to find ways of getting them into work. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr. Francis) spoke passionately about the steel industry in his constituency. I assure him that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I will do all that we can to help to protect the jobs at Corus in Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) spoke about the importance of manufacturing, training and modern apprenticeships, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) spoke about equal pay. I share her hopes and aspirations on that.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) reminded us of the suffering inflicted on communities as a result of steel job losses. That suffering has been all too stark in parts of Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) raised important issues to do with rail transport. My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) welcomed the improvements in his area as a result of objective 1. He also highlighted the fact that we have a terribly badly run Welsh nationalist council in Caerphilly; we have good officers and staff in Caerphilly but a lousy council leadership that is failing the people of Caerphilly. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Llew Smith) welcomed the minimum wage. It is right that we should build on that.
    396
    People in Wales face a choice on 1 May. They can return a Labour Administration to the Assembly, based on our record of managing a sound economy and improving the health and education services. They can choose a Wales that is going forward and working in partnership with the Government here in Westminster—a Labour Government that is undoing the legacy of the Tory years. That is choice that they face. We want no more Thatcher policies in Wales. We will ensure that the people of Wales understand that as we come towards the election.
    There is something else that people will have to remember in a few weeks' time. Our own daffodil Tories, the nationalist party, would take us back to the time of Redwood and Thatcher. The nationalists' choice is a path of separation and isolation, leading to mass unemployment and a divided society. The nationalists' vision is a Wales of elites and divisions—a country savaged by unemployment and cut off from our closest friends and neigh hours just to satisfy the delusions of an extremist nationalist elite. The people of Wales will certainly turn that down. That vision is a nightmare.
    On 1 May, the people of Wales will have a choice of returning a Labour Administration or of returning a Tory Administration that is committed to 20 per cent. cuts in public expenditure. They will have a choice of returning a Labour Administration in Wales that will give Wales a world-class economy, or of returning a nationalist party that will cut Wales off from the rest of the United Kingdom, leaving a barren outcrop of deprivation, unemployment and poverty. Labour wants a Wales in which the people of Wales can be confident of their future. I believe that the people of Wales will make the right choice on 1 May. I believe that they will turn out in their thousands to elect a Labour Administration in Cardiff.
    It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

    INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE) BILL
    Ordered,
    That, during proceedings on the Industrial Development (Financial Assistance) Bill, the Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet.—[Mr. Ainger.]

  PETITIONS

    Pharmacies
    7 pm
    Mr. Kerry Pollard: This petition— [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I advise Members not to cross in front of an hon. Member when he is addressing the House.
    Mr. Pollard: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This petition from Janet Smith and other citizens of St. Albans declares:
    That proposals to allow unrestricted opening of pharmacies able to dispense national health service prescriptions would undermine the excellent service provided by communities pharmacists.

    397
    The Petitioners therefore call upon the House of Commons to reject those proposals.
    And the Petitioners remain, etc.
    To lie upon the Table.
    7.1 pm
    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan:s I wish to present a petition from more than 1,000 residents in Chesham and Amersham who use the Collins and Jervie pharmacy at 52 Sycamore road, Amersham and members of Chesham and Amersharr, who use the Fox pharmacy in Holmer Green. The petition declares:
    The proposals made by the Office of Fair Trading to allow supermarkets a bigger role in dispensing NHS prescriptions will endanger the viability of neighbourhood pharmacies in local high streets which serve the needs of local people; notes that neighbourhood pharmacies provide many services for their customers such as stocking oxygen cylinders and organising repeat prescriptions; further notes that the pharmacy is a fount of advice for patients, particularly mothers with babies and elderly people and that the supermarket is not necessarily more convenient for either of these age groups to visit.
    The Petitioners therefore request the House of Commons to reject the proposals by the Office of Fair Trading to allow supermarkets a bigger role in dispensing NH S prescriptions.
    And the Petitioners remain, etc.
    To lie upon the Table.

Rail Services (Wilmslow)
7.2 pm
Mr. George Osborne: I am delighted to present a petition of the residents of Wilmslow, Alderley Edge and the surrounding area that was organised by Andrew Stephenson, Jim Crockatt, Joan Barnes, Rod Menlove and Keith Chapman. The petition declares:
That they believe that Wilmslow's direct rail service to London is of vital importance to the local community and the local economy, notes that it is used by 78,000 passengers a year, further notes that Virgin Trains wishes to maintain the service, and therefore strongly oppose the arbitrary decision by the Strategic Rail Authority to scrap the service without any local consultation and for no good reason.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons call on the Secretary of State for Transport to instruct the Strategic Rail Authority to maintain the popular and important direct train service between Wilmslow and London.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
To lie upon the Table.

Rail Services (Hassocks)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ainger.]
7.3 pm
Mr. Howard Flight: I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise the issue of the problems on the railway service from London to Hassocks, the main commuter station in my constituency. Those problems also touch on all the stations and commuters served by the Brighton line south of Gatwick, in particular the station at Burgess Hill.
I raise the issue at the request and with the support of the Hassocks amenity association, which is backed by Hassocks parish council, a number of other parish councils, the Hassocks village action plan and all three political parties. We are all looking to improve the train service and to campaign to reverse the significant deterioration that has been experienced in recent years.
There are specific objectives as well as specific problems. The specific objectives are to reintroduce the off-peak services to London Victoria that are no longer available, to increase weekend services, to introduce a Sunday Thameslink service, to restore a late-night service from Brighton, to introduce a shuttle service to Gatwick and to introduce more direct services to Hove.
Major problems need to be addressed, however. Cancelled services and trains not stopping at Hassocks as a result of congestion affect, in particular, mid-morning Thameslink services north and south. The extent of the delays has resulted in a considerable increase in the use of cars, with people travelling to Gatwick to get a reliable train service. The number of carriages has been reduced from eight to four, which has caused considerable passenger congestion, resulting in people sometimes being unable to get on trains.
The recent decision by the Strategic Rail Authority to stop the through-service to Bournemouth at Southampton means that citizens of the area who travel south and west no longer have direct access to Bournemouth. There are occasional problems with power supplies and the station is a derelict 30-year-old prefab. The station premises, including the platform, are dangerous for disabled people and the platform itself is inadequate, which is one reason for the reduced number of carriages.
A year ago I was enormously heartened when I met the managing director of the new operator who was negotiating the franchise. One merged company, the Go-Ahead Group, now represents South Central, Thameslink and Thames Trains. The new operator wanted to address key fundamental, as well as operating, problems. The biggest single problem is congestion at Gatwick. The Gatwick special service to London gets priority because of its success, as a result of which trains to the commuter stations down the line are delayed or cancelled if there are pressures to do so. In addition, the number of trains that can use the line in both directions is increasingly limited by extra services to Gatwick.
I mentioned the infrastructure problems at Hassocks station. It is necessary to replace outdated and dangerous rolling stock. There were also problems with

399
cancelled trains because drivers were sick or did not turn up. The operators have dealt with the number of drivers and are going ahead with investment in new rolling stock, with 700 new carriages due to be installed by the end of next year, but as a result of having been granted a seven-year franchise rather than a 20-year franchise, that is the extent of the capital investment that they are willing to make. The rest of the capital investment falls entirely at the door of the SRA. That is the fundamental problem.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: My hon. Friend and I share the same problem with the line, especially as far as Burgess Hill is concerned. Does he agree that there is confusion in people's minds because they think that the operator is responsible for the infrastructure and the stations? Those who are responsible for the work that needs to be conducted, to a much greater extent, at Hassocks and, to a lesser extent—although it is by no means unimportant—at Burgess Hill, are unsure and unclear when the money will be forthcoming. Does my hon. Friend know when the SRA will provide it?
Mr. Flight: There seems to be no idea whatsoever about when the money will be forthcoming. That issue arose at a major meeting at Hassocks with representatives of the SRA, the operators and various others. I feel slightly sorry for the operators. They get the blame for everything that people object to but, with only a seven-year franchise, they do not have the power to address some of the major issues.
As I was saying, all infrastructure investment seems to fall at the door of the SRA, and there seems no prospect of Network Rail taking on responsibility for the station. Indeed, the SRA said bluntly at the meeting in Hassocks that, given the additional cost of the west coast main line, there was no prospect of it affording in the foreseeable future the necessary capital investment to build a new station, make other infrastructure improvements, or address the major need for—to use rather simplistic language—a bypass in the train line around Gatwick in order to avoid the bottleneck.
The operators have made some improvements. There are now three trains an hour to London—two Thameslink services to London Bridge and one to Clapham Junction—but there is no prospect of a direct train to Victoria, which is one of the main central London destinations for commuters. Commuters still have to change trains in order to get to Victoria. The SRA and others made the point that, in addition to the Gatwick bottleneck, limited capacity at stations in London was a major problem.
It is fair to say that the reaction of a large number of citizens who gathered at the meeting with the parties that I have mentioned was one of acute depression. In effect, they were told that, other than marginal improvements that the operators can make, there was no prospect of relieving the rest of the problems.
West Sussex is to be obliged to cope with a substantial number of new houses, and some 3,000 of them are to be adjacent to Hassocks, west of Burgess Hill. Two new runways could be built at Gatwick, which would greatly increase the demand for trains to and from the airport. If Gatwick expands, there will be a big increase in the number of commuters on the line from Hassocks.
400
Indeed, if the growth in use of the network continued at the rate of the past decade, there would be a 90 per cent. increase in traffic by 2016. There is absolutely no way that the infrastructure or the operators can address that growth without the required major investment. Indeed, the Government's objective of increasing traffic by 50 per cent. by 2010 cannot possibly be delivered on the present run-down infrastructure.
The key question is this: why on earth was a seven-year rather than a 20-year franchise granted? That has frustrated the delivery by the operators of quite a deal of capital investment. There is clearly insufficient funding for the SRA, or the SRA is giving priority to other needs at the expense of a congested area of the south-east, particularly the Brighton line. The prospect for rail transport serving my existing constituents and the new constituents who will come to the area as new housing is developed-indeed for the whole of the mid—Sussex area—is disastrous. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) would point to problems of equal magnitude that are encountered on the service to Burgess Hill and commuter stations close to it.
We have been told that there is no prospect of the SRA addressing the capital investment and infrastructure needs that will be required to cope with the increased population. What on earth is the Government's transport policy? Why are the basic rail needs of a part of the world that is required to cope with a great deal more housing and many more citizens to be completely ignored?
I am grateful for the opportunity to present the problems on behalf' of my constituents. I hope that the Minister will take note in a constructive way and discuss with the SRA what might be considered, especially bearing in mind the rising need as a result of the likely expansion of Gatwick airport.
7.15 pm
The Parliamentary Unde-rSecretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): I congratulate the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) on securing the debate and providing an opportunity for the House to discuss train services to Hassocks.
Hassocks is a station on the busy London to Brighton line between Burgess Hill and Preston Park, a suburb of Brighton. Train services to Hassocks are provided by Thameslink and South Central. Station facilities, such as staffing for the booking office, are provided by South Central. The passenger service requirements for the relevant franchises set out the minimum level of service that must be provided. In the case of Hassocks, there must be a half-hourly service to London Bridge on the Thameslink franchise, and an hourly service to Victoria on the South Central franchise. All these trains originate from or continue to Brighton.
During the morning and evening peaks, trains are more frequent and serve a wider range of destinations. In the morning— between 6.30 and 8.30 am, for example—12 trains call at Hassocks on their way to London, and in the evening 14 trains from London call in the down direction between 5.30 and 7.30 pm. I do not underestimate the frustration that can be caused when trains are late or do not run at all, but the current level of service being provided on the line does not seem unreasonable.

401
I mentioned the range of destinations served. Most southbound trains terminate at Brighton, with the exception of a few peak-hour services that run on to destinations such as Hove and Littlehampton. Northbound, there are regular through services to Luton, Luton airport and Bedford via Thameslink. That provides connections to the east midlands, Sheffield and Leeds. The regular South Central service runs to Watford junction, calling at Kensington Olympia. Connections can be made there for Virgin Cross Country and west coast main line services to the north-west, the north-east and Scotland. All those services can be accessed without the need to cross London or change stations. The Brighton to Watford Junction trains also provide the hourly service to Victoria by way of connections that can be made at Haywards Heath, Gatwick Airport, East Croydon or Clapham Junction.
Of course, this complex web of services brings its own problems, some of which were highlighted by the hon. Gentleman. One is that Thameslink trains, in particular, have to thread their way through a complicated series of stations and junctions in the London area and on to routes carrying the trains of a number of other operators. The inevitable result is that they are sometimes delayed, often because of the late running of other operators' services. Decisions then have to be made about how that lost time can be made up. One way of doing that is to run trains fast between Brighton and Haywards Heath or vice versa. Unfortunately, the result is that passengers wishing to use Hassocks are occasionally inconvenienced.
The Strategic Rail Authority stresses to all train operating companies the need to run their trains as advertised. It also emphasises the need to keep passengers informed of disruptions, cancellations and any late running that may occur. There will inevitably be cases when it is preferable either to cancel a service that is running late or to run it fast through some stations. It can then start its next journey on time and not add to delays elsewhere on the network by being late. There is a delicate balance to be struck between inconveniencing a small number of passengers so that a larger number elsewhere on the network are not delayed by knock-on effects.
Thameslink recognises the importance of striking the correct balance, and with that in mind, has out-stationed a team of managers at Brighton to advise on late running and make decisions on the ground. The hon. Gentleman might well respond that it is always his constituents who lose out. I am afraid that such decisions will always involve hard choices, but the fact is that Hassocks is comfortably smaller than most of the other stops that could be missed out in that way, and Thameslink ensures that it resorts to station-skipping only when an alternative train is available within a short time. My information is that the number of occasions when trains do not stop at Hassocks is fairly low. If the hon. Gentleman knows otherwise or has other information, I am sure that he will bring it to my Department's attention.
I appreciate that schoolchildren rely on the stopping services to go to schools in and around Hassocks. I also know that with new house building the population is
402
rising, and that existing roads are already close to capacity. The hon. Gentleman pointed out that Hassocks, like Burgess Hill, was developed as a railway commuter town. Its station continues to serve a substantial rural area, including many other areas as well as Hassocks itself. I am sure that Thameslink will keep arrangements under review, so that if relative passenger numbers at the stations concerned change significantly, operational practice can be modified to match those changes. Of course, it is our ambition throughout the country to keep services under review so that they match any changes and are appropriate to any population shifts.
On track capacity, the Strategic Rail Authority has undertaken extensive consultation about capacity utilisation. That is relevant to a number of suggestions that have been made about increased services from Hassocks. The time to consider those suggestions will be when the Strategic Rail Authority is conducting its review of track capacity on the London to Brighton line. At present, the line is being used to its maximum track capacity and opportunities to introduce new services or add extra station calls to existing services are very limited indeed.
The hon. Gentleman may think that that sounds less than encouraging, but we are clear that the priority for Network Rail, the Strategic Rail Authority and the train operating companies should be to ensure that existing rail services operate consistently, reliably and punctually. We need services that passengers can rely on. In fact, one of passengers' main criticisms about our train services is lack of predictability. Of course, that is very important.
The rolling stock used on the great majority of trains that call at Hassocks is accessible to those with disabilities, including wheelchair users—an issue that I think the hon. Gentleman has raised with my Department in the past. However, some services—mostly the peak period ones—are still provided with slam-door stock that is not accessible in that way. The good news is that those trains will progressively be replaced with Electrostar trains, which are fully accessible and have wheelchair-accessible toilets.
Hassocks station is not fully accessible to all those with disabilities, but the necessary work will take place to make it so. The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to learn that priority for such work is given to the busiest stations that are not easily accessible—Clapham Junction is a good example—but the focus is now shifting to the smaller and less busy stations such as Hassocks.
When the Strategic Rail Authority was negotiating the new South Central franchise agreement, it arranged for Go Via to take over the franchise from Connex in August 2001. It then began work with Go Via to specify a range of infrastructure enhancements. Later, when a decision was made to reduce the length of the franchise, there were knock-on effects for that infrastructure programme. That does not mean that the work will not take place, because the Strategic Rail Authority is taking over sponsorship of some of it. A proposal for capacity enhancement at Gatwick, including what has come to be known as the Gatwick bypass, is among the schemes that have been put forward, but it is too soon to say whether it will go ahead. Notwithstanding the

403
outcome of the current consultation on air services, that scheme will be another consideration in future years should a decision be made arising from the consultation.
It is clear that the Brighton line needs improvement to achieve greater capacity, better signalling and higher speeds. It is a busy stretch of railway that runs through growing centres of population, so anything that can be done to increase capacity and improve reliability will bring major benefits. Some signaling enhancement has already been completed, and more is in progress. There is also a continuing track maintenance and replacement programme. The vast majority of the track slowings caused by gauge corner cracking have now been removed, but old track and sleepers still need to be replaced in certain areas. Coupled with the major track upgrades on both the Brighton line and the Arun valley line, that will allow improved frequency and journey times to the Sussex coast. Enhancements are also taking place at Gatwick Airport station to provide further performance and capacity gains.
The power supply arrangements for the introduction of new rolling stock are not satisfactory. Upgrading the supply to cater for the higher-performance trains ordered for the south-east was not factored into the investment programme by the industry parties involved as quickly or as clearly as it ought to have been. The Strategic Rail Authority has now taken the lead—as it has with the west coast route modernisation project—and, in partnership with the industry, has produced a plan to co-ordinate the work. This is a multi-million pound project that will be authorised and funded in stages. It involves upgrading and replacing substations, replacing cables and conductor rails, and upgrading electrical control centres. All that work is necessary because the new trains need more power. They are heavier and have extra features such as air conditioning—bringing—better conditions for travellers—and modern traction systems. The work is already under way. High-voltage cables have already been laid in the inner-London area and the main power supply contracts are now being awarded by Network Rail.
We want to deliver a bigger, better and safer railway with increased punctuality and reliability, reduced journey times and higher standards of customer services. That applies to the services we have been discussing today as much as to the network in general.
Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) mentioned the physical infrastructure of Hassocks station. Although the news about the upgrading of the lines is welcome, is the Minister aware that it is not only Hassocks that faces a major problem? To a lesser extent, Burgess Hill and
404
Haywards Heath have requirements for the most basic improvements to station facilities, which, to the travelling public, are every bit as important as improvements of the kind that he is talking about.
Mr. Jamieson: Yes, I am aware of that. That is why I said that improvements were being made progressively. The Government have made very substantial investment, but it is progressive. The problem to which the hon. Gentleman alludes is not new. It goes back many years, and certainly predates this Government.
The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs queried the seven-year franchise. As he knows, it was to have been a 20-year franchise, but the Strategic ail Authority decided that the 20-year deal was poor value for money, so it was renegotiated at seven years. He asked about the Government's policy on railways and said that there was clearly insufficient funding for the Strategic Rail Authority. That may or may not be the case, but I can tell him that the funding that has been made available to the Strategic Rail Authority is at record levels. Never, throughout many years of neglect, was so much money invested in our rail service. Just after Christmas, the hon. Gentleman was quoted in The Daily Telegraph as saying:
"I am digging through current spending, finding opportunities for cuts. It's too early to say how much but it could be up to 20 per cent."
I assume that when he does his digging, cuts will not be identified in the services that would affect his constituents.
Mr. Flight: If the Minister had continued to read the article he would have noticed that I said that it was in order to have the funds for necessary areas of additional investment.
Mr. Jamieson: At another time, I would be interested in arguing with the hon. Gentleman about how we can make 20 per cent. cuts while continuing the level of investment that the Government are making in the rail system. I must politely point out that the two aims are inconsistent, but I am sure that he will argue his case convincingly in some other place at some other time.
The Brighton line is an important link in the southeast rail network. Although the hon. Gentleman may not have been entirely encouraged by everything that I have said, I hope that he will at least feel that our plans will deliver the service that his constituents have every right to expect. The debate has provided a useful opportunity to air some important issues, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for initiating it.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at half-past Seven o'clock.

Deferred Divisions

  SOCIAL SECURITY
  That the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2003, which were laid before this House on 24th February, be approved.
  The House divided: Ayes 279, Noes 58.

  Division No.113]

  AYES

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Ainger, Nick

  Cummings, John

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Allen, Graham

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Davidson, Ian

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Austin, John

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Banks, Tony

  Dawson, Hilton

  Barnes, Harry

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Bayley, Hugh

  Denham, rh John

  Beard, Nigel

  Dhanda, parmjit

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Dismore, Andrew

  Bennett, Andrew

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Berry, Roger

  Doran, Frank

  Best, Harold

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Blackman, Liz

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Blair, rh Tony

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Edwards, Huw

  Blunkett, rh David

  Efford, Clive

  Borrow, David

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Flint, Caroline

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Browne, Desmond

  Follett, Barbara

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Foster, rh Derek

  Burden, Richard

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Burgon, Colin

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Cairns, David

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  George, rh Burce (Walsall S)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Gerrard, Neil

  Casale, Roger

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Caton, Martin

  Gilroy, Linda

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Goggins, Paul

  Clapham, Michael

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Grogan, John

  Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

  Hain, rh Peter

  Clarke, rh Tom(Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hamilton, David(Midlothian)

  Clelland, David

  Hanson, David

  Clwyd, Ann(Cynon V)

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  Coleman, Iain

  Colman, Tony

  Healey, John

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Corston, Jean

  Heppell, John

  Cranston, Ross

  Hermon, Lady

  Crausby, David

  Hesford, Stephen

  Cruddas, Jon

  Heyes, David

  406

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Hinchliffe, David

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Organ, Diana

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Owen, Albert

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Pearson, Ian

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Perham, Linda

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Picking, Anne

  Hutton, rh John

  Pickthall, Colin

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Jamieson, David

  Plaskitt, James

  Jenkins, Brian

  Pollard, Kerry

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Pound, Stephen

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jowell, rh Tessa

  Prescott, rh John

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Purchase, Ken

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Kemp, Fraser

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Kidney, David

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Ruane, Chris

  Knight Jim (S Dorset)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Salter, Martin

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Sawford, Phill

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Sheerman, Barry

  Lepper, David

  Sheridan, Jim

  Leslie, Christopher

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Simon, Sion (B'ham Erdington)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Skinner, Dennis

  Linton, Martin

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Love, Andrew

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  McCabe, Stephen

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  McCafferty, Chris

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Soley, Clive

  MacDonald, Calum

  Southworth, Helen

  MacDougall, John

  Spellar, rh John

  McGrady, Eddie

  Squire, Rachel

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  McIsaac, Shona

  Steinberg, Gerry

  McKechin, Ann

  Stevenson, George

  McNulty, Tony

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  McWalter, Tony

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Stringer, Graham

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Martlew, Eric

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Merron, Gillian

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Michael, rh Alun

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Miliband, David

  Thomas, gareth (Clwyd W)

  Miller, Andrew

  Tipping, Paddy

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Mole, Chris

  Trickett, Jon

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Truswell, Paul

  Morgan, Julie

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Mudie, George

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Mullin, Chris

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  407

  Vaz Keith (Leicester E)

  Wilson, Brian

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Winnick, David

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Woolas, Phil

  Ward, Claire

  Worthington, Tony

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Wright Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Watts, David

  White, Brian

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Wyatt, Derek

  NOES

  Barrett, John

  Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Cotter, Brian

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Breed, Colin

  Dodds, Nigel

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

  Burnett, John

  Doughty, Sue

  Burnside, David

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Burstow, Paul

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Cable, Dr.Vincent

  Gidley, Sandra

  Calton,Mrs Patsy

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  408

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Harvey, Nick

  Shepherd, Richard

  Heath, David

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

  Holmes, Paul

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Keetch, Paul

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Lamb, Norman

  Stunell, Andrew

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Thurso, John

  Paisley, Rev. Ian

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Weir, Michael

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Pugh, Dr.John

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Buie)

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Rendel, David

  Wishart, Pete

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Question accordingly agreed to.

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

Community Pharmacies
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Dan Norris.]
9.30 am
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Edward O'Hara): Before I call the initiator of the debate, may I point out that 16 hon. Members have expressed in writing their desire to speak in the debate, and they will have priority? Others may hope to make a contribution, so Members who speak should take that into account and tailor their speeches accordingly.
Mr. Anthony Steen: The timing of this debate is critical, because the Government have to respond to the Office of Fair Trading report on "The Control of Entry Regulations and Retail Pharmacy Services in the UK" by 17 April. I thank the Speaker for selecting this morning's debate. The Government will have adequate time to hear from both sides of the house. In view of how many hon. Members wish to speak, would colleagues consider adopting a five-minute limit? I shall speak a little longer than that, but not much.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should point out that the Deputy Speaker has no power to curtail contributions, but I am sure that hon. Members will take note of what the hon. Member said.
Mr. Steen: I was not suggesting that you should curtail contributions, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am sure that hon. Members will respond to that request.
What should the Government say in response to the Office of Fair Trading report, which in effect recommended the wholesale deregulation of pharmaceutical services in England and Wales? I like to think that I am a model of a modem deregulator: I dislike unnecessary rules and regulations, and I chaired the Conservative party's committee on deregulation in the 1990s. I believe that our business ethos has been hijacked by a culture of overregulation, which has resulted in batteries of officials, all armed with handbooks and directives, justifying rigid adherence to a bureaucratic straitjacket in the name of public protection.
The purported liberation of the pharmacists by removing the sluice gate currently operated by the local primary care trusts is not deregulation at all. The Office of Fair Trading proposals are not deregulatory: they are more about competition and price considerations. The report concludes that the public will be better off if the primary care trust is no longer involved. I do not believe that. Although a balance is needed between a planned and centrally controlled NHS and locality pharmacists, an unrestricted free market is neither relevant nor desirable in this instance.
We must consider whether the small amount of money saved by the consumer justifies the impact on existing Government policies. I cannot believe that the
70WH
progressive closure of neighbourhood pharmacies will fit into the Government's aims of social inclusion, urban renaissance and sustainable development.
Mr. Adrian Sanders:Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Steen: Not quite yet.
Furthermore, the closure of neighbourhood pharmacies would be counter-productive to patient welfare, as I shall explain. About 80 per cent. of a pharmacist's income comes from their contract with the local primary care trust to dispense NHS medical prescriptions. They assume a satellite role in relation to the NHS. The remaining 20 per cent. of the income of most pharmacies comes from marketing and selling other goods in their shops.
Mr. Sanders: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Steen: No, not yet. I know that the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) is my next-door neighbour, but I should like just a little longer to get the argument going.
It must be made clear that NHS prescriptions will cost the consumer the same amount, wherever purchased. I want to ensure that hon. Members understand that. Wherever people buy their NHS prescriptions, whether in a supermarket or a high street chemist, they will cost the same. Supermarkets will not be able to undercut their competitors' prices for prescriptions. The Office of Fair Trading report argues that, if supermarkets provide the NHS prescription service, they will also attract unprescribed, over-the-counter sales of items such as aspirin or cough mixture. Although supermarkets can sell such general items without the presence of a qualified pharmacist, they cannot sell what is known as P-list medicines without a pharmacist on duty.
However, the OFT argues that supermarkets should automatically be able to supply NHS prescriptions with a pharmacist on duty, and that they should not have to be regulated by primary care trusts. Supermarkets cart apply to the PCT for a contract to dispense NHS prescriptions, and their applications, like any others, are considered according to the desirability of having another chemist in the locality. Many pharmacists with NHS contracts are based in supermarkets. That is just one of the factors that the local PCT considers.
The OFT says that the consumer will be able to save some £30 million each year, but I am not quite sure why. The industry says that the figure is nearer £8 million, or 0.08 per cent. of the £8.6 billion drugs budget. I am told that, if supermarkets open up NHS-subsidised pharmacies, more than 50 per cent. of the 12,250 community pharmacies are likely to be phased out over the next five years.
Mr. Sanders: The hon. Gentleman has made the precise point that I was going to raise. He mentioned that there would be savings for the consumer, but rightly

71WH
referred to the evidence that throws the figures into doubt. There may be no saving whatever for the consumer.
Mr. Steen: I expect such a sensible remark from the hon. Gentleman, as he is a next-door neighbour of mine and benefits from all the good sense that I put out at my end of the bay.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: If the Government accept the report, they will be doing to community pharmacies exactly what they have done to our rural post offices. It will be seen as yet another death nail in the coffin of village life and local shops. This situation is exactly the same, and it worries a great many people.
Mr. Steen: My hon. Friend is a clairvoyant, because he anticipates the closing lines of my speech. Having taken those interventions, I shall deal with the points that have been made. If community pharmacies go, some could relocate to health centres. That has already happened, but it would be detrimental to the high street, because they would cream off NHS prescriptions, taking away the 80 per cent. of business that high street chemists need to survive.
One concern is the extent to which NHS money could be saved by eliminating the contract with local pharmacists. That costs £18,000 per year per pharmacy. If that £18,000 retainer is to be extended to all new outlets as a result of the so-called deregulation, it must end up costing the NHS more. In fact, it could cost the NHS a fortune, because every time a new outlet opened, with no regulation to prevent that from happening, it would require another £18,000 per pharmacy. However, that is unlikely to happen. It is more likely that the £18,000 retainer will be discontinued. If it is discontinued or reduced, that will lead to the collapse of the local community pharmacy, so either way there will be a knock-on effect if the PCT no longer hands out licences. The Minister is in a Catch-22 situation: he cannot win either way.
Mr. David Drew: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the long-standing dispute between the British Medical Association and pharmacists over rural dispensing. My worry, which I am sure that he shares, is that that dispute, which I gather was close to being settled, is likely to break out again on the back of what we are discussing. What are his views on that?
Mr. Steen: I am quite sure that once the Minister has heard all the views of hon. Members this morning he will be able to say something that will prevent any further disagreement between the BMA and the local rural pharmacists. If he does not do so today, I am sure that he will do so very shortly.
That brings me to the nub of my speech. What is the role of local pharmacists and how do they protect the quality of life for the elderly, the poor, the handicapped and other vulnerable people in our society? I approach this issue as a representative of one of the most beautiful rural constituencies in England, according to the House
72WH
of Commons Library. It is scattered with historic towns, market towns, villages and hamlets. The vagaries of public transport and the cost of private travel for an ever-increasing retired population, many of whom lack mobility and suffer from physical frailty, make neighbourhood pharmacies essential.
Given the current location of our pharmacists in the South Hams, people living in villages and hamlets can include their visit to the chemist as a part of their weekly trip into the nearby town. However, a journey to the supermarket is often a much more difficult manoeuvre, and hazardous to arrange if public transport is involved.
Mr. Adrian Bailey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Steen: If I must.
Mr. Bailey: I concur with the hon. Gentleman's judgment about his constituency. I understand the particular problems that arise in rural areas. Would he not agree that the problem of accessibility is equally great in some inner-city constituencies with a disproportionate number of elderly people on low incomes and low car ownership?
Mr. Steen: I am glad that I gave way. As the hon. Gentleman may know, I represented an inner-city seat in Liverpool for nine years. I am familiar with the points that he makes. The major supermarkets are on the outskirts of Liverpool, and to get there from the inner city is a day's job. The hon. Gentleman's point is extremely valid.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Steen: Once more.
Mr. Tyler: I am extremely grateful. I entirely endorse the hon. Gentleman's view that this is an inner-city, outer-city and rural problem. Would he have time to address my concern that the professional pharmacist in a community pharmacy often gives a whole range of free advice, particularly to elderly people, that simply would not be available in a supermarket?
Mr. Steen: I know that Conservatives are clairvoyant, but I did not know that Lib Dems were too. The point I was making is that if the convenience of the old, the infirm and the handicapped is regarded as important by the Government—I do not know whether it is—especially in rural areas but not exclusively, supermarket shopping is not the answer. In my area of south Devon, the major towns of Totnes, Kingsbridge, Dartmouth and Brixham are all convenient, whereas the outer town supermarkets are extremely difficult to get to. They may be more convenient for city dwellers. I often wonder why reports tend to liberalise regulations for the people who live in urban areas rather than concentrate on the mainstream needs of rural England.
Mr. Mark Todd: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Steen: Not at the moment. I should just like to finish this point.

73WH
Lord Borrie, the former director general of the Office of Fair Trading, said:
"I think the risk of ending the entry regulations would mean competition from supermarkets that could not be with stood very easily by pharmacies in the High Street."
How is the service provided by high street chemists different from that which could be provided by the supermarkets? First, it is personal. John Burkimsher's pharmacy on Bolton street in Brixham has a continuity of staff and delivers medication free of charge to elderly and housebound NHS patients. He is familiar with his local customers, and is able to provide a weekly medicines management system if they find it too difficult to control their own medicine intake. He offers a whole range of services that sadly are increasingly rare in today's world. Pharmacists such as Karen O'Brian in Torbay, who has been of great assistance in preparing this speech, work closely with local doctors, forming a bond of trust and reliability. She will go out at unsociable hours to supply crucial medicines in difficult circumstances.
Mr. Mark Francois: That is a very important point. There is a national shortage of general practitioners, as the Minister well knows. Community pharmacists can provide a valuable service by dealing effectively with minor ailments, so that people do not need to see their doctor. That eases pressure on our already hard-pressed GPs. Surely we should bear that important point in mind when discussing this subject?
Mr. Steen: The problem about giving way is that my speech is being undermined by the tremendously insightful interventions of my colleagues.
There is a shortage of pharmacists. If supermarkets provide pharmacists with a national health contract, two pharmacists will be needed because of supermarket hours, thus taking them away from the high street.
The Office of Fair Trading suggested that access to pharmacies would be enhanced by the removal of the primary care trust's involvement in the entry regulations. It claimed that supermarket pharmacies were open more regularly and for longer than high street stores, so more of them would mean greater convenience.
Linda Gilroy: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Steen: Plymouth will have to wait a moment.
Strangely, the Office of Fair Trading's own findings dispute the supermarkets' claim about opening hours. Its polling showed that 90 per cent. of respondents had no difficulty accessing pharmacies when required, largely because the current regulations allow for a good distribution of pharmacies. Community pharmacies keep irregular hours. They co-ordinate their hours with local GPs, and ensure that they are open up to an hour and a half after the surgery closes, so that patients can pick up their prescriptions straight away.
Linda Gilroy: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
Mr. Steen: On that point.
Linda Gilroy: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Steen: The hon. Lady should be.
Linda Gilroy: I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not have experience of this, but some of Plymouth's inner-city pharmacies play a key role in supervising the self-administration of methadone and other drug substitutes. Does he believe that such a service could continue in a deregulated market?
Mr. Steen: That is a rhetorical question, to which I am sure that the hon. Lady knows the answer. Clearly, that service will not continue in a deregulated market. [Interruption.] I shall not repeat what my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) just said, as it would be totally unparliamentary.
Pharmacies are not just distributors of NHS prescriptions. My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), who is a distinguished dental surgeon, told me that his local pharmacies also provide other essential services, such as running a grocery store or even a post office, which are maintained solely because the pharmacist has a guaranteed income retainer.
The Government's strategy document "Pharmacy in the Future" suggests that the Department of Health is considering radical options for innovation. The pharmaceutical industry has proved willing to support and work alongside the Government in trying to achieve such objectives. When considering that report, the Department of Health should examine the system on the continent or the pilot schemes in Scotland, where community pharmacists have been allowed to treat minor ailments and have responsibility for repeat prescriptions. If the Government want to save money, those reforms should do just that.
The regulatory impact unit of the Cabinet Office calculated—I do not know how—that transferring responsibility for repeat prescriptions could save GPs up to 2.74 million hours. Perhaps that is why there are so many civil servants: they have been counting the number of hours that GPs could save if the responsibility for repeat prescriptions were transferred.
Estimates suggest that the NHS could save £380 million each year if only a quarter of all patients went to see their local pharmacist about their ailments instead of their doctor. I agree with the Office of Fair Trading report that competition, innovation and quality improvements are important measures of progress and desirable objectives, but the question is whether abolishing the current control of entry regulations in favour of an unregulated market will be more conducive to achieving those objectives. I do not believe that it will be.
Pharmacies are committed to providing health care to all at the point of delivery. The NHS is a centrally controlled body. Therefore, pharmacies cannot be

75WH
based on a free market model, as that would clash with NHS objectives and the principle of delivering access to all who need it when they need it.
Mr. Swire: That is precisely the point in a rural area such as ours in Devon. There is a disproportionate number of elderly people in Devon, and they need to get to their local pharmacies but can do so only on foot. They might need transport to get to a supermarket, and we all know the state of the transport system in Devon.
Mr. Steen: I am grateful for that comment. Some of my constituents live in far-flung areas such as East Prawle, which is three-quarters of an hour by car to the nearest town. It takes some people living on Dartmoor up to an hour to get to a supermarket, and the cost of doing so is prohibitive. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend.
An important point about prescriptions is that 85 per cent. are free of charge; they are free of charge to the elderly, so the fact that there are cheaper over-the-counter medicines available at supermarkets is not a great help to many people compared with the advantages of location and access to pharmacies. It is not relevant to elderly people to know that aspirin is 2p less in a supermarket than in their chemist.
Mr. Todd: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Steen: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I will not take any more interventions.
Mr. Todd: Would the hon. Gentleman be surprised to know that the OFT report provides the data to back him up? In the survey, 89 per cent. of people said that they found it easy to get to a community pharmacy from their home and 86 per cent. said that they found it easy to get there from their GP's surgery. The report addresses the point of access, but does not follow it through in its conclusions.
Mr. Steen: I said that a moment ago, but I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's confirmation of the point.
Change for change's sake has little merit. I do not believe that most consumers aspire to shop in out-of-town shopping malls, nor do they want to see skyscrapers where there are now supermarkets, with one-stop shops providing every facility. That would lead to the collapse of the high street and the high-street chemists, and would result in deteriorating, soulless neighbourhoods.
It may sound as if I am pleading for a return to the past, but that is not the case. I am a moderniser and I recognise the need to move forward and respond to the times in which we live. However, not everything new is better, and innovation is not always progress. The existing arrangement gets the balance right. We are talking not about deregulation but about the destruction of the high street as we know it and the quality of life of existing neighbourhoods. Destroying a community and neighbourhood facility, a network for people's care and health, and replacing it with an impersonal, off-the-shelf facility in a supermarket will bring little comfort and solace in an increasingly uncaring world.
9.52 am
Dr. Howard Stoate: I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) on securing the debate. All credit to him for doing so; it is an extremely important issue.
I met the Minister in the Library last night when I was preparing for the debate. He said that I was the parliamentarian whom he seemed to run into more than any other. That is a reflection of how seriously he takes his role as the Minister responsible for pharmacy, given that it is a small part of his wide brief. He regularly attends meetings with me to discuss these issues. It is also a reflection of how seriously I, as chair of the all-party pharmacy group, take the OFT report on an issue that affects many people.
The fact that so many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate also reflects how important this matter is, and it must not be underestimated. It hinges on three issues: first, whether any changes are necessary to the control of entry regulations for pharmacies; secondly, whether the OFT report is the way to go if such changes are necessary; and, thirdly, and most importantly, the role of community pharmacies in an ever-changing world. The fast-developing NHS needs to become much more consumer-responsive, to deliver more front-line patient services and to develop in a way that improves patient access to vital services.
The first thing that the all-party group on pharmacy did when the report was published was to hold an inquiry. There was a proper debate and consideration was given to all aspects of the report to see whether we could enlighten Ministers in their decision making. The debate was extremely well attended: more than 200 people turned up, including a large number of parliamentarians. There was a first-class discussion, and we examined both sides of the argument in as much detail as possible to see what, if anything, the OFT report could do for pharmacy. We found that changes in the control of entry regulations were needed. We are not opposed to change, because it is often an important way of improving service. I want briefly to read from some of the conclusions in the report that we produced, which has been circulated widely. If anyone who has not seen a copy of the all-party pharmacy group report speaks to me after today's debate, I will ensure that they get one.
The report says:
"The OFT in its report has sought ways of increasing access, choice, competition and quality. We have no dispute with these objectives, indeed we share them. If achieved, they would bring tangible benefits to patients. However, we are not convinced that outright de-regulation would achieve these outcomes.
We therefore recommend that the Department of Health works together with the NHS Confederation, on behalf of PCTs, and the PSNC, on behalf of the community pharmacy sector, to identify ways of achieving improved access, more choice, service development, competition, and quality improvements."
Pharmacists are very much in favour of improving choice, quality and access for patients. The report continued:
"We also recommend that, as part of that collaborative process, problems caused by the current control of entry arrangements are identified and proposals developed for resolving them…We recommend that the collaborative efforts we have described, and consequent changes to control of entry, take place in the context of changes to the national contractual arrangements, since the issues are so closely linked."

77WH
Pharmacists are currently in negotiation on their contract to see how they can improve their services and access for patients. This is a critical time in the history of pharmacy, because such wide issues are being discussed at the same time. It is important that any changes take place in the context of the overall changes to pharmacy arrangements needed to ensure that patients get the best possible access.
In the meeting, there was an interesting contribution from Dr. Peter Fellows from the British Medical Association. He made an impassioned plea, which has not been fully recognised but which adds to the debate, about the relationship between pharmacists and GPs. We are not just talking about large supermarkets opening shops in out-of-town centres and sucking the high street dry, although that is an important issue. There is another, even more important, issue.
I have been a GP for more than 20 years, and the relationship between pharmacists and GPs has changed immeasurably in that time. When I first started, it was unusual for GPs to have much respect or time for pharmacists. There was certainly little contact between the two. Pharmacists were seen as just the shopkeepers who handed out the drugs that we prescribed. However, we have developed a much closer relationship over the years. They regularly come into my practice to look at patient notes and suggest how we can improve access to medicine, medicines management and concordance with patients. They make proposals about rational prescribing, improved drug regimes to make it simpler for patients to take medicines and so on. There is wide interaction.
The BMA representative said that that relationship could be put at severe risk by the regulations. It has not been mentioned that many GPs may decide to open pharmacies in their GP practice. That may be good news for them and, on the surface, for their patients, but it would not be good news for their relationship with pharmacists. It would have many unpleasant repercussions, and the damage could be immeasurable. That has not been significantly brought out in this debate, and it is important to put that on the record. I would hate to see the return of the days when GPs were suspicious of pharmacists and vice versa. That would be counter-productive.
A measure of how seriously pharmacists took that view was the large round of applause for Dr. Fellows when he made that comment. As I said at the time, I never thought that I would see the day when 200 pharmacists applauded the BMA. That is a reflection of how times have changed and how important it is for the relationship between pharmacists and GPs to be fostered and improved.
That brings me on to my third point, which is to ask about the future role of community pharmacists. I travel round the country and meet many pharmacists. I contact them in my constituency, and they come to many meetings of the all-party pharmacy group. It is clear that there is an enormous amount of good will and professional expertise to improve patient services. In meeting after meeting, I am made aware that pharmacists have set up patient group directions and are dealing with emergency hormonal contraception, antismoking mechanisms, lipid management and watering clinics, which takes some of the strain off GPs and frontline hospital services. That is to be welcomed. We are
78WH
only just beginning to tap the role of the pharmacist. They have huge expertise, as they are highly qualified and dedicated. They do an enormous amount for the NHS, and we must ensure that that is not damaged.
The debate hinges on whether the Office of Fair Trading sees the pharmacy as a high street shop or a front-line NHS primary care service. Unfortunately, as the hon. Member for Totnes said, the OFT is far more interested in retail competition than professionalism and the front-line delivery of NHS services. I shall give a few examples of what might happen if the pharmacy becomes nothing more than a high street shop.
How many high street shops would telephone patients on a Sunday to make sure that they are okay? How many would deliver an oxygen cylinder late on a Saturday night to someone dying of lung disease? How many would tell a GP, "We are worried about Mrs. Smith, she is not a good colour today"? How often does that happen? It does not happen with retailers, but it does with pharmacists.
The level of service could easily be put under threat. We have already heard that as many as 6,000 of the nation's 12,000 pharmacies could theoretically be threatened. That may be slightly alarmist, but even a small proportion is not acceptable. As we have heard, access for people living in inner cities and in rural areas is difficult, and it is much more problematic for people who are housebound—the elderly, the frail and the infirm.
I agree that we need changes in control regulations, but pharmacy services are already being improved and there is already market competition between pharmacies. However, we must not undermine the close relationship between pharmacists and GPs. The report deals only with competition but, for the reasons highlighted by the hon. Member for Totnes, competition is far less important than in other retail sectors, because as much as 80 per cent. of a pharmacy's income comes from the NHS. For all the reasons that I and the hon. Gentleman have outlined, it would be dangerous to follow the report.
More than one Minister is involved. The lead Department is the Department of Trade and Industry, but the Department of Health will of course have an input. However, I gather that the final decision rests with the DTI. When Ministers meet to deliberate the Government's response, will the Minister ensure that the main point to be raised—it is the main reason for having community pharmacies—is the professionalism and the delivery of front-line NHS services? The competition issue, although important, is not paramount. Above all, patients want first-rate, frontline NHS services, as the hon. Gentleman said, rather than tuppence off the cost of aspirin.
10.2 am
Mr. Robert Syms: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) on making a compelling case in his own particular style. I shall not repeat the arguments that he adduced. Instead, I shall concentrate on a few points. Most of my constituents have pretty good access to pharmacies, but they are worried about the impact that the changes may have. As the hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) said, it may be alarmist to say so, but if 6,000 of our 12,000

79WH
pharmacies close, my constituents will not have access to a local pharmacy. I have received many petitions, letters and telephone calls on the subject. Attendance at today's debate by Members from all parties proves that there is genuine concern.
Many of us have seen the closure of local post offices, the removal of public telephones, and the diminishing of general services for our constituents. This is the one area in which most of us are determined to do our best to ensure that our constituents, many of whom are elderly or not mobile, have access to that very important service.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) said in an earlier intervention, the key to the future is innovation. It is important that pharmacists are given more responsibility for treating minor ailments, and a number of tests have proved successful. Another question is the issuing of repeat prescriptions. Various assessments have been made of the savings, but we all know about the tremendous shortage of GPs. The Government have a number of targets for recruiting and training people, but it seems sensible, when possible, to relieve some of the burden on GPs and to provide a greater service.
Mr. James Gray: My hon. Friend comes from an urban constituency, but does he agree that in a rural constituency such as mine repeat prescriptions are particularly important? The GP's surgery may be some miles away from the patient's home, and it would be a huge help if the patient could nip down to the local pharmacy—for instance, in Box, a village in my constituency. The argument on repeat prescriptions is one of the most important in the debate.
Mr. Syms: My hon. Friend reinforces what I said. It is a very important point. Many measures could be taken to improve the service that pharmacists provide to integrate them into the NHS without necessarily going clown that route. We have already heard about the close relationship between many GP practices and pharmacists, who sometimes go the extra mile if people need oxygen or additional help. That service might not be offered by a supermarket.
There is also concern because the pharmacies that have been opened in several supermarkets are not necessarily open during the same hours as the supermarkets, sometimes for the understandable reason that they have difficulty recruiting pharmacists. We have already heard that there is a shortage of pharmacists.
I want to put on record the concern of my constituents in Poole, who are determined to fight substantial change. If the Minister is unable to give us a full answer, I hope that he will give us substantial reassurance. This issue will become very important for my constituents over the next year.
10.5 am
Mr. Tom Cox: All of us here today know from our correspondence of our constituents' deep concerns about the future of the typical pharmacy shop that we have in our constituencies. I totally reject the Office of Fair Trading's proposal that the regulations
80WH
that control pharmacies should be abolished. On issues of fair trading, I always want proposals to be for the benefit of the consumer. Should these proposals be introduced, in my view they would most certainly not be for the benefit of the general public.
As we know, the general public very soon understand if a proposal meets with their approval, and these proposals most certainly do not meet with the approval of our constituents, from whichever part of the country. All of us have used and still use our local pharmacist. I stress the word "local", because that is what they are. They operate in the area where most people live. We get to know, trust, respect and listen to the people who run pharmacies. Opening up such services to supermarkets would, without doubt, present several concerns and problems.
Mr. Swire: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Cox: No, I do not intend to give way.
Many people do not shop in supermarkets. As we have heard, many retired people do not drive, so what has been a local service often becomes a service that is nowhere near where the person who needs it actually lives. The personal relationship no longer exists. As people have said to me in letter after letter, "I know my pharmacist, and they know me. They know who my doctor is, and I can talk to them in confidence about myself and my health. I would not feel confident trying to do that in a large supermarket." Pharmacists know their area and community, but I doubt that that knowledge would still be found if services were transferred to large supermarkets.
I also believe that the proposals would lead to many shop closures in our communities. As all of us have seen over the years, when large supermarkets open up, local shops, many of which have been in the local community for years and have been very popular, can no longer survive and compete against the supermarkets, given the opportunities and trade that they develop. That is what would happen to pharmacists in many areas of the country. Is that what the Government and the Department of Trade and Industry want? I do not want that to happen, and neither do the general public.
When the Minister replies to the debate, it would be very interesting to hear about the thinking behind the Department's policy on the issue. It would also be interesting to find out what the Department of Trade and Industry thinks. What complaint is made against local pharmacists? I get many letters of complaint about many issues, but I must say to my hon. Friend that, despite many years in the House, I have never received even one letter from a constituent complaining about the service that their local pharmacist provides.
The control of entry regulations have been in force for some years. Why seek to change them now? I am not opposed to change when it is of clear benefit to the consumer who wants it. However, these proposals for change are being strongly opposed across the country by the people who use pharmacies every day. The Government have enough problems already, and I do not mean Iraq. Like me, the Minister is a London

81WH
Member, and he knows his constituency as I know mine. He knows that the Government will face problems if they push ahead with these proposals against the will of the people whom we represent, be it in London or in any part of the country.
10.11 am
Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) on securing the debate. Judging by the size of our mailbags, this is a most pressing issue.
I should like to start by considering the motivation for change. It is worth while considering the arguments for removing the barriers to entry: excessive profits is the obvious one. However, there is no evidence that pharmacists make excessive profits. There is a claim that consumer choice is restricted. The difficulty with that argument is identifying the consumer. In a sense, the national health service is the main consumer, but the front-line consumer is the patient, and one must distinguish between the two.
How would the patient benefit if the barriers to entry were removed? There would be changes; there may not necessarily be fewer pharmacists, but they would be in different places. There is no evidence that removing the barriers to entry would lower prices, because, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, many elderly people are exempt from prescription charges. We must consider whether there would be net gains from removing the barriers, and we must admit that that is very difficult to establish. It is significant that the former director of the Office of Fair Trading, Lord Borrie, opposes the change. He spent many years introducing more competition so that there would be more choice and lower prices, and he says that it is not appropriate to remove the barriers.
An argument for retaining the barriers to entry is to create a climate for investment, and this is an instance of when we need a climate for investment. The NHS plan proposes a greater role for pharmacists, which we all welcome. In fact, some of us would like pharmacists to do even more. For example, when one goes to one's GP for a blood test one is often sent to hospital. Many believe that, given our lifestyles nowadays, it would be better if such minor matters could be dealt with by a nurse based in a pharmacy.
Weighing the arguments for and against barriers to entry, one comes down in favour of retaining them. We may not want to keep them in exactly the same form; that could be an issue for future debate. The important thing is that there would be a net welfare loss if they were swept away. I concur with other hon. Members that there does not seem to be much evidence that patients want the change, and that is the critical point. The statistical survey that was mentioned showed that over 80 per cent. of patients do not want a change. I am sure that other hon. Members have, like me, received petitions, letters and surgery visits on the matter.
I represent a diverse constituency with pharmacies in many settings—supermarket, village, market town and neighbourhood urban shopping centre. I have been receiving representations from all quarters. In the village, the petition has been signed by nearly every resident, because for elderly people and mothers with young children, for example, the GP's surgery will be very far away. The pharmacy is their first stop-off and it
82WH
is vital to them. Devon is a similar case. Dorset is renowned for having exceedingly poor public transport outside its conurbation, and, in contrast to some areas, our senior citizens' concession is only for half-price, rather than free, travel, so any savings that they make will soon be swallowed up by the costs and difficulties of travelling.
At my surgery on Saturday I met a pharmacist who works in Upton, an area attached to the main conurbation. I asked him what he does that supermarket pharmacies may not do. We should not suggest that supermarket pharmacists are in any way less qualified. He ran through a long list of what really amounted to voluntary work: home deliveries after 6 pm, which is an excellent service; making up the weekly medicine dosage tray; visiting a home if a doctor rings to suggest a change to a prescription; and taking oxygen out to people.
Sandra Gidley: As the only pharmacist present I have listened to the debate with interest. I am the villain of the piece, having worked as a pharmacist in a supermarket, when I provided all those services—they are not unique to community pharmacies. However, that does not mean that we should deal with supermarkets in a way that enables them to deprive community pharmacies of the opportunity to do that work.
Mrs. Brooke: I thank my hon. Friend. The point that we are making is that the relationship with the pharmacist in the community is a much closer one, involving continuity of contact with people. People prefer their local service to that provided in a supermarket, which may not be so near to them.
As time is short, I conclude with a summary provided to me by the Dorset local pharmaceutical committee. It argues that the change
"would create unnecessary and untimely instability in the pharmacy sector",
which is an important point. In addition, it would
"jeopardise pharmacy investment and developments in primary health care planning. It would delay the process of recognising the potential role community pharmacy can play in primary health care provision. It would have a seriously adverse impact on local community services".
A whole neighbourhood centre can be affected, as we know, which is why the supermarket issue is cause for concern. The summary continues:
"The public would not be able to enjoy the benefits offered by the enhanced services at their local pharmacy. This would particularly affect those living in rural areas or isolated housing estates who rely heavily on their local pharmacy. It will be the elderly and mothers with young children who will suffer most."
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next hon. Member to speak, it may be helpful if I point out that it would be desirable for the first of the three Front-Bench spokespersons to be called not later than 10.30.
10.18 am
Linda Perham: I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) on securing this timely debate. I am interested in the issue as a member of the

83WH
Trade and Industry Committee and of the all-party group on pharmacy. I am motivated also by the concerns of pharmacists in my constituency, who were among the first groups to contact me when I was elected. I met them in June 1997 and have remained in contact with them ever since.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) received a petition last week with 20,000 signatures from our area alone. I expect one to be delivered today. A key issue for community pharmacists and patients in my constituency is access and convenience of location. That point has been well made by other hon. Members. Elderly people and those without access to private transport do not want to travel to supermarkets for their prescriptions.
Community pharmacists are not afraid of competition. For many years two pharmacies have been practising successfully opposite the health centre in my constituency, and another, closer to where I live, is just 10 or 15 minutes' walk from t hose two. Those pharmacies have been thriving for many years. Local pharmacists are approachable and knowledgeable, and they have forged a key role in delivering NHS services. As the Secretary of State said at the Labour party conference in October, pharmacists are clinicians, not shopkeepers. I would say that they are not retailers but rigorously trained professionals.
Marshall Davies, the president of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, said in January:
"We know that nearly 2 million people seek healthcare advice from their community pharmacist."
Community pharmacists play a vital part in treating a range of illnesses, in managing chronic diseases and in complementing and alleviating the work of GPs. My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) made that point and it was also highlighted by the King's Fund, with which I spent a year on a National Council for Voluntary Organisations secondment. The fund's report, "Developing Community Pharmacy", found that community pharmacists were keen to play a greater role in the NHS.
I cannot emphasise enough the importance of community pharmacists in providing for the health and social needs of local communities. Today, on national no-smoking day, I pay tribute to their work in combating the scourge of smoking. Many community pharmacists work in partnership with smoking cessation services, and they can train to become community smoking cessation advisers, of which there are 18 in the boroughs of Redbridge and Waltham Forest. Some 260 people were helped last year, with a 50 per cent. success rate. For national no-smoking day today, pharmacists in my constituency are putting up posters and displays in their windows offering nicotine replacement therapy.
The help given to people to overcome that addiction and all the other vital services that pharmacists provide reinforce the crucial role that pharmacists play in their local communities.
Mr. Gareth Thomas: My hon. Friend has, like me, the good fortune to represent a suburban constituency in outer London. Given that we have heard
84WH
much about the impact of the proposed change in regulations on rural and inner-city areas, is it not also important to recognise the impact that the implementation of the Office of Fair Trading report would have on secondary shopping centres that provide a crucial sense of community in such constituencies?
Linda Perham: My hon. Friend is right. That affects us all. Other hon. Members have made that point and will continue to reinforce it for the Minister. I am sure that the Minister, to whom I pay tribute for his willingness to listen, will consider carefully the representations from hon. Members today on the necessity of encouraging community pharmacists to continue their positive contribution to primary care services and to the improvement of the nation's health.
10.23 am
Mr. Roy Beggs: I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) on securing this debate, which enables many of us to convey our views and those of our constituents to the Minister before the Government act on the report.
The proposal of the Office of Fair Trading to deregulate pharmaceutical dispensing is vigorously opposed by all my hon. and right hon. Friends. We believe that the OFT report is entirely misguided, and that its recommendations will impede access to, and the provision of, pharmaceutical services.
The New Economics Foundation recently raised the prospect of Britain as a nation of ghost towns. In its report "Ghost Town Britain: A lethal prescription", the foundation highlighted the negative impact that supermarkets, hypermarkets and out-of-town shopping centres have had on local services in our towns and villages. That might still be a relatively new phenomenon in Northern Ireland. The development of stores previously seen only on mainland Britain has occurred largely from the peace process of the last decade, yet our villages and towns are already witnessing the virtual disappearance of the high street. Our corner shops, post offices and banks are finding it increasingly difficult to compete with the large one-stopshop supermarkets in out-of-town venues.
Clearly, such supermarkets provide many advantages to the consumer, such as greater choice and more competitive prices—not to mention the convenience of being able to buy all one's necessities in one place. However, people must be able to get to such facilities if they are to take advantage of them. What about the elderly, the disabled, single parents, young mothers and those without access to private transport? The high street is their lifeline. In a country such as Northern Ireland, whose economy and geography are predominantly rural, the local high street remains vital.
Mr. Swire: Is not there an inherent contradiction between the Government's sponsorship of the legislation, which will lead to more people having to use cars, and their attempts to persuade people not to use them?
Mr. Beggs: The hon. Member takes a keen interest in Northern Ireland affairs. He makes a valid point, which the Minister will have noted.

85WH
The community pharmacy will become unsustainable in the face of competition from the pharmacies that spring up in our supermarkets. The Office of Fair Trading estimates that deregulation will result in 900 new pharmacies in large supermarkets and a further 2,127 in medium-sized stores across the United Kingdom. I sincerely hope that that does not happen.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Is my hon. Friend aware that GPs in Northern Ireland have said that they will be unable to give their attention to the anti-smoking campaign, which will therefore depend largely on community chemists? Given that today is no-smoking day, should not that issue be borne in mind?
Mr. Beggs: I thank my hon. Friend for that valid contribution, which highlights the fact that pharmacists' activities involve much more than just dispensing.
Research conducted by Lloyds Pharmacy at the beginning of the year estimated that more than half the pharmacies are in the catchment areas of two or more supermarkets, so the potential for many of them to fall by the wayside is high. Northern Ireland may be predominantly rural, but it is also small, and our pharmacies will inevitably be within the catchment areas of supermarkets. The number of community pharmacies lost could therefore be huge.
Why should we make people who are disadvantaged suffer increased inconvenience by forcing them to travel further to see their local pharmacist? Many people already have to wait a week or 10days to get an appointment with their doctor. However, they can get instant access to the local pharmacist, who can often prescribe something for their ailment. Is the creation of such problems what the Government have in mind when they speak about access to health care for everyone?
The proposals will have an enormous impact on the delivery of health care. The OFT report fails to acknowledge that pharmacies provide much more than daily necessities. They are not there just to sell toiletries—they are more than a convenience store. According to the National Pharmaceutical Association, 80 per cent. of a typical pharmacy's turnover comes from providing NHS services, particularly from dispensing NHS prescriptions. The community pharmacy cannot be regarded as a typical high street shop. We cannot realistically subject health care to the free market.
Community pharmacists do more than dispense drugs. Many provide a very personal delivery service for prescribed medication, and often respond to patients' requests outside normal working hours. They are almost part of the family. They are trusted members of the local community, and provide health advice for those who cannot or will not see their GP. People are much more likely to seek advice from someone they know, trust and see often than from an unknown individual sitting behind a busy supermarket counter.
Face-to-face contact with patients, and the delivery of primary health care, encourage many young students into the pharmaceutical profession in the first place. Northern Ireland is already facing a shortage of qualified pharmacists, and students who decide to study in other areas of the United Kingdom invariably do not return. If we replace the essential caring element of the
86WH
profession with a concern for profit margins over consumer health, it will be even more of an uphill struggle to entice young people into pharmacy in Northern Ireland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom. My party urges the Government to reject the proposals and to continue to support the present network of community pharmacies as an essential mechanism in the provision of health care and a vital part of community life.
10.29 am
Dr. Evan Harris: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) who introduced the debate in his typically clear way and was generous in giving way to interventions by hon. Members from all parties.
I do not have time to comment on all the points that have been made, and I have others of my own to add. There is a great deal of interest in the subject, as evidenced by the record numbers present from all political parties—13 Labour Members, nine Conservatives and nine Liberal Democrats, or 3, 5 and 17 per cent. of each party's respective parliamentary strength. On occasion, among all its disadvantages, the first-past-the-post system works to our advantage.
The hon. Gentleman pointed out, rightly, that there is a difference between deregulation and the need for increased competition. I was pleased to hear him say that a free market is not always appropriate, even in the retail environment. The Liberal Democrats strongly support deregulation if it means that every effort will be made to reduce the burdens on business. However, that does not mean having completely free competition.
Mr. Michael Weir: On deregulation, does the hon. Gentleman accept that the original reason for introducing regulations was to avoid the situation in which pharmacies clustered around doctors' surgeries and health centres and to ensure a wide spread of pharmacies throughout the community? The OFT report would reverse that process.
Dr. Harris: That is a fair point. It should be borne in mind that even if the OFT report were implemented, there would be other restrictions that none of us would want to lose. For example, planning restrictions impact on the number of retail outlets, especially supermarkets. The OFT seems to consider that, in the name of advantage to consumers, there is automatically a good argument for the abolition of any regulation. However, we should consider planning. To give just one example, removal of regulation would mean the abolition of controls on out-of-town supermarkets. In paragraph 1.11 of its summary, the OFT claims that
"the regulations have acted to impede entry and expansion by pharmacies that offer consumers lower prices, more convenient opening times, or valued and innovative services."
Even having read the report and the responses to it, I do not think that the case has been made.
Brian Cotter: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is striking that the OFT report says that there is clear evidence that the current system works

87WH
well in terms of locality? The OFT itself draws attention to the importance of the fact that there are local pharmacists where people actually vivant them.
Dr. Harris: Yes, indeed. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who is probably more in touch with small business interests than any other hon. Member. He has done a huge amount of work to protect the interests both of consumers and of those who run small businesses.
It is argued that there are lower prices in supermarkets. However, where that is so—andit does not exist everywhere—it is not clear that it is anything other than loss-leading intended to increase footfall for the much wider range of goods that supermarkets can offer in comparison with pharmacies. Those goods include—even today, on national no-smoking day—cigarettes. Supermarkets want people to buy cigarettes and other products whereas community pharmacies, which do not sell such products, do not have that need.
The abolition of resale price maintenance has not necessarily and invariably led to maintained reductions in prices of over-the-counter medicines. I am concerned about the way in which the OFT report deals with international comparisons. It states, almost parenthetically, that Britain does better than average in the number of pharmacies per head of population—which counters its own case—and then lists only those countries that do better than this country. If one claims that an investigation is impartial, one should set out both sides of the argument.
There is inadequate consideration of work force issues, which are important. There is not a free labour market in the area, because it is comprised of professionals, and it does not follow that there should be a free market in retail if the work force does not have that freedom.
Throughout, the report refers to the people who rely on pharmacies as consumers. Many of us are concerned about the increasing redefinition of patients as consumers. Not all consumers and their interests should be considered equally. There are equity issues. It is not simply a matter of consumer choice but of ensuring that we give sufficient regard to those who are especially vulnerable. We must ensure that choice for the many is riot increased at the cost of choice for the vulnerable few, such as low-income groups, the elderly and the sick. We should bear that principle in mind, although it is not endorsed by the OFT, which says that there should be no barrier to entry that does not best serve the interests of consumers.
The OFT mentions that it wants to be mindful of the public policy objectives of health departments. That will mean having regard for access by elderly people. The report found no sign of profiteering, although that usually follows when there is an inadequate market. The failure to find evidence of profiteering is a strong argument against the report's recommendations.
I want to say one word in defence of pharmacists who work in supermarkets, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley), because they, too, are professionals. They know local people, can assist with medicines management and do all the other
88WH
things that we want them to do. The question is not about the professionalism of pharmacists employed by supermarkets, but the impact that greater competition in our supermarkets will have on the viability of local stores. I want all pharmacists to take part in medicines management work.
Finally, I want to offer the Government some better ways to reduce costs than those suggested in the OFT report. Clearly, more intervention by pharmacists actively to manage the way in which patients—consumers, if it wants to use that word—take their medicines will reduce costs, because there is much waste in prescribing. Increasing the supply of pharmacists will also ensure that there is more and better medicines management.
I want to suggest three better ways to increase access. The first is to freeze prescription charges, which, for many people who fall just outside the exemption, are a barrier to accessing medicines. The Government should ensure fair remuneration for pharmacists, so that they are able to do all the things that the Government want them to do without finding that they are unable to do the work that makes them viable. Pharmacists receive no money for making up dosage boxes, although that is time consuming, but we know that compliance with medicines is a critical factor in effective medical treatment—no medicine works if it is not taken.
The Government must do something to improve the supply of pharmacists and to ensure that supermarkets and independent pharmacists do not have to shop around for locums, because, in the current labour market, community pharmacists will always lose out against the wider multiples. Although the Liberal Democrats are in favour of greater deregulation, we do not believe that the OFT report makes an adequate case. The interests of vulnerable patients and consumers will not be safeguarded if community pharmacists are driven out of business by increasing competition from supermarkets and large multiples.
10.39 am
Chris Grayling: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) on securing this extremely important debate on an issue that is clearly of concern to hon. Members from all parties. The fact that he initiated the debate emphasises the Conservative party's concern about the future of community pharmacies. It comes at a time when local centres, stores and communities are, increasingly, under threat from the Government's policies. Thousands of post offices are already disappearing throughout the country. There is now the risk of local pharmacies doing the same, the consequence of which would be devastating for local communities. That is why I am extremely concerned about the impact of the OFT recommendations and why I believe that the Government should scrutinise them fully before they consider adopting them.
A local pharmacy is important for several reasons, which Ministers must not forget as they set about studying the detail of the OFT report. The first reason is access, to which many hon. Members referred. The elderly and the infirm have always relied on going to their local chemist to get the drugs and treatments that they need. They have also relied on a friendly and

89WH
supportive word from their pharmacist, whose professional skills contribute significantly to health care in today's world, as several hon. Members have said. The hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) made that point especially well. As chairman of the all-party group on health, he, perhaps more than most, recognises the importance of the role played by the local pharmacist in our communities.
Many families also need the local pharmacy for treatment for their children. The reality for many families is that one partner takes the family car to work, and the other is at home with the kids. He or she will walk to the local centre and pick up the necessary drugs from the local pharmacy. We must not run the risk of that disappearing. The damage that that would do to the fabric of local communities would be enormous.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: My hon. Friend may be aware of a village in my constituency called Snettisham. It has an excellent pharmacist called Alan Stockley who does a superb job serving what is now a predominantly ageing community. That community is very worried about the report, and I am glad that my hon. Friend mentioned elderly people who need advice from their friendly local pharmacy.
Chris Grayling: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, which speak for themselves. They reflect the strength of feeling across the House about the risk to our community pharmacies.
There is a practical point to be made about the viability and future of local centres. As I said, post offices and banks are disappearing, and local food stores have gradually moved out of local communities. In many places, the local pharmacy is the anchor store on a small parade. Its disappearance will not only cause a reduction in local services but kill other businesses. The consequences of that to the people who live in those areas could be very significant.
It is interesting that planning policy guidance 6 sets out to protect the local pharmacy and post office as an important part of the fabric of those local centres. In many ways, it seems, the OFT is arguing against established Government planning policy, and the Government should think carefully before they go against their own planning policy.
As many hon. Members have said, the local pharmacy has a role in supporting the national health service. Pharmacists have profound skills and years of experience with individual patients and the treatments that they dispense daily. Those skills can and must be an important part of the provision of health care in the future. There is a clear role for the pharmacist as our society looks to new ways to deliver health care closer to the communities that benefit from it. There is also a clear role for the pharmacist in providing more of a gateway to our over-pressed GPs by giving basic advice and guidance to people about ways to tackle their health problems. That role must not be undermined by local pharmacies in local communities disappearing as a result of these measures.
The OFT report will clearly open up the market. It will allow supermarkets to move into the market in a big way. I accept the professionalism of the pharmacists
90WH
who work in our supermarkets. None the less, I was surprised to hear the two Liberal Democrat health spokesmen weighing into the debate in defence of supermarket pharmacies. We must be careful before we see significant additional provision of pharmacies in supermarkets. There is no doubt that supermarkets play an important role in our society, and there are places where supermarkets can and do provide good pharmacy services, but we must be careful about giving supermarkets the opportunity to have an additional and substantial presence in this market.
Sandra Gidley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Chris Grayling: I have only a minute left, so I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me if I do not give way.
Before I give the Minister a chance to wind up the debate, I shall refer to the nature of the market with which we are dealing. In recent months, we have had a debate on the over-the-counter market. Many pharmacists told hon. Members on both sides of the House that, if they lost the resale price maintenance that applies to over-the-counter drugs, they would lose an important part of their business. They said that there would be price cutting and that they would be unable to compete with supermarkets. To a significant degree, however, that has not happened. There was some crying of wolf in the pharmacy industry. I have talked to many local pharmacists who say that the situation has not proved to be as bad as they thought.
However, that experience does not justify deregulating the NHS prescription dispensing market, because that market does not depend on excellent service, innovation and competition. It is largely a fixed market. It is not as fixed as Ministers might like, given its escalating budgets, but we are talking about a fixed cake. If we allow new entrants into the marketplace to take a share of that cake, some of those who are there today will inevitably lose. That is basic economics; it cannot be any other way. Given the fixed or limited prescription market for those businesses to draw on, a significant expansion of the number of pharmacies, as the OFT envisages, cannot but ensure that pharmacies in local communities throughout the country will disappear. That must not happen. It would be a devastating blow to those communities, so the Government must think carefully about what lies ahead.
I know that the Minister is in the middle of consultation and likely to be reticent about anticipating the results of that consultation, but my message to him is that we have heard from hon. Members on both sides of the House who come from different backgrounds, persuasions and viewpoints. The views of the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) are well known, and I respect him for his long service in his constituency. He made an impassioned plea from his political perspective about the importance of local pharmacies. My hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire), who represents rural communities—small villages in the countryside—also saw as enormous the dangers that could result in those communities from the disappearance of local pharmacies.
As I have said, the Minister has heard views from hon. Members on both sides of the House, from different types of constituency and political perspective. I very

91WH
much hope that he will take from the debate a clear understanding that the House does not want local community pharmacies to be undermined. He must not take decisions in the wake of the OFT report in a way that is likely to cause further damage to the people who most depend on the services that community pharmacies provide.
10.47 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. David Lammy): I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) on securing the debate and on the spirited way in which he made his contribution. A wide cross-section of Back Benchers have made quality contributions. I am particularly grateful for the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate), the work of the relevant all-party group and the powerful contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox).
Ms Joan Walley: Does my hon. Friend accept that many more hon. Members wished to contribute to the debate? We want him to take away the strong message that this issue is about public health. We want primary care trusts to consider health planning and community pharmacies, and we want a deal negotiated with the pharmacies for the new contract. We do not want medicine to be treated as an ordinary item of commerce.
Mr. Lammy: My hon. Friend is right to point out that many hon. Members have spoken on this subject in this Chamber, and many are concerned about the report and anxious to express their views. We heard from constituencies as far apart as those of the hon. Members for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke), for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois), for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs), for Belfast, South (Rev. Martyn Smith) and for East Devon (Mr. Swire), and of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas). Hansard will also contribute to the Government's deliberations.
Much has been said about the contribution of community pharmacies in rural, suburban and inner-city areas. All Ministers, of whatever Government, are also informed by their constituency experiences. From the inner-city constituency that I represent, and in which I grew up, I know that people in deprived communities rely on three people in authority. They rely on the general practitioner and often on the local priest. However, they traditionally have to get an appointment to see the GP, and the priest is not to everyone's taste, so they most definitely rely, as my family did, on the work of the community pharmacist at the bottom of the road.
In preparing for a speech that I made to the pharmaceutical services negotiating committee eight days ago, I spent Saturday not only rushing to the bank and paying the bills as one does, but also incognito in north London in some of my community pharmacies.
Chris Grayling: The mystery shopper.
Mr. Lammy: The hon. Gentleman is right—I watched what was going on in our community pharmacies.
92WH
During the day, I saw a desperate father rush in to get drugs for his epileptic son, a bus driver who was worried about shortness of breath, and many mothers, with children who had sticky fingers and runny noses, looking for cold medicines. What struck me was the fact that the community pharmacists knew the name of the epileptic son of the man, and that they came from behind the counter to help the mothers with their children and advise them what cold remedies to buy. Importantly, they knew people's histories—for example, the bus driver's grandmother had a history of high blood pressure.
Mr. Paul Truswell: Does my hon. Friend appreciate the concern shared by hon. Members throughout the House that when the Government come to take a decision, the Department of Trade and Industry tail will wag the Department of Health dog? Will he give a categorical assurance that he and his colleagues will do their utmost to ensure that patient care and public health take precedence over any considerations of commercial practice?
Mr. Lammy: My hon. Friend will know that the Government will deliberate on the issue in the usual way.
Mr. Eric Joyce: Further to that point, my hon. Friend will know that whether this matter is regarded as a health or consumer protection issue is important in Scotland, as one matter is devolved and the other is not. There is a Scottish health and medicines plan, called "The Right Medicine". A Health Minister is responding to a debate in Scotland today, and the argument deployed in Scotland is that we are discussing what is essentially a health matter. That is also the general view of hon. Members present today, so will my hon. Friend convey that fact to Ministers at the DTI? I appreciate that Ministers have to consider important competition points, but this is an important issue for the Scottish Executive and for people with the same interests.
Mr. Lammy: I am grateful for that, and as I have said, many Departments have a stake in the issue. We will deliberate and make our response as a Government in due course.
My ministerial portfolio is very diverse, but in the past few weeks and months, pharmacy has taken up the lion's share of my diary. With officials from both the DTI and the Department of Health, I have met a wide range of stakeholders and interest groups to listen to their points of view. I know that hon. Members have also been lobbied intensely, and for me, to go through a Division Lobby at the moment is to run the gauntlet.
Mr. David Lepper: Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that the importance that so many of our constituents attach to maintaining community pharmacies is shown, for instance, in the petition that I received this week from Fields pharmacy in Eldred avenue in my constituency with 400 signatures and the petition that I received this morning from Stallion's pharmacy in Preston Drove in Brighton with 960

93WH
signatures? That was received in one week, and I am told that other pharmacists have similar petitions awaiting collection.
Mr. Lammy: Democracy is alive in this place. I know that as I walk through the Lobby and receive advice from hon. Members of all parties.
It is important that I set out the course of events. The remit that the director general set himself was to examine the UK market for retail pharmacy services, and to consider whether consumers are best served by the current statutory controls under which pharmacies can dispense NHS prescriptions. His conclusion was that they are not. He therefore recommended abolition of controls to improve competition, to reduce prices for over-the-counter medicines and to improve access to and the quality of pharmaceutical services.
Ms Walley: Is my hon. Friend aware of studies made in Stoke-on-Trent by local pharmacists that show that the basket of different items is cheaper in independent pharmacies? Will he accept that even where the OFT report says that there are reductions, that is not necessarily the case, particularly when one takes transport issues into account?
Mr. Lammy: I am aware of that study. There are many studies in this area.
We recognise that the report marks a significant watershed, but its implications go wider than community pharmacy. They involve GPs, the NHS more widely and—most importantly—patients. We have therefore made it clear that we would study the report carefully, canvass views, and consider the impact on our plans to improve services. I wrote to all hon. Members in England and, as I said, I have met leading professional bodies to hear their reactions. Those include the pharmaceutical services negotiating committee, the National Pharmaceutical Association, private companies, the British Medical Association, the all-party pharmacy group and a cross-section of supermarkets.
Mr. Steen: Having met all those key people, what is the Minister's conclusion?
Mr. Lammy: As I have said, the Government will let their views be known in due course, as the hon. Gentleman knows very well.
My officials have also met representatives of patient, consumer and NHS groups. I understand that the
94WH
Health Committee wants to undertake a one-day inquiry on 3 April into the possible impact of the OFT report on community pharmacy services, and I urge Members to feed into that very useful inquiry. We are giving the report and the many hundreds of responses careful attention. We have heard a wide range of views. I have listened keenly to all the arguments. I wish to assure the House today that I, my colleagues across Government and the devolved Administrations will give them the fullest attention when we consider our response to the report.
Mr. Tyler: In the final moments of his speech, will the Minister tell us whether he expects legislation to be required? What sort of legislation might it be, and what priority would it be given in view of all the other pressures should the Government eventually decide to activate the OFT recommendations?
Mr. Lammy: I am advised that if the Government accepted the report's recommendations in full, primary legislation would be required.
In the remaining time available I am not able to talk about the other important things that are taking place in pharmacy across the board. I should have liked to set my remarks in the context of pharmacy in the future, which includes local pharmaceutical services projects, medicines management, repeat dispensing and supplementary prescribing. I accept that the OFT report has an important bearing on all those issues. However, I encourage hon. Members to make their views known. I can tell them that the Government are taking the report, and their views, seriously.
Ms Walley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of the obvious cross-cutting issues relating to the Department of Health and the Department of Trade and Industry in the light of the OFT report, what powers do you have to recommend a cross-cutting debate in Westminster Hall so that we can consider the issues in relation to both Departments?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have no such powers, but I am impressed by the amount of interest in the debate. I am concerned that so many Members wish to participate in the debate, but cannot, and I shall certainly draw that to the attention of the Speaker.

Fruit Farming
11 am
Hugh Robertson: May I begin, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by saying what a pleasure it is to sit under your chairmanship" Unless I am much mistaken, I note from your curriculum vitae that you are vice-chairman of the National Wildflower Centre. It is a particular privilege to be under the chairmanship of someone who is clearly such a horticultural expert.
I thank the Minister for the Environment for taking the time to respond to the debate on behalf of the Government. I am particularly pleased to see him here today. I say that in all honesty, because his knowledge of, and concern for, the environment is well recognised. Fruit farming makes an important contribution in that regard. This is also the first debate to be held in Westminster Hall on that important, subject.
I have asked for the debate to highlight fruit farming and the wider horticultural sector and to raise a number of current issues. I do so both as secretary to the all-party group on the fruit industry and as one of the few Members who represents a constituency in which fruit farming predominates.
My starting point is that we should all support fruit farming. The industry is wholly unsubsidised, produces high-quality produce close to the marketplace and is good for the environment. It is largely thanks to fruit farmers that Kent enjoys its reputation as the garden of England.
Fruit farming also has a disproportionate effect on the local economy in those areas where it is the main type of agriculture. In my constituency, it is a key employment provider on farms and associated industries such as packing and transportation. Shepherd Neame, the oldest family brewery in the country, is based in my constituency and exclusively uses Kentish hops. As I have hinted previously, jobs in the tourist and leisure industries also rely on fruit to shape the landscape.
Fruit farming is a significant contributor to the agricultural sector as a whole. According to figures produced by the National Farmers Union, horticulture accounted for 13 per cent. of agricultural output in the year 2000. If direct subsidies to other sectors are disregarded and packing is added, the figure rises to 19 per cent. However, the growers are deeply troubled; their sector is in decline, and they are voting with their feet.
Figures from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, revealed to me in a parliamentary written answer on 23 October 2001, show that 10.8 per cent. of the national orchard has been lost since 1997. That is a staggering figure, and one that would not be tolerated in any other sector of the economy, particularly when the environmental impact is taken into account.
So, what has caused the decline'? The answer is, of course, a variety of factors. The actions of supermarkets, increased regulation, climatic changes and a huge increase in imports have all played their part, but there are several areas in which we could offer the sector worthwhile help. Before I outline those, however, I want to thank the Minister for the Government's help
96WH
to the sector, even in the short time that I have been a Member of Parliament. The climate change levy rebate for horticulture has been a considerable boon, and it is vital that it continues.
The increase in the seasonal agricultural workers scheme to 25,000 this year, and the move to an open bidding system next year, provides the key to the whole sector. I want to flag it up to the Minister that any proposal to widen employment opportunities under the scheme would be the death warrant for fruit farming. Proposals to amend the EU marketing standard for apples and pears have disappeared off the radar—and long may it remain that way. Finally, having debated the issue with the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, I want to express my gratitude to him for securing an exemption for orchards from the environmental impact assessment.
I should like to enlist the present Minister's aid on several fronts. First, what do the Government want from horticulture in general, and fruit farming in particular, over the next five to 10 years? What is their strategic vision for the sector? Many growers were deeply concerned by a letter, written on 12 February, from DEFRA's horticulture division to John Breach, chairman of the British Independent Fruit Growers Association. DEFRA states:
"The future of the British industry appears to lie in serving niche domestic markets".
DEFRA's red book on horticultural statistics shows that home-produced marketed apples account for 31.2 per cent. of total supplies and the figures for pears and plums are 24.6 per cent. and 13 per cent. In all honesty, that is hardly a niche market. Will the Minister deal with that problem and articulate his vision for the sector's future?
Secondly, I am concerned about the activities of the agricultural wages board and it is difficult to overstate its importance to growers. Wages account for between 40 per cent. and 60 per cent. of the average grower's cost base, so when profits are tight, any increase will have a disproportionate effect. This is not the time to reprise the events of last summer. Two independent members of the board, who each attended only one meeting in four last year—the critical year—and the chairman have now resigned, and a new settlement will be on us next month.
May I ask the Minister to take home the following three points? First, the key figure for growers is not the headline rate but the casual workers' rate, which rose from £4.30 an hour last October to £4.91. Any repeat would simply break the sector.
Secondly, the agricultural wages board looks increasingly anachronistic. We rightly have a national minimum wage, and it should provide the basis for future wage settlements. As the Minister will understand, when farm profits are at rock bottom, growers feel increasingly discriminated against because only the agricultural sector is treated in this fashion. If abolition is politically unacceptable, will the Minister consider offering some special treatment for casual workers in the horticultural sector, who are, after all, increasingly from eastern Europe? The scheme that brings them here is terrific and is vital to the horticultural industry, but it is clearly daft if the price of implementing it is grubbed orchards.

97WH
Thirdly, I am concerned about the future of Horticulture Research International, East Mailling. The Minister will understand that a vibrant research base is crucial if horticulture is to have a viable future. HRI East Malling has an unrivalled reputation worldwide as a provider of high-quality and commercially relevant research. It is a national treasure, and we should do everything possible to ensure its survival.
Many of those points, and other more detailed ones, were discussed in a separate Adjournment debate sponsored by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley). The quinquennial review has reported, and DEFRA is considering its position. The Government's plan, in outline, is to transfer the research station to the East Malling trustees, who will run it on a commercial basis. That will work only if the Government are prepared to back that outcome and, at least initially, to provide hard cash to ensure that the transfer and start-up costs of the new East Malling are met in full. Unless a proper business case is presented, the East Mailing trustees cannot, under their agreement, agree to the proposed transfer. However, if it can be achieved it is perfectly possible that a new, independent East Malling will emerge to continue the best traditions of the current station.
I should add that there are several specific concerns about DEFRA research grants. The quinquennial review group recommended that at least 40 per cent. of income for research should be provided as a core grant to ensure that core skills are retained and developed. Will DEFRA provide that? Will it continue to place DEFRA-commissioned projects at the new East Malting? Will the new East Malling still be able to bid for open competition funding from DEFRA and for competitive funding from the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council?
It would be unfair of me to expect the Minister to answer those detailed questions today, but perhaps he could relay the contents of our debate to his noble friend Lord Whitty, the Minister responsible.
I hope that the Minister will not consider me churlish if I say that considerable offence was caused by the review team's decision to define East Mailing's commodity base too narrowly as top and soft fruit. East Mailing's work encompasses all perennial crops grown in the UK, and it would be reassuring to know that that wider role is recognised, particularly at a time when such serious structural change, with its impact on jobs and livelihoods, is being undertaken. However, the key point is that horticulture needs research as never before if it is to succeed. In East Mailing, we have the world's foremost research station. I therefore urge the Government, in the strongest possible terms, to provide the transitional funding necessary to allow its tradition of excellence to continue.
Fourthly, the Minister is aware of the controversy about the French grubbing and replanting scheme. I understand that France applied for, and got, state aid for the scheme, which allows French farmers to claim a grant for switching from other agricultural sectors into horticulture.That means that they can replant orchards in such a way as to give them an unfair competitive advantage over their English counterparts. At the risk of
98WH
giving the Minister too much homework, I ask him to look into that to see whether any protection can be offered to English growers.
Finally, I want to flag up the industry's concerns over the new Water Bill. Trickle irrigation is of particular importance to many growers who have previously been exempt from the abstraction licensing system. That will change under the new Bill. The Government have signalled their intention to consult the industry about the issue, which is greatly welcomed. It is important that trickle irrigators are treated equitably within the system.
Time constraints have necessarily resulted in a fairly rapid canter through the main issues affecting the fruit farming sector. It is right to finish where we started: fruit farming is an activity that we should all support. It is wholly unsubsidised, produces high-quality food close to the marketplace and is good for the environment. It also has a disproportionate effect on the rural economy in those areas where it still predominates. However, it sits on the cusp; some of the reasons for that are outside our control, but others definitely are not. I hope that the Minister will confirm the Government's commitment to the future of East Mailing and reassure me that they fully understand the difficulties caused to growers by the recent agricultural wages board settlement. I hope that the Minister will be able to articulate his vision for the future of horticulture and that he will take note of the detailed points on East Mailing, the Water Bill and French grubbing and replanting grants.
Growers in my constituency want no more than to run their farms as small businesses, free from overregulation with an achievable vision for their future. In my part of Kent they also have a vital role as guardians of the countryside. I hope that the Government will help them to achieve those aims.
11.14 am
The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) made a thoughtful and serious speech. He made an important case, which is of great concern to the Government, and I will certainly try to satisfy the hon. Gentleman on the points that he raised.
The hon. Gentle man is quite right to say that there has been a marked decline in our orchard fruit area in the past few years, and he gave some of the reasons for that. The market for English apples has faced tough competition from imports for many years. I regret that our climate does not allow us to grow high-yielding varieties such as golden delicious, which have the advantage of storing well and being cheap. Costs have risen, but prices have not, and that has led to many growers leaving the market. We are not satisfied with that, and I am as determined as the hon. Gentleman to deal with it.
The hon. Gentleman asked several questions that I shall try to answer. First, I would like to say something about the Government's strategic vision for horticulture. Eighteen months ago, in response to a Select Committee report on Horticulture Research International, DEFRA commissioned a report from Sir Colin Spedding on the objectives of horticultural

99WH
research and development in the UK. He called his report, which was published early last year, "A Vision for Horticulture", and it identified a need for
"a vision for horticulture, to guide and inform the industry, its stakeholders and Government."
That was to be produced by a forum made up of people who were capable of taking a broad view of the needs of horticulture. The Government are pleased that such a forum was set up by key horticultural bodies towards the end of last year and that it is working on some of the issues that Sir Colin identified.
Sir Donald Curry's report on sustainable food and farming is equally relevant. It too articulated a vision of a profitable and sustainable farming and food sector that can and does compete internationally, is a good steward of the environment and provides good food and a healthy diet for people in England and around the world.
That is the vision. However, I am the first to say, "That is fine, but how do we deliver it?" That, of course, is exactly what my Department has spent a great deal of time and effort on over the past year, and it will continue to do so. That vision forms the basis of the sustainable farming and food strategy that we published before Christmas. To answer the hon. Gentleman, it informs our approach to agriculture just as much as it does our approach to horticulture.
Our vision of the future does not involve Government in prescriptive control of the productionindustry—not that the hon. Gentleman was suggesting that for a moment. That is not a policy that we would support. It is not for Government to decide what will be produced or where. Instead, with Sir Donald Curry, we envisage a Government who support the industry and who facilitate the business decisions of others by improving the implementation of regulation and by clearing the path if anything blocks the functioning of the market. We want that to be achieved as smoothly and as effectively as possible and to be in no way burdensome.
I do not have the time to go into detail on the vision, but the essential document is the strategy for sustainable farming and food. If the hon. Gentleman has issues that he wants to raise concerning horticulture, the Department and I will be more than pleased to work with him.
The hon. Gentleman expressed concern about the agricultural wages board for England and Wales, about the wages that it sets and about the effect of the recent rise in certain aspects of those wages. We consulted on the future of the board in 1999–2000, and that provided an opportunity to see how the national minimum wage, the working time regulations and the agricultural minimum wage were working alongside each other. In general, the review concluded that the current arrangements were working well.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the continuing relevance of the board. The close link between job and home evidenced by the fact that 60,000 agricultural workers or managers are in accommodation provided by the employer reinforces the view that it is difficult for agricultural employees to conduct meaningful direct negotiations with their employers. I do not say that they are in hock to their employers, but they do not have the
100WH
degree of independence that most other employees enjoy. That is why we believe that there is still a rationale for retaining the agricultural wages board.
The hon. Gentleman also asked me to consider the points that he made about the wages of workers recruited from eastern Europe. I accept that that is an important point. He said that the scheme was good, but that it undermined the future of horticulture in the UK, and we should take that into account.
We are committed to the programme of modernisation that we announced following the review of the board in 1999. My noble Friend Lord Whitty will take the matter forward and will arrange further discussions with the employers' and the workers' sides on the scope of any changes to be introduced. Those discussions will also provide an opportunity to consider the NFU's suggestion that changes to the negotiation process should be introduced as part of the modernisation package.
At this point, that is all that I can say about the agricultural wages board. However, I understand the significance of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman, and they will be pursued during the current review process.
I will address the question of research and development and the future of East Mailing. In horticulture in particular, research and development plays a vital part in determining future possibilities for the sector. As part of DEFRA's work on a science and innovation strategy, we have invited industry stakeholders to help us to identify, evaluate and prioritise opportunities for and threats to future competitive production, storage and distribution of horticultural produce. We seek to commission work that will make a real difference to our industry and that will be complementary to the work funded by the industry through the levy bodies.
The East Mailing research station, which is currently part of Horticulture Research International, has, as the hon. Gentleman said—and I would be the first to endorse it—a proud tradition of work that is highly relevant and valuable to the fruit industry. The station was originally set up by far-sighted growers who knew that an effective research programme was vital to a successful future. The East Mailing site is still owned by the original trustees and, following the quinquennial review of HRI, we are discussing the future of that site. The review concluded that HRI was not sustainable in its present form and that the East Mailing research station should either close or, preferably, be established as an independent research station under the aegis of the East Malting trust for horticultural research. We very much hope that negotiations with the trustees will result in a positive outcome that combines DEFRA funding for strategic research, industry funding and work from other sources.
Like other bodies, East Mailing will be able to bid in competitions. We recognise its role, particularly in relation to hardy nursery stock. Details of the work to be done and of the funding are being examined as part of the negotiations, and we will be happy to contact the hon. Gentleman about that.
The hon. Gentleman raised a couple of other issues, and I shall deal briefly with them before saying a further word about the sector's future. First, he mentioned

101WH
French grubbing grants. I do not carry knowledge about that issue around in my head, but he was good enough to give me advance notice that he was going to raise it, so I can give a slightly more informed reply than I might have done.
My Department is aware of the French orchard grubbing scheme, which provides national aid of 74.5 million euros over four years to producers of apples, peaches and nectarines. That aid is for grubbing up orchards and planting new varieties that are better adapted to market needs. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the scheme has been submitted to the European Commission for approval and has been approved as consistent with the objectives of the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables. It is designed to deal with a particular problem of overproduction in France. The hon. Gentleman's point is that that is all very well but that the extra money could be construed as giving French growers an extra advantage over English growers. I am happy to take his point that we should consider the problem to see what, if anything, we can do about it.
The last issue that the hon. Gentleman raised was trickle irrigation and the Water Bill. We accept that future arrangements for licensing trickle irrigation are a matter of concern to growers. The Bill is going through Parliament and is needed to implement our commitments under the water framework directive. It contains new powers, which are necessary to manage water resources effectively and to prevent environmental damage. We expect new controls on trickle irrigation to be introduced in 2005 at the earliest. Again, however, we will consult further before new regulations set out detailed licensing arrangements. We are well aware of the concerns, which are justified by the
102WH
overriding need to protect the environment. We are prepared to consult further and to listen to those who have concerns.
Let me conclude with a few words about the state of the sector. The present review of the common agricultural policy is geared towards making agriculture less dependent on subsidy. The horticulture sector, of course, receives very little subsidy and already relies on efficient and competitive production to meet its customers' needs.
The industry is to be congratulated on the work that has gone into developing the assured produce scheme, which now covers the majority of UK fresh produce The scheme provides traceability and the assurance that production has met high standards of quality and safety.
From May, the organic farming scheme will be amended to provide conversion aid of £600 a hectare for top fruit production. That will help English growers meet consumer demand for organically grown fruit.
The Government are working with their own procurement agencies—I chaired one of two seminars on sustainable food procurement for the public sector—to identify opportunities to supply more English produce under public contracts. Under EU procurement rules, the Government may not specify local or UK sources. However, such sources may be able to play a greater role in meeting UK needs as part of a sustainable procurement strategy. That is certainly our wish.
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman again on expressing the concerns of his constituents and of this important sector of agriculture. The Government are as keen as he is to support it.
11.30 am
Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.

Supporting People
2 pm
Mr. David Drew: I am delighted to have secured this debate because we are less than a month away from some momentous changes. I congratulate the Government on the initiative that they have taken in pulling together services for vulnerable people. Many older people are not vulnerable, but the changes will impact most on the older generation. The debate will give us the opportunity to discuss both the principles and the detail of the changes.
I have just returned from a conference this morning organised by the Hanover group, al which I chaired a meeting on the single assessment process. It is quite difficult to separate the supporting people initiative from the single assessment process, which I shall mention again later. The keynote message that I received from those at the conference was that they welcomed the changes, but they were worried that the profile was not as high among the general public as it could and should be. I hope that, with this debate, we can put that right.
I would not pretend that I have a considerable background in this area, but I have a long relationship with Care and Repair, the main home improvement agency in Stroud, and I am a long-standing committee member of Stroud Age Concern. Towards the end of my remarks, I want to discuss mental health and disability issues, although those are not the Minister's main concern. I shall mainly address the way in which the changes will affect housing, and home improvement agencies in particular.
I thank the Government for entering into a long period of consultation. I was pleased that Bert Provon, who is, I understand, head of the supporting people initiative within the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, was able to visit Stroud about 18 months ago, at the instigation of the Minister's predecessor, now the Under-Secretary of State for International Development. Mr. Provon met people from the sheltered housing community, which will undergo some fairly considerable changes as a result of the initiative.
I should like to thank the people who helped me to prepare for the debate: Sue Adams and Jane Creed of Care and Repair, Jon Shaw of Stroud district council, Alistair Shute and Gary Thorogood, who work as part of the supporting people team in the county of Gloucestershire, and my friend Chas Townley, who was involved in the South Gloucestershire supporting people team.
I shall first map out the context fairly quickly, then I shall look at the progress that has been made and the implications of the changes, and finally I shall examine some issues in greater detail, starting with the impact of what I see as the key vehicle for change—housing. The original document, "Supporting People", published in December 1998, was a pioneering piece of thinking. It has taken us four and a bit years to get to the stage that we are at now, but we must look back and remind ourselves how important those statements were.
The system will change according to four key principles. First, people will be put first, so that the funding is with the people rather than with the system.
104WH
Secondly, the needs of the most vulnerable people will be highlighted, which will include those outside the normal group, such as rough sleepers, drug users and ex-offenders. Such people do not necessarily fall under the catch-all phrase of vulnerable people, but they will now be part of the changes relating to supporting people. Thirdly, there will be reprioritisation of high quality services and clarification of funding arrangements. Lastly, there will be a logical and transparent approach to planning those services, which will be done in a much more rational, consistent and, dare I say it, integrated manner.
I shall consider those principles in more detail. First, the idea of putting people first is being handled through major budgetary changes. Transitional housing benefit levels determine the size of local funding. It is pleasing that the criticisms that I have heard voiced have not been over that issue. This matter is complex, and the criticisms are mainly detailed. The overall question is what will happen after the transitional period. Perhaps the Minister can give a guarantee that once we get through that period there will be no attempt to claw back resources.
Secondly, the reprioritisation of what is meant by a vulnerable group is obviously a grey area, because it is always possible to include some groups and exclude others. I shall say more about how one can begin to find more moneys for such groups. However, the main argument that has been made to me is that financial help for those groups should not be found at the expense of existing arrangements. Perhaps the Minister will say something about that too.
The third point, about high quality services, pulls together the first two points and the argument that I am advancing, which is that we need to clarify the funding streams after the transitional period to make it clear that those local pots of money will be sacrosanct and will, I hope, increase over time. However, I should like to know to what extent, once there is even greater devolution of responsibility to the local level, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will continue to monitor individual cases to ensure that the money reaches the front line, rather than getting lost somewhere in the system.
That links directly to the last point, which is about how we can make the planning system more integrated. I suppose that the matter will come to a head when we consider the introduction of the needs-based formula, which, I understand—the Minister may correct me—will come into play in 2006. Again, some important changes relating to overall funding are under way, and they will impact on planning.
A considerable sum—in the order of £1.4 billion—has been set aside for the supporting people initiative. There is some tension between the centre and the localities about how much direction there should be. There is evidence that some of the new arrangements are already causing difficulty. There is, for example, an implication that to find new moneys one has to go along with the Government's idea that savings of 2.5 per cent. must be found. I accept that money can always be reallocated, but there are many differences around the country, and local authorities operate in a variety of ways. It is questionable that all of them can find the money and whether that is the best way to pump-prime new

105WH
initiatives. I hope that the Minister will tell us how the savings situation will relate to the funding of local authorities.
There is some concern, as is evident from numerous websites that I have consulted, about the readiness of each area for the start of the initiative, which is now only weeks away. The problem is not how we communicate the fact that the changes are taking place but how we simplify their complexity to reduce the risk of people feeling that they are not for the better. It would be a shame if that were the feeling because most people in the field are very supportive in principle. We must try to get right our communications strategy.
Looking specifically at home improvement agencies, we welcome the fact that the money is being ring-fenced from the outset, but it is not entirely good news. I have been, as I mentioned, at Hanover housing association conference, looking at changes in the way that we assess the needs of people in hospital. It was bluntly put to me that the housing association, one of the smaller providers of home improvements, with 10 or 12 schemes, is in deficit. Because it is now clearer about the likely funding stream, it is threatening to pull out of home improvement. That is not good news, and I hope that the threat is designed to sort out the problem, rather than to be carried through. As I said, Hanover is a small provider; most home improvement agencies are sponsored directly by local authorities. The biggest provider is Anchor Housing Association, which has not made any criticisms. We should be aware that in one of the key areas of delivery there is concern among those through whom delivery will take place.
There is a link to another problem. Under the previous Government, there was a view that home improvement agencies would largely be funded by the state, but that there would also be some attempt to derive income from fees. I can give a clear account of how difficult it has been to organise that in my local care and repair agency. The assumption has been that some £6 million will be raised nationally through fee income, and in a sense it is pleasing that that is no longer the case—the £6 million appears somehow to have been lost amid the calculations. Unless the Minister tells us otherwise, agencies will lose the ability to raise money through fees, and that is probably right, but it could add to the pressure on them, with adverse consequences.
Although I am talking principally about the tenancy sector, I shall spend a little time discussing sheltered housing. I am a great advocate of sheltered housing as the answer to many of our problems in this regard. I have debated it before; it is moving with the times and is becoming more attuned to the need to link with social services and health. Some areas use the term "ultra-sheltered housing". In my area we call it very sheltered housing. Both are important in the context of supporting people schemes, because the funding stream, although it now comes under one heading, will be split between the different functions of sheltered housing. There will clearly be some difficulties because new tenants will be treated differently from existing tenants. As with all changes in regulations or in Government policy, the initiative cannot be retrospective; nor can we pretend that it should be rolled forward indefinitely.
I am a little concerned that trying to disaggregate some of the costs to make it clearer what people are paying, and why, will make it more difficult to cross-
106WH
subsidise, which is not always a good thing. More particularly, I am worried that people will end up facing a stark picture of what they will have to pay for each of the various services, which could be rather a disincentive for them to go into sheltered accommodation. That is the last thing that the Government would want. They, like me, see such accommodation as an important route for people who went to move away from owner-occupier status or some forms of renting into a more appropriate property—usually something smaller. Again, I would like an assurance about whether new tenants will be treated in a similar way to those who have that protection under existing arrangements.
Rents have risen. In my area, that is partly because we are also undergoing rent restructuring—another reason why the picture is so complex. A whole raft of changes is being made at the same time. The supporting people budget includes everything except accommodation—I am sure that civil servants will find that far too simple an explanation—and we must ensure that everything else, such as payments for those who manage the facilities and other associated expenses, will be treated separately. However, we must remember that making the different streams of funding more obvious could put people off.
Having spoken to many people, I find that the danger of disaggregation is worst for those who do not receive housing benefit. I am aware that some of those people will still be helped under the supporting people budget because of the different ways in which it will be able to measure who is eligible for help. The last thing that we want is for people who are not eligible for help to be asked to pay such steep charges that they might think it wrong for them to be housed in sheltered accommodation. More important, such people may not go there in the first place. I am sorry to have taken so much time to make that point, but it is crucial. We are talking about a significant number of people. It is a route that we should explore again; sheltered accommodation is a highly sensible and sensitive way to house older people and other vulnerable groups, and we should not make it prohibitive.
By chance, the conference made clear the link between the supporting people programme and the changes involved in the single assessment process. I know that the Minister is not solely responsible for the initiative, and he may be grateful for that because it is complex. However, the overlap with the changes involved in the single assessment process adds to the complexity, and we should try to cut through that complexity.
I hope that individual assessments will be conducted with due regard to the supporting people arrangements. More particularly, I hope that the professionals involved will meet to exchange information. The question of what information may be exchanged is one that has recently emerged for society to deal with, and we shall have to be careful about that in the present context. Data protection is relevant, as is the natural resistance of some people to undergoing the assessments. I know that concern has been expressed about the reason for the review process. There is obviously a conspiracy theory, but people who will clearly remain within the criteria for the funding that the state has always provided are concerned. Some people are suspicious and will not, therefore, willingly participate.

107WH
If nothing else, we need to make sure that the teams doing the work—and they are teams—communicate with one another and share information. The aim is to make the arrangements as seamless as possible for those to whom they will apply. Not only should people be in the most appropriate accommodation, but, for those who spend time in hospital, we should be studying approaches to their leaving hospital. We need to get rid of the dreadful notion—I never want to use the term, but there is no better one—of bed blockers. Help should be provided in discharging people from hospital and ensuring that they go to the best, most appropriate accommodation.
That is the essence of the single assessment process. In its broader approach, which needs to be improved, it provides links and support. It is a matter of diversity and choice, to use the terminology regularly used by the Government. People must have choice, so a range of different services must be available.
I said that I would comment on mental health and learning disabilities. One of the best aspects of the initiative is that it does not only involve changes to funding for older persons' care; as well as considering groups that have traditionally fallen outside the net, we are also thinking about groups that never did, but were probably dealt with in the Cinderella part of the service. Those groups include people with mental health difficulties and people with learning disabilities.
I have noticed that residential homes meant principally, but not entirely, for those with learning disabilities, have reclassified themselves to enable people to claim transitional housing benefit. That is a good thing. It encourages independence and new ways of going on and living life. All that I ask is that the Government make it clear that they do not intend suddenly to drop the portcullis and try to reclaim money. The arrangement is expensive. It applies to people who, traditionally, have not been able to obtain additional funding by using housing benefit avenue. We need to make it clear that we shall continue to treat it as appropriate and allow them to draw those funds.
I welcome the permitted earnings changes that the Government have pioneered to allow people with mental health difficulties to earn money and to go through a transition back to work. I should like things to be made clear. Housing benefit should not be affected, but other benefits are. I mention the matter to the Minister, although it is not his responsibility but that of the Department for Work and Pensions. We need to ensure that Departments are talking to one another.
We are talking largely about people in some form of specialised housing, and we must ensure that they continue to receive support and that assistance is not taken away from them as a result of any reduction in the supporting people budget. There is much detail to consider, and I make no apology for doing so. If my constituency can be used as an exemplar, I am pleased, because we have found more accommodation in supported lodgings. However, that comes at a price and we must ensure that the stream of money is not suddenly cut short for any reason. The Minister will need to have a dialogue principally with his colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions, although there
108WH
could also be health-related matters, depending on the nature of the illness from which a person suffers. I hope that the matter can be clarified.
Some of the Government's motives, including those concerning the amount that they are contributing, have been questioned, but I think that they should be congratulated. The saddest part of the process relates to the notion of pipeline schemes, whereby we would find new ways of arranging care and would encourage health, service services, housing and, under its aegis, the voluntary sector, to work in different ways.
By chance, I was talking to the director of social services for Leicester city council, Andrew Cozens, who is an old friend of mine because he used to be the director of social services at Gloucestershire county council. He said that the council bid for £4 million for pipeline schemes and received £40,000. He felt that social services could find some money through savings. He said that he had set great store by some of the new initiatives that he wanted to undertake, but that was the response that he received. I would like some guarantee that the pipeline schemes, which are at the really innovative and integrative end of the work that needs to be undertaken, will not be denuded of funds, because that would prevent the implementation of the changes of which the Government have spoken.
To conclude, I hope that the Minister will respond to the following issues that I have highlighted. First, how are we trying to improve co-ordination between at least three Departments, and local authorities and the voluntary sector? As I have said, the complexity of the issues is causing confusion and the message is not getting across. That is true not only of the supporting people initiative but of the single assessment programme.
Secondly, to take matters forward, we need security of funding into and after the transitional period. Many of the people to whom I have spoken told me that they are holding fire and have negotiated one-year contracts. With the best will in the world, because of the nature of the work that is being undertaken, they cannot keep renewing one-year contracts. We need some guarantees about where funding will come from. We need to know what shape the new funding formula will take, how we will consult on it and whether 2006 is a realistic deadline for putting it together.
Lastly, there is the fact that we are trying to change the whole working culture of the various professions involved. The area has been bedevilled by people working in their own particular field and not sharing information more widely. How can we make progress on that, given the problems that I have highlighted, including information sharing and the operation of different budgets? How can we overcome those problems?
I will finish as I started by saying that the Government should be congratulated on taking the initiative. The move is long overdue, and they have a lot of guts to see it through, because we can see why it has not been done before. If the Government communicate more widely to the general public why and how the programme is happening, today's debate will have served a purpose. I hope that, with the other contributions, we can use today as an opportunity to take forward this important change.
2.30 pm
Matthew Green: I congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on securing a debate on an important and complex subject. He has shown a detailed mastery of the complexities of a subject with which, I suspect, few people could cope.
We welcome the steps that the Government are taking. The ideas of inter-agency work, putting funds into a single budget and bringing the management under a single committee are welcome. I remember early steps towards such a system in Herefordshire when the Liberal Democrat-controlled council merged the social services and housing departments. The council chief executive became the joint chief executive with what was then the Herefordshire health authority, which worked well until the health authority was abolished to make way for the strategic health authorities. The general principle of trying to bring the various agencies together to secure support in housing vulnerable people is welcome, and the Government have taken a bold step towards it. In the light of that, I hope that the Minister will take my questions as an attempt genuinely to be helpful in teasing out some of the problems. [Interruption.] The Minister shakes his head, and he probably suspects that I never aim genuinely to be helpful. He will have to take it on face value that I am.
The primary area of concern is about the budget. Age Concern, and other bodies, have expressed unease since the beginning of the consultation stage about the introduction of a cash-limited budget compared with the previous open-ended funding through housing benefit. There is a contradiction between a needs-led approach, which is welcome, and a cash-limited budget, so will the Minister assure us that it will not lead to problems for the agencies?
The Minister may recall that I wrote to him recently, after I received a letter from Bridgnorth district council. In the letter, Councillor Jenny Collingridge, who is chair of the council's community improvement programme, raised the problem of the budget. She wrote:

"This concern is exacerbated by the very real concerns that Members have over the adequate funding of the Supporting People programme from 1st April 2003. The basic pot is being determined by the current contributions to Supported Housing Services from the public sector, which in this County—
Shropshire—
"accounts for less than 25 per cent. of all the households; yet is eventually expected to cover all tenures. Unless there is a process for identifying and making available continuing adequate resources from Central Government Supporting People will not achieve its intended aims. Past experiences of Housing Benefit administration for Council tenants and Care in the Community, where there have been effective year on year cuts do not auger well for Supporting People. Many potential recipients of Social Care are excluded from the process at the assessment stage, not because they would not benefit from the services but because there have never been sufficient resources to fund all that is required. Services are rationed and some clients do not receive services that they would clearly benefit from."
That is an important concern that is not being taken into account. Perhaps the new funding formula will solve that by 2006. I hope that the Minister will deal with that in a bit of detail.
110WH
The Minister's reply dated 10 February reads:
"Dr Collingridge also sought clarification on the funding arrangements for Supporting People. Announcements on the Supporting People pot will be made in February."
I had a meeting with Bridgnorth district council officers and members on Monday and they have not heard anything. I asked my researcher to delve around and her note presciently says;
"We can't find any announcement."
We are now in March. Perhaps there has been an announcement and the Minister will leap to his feet to tell me that I am wrong. We would obviously welcome that information as soon as possible so that the councils can focus on implementation.
My second area of concern, which again was raised by Age Concern, is how support needs are prioritised. The fear is that certain vulnerable groups, which have traditionally been a low priority for local authorities such as ex-offenders, young people leaving care and single homeless people, will lose out in the allocation of resources because of the pressure on local authorities' budgets. In a sense, that comes back to the concern about the cash limiting of the budget. I realise that there have to be limits on how much can be spent in broad terms but budgets are now defined and the housing benefit budget, which previously was open ended, will not be available in quite the same way.
My third area of concern, which I have also written to the Minister about, is the constitution of the committee that will administer these matters. I shall quote from a letter written last February to the former Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, the right hon. Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers), by Roger Walker, the Labour leader of Shropshire county council. He wrote:
"The guidance issued by your Department in December is inconsistent with our respective obligations under the Local Government Act 2000 and these inconsistencies need to be eliminated as soon as possible and revised guidance issued. We hope that you will be able to arrange for this to be done and revised guidance issued as quickly as possible.
Our ideal model would be for there to be a Joint Committee with formally delegated Executive responsibilities. This Joint Committee—drawn from the membership of each of the Partners—would take decisions in relation to the Strategy and Implementation Plans. We would, of course need to build in a form of joint scrutiny for decisions made."
Shropshire is obviously a two-tier area. The letter continues:
"Your Department's December guidance suggests Partners set up a Commissioning Body, comprising officers, this Body to take all strategic decisions. We are concerned at this on two counts. First, such decisions are more properly the province of Elected Members … and secondly, it appears unconstitutional for formal decisions … to be delegated to a collective Officer Body. Officers can be empowered to take single Council decisions only. Our preferred model would overcome this democratic deficit of an Officer Body but it also is constitutionally impossible at present. A key element of this model would be equal status for all representatives and at the moment, Health and Probation colleagues would have to be non-voting under the Local Government Act 2000, despite their financial commitment to this programme. We would therefore press for legislation to be changed to permit our preferred model with all partners having voting rights."
That letter is a year old, but the letter from the Bridgnorth district council is only a couple of months old. That council makes the same point about the role

111WH
of elected members and the voting rights of officers. The Minister's response confused us. In his letter of 10 February, he says:
"I agree that setting priorities for Supporting People strategies is something that elected members must be fully involved in. Senior officers who attend meetings of the Commissioning Body can only act in accordance with the wishes of elected members and the level of authority that has been delegated to them."
However, we learned from the other letter that they can act only for each authority rather than voting for the body as a whole. The letter continues:
"There is no reason that elected members should not themselves sit on the Commissioning Body, should they wish to do so.
That is fine, but unless the voting rights are sorted out, the body cannot take strategic decisions effectively.
We continue to seek clarification from the Minister, because we want this Government initiative to work. We want to help it to work, but there are genuine concerns about whether it will be the success that it deserves to be in the long run, or whether it will not deliver in the way in which many of us, including many organisations and agencies, hope it will. For the sake of vulnerable people and their needs, I hope that the Minister will address my points and the detailed points made by the hon. Member for Stroud in his thoughtful contribution.
2.41 pm
Mr. Desmond Swayne: I congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on securing the debate and on the comprehensive way in which he dealt with a complicated subject. Both he and the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) have done the House a service by covering the subject in such detail. I shall therefore be able to reduce considerably what I was going to say. However, I fear that form and convention require me to say something.
The debate is welcome, and I am glad that it was selected, but we would have benefited from a statement, as their lordships did on 20 February during the recess. After all, the programme affects the housing of 1 million people, and has a £50 million impact on local government funding. There is bound to be a huge consensus throughout the House, and I do not disagree with anything that has been said so far.
The programme is a great opportunity to improve the quality of life of vulnerable people by providing a stable environment and greater independence. I wholly support that laudable objective. The existing system for providing services is hampered by overlapping and complex funding streams. It is much easier to secure funding for some forms of housing, but much more difficult for others. There is a lack of focus on quality, and a lack of ownership and responsibility. There is certainly no transparency in the allocation of funds. Therefore, there is no question of the need for this reform and the opportunity that it affords. There is, however, a question of whether we are ready for implementation from 1 April. We seek reassurance from the Minister about how ready we are.
I would like the Minister to answer several questions that I fear overlap with questions that have already been asked, but I would be interested to hoar his responses. I fully understand that he might not have all the answers
112WH
to hand this afternoon, but it may be possible for him to write to hon. Members with the answers afterwards. Will he tell us how many significant changes have been made to the guidelines and the guidance issued to local authorities in, say, the past four months? Will he also say what the implications of those changes are? How many local authorities have and, perhaps even more importantly, have not yet agreed contracts and pricing schedules with service providers? Can the Minister reassure us about the robustness of estimates of support costs? I ask that as there is evidence that providers have been underestimating those costs to maximise the receipt of housing benefit subsequently. That will clearly have implications later for the adequacy of funding.
The announcement of 20 February arrived with an appendix listing the grants, which is now available in an excellent document produced by the Library in preparation for this 90-minute debate. Unfortunately, I was handed it only as I sat down for the debate. That strikes me as extraordinary, because I visited the Library on Monday evening to ask for a briefing for the debate, and was directed by e-mail to a couple of websites, which I subsequently visited. As I had asked for a briefing for the debate, surely it should not have been beyond the wit of someone to let me know subsequently when the briefing was available.
Setting that aside, I have a question about the list of grants to local authorities. I wonder whether the Minister might answer it. I did a little number crunching, and it appears that the grants available to Conservative-controlled county councils are, on average, £1.3 million lower than the grants available to Labour-controlled county councils. That disparity is even greater for London boroughs. Conservative-controlled London boroughs are, on average, £4 million worse off than Labour-controlled London boroughs. The Minister might be able to deal with that when he sums up.
The supporting people programme does not stand on its own as an isolated programme. Each of its component parts fits within a wider strategy to address the needs of specific groups. I said that the announcement of 20 February had an implication of £50 million for local government funding, but we discovered in that week or the following week that at the same time, on 1April, £400 million is to be taken away from it as a consequence of the abolition of social housing grant. It was always expected that social housing grant would go, but everyone believed that it would go on 1 April 2004.
That is a significant cost to local authorities, which by and large had already set their council charges before that bolt from the blue arrived. However, it will have a particularly deleterious effect on a particularly vulnerable group of my constituents who certainly require support. The occupants of dwellings in mobile home parks are among our most vulnerable people. They suffer as a result of a form of tenure that has to be less eligible than any other. The law is stacked against them in terms of the power of the landlord. Perverse incentives are almost built into the law to maximise turnover by making, in the case of unscrupulous landlords, tenants' lives unbearable.
In my experience, a significant minority of landlords of mobile home parks have neither the social nor the managerial skills to make a success of them. We await

113WH
the implementation by Ministers of the findings of the working group and a comprehensive reform of the law on mobile home parks.
I shall exemplify the fear of the owners in some mobile home parks. In Ringwood in my constituency, the district council was required to realise its assets and sell a mobile home park. The mobile home owners, determined not to be owned by some ghastly private landlord, having seen examples elsewhere and not wanting to be at such a disadvantage, and horrified at the prospect of being owned even by a social landlord who was one of the bidders, struggled to find a £1 million mortgage to buy the park themselves. The attendant stamp duty and other costs are loaded upon them but they do it and the deal is in train. Suddenly, however, the social housing grant is withdrawn, pulling the rug from under them. Can the Minister guarantee that the undertakings that have already been entered into under the terms of the grant, those that are in the pipeline, will be guaranteed to continue even if the contract cannot be exchanged by 1 April?
Homelessness has risen by 15 per cent. from 1997 to the end of last year. The Prime Minister promised
"a society where we don't spend millions on bed and breakfast for families, but spend it on housing them instead."
In the New Forest, although there was a period about three years ago when there were no families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, there is now a considerable increase in the numbers. A gentleman, who I hope will benefit from the supporting people programme, came to my surgery recently complaining that he had been to see a house in Ringwood that suited his needs absolutely, as it had been converted for people with a disability and problems like his. He said, "Why can't there be a house like that for me? Why can't more properties like that be built to accommodate me?" He told me about the appalling circumstances in which he had to live because there was no such provision.
Part of the answer is that the district council is not allowed to use its funds to build such dwellings because it is required by the Whitehall-imposed policy to use its budget to renovate its existing housing stock rather than building new houses. I have raised the matter with Ministers in written questions, in oral questions and in debates on the Floor of the House in the hope that the Minister would address the issue on summing up. I have even raised the matter in Standing Committee, but it is like having a dialogue with the deaf. Perhaps this afternoon the Minister will break the mould and answer my question directly.
I fully understand the motive that underlies the policy; there are local authorities in this realm that have so neglected their housing stock over a number of years that some of it has become uninhabitable. Of course, those local authorities should be constrained by Government policy to do something about it. However, not all local authorities are in that position; there are beacon local authorities that do not have that problem. One size should not fit all; one policy should not be applied to all local authorities irrespective of the needs of their housing stock.
The tragedy is that New Forest district council will not be able to build properties for the vulnerable people I have described. Instead, it will have to rip out perfectly good kitchens from its existing properties and replace
114WH
them with new ones in order to abide by the Government's policy directives. I believe that local councillors should take those decisions and be accountable for them; they should not be imposed by Whitehall.
Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman is making a very good point, although perhaps it is a little off the subject of supporting people. Is he aware that the Conservative Government introduced the policy that he is talking about? It is a shame that the Labour Government have not altered it, but the reality is that it is a Conservative Policy. Is the hon. Gentleman now saying that he regrets it?
Mr. Swayne: No, I am saying that it is horses for courses. This was once an enormous problem, but we have now dealt with it and moved on. The hon. Gentleman might recall that some time has passed since the last Conservative Government—though it might not be so long before we have another one. As for the hon. Gentleman's other point, I am confident that if I had strayed beyond the confines of the debate, you would have called me to order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Finally, I entirely support the objectives of the programme. It is time that we did something like this. An opportunity is to be had, but I caution hon. Members in the way that I caution my constituents that not all expectations can ever legitimately be met.
A lady came to see me recently to complain about the provision made for her son, who requires supported housing. She complained that he did not want to live in residential care, but on his own in the community. After all, the cost of providing him support to live on his own in the community would not be wholly dissimilar from the current cost of providing him with residential care. Consequent upon that exchange, I made one or two inquiries and discovered that the young man had moved out of residential care and had shared a home in the community with two others. However, because he did not want to live with the others and because of his limitations and disabilities—I attach no blame—he had assaulted both his co-residents and their carers. That is why he had had to be moved back into residential care.
When I followed the matter up with the local authority and inquired, in view of his choice to live on his own, what provision could be made to support him in the community, I was told that the constraint was not mainly financial—though it could be in certain circumstances. The reality was that providing care for the young man would require the full-time support of two people 24 hours a day, which has implications for the employment of rather more than two people. Ultimately, the state is limited in what it can do: it cannot satisfy every demand and every need. We can, however, go a long way and certainly do better than under the present system.
2.57 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Tony McNulty): It has been a worthwhile and timely debate—perhaps rather déjàvu in view of yesterday's debate when again we heard two eloquent, comprehensive and well-informed contributions, and then the Conservative stood up.

115WH
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) has done the House and the wider community a service in initiating the debate. I fully appreciate his experience with home improvement agencies such as Care and Repair. He expressed understandable worries about the programme's complexity. I welcome his introductory comment that the scheme is overwhelmingly in the right direction and the underlying principles sound. I was slightly worried when my hon. Friend said that the Government had lots of guts for introducing the scheme: I rank that as similar to when Sir Humphrey says that a Minister is being brave and dire consequences follow.
It used to be said, in the days before some Ministers, my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud and the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) got their heads round the issue, that only three people knew anything about how supporting people worked—it is rather like the Schleswig-Holstein question, one is dead, one is mad and the other is Bert Provan! I am happy to say that he still exists and is very much in charge of the programme.
I shall try to respond to my hon. Friends' questions and others, if relevant. The programme is a matter of real importance. I am not attempting to impugn Mr. Deputy Speaker's judgment as to whether certain subjects are in order—everything clearly has been, because he has not suggested otherwise—but I will not be responding to the comments that have been made about the partisan nature of the allocation because they are nonsense. Also, I will not respond to comments about the abolition of local authority social housing grant, which is not relevant to the debate, or about park homes, even though I am the Minister with responsibility for them.
The hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) raised some serious issues, but with the best will in the world I cannot deal with them because I will have enough to do answering questions about the supporting people programme. I congratulate him, however, on at least seeking to hide the fact that he knows little about the programme, although he was not terribly subtle about it. However, that is by the by. If he wants to write to me subsequently with inquiries on those other issues, I will be more than happy to respond. That is particularly true of park homes, for which I have responsibility, as I said.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud said, the timing of the debate is fortuitous because the programme goes live on 1 April. However, all will not be resolved then despite the welcome that the principles underlying the programme have been given in the main by the professions and local government. Given the programme's complexities, the serious concerns about it and the issues that will arise as it beds in, the system that we introduce on 1 April may not be 100 per cent. the same by the time that we sort out the allocations in 2006. We are talking about an organic process—that is the nature of the beast.
Let me try, however, to answer some of my hon. Friend's specific inquiries. He asked whether there would be an attempt to claw back resources after the transitional period. He will know from the allocations that there has been a large increase in transitional
116WH
housing benefit in recent months and it is right that we ensure that the money is spent on high-quality, value for-money services that meet the needs of those who are, as he said, very vulnerable. We expect local authorities to study those issues with service receivers.
My hon. Friend also asked about sacrosanct local pots. Again, he will know from the allocations that there are major disparities between the amounts of supporting people grant available in different areas. We must consider how we deal with that to ensure that authorities can meet the needs of local people. As has been mentioned, we have consulted on an allocation formula and in the coming months we shall consider responses to the issues raised.
My hon. Friend also spoke about monitoring the process. We want to unpick much that is opaque and complex, which by definition is a complex exercise. We shall monitor all aspects of the provision of housing-related support, including the supporting people programme. Supporting people strategies must contain details of how commissioning bodies plan to spend grant money and we shall monitor the process carefully.
Mr. Drew: I share the concerns of the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) about a possible problem with two-tier authorities. Can we ensure that housing benefit departments share their knowledge with the supporting people team? Concern has been expressed in some of the literature about the degree to which district authority departments will tell the team what information they have.
Mr. McNulty: That is a fair point. As my hon. Friend suggested towards the end of his contribution, there must be an almost root-and-branch cultural change in the way that all the assorted bodies share information among and within themselves so that they can work in the best interests of the most vulnerable people, on whom the programme will impact. There may need to be greater exhortation and guidance so that there can be discussion within and between local authority departments. The same is true of the various Government Departments and agencies in the field. I do not want the programme to flounder because people do not talk to each other about vulnerable people in their areas when they should be doing so. We are also aware that simplifying the complexity is a major task. Local authorities and providers have been working hard on preparations.
I was asked whether we are sure that everyone is ready for 1 April. We have trailed and monitored the process carefully and, in the main, most local authorities have climbed mountains and made enormous steps to be ready. There is an overwhelming desire that there should not be any mistakes or an absence of provision for those extremely vulnerable people. Without wishing to tempt fate, I would give local government a huge slap on the back for how advanced they have been. I may subsequently be giving local authorities a slap on the back of a different kind—things may be rather less amiable post-April and we will have to see how it goes, but people have generally taken the preparation very seriously.
We have issued guidance on monitoring and review that is designed to make the process as unbureaucratic as possible. We are piloting procedures in seven local

117WH
authorities to find out how the review and monitoring on the ground works out. We will consider the outcome and review procedures if necessary. We all know what outcomes we want to achieve in service provision for the most vulnerable people in local authorities but, by its nature, unpicking complex schemes, myriad programmes and revenue streams and putting them into simplistic form for the most vulnerable people will take time. We will have to keep a close watch and monitor the process.
In one sense, my hon. Friend was not entirely right when he suggested that there is a £6million gap in terms of home improvement agencies. HIAs are already exempted from the rule regarding charges for short-term services during the first year of supporting people and will retain the ability to charge fees until April 2004. The statutory guidance is being amended to make it clear that HIAs are not to be considered as short-term services when it comes to their ability to charge fees. We will ensure that that situation is confirmed as a long-term arrangement when we revisit the grant conditions after the first six months of the programme.
My hon. Friend appreciates that much of what goes on in single assessment is not directly in my area, but housing is an important aspect. As supporting people unfolds, we will explore how teams are communicating with one another to ensure as seamless an experience as possible for service users, as my hon. Friend pointed out.
I agree that supporting people has a vital role to play in enabling access to housing support and reducing bed blocking, delayed discharge or whatever we want to call it, and in co-ordinating and looking specifically at how local health services and primary care trusts in particular are engaged with the process. Again, it is not simply a cultural rethink and change for many of the agencies and professions involved; it is also about rethinking their engagement with the most vulnerable people and engaging with other agencies in a productive, fruitful and cross-agency fashion.
As my hon. Friend pointed out, supporting people will make the real cost of support more transparent, which was part of the aim. Anyone who receives housing benefit will not have to pay under supporting people. Councils can provide protection to new tenants who are not eligible for housing benefit during the interim period until the first service review.
Statutory guidance emphasises that local authorities should not put in place eligibility criteria for sheltered housing that would dilute its preventative role or does not allow a balance of people with different levels of needs in the same scheme. Local authorities need to know the cost of support to ensure that services are being delivered in the most sensible, cost-effective way.
My hon. friend's arguments about learning disabilities and mental health were well made. As he said in the early part of his contribution, supporting people is not simply about the approximately 530,000 household units for older people, mostly in sheltered services; it is also about a range of other users defined as vulnerable. For example, there will be provision for 45,000 household units for people with learning difficulties and mental health problems, which he mentioned, 4,000 household units to support the rehabilitation of ex-offenders, 3,000 household units for women fleeing
118WH
domestic violence and 75,000 units for people who have been homeless or belong to other vulnerable client groups. It is more than simply a reconfiguration of what we do with sheltered housing. Supporting people will help vulnerable groups to maintain secure houses. It will remain the responsibility of social services to provide care, and local commissioning bodies will ensure that partnerships between supporting people and social services develop appropriate solutions. Service reviews will ensure that supporting people grants are spent on support services.
As my hon. Friend pointed out, the income arrangements for people with mental health problems who are entitled to housing benefit are the responsibility of the Department for Work and Pensions. That was what I meant to say about four paragraphs ago. I reassure him that we will be monitoring the provision of services for all client groups as programmes get under way. We are keenly aware that we must capture developments in provision and support in each group and not just in a vague general sense. The vulnerable groups that I mentioned have specific needs and concerns. We will continue to work closely with the Department to ensure that supporting people links into other strategies to give a good service to vulnerable people.
I welcome my hon. Friend's endorsement of pipeline schemes and assure him that we welcome creativity and innovation in such schemes. We will shortly conduct an exercise to assess the amount of supported housing management grant pipeline required for 2003–04. Most pipeline schemes will not need full-year funding in the first year of operation and many will not be ready in 2004–05. If he wants to write to me on the matter, I will look into it for him in more detail.
As we approach 2003–04, authorities will be able to keep better estimates of the supported housing management grant required. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has made provisional allocation for pipeline schemes, and schemes with a confirmed capital commitment will be funded. Authorities have been advised on how to deal with specific schemes when there is a query about the provisional funding. Until those queries have been resolved, we cannot give more detailed funding figures.
The hon. Member for Ludlow asked about the allocation formula and whether 2006 is a realistic date. Throughout the process we heard many comments on the consultation on the formula. We will consider them carefully when deciding how to make progress. We must also consider timing, although we remain wedded to 2006. The intention is that the allocation formula will provide a guideline for allocation. However, the Government are in tent on avoiding sudden, dramatic changes in allocations to areas during the transition period when supporting people is being introduced. That is because, as both my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Ludlow suggested, we must bear in mind the needs of these very vulnerable groups.
The hon. Member for Ludlow spoke about the commissioning bodies. It is for member organisations to decide the delegated authority that they give officers. He read from a letter that said that elected members may sit on the commissioning body if they want. The voting rules are one vote for the chief authority that administers the supporting people grant, one vote for

119WH
each district council in the area, one vote for local probation services, and at least one vote for local primary care trusts, or more by agreement. All decisions must be unanimous; that is to ensure that all parties sign up to the arrangements. Exactly who attends the meetings is for the commissioning body to decide.
Despite the confusion in the letter, let me assure the hon. Gentleman that the arrangements are rooted in section 93, "Grants for welfare services", of the Local Government Act 2000. That is slightly different from the areas discussed in the letter that he quoted. They seem to be more about substantive points of committee membership and joint commissioning between two levels of authority that have more to do with the political and constitutional dimensions of local government, rather than being specific to the grant conditions of section 93. I am sure that that is the case, but if it is any different I shall write to the hon. Gentleman.
I invite any hon. Member who feels that I have not dealt with a relevant matter to write to me and I shall try to provide appropriate answers, given that we have a lead-in time of less than four weeks. First and foremost, the supporting people initiative aims to make things as clear as possible for the most vulnerable people who need housing. It requires a degree of cultural change among all who have at heart the housing needs of such people—how to work together in their interests is one of the most important matters to be addressed by the programme.
I know from the tone of the debate that other hon. Members will agree that the programme offers local authorities and their partners an exciting new opportunity to develop local partnerships that effectively meet local needs. It is far better than the existing systems that we are unscrambling, using innovative new models of preventative services. We look forward to developing and sharing positive practices that enable vulnerable groups to achieve social inclusion in their local communities.
I leave the hon. Gentleman with one thought: please do not pack up your tent, fold it away and go home on 1 April, but keep in touch as things unfold and bed in. No doubt there will be teething problems, but we should work collectively, cross party, with no obtuse partisan dimensions to minimise any dislocation or disruption to the services we provide. The system will be vastly improved and vastly more transparent. Its success is in our collective interest as public representatives, and certainly in the interests of the vulnerable people whom we choose to serve.
3.16 pm
Sitting suspended

National Minimum Wage
3.30 pm
Mr. John Lyons: I begin by declaring an interest. As a member of Unison and, previously, of the National Union of Public Employees, I have a background of campaigning for low-paid workers and of fighting for the establishment of the national minimum wage.
I, and millions of workers throughout the United Kingdom, think that the national minimum wage is a huge success story. Its introduction is a tribute to the work of Rodney Bickerstaffe, Lord Sawyer and many other trade union and political leaders who campaigned for so long to establish it.
I will highlight a number of concerns, including the fact that there is no rate of pay in the national minimum wage for 16 to 18-year-olds, and the issue of the development rate for 18 to 21-year-olds. I will also address the question of home working in the UK and its relationship to the national minimum wage, and deal with the rate of the national minimum wage.
The National Minimum Wage Act 1998 came into force on 1 April 1999 and there is no evidence to suggest that the national minimum wage has had a negative impact on employment, but there is evidence to show that it has delivered gains for the lowest paid in society. There are now 1 million more jobs in the economy than in 1999, so it is safe to say that we have all-party support for the national minimum wage, which never previously existed. That is a testament to its success.
The legislation does not include a rate of pay for 16 to 18-year-olds, however, and I believe that to be a mistake—a deficiency—that creates major exploitation in our towns and cities, and in some rural areas. Many youngsters leave school at 16. Some will not go on to higher or further education, but will go straight into the labour market to look for employment. Those young people must be protected against unscrupulous employers, and the way to do that is to establish a payment for the 660,000 young people aged between 16 and 18 who have no such protection at all. It is a simple balance: if there are youngsters in the work force, they must be protected. They should not feel isolated and unsupported.
Good employers are unhappy with the situation, and no guidance is given to them on what they should do when employing 16 to 18-year-olds, if an employer agrees a rate of pay for that age group, no matter what it is, someone will criticise it. If the rate is considered to be too low, the employer could quite properly say, "I am doing nothing wrong or illegal. I am paying the rate that I think is appropriate for the job." That is where the disparity creeps in throughout the UK, because different employers have different estimates of what appropriate pay should be.
As well as school leavers in the employment market, young people who are still at school often seek employment at particular times of year—in school holidays, for example. Employers in places with tourist attractions that are busy in summer, at Easter or at Christmas time need additional labour in those periods. Whether we like it or not, those employers often recruit those who are still at school, who will work for a few weeks and then return to school. That highlights the crux of the problem.

121WH
Last summer, a man and wife came to my surgery to complain on behalf of their 17-year-old daughter, who was working in a store. The employer had decided to pay her £2 an hour. I had to say, "The employer is doing nothing wrong. There is nothing in the legislation to protect your daughter. I may disagree with the rate of pay, but the employer will say that he is doing nothing wrong."
When I visited the employer, that is, of course, exactly what he said. He told me, "If the Government will give me some guidance, I shall be happy to follow it." In the end, he paid the young woman the national minimum wage. He said, "If that is what you want me to do, Mr. Lyons, I am happy to do it." The major problem is not only employees' need to fight for their rights, but employers' need for guidance and support.
We need to review the situation—it is as simple as that. There is an argument for post-legislative scrutiny, which is ideal, as it would enable us to discover what is happening without relying on horror stories or anecdotes. We could simply consider the evidence provided by Citizens Advice and other organisations. It is unfair to treat young people as we do. Often we criticise them for not taking enough interest in society or politics, but the truth is that we do not take enough interest in them. What I have described is proof of that.
We need also to tackle the question of the development rate for the pay of people aged 18 to 21, which has existed since 1999. In evidence to the Low Pay Commission, the TUC said:
"The TUC believes the full adult rate of the national minimum wage should be payable at age 18. We have consistently argued that the lower rate is discriminatory, contrary to the principle of establishing a fair rate for the job and counterproductive for those who choose to use it. The fact is that most people believe adulthood starts at 18 and pay should reflect this norm. In most cases young people are taking on the same responsibilities and delivering the same productivity and performance as their older colleagues."
It is offensive that employers can legally pay lower wages to workers just because they are younger. I should be offended if that practice were applied to older people. The youth, or development, rate can often undermine a company's recruitment and retention strategy, and in today's economy that is often an important issue. We need to consider more fully the Low Pay Commission's views on 21-year-olds and the national minimum wage.
When the legislation was introduced, many people felt that the development rate would lead to a massive expansion of training, but there is no evidence of that. Many employers are abusing the availability of the development rate.
David Hamilton: I agree with my hon. Friend's sentiments and those of the TUC. Given that people can vote at 18 and, indeed, in this time of turmoil, could go to war and die for their country at 18, surely they should be entitled at that age to the minimum wage—which, of course, some employers treat as the maximum wage.
Mr. Lyons: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. He has a long record, based on what he has done in Midlothian and elsewhere, of fighting for young people and for proper pay for them.
122WH
Home working is a major anomaly, and it is expanding massively in the UK. The figures speak for themselves. The National Group on Homeworking estimates that 1 million people are engaged in home working, while the Office for National Statistics thinks that the figure is about 650,000 for 2001–02. A range of organisations report not only the expansion of home working, but the abuse of home workers by some employers. I refer to citizens advice bureaux all over the country, the Scottish Low Pay Unit and the National Group on Homeworking. Recently, the Scottish Affairs Committee heard evidence from a range of home working organisations about what it is like to work in that situation—how, employees are paid and dealt with. It did not make nice reading.
In 1981, only about 345,000 people were engaged in home working. Since then, there has been growth in electronics, and teleworking, telecanvassing and the general assembly of gifts are increasing. That has led to the expansion of home working. If it is developing in that way, we need to tackle it and resolve the problem. In 1996, the International Labour Organisation set out clear guidance on home working and the importance of treating home workers as fairly as those employed in an office or a factory. The National Group on Homeworking estimated that, in 2001, the average wage for home workers was just £2.66 per hour. It also produced a report, "Getting what's rightfully theirs?" which examined the impact of the national minimum wage on home workers and identified worrying trends and examples.
I compliment the Department of Trade and Industry, as everyone involved in the home working survey said that their main sources of information on the national minimum wage were based on Government initiatives, especially television and radio adverts and the helpline. That was a great help to them, but there is one worrying aspect. Some 83 per cent. of those earning below the national minimum wage have not made a formal complaint, but for good reason: of those who made a formal complaint to the Inland Revenue, none managed to secure rates at or above the national minimum wage while keeping their work.
The minute that someone complains as an individual, the employer has the right to transfer that person's work to any other person or home worker. They have no support and are left completed isolated. There are lessons for us all in the National Group on Homeworking report and the evidence from, among others, Citizens Advice.
I turn finally to the question of pay. Everyone rightly has their own views on the rate of the national minimum wage and when it should be paid. Unison, the TUC and all other trade unions have their arguments about what it should be, but they all say much the same: we need to move from a national minimum wage to a living wage on which a family can live without a problem. That is what we need to aim at.
Jim Sheridan: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this crucial debate. Like him, through the Transport and General Workers Union, I was proud to campaign for the national minimum wage and even prouder when my Government introduced it. I remember organisations such as the Confederation of

123WH
British Industry arguing against the minimum wage because it would cause job losses. As he noted, that was not the case.
Does my hon. Friend agree that the fundamental principle of the minimum wage should be that the taxpayer should not fund unscrupulous employers who choose not to pay people a decent wage? We have a working families tax credit that works out at £5 per hour, so surely it is right that the minimum wage should be no less than £5 per hour.
Mr. Lyons: I agree. My hon. Friend has long experience in the TGWU of examining the issues and coming to proper conclusions to support low-paid workers.
In recent evidence to the Low Pay Commission, the TUC suggested that we examine a new national minimum wage of between £4.60 and £4.75 by October 2003 and between £5 and £5.30 by 2004. It is important to develop a strategy for the minimum wage that includes an annual upgrade and review, rather than the current drifting system. The Low Pay Commission properly reported on the beneficiaries of the minimum wage—70 per cent. of them are women. It also said that the minimum wage is making an important contribution to narrowing the gender pay gap and addressing equality in the workplace. I welcome that.
The Government are on the right track. The National Minimum Wage (Enforcement Notices) Bill tackles some anomalies and problems, including when someone is a former rather than a current employee. The compliance teams throughout the country are doing an outstanding job, as are the citizens advice bureaux, which have to give the initial advice when someone comes through the door. In East Dunbartonshire, Catherine Bradley and her team are doing excellent work in advising people with problems with the minimum wage.
There can be no question but that the national minimum wage is a success story. The legislation is a credit to the Government, but to maintain its popularity with working people up and down the country, it must have relevance and importance. To achieve that, we must continually review it, examine its problems and rectify them. That will ensure that people keep their great faith in the minimum wage. They enjoy the legislation, but they want it improved, as it helps millions of people throughout the country. Long may it continue to do so.
3.44 pm
The Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness (Mr. Stephen Timms): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Lyons) on securing the debate, and I very much agree with him about the success that we have enjoyed from the introduction of the national minimum wage. More than 1 million people have benefited since its introduction in 1999. We have tackled the appalling situation that existed before the minimum wage was introduced whereby quite a lot of people were receiving wages of £2 an hour or less. As my hon. Friend rightly said, there has been no significant adverse impact on businesses.
124WH
Indeed, as he also said, there has been a big increase in overall employment since the minimum wage was introduced.
The vast majority of employers are complying with the requirements of the legislation. For bad employers who are not complying, we have a network of 16 enforcement teams across the UK. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the excellent work of those teams, and I am grateful to him for making that point. Between them, the teams have completed more than 24,000 case investigations since April 1999, and they have identified more than £12 million of wage arrears on behalf of low-paid workers.
However, my hon. Friend is also right to say that we should not just leave things as they were when the legislation was introduced. I think that he used the term "post-legislative scrutiny", and I agree that we need to go through that process to ensure that the legislation is kept up to date, and that we must learn from our experience. My hon. Friend made proposals about the future rate of the minimum wage, drawing on the evidence that the TUC submitted to the Low Pay Commission. As he knows, the LPC's recommendations will be published shortly.
My hon. Friend picked on two aspects of the legislation that I want to deal with. He mentioned the position of 16 and 17-year-olds, who are currently exempt from the minimum wage. It is often claimed that the fact that the minimum wage does not apply to people of that age puts them at risk of being economically exploited, a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (David Hamilton) made. It is also claimed that it is a form of discrimination against vulnerable workers.
The Government's priority for young people is that they acquire the education and skills that they need to progress in their working lives. There are fewer 17-year-olds in education in Britain than in any other country in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development except for Turkey, Mexico and Greece. We need to do much better in keeping young people in education. The Department for Education and Skills recently published proposals for reform of 14-to-19 education. We want increased continuity in the lives of young people between the ages of 14 and 19, when education should be the priority. The minimum wage therefore needs to be structured in a way that is consistent with that aim. Employment and unemployment rates are less favourable for young workers aged 18 to 21 than for adults. Again, the structure of the minimum wage needs to reflect the reality of the labour market.
Annabelle Ewing: I thank the Minister for giving way. I hear what the Minister is saying about 16 and 17-year-olds, but surely that is not a reason to exclude young people who are already in work from the protection of the minimum wage?
Mr. Timms: The point that I am making is that the present structure of the minimum wage, which is based on a recommendation from the LPC, has been framed in light of those considerations, with a lower rate for 18 to 21-yearolds and no rate for 16 to 17-year-olds. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden made an important point about that, and I want to make it clear that we are not irrevocably opposed to a minimum wage for 16

125WH
and 17-year-olds. We would be prepared to reconsider the matter, provided that the rate was set carefully and that the possible impact on education policy was taken fully into account. We can perhaps now be more confident about the matter given that, as my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, the legislation has so far certainly not had the adverse impact on overall employment that some expected.
Anne Picking: Does the Minister agree that, laudable though it is to want to introduce a national minimum wage for 16 to 17-year-olds, it is a bit rich for someone from the Scottish National party to come and lecture us about it when none of its Members turned up to vote for the measure in the first place?
Mr. Timms: My hon. Friend makes a telling point.
The question of home workers has also been raised. Successive publicity campaigns have ensured that there is almost universal awareness of the minimum wage. Research carried out in 2001 by the National Group on Homeworking found that 95 per cent. of home workers knew that they were entitled to the minimum wage. The majority of employers are complying with the minimum wage but some bad employers are not. I accept that, in some cases, although home workers vaguely know about the minimum wage, they are not clear exactly how it applies to them. We also know that few home workers are prepared to complain about underpayment and that they fear, sometimes with justification, that they may lose their job if they complain.
There are two key problems affecting home workers. We need to make it clearer to them how they are affected by the minimum wage, and we need to see what can be done to address the problem about complaints. We are taking several steps. We are issuing a consultation paper on the case for amending fair estimate agreements in the regulations so that employers would be required to pay all home workers either the minimum wage for all the hours that they work or a fair piece rate linked to the minimum wage. Those proposals should help to make the rules simpler and more easily understood. In turn, that should help home workers to understand and claim the minimum wage to which they are entitled. Both employers and home workers have said that they support the proposals.
David Hamilton: May I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that one way of getting that information out to home workers, which is a real problem, is to use local authorities that regularly put out newsletters? Perhaps the Department could include in such newsletters information for people who are really quite isolated.
Mr. Timms: My hon. Friend is correct. We need to be imaginative about sending out information. We are working with Citizens Advice Scotland and the Scottish Low Pay Unit to establish a Scottish minimum wage helpline, which was launched last month by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire). In the first week, the helpline received almost 30 calls and passed four complaints to compliance teams in Scotland. I am sure that we can deliver the information by working with a variety of agencies.
We are funding an enforcement pilot project, which aims to improve awareness and compliance among home workers in Bradford. We are establishing a team
126WH
of experts in home working cases to disseminate best practice throughout the Inland Revenue. We are working with ACAS on a fact sheet for all workers who want to bring a claim. The Inland Revenue will, in future, be trying to make it clearer to employers that home workers are not self-employed. We have also put substantial extra funds into enforcement and increased the number of enforcement teams to 16, as I mentioned.
The Department has also been looking at other ways of helping home workers. In particular, it is investigating home working scams. In 1998, the Department launched a publicity campaign to address that problem. There was evidence of people posing as home work providers and asking potential home workers to send them money. My Department also provides a leaflet, "Homeworking: Don't be taken in by bogus job offers."
To put all that into context, we collect figures through the labour force survey, for which the Office for National Statistics interviews about 60,000 households every quarter about aspects of their employment, including earnings. The results suggest that there are about 1 million home workers in the UK and that perhaps as many as 70,000 of them receive less than the minimum wage, so this is a significant issue. We must continue to be imaginative and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Strath kelvin and Bearsden said, to work with a variety of agencies to address the problems.
As my hon. Friend was winding up his remarks, he spoke about the enforcement arrangements. I want to say a little about how those are working, because some very effective work is being done. The minimum wage helpline takes calls that are assessed and referred to one of the 16 compliance teams. Compliance officers then investigate the employer's business to which the complaint relates. That investigation will usually include a review of the pay records, an interview with the employer and interviews with workers. The length of the investigation will depend on several factors, including the number of workers and whether there are technical questions about interpretation of the legislation.
On conclusion of an investigation, the officer will issue a calculation of arrears to the employer and to the worker, and an enforcement notice will be served if payment is not made. Our experience is that persuasion works best in the great majority of cases. Out of some 6,000 cases each year, it has been necessary to issue only about 100 notices.
If an employer fails to comply with an enforcement notice, the compliance officer may serve a penalty notice. That levy is a financial penalty payable to the Secretary of State, which is twice the hourly amount of the minimum wage for each day that the notice has not been complied with in respect of each worker named on the notice. So far, about 40 penalty notices have had to be issued every year. Further penalty notices can be issued where the employer's failure continues. That is not an automatic procedure, and an officer will consider the facts of the case before issuing a notice.
If there is continued non-compliance, the legislation gives compliance officers one of two options. First, officers can take a case to the courts. In that case, an officer can seek to recover arrears only for a period of up to six years from the date of the last underpayment, or five years in the case of Scotland, as my hon. Friend will

127WH
be aware. Most of the cases that the Revenue has brought so far have taken that route. They are therefore subject to the restriction that has been introduced.
Secondly, officers can take a case to employment tribunals. In that case, they must put their case before the tribunal within three months of the underpayment or the last in a series of underpayments. In theory, at least, however, officers could pursue underpayments exceeding the six-year threshold. The three-month time limit for bringing a claim is very tight. In practice, therefore, the Revenue does not often use that route, but uses the first route of going to the courts.
It is possible for employers to appeal against enforcement notices, and in those cases, the appeals would then be heard by employment tribunals that can confirm, rescind, or amend the notices. Once an employment tribunal decides that the employer owes a worker moneys, that decision is legally binding. If an employer refuses to pay the amounts awarded, further action would need to be taken to enforce the payment.
The National Minimum Wage (Enforcement Notices) Bill will soon receive its Third Reading in the House, as my hon. Friend will know because he has taken part in the debates on it. If it is passed, it will limit to six years the period that enforcement notices can go back in time on behalf of workers, whether cases go through courts or tribunals. The Bill will not affect the rights of individuals who are pursuing cases on their own behalf; the restrictions do not apply to them.
Finally, I want to say a few words about avoidance of the minimum wage. It is generally acknowledged that its implementation has been a success and that the enforcement operations have been effective in tracking down employers who are not paying the minimum wage. Non-compliance has been identified in only around a third of the 6,000 cases that the Revenue investigates each year, and enforcement notices will be necessary only in 1 or 2 per cent. of cases. Complaints from workers and former workers are therefore very important in tracking down businesses that are not complying.
Compliance officers try to ensure that there is anonymity for complainants, because some people will be afraid of losing their job if their employer finds out that they have made a complaint. It will not always be possible to ensure anonymity. If formal enforcement action through a tribunal or court is necessary, for example, the minimum wage team at the Revenue also gather and analyse information from internal and external sources to help to identify employers who are most at risk of non-compliance. The work of the compliance officers is therefore not solely dependent on worker complaints.
There are areas where compliance could be improved, and in response to recommendations in the LPC's second report we funded a number of pilot projects around the UK. We are working to, identify the areas where we are doing less well and where employers may be avoiding paying workers the amounts that they are due.
This has been a useful debate, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend and to the other hon. Members who contributed.

Health Services (Cornwall)
4 pm
Matthew Taylor: Mr. Chairman, I welcome—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): Order. I would be failing in my duties were I not to remind hon. Members that when the House took the decision to hold these sittings it stipulated that occupants of the Chair in Westminster Hall debates should be addressed as Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Matthew Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I welcome this opportunity to debate health services in Cornwall. I gave the Minister notice of some of the issues that I want to raise because I hope to get her support for some important developments. Some positive things are happening in the health service in Cornwall because of the investment that the Government are making as a result of the relatively small tax increases that allow significant extra funding to take place, which the Liberal Democrats support even if the Conservatives do not. We argued for it for many years; it is the sort of investment that we said was necessary, and it makes a real difference.
First, I shall mention some of the excellent things that are happening in the county as the public want to know what difference the investment is making and whether the health community in Cornwall is responding to the existing opportunities. I reassure the Minister that the health community in Cornwall is working positively as a team; it is a good example to other parts of the country that the three primary care trusts and the two hospital trusts have been working together and building social services in the wider community into their plans.
The Royal Cornwall NHS hospital trust recently went from two-star to one-star status, but there is a lot of good news and the staff do a great deal of hard work. The trust is actively working to meet the key targets. The basis of the star rating assessment is somewhat crude because a small change can make the difference between pass and fail. One hospital trust went from no stars to two stars in nine months as it had been just under its target and then managed just to get over them. Cornwall is not far off most of its targets, with one exception, which I will mention later.
The trust will be reducing the number of in-patients waiting more than 12 months from 238 in April 2002 to none at the end of March 2003. It is on course to meet the target. It is reducing the number of out-patients waiting more than 21 weeks from 385 in April 2002 to none by the end of March 2003. Again, it is on course to meet the key target. It opened a new clinical decision unit at the beginning of March for medical emergency admissions crucially to free up a significant amount of time for the accident and emergency department. Accident and emergency is making big improvements in meeting the target of 90 per cent. of all A and E patients being seen and discharged within four hours. That has been done despite a 9 per cent. increase in the number of people attending A and E in the first quarter of 2002–03 when compared with the equivalent period in 2001–02. Emergency admissions have been running substantially above funded levels. The trust has also had to contend

129WH
with a 20 per cent. increase in out-of-area treatments over the past five years in accident and emergency for which it is paid in arrears. It is part of the explanation for the financial deficit, which is the one key issue that it has had to grapple with over a longer period of time. I will return to that.
I should add that the trust also met the target for two-week urgent cancer referrals for all patients since September. That is good news. It is working successfully to meet the Government's key targets. In addition, we have the welcome investments of the Well Cornwall project and the Knowledge Spa, a £14 million development in the Royal Cornwall hospital to create a new centre of excellence for education and training and research. It will be a centre of excellence that will benefit patients directly with more high quality staff at the Royal Cornwall hospital trust with the incorporation of the Peninsula medical school as well as the Institute of Health Studies, which will be used for nurse training. That will be a headquarters for research and development and national vocational qualification training. It will be an integrated training centre for all staff.
Additional wards are also coming in. The hospital does very well on some ratings. The latest Department of Health patient environment action team inspection was a great success. The trust was awarded "green light" status, which has only been given to one in six hospitals in England. It is the gold standard, which reflects on the high quality of some of the lowest paid staff within the hospital system. It is not only at RCHT. Cornwall Partnership NHS trust, for example, has been working hard to integrate health and social care services for people with mental health problems. It recognises that as many as one in four households will need those support services, and its work to provide them is very welcome.
I do not want the Minister to get the impression that we do not acknowledge that things are going well. We acknowledge that staff in Cornwall are working extremely hard, still with limited resources and under a great deal of pressure from rising numbers to deliver the goods. One of the greatest pressures on hospitals, and one of the reasons why they struggle—not only in Cornwall, although our figures are particularly high—is the increase in accident and emergency admissions and referrals to hospitals. These have consistently run above the projections, even though they were considered in great detail by experts in line with Department of Health guidelines.
I have one suggestion for the Minister. Will she consider helping to fund some specific research on this issue, linked with the development of the research and education base in Cornwall? Cornwall is particularly appropriate for such a study: first, the problem is quite high and secondly, because it is surrounded on three sides by sea, patients do not come in from surrounding areas. This may be a patient-choice issue as people choose one hospital rather than another. As the Government themselves are trying to work out what is going on, and this is clearly key to the ability to improve treatment times and outcomes and deliver the quality of care that we all want to see with the investment, there is a good case for considering Cornwall for a funded study.
130WH
Rather more fundamentally on funding, I should like to raise the strategic outline case that Cornwall has put together involving all the health providers, including consultation with social services as well as the main players within the NHS delivery system. They have all worked hard with the strategic health authority and have had the support of all the county's Members of Parliament. I am glad to say that we received a very supportive response from the Minister in November 2001 when we met her and presented the case for expanding capacity and delivering patient care innovatively in a rural, dispersed county, moving away from all services being centred around Treliske. I am talking not about the community and community hospital services, but the great majority of other services that are centred around Treliske and the Royal Cornwall hospital trust. We are talking about using instead what I used to call intermediate hospitals. I am advised that that is the wrong term: they are diagnostic and treatment centres. That would enable patients to receive better care, delivered nearer to where they live, in a county where no town has more than 25,000 inhabitants.
At present, people have to travel very long distances to receive out-patient care and treatment at the Royal Cornwall hospital trust. The aim is to devolve acute care closer to patients' homes and, in the process, free up beds at Treliske for the more acute care that can be delivered only in a larger district general hospital.
The strategic health authority has before it the first two key bids in that process. One is for further new wards, theatre facilities and diagnosis and treatment equipment, which is very expensive, at Treliske. It is a £9 million proposal. Perhaps even more fundamental, as that is on the existing Treliske site, is the proposal for the first diagnostic and treatment centre at Bodmin. That would include outpatient clinics, diagnostic support, therapy services, day surgery, endoscopy and other primary, community and local care services.
That is preliminary to proposals for later developments on a similar basis at west Cornwall and, in the longer term although not quite on the same scale, proposals for St. Austell, Camborne and Redruth, Newquay and Helston. The proposals would create very good local services for people to receive treatments that currently are available by and large only at the Royal Cornwall hospital trust. They would allow the delivery of increased capacity and therefore the care that is so desperately needed.
I understand that there is as yet no decision on the proposals. There is concern that the decision may be held up because of the process of testing whether the private sector might be able to offer a provider. I am not here to get into a debate about who provides. In fact, Liberal Democrats believe that, providing that new systems of delivery are within the NHS and delivered free, they may be a good idea. It is hard to believe that the private sector is likely to want to cater for the sort of package of services that DTCs would deliver, but if it does, let us not allow that to delay a process that is key to tackling capacity problems in Cornwall and providing better patient care. I hope that the Minister can offer some reassurance about the speed with which the proposals can be decided on, so that we can meet the original timetable for rapid investment and rapid improvement.

131WH
The use of DTCs is highly innovative. It has existed in some urban areas, for rather different reasons, but not, I understand, previously in England for the delivery of rural services to meet the needs that we are discussing. I note that Cornwall is doing this with no great support for the extra costs of rural areas, which are perhaps reflected in the proposal. There is now a rural adjustment, which I welcome, bur even the biggest eneficiary—Herefordshire—receives only a 0.6 per cent. increase in the budget above the level that it would otherwise have. Cornwall has rather less.
The next issue that I want to raise briefly relates to the fact that, despite all the progress that I have talked about and the fact that the hospital trust now looks set to meet almost all the key targets, there are real concerns about star status for the hospital, on two grounds. First, perhaps the Minister could help by clarifying how progress to meet these targets will be treated in future assessments, because the Royal Cornwall hospital trust is now delivering 100 per cent. on a series of key targets on which it was previously short, and it therefore cannot go any further in delivering on them. There is obviously a backlog in terms of the history of the figures, which will show that the hospital has moved from not meeting the targets to meeting them. The question is how long it has to live with the backlog in the assessment. Is the fact that it is now meeting the targets sufficient for it to get a tick in the box in future assessments?
Secondly, there is the financial issue. The Minister will be aware that there is a substantial deficit, which is shared across the health community and is not a specific issue for the Royal Cornwall hospital trust. There is agreement in the health community on how to tackle the deficit. The RCHT has an excellent record on deficits: until last year, it had had no deficits in its nine-year history. The Minister will be aware that the deficit relates to the working through of the changes caused by the abolition of the old Cornwall health authority and the financial knock-on consequences for not only the RCHT but the primary care trusts. Nevertheless, the trust knows that it must tackle the deficit.
The trust has agreed a three-year plan, which would entail breaking even next year and paying back the accumulated historic deficit over the following two years. It thought that it would obtain a pass once the strategic health authority had agreed the plan because a plan was in place to tackle the problem. More recently, it has been told that under the resource accounting rules—I do not understand why this should be the case—it has to turn the deficit round in two years, not three. It is therefore set to continue to fail. That has had a significant effect on morale because the trust is doing everything that it has been asked to, is working to a plan—I hope that the plan will be agreed shortly, and should like reassurance on that from the Minister—and is meeting all its targets. It cannot hope to get three stars because of historic problems rather than because of what it is doing now.
That has a crucial impact on foundation hospital status. My concern with that status does not concern freedom for hospitals, which they should be given, or innovative new forms of finance—I am with the Secretary of State for Health on that point, if not the
132WH
Chancellor. My concern is the potential for a two-tier service if some hospitals get foundation hospital status and some do not.
For this debate, I shall forget about the rest of the country. I am concerned about Cornwall not being eligible to get the benefits that may shortly go to Exeter. That will suck out staff because Exeter may have the discretion to increase pay and to improve terms and conditions. It will also be a visible symbol for people in Cornwall that patients in Exeter will get improvements, which are not available in Cornwall, because of bureaucratic rules rather than because of anything that the hospital, which meets the key objectives, is doing. The matter certainly has nothing to do with anything over which patients or the community in Cornwall have had control. I hope that the Minister can offer some reassurance on that serious issue.
Although I have gone slightly over time, I shall raise a final point. The financial problems relate not only to historic national funding issues in the health service but to the distribution formulae. I will not start a debate about why the formulae are not fair to Cornwall, but I will make one observation: all the other objective 1 areas are deemed to be areas of high social need and have received extra resources as a result. Cornwall is an objective 1 area, which contains the lowest incomes in the UK, high levels of older people and pockets of high deprivation.
We would not have objective 1 status if the community were not deprived, but Cornwall has not been defined in the health budget as such a priority social need area. That relates to the old-fashioned assessments of rural deprivation. Other Departments used to use such assessments, which they have now accepted were not right. The Administration in Scotland has put particular emphasis on extra funding for rural areas. If Cornwall received the same treatment as other objective 1 areas, it would get an extra £18 million. I appreciate that the issue is technical and that I was unable to raise it with the Minister in advance, and I should be happy if she addresses it in writing or in her reply.
4.19 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): I genuinely congratulate the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor) on securing today's debate on important issues. I welcome his support for the new investment that is going into the national health service and the real and tangible benefits, some of which he outlined, that the people of Cornwall are seeing as a result of that investment.
The hon. Gentleman raised important matters relating to the unique nature of Cornwall, which have implications for the health system as a whole. I shall try to deal with each issue that he raised, particularly those concerning funding, the strategic outline case, constraints on capacity, the plans of the local health community as a whole to meet those challenges over the next few years and what the impact will be on the community.
I am delighted to confirm that, as the hon. Gentleman highlighted, all the primary care trusts and local authorities in the area are working tremendously well in

133WH
partnership with the acute sector. All our ideas for shifting the balance of power, putting the money into PCTs and getting front-line clinicians involved have been illustrated in Cornwall with a real sense of people working together and looking to the future. I am delighted to place on record my congratulations to everyone in the NHS and social services in that area who is working to ensure that the community has joined-up and seamless services.
I shall deal first with the funding issues raised by the hon. Gentleman. He hears us say time and again that investment is crucial and that with reform we can achieve real results. He highlighted some improvements in the area, including a 6.2 per cent. real-terms increase for his local PCT—central Cornwall—this year and a 7 per cent. real-terms increase for next year.
I want to highlight a couple of matters to which the hon. Gentleman did not refer, including a new £5 million clinical oncology centre at Royal Cornwall hospital. I know that services in relation to cancer are still under pressure in the area, but the new oncology centre, which was opened last year, will be incredibly welcome. There has also been an £11 million development at Bodmin to provide a 15-bed centre for continuing mental health care. That area is not often highlighted when dealing with acute hospital sector provision, although mental health provision is equally important to local people. There has also been a £5 million development in Camborne to provide 67 beds for in-patient mental health care. We are not just aiming at targets and getting waiting lists down, but providing community-based facilities in important areas.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the formula and its impact on rural areas. We have tried to make it more sensitive to various measures of deprivation in this year's allocations. We are now using the indices of multiple deprivation of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, updated in our formula, which is a more sensitive measure. Such formulas are never perfect because of their complexity and we can all find cases in which they do not meet 100 per cent. of needs, but we are trying to ensure that rural issues are considered. For example, low car ownership is usually an indication of deprivation, but in rural areas where car ownership is more of a necessity because of lack of public transport, there is not necessarily the same direct correlation as in an urban area.
The same applies to the retention of senior staff in rural areas. Staff tend to work more on their own and to have more autonomy and skills, so usually they are better paid and more senior. They also tend to stay in post for longer, so they are entitled to increments, which is an extra pressure on the service. In a number of areas, formulas, no matter how sensitive, will not always meet the criteria, but we are trying to recognise in all our policies that sometimes there are pockets of deprivation in areas of affluence where they would not be expected. Drilling down to ensure that our resources go to the right places is important.
I am aware of the deficit facing the hon. Gentleman's health community over the next few years. It is significant, so I am delighted that everyone has come together to work out a financial recovery plan. I understand that there will be calls to wipe the slate clean
134WH
and to start from scratch, but that is not realistic and I believe that people locally recognise that. I have asked officials in the regional office to work very closely with all the managers in the area to try to find the best way to tackle the challenging financial position that the community is facing.
A financial recovery plan is being drawn up, and I will be keeping a close watch on its implementation to ensure that we strike a balance on getting the organisations back into a good financial position, but not at the expense of plans to improve services for people in the area. This is about getting the balance right, and I give the hon. Gentleman an undertaking that I will continue to take a personal interest.
The strategic outline case has been built up to expand capacity, and the plans are extremely exciting and innovative. The strategic outline case is with the PCTs for approval. Obviously, as the PCTs have the budget, they must decide whether those plans are affordable in the context of the revenue streams that they will be able to provide to support them over the next few years. Once the PCTs are happy with it, they will have to take the case to the strategic health authority for approval. The hon. Gentleman will be anxious that there are no delays in the system, but he knows how important it is for every one of those players to buy in if the capacity expansion is going to work and be sustained for years to come.
The plans are exciting, and not just in respect of the diagnostic and treatment centre at Bodmin. I understand that it is part of a whole systems approach to have a series of DTCs in Penzance, Helston, Camborne, Redruth, Falmouth, Truro, Newquay and St. Austell, and Bodmin designing services very differently. Under our guidance, "Keeping it Local—A New Direction for the NHS", we are working with West Cornwall hospital on a pilot project. We have just commissioned an intensive evaluation programme through NHS research and development facilities, because we want to learn the lessons from that pilot. It will offer national lessons on new technology, telemedicine and joint assessment before transfer in respect of emergency services. It will also give reassurance to many communities up and down the country on doing things differently. The health community in Cornwall has not only good partnership, but good ideas, creativity and imagination. That is very welcome indeed.
I emphasise that the strategic outline case is not just about the acute sector. There are further initiatives to enhance primary care, with the development of the community hospitals to include intermediate care and rehabilitation facilities. Importantly, there is also the co-location of health and social services and voluntary sector services to support the development of integrated networks for seamless care so that people do not fall through the gaps. That has often been a real problem, especially for older people.
The plan seems to be well thought through, and it will help to ease pressure on the hospital and provide much better services at community level. It is with the PCTs for approval. It will then go to the strategic health authority, and it must find its way through the process. I will try to ensure that there is no undue delay in consideration of whether it can proceed.

135WH
I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns about the position of the hospital and its star rating. Performance is looking extremely positive, and by the end of the month there will be no over-12-month wait for in-patient treatment and no over-21-month wait for out-patient treatment. Again, I congratulate everybody who has worked so hard to make that the case. Obviously, the next performance assessment and the star rating will depend on the exact date at which the figures are taken. I am not sure that that has been decided as yet, but I could write to the hon. Gentleman to set out the details of exactly what the process will be.
I do not want the performance rating to act as a disincentive to that health community, which is working so hard to ensure that it improves, but there will inevitably be a cut-off point and people will fall on one side of the line. I say that with feeling, as my local hospital lost one of its stars this year—it did not quite reach the 100 per cent. mark, although the staff worked incredibly hard locally to try to get back-up. I understand what that is like from a constituency Member's point of view, but the performance framework that we have established should act as an
136WH
incentive for people to do well and improve their performance. It should not act as a disincentive when staff are trying to catch up with a backlog, as the hon. Gentleman outlined.
The hon. Gentleman briefly raised the situation in relation to foundation trusts. He does not want his hospital to be unable to apply. We are conscious of those concerns as many Members have raised them, which is why we have said that there will be no arbitrary cap on the number that can apply for foundation trust status. We envisage that, within four to five years, most, if not all, trusts could be up to that level.
We want to put more support into trusts—not trusts such as the hon. Gentleman's, but those with a zero or one-star rating, to ensure that we have a managed process to get them to the point where they can apply because we want as many people as possible to get the new freedoms and flexibilities to be able to do that. The transition phase is key for us. We want to ensure that a two-tier service does not develop, particularly in relation to pay and staff incentives. We are absolutely committed, in the way that the licence and the regulator will operate, to ensuring that that does not happen.
It being half-past Four o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put

WALES

  Accountancy Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the total cost to his Department was for accountancy services in 2002. [101563]

  Peter Hain
  The National Assembly for Wales's in-house staff provide accountancy services to the Wales Office. A notional charge is made for the services. In the financial year 2001–02, the amounts were£26,266 for financial services and£7,897 for the internal audit service.

  Departmental Phone Directory
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when the most recent internal phone directory for the Department was published; how often it is updated; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [101785]

  Peter Hain
  The Wales Office internal phone directory is maintained electronically and revised when a member of staff arrives or leaves.

  It is an internal document, but key numbers are available publicly through publications such as the Civil Service Year Book or Vacher's Parliamentary Companion.

  External Consultants
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the total cost to his Department was of the use of external consultants in 2002. [90510]

  Peter Hain
  In the 2002 calendar year my Department spent some£38,000 on external consultants. It also made use of property management consultants under a contract held by the National Assembly for Wales.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much(a) his Department and (b) each agency and non-departmental public body spent on external consultancy in each year from 1995–96 to 2002–03 (planned); and if he will make a statement. [92246]

  Peter Hain
  The information is as follows:

  (a) The Wales Office was established on 1 July 1999. Spending on external consultancy since then has been:

  £

  1999–20001

  0

  2000–01

  16,300

  2001–02

  31,100

  2002–03

  10,800

  1 Period covered is 1 July 1999 to 31 March 2000

  250W
  It also made use of property management consultants under a contract held by the National Assembly for Wales.

  (b) My Department has no agencies or non-departmental public bodies.

  Parish Councils
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many parish councillors have stood aside following the introduction of the Parish Council Code of Conduct. [102138]

  Peter Hain
  There are no Parish Councils in Wales. Community Councils are a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

CABINET OFFICE

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many people work in the Delivery Unit; what its purpose is; what its estimated cost is for(a) 2002–03 and (b)2003–04; and if he will make a statement. [99883]

  Mr. Alexander
  With the Treasury, the Delivery Unit aims to improve public services by working with Departments to help them meet their PSA targets, consistently with fiscal rules.

  At 3 February 2003, the Delivery Unit had 34 full-time equivalent staff. Its estimated expenditure for 2002–03 is £3.3 million. The budget for 2003–04 has yet to be agreed.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what the(a) cost and (b) staffing were of the (i) Corporate Communication Team, (ii) Strategic Communication and Planning Team, (iii) Corporate Services Group, (iv) Government Information and Communication Service and (v) Media Monitoring Unit in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [99897]

  Mr. Alexander
  Corporate Communication team and Strategic Communication and Planning team are part of the Communication Group within the Cabinet Office. As at 3 February 2003, there were 16 staff working in the Corporate Communication team and four working in the Strategic Communication and Planning team. These figures are rounded to full time equivalents. For the Corporate Communication team the 2002–03 estimated expenditure is £0.6 million. The Strategic Communication and Planning team does not have its own budget and its costs cannot be easily identified from other parts of Communication Group.

  As at 3 February 2003, there were 291 staff working in Corporate Services Group. The estimated expenditure for 2002–03 is£8 million. There are 23 staff, rounded to full time equivalents, working in the Government Information and Communication Service (excluding the Media and Monitoring Unit), with estimated expenditure costs of£4.1 million. This£4.1 million includes two budgets for this year only—the Golden Jubilee with a forecast expenditure of£1.4 million and the Coalition Information Centre

  251W
  budget of£0.3 million, which was transferred to purchase IT equipment. The Media Monitoring Unit is part of the Government Information and Communication Service and there are 14 staff working in that unit. The Media Monitoring Unit is funded by subscriptions to recover its costs.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many people work in(a) the Regulatory Impact Unit, (b) the Office of Public Services Reform and (c) the Charter Mark and Beacon Unit; what the cost of each was in (i) 2001–02, (ii) 2002–03 and (iii)2003–04 (planned); and if he will make a statement. [99979]

  Mr. Alexander
  There are 62 staff working within the Regulatory Impact Unit. The cost to run this unit during 2001–02 was£2.5 million and for 2002–03 the estimated expenditure is £2.9 million.

  The Office of Public Services Reform and the Charter Mark and Beacon Unit merged on 1 September 2002. The following figures reflect the units before the merger.

  There are 28 staff working in the Office of Public Services Reform. The cost to run this unit during 2001–02 was £1.9 million and for 2002–03 the estimated expenditure is £2.8 million.

  There are 15 people working in the Charter Mark and Beacon Unit. Costs for 2001–02 totalled £3.1 million. For 2002–03 the estimated expenditure is £2.3 million.

  All staffing figures are as at 3 February 2003 and rounded to full time equivalents. Budgets for 2003–04 have yet to be set.

TRANSPORT

  Accountancy Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the total cost to his Department was for accountancy services in 2002. [101559]

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

  Administration Costs
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate the central departmental administration costs of his Department in each year from 1990–91 to 2005–06 (planned); and if he will make a statement. [101519]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Information on central administration costs between 1990–91 and 2003–04 is set out in the relevant running/administration costs tables of the annual departmental reports for the Department of Transport, the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions, and the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions, although not on a comparable basis across the entire period. Updated information for the Department for Transport, with plans to 2005–06, will be published in the 2003 departmental report in the spring.

  Advertising (Scotland)
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much the Department spent on advertising in Scotland in each year since 1999 on(a) television, (b) newspapers, (c) radio,(d) magazines, (e) billboards and (f) sporting events. [102333]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This information can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Blue Badge Scheme
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to amend regulations extending the issue of the Blue Badge to include children under the age of two where medical needs are paramount. [101835]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Following a review of the Blue Badge Scheme, I announced in the House on 18 December 2002 that the Government would be taking forward a number of recommendations, including one to extend the eligibility criteria to children under the age of two whose medical needs require the transport of bulky medical equipment.

  This change, along with some of the other recommendations, will require amendment to the Scheme through secondary legislation. I will be taking steps to implement this and other recommendations at the earliest opportunity.

  Climate Change
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what assessment his Department has made of the reports on climate change published by(a) the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council and (b) the UK Climate Impacts Programme on the transport sector; [102197]

  (2) what studies his Department has carried out into the effect of climate change on railway infrastructure; [102195]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the likely impact of future climate change upon the transport sector; [102194]

  (4) if he will place copies of reports published from research funded by his Department on the effects of climate change on (a) railways, (b) roads, (c) aviation and (d) other transport in the Library. [102196]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I welcome the report and joint research initiative, "Building Knowledge for a Changing Climate", launched this month by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council and the UK Climate Impacts Programme, and the active role of the Highways Agency in supporting the initiative. I shall be interested in the results.

  My Department will be undertaking work this year, involving stakeholders, to advance our understanding of the potential implications of climate change for transport policy and operations. A report on this work and the results of any research in this area commissioned by the Department will be published.

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport What his estimate is of the(a) gross and (b) net costs of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency for each year

  Published Business Accounts

  £000

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  (a) Gross costs

  187,010

  190,402

  187,129

  186,140

  190,439

  203,856

  (b) Costs net of income

  101,969

  108,078

  102,302

  101,026

  99,676

  100,672

  £000

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  (a) Gross costs

  195,733

  212,226

  231,012

  249,192

  292,473

  (b) Costs net of income

  85,057

  (715)

  13,760

  5,470

  10,388

  Allocated Funds Provisional

  £000

  2002–03

  2003–04

  2004–05

  2005–06

  (a) Gross costs

  368,795

  285,952

  284,742

  284,507

  (b) Cost net of income

  109,831

  88,150

  87,250

  87,250

  The figures reflect provisional funds allocated to DVLA for 2002–03 to 2005–06 from the Department of Transport's spending review settlements and other agreed changes. Income includes revenue from sale of registration marks and other income paid over to the Exchequer as Consolidated Fund Extra Receipts but excludes Vehicle Excise Duty collected by DVLA.

  DVLA's annual report shows unit cost efficiency gains in core activities averaging 3.4 per cent. a year. Transaction volumes have grown by an average of some 3 per cent. a year. From 1998 the Agency's core operations were extended by a number of major policy changes and business delivery improvements like photocard driving licences and graduated vehicle excise duty, which resulted in significant cost increases.

  In addition, 1998–99 saw the introduction of a fee for vehicle first registrations and an increase in demand for personalised registration marks.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what reasons underlie the increase in staffing of the Driver Vehicle Licensing Agency between 1998–99 and 2002–03; and if he will make a statement. [101521]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The number of staff employed by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency at the end of 2002–03 is forecast to be 5,835 full time equivalent posts, which is 1,427 higher than at the end of 1998–99. The main reasons for the increase are:(a) major new initiatives such as the Statutory Off-Road Notification scheme for unlicensed vehicles, photocard driving licences and Graduated Vehicle Excise Duty (577 posts);
  (b) other projects such as the implementation of the mandatory vehicle registration document scheme and to support London congestion charging; to safeguard delivery of the core business

  254W
  from 1990–91 to 2005-06; and if he will make a statement. [101520]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information requested is available from 1991–92 and is as follows:such as improving the accuracy of the database and the new strategic partnership to support DVLA's substantial change programme of service delivery improvements (550 posts);
  (c) increased workload involving initiatives to improve customer service delivery such as the introduction of extended hours in the Agency's call centre and growth in business volumes (23 per cent. higher than in 1998-99). The full impact on staffing levels from workload growth has been offset by more efficient working practices and the increase in electronic business (300 posts).

  London Underground
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects service to be restored on the Central Line of London Underground; and if he will make a statement. [101613]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 7 March 2003]London Underground (LU) are currently implementing a programme of work to modify all trains in the Central Line fleet. LU is working with the independent Health and Safety Executive to implement a robust and safe solution. Services will be phased back in as soon as possible, starting with a shuttle service on the eastern end of the line. This will be followed by a limited service on the western end of the line. Finally, when LU has modified enough trains, a full service will resume.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the(a) track, (b) signalling and (c) rolling stock failures which have occurred on each of the London Underground lines in each of the last six years. [102171]

  Mr. Jamieson
  These are operational matters for London Underground who have provided the information set out in the tables relating to delays of at least two minutes resulting from problems with the relevant type of asset.

  The number of delays is primarily a consequence of problems with ageing and life-expired assets following decades of under investment in the underground. This emphasises the urgent need for the major investment and maintenance, some£16 billion over the next 15 years, which our tube modernisation plans will deliver.
  255W

  (a)London Underground—Number of delays (of at least two minutes) by line caused by track problems in each of the last six years

  Line

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Bakerloo

  193

  201

  176

  168

  171

  210

  Central

  203

  92

  65

  50

  62

  133

  District

  74

  51

  69

  83

  179

  190

  East London

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10

  26

  Jubilee

  45

  38

  77

  146

  126

  103

  Circle and Hammersmith & City

  75

  61

  57

  62

  98

  166

  Metropolitan

  105

  73

  83

  82

  136

  136

  Northern

  141

  165

  109

  105

  208

  143

  Piccadilly

  92

  110

  109

  135

  165

  144

  Victoria

  54

  80

  66

  66

  56

  56

  Waterloo&City

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  5

  Note:

  1. East London included with Jubilee to 1999–2000

  2. Waterloo & City included with Central to 1999–2000

  (b)London Underground—Number of delays (of at least two minutes) by line caused by signalling problems in each of the last six years

  Line

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Bakerloo Central

  264

  292

  249

  355

  248

  357

  Central

  644

  880

  308

  335

  490

  582

  District

  303

  269

  278

  394

  525

  632

  East London

  —

  —

  —

  —

  46

  68

  Jubilee

  79

  110

  197

  338

  398

  415

  Circle and Hammersmith & City

  129

  131

  125

  238

  407

  396

  Metropolitan

  209

  266

  194

  290

  522

  613

  Northern

  298

  323

  216

  317

  358

  388

  Piccadilly

  261

  241

  213

  202

  326

  289

  Victoria

  115

  166

  149

  131

  186

  314

  Waterloo & City

  —

  —

  —

  —

  16

  27

  Note:

  1. East London included with Jubilee to 1999–2000.

  2. Waterloo & City included with Central to 1999–2000.

  (c) London Underground—Number of delays (of at least two minutes) by line caused by rolling stock problems in each of the last six years

  Line

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Bakerloo

  1,075

  1,144

  1,237

  879

  968

  1,113

  Central

  2,605

  2,423

  2,165

  2,304

  2,864

  2,957

  District

  1,160

  1,082

  995

  981

  834

  1,149

  East London

  —

  —

  —

  —

  106

  147

  Jubilee

  922

  1,239

  2,376

  1,722

  1,603

  1,427

  Circle and Hammersmith & City

  1,167

  2,170

  1,380

  1,568

  1,463

  2,055

  Metropolitan

  1,363

  1,238

  1,065

  1,047

  1,247

  1,034

  Northern

  3,505

  4,229

  5,942

  3,727

  1,674

  1,518

  Piccadilly

  2,228

  3,115

  3,886

  2,934

  2,609

  3,070

  Victoria

  757

  994

  821

  920

  1,053

  1,022

  Waterloo &City

  —

  —

  —

  —

  27

  36

  Note

  1. East London included with Jubilee to 1999–2000.

  2. Waterloo& City included with Central to 1999–2000.

  Motor Vehicles
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his latest estimate is of(a) the total of all motoring taxation each year in the UK, (b) the annual cost of all roads related spending, (c) the total social costs of pollution from vehicle emissions in each year, (d) the total social costs of congestion on the roads each year and (e) the total social costs of climate change effects of motor vehicles each year; and if he will make a statement. [101522]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department's latest estimates as published in Transport Statistics Great Britain 2002 are:(a)Motoring taxation:£27,645 million for Great Britain in 2000–01
  256W
  (b) Road related spending:£4,042 million for England in 2000–01

  No estimates of total social costs of vehicle emissions, congestion and climate change are available. The answer to the following question (question 1527 02/03) provides estimates of the marginal costs of these impacts.

  Motoring taxation includes Vehicle Excise Duty VED) and Value Added Tax (VAT).

  Motorways
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the costs
  257W
  of (a) congestion and (b) pollution relating to traffic on English motorways; and if he will make a statement. [101516]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department commissioned a study from the Institute for Transport Studies* at the University of Leeds. That study made the following estimates of congestion and pollution on motorways in Great Britain:

  (a) Congestion costs: 12.8 pence per vehicle km

  (b) Pollution costs: 0.35 to 1.83 pence per vehicle km

  * Surface Transport Costs and Charges, Great Britain 1998, Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds July 2001.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the benefits of introducing congestion charging on motorways; and if he will make a statement. [101530]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No general assessment has been made.

  Belfast International Airport
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to the reply by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy) on 25 February 2003,Official Report, column 567W, on what occasions since 1994 Checkpoint 11 at Belfast International airport has been subject to a Department for Transport Cargo Inspection; and if he will make a statement. [102495]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 11 March 2003]Checkpoint 11 is not subject to inspection by Department for Transport aviation security inspectors, as its presence is not a requirement under the National Aviation Security Programme. However, the cargo facility accessed via Checkpoint 11 is due to be visited by DfT inspectors shortly

  Publicity Campaigns
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list each publicity campaign of his Department and its predecessors over the period 1997–98 to 2002–03 that cost over£500,000, giving the cost in each case; and if he will make a statement. [101518]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The details of each advertising campaign for my department and its predecessors over the period 1997–98 to 2002–03 that cost over £500,000 are as follows:

  1. Road safety campaign to promote safer road use behaviour, for example: not drinking and driving, speed reduction, child pedestrian and in car safety, fatigue and motorcycling. Advertising expenditure in each year was:

  £ million

  1997–98

  4.48

  1998–99

  4.63

  1999–2000

  5.18

  2000–01

  7.80

  2001–02

  9.85

  2002–03

  10

  1estimated outcome

  2. In addition to road safety, three further campaigns were run by the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions.
  258W

  (i)"Are You Doing Your Bit" campaign to promote awareness of actions which individuals could take to protect the local/global environment. Advertising began in March 1998 and continued until June 2001 when responsibility for the campaign transferred to DEFRA. Total advertising expenditure was £12.85 million.

  (ii) Mayor and Assembly for London campaign to inform people about the voting process; explain responsibilities and encourage people to vote. It ran from February to May 2000. Advertising expenditure was £2.3 million. Prior to this campaign, £563k was committed over two years to raise awareness of the London Referendum and the consequences for the electorate.

  (iii) A Foot and Mouth public information campaign aimed at publicising simple rules to be followed when visiting the countryside during the FMD outbreak and giving sources of further information.

  It ran in March and April 2001. Advertising expenditure was £12 million.

  3. The Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, also ran two further campaigns:

  (i) Fire Kills—promoting fire safety messages, which in 2001–02 focused on smoke alarms and smoking materials. For details of expenditure on fire safety campaigns in 2001–02 and previous years I refer the hon. Member to the reply from my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) on 28 November 2002, Official Report, column 380W.

  (ii) The Rough Sleepers Unit "Change a life" campaign encouraged the general public to volunteer their time, donate goods or give money to charities helping homeless people. It ran from November 2000 to January 2002 inclusive. Advertising expenditure was £500,000. Responsibility for fire safety and homelessness now rest with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

  RailMail
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the impact of the closure of RailMail on vehicle movements in London. [102420]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Royal Mail Board has decided to review the future of the MailRail system for operational and commercial reasons. The company envisages only a handful of extra vehicles will be needed after MailRail is taken out of service, as a high proportion of the mail carried will be transported on existing vehicle routes.

  Royal Mail is continually striving to reduce the impact of its vehicular traffic in London by contributing to reductions in congestion and CO2 emissions. The company has already seen a dramatic reduction in the number of miles and journeys undertaken by Royal Mail vehicles in the capital. For example, the switch of sorting NW postcode mail to Greenford from the London North Mail Centre, in Almeida Street, N1, cut the maximum journey time from 45 to just 25 minutes.

  Railway Property (Birds)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent changes there have been or are planned to(a) legislation and (b) directions and guidance to the railway industry and local authorities, relating to the presence of birds on railway property. [99773]

  Mr. Morley
  I have been asked to reply.

  All wild birds are protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which implements the EC Wild Birds Directive. Licences can be issued under section 16 of the Act to derogate from this protection for specific reasons, such as public health and safety. There have not been any changes to the remit of this derogation power.

  The Department does not issue directions or guidance to the railway industry or local authorities relating to the presence of wild birds on railway properties. However, where railway companies or local authorities propose to remove trees or scrub from railway properties, my Department would advise that such work is undertaken outside of the breeding and rearing season.

  London Underground
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) train, (b) track and (c) signalling maintenance staff have left the employment of LUL in each year since 1997; and what the tot al number of each was in each year since 1997. [102394]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Detailed staff issues of this nature are a matter for London Underground management.

  Railways
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of the budget of his Department and its predecessors has been spent on railways in each year from 1983–84 to 2005–06 (planned); and if he will make a statement. [101531]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The percentage of the total Departmental Expenditure Limit spent, or planned to be spent, on railways in each year from 1998–99 to 2005–06 is shown in the table. (Figures for earlier years are not comparable, owing to the introduction of Resource Accounting and Budgeting.)

  Percentage

  1998–99

  28.7

  1999–2000

  22.3

  2000–01

  20.7

  2001–02

  28.2

  2002–03

  30.3

  2003–04

  35.2

  2004–05

  33.9

  2005–06

  36.8

  Airport Development
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 3 March 2003,Official Report, column 795W, on airport development, what rate of return was assessed in section 14.4 of the SERAS Stage Two Appraisal Findings report for each of the Cliffe
  260W
  options; and how far the assessed rates of return for the Cliffe options fell below the target rate of return, measured as a percentage of the target rate. [102299]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The financial appraisal undertaken in the SERAS study indicates that, using airport charges current at the time the analysis was undertaken, the Internal Rate of Return generated by the four runway Cliffe option was some 7 per cent. against a target rate of return of 12.5 per cent.

  The principal results of the financial appraisal of different airport options are presented in the SERAS Stage Two Appraisal Findings report (section 14.4). Chapter seven of the SERAS Financial Modelling and Analysis report sets out the detailed results of the financial analysis. Both reports are available in the House Libraries.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set out the ranking of assessed rates of return for the development options listed in section 14.4 of the SERAS Stage Two Appraisal Findings report. [102300]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Internal Rate of Return (IRR) of different airport options is presented in Table 14.11 of the SERAS Stage Two Appraisal Findings report. The financial analysis applied airport charges current at the time the analysis was undertaken. Table 14.11 also gives some indication of the sensitivity of IRRs to other sources of additional revenue.

  Chapter seven of the SERAS Financial Modelling and Analysis report sets out the detailed results of the financial analysis and is available in the House Libraries.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps his Department is taking to put in place measures to counter the risk from terrorist attack to transport infrastructure other than airports. [102192]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 24 February 2003, given to the hon. Member for the Vale of York (Miss McIntosh),Official Report, columns 284–85W.

  Trust Ports
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 5 March 2003, ref: 100703, why there was no reference included in the notes to the Accounts. [102090]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 5 March 2002,Official Report, columns 1035–36W.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Abandoned Vehicles
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many abandoned cars each local authority in England and Wales stated they had removed in their submissions to the most recent municipal waste survey. [99225]
  261W
  Alun Michael
  The latest information on numbers of abandoned vehicles removed and destroyed is listed on 27 November 2002,Official Report, column 271W. Results from the 2001-02 survey are not yet available.

  Animal Welfare
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list animal species protected by domestic legislation which her Department plans to lift; and for what reasons such legislation is being reviewed. [101259]

  Mr. Morley
  All wild birds, certain animals and certain plants are protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

  Schedules 5&8 (list of protected animals and plants respectively) are statutorily reviewed every five years. My Department has received the views of the JNCC and has consulted internally on their advice. A full public consultation will take place this year. JNCC have not recommended the removal of any species.

  I announced on 3 March that the Government have concluded that the protection afforded by domestic legislation to the ruddy duck should be removed. This is in line with our Rural White Paper commitment to review the provisions of Part 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, with a view to rationalising the identification and protection of rare and endangered species.

  Birds
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to(a) encourage a reversal in the decline of the number of wet birds,(b) ensure refuges for wintering birds,(c) safeguard resting places for migrating birds travelling north and south and (d) reverse the decline in rare water plants; and if she will make a statement. [101874]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 10 March 2003]The information is as follows:

  (a) Analysis of Wetland Bird Survey count data for 32 wetland bird species by the British Trust for Ornithology shows that for all 32 species, population trends had either increased or stabilised for the five winters to 1999–2000. Therefore, in the non-breeding season at least, these birds are not suffering decline in Great Britain. This is evidence of the effectiveness of the UK network of 243 Special Protection Areas (SPA) classified under the EC Wild Birds Directive; the UK series of 144 Ramsar sites; and the many Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) notified under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, for their wetland bird interests.

  (b) and (c) A high proportion, in some cases all, of the national and international populations of wintering and migrating wetland birds utilise the protected sites of the UK SPA network. In winter it holds an average of over 2,186,000 non-breeding waterbirds. The habitat protection provided for these birds is a major contribution to their international conservation. Many of the same sites are additionally designated as Ramsar sites and all (on land in England and the great majority elsewhere) are notified as SSSIs.
  262W
  (d) The principal form of protection for rare plants is through the designation of their habitat—either as Special Areas of Conservation under the Habitats Directive, as Ramsar sites, or as SSSI. The Government Biodiversity Action Plan has identified a number of water plants for priority action. A programme of active management for these species and those listed in the 1992 Directive is being funded, mainly through English Nature's Species Recovery Programmes. Results for some species, such as floating water plantain, are very encouraging.

  Cleeve Farm
  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which farm premises sent carcases for disposal to Cleeve Farm, Westbury on Severn, Gloucestershire in the last five years. [96230]

  Mr. Morley
  Cleeve Farm, Westbury-on-Severn, was used as a pyre site to dispose of stock slaughtered at Cleeve Farm itself and also carcases from eight other holdings in the locality. These surrounding farm premises cannot be named for reasons of confidentiality.

  Cetaceans
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has made to the European Union on the Wildlife and Habitats Directive in relation to cetacean bycatch; and if she will make a statement. [101285]

  Mr. Morley
  The UK has lost no opportunity in drawing to the Commission's attention our wish to see EU action on cetacean bycatch.I have raised this repeatedly with Commissioner Fischler, stressing in particular the need for a cetacean bycatch observer programme. Article 12(4) of the Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC) requires member states to monitor the incidental capture of certain species, including cetaceans.

  We raised the matter again, in the Council of Ministers in January, and direct with Franz Fischler in February, pressing for urgent action to widen coverage off the South West coast where a number of other member states' vessels fish. I was pleased that the Commission included a commitment to take action in this area in papers produced as part of the recent reform of the Common Fisheries Policy. I am looking for positive action on this in response to our recent approaches.

  Compulsory Purchase
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many properties have been compulsorily purchased by(a) the Environment Agency, (b) the Countryside Agency,(c) English Nature and (d) the Broads Authority in each year since 1999. [101829]

  Alun Michael
  The Environment Agency compulsorily purchased 10 properties in 1999 and six properties in 2000. No properties were compulsorily purchased in 2001, 2002 and 2003 to date.
  263W
  There have been no compulsory purchases by the Countryside Agency, English Nature or the Broads Authority since 1999.

  Conservation Group
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which members of her Department participate in the Inter-Departmental Consultative Group on Conservation; and when they last attended a meeting of this group. [101355]

  Mr. Morley
  There is no formally constituted group with this title but officials of all the relevant Government Departments are in very regular contact on a wide range of conservation issues.

  Disability Discrimination Act (Village Halls)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the implications of the introduction of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 on village halls with specific reference to the legal requirement placed by the Act upon trustees, cases in which halls may have to close because of non-compliance with the Act, what funding available to meet the requirements of the Act; and the mechanism for access to funds to help meet the Act's requirements. [102436]

  Alun Michael
  I have been engaging in discussion with representatives of the Village Halls Association, other stakeholders, and national and local funding bodies, about a range of issues concerning the financing of village halls and other rural community meeting-places, including the implications of the Disability Discrimination Act and of the Licensing Bill currently before Parliament.

  Under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, those service providers who provide services to the public have since 1999 been required to make reasonable adjustments to allow disabled people to access their services. From 1 October 2004 they will also be required to make reasonable adjustments to the physical features of their premises that would otherwise make access impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled customers.

  Those managing village halls or running activities there are subject to the Act in the same way as other service providers; but the test of reasonableness takes account of the provider's financial resources, and there should be no question of village halls being forced to close. However, it is very much in the public interest that activities taking place in village halls should be accessible to disabled people living in rural communities.

  Lead responsibility for funding renovation of village halls lies with the local community, with help from local authorities, national funding agencies, and charitable sources. No earmarked funds are available to help meet any costs resulting from the Disability Discrimination Act. However, very substantial public funds are available to help village halls: around £17 million last year from the Community Fund, and a similar amount in total from other sources.
  264W
  A draft Government position paper on the funding and regulation of village halls was produced by my Department for a meeting last week of the stakeholder group I mentioned above: once this has been revised I will place a copy in the Library.

  Drinking Water
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of domestic customers she estimates have relied on lead pipes for connections to company supplies of drinking water in each year since 1992. [101676]

  Mr. Morley
  Year on year data of the numbers of lead pipe connections supplying drinking water are not available. In 1996, water companies in England and Wales estimated that some 35 per cent. of all connections had lead service pipes.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what studies(a) have been conducted and (b) are planned to establish the extent of lead contamination in drinking water in (i) hard and (ii) soft water areas. [101678]

  Mr. Morley
  It is well known that soft waters from upland areas are more likely than hard waters to dissolve lead from pipes. All water supplies must comply at consumers' taps with the regulatory standard for lead and water companies must apply additional treatment to plumbosolvent water to ensure compliance.

  The Drinking Water Regulations require water companies to carry out regular monitoring to ensure that all drinking water supplies, whether hard or soft, comply with the regulatory standards. 99.37 per cent. of samples taken in 2001 met the current standard for lead in England and Wales. The Drinking Water Inspectorate has issued guidance to water companies on optimising treatment to reduce plumbosolvency, which takes into account the different characteristics of hard and soft waters.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will take steps to assist householders, particularly those on a low income, who wish(a) to test their domestic drinking water systems to ensure that they are free from lead contamination and (b) to replace or repair domestic drinking water systems contaminated by lead solder. [101679]

  Mr. Morley
  Water companies will normally test water supplies, free of charge, if consumers are concerned that lead pipes might be contaminating their drinking water.

  In properties built before 1970, the main reasons for lead in drinking water are lead connections to the mains and the internal plumbing.

  The use of lead based solders for domestic hot and cold water systems has been banned since 1987. It is very rare for lead solder on drinking water pipes to be the sole reason for a breach of drinking water quality standards.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessment she has made of the adequacy and effectiveness of the monitoring by local authorities of drinking water originating from private suppliers. [101694]
  265W
  Mr. Morley
  The Drinking Water Inspectorate carries out occasional audits of local authorities' arrangements for implementing the Private Water Supplies Regulations. 10 local authorities in England and Wales were audited in 1992 and 24 in 1993. A survey of laboratories used by local authorities for the analysis of private water supplies was carried out in 1995, and 18 were audited. Two local authorities in England and Wales were audited in 2000. These audits have shown that, in general, the local authorities were implementing the requirements of the regulations.

  We are liaising with local authorities through their organisations about revised arrangements for monitoring private water supplies.

  Fisheries
  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 25 February 2003,Official Report, column 456W, on fishermen, whether she intends to grant socio-economic aid to fishermen under the terms agreed in the December Council allowing fishermen to diversify into businesses outside the marine industry while continuing to fish on a part-time basis provided such diversification means a reduction in fishing effort. [101923]

  Mr. Morley
  We have no plans to do so. Fishermen wishing to diversify their activities are encouraged to contact the Small Business Service and Learning and Skills Councils for advice on support.

  Grants
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the administrative costs were for(a) Food and Farming grants, (b) EU Fisheries grants, (c) Land Use and Rural Affairs grants and (d) Environment grants in the last financial year for which figures are available. [101494]

  Alun Michael
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Private Water Suppliers
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of households are supplied by private water suppliers. [101695]

  Mr. Morley
  Local authorities are responsible for monitoring and, if necessary, enforcing standards of private water supplies in their areas. Each authority is required to keep a register of private supplies. Some 50,000 private water supplies have been registered in England and Wales, of which about 30,000 serve single dwellings. The best available evidence indicates that nearly 1 per cent. of the population in England Wales is supplied by private water supply.

  Radioactive Waste
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answer of 26 February 2003,Official Report, column 551W, on radioactive waste, for what reasons
  266W
  an estimate of future radioactive waste arising from reprocessing is not available; and if she will take steps to obtain the data from BNFL. [102086]

  Mr. Meacher
  The previous question asked for an estimate of the volume of waste that will arise over the next 10 years from the reprocessing of British Energy-owned spent nuclear fuel at Sellafield. My answer to this question gave estimates for the volume of low, intermediate and high level waste that would arise if all fuel from British Energy's advanced gas-cooled reactors is reprocessed. It also said that, at present, there are contracts for the reprocessing of about 65 per cent. of British Energy's spent fuel. I understand that decisions have not been taken about how much, if any, of the remaining 35 per cent. of the spent fuel will be reprocessed.

  Water Pipes
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to ensure that lead pipes carrying water into domestic properties are replaced. [101677]

  Mr. Morley
  Drinking water must meet a regulatory standard for lead in the water supplied at consumers' taps. Water companies must treat plumbosolvent water where there is a risk that public water supplies might not comply with this standard.

  We are required to take all appropriate measures to reduce as much as possible the concentration of lead in drinking water supplies in order to meet the standards for lead set by the European Drinking Water Directive. We are encouraged by the results of water companies' treatment programmes to reduce plumbosolvency. It is likely that these will reduce significantly the need to replace lead pipes to the benefit of all customers.

  The need for water companies to replace lead pipes, mainly to meet the final lead standard that comes into force in 2013, is being considered as part of the next periodic review of water companies' prices. The customer's supply pipe remains the responsibility of the customer.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of drinking water is carried through(a) blue asbestos pipes and (b) lead pipes. [101684]

  Mr. Morley
  About 10 per cent. of drinking water is carried through white asbestos cement mains. There may be traces of blue asbestos in some white asbestos cement pipes. Water companies estimated in 1996 that about 35 per cent. of drinking water may be carried through lead connections between company mains and customers' supply pipes.

  While use of new asbestos cement pipes is prohibited, this is because of health risks associated with inhalation when cutting and working with the dry material. However, the World Health Organisation considers that a health-based guideline value for asbestos in drinking water is unnecessary.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Nuclear Proliferation
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what resources she has made available to the(a) Office of Civil Nuclear Security, (b) International Atomic Energy Agency and ( c) Euratom Safeguards Directorate in respect of combating nuclear proliferation in the last year for which figures are available. [101990]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Office of Civil Nuclear Security (OCNS), which regulates security in the UK civil nuclear industry in order to protect against threats of terrorism and nuclear proliferation, has an operating budget of £1.9 million for the financial year 2002–03.

  DTI has paid the UK's assessed contribution to the Regular Budget of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for 2003 of £8.02 million. Many, but not all, of the IAEA's activities funded from the Regular Budget are directly related to non-proliferation.

  The IAEA also benefits from the UK Support Programme to IAEA safeguards. In the financial year 2001–02, expenditure on this programme totalled £722,000. In addition, £80,000 was also provided to support IAEA travel and subsistence costs associated with this programme e.g. to enable IA EA staff to attend training courses in the UK. In addition, from time to time the UK makes voluntary contributions to the IAEA in support of non-proliferation, safety and security and other activities carried out by the Agency.

  The European Communities budget adopted for 2002 includes total payments in respect of European Commission spending on the operational aspects of its application of Euratom safeguards (e.g. inspection and training activities, the purchase, installation and maintenance of safeguards equipment, and laboratories for the analysis of safeguards samples) of 17.6 million Euros. The UK share of these commitments was 19.36 per cent., amounting to slightly less than £2.1 million.

  Arms Trade
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will establish a registration system for all UK passport holders and UK residents involved in the brokering of deals for the sale of military and security equipment. [101339]

  Alan Johnson
  The Government propose to register information on all those applying for licences, both for exports and for arms trafficking and brokering activities. This database will be used for licensing and enforcement purposes on an international basis.

  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and industry how many people the UK arms trade employs(a) nationally and (b) in the south-west. [102341]

  Alan Johnson
  The Ministry of Defence's Defence Analytical Services Agency is responsible for the production of UK defence statistics. The latest employment data (for 2001) are published in Table 1.11 of United Kingdom Defence Statistics 2002, a copy of which is available in the Libraries of the House. Data at a regional level are not available however.
  268W
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the arms trade was worth to United Kingdom public companies in terms of exports in 2002. [102344]

  Alan Johnson
  The Ministry of Defence's Defence Analytical Services Agency is responsible for the production of UK defence statistics. The latest full exports data (for 2001) are published in Table 1.12 of United Kingdom Defence Statistics 2002, a copy of which is available in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much of the South West GDP the arms trade accounted for in 2002. [102346]

  Alan Johnson
  The Ministry of Defence's Defence Analytical Services Agency is responsible for the production of UK defence statistics. The latest full data (for 2001) are published in United Kingdom Defence Statistics 2002, a copy of which is available in the Libraries of the House. Data on GDP are not, however, available at a regional level

  Broadband
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the quality of a broadband connection established using a satellite deteriorates during adverse weather conditions; and if she will make a statement. [101988]

  Ms Hewitt
  Satellite services, like all other radio services, suffer degradation under adverse weather conditions, and this impairment is more pronounced at the higher frequencies often used by satellite services to provide services direct to and from businesses and homes.

  When planning their satellite system, service providers take steps to overcome the effect that normally expected variations in weather conditions may have through careful system design and the use of appropriately sized satellite dishes. Taken together these measures provide a "protection margin" against the effect of weather variations.

  Extreme or unusual weather conditions will still affect even the best designed radio systems, terrestrial or satellite, and impairment or even temporary failure is unavoidable. Fortunately these events tend to happen rarely and are usually very short lived.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many civil servants have been employed by(a) her Department and (b) each of its agencies and non-departmental bodies in each year from 1994–95 to 2002–03; and if she will make a statement. [92397]

  Ms Hewitt
  Full-time equivalent numbers of staff in all civil service Departments and agencies is released twice-yearly by press notice. The latest data, for April 2002, were published on 31 October 2002. Data for April of each year from 1995 to 2001 appear in the latest edition of the annual publication "Civil Service Statistics". Data for pervious years are contained in previous editions of the publication. Copies of the press notices and annual publication are available from the Libraries of the House.
  269W
  Comparisons over time are made difficult because of changes in the make up of the Departments and agencies comprising the civil service. Not only do new organisations appear and old ones disappear, but staff changes may reflect the transfer of work between Departments and agencies.

  With the exception of those staff employed by the Health and Safety Commission and Executive, and the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, the staff employed by Executive, non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) are not civil servants. Advisory NDPBs are generally supported by civil servants from their sponsor Departments, and do not employ their own staff.

  My Department publishes annually information on public bodies, including NDPBs. This includes details on the number of staff employed by the public body. Copies of "Public Bodies 2001", and equivalent publication for previous years, are available in the Libraries of the House. "Public Bodies 2002" will be published shortly.

  Credit Cards
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to ensure that FSA rules prevent credit card companies from(a) setting minimum payments below the interest charge,(b) failing to show the APR clearly on statements and(c) implying that an interest-bearing period is interest-free. [101614]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 7 March 2003]The provision of information on credit card statements is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974, and in particular by the Consumer (Running-Account Credit Information) Regulations 1983 (SI No. 1570/83). These require statements provided for running-account credit agreements, such as credit cards, to contain the following information:

  any opening balance on the account;

  the date of any movement on the account;

  the amount of any payment on the account;

  the amount of any drawing on the account; and

  the amount of any interest or other charges on the account.

  Where a statement shows that interest has been applied to the account, it must contain either sufficient information for the customer to be able to check the calculation of that interest; details of the rate of interest that has been applied; or a statement indicating that the rate of interest applied will be provided upon request.

  The form and content of consumer credit advertising is governed by the Consumer Credit (Advertisements) Regulations 1989 (SI 1989/1125). These are enforced by the Office of Fair Trading, and I understand that the OFT has investigated a number of credit providers who have advertised interest-bearing agreements as being interest-free.

  The practice of some credit card providers of reducing the minimum require monthly repayment is one that I highlighted in my response in January this year to the Second Report of the Governments' Task Force on Tackling Overindebtedness. I stated then that I was worried about the effects that this practice can have on
  270W
  consumers, and in particular that it can only lead to an escalation of the total amount owed and the time required to repay it. stated that the Government would therefore be considering how consumers might be given better information about the effects of a low minimum payment.

  To that end, and as part of the review of the Consumer Credit Act that I launched in July 2001, I shall be publishing a consultation document on the simplification of the credit advertising regulations in the summer. As well a.; inviting comments on minimum payments, this will also look at how consumers can get better information in general about credit cards that will enable them to compare offers from different providers. In advance of this consultation, the DTI is in regular discussion with the credit industry and consumer bodies on the scope for a common format for the provision of key information, including details of interest-free periods and the calculation and advertising of APRs.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the distribution of her Department's whole-time equivalent staff was, including the staff in agencies and other bodies reporting to her, in each Government office region and nation of the UK(a) in 1996 and (b) at the most recent available period. [90468]

  Ms. Hewitt
  The numbers of staff in each Department (including its agencies) are shown in tables, copies of which have been placed in the Libraries of the House. The figures show the data at 1 April each year, and are based on the full-time equivalent figures for the number of permanent staff in each Department, rounded to the nearest 10. Data are shown by Government Office Region, with columns giving the total number of staff in England and the UK.

  Fireworks
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she plans to bring in regulations to control the supply and use of fireworks in accordance with the powers laid down within the Fireworks Bill; and what plans she has to ensure that local environmental health officers have the necessary powers, funding and guidance to enforce regulations introduced in accordance with the Fireworks Bill. [101011]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Regulations to control the supply and use of fireworks depend upon the Fireworks, Bill passing into law. Also any such regulation would be subject to consultation. The needs of local authorities, including environmental health officers, in enforcing regulations would have to be taken into account.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and. Industry what guidance will be given to environmental health officers in order for them to assess whether distress, as set out in clause 2 of the Fireworks Bill, has occurred. [101012]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  This matter will be considered in the drafting of regulations should the Fireworks Bill be passed into law.
  271W
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what age limit she plans to set to prohibit the sale of fireworks to young persons, and what plans she has to limit the supply, purchase, possession and use of fireworks to certain(a) times of the year and (b) times of the day. [101013]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Any changes in age restriction and other limitations on fireworks would be subject to Regulation made under the Fireworks Bill should it pass into law. There would need to be consultation on any such proposals.

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many enforcement orders have been issued in respect of fair estimate agreements since the introduction of the National Minimum Wage Regulations; and what assessment she has made of the number of fair estimate agreements entered into in that period. [101254]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 6 March 2003]Since the Inland Revenue have kept details of homeworking cases centrally with its Virtual Homeworking Team (set up in October 2001) there have beer two cases where an enforcement notice has been issued where a fair estimate agreement was in place. The Revenue believe it is unlikely that other cases might have occurred prior to that.

  The number of fair estimate agreements which individuals have entered into is not known, but anecdotal evidence indicates the take up is low. This is one of the reasons why we are consulting on making changes to these arrangements.

  Public Bodies (Arthur Andersen)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which public bodies sponsored by the Department are headed by former partners from Arthur Andersen. [100743]

  Ms Hewitt
  The East of England Development Agency is headed by Vincent Watts, a former partner of Andersen Consulting.

  Recycling
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of the technology to be used in the projects in receipt of the bio-energy grants announced in January 2003 will be UK-sourced. [99371]

  Mr. Wilson
  We do not keep information on the proportion of project technology in grant applications that is sourced in the UK. We are however keen to promote the capabilities of the UK supply chain in all renewable technologies, and have created the business support team Renewables UK for this purpose.

  Tour Operators
  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with scheduled tour operators in relation to seating and pricing arrangements on aircraft over the last 12 months. [101599]
  272W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have had no specific discussions with tour operators over the seating and pricing arrangements on aircrafts over the last 12 months. My officials have raised this matter with the Federation of Tour Operators and ABTA. Tour operators who belong to these organisations do always try to seat families and couples close together, and where possible in adjacent seats, whether or not these have been pre-booked. If a tour operator offers and charges for a service which guarantees the seating arrangements, then this is a commercial matter for that operator.

  The Civil Aviation Authority are responsible for UK airline safety regulations and they have issued guidelines to airlines on the allocation of seats to family groups. I understand that the CAA has not had any specific discussions with airlines on this issue, although there is continued dialogue between airlines and their assigned CAA inspector regarding all aspects of operational safety and this matter will have been discussed as and when necessary.

DEFENCE

  Medical Reservists
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many medical reservists there are in the United Kingdom, broken down by speciality. [99086]

  Dr. Moonie
  The numbers of medical reservists in the Volunteer Reserve Forces broken down by specialty, as at 20 February 2003, are provided as follows: Information in respect of ex-Regular medical personnel with a reserve liability is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Consultants

  Volunteer reservists

  Anaesthetics

  55

  General Medicine

  19

  Paediatrics

  4

  Genito-Urinary Medicine

  1

  Neurology

  2

  General Surgery

  29

  Obstetrics and Gynaecology

  13

  Urology

  6

  Orthopaedic Surgery

  18

  Burns and Plastic Surgery

  5

  Accident and Emergency

  11

  Psychiatry

  8

  Ophthalmic Surgery

  2

  Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

  11

  Ear, Nose and Throat

  4

  Rheumatology and Rehabilitation

  1

  Radiology

  6

  Pathology

  9

  Occupational Medicine

  1

  Public Health Medicine

  3

  General Medical Practitioners/General Duties Medical Officers (including specialists undergoing consultant training)

  301

  Nurses

  General Nursing Duties

  886

  Operating Theatre

  88

  Accident & Emergency

  108

  Orthopaedic

  32

  Intensive Care

  107

  Burns & Plastic Surgery

  14

  Ophthalmic

  6

  273W

  Consultants

  Volunteer reservists

  Genito-Urinary Medicine

  4

  Gynaecology

  4

  Neurology

  8

  Registered Mental Nurse

  102

  Midwifery

  3

  Paediatrics

  3

  Special Care Baby Unit

  2

  Nurse Tutor

  3

  Allied Health Professionals

  Physiotherapist

  72

  Environmental Health Officer

  31

  Environmental Health Technician

  7

  Laboratory Technician

  53

  Pharmacist

  27

  Pharmacy Technician

  7

  Radiographer

  32

  Operating Department Practitioner

  56

  Paramedics

  6

  Medical Support Officers

  113

  Combat Medical Technicians/Medical Assistants

  1,676

  Dental Personnel

  General Dental Practitioners

  38

  Dental Technicians

  3

  Dental Support Specialists

  18

  Dental Hygienists

  2

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many medical reservists were found to be unfit for military service in the last period for which figures are available. [91516]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 20 January 2003]As at 1 January 2003, 28 medical Reservists in the Territorial Army and, as at 28 February 2003,14 medical Reservists in the Royal Auxiliary Royal Air Force were medically unfit to deploy on military operations. The Royal Navy does not hold central records on the medical fitness of medical Volunteer Reservists and none of the Services holds central records on the medical fitness of medical ex-Regular Reservists. The medical fitness of these Reservists is only established on mobilisation when they are required to report to their mobilisation centre following receipt of their call-out notice.

  Motor Neurone Disease
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research he has commissioned on the prevalence of motor neurone disease among Gulf War veterans. [101915]

  Dr. Moonie
  Motor neurone disease (MND) is a rare disease and the Ministry of Defence has not specifically commissioned scientific research into the prevalence of it among United Kingdom veterans of the 1990–91 Gulf Conflict. However, through the independent Medical Research Council (MRC), the Ministry of Defence has funded a controlled study of neuromuscular symptoms experienced by United Kingdom Servicemen. Some findings were published by the researchers in a paper entitled: "Neurophysiologic analysis of neuromuscular symptoms in UK Gulf war veterans" in the journal Neurology on 26 November 2002. The researchers reported that they had found no neurophysiologic evidence for a specific neuromuscular disorder that could be linked to previous deployment to the Gulf. At the Ministry of Defence's request, the MRC will shortly
  274W
  provide advice on appropriate areas for future research in the field of Gulf veterans illnesses. The MRC's advice will be published. The MRC is aware of the suggestion that United States Gulf veterans are at greater risk of developing MND than those who did not deploy but the underlying research has not yet been published in the scientific literature. The Ministry of Defence's future Gulf veterans' illnesses research programme will be firmly based on the MRC's recommendations.

  Accountancy Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the total cost to his Department was for accountancy services in 2002. [101561]

  Mr. Ingram
  Ministry of Defence expenditure on external assistance (EA), of which accountancy services are a part, is contained in the MOD's annual return of expenditure on external assistance. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House, covering the period 1996–97 to 2000–01 and include expenditure categorised by top level budget holder and trading funds. However, expenditure on accountancy services is not recorded as a specific category of EA and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The return for 2001–02 will be published shortly and figures for 2002–03 will be published once the current financial year has ended.

  B-52 Bombers
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what benefits to United Kingdom national defence will accrue from the granting of permission to the United States of landing rights for United States Air Force B-52 bombers. [101993]

  Mr. Hoon
  As I told the House on the 3 March 2003,Official Report, column 566, I agreed to the United States Air Force deployment at RAF Fairford as part of our continuing contingency preparations for possible military action in Iraq. The Government have made clear on many occasions the threat posed to the United Kingdom by Iraq's continued possession, in contravention of successive UN Security Council Resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction.

  Forces' Medical Services
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what shortfalls obtain against the establishment targets for field hospitals for(a) medical officers and (b) support staff; and if he will make a statement. [97770]

  Dr. Moonie
  When not deployed on operations regular field hospitals exist with a basic unit establishment of 105 personnel. This enables the unit to function on an administrative and training basis only. For shortfalls against the peacetime establishment, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 22 January 2003,Official Report, column 326W to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin).

  When the decision is taken to deploy a field hospital on operations it is then moved onto a war fighting establishment by augmenting staff from the Regular Army and Reserve Forces, as appropriate. A decision on the exact level of establishment required is operation

  275W
  specific, and is dependent on the intended role of the unit, and the number of beds it is expected to provide. As such, there is no standard or target.

  Field Hospitals are therefore deployed, in terms of both medical officers and support staff, at full strength.

  Industrial Action
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many working days were lost owing to industrial action by staff in(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies in 2002. [101510]

  Dr. Moonie
  One working day was lost as a result of strike action in the Ministry of Defence in 2002. This occurred in April and was action taken by members of the Public and Commercial Services Union and Prospect. On the same day members of Amicus and the Transport and General Workers Union took strike action for 3.5 hours.

  Any other industrial action short of a strike is not recorded in terms of days lost.

  The MOD is committed to working in partnership with its trade unions and makes every effort to avert industrial action of any kind.

  Landmines Act (Prosecutions)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British servicemen have been prosecuted under the Landmines Act 1998. [102246]

  Mr. Ingram
  None.

  Medical Care
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much has been spent on private medical care for members of Her Majesty's forces in each of the last five years. [80793]

  Dr. Moonie
  Expenditure on the referral of Service personnel to private healthcare providers in each of the last five years is shown in the table:

  £million

  Financial year

  Cost

  1998–99

  0.12

  1999–2000

  0.17

  2000–01

  0.77

  2001–02

  4.10

  2002–031

  2.18

  1 As at November 2002

  Notes:

  The referrals were made to a number of private healthcare providers, under both contractual and ad hoc arrangements. A small number of referrals to private healthcare providers were made by the Army Training and Recruitment Agency in 2000, but no financial information regarding these referrals is available. Some £3K of the expenditure recorded in 2000–01 relates to referrals made by the RAF to local healthcare providers in 2000–01 and 2001–02, but expenditure cannot be separated for each financial year.

  Middle East (Health Advice)
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 10 February 2003,
  276W
  Official Report, column 511W, on Middle East (Health Advice), what record is kept of health promotion advice given to individuals deploying to the Gulf. [99983]

  Dr. Moonie
  Health promotion advice is given to service personnel as part of routine pre-deployment briefings. No central record is required for such briefings, although local records may be kept for administrative purposes.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent meetings he has had with Defence Ministers from(a) Poland, (b) the Czech Republic, (c) Hungary, (d) Bulgaria, (e) Romania and (f) the Slovak Republic. [101960]

  Mr. Hoon
  I met the Defence Ministers of Hungary and Poland in the margins of the NATO Informal Ministerial Meeting in Warsaw in September 2002. I met my Czech and Slovak counterparts for bilateral discussions in the margins of the NATO Prague Summit (21-23 November 2002). My most recent bilateral meeting with my Bulgarian counterpart was in June 2002 in Bulgaria. I met the Romanian Defence Minister on 23 January 2003 in London.

  Northern Ireland
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many soldiers are based in Northern Ireland; and from what regiments. [102315]

  Mr. Ingram
  The number of Army personnel, under the command of the General Officer Commanding Northern Ireland (GOC NI), and stationed in Northern Ireland on 18 February 2003 is 12,566.

  The GOC NI also has under his command troops who are based in Great Britain but who can be called to the Province as and when required.

  Apart from 25 Engineer Regiment, the Northern Ireland Combat Service Support Regiment, 15 Signal Regiment, six Regiment Royal Military Police, five Regiment Army Air Corp and the three Home Service battalions of the Royal Irish Regiment, which are permanently based in Northern Ireland, the following resident battalions are currently based there on accompanied tours of roughly two years:

  1st Battalion Coldstream Guards

  1st Battalion The Devonshire and Dorset Regiment

  1st Battalion The Prince of Wales's Own Royal Regiment of Yorkshire

  1st Battalion The Green Howards (Alexandra, Princess of Wales's Own Yorkshire Regiment)

  1st Battalion The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders (Princess Louise's)

  QinetiQ
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the new long-term partnering agreement concluded with QinetiQ announced on 3 March 2003,Official Report, columns 77–78WS. [101992]
  277W
  Dr. Moonie
  No. At present, it would not be appropriate to place a copy of the long-term partnering agreement in the Library of the House, because it remains commercially sensitive. I am therefore withholding this information under Exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  RAF Pilot Training
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last visited the Vale of York to discuss training of RAF pilots; and if he will make a statement. [101644]

  Dr. Moonie
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence visited Royal Air Force (RAF) Linton-on-Ouse in the Vale of York on 6 March, when he attended the annual dinner of the Yorkshire Universities Air Squadron. I understand that he discussed a variety of subjects with those present.

  Servicemen (Salary Abatement)
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether an abatement was made to the salary of servicemen in each of the armed forces between 1973 and 1975; and if he will make a statement. [102079]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 10 March 2003]No abatement was applied to the annual recommendations submitted to the Prime Minister by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body between 1973 and 1975, although the review body would have been obliged to observe the constraints imposed by the statutory controls on pay increases, in force between November 1972 and July 1974, as well as the subsequent guidelines of the Social Contract.

  While not an abatement to service pay, in formulating its recommendations the review body would have applied an adjustment, where appropriate, to the comparator salaries used as the basis for officers' and warrant officers' pay during this period to take account of the relative benefits of the armed forces pension scheme. No similar adjustment was required to be made at that time in respect of comparator salaries for other ranks because most service personnel at this level did not complete the necessary 22 years' service then required to qualify for a pension.

  Smoking
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what policy his Department has adopted on smoking in the workplace. [100949]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence's aim, in line with wider Government policy, is to create a non-smoking working environment in so far as it reflects the wishes of staff. This requires surveys to be undertaken and the wishes of staff to be established, unless smoking is prohibited, for operational reasons, in specific areas. Detailed guidance on this policy is promulgated in the Department's Health and Safety Handbook Joint Service Publication 375, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  The policy is under constant review to reflect current Health and Safety Commission/Executive guidance.

  Sudan
  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many UK service personnel are stationed in Sudan. [101600]

  Mr. Ingram
  One.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Non-Regular Permanent Staff over 60 are employed in the TA; and in which districts. [102206]

  Dr. Moonie
  The number of Non-Regular Permanent Staff (NRPS) aged over 60 employed in the TA in each of the districts or divisions, as at 1 January 2003, is shown in the table:

  District/division

  Number of NRPS

  HQ 2 Div

  20

  HQ 4 Div

  10

  HQ 5 Div

  5

  HQ London District

  —1

  HQ Northern Ireland

  —1

  Total

  402

  1 Denotes fewer than five

  2 Figures are rounded to the nearest five and totals may not therefore always equal the sum of the constituent parts

  Vaccine Schedule (Gulf Deployment)
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what validation was obtained for studies of vaccines in humans that are now being administered to troops sent to the Gulf. [95929]

  Dr. Moonie
  Service personnel are routinely offered a range of vaccinations to protect against disease. Service personnel deploying to the Gulf region are also offered vaccination against anthrax. All these vaccines are licensed products. The Medicines Control Agency's, licensing process requires the licence applicant to conduct studies into the efficacy and safety of their product.

  Vaccination against smallpox is being offered to a, cohort of specialist NEC personnel and certain medical personnel some of whom are deploying to the Gulf region. The smallpox vaccine is not currently licensed, but is being used on the basis of expert medical advice.

  Written Questions
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many named day written questions were tabled to the Department between 15 October 2002 and 24 February 2003; how many that received a holding answer were given a substantive answer(a) within three days, (b) within seven days, (c) within 14 days, (d) within 28 days and (e) over 28 days later; and what procedures the Department has in place to monitor performance on answering (i) parliamentary questions and (ii) ministerial letters. [99435]

  Dr. Moonie
  444 named day written questions were tabled to the Ministry of Defence between 15 October 2002 and 24 February 2003. Of this number, 153 questions received a holding reply and one remains
  279W
  outstanding. The information could be broken down into the timescales requested only at disproportionate cost.

  Parliamentary questions tabled to the Ministry of Defence are recorded on a database and progress of all parliamentary questions is monitored closely.

  The Cabinet Office, on an annual basis, publishes a report to Parliament on performance of departments in replying to ministerial correspondence. The Report for 2001 was published on Friday 24 May 2002, Official Report, column 674W. The Report for 2002 will be published in due course.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Animal Welfare
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many people in the United Kingdom are banned from keeping animals for life. [100356]

  Mr. Morley
  I have been asked to reply.

  These figures are not recorded.

  Provocation
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Solicitor-General what plans she has to propose amendments to the law on provocation; and if she will make a statement. [102043]

  The Solicitor-General
  Two questions have arisen for consideration in recent months: first, whether the law as interpreted by the courts is sound, which includes the question of how the law operates in practice; and/or whether a review of the sentencing guidelines is needed.

  The Home Secretary and the Law Officers with the assistance of the Director of Public Prosecutions are currently considering whether there are grounds for a review of the law of provocation and/or a reference to the Sentencing Advisory Panel. I refer to my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) on 28 February 2003 for more details of the work being carried out by the Law Officers and the DPP.

  In December 2002 the Court of Appeal reviewed the sentences imposed on two defendants convicted for the manslaughter of their partners by reason of provocation. The Law Officers referred the sentences to the Court of Appeal on the grounds that they appeared to be unduly lenient and that the existing sentencing guidelines did not appear to reflect adequately the seriousness of the offence. Among the other observations in its judgment, in declining to increase the sentences imposed on these defendants the Court of Appeal held that it could not consider whether new guidelines were justified in this difficult area without advice from the Sentencing Advisory Panel.

  Ultimately the responsibility for the criminal law and for making references to the Sentencing Advisory Panel falls to the Home Secretary.

TREASURY

  Child Care Tax Credit
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many current recipients of childcare tax credit he estimates will lose out from April on account of the rate that such credit will operate for a minimum period of four weeks. [98673]

  Dawn Primarolo
  When it is introduced in April, the working tax credit will include a child care element which provides more flexible support for the costs of eligible child care.

  In response to concerns raised by parents paying child care costs weekly, who may have short increases of child care costs during the school holidays, we are bringing forward regulations making a minor change to the system to allow parents to take account of changes in costs lasting less than four weeks. This will allow parents with fluctuating costs to have their tax credit based on their average child care costs, including any short-term fluctuations. The Inland Revenue will issue clear guidance for parents and child care providers on how the system will work from April.

  Debt Relief
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what discussions officials from his Department have had with representatives of other developed countries regarding the provision of additional relief for Heavily Indebted Poor Countries at the completion point of their relief initiatives; [102008]

  (2) what discussions officials from his Department have had with representatives of (a) other developed countries, (b) the World bank, (c) the IMF and (d) the Ethiopian Government regarding (i) restructuring and (ii) suspending Ethiopia's debt repayments; [102007]

  (3) what plans he has to (a) organise, (b) host and (c) campaign for a major debate on debt relief involving representatives of countries from the developed and developing countries, the IMF and the World bank. [102006]

  John Healey
  The UK takes a strong lead in the international debate on debt relief. The issue is discussed at most major international meetings, including the Annual meetings of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World bank, which are attended by representatives from all member countries, including developing countries. The UK will use the forthcoming spring meetings of the IMF and World bank to push for increased efforts on debt relief.

  The staffs of the IMF and World bank have prepared a paper on the options for Heavily Indebted Poor Countries to obtain technical assistance to facilitate the resolution of disputes, including those with commercial creditors. The UK will press for a full discussion of this issue at the spring meetings.

  The UK also believes that where countries have to contend with external shocks, such as sharp falls in the price of key export commodities, we must form a broad consensus on the need for topping-up at completion point to ensure a lasting exit from unsustainable debt. We will work with our international partners to develop

  281W
  more realistic and generous rules for its provision, including agreement that the calculation of topping-up should exclude voluntary bilateral provision of additional 100 per cent. relief, to ensure that this functions as truly additional relief.

  The UK has also been leading the debate on how to raise additional finance for development, including debt relief. The Chancellor and the Secretary of State for International Development have proposed an International Finance Facility (IFF) that will double the amount of development assistance in the years to 2015 from US$50 billion to $100 billion. This money will be disbursed mainly in the form of grants, including debt relief. This proposal is being worked up through the G7 and other forums in the run up to the G8 heads of state summit in June.

  Officials meet regularly with their counterparts in other developed countries, and in a variety of international organizations, to discuss a wide range of issues.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the heavily indebted poor countries which have had full debt relief from the UK. [102009]

  John Healey
  The UK always goes further than is required under the enhanced Heavily Indebted Poor Countries initiative (HIPC) and provides 100 per cent. debt relief. Under the HIPC initiative a country receives interim debt relief on payments due when it reaches Decision Point and subsequently the debt is irrevocably cancelled at Completion Point. To reach Decision Point and demonstrate their commitment to poverty reduction, a country must prepare an Interim Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP), to get to Completion Point they need to develop a full PRSP, and usually make progress in implementing it for one year.

  Of the 42 countries classified as HIPCs four are currently expected to have a sustainable burden of debt after traditional debt relief. Of the remaining 38 countries, 26 have now reached Decision Point with US$62 billion in debt relief committed compared with the $100 billion total. Six of these countries have reached Completion Point and have had the totality of their debts owed to the UK irrevocably cancelled. For the 20 countries still at Decision Point the UK provides 100 per cent. relief on debt service payments, and stands ready to irrevocably cancel their stock of debt at Completion Point. Out of 12 countries yet to reach Decision Point, eight are currently affected by conflict and this makes their progress in the HIPC initiative difficult. For these countries yet to reach Decision Point the UK holds in trust any debt service payments made until they can be returned to fund poverty reduction. The UK is the only creditor to operate this policy and has called on others to follow its lead.

  The HIPCs that have reached completion point are: Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Mauritania, Mozambique, Tanzania and Uganda

  The HIPCs that have reached decision point are: Benin, Cameroon, Chad, Ethiopia, The Republic of the Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana,
  282W
  Honduras, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Nicaragua., Niger, Rwanda, São Tomé et Príncipe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, and Zambia.

  The HIPCs yet to reach completion point are: Burma*, Burundi*, Central African Republic*, Comoros, Democratic Republic of Congo*, Republic of the Congo*, Côte D'Ivoire, Lao PDR, Liberia*., Somalia*, Sudan* and Togo.

  * Conflict-affected countries.

  Inland Revenue
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many tax return forms were submitted with inaccuracies in 2001–02; what the cost of follow-up work on inaccurate returns was; and if he will make a statement. [102510]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Revenue does not have this information.

  Iraq
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money has been(a) set aside for military activities in respect of Iraq and (b) spent to support (i) peacemaking, (ii) peacekeeping, (iii) non proliferation and (iv) disarmament inspections carried out by the United Nations in 2002–03. [102071]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Chancellor has allocated a contingency reserve of £1.75 billion to meet our international defence responsibilities in this respect.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what research he has commissioned into a recalculation of National Insurance contributions. [102000]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Each year the Government Actuary's Department are required by legislation to estimate the likely effects on the National Insurance Fund of changes to benefit rates and contribution rates.

  Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment HM Treasury has made of the future expansion in membership of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; and if he will make a statement. [102002]

  John Healey
  Since its foundation in 1960 10 countries have joined the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development's original membership of 20. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is responsible for the Government's institutional relationship with the OECD. Treasury officials will be working with the FCO to assess the impact of possible enlargement of the OECD. There is no automatic process through which countries can become eligible to join the OECD, but the UK's view is that the OECD should establish a coherent strategy encompassing potential enlargement, requests
  283W
  for observership status, and its approach to nonmembers though Outreach programmes. The strategy should ensure that the OECD enhances its ability to perform its core tasks.

  Public Documents (Foreign Languages)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the cost of providing public documents issued by his Department in languages other than English. [101986]

  John Healey
  The Treasury does not have a specific budget for producing Treasury publications in languages other than English.

  The documents most regularly produced in languages other than English are the Budget and pre-Budget report leaflets, which are also made available in Welsh. Documents are very occasionally produced in other European languages, such as the pamphlets associated 'with the paper "Realising Europe's Potential: Economic Reform in Europe" (February 2002), which were produced in French, Spanish and Italian.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimates his Department has made of the costs of the provision of(a) public and (b) hon. Member helplines following the introduction of the new tax credit. [102417]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The full costs incurred in the current year (2002–03) on the provision of helplines for new tax credits, including setting up, live running and staff costs, are estimated at £53 million. There are no separate figures for the hon. Member helpline, but these will be minimal in the context of the overall costs.

  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families in the City of York council area have been helped by each of the tax credits since they were introduced. [102647]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The number of recipients of WFTC and Disabled Person's Tax Credit in each local authority and each constituency are shown in "Working Families' and Disabled Person's Tax Credit Statistics: Geographical Analyses" for each quarter. Copies are on the Inland Revenue website, www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk. Information about the numbers eligible for the Children's Tax Credit is not available by local authority, but it is estimated that about 400,000 families in Yorkshire and The Humber will benefit from it.

  Tax Evasion
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimates he has made of the total amount of tax evaded in each year since 1997. [102003]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There is no reliable measure of the total tax and other duties lost to evasion. In his report, published in March 2000, Lord Grabiner QC commented on the scale of the hidden economy and said:"By its nature, the size of the informal economy is hard to measure. Most estimates are based on analysing high-level economic aggregates, such as labour market statistics or income
  284W
  and expenditure surveys, and calculate the result as a percentage of GDP. However there is research which suggests that these estimates tend to be exaggerated.
  It would be impractical to arrive at a precise and meaningful figure as to the scale of the problem without a considerable investment of time and resources."

  VAT (Welfare Services)
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the impact of the introduction of VAT exemptions for welfare services provided by state-regulated private welfare agencies on(a) the costs, (b) the revenue and (c) the profitability of such agencies. [102126]

  John Healey
  As a result of these changes, the 60,000 sick, elderly or disabled people who pay for home care services could see a reduction in costs of up to 13 per cent. No specific estimate has been made for the impact on state-regulated private welfare agencies. The impact of the changes on their revenue and profitability will depend upon the price charged for their services. In setting their prices, agencies will take a range of commercial factors into account, of which the exemption for welfare services is only one.

  Voluntary Sector
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will publish the Government's future plans for the voluntary sector. [102011]

  Mr. Boateng
  Following the publication of the "Next Steps on Volunteering and Giving in the UK" discussion document in December, we are now consulting a wide range of stakeholders in the voluntary sector and beyond on the Corporate Challenge to develop a package to encourage businesses to support their communities; and on the Gap Year Pilots to encourage young people to volunteer. The results will be publicised in due course. In addition, a consultation document on futurebuilders will be published soon and will be available in the House Library.

  Young People
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of 16 to 18-year-olds were not in education, training or employment in(a) 1997,(b) 1998, (c) 1999, (d) 2000, (e) 2001 and (f) 2002 in (i) Coventry and (ii) the UK. [101188]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 10 March 2003]The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from L Cook to Jim Cunningham, dated 12 March 2003 As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about 16 to 18 year olds who are not in education, training or employment. (101188)

  The attached tables give the information requested for the United Kingdom and West Midlands Metropolitan County, for the three month period ending November of each year from 1997 to 2002. These estimates are from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) and are subject to sampling variability from year to year. They are not seasonally adjusted. The LFS sample size is too small to give reliable estimates for Coventry Local Authority District.
  285W

  Table 1: Percentage of 16 to 18 year olds who are not in education, training or employment1; United Kingdom; 1997 to 2002

  September to November

  Per cent. not seasonally adjusted

  1997

  10.8

  1998

  11.5

  1999

  11.4

  2000

  11.3

  2001

  12.0

  2002

  12.8

  1 People aged 16–18 who are not in education, training or work as a percentage of all aged 16–18.

  Note

  These Labour Force Survey (LFS) estimates have not yet been adjusted to take account of the Census 2001 results.

  Source

  ONS Labour Force Survey

  Table 2: Percentage of 16 to 18 year olds who are not in education, training or employment1; West Midlands Metropolitan County; 1997 to 2002

  September to November

  Per cent. not seasonally adjusted

  1997

  16.7

  1998

  13.6

  1999

  14.6

  2000

  16.0

  2001

  11.7

  2002

  16.1

  1 People aged 16–18 who are not in education, training or work as a percentage of all aged 16–18.

  Note

  These Labour Force Survey (LFS) estimates have not yet been adjusted to take account of the Census 2001 results.

  Source

  ONS Labour Force Survey

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Deported Resistants
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans the Government has to be represented at the official opening of the European Centre for Deported Resistants scheduled for April 2005 in Natzweiler-Struhof, France. [102141]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Government will decide on attendance nearer the time of the opening.

  Libya
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what recent assessment his Department has made of(a) the freedom of speech, (b) the freedom of the press, (c) the freedom of association and(d) the freedom of religion in Libya; [101793]

  (2) what recent assessment his Department has made of human rights violations by (a) the Libyan Government and (b) the Libyan security forces; [101791]
  286W
  (3) what recent assessment his Department has made of levels of political violence and repression by the Libyan Government; [101795]

  (4) what recent assessment his Department has made of the use of forced labour by the Libyan Government; [101794]

  (5) what recent assessment his Department has made of discrimination against tribal groups in Libya; [101792]

  (6) what action his Department is taking to raise the issue of Libya's record on human rights at the United Nations. [101796]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Diplomatic links with Libya were re-established in July 1999, and since then, our embassy has been active in developing links with various human rights organisations in the country. However, access for international human rights NGOs to visit has been rare, and it is difficult to obtain detailed information on the various human rights issues raised by the hon. Member. There have been some positive signs: in September 2002, the Libyan Government announced the release of all political prisoners other than those it has linked to alQaeda; in January 2003, they commuted the death sentence on three Ghanaians and one Nigerian; and earlier this year, the Qadhafi Foundation for Charitable Associations launched an anti-torture campaign. We are also encouraged by Colonel Qadhafi's reference, in a speech on 31 August 2002, to the need to discuss abolition of the political "People's" courts. However, we remain concerned about the overall human rights situation in Libya and encourage the Libyans to show they are committed to improving their record during their high-profile chairmanship of the forthcoming Commission on Human Rights (CHR). In the meantime, we are discussing with EU partners whether to make reference to Libya at this year's CHR.

  Alenia Marconi Radar System
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations the UK Government had with other EU member states prior to granting an export control licence for the sale of the Alenia Marconi Systems radar system to the Government of Sudan; and which EU member state the UK Government had to notify subsequent to the application for an export control licence being approved. [96645]

  Mr. Rammell
  [holding answer 10 February 2003]: The Government do not normally comment on specific licences, nor on discussions with other EU member states. All export licence applications for Sudan are assessed against the EU consolidated criteria, announced to Parliament on 26 October 2002.

  Angola
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions the Baroness Amos had with the Government of Angola regarding(a) illegal diamond trafficking, (b) mine removal programmes, (c) the peace process in that country and (d) humanitarian aid to that country during her recent visit to Africa; and if she will make a statement. [101801]
  287W
  Mr. Rammell
  My noble Friend Baroness Amos has made two recent visits to Angola. In her first visit, she discussed a wide range of political, economic and humanitarian issues, including mine removal, the peace process and development programmes. She has also discussed regional and international issues with the Government of Angola.

  Arab-Israel Conflict
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent assessment he has made of the conclusions of the Palestinian reform conference in London on 14 January; what his latest assessment is of the Bush peace plan; what assessment he has made of the proposals put forward by the Israeli Prime Minister for a resolution of the conflict; and if he will make a statement. [101824]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The London meeting on 14 January had a positive impact on Palestinian reform and nation-building efforts. In particular, it advanced work on constitutional reform and the appointment of a Prime Minister. Quartet representatives meeting in London between 18 and 20 February recorded their appreciation of its value in paving the way for the early implementation of the roadmap, the internationally-accepted means of realising President Bush's vision of a peace settlement. We look forward to the early publication of that roadmap now that a new Israeli Government is in place.

  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with(a) the US Administration, (b) the EU, (c) the UN and (d) Arab countries regarding the proposals put forward by the Israeli Prime Minister for a resolution of the Arab-Israel conflict; and if he will make a statement. [101825]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The policies of both parties to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute are the subject of constant discussion between the UK and other interested third parties, including the US, UN and EU, as Quartet members, and the Arab Three—Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. As we have made clear, we look to the new Israeli Government to signal without delay its acceptance of the Quartet roadmap in its present form.

  Award Schemes
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the award schemes in(a) 2001 and (b) 2002 promoted by the Department; what their scope was; when the relevant participating organisations are scheduled to be sent results; and whether other parties will be given notification of the results at the same time. [102054]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office promoted no award schemes in 2001. In 2002, the FCO organised a competition with a prize worth £1,250 for the best essay that addressed an international economic issue likely to pose major challenges for policy-makers over the next five years.

  To be eligible, participants had to be undertaking a first or postgraduate degree at a UK university in straight economics or with a substantial economics component. Employees of the FCO and their relatives
  288W
  were not eligible to apply. Essays had to be between 5,000 and 7,000 words. The essay must not have been previously published. It was a condition of applying that the authors grant the FCO the right to publish the prizewinning essays. Entries had to be typed and accompanied by an application form signed by the entrant's course tutor or research supervisor.

  Results were sent out in April 2002. Non-winning entrants were notified at the same time.

  Bangladesh
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Bangladeshi Government about the new law in Bangladesh that provides immunity to members of the armed forces in cases where civilians have been killed; and if he will make a statement. [101347]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Our high commission in Dhaka and their EU colleagues have discussed mistreatment of detainees held under Operation Clean Heart with the Bangladesh authorities and specifically raised concerns over the draft Indemnity Ordinance. The Joint Indemnity Bill was passed by Parliament on 23 February. It included an amendment allowing security forces to take internal action, including by court marshal, to punish wrongdoers. We look to the Bangladesh Government to ensure perpetrators of human rights abuses are brought to justice.

  Commercial Matters (Overseas Guidance)
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what guidance his Department provides to officials in UK embassies and diplomatic missions overseas with regard to the arrangement and conduct of(a) meetings and (b) telephone discussions concerning commercial matters. [102387]

  Mr. Rammell
  [holding answer 11 March 2003]No specific guidance has been issued regarding the arrangement or conduct of meetings or telephone discussions concerning commercial matters. General guidance to staff in British Trade International, including staff in overseas posts, emphasises the need to ensure that information provided by business contacts is handled carefully and that information received from or about a British business should not be disclosed, without the latter's permission, to other firms or organisations.

  Convention on the Future of Europe
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Government will seek to incorporate the UK's opt-out from the euro in the draft document from the Convention on the Future of Europe. [101655]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Government have made clear that they will only recommend UK membership of the single currency if it is in the national economic interest and the economic benefits are clear and unambiguous. A comprehensive and rigorous assessment of the five economic tests will be made by June of this year. If, on the basis of the assessment, the Government take a
  289W
  decision to recommend joining, it will be put to a vote in Parliament and then to a referendum of the British people. Government, Parliament and the people must all agree. Unless and until they do, the Government will not agree to any Treaty that removed the UK's opt-out from EMU.

  Departmental Telephone Directory
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the most recent internal telephone directory for the Department was published; how often it is updated; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [102031]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office produces an unclassified internal telephone directory, which includes the main contact points and is updated every six months. I am arranging for the most recent edition, which was updated in November 2002, to be deposited in the Library.

  EU-Africa Meeting
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with(a) European and (b) African partners regarding re-scheduling the postponed EU-African meeting that was intended to be held in April 2003; what date and location have been agreed; what impact cancelling this meeting will have on relations between the two regions; and if he will make a statement. [101779]

  Mr. MacShane
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed this matter with European colleagues on several occasions, including at the General Affairs and External Relations Council on 27 January 2003. The EU has agreed that the EU-Africa summit will be held at the earliest possible date; Portugal has renewed its offer to host it. We are committed to the EU-Africa dialogue and discussions with African partners are being taken forward by the EU troika. African countries recognise that the summit could not be held in April 2003 because it would not have been possible to achieve the broadest participation at the highest level. They also acknowledge the commitment of this Government towards Africa, as shown by our significant development programme, which will rise to £1 billion per annum by 2006, and our support to Africa in a number of multilateral fora, including as one of the prime movers behind the G8 Africa Action Plan announced at Kananaskis in June last year.

  Euro
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether it is the Government's policy that the UK's opt-out from the euro should be included in the draft European constitution. [102148]

  Mr. MacShane
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him today (UIN 101655).

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he 290W
  has had with the Ministry of Defence regarding commemoration of 300 years of British sovereignty in Gibraltar in 2004. [101414]

  Mr. MacShane
  As yet there have been no formal discussions between the FCO and the Ministry of Defence on the 300th anniversary of the capture of Gibraltar in 1704 by British forces.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Government of Gibraltar regarding commemoration of 300 years of British sovereignty in Gibraltar in 2004. [101415]

  Mr. MacShane
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 26 February 2003,Official Report, column 594W. There have been some informal exchanges between officials and the Gibraltar Government on thi; matter.

  HMS Mauritius
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the cost in each year since 1997 of training military personnel from the security forces of Mauritius; and how many persons have been trained each year. [100891]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Records of exact numbers and costs for training military personnel from Mauritius are held centrally by the MOD, and we were unable to obtain them in the timeframe available. A fuller answer will be given to my hon. Friend as soon as we can.

  According to the information available, since 2000, a total number of 78 members of the Special Mobile Force (SMF) of Mauritius have received training from the UK. They are as follows:

  2000–05;

  2001–22;

  2002–51

  Iraq
  Dr.Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with his US counterparts regarding the disarming of the Iraqi population following any successful removal of the Iraqi regime. [100134]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  No decision to launch military action against Iraq has been taken. We regularly discuss all aspects of Iraq policy with our US counterparts.

  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions Baroness Amos had with the Governments of(a) Guinea, (b) Cameroon and (c) Angola regarding the disarmament of Iraq and UN Resolution 1441; during her recent visit to Africa, what the conclusion of those discussions was; and if he will make a statement. [101775]

  Mr. Rammell
  My noble Friend Baroness Amos met President Conte of Guinea, President Dos Santos of Angola and President Biya of Cameroon during her recent visit to Africa. She discussed the disarmament of Iraq in accordance with UNSCR 1441 and a range of other bilateral and regional issues.
  291W
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the US Secretary of State on postwar reconstruction of Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [102509]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  No decision has been taken to launch military action against Iraq. We regularly discuss all aspects of Iraq policy with our US counterparts.

  Ivory Coast
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions the Baroness Amos has had with the Government of Guinea regarding the present situation in the Ivory Coast; what steps his Department Ls taking to address this situation; and if he will make a statement. [101773]

  Mr. Rammell
  My noble Friend, Baroness Amos, discussed regional issues during her visit to Conakry on 25 February 2003. She is also in regular touch with a wide range of ECOWAS leaders about the crisis in Cite d'Ivoire, including the chairman of ECOWAS, President Kufuor of Ghana.

  We believe that the Linas Marcoussis Agreement offers the basis for a peaceful political settlement. We urge all Ivorians to work constructively for its implementation. Recent UK support has included £2 million to assist deployment of the ECOWAS peace-monitoring force, and £1 million in humanitarian assistance.

  North Korea
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions his Department have had with the Governments of(a) the Republic of Korea, (b) China and (c) Japan regarding the security situation in North Korea; and if he will make a statement. [101821]

  Mr. Rammell
  I discussed this issue during my visit to the region last week, where I held meetings with the new South Korean President, Roh Moo-hyun, Foreign Minister, Yoon Young-kwan, National Security Adviser, Ra Jong Yil, Chinese Vice Foreign Minister, Wang Yi, in Seoul, and the Japanese Deputy Foreign Minister, Tetsuro Yano, in Tokyo.

  We have made clear in all our contacts with other Governments that we support a peaceful resolution of the security situation on the Korean Peninsula through multilateral dialogue.

  Overseas Trips
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the overseas trips made by himself and other Members of his ministerial team in 2002; and what the(a) purpose and(b) cost was in each case. [101487]

  Mr. Rammell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Alexander) on 22 January 2003,Official Report, column 334W.

  Palestine
  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has received about the state of health of the Palestinian MP, Marwan Barghouti; and what representations he is making to ensure that Israel complies with Articles 30, 31 and 32 of the Third Geneva Convention and Articles 91 and 92 of the Fourth Geneva Convention in respect of its treatment of Mr. Barghouti. [101574]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have received information that Marwan Barghouti's health has deteriorated. Our embassy in Tel Aviv is making inquiries of the Israeli Government over these reports. On 28 February 2003, I wrote to the Israeli Ambassador to raise our concerns. I understand he has now been given the required medication.

  The Israeli District Court started legal proceeding against Mr. Barghouti on 5 September 2002. The next hearing is set for 6 April 2003, and we understand that the trial will be over by the end of May 2003. We will continue to monitor this case closely.

  Turkey
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of the recent vote in the Turkish Parliament regarding the deployment of military troops to that country; and if he will make a statement. [101776]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Government are following developments in Turkey closely, including the recent Iraq-related vote in Parliament. Turkey's contribution to the search for peace and security in the region includes its own strong respect for democratic processes.

  UNSCOM
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of Iraq's known weapons of mass destruction were destroyed or otherwise disabled by UNSCOM inspectors up to December 1998. [101989]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  As a result of Iraqi concealment and deceit, UNSCOM was never able to verify the full extent of Iraq's holdings of weapons of mass destruction, so it is not possible to give an accurate estimate of what proportion of them had been destroyed.

  It is clear, however, from the final report of UNSCOM's Executive Chairman Richard Butler that there were substantial numbers of chemical and biological weapons, large quantities of the materials for the manufacture of such weapons and a number of missiles with a range beyond the 150 km limit prescribed by the United Nations still unaccounted for when UNSCOM left Iraq in December 1998.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those persons the Baroness Amos met during her recent visit
  293W
  to Africa; what discussions she had on the role of Zimbabwe within the African Union during that visit; and if he will make a statement. [101777]

  Mr. Rammell
  During her recent visit (25 to 28 February 2003) to Africa, my noble Friend Baroness Amos met President Conte of Guinea, President Dos Santos of Angola and President Biya of Cameroon.

  She discussed the political, economic and humanitarian situation in Zimbabwe with Angola's President Dos Santos, the current Chairman of the Southern African Development Community (SADC).

  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list assets frozen under EU sanctions against Zimbabwe, broken down by(a) name of account holder, (b) amount and (c) date on which they were frozen; what impact freezing these assets has had upon the political situation in Zimbabwe; and if he will make a statement. [101778]

  Mr. Rammell
  The assets freeze has targeted Mugabe and senior Zimbabwean officials. Assets worth £513,367.70 have been frozen in the UK and Dependent Territories under the EU's Common Position. These are held in 25 personal accounts. We are withholding details of the individual account holders under Exemption 12 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, as unwarranted disclosure would constitute, or could facilitate, an unwarranted invasion of privacy. We do not have figures for assets frozen by other EU states under the Common Position.

  The assets freeze has sent a strong message to the Mugabe regime, underlining the EU's concern at the internal political situation.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Child Care
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made of the regional variation in cost of child care; and if she will make a statement. [99050]

  Maria Eagle
  The Government appreciate that the cost of child care can be high, especially for parents with babies or young children needing full day care and that there are regional differences in the cost.

  Working parents, subject to the level of their income, may receive support through the child care tax credit element of the Working Families Tax Credit or the Disabled Person's Tax Credit (Working Tax Credit from April 2003). Tax credit is rightly targeted at lower and middle income families who may use a range of types of child care.

  The cost of child care reported in the Department for Education and Skills 2001–02 audit shows an England average of £101.01 a week for full day care and £132.49 for London—the region with the highest child care costs. The child care tax credit provides for up to 70 per cent. of costs of eligible child care. It can pay up to £94.50 a week for one child (where the child care cost is £135), and up to £140 a week for two or more children (where the cost is £200). No Government have provided
  294W
  the kind of direct support for the costs of child care that is delivered by the child care tax credit.£1 million a day is now spent on supporting parents with child care costs.

  In addition, support is also available through various grants and access funds for parents undertaking further and higher education, for participants on the New Deals and those receiving Jobseeker's Allowance. Lone Parents participating in the New Deal for Lone Parents programme, can receive assistance with the costs of registered child care while attending job interviews, approved training and meetings with their Personal Advisors.

  The DfES and the Inland Revenue will continue to monitor the cost o f child care to ensure good quality affordable and accessible child care is available for all those who need it.

  Education (Coalfield Areas)
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what targets he has set for raising educational aspirations among young people in the coalfields. [101576]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis;
  No targets are set to measure educational aspiration. However, this Department has strategies that are aimed at helping to raise educational attainment in coalfield and other areas. In "14–9: opportunity and excellence" (published 21 January 2003), we outlined our plans to transform the learning experience between 14 and 19 so that young people have a greater choice and flexibility to follow coherent learning pathways that reflect their individual strengths and aspirations. W believe that increased choice and flexibility, and improved coherence and quality of programmes, will help to raise young people's aspirations and those of their parents and wider communities. To support delivery and give focus to our proposals for 14–19 reform, we have set ourselves targets to increase young people's participation and attainment in education. These are:compared with 2002. the proportion of 19-year-olds achieving 5 GCSE grades A* to C, or the equivalent vocational qualifications, will rise by 3 percentage points by 2004, and a further 3 percentage points by 2006;
  by 2010, 90 per cent. of young people by age 22 will have participated in a full-time programme fitting them for entry into higher education or skilled employment;
  by 2004 at least 28 per- cent. of young people will enter a modern apprenticeship by age 22.

  Connexions Service
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which pupils have access to the independent advice provided by the Connexions service; and if he will make a statement. [99630]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  All young people aged 13–19 have access to impartial information, advice and guidance offered by the Connexions service. Access is via maintained schools, city academies, colleges, high street centres and Connexions Direct, the telephone and web-based service currently being trialled in several areas of England.
  295W
  Young people also have access to the Youth Services, who can provide informal personal and social education for young people. They can help them prepare for adult life by:

  acquiring social skills,

  helping them to become responsible citizens and

  preparing them for the world of work.

  Grant Funding
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his statement of 7 February 2003,Official Report, column 29WS, which London boroughs qualify for grant funding to meet the cost of the 2003 teachers' pay settlement; and how much money that grant is in each case. [100900]

  Mr. Miliband
  The table contains the information requested. The Secretary of State has announced that a grant of over £11 million will be available for 2003–04 to those authorities where the DfES recognises that there are affordability issues created by the recommendations of the School Teachers' Review body for London. The grant is being given to those authorities in London who have the lowest increase in Education Formula Spending Share per pupil or receive the floor increase for Revenue Support Grant in 2003–04.

  £million

  Authorities

  Total grant

  Barking and Dagenham

  1.031

  Barnet

  0.579

  Bexley

  0.490

  Bromley

  0.594

  Camden

  0.698

  Croydon

  0.695

  Enfield

  0.665

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  0.739

  Haringey

  1.292

  Havering

  0.475

  Kensington and Chelsea

  0.491

  Lambeth

  0.391

  Redbridge

  0.017

  Richmond upon Thames

  0.261

  Sutton

  0.378

  Waltham Forest

  0.534

  Wandsworth

  1.141

  Westminster

  0.818

  Total

  11.290

  Overarching Strategy for Children and Young People
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when he will publish the Overarching Strategy for Children and Young People. [101419]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 7 March 2003]The Government is determined to improve outcomes for all children and young people, wherever they live, whatever their background. We will publish an overarching strategy later this year, setting out the nation's vision for children and young people, the outcomes that we want to see them achieve, and what needs to happen to make this vision a reality.

  The strategy will be closely linked with the forthcoming green paper, which will identify options for improving services for children at risk.

  Private/Public Boarding Schools
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what his policy is on looked after children attending(a) private and (b) public boarding schools; and if he will make a statement. [99378]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Any decision, regarding the education that is most suitable for a child in care, should he taken locally by those who have responsibility for that child's care and welfare. The decision will be taken following an assessment of the child's developmental needs, including education, and should be in the best interest of the child.

  School Governors
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much funding was allocated to the National Governors Council in each year since 1998–99.[100727]

  Mr. Miliband
  The table shows how much funding has been allocated to the National Governors Council in each year since 1998–99.

  £

  Year

  Funding allocated

  1998–99

  141,596

  1999–2000

  156,226

  2000–01

  158,507

  2001–02

  115,000

  2002–03

  116,500

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much has been spent on supporting parent governor representatives, including the costs of the e-mail network, website and conferences, since they were established. [100728]

  Mr. Miliband
  Since the first parent governor representatives (PGRs) were elected in September 1999 we have provided £101,520 support for the integrated website and e-mail network and £87,475 for conferences. LEAs are also encouraged to provide financial support for PGRs because PGRs exist to represent the views of all parents on local authority overview and scrutiny committees and sub-committees dealing with education.

  Specialist Schools
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the(a) specialist schools and (b) local education authorities that exercised the option to select up to 10 per cent. of pupils by aptitude in each of the last three years, indicating (i) the nature of the specialism, (ii) the status of the school, (iii) the percentage of pupils selected, (iv) the percentage of pupils with statements and (v) the percentage of pupils receiving free school meals. [101039]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 10 March 2003]On the basis of the latest collated information, the attached table lists the specialist schools and local education authorities that exercised the option to select up to 10 per cent. of their pupils by aptitude in the 2000–01 and 2001–02 academic years. Most of the schools and
  297W
  LEAs listed were selecting by aptitude prior to the 1998 Act, and therefore some schools listed select more than 10 per cent. of their pupils.

  We cannot provide the figures for the 2002–03 academic year as we collect information on aptitude selection from the progress reports which specialist schools are required to submit annually. Specialist schools designated in 2002 will not submit their first

  30 specialist schools operational as of September 2000 which DfES figures suggest are selecting a percentage of their pupils on the basis of aptitude in their specialist subjects

  Specialism

  School

  LEA

  Status

  Operational as specialist school from September

  Percentage of pupils selected1

  Percentage of pupils on roll with statements of SEN

  Technology

  Mill Hill County High School

  Barnet, LB of

  Foundation

  1994

  Up to 10%

  3.6

  Sports

  Whitefield School

  Barnet, LB of

  Community

  1999

  Up to 10%

  5.1

  Sports

  Oldfield School

  Bath & NE Somerset

  Foundation

  1997

  Up to 10%

  0.6

  Technology

  Ninestiles School

  Birmingham

  Foundation

  1997

  Up to 10%

  3.4

  Technology

  Small Heath School

  Birmingham

  Foundation

  1994

  Up to 10%

  1.2

  Sports

  Oakbank School

  Bradford

  Foundation

  1997

  Up to 10%

  2.7

  Sports

  The Wye Valley School

  Buckinghamshire

  Community

  1998

  Up to 10%

  4.5

  Arts

  Brentwood Ursuline Convent School

  Essex

  Voluntary Aided

  1999

  Up to 10%

  0.3

  Technology

  Philip Morant School

  Essex

  Foundation

  1994

  Up to 10%

  1.2

  Technology

  St Martin's School

  Essex

  Foundation

  1995

  Up to 10%

  0.8

  Language

  Bohunt School

  Hampshire

  Foundation

  1996

  Up to 10%

  0.9

  Language

  Hockerill Anglo European School

  Hertfordshire

  Foundation

  1998

  Up to 10%

  1.6

  Technology

  Chaucer Technology School

  Kent

  Foundation

  1996

  67%

  1.6

  Technology

  Cornwallis School

  Kent

  Foundation

  1994

  Up to 10%

  3.4

  Technology

  Sandwich Technology School

  Kent

  Foundation

  1996

  Up to 10%

  1.7

  Technology

  Archbishop Temple School

  Lancashire

  Voluntary Aided

  1995

  Up to 10%

  1.6

  Arts

  Intake High School

  Leeds

  Community

  1998

  Up to 10%

  4.3

  Arts

  North Kesteven School

  Lincolnshire

  Foundation

  2000

  Up to 10%

  1.9

  Technology

  Archbishop Blanch School

  Liverpool

  Voluntary Aided

  1996

  6%

  1.7

  Technology

  St Margaret's C of E High School

  Liverpool

  Voluntary Aided

  1997

  15%

  1.7

  Technology

  Denbigh School

  Milton Keynes

  Foundation

  1997

  Up to 10%

  1.5

  Technology

  Lynn Grove VA High School

  Norfolk

  Voluntary Aided

  1994

  15%

  0.7

  Arts

  Latimer Community Arts College

  Northamptonshire

  Community

  1997

  Up to 10%

  3

  Technology

  Lodge Park School

  Northamptonshire

  Foundation

  1994

  Up to 10%

  1.4

  Technology

  George Spencer GM School

  Nottinghamshire

  Foundation

  1994

  Up to 10%

  0.6

  Technology

  Deacon's School

  Peterborough city

  Foundation

  1994

  15%

  1.3

  Technology

  Glyn Technology School

  Surrey

  Foundation

  1994

  15%

  1.3

  Technology

  Heathside School

  Surrey

  Foundation

  1995

  …4%

  1.2

  Arts

  Chestnut Grove School

  Wandsworth

  Community

  1997

  16%

  3.5

  Arts

  The St Marylebone School

  Westminster

  Voluntary Aided

  1998

  Up to 10%

  1.6

  1 The percentages refer to aptitude selection relating to the schools' specialist school designations, some schools may also select for aptitude in other specialisms.

  Note:

  This information was taken from progress reports submitted by 536 schools operational as at September 2000.

  The 1998 School Standards and Framework Act provides for schools with a specialism to select up to 10 per cent. of their intake on the basis of aptitude for a specialist subject prescribed in regulations. Prior to the 1998 Act schools had greater discretion over aptitude selection and this accounts for the percentages above 10 per cent.

  University Intakes
  Dr.Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which universities in(a) 2001 and (b) 2002 took (i) more than 90 per cent.of their students from state schools and (ii) more than 20 per cent.of students from low participation backgrounds; and if he will make a statement. [98469]

  Margaret Hodge
  The latest available data are shown in the two tables.

  Higher Education Institutes in England taking more than 90 per cent. of young students from state schools in 1999 and 2000.

  1999 state schools percentage

  2000 state schools percentage

  Anglia Polytechnic University

  94

  95

  Bath Spa University College

  94

  96

  Bishop Grosseteste College

  98

  98

  298W
  progress report until September 2003. The 217 specialist schools that were designated in February 2003 will not begin operating until this September, and will submit their first progress reports in September 2004.

  The information requested on the percentage of pupils receiving free school meals cannot be provided as it is the Department's current policy not to publish figures about individual schools without their prior agreement.

  1999 state schools percentage

  2000 state schools percentage

  Bolton Institute of Higher Education

  100

  99

  Bournemouth University

  91

  91

  Bretton Hall

  94

  96

  University of Brighton

  93

  93

  Buckinghamshire Chilterns University College

  97

  98

  Canterbury Christ Church University College

  94

  96

  University of Central England

  95

  96

  University of Central Lancashire

  97

  96

  Chester College of Higher Education

  92

  96

  University College Chichester

  94

  95

  Coventry University

  94

  94

  Cumbria Institute of the Arts

  98

  100

  Dartington College of Arts

  99

  93

  De Montfort University

  94

  95

  University of Derby

  97

  98

  University of East Londor

  96

  98

  Edge Hill College of Higher Education

  98

  98

  University of Essex

  91

  93

  Falmouth College of Arts

  98

  98

  University of Gloucestershire

  95

  93

  299W

  1999 state schools percentage

  2000 state schools percentage

  University of Greenwich

  95

  96

  University of Hertfordshire

  95

  96

  University of Huddersfield

  97

  97

  Keele University

  N/a

  92

  Kent Institute of Art and Design

  98

  97

  King Alfred's College, Winchester

  94

  94

  Leeds Metropolitan University

  93

  93

  University of Lincoln

  97

  97

  Liverpool Hope University College

  96

  96

  Liverpool John Moors University

  94

  95

  London Guildhall University

  92

  95

  The London Institute

  97

  98

  University of Luton

  99

  99

  Manchester Metropolitan University

  93

  94

  Middlesex University

  96

  97

  Newman College of Higher Education

  97

  99

  University College Northampton

  97

  97

  University of North London

  96

  97

  North Riding College

  97

  N/a

  Norwich School of Art and Design

  100

  100

  Nottingham Trent University

  91

  93

  University of Plymouth

  91

  93

  University of Portsmouth

  92

  91

  Ravensbourne College

  100

  99

  Rose Bruford College

  93

  92

  College of St. Mark & St. John

  94

  96

  St. Martin's College

  96

  97

  St. Mary's College

  92

  93

  University of Salford

  95

  94

  Sheffield Hallam University

  92

  94

  Southampton Institute

  93

  94

  South Bank University

  93

  94

  Staffordshire University

  97

  98

  University of Sunderland

  97

  97

  The Surrey Institute of Art & Design University College

  99

  99

  University of Surrey Roehampton

  92

  N/a

  University of Teeside

  98

  98

  Thames Valley University

  98

  98

  Trinity & All Saints

  93

  93

  University of Westminster

  92

  94

  Wimbledon School of Art

  100

  98

  University of Wolverhampton

  98

  99

  University College Worcester

  96

  97

  Writtle College

  N/a

  94

  York St. John College

  95

  95

  Note:

  N/a = not applicable, i.e. below 90 per cent. for the year in question.

  1999 Low participation (percentage)

  2000 Low participation (percentage)

  Bolton Institute of Higher Education

  26

  32

  Cumbria Institute of the Arts

  22

  N/a

  Edge Hill College of Higher Education

  22

  23

  Liverpool Hope University College

  23

  26

  Liverpool John Moores University

  21

  21

  Newman College of Higher Education

  25

  24

  Northern School of Contemporary Dance

  N/a

  21

  University of Sunderland

  29

  29

  University of Wolverhampton

  23

  23

  Note:

  Not applicable, i.e. not above 20 per cent. for the year in question.

  The figures in the tables are taken from the two most recent versions of "Performance Indicators in Higher Education", published annually by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE). Copies of these publications can be found in the House Library.

  Student Loans
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the maximum student loan available for a medical student doing a six year course will be after the introduction of the measures outlined in the Government's White Paper; and what the maximum tuition fees are which such a student will be required to pay. [100933]

  Margaret Hodge
  For English and Welsh domiciled students the maximum means tested loan in 2002–03 is £3,090 for a student residing at their parent's home; and otherwise £3,905, unless for studying in London, where it is £4,815. Eligible medical students from lower income families on a six year course will be entitled to these levels of loan, increased for inflation, for four years. Many will also be entitled to a further Higher Education Grant of £1,000 for four years from October 2004. In year five medical students are entitled to a non means tested reduced rate loan (at 2002–03 prices) of £1,465 if they are living with a parent, £1,915 otherwise, and £2,365 if they are studying in London. In the final year these figures reduce to £1,075,£1,400 and £1,725 respectively. In addition, in years five and six English domiciled medical students may receive non repayable annual means tested bursaries from the Department of Health, or if Welsh domiciled from the Welsh Assembly Government, of up to £1,758 (living with parent), £2,148 (otherwise) or £2,640 (living in London).

  After implementation of the White Paper proposals, the annual fee contribution for four years will vary from £0-£3,000 per year but the upfront cost to students and parents would be reduced from the current maximum of £1,100 since fees would start to be repaid only after graduation (and achievement of an income threshold of £15,000 per year). Students on lower incomes would continue as now to receive a grant for fees of £1,100 (increased annually for inflation) and their loan for fees would not exceed £1,900 a year. In cases where the Access Regulator agrees higher fee levels than £1,100, university bursary schemes will further reduce the cost of fees to some students on low incomes.

  Fee support for English domiciled medical students in years five and six is the responsibility of the Department of Health. Currently students pay no contributions to fees. Department of Health Ministers have indicated that, whatever the future levels of tuition fees, they will take measures to ensure that any increase in the cost of university courses will not have an adverse impact on the supply, retention, diversity or quality of students on health professional courses, including medicine.

  Sure Start
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will place the technical note underlying Sure Start's Public Service Agreement in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [94885]

  Maria Eagle
  The Technical Note has been published and a copy has been placed in the Libraries.

  Teachers
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of teachers retire at or before age 60 years; and if he will make a statement. [99818]
  301W
  Mr. Miliband
  Early retirement is available to teachers between the ages of 50 and 59. During 2001–02, 3,450 teachers under the age of 60 who had been employed in the maintained schools sector in England were awarded early payment of retirement benefits. This represents around 3 per cent. of the teaching work force in the 50–59 age range. In addition, 1,760 teachers in the 50–59 age range and 580 teachers aged under 50 were awarded ill-health retirement benefits on the grounds of permanent incapacity.

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many teachers(a) left the teaching profession and (b) there have been in(i) Sutton Coldfield and (ii) the UK in each year since 1997; [100673]

  (2) how many teacher vacancies there were in Sutton Coldfield in each year since 1997. [100674]

  Mr. Miliband
  Information on teacher numbers and vacancies is collected at local authority level. The table provides information for Birmingham local education authority at January of each year:

  Year

  FTE regular teachers1

  Vacancies2

  1997

  9,910

  32

  1998

  9,800

  37

  1999

  9,760

  73

  2000

  9,880

  63

  2001

  10,220

  83

  2002

  10,440

  202

  1 Full-time equivalent regular teachers in post in the maintained schools sector.

  2 Advertised vacancies for full-time permanent appointments (or appointments of at least one term's duration) in maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special schools.

  Note:

  Includes vacancies being filled on a temporary basis unless filled by someone with a fixed term contract of one term or more.

  Source

  DfES annual 618G survey.

  The following table shows the numbers of teachers leaving full-time1 or part- time2 service in the maintained schools sector in Birmingham and in England. The information is not available at constituency level.

  The devolved Administrations are responsible for providing information on teachers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  1 Leavers are those who were in full-time or part-time teaching in the maintained schools sector immediately before the period shown, who were not in service in that sector at the end of the period shown. Teachers leaving are based on pension returns. Some teachers may have moved from known service to service not recorded on the teacher pension return. Some leavers will be taking career breaks and will return to service at a later date.

  2 Around 10–20 per cent. of part-timers may not be included.

  1 April–31 March

  1996–97

  1997–981

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Birmingham

  730

  850

  610

  810

  2.3—

  England

  35,650

  39,050

  31,910

  34,930

  35,440

  1 Higher than usual numbers of premature retirements, following changes to the retirement regulations, contributed to the high levels of leavers in 1997–98.

  2 The most recent data available at LEA level are for 1999–2000.

  3 Not available

  Source

  DfES Database of Teacher Records.

  Teaching Assistants
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidelines he has published for the use of teaching assistants to take whole classes without the presence,, of a qualified teacher; and if he will make a statement. [100965]

  Mr. Miliband
  My Department recently completed a consultation on developing the role of school support staff, which included proposals for enhancing the role of support staff. These proposals included the development of a 'higher-level teaching assistant' role, for individuals who would have the skills and training to work with whole classes of pupils in the absence of, but under the supervision of, a qualified teacher. We have also recently completed a consultation on draft regulations and guidance under Section 133 of the Education Act 2002. These regulations outline the role of the qualified teacher and set out conditions under which individuals without qualified teacher status can undertake aspects of that role. This area was previously unregulated so the new regulations will strengthen the safeguards in place to protect the quality of pupils' education. My officials are currently considering the responses to the two consultations and the Department will be issuing revised regulations and further guidance in the near future, taking into account the consultation responses and the details set out in the recent National Agreement between the Government, school work force unions and the local government employers.

  Truancy
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on his plans to provide more powers to welfare officers to curb truancy in schools. [99658]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The forthcoming Anti-Social Behaviour Bill will formally enable education welfare officers to ask parents who fail to secure their child's regular attendance at school to sign a parenting contract. This will mean agreeing to co-operate with support arranged by the local authority (typically a parenting course) and taking specified action to improve their child's attendance. Refusal to sign or breach of contract may result in a fixed penalty notice or prosecution.

  The Bill will also enable education welfare officers to issue fixed penalty notices to parents who condone or ignore truancy. Failure to pay the penalty will result in prosecution.

  These new powers will complement existing measures for tackling truancy, including 'fast-track' prosecutions and truancy sweeps.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what soft information is given to(a) employers and (b) employees who have requested an enhanced Criminal Records Bureau check. [100167]
  303W
  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 10 March 2003]: Enhanced disclosures differ from standard disclosures in that in addition to information about convictions, which is obtained from the Police National Computer, they may also contain information provided by a local police force. Most often, this will be a police force in whose area an applicant has lived for the five years preceding the date of application. This information is commonly referred to as "local information".

  The Police Act 1997, which established the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB), sets out when such information should be released. Essentially, a local police force may release local information if it thinks it may be relevant to the position sought. The question of whether information is or may be relevant i3 solely a matter for the local police force, and over which the CRB has no control.

  Local information can be released in two forms—approved information and additional information. Decisions about the form in which information is released are again solely a matter for the local police force and over which the CRB has no control. The local police force decisions are based upon the nature of the information and the circumstances of particular cases. Approved and additional information have previously been termed 'soft' or 'non-conviction' information respectively.

  Approved information is local police force information released under section 115 (7) of the Police Act and is information that has been approved to be included on an enhanced disclosure. This is printed on both copies of the disclosure, (i.e. which go to the employer and the employee). The applicant will normally be aware of the information already, which might for example be information about an impending prosecution. At present only some three in every 1,000 enhanced disclosures contain approved information.

  Additional information is released under section 115 (8) of the Police Act and is information that has been authorised to be released to the registered body only in the interests of the prevention or detection of crime. This is released in the form of a separate letter sent to the registered body and arrives in a different envelope from the disclosure. The information is not made available to the applicant and does not appear on the disclosure. The disclosure issued to the registered body contains a box on the top right-hand side referring to the letter sent under separate cover. This warns the registered body that they should wait for the letter before reaching a recruitment decision. The information released by the police in these circumstances is highly confidential. Although CRB will know when such letters are released, they do not see the contents and are not sent a copy. At present only some four in every 10,000 enhanced disclosure applications end with the release of additional information.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long applications for Criminal Records Bureau checks will be sent to Madras for processing; what the cost is to his Department of sending those applications; what measures are in place to ensure that forms are securely transferred between the UK and India; and if he will make a statement. [100168]
  304W
  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 10 March 2003]:All disclosure applications are processed at the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) sites at Liverpool and Darwen, Blackburn. The work being undertaken at, Chennai (Madras) involves manual inputting of personal information such as name, date of birth and addresses during the past five years, provided by individuals on their application forms. This work is undertaken at the beginning of the process, and no information drawn from police sources or other data sources is involved.

  This arrangement was introduced as part of a package of measures to improve the performance of the CRB. It has proved highly effective in enabling large numbers of paper application forms to be processed, with timely, cost effective and accurate data capture, and eliminating backlogs from this critical stage of the CRB process.

  Due to the fact that the CRB is still receiving around 78 per cent. of applications on paper and that the current data entry system works well the CRB will continue to capture the information from hand-written forms in Chennai. When the CRB introduces an electronic application channel this situation will be reviewed. There is no additional cost to this Department in the work being carried out in Chennai for data inputting. The costs are borne entirely by Capita as part of their contractual arrangements with the CRB.

  To ensure the data processed by Hays in India would be secure, senior members of CRB staff have conducted two extensive site inspections. The inspections were carried out in accordance with the Information Commissioners (1C) guidance relating to overseas transfer. On inspection, the site satisfied both the IC's and the CRB stringent requirements for security, data protection and data integrity.

  The data transferred is that contained on the disclosure application form. The form is scanned, encrypted and then transferred via a secure link to the site in Chennai. On receipt of the scanned image, the data are entered on to a system compatible with those used by the CRB to process disclosure applications. On completion the data is again encrypted and transferred back to the United Kingdom via the secure link. Hays only retain the data for the duration of time taken to input and transfer to the United Kingdom. Thereafter, the data are destroyed.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 9 January 2003,Official Report, columns 911–13W, on the Criminal Records Bureau (Checks), if he will set out for each study the (a) total cost and (b) cost to his Department of (i) the Coopers and Lybrand (1996) market research study; (ii) the Accent Market Research (March 2000) study; (iii) the Labour Force Survey carried out between September and November 1999;(iv) the telephone survey with existing checkers, that was carried out to validate the baseline information;(v) the Capita Account Managers research in December 2001; (vi) the on-going joint Capita CRB forecasting work; (vii) the Rosslyn Research in 2000, to establish employer's requirements in terms of service standards; and (viii) the consultation with registered employers from January to June 2001. [100241]
  305W
  Hilary Benn
  The information is as follows:

  (i) the total cost and cost to the Home Office of the Coopers and Lybrand (1996) market research study was £66,422.75, including VAT;

  (ii) the total cost and cost to the Home Office of the Accent Market Research (March 2000) study was £16,293.26, including VAT;

  (iii) the Labour Force Survey is carried out annually by the Department for Work Pensions, and therefore, the Home Office incurred no additional costs;

  (iv) the telephone survey with existing checkers, that was carried out to validate the baseline information, was undertaken by PRA's business planning unit as part of their normal day-to-day duties, and therefore, the Home Office incurred no additional costs;

  (v) the Capita Account Managers research in December 2001 is part of the Account Manager's normal day-to-day duties. Therefore, the Home Office incurred no additional costs;

  (vi) the on-going joint Capita/Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) forecasting work is part of the normal day-to-day duties of these staff, and therefore, the Home Office incurred no additional costs;

  (vii) the total cost and cost to the Home Office of the Rosslyn Research in 2000 to establish employer's requirements in terms of service standards was £5,710.50, including VAT; and

  (viii) the consultation with registered employers from January to June 2001 was a major part of the CRB's publicity campaign to raise awareness of the disclosure service and to encourage registration. The total cost and cost to the Home Office of this publicity campaign was £694,000.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his statement of 27 February 2003,Official Report, columns 32–36WS, on the Criminal Records Bureau, what additional resources he has given to Capita for each (a) standard disclosure and (b) enhanced disclosure following the indefinite postponement of basic disclosures. [101016]

  Hilary Benn
  In his statement, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said it would be inappropriate to launch basic disclosures until higher priority categories of applicant for higher level disclosures are seeing their needs fully accommodated. The Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) is concentrating its resources on the standard and enhanced disclosures until the demand for higher level disclosures is fully met and that applicants for such disclosures receive a satisfactory service. Basic disclosures will not be introduced until these objectives have been achieved. In light of the operational difficulties that the CRB has experienced since the launch of the higher level disclosure service, the decision was taken to re-assess the anticipated demand for basic disclosures in conjunction with a review of the business process model. No additional resources have been directed towards Capita for standard and enhanced disclosures, following the decision to postpone the launch of basic disclosures.
  306W
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 29 January 2003,Official Report, columns 911–13W, on Criminal Records Bureau (Checks), what assessment he has made of the research into the likely level of demand for Criminal Records Bureau checks undertaken by (a) the Home Office and ( b) CRB. [101025]

  Hilary Benn
  The research undertaken enabled a baseline demand figure to be agreed and confirmed and assumptions validated from a number of different sources. An assessment of the research indicates that the baseline figure produced for the first year of operations is reasonably close to actual demand. However, it now seems less certain that much higher levels of forecast future demand will be achieved, although this has yet to be proven.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his statement of 27 February 2003,Official Report, columns 32–36WS, on the Criminal Records Bureau, how many representations his Department received in the consultation exercise with registered bodies and employers from January to June 2001 on the use of paper based application systems; and if he will place copies of these in the Library. [101031]

  Hilary Benn
  During the early part of 2001, as a major part of the Criminal Records Bureau's (CRB's) publicity campaign to raise awareness of the disclosure service and to encourage registration, the CRB held 22 seminars in nine venues throughout England and Wales. In all, over 8,000 organisations were invited to attend, including users of the existing police based arrangements. Around 4,687 delegates attended and the overall satisfaction rating was "very informative". The events proved very successful in raising awareness of the new service with over 3,557 organisations registered from the start. The total cost of this campaign was £694,000. It was during the registration seminars that many organisations with significant stature and strong relevance to the CRB voiced their concerns over the proposed telephone only application channel. The CRB did not carry out a formal paper consultation exercise on this matter.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) pursuant to his statement of 27 February,Official Report, columns 32–36WS, on the Criminal Records Bureau, what estimate he has made of (a) lost revenue and (b) profit to the CRB following indefinite postponement of basic disclosures; [101036]

  (2) pursuant to his statement of 27 February 2003, Official Report, columns 32–36WS, on the Criminal Records Bureau, what estimate he has made of the likely increase in insurance premium increase on registered bodies following recommendation 2 of the Carter Inquiry. [101030]

  Hilary Benn
  Under Her Majesty's Treasury rules the fee level for basic disclosures would have been set at a level to ensure full cost recovery but no surplus. Consequently, this will have no financial effect on the Criminal Records Bureau. The estimate of cost and income for basic disclosures is as follows:

  Financial Year 2003–04: £8.3 million

  Financial Year 2004–05: £36.4 million

  Financial Year 2005–06: £54.6 million

  307W
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what his estimate is of the charge made by Capita for Criminal Records Bureau checks calculated as the charge per disclosure processed when all 1,284,891 applications made so far have been processed, shown as(a) actual charge and (b) theoretical charge before penalty clause terms invoked: [101136]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 7 February, Official Report, column 475W, on the Criminal Records Bureau, whether the payment of £15,737,7'71.87 to Capita for Criminal Records Bureau checks represents full and final payment for the disclosures processed so far; and what the full payment made to Capita for work on Criminal Records Bureau checks would have been if penalty clauses had not been invoked. [101135]

  Hilary Benn
  Details of the charges made by Capita for Criminal Records Bureau I CRB) checks are commercially sensitive and as such I am unable to divulge this information.

  Payments have been made in line with the terms of the contract with deduction of liquefied damages for delay and failure to meet service standards.

  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will implement the recommendations of the Carter report into the Criminal Records Bureau in Liverpool. [101431]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 7 March 2003]The Independent Review Team's recommendations will be implemented as soon as practicable. Some can be implemented faster than others. Work has already begun on a pilot to examine the costs and feasibility of placing flags on the Police National Computer and in developing an electronic application channel. We expect to establish the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) as a separate agency later this year.

  Feltham Young Offenders Institution
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Commission for Racial Equality's report into Feltham Young Offenders Institution will be published. [101730]

  Hilary Benn
  Her Majesty's Young Offenders Institution Feltham was one of three establishments examined by the Commission for Racial Equality during its formal investigation into the Prison Service. I am advised by the Commission that they intend to publish a report on the formal investigation into the Prison Service as soon as practicable.

  Prisons
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of facilities for prisoners at Ashfield prison; and if he will make a statement. [101432]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 10 March 2003]Since the Prison Service issued a rectification notice to the contractor (Premier Prison Service) on 10 January 2003, service delivery improvements and progress on compliance with the contract have been achieved.
  308W
  The delivery of purposeful activity against the contractual requirement of 35 hours per week per trainee is on an upward trend, and close to contract compliance. During February 2003, each trainee received on average 34.56 hours of purposeful activity. A standards audit took place in February 2003, and the establishment was rated as 'acceptable' for both standards and security, with health services, public protection, safer establishments, segregation unit and incentives and earned privileges all rated as good.

  However, there are still concerns about provision in a number of areas. Including the level of assaults, the incidence of self harm, and the use of force in handling incidents.

  Ashfield will continue to be closely monitored, and the Rectification Notice will not be lifted until the establishment is safe, and offering appropriate facilities to the young people held there. The long-term future of Ashfield remains uncertain. Unless these improvements are built on and sustained, the Prison service will consider re-tendering the contract, or bringing Ashfield into the public sector.

  Work Permits
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when Work Permits UK were consulted by the Northern Ireland Department of Employment and Learning regarding work permit applications in respect of pole dancers; whether Work Permits UK make a distinction between applications for(a) pole dancers and (b) lap dancers; and whether an application for pole dancers should be treated on the basis of an entertainment application. [102432]

  Beverley Hughes
  Work Permits (UK) was not consulted by the Department of Education and Learning on the issue of permits for pole dancers. Work Permits (UK) does not issue work permits for overseas nationals to work as pole dancers.

  All work permit applications are assessed on a case-by-case basis against the work permit criteria. In order to qualify for a work permit under the business and commercial arrangements the job is expected to require an individual to have either a UK equivalent degree level qualification, a Higher National Diploma (HND) level qualification which is relevant to the post on offer, a HMD level qualification, which is not relevant to the post on offer plus one year of relevant work experience or three years experience of using specialist skills acquired through doing the type of job for which the permit is sought. This should be at National/Scottish Vocational Qualification level 3 or above.

  In order to qualify for work permit under the arrangements for entertainers the individual must have performed at the highest level and have established a reputation in their profession or be engaged to perform or do work which only they can do.

  An application for a pole dancer or lap dancer would not qualify under either of the above categories, and would be refused on the grounds that the skills criteria had not been met.
  309W
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether work permits can be issued to individuals who have entered the UK illegally. [102466]

  Beverley Hughes
  Illegal immigrants cannot apply for work permits, and it is an offence knowingly to employ an illegal entrant to the United Kingdom. Where an employer applies for a work permit for an overseas national who is already in the United Kingdom, Work Permits (UK) will first consider whether the application meets the criteria of the work permit arrangements before considering whether, under the Immigration Rules, the overseas national may be granted leave to remain for the purpose of work permit employment. Under the Immigration Rules, only those who were admitted to the United Kingdom as a work permit holder, as a student or student nurse or as a postgraduate doctor or dentist may be granted an extension of stay for the purpose of work permit employment. Granting such leave in any other circumstance can only be considered on a discretionary basis. Such discretion will not normally be exercised where the overseas national has had an adverse Immigration history.

  Young Prisoners
  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to ensure that social services are fulfilling their responsibilities for looking after children who go into prison. [100283]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 3 March 2003]:]I have been asked to reply.

  Councils with social services responsibilities have a duty, under the Children Act 1989, to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in their area. This includes children who are in prison service establishments, subject to the requirements of their imprisonment.

  The Department of Health is currently working with the Home Office, the Prison Service, the Youth Justice Board and the Association of Directors of Social Services to consider the implications of Justice Munby's judgment in the recent judicial review brought by the Howard League and Recommendation 2.8 of the Joint Chief Inspectors' report "Safeguarding Children". I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, Home Department on 5 March 2003, Official Report, columns 1104–05W. This consideration will include the possible need for further guidance.

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

  Public Appointments
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Minister for Women if she will list the initiatives she has organised in each of the last three years to attract more women into public appointments and their cost; and if she will make a statement. [99035]

  Ms Hewitt
  During 2000–02 we introduced two electronic databases, the first to create a pool of good quality potential applicants, focusing particularly on 310W
  women, members of ethnic minority groups and those with disabilities, and the second to allow more effective monitoring of those currently holding appointments. The total cost of the system, of which the databases form a part, was £600,000.

  All DTI Directorates were required to draw up and maintain equal opportunities plans for their public bodies spelling out how they intended to achieve their overall goals. We also evaluated all appointments procedures that produced good results in terms of equal opportunities to identify best practice and disseminated the results to other appointments teams. No additional costs were incurred.

  During 2002, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), I led a National Outreach Programme to increase the numbers of women applying for public appointments. The cost was £575,551 (excluding VAT).

  On 11 December 2002 we launched a practical informative guide to help more women find out about public appointments, and encourage more women to apply for them. The cost of this was £4 a pack. Approximately 2,600 packs have been distributed.

  During 2002 we actively sought women candidates for appointment to the Boards of the Regional Development Agencies. Members of the appointments team took part in the National Outreach Programme and the Regional Offices issued promotional material specifically directed at women candidates. The cost of this was approximately £5,000.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Education (Deprived Areas)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to improve educational standards in deprived areas of Northern Ireland. [101446]

  Jane Kennedy
  It is my objective that all children, irrespective of their backgrounds and circumstances, have the best possible opportunity to achieve their full potential and are properly prepared for the transition to adult life. The Department's new Targeting Social Need action plan contains a wide range of actions and targets aimed at tackling low educational achievement, low personal and social skills and poor employability among disadvantaged children and young people.

  Decommissioning
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress of the decommissioning of arms held by the IRA. [101448]

  Jane Kennedy
  To date the Provisional IRA has been involved in two acts of decommissioning. The arms and material in question have been dealt with in accordance with the decommissioning scheme and regulations.

  However, it is regrettable that PIRA, the Ulster Volunteer Force and the Red Hand Commando have all suspended contact with the IICD. I would urge all

  311W
  paramilitary organisations to re-engage with the Commission, as it is imperative that both republican and loyalist organisations complete the transition to exclusively peaceful means, real, total and permanent.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the extent of verifiable decommissioning of unlawfully held weaponry. [101449]

  Jane Kennedy
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton).

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the state of IRA decommissioning. [101452]

  Jane Kennedy
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant).

  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the quantities of illegally held(a) weapons and (b) explosives that have been decommissioned under the Good Friday Agreement. [101447]

  Jane Kennedy
  On 18 December 1998 the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning reported that a quantity of arms belonging to the LVF were decommissioned.

  On 23 October 2001 they reported that they had witnessed an event that they regarded as significant in which the Provisional IRA had put a quantity of arms completely beyond use. The material included arms, ammunition and explosives.

  On 8 April 2002 the IICD reported the Provisional IRA had put a varied and substantial quantity of ammunition, arms and explosive rnaterial beyond use. An inventory of the arms will be provided to the British and Irish Governments when the Commission's task is completed.

  The arms and material in question have been dealt with in accordance with the decommissioning scheme and regulations. It is imperative that both republican and loyalist organisations complete the transition to exclusively peaceful means, real, total and permanent.

  Devolved Institutions
  Mr. Bailey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his most recent discussions in respect of the restoration of devolution in Northern Ireland. [101450]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave today to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael).

  Sports Funding
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many individuals in Northern Ireland are in receipt of funding to help them prepare for the next two Olympic Games. [101451]
  312W
  Angela Smith
  Eighteen athletes are in receipt of funding that will assist in their preparation for the Olympic Games in 2004. These are:

  Athletics:3

  Equestrian: 2

  Swimming: 2

  Ladies hockey: 11

  Figures are not available in respect of the 2008 Olympic Games.

  Peace Process
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress towards acts of completion. [101453]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave today to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael).

  Blue Card Emergency Payments
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the average waiting time for assessment and treatment of blue card emergency patients was in Northern Ireland in the last year for which figures are available. [102311]

  Mr. Browne
  All Blue Card emergency patients have already been assessed within the Neurosurgery specialty. The Blue Card system is a method of prioritising the most urgent Neurosurgery patients. Figures are not available for the length of time between assessment and treatment. Patients on the Blue Card list are treated as soon as a bed becomes available.

  At the end of December 2002 there were 302 persons waiting for their first outpatient appointment the Neurosurgery specialty. More than half of all persons waiting for their first outpatient appointment had been waiting less than three months.

  The number of persons waiting in the Neurosurgery specialty for inpatient admission was 733. More than half of these were waiting in excess of 18 months.

  Departmental Annual Report
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much producing his Department's latest annual report cost; how many copies were printed; how many copies of it were sold at its cover price; to whom copies of the report have been provided free of charge; and how many copies were provided free of charge. [100817]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Northern Ireland Office Departmental Report 2002 was produced by The Stationery Office (TSO). Costs of printing and publication are met directly by TSO and do not fall to Government. My Department was invoiced only for the 200 copies it requested.

  600 copies were printed and TSO's records show that 382 copies have been sold at its cover price of £25.
  313W
  Copies of the Report were provided free of charge to 156 interested parties. A table of those interested parties follows.

  Distribution of the NIO departmental report 2002

  Recipient

  Number of copies

  Secretary of State, Ministers, Senior NIO Officials

  18

  Heads of NIO Agencies and Legal Offices

  5

  Parliament House of Commons Library

  12

  NIO Information Offices Belfast and London

  9

  HM Treasury

  3

  First Minister, Deputy First Minister, NI Assembly and OFM/DFM

  25

  Scottish and Welsh Offices

  2

  Head of NICS &NI Permanent Secretaries

  11

  NI MP's

  18

  Other interested MP's

  3

  1MEP

  1

  Members of the House of Lords with an interest in NI

  25

  Treasury Select Committee

  14

  NI Select Committee

  14

  TOTAL

  156

  In the Northern Ireland Administration five departments to date have produced Annual Reports or Annual Report and Accounts for the financial year 2001–02. Details of the cost of producing these reports could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. A total of 4,050 copies have been printed, of which 656 have been sold at their cover price and approximately 2,000 copies have been provided free of charge to a range of bodies.

  Neurosurgery
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many nurses have been recruited to work in neurosurgery in Northern Ireland in each year since 1997. [102305]

  (a)-(d) Number of patients from Northern Ireland referred for treatment outside Northern Ireland, between 2000–01 and March 2003

  Year

  Republic of Ireland

  Scotland

  England

  Wales

  GB(if regional Republic of breakdown not available)

  Total

  2000–01

  125

  140

  822

  1

  143

  1,231

  2001–02

  29

  211

  873

  0

  21

  1,134

  2002-March 2003

  186

  101

  791

  0

  27

  1,105

  Notes

  1. Data shown includes extra contractual referrals, out of area treatments and transfers as part of waiting list initiatives.

  2. Northern Health and Social Services Board were unable to provide out of area treatment figures for 2001-02 or 2002-03 to date, as the UK NHS providers have not given details of NHSSB patients treated under out of area treatments since 2000–01.

  3. Western Health and Social Services Board provided data on extra contractual referrals and transfers due to waiting list initiatives for all years, however they were unable to provide out of area treatment figures for 2001–02 and 2002–03 to date.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Welsh Language
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much the Government provided to support the production of television programmes in the Welsh language in(a) 1997 and (b) 2002. [100992]
  314W
  Mr. Browne
  The Royal Group of Hospitals HSS Trust is the only trust in Northern Ireland that employs nurses to work in neurosurgery. The figures are detailed in the table:

  Number of nurses (including bank1 staff) recruited to work in neurosurgery in Northern Ireland between 1997 and 2002

  Year

  Non-bank/headcount

  Non-bank WTE2

  Bank headcount

  1997

  4

  2.86

  3

  1998

  2

  2.00

  0

  1999

  1

  0.64

  2

  2000

  5

  4.84

  5

  2001

  7

  6.36

  1

  2002

  5

  4.25

  1

  1 Bank staff cover for staffing shortfalls and fluctuating work loads in order to maintain service delivery

  2 Whole time equivalent

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the waiting list for neurosurgery is at the Royal Victoria Hospital Belfast. [102314]

  Mr. Browne
  The latest figures available (end of December 2002) indicate that there are 733 in-patients awaiting admission in the neurosurgery specialty. A further 302 out-patients are waiting for a first appointment.

  Treatment Referrals
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people from Northern Ireland have been referred for treatment in hospital in(a) the Irish Republic, (b) Scotland, (c) England and (d) Wales in each year since 1997. [102306]

  Mr. Browne
  Details of the number of people from Northern Ireland who have been referred for treatment in hospitals in the Irish Republic, Scotland, England and Wales in each year since 2000–01 are given in the following table. Data before 2000–01 could not be obtained from all Health Boards.

  Dr. Howells
  The Welsh Fourth Channel Authority, S4C, received grant in aid of £72.223 million in 1997 and £81.468 million in 2002, under its statutory funding formula. Under the provisions of the Broadcasting Act 1990 the authority also receives programmes provided by the BBC free of charge. These were valued at £16.7 million in the financial year 1997–98 and £16.4 million in 2001–02.

  Administrative Costs
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the 'administrative costs were for the(a) Designated Museums Challenge Fund grants, (b) Wolfson Public Libraries Fund grants and (c) Spaces for Sport and Art grants in the last financial year. [101481]

  Dr. Howells
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 3 December 2002, Official Report, columns 782–83W, which stated that the administration of the specified grant programmes is carried out by a number of different units within the department and relevant NDPBs, to which a range of staff make a contribution. It is not possible to provide an accurate estimate of these costs centrally.

  Deaf People (Television Programmes)
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the Government's policy on promoting television programmes for the deaf; and how much money the Government gave to support television programmes for(a) deaf people and (b) people with a disability in each year since 1997. [100623]

  Dr.Howells
  [holding answer 4 March 2003]The Government have not provided funding to support television programmes for disabled people. The Government's role is to set the legislative framework within which subtitling and other services for people with disabilities can be provided.

  The Broadcasting Act 1996 requires the ITC to draw up a code promoting the understanding and enjoyment of programmes by viewers who are deaf or hard of hearing and blind or partially sighted. The Act also set targets for subtitling, signing and audio description services on digital terrestrial television (DTT).

  The Communications Bill will transfer the ITC's responsibilities to the new regulator, Ofcom, and will extend the requirements on DTT services to digital cable and digital satellite services.

  Departmental Telephone Directory
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when the most recent internal telephone directory for the Department was published; how often it is updated; and if she will place a copy in the Library. [102026]

  Dr. Howells
  The internal telephone directory in DCMS was last updated on 6 March 2003. The directory will be updated whenever there are changes that need to be recorded and is usually updated daily. A copy of the directory from 6 March 2003 has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Film Industry
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on Government support for the UK film industry since 1997. [101641]
  316W
  Dr.Howells
  Following the film policy review in 1998, my Department established the Film Council in April 2000 as the Government's strategic lead body. The creation of the Film Council brought together, for the first time, responsibility for the film industry, film culture and education.

  The Film Council uses grant-in-aid and money from the national lottery to support film-making and development, training, education and film culture. Film production is also supported by tax relief for British qualifying films under section 48 of the Finance (No 2) Act, which was introduced in 1997.

  My Department also sponsors the National Film and Television School, which is a leading international centre for professional training in the film and television industries.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Administrative Costs
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the administrative costs were of the(a) Social Science Research Fund, (b) Financial Deepening Challenge Fund, (c) Development Awareness Fund, (d) Education Research Programme, (e) Asia Regional Poverty Fund, (f) Tourism Challenge Fund, (g) Civil Society Challenge Fund, (h) Renewable Natural Resources Knowledge Strategy Fund,(i) Engineering Knowledge and Research Programme,(j) Business Linkage Challenge Fund and (k) Enterprise Development Innovation Fund in the last financial year. [101477]

  Clare Short
  DFID's expenditure on administration costs in 2002–03 is projected to be £101.8 million or 4 per cent. of the departmental budget. All the interventions listed are administered by DFID effectively and cost-effectively.

  Conservation Group
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when she intends to hold the next meeting of the Inter-Departmental Consultative Group on Conservation. [101323]

  Mr. Morley
  I have been asked to reply.

  There is no formally constituted group with this title but officials of all the relevant Government Departments are in very regular contact on a wide range of conservation issues.

  Departmental Telephone Directory
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when the most recent internal telephone directory for the Department was published; how often it is updated; and if she will place a copy in the Library. [102028]

  Clare Short
  DFID does not produce a published copy of its internal phone directory. The information is now held electronically on our internal systems.
  317W
  For general information on contact points within DFID you will find details of our Public Enquiry Point (which is the initial contact point for information on the work of the Department), plus an organisational diagram and list of DFID offices outside the UK on the "Contact Us" link on the homepage of DFID's website (www.dfid.gov.uk).

  Iraq
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will allocate financial resources to limit the effect on Iraqi civilians of the use by Iraq of(a) chemical and (b) biological weapons in the event of war. [101913]

  Clare Short
  The risk that Iraqi forces may deploy chemical or biological weapons is a very grave one. Advice from the Department of Health and Ministry of Defence is that, given the unpredictable range of weapons that Saddam might use, only sophisticated protective suits and training would provide adequate protection to the threat. It is not possible for my Department to provide this training and protection to large numbers of Iraqi people.

  In terms of response to any use of chemical or biological weapons, only highly skilled and well-equipped parts of the military or specialised agencies, who have been trained for such environments and on the use of protective suits, would have the capacity to operate. My Department is in continuing discussions with the Ministry of Defence about the provision of humanitarian response under a range of eventualities. DFID has a contingency reserve on which we are ready to draw for any emergency situation in Iraq.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps her Department is taking to maintain food security in Iraq during any military action taken by the UK and allies. [101919]

  Clare Short
  60 per cent. of the Iraqi people are totally dependent on the UN Oil For Food Programme for essential supplies, including food. We are working to try to minimise the impact of any military action on this programme and, in the event of disruption to it, to helping re-establishing it as quickly as possible. We are also drawing up contingency plans to support the provision of relief by those best placed to do so, to cover any period during which the programme would not be able to function. We have so far committed £10 million to support contingency planning by UN agencies and NGOs, which includes some prepositioning of supplies. There might be a phase when only military forces are fully able to operate in Iraq and thus would have primary responsibility for the initial delivery of humanitarian relief. My Department has been advising the Ministry of Defence on these issues for some time.

  Sudan
  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much aid the UK has given to Sudan in the last 12 months. [101588]

  Clare Short
  The UK has pledged £14 million of aid and development assistance to Sudan in the last 12 months.

PRIME MINISTER

  Iraq
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps the Government has taken to implement UN Resolution 57/232 to provide for human rights monitors in Iraq. [101405]

  The Prime Minister
  The UK helped to draft and sponsored this resolution, which condemns the appalling human rights situation in Iraq. Together with international partners, the UK takes every opportunity to raise the human rights situation in Iraq. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office's report on Iraq's human rights violations, published on 2 December 2002, exposes the sheer brutality of the Iraqi regime.

  The Iraqi Government has refused to allow human rights monitors to be stationed in Iraq. For the 10 years prior to February 2002 it would not even allow the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights access to Iraq.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with President Bush on the means by which it is intended to ascertain whether, in the event of war with Iraq, all weapons of mass destruction on Iraqi soil at the start of the conflict have been destroyed or captured intact; and if he will make a statement. [102528]

  The Prime Minister
  The primary objective of UNSCR 1441 is the disarmament of Iraq. No decision has been taken to launch military action against Iraq.

  I regularly discuss all aspects of Iraq policy with other Governments, including the US Government. These discussions have included the issue of the continuation of the disarmament of Iraq.

  Laptop Computers
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Prime Minister how many laptop computers were used by(a) Ministers and special advisers and (b) officials in his office in each year since 1995; how many were (i) lost and (ii) stolen; what their cost was; and if he will make a statement. [98703]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office on 11 March 2003.

  Saudi Arabia
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent representations he has made to the Saudi Government on behalf of the British citizens imprisoned in Saudi Arabia for alleged terrorist offences; whether he has sought the support of the United States Government on this matter; and what response he has received from the Saudi Government. [101406]

  The Prime Minister
  I have raised the cases of the British men detained in Saudi Arabia at the highest levels with the Saudi authorities. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and other ministerial colleagues have also raised these cases. The men's welfare is our paramount concern. We continue to work hard to resolve the cases and are in close contact with the Saudi authorities and the men's lawyers.

  United States
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister when he last discussed with President Bush the impact of the US administration's policies on(a) trade, (b) agriculture and (c) drug prices, on Third World countries; and what response he received. [101409]

  The Prime Minister
  Both I and my Cabinet colleagues are engaged in a continuing dialogue with President Bush and the US Administration on a wide range of topics. The UK and the US are aiming for a WTO Round focused on increasing trade access, for developing as well as developed countries, in goods, services and particularly agriculture. Both Governments are also engaged in discussions in the WTO, G8 and other forums to ensure increased access to medicines, including lower and sustainable drug prices, for the developing world.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  High Hedges Bill
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the Government's policy is on the High Hedges Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound). [97652]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Government are committed to a legislative solution to the widespread problems caused by overgrown garden hedges and welcome the High Hedges (No. 2) Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound). The Office of

  Initiative

  South West Region 2000–01

  Total annual Budget2000–01

  South West Region 2001–02

  Total annual Budget 2001–02

  South West Region 2002–03

  Total annual Budget 2002–03

  Neighbourhood Renewal Fund

  Not established

  Not established

  £4.059520 million

  £200 million

  £6.089281 million

  £300 million

  Wardens Schemes

  £0.01 million

  £1.2 million

  £0.490 million

  £7.7 million

  £1.116 million

  £19.3 million

  Neighbourhood Management Pilots

  Not established

  Not established

  £0.4 million

  £4 million

  £1.075544 million

  £11. 1 million

  New Deal For Communities

  £2.6 million

  £48.8 million

  £6.1 million

  £126 million

  £7.6 million

  £170.9 million

  Community Empowerment Fund

  Not established

  Not established

  £0.465082 million

  £12 million

  £0.465082 million

  £12 million

  Community Chest

  Not established

  Not established

  £0.313894 million

  £10 million

  £0.470842 million

  £15 million

  Community Learning Chest

  Not established

  Not established

  Not established

  Not established

  £0.125558 million

  £4 million

  Coalfields

  £0.091 million

  £43 million

  £0.089 million

  £30.8 million

  £0.995 million

  £41 million

  Single Regeneration Budget1

  £23.7 million

  £94.2 million

  £26.7 million

  £872.8 million

  £22.3

  n/a

  European Structural Fund Objective One2

  183,812 million Euro

  1,155,893 million Euro

  178,967 million Euro

  1,134,178 million Euro

  174,643 million Euro

  1,120,629 million Euro

  European Structural Fund Objective Two

  67,615 million Euro

  1,384,436 million Euro

  67,373 million Euro

  1,372,080 million Euro

  66,993 million Euro

  1, 358,323 million Euro

  1 From April 2002 the Single Regeneration Budget was incorporated into the Regional Development Agency Single Pot.

  2 The European Structural Fund Objective One and Two are budgeted on the calendar year from January to December.

  Best Value
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the costs to local government of administration of the best value system. [98405]

  Mr. Raynsford
  No reliable estimates exist of the costs incurred by local government of administering best value. Any such costs would have to be set against the benefits of improved services. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has commissioned Cardiff Business School to evaluate the long-term impact of best value in English local authorities from 2001 until 2005. The 320W
  the Deputy Prime Minister is working with my hon. Friend to try to ensure that fair and workable measures get on to the statute book.

  Affordable Housing
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) how many affordable housing units he estimates will be built in 2003–04 by(a) debt-free authorities with transitional local authority social housing class grant (LASHG) funding and (b) with-debt authorities with LASHG funding; [102309]

  (2) what information his Department has collated on the number of new affordable housing units which were due to be built with funding by local authority social housing grant in 2003–04. [102321]

  Mr. McNulty
  In my statement of 5 February 2003 I outlined transitional arrangements for local authority social housing grant (LASHG). The number of affordable homes to be built in 2003–04 from LASHG transitional funding will not be known until after 30 June 2003, which is the deadline for both with-debt and debt-free authorities to submit new schemes for 2003–04 to the Housing Corporation.

  Area-based Initiatives
  Matthew Green
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list area based initiatives operating in the South West Region, and the(a) annual budget and (b) regional budget for each in each year since 2000. [99400]

  Mrs. Roche
  The table provides details of area-based initiatives in the region that are the responsibility of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

  results arising from the first year's census of local authorities reveal that best value is seen as a positive force for change in local government.

  Compulsory Purchase
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what measures he plans to take to increase the use of compulsory purchase orders in respect of empty properties. [97751]

  Mr. McNulty
  The use of compulsory purchase orders in respect of empty properties is a matter for local authorities to determine.
  321W
  As announced by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister in "Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future", the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will be consulting on proposals that would provide local authorities with the alternative option of taking on the temporary management of some empty homes.

  Decent Home Standards
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his estimate is of the cost to local authorities if the Decent Home Standards in operation in England adopted a minimum standard of loft insulation of 200mm. [97576]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister estimates that it would cost between£500 and£600 million (at 2001 prices) to provide 200 mm loft insulation for all council homes with less than 200 mm loft insulation. The data for this estimate are taken from the 2001 English House Condition Survey.

  Domestic Violence
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what measures registered social landlords are taking to tackle domestic violence. [97761]

  Mr. McNulty
  Registered social landlords can apply for Housing Corporation funding to provide housing for people fleeing domestic violence. Bids for funds must meet local and regional priorities for housing. Revenue support for these schemes is currently available from the supported housing management grant administered by the Housing Corporation. From April 2003 this becomes part of the Supporting People budget administered by local authorities.

  Both local authorities and registered social landlords are encouraged in the Relationship Breakdown Guidance* to have clauses against domestic violence in their tenancy agreements. Increased safety measures and effective multi-agency working with the police are suggested as alternatives. Where a victim of domestic violence is a tenant of a local authority or registered social landlord it is possible for that person to be transferred to alternative accommodation via a management transfer, although there may be issues of tenancy rights to resolve. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is keen to improve the opportunities for mobility for all social tenants, particularly from high pressure areas to those where the demand for social rented accommodation is less. People who experience domestic violence could benefit from the opportunities for mobility for all social tenants.

  * DETR (now ODPM), Cabinet Office and Department of Health: "Relationship Breakdown: A Guide for Social Landlords", May 1999.

  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what information on the number of refuges for survivors of domestic violence that have been taken into direct management by registered social landlords was collected in his Supporting People mapping exercise. [97846]

  Mr. McNulty
  This information was not collected by the Supporting People supply mapping exercise.
  322W
  The supply mapping did show that in December 2002 there were 82 refuges where the support provider was a registered social landlord. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not have any earlier information about the numbers of refuges where the support provider was a registered social landlord with which to determine whether these arrangements have become more common.

  Housing
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to extend the programme of new house building planned for the south-east to other areas of the UK where social housing is scarce and in high demand. [97640]

  Mr. McNulty
  All regions will benefit from increased resources for affordable housing. From 2004–05 these resources will be put together with housing investment programme funding to form single regional housing pots. The precise split of resources in each region between affordable housing and other local authority housing investment for 2004–05 and 2005–06 will be made in the light of recommendations from the new regional housing boards.

  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he commissioned Roger Tym and Partners to carry out a study of the Milton Keynes and South Midlands. [97964]

  Mr. McNulty
  Roger Tym and Partners were commissioned to carry out a study of the Milton Keynes and South Midlands area in July 2001, after public tender.

  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what meetings he has had with(a) the Government Office for the East Midlands, (b) the East Midlands Regional Assembly, (c) the East Midlands Region Local Government Association, (d) Northamptonshire County Council, (e) Kettering Borough Council, (f) hon. Members from Northamptonshire, (g) Daventry District Council and (h) the East Midlands Regional Development Agency to discuss Sustainable Communities in the East Midlands; and who (i) was invited and (ii) attended. [98047]

  Mr. McNulty
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister met Mr. Derek Mapp, Chairman of East Midlands Development Agency, and Mr. Mick Young, Chairman of the East Midlands Regional Assembly and Leader of Northamptonshire County Council, on 16 January 2003 in Milton Keynes, in advance of the publication of "Sustainable Communities, Building For the Future". Also present were the Leaders of Bedfordshire County and Milton Keynes Unitary Authorities, the Chair of the South East of England Development Agency, the Chief Executive of the Housing Corporation and the Chair of English Partnerships.

  In addition, my right hon. Friend Lord Rooker met a group of members and officers of the regional planning bodies for the East Midlands, East of England and South East on 10 October 2002, shortly after the publication of the advisory report "Milton Keynes and South Midlands Study".
  323W
  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he expects to receive a report from the Shadow Regional Housing Body on housing priorities for the East Midlands; what the status is of the Shadow Regional Housing Body; which organisations and individuals are represented on the Shadow Regional Housing Body; and what public consultation will be undertaken by the Shadow Regional Housing Body prior to the formulation of the Regional Housing Strategy. [97962]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Regional Housing Board has been set up in response to the "Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future" report published on 5 February, and it will submit a n outline Housing Strategy to Ministers, including recommendations on housing allocations for 2004–05 and 2005–6, by the end of July 2003. The Regional Housing Board is currently made up of the Regional Director of the Government Office East Midlands, and senior representatives from the Housing Corporation, East Midlands Development Agency, Regional Assembly and English Partnerships in accordance with the "Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future" report. The Regional Housing Board will consult the Regional Assembly's Housing Reference Group on draft issues and priorities before preparing the outline Housing Strategy. This will be followed by an opportunity for written representations.

  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he appointed the Centre for Urban and Regional Studies at Birmingham University to undertake a study of housing demand and supply in the Milton Keynes and South Midlands area; what the timescale is for this study; and which local authorities and other bodies will be consulted as part of the study. [97963]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Centre for Urban and Regional Studies (CURS) was not appointed by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, but by the East Midlands (Shadow) Regional Housing Board on 19 December 2002. CURS were selected following a formal tender process, to produce a source material report for the East Midlands Regional Housing Strategy by 28 March 2003, which will cover the whole region. CURS are using a wider range of reference material to produce the report including Local Authority Housing Strategies, and are consulting the Government Office for the East Midlands, Housing Corporation and East Midlands Development Agency. In addition, before completing the report, CURS will meet with the East Midlands Regional Housing Strategy sub-groups, which include Local Authority representation, and talk to the Regional Assembly's Housing Task Group.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the cost of bringing housing in(a) Pendle and (b) Burnley up to standard. [96596]

  Mr. McNulty
  Pendle reported in their 2001–02 Housing Revenue Account Business Plans that they need to spend about £5.5 million on outstanding capital works to their 3,942 council dwellings (including renovation, demolition and conversion). This includes about £1 million needed to make all their currently non-decent dwellings decent. In addition there may be works arising in the future that also need to be undertaken.
  324W
  Burnley transferred all their 5,330 council dwellings in March 2000 to a Registered Social Landlord (RSL). At that time they planned to spend about £22 million on their stock over 30 years for improvement and maintenance.

  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what consultation was undertaken with(a) representatives of local authorities and (b) the 42 local authorities named in the announcement to recent changes to the right to buy scheme. [97808]

  Mr. McNulty
  No consultation was undertaken. The data used to identify the 42 local authorities named in the announcement on 22 January were obtained from statistical surveys of local authority housing departments routinely conducted by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, and from the Land Registry:

  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his policy is on whether there should be one tenancy for all housing groups, the terms of which should comply with the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations. [97802]

  Mr. McNulty
  In March 2001 the then Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions asked the Law Commission to undertake a review of housing tenure law. The Commission are looking at the possibility of a single form of tenure for the social housing sector and in recognising the importance of the review, they have considered compliance with the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations.

  The Law Commission is due to make their recommendations on this issue in the summer of 2003 and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will then consider how to take forward the Commission's recommendations and the results of their consultations.

  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 4 February 2003,Official Report, column 234W, under what criteria the pressure on local housing markets was measured in the local authority areas mentioned by him in his statement of 22 January. [97809]

  Mr. McNulty
  The 42 areas listed in the Deputy Prime Minister's statement of 22 January are those that appear to be under the greatest housing market pressure, as evidenced by a high incidence of homelessness and high local house prices. The sources of the homelessness data were statistical surveys of local authority housing departments, routinely conducted by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister:"2001/02 Housing Investment Programme Housing Strategy Statistical Appendix"
  "Quarterly Housing Activity Return (PIE)".

  The data are available on the website of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, at http://www.housing. odpm.gov.uk/local/hipoi/index. htm.

  House price data were obtained from the Land Registry.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will issue guidance to rural authorities about council tax relief for service personnel on duty in Afghanistan and the Gulf. [101740]
  325W
  Mr. Leslie
  Service personnel are liable for council tax in the same way as any other person who works abroad and who has the intention of returning to their home. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has no plans to issue any guidance to local authorities concerning service personnel and council tax liability.

  Logos
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what measures his Department(a) has put in place and (b) plans to put in place to stop (i) forgeries and (ii) breach of copyright of logos of local authorities on proofs of identity. [101752]

  Mr. Leslie
  Within the statutory framework for copyright, design and patents, protection of copyright of local authority logos is a matter for local authorities themselves.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many cases of(a) misuse, (b) forgery and (c) breach of copyright of logos of local authorities on proofs of identity have (i) occurred and (ii) been successfully prosecuted in the last three years. [101753]

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

  Parish Councils
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the difference in guidance between England and Wales issued in connection with the Parish Council Code of Conduct. [102125]

  Mr. Leslie
  Guidance to parish councils in England in connection with the code of conduct laid before Parliament in November 2001 by the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, has been issued by the Standards Board for England. Responsibility for guidance to community councils in Wales in connection with the code issued by the National Assembly for Wales in July 2001 rests with the Commission for Local Administration in Wales.

  Private Housing (Improvement Loans)
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what measures he plans to take to enable all local authorities to offer loans for private sector housing improvements. [97752]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Regulatory Reform (Housing Assistance)(England and Wales) Order 2002 gave local authorities new powers to provide a wide range of assistance for private sector housing improvements, including loans. Before using this new power authorities are required to adopt and publish a policy setting out how they intend to use the powers.

  Local authorities currently spend about£300 million per annum on private sector housing renewal. The Sustainable Communities Plan announced that we have made available an extra £30 million in both 2004–05 and 2005–06 to help authorities support new ways to fund repairs and improvements to the homes of low income/ vulnerable homeowners/tenants. This will form
  326W
  part of the single regional housing pot. A further announcement will be made shortly about the detailed allocation procedures for this additional funding.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many PSA targets there are for Sedgmoor District Council. [98308]

  Mr. Raynsford
  There are no Local PSA targets directly negotiated with Sedgmoor District Council. However, Sedgmoor District Council, with the four other District Councils in Somerset, are involved in the negotiations currently taking place between the Government and Somerset County Council on their Local PSA.

  Regional Assemblies
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to register English regional assemblies as limited companies. [102342]

  Mr. Raynsford
  None. Elected regional assemblies in England will be established as bodies corporate by the legislation the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will bring forward after at least one region has voted in a referendum to have one. They will have power to form companies for the purposes of carrying out their functions if they see fit to do so.

  Many of the existing regional chambers (who now all style themselves assemblies) are already or are considering registering as limited companies.

  Regional Government
  Matthew Green
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what Government funding each regional chamber has been granted in each financial year since 2000–01. [98483]

  Mr. Raynsford
  No funding was given in 2000–01. The Government announced in March 2001 that it would make £15 million available over the following three years for Regional Chambers funding. In 2001–02, each of the eight Regional Chambers was given a budget of £500,000 to draw down, to enable them to fulfil their role scrutinising Regional Development Agencies and for other regional co-ordination and strategic development work. A further £1 million was assigned to the English Regions Network, the umbrella organisation for the Chambers, to fund projects of general interest. In 2002–03, the amount available to each Chamber was increased to £600,000 with the ERN allocation reduced accordingly. This will be repeated in 2003–04. The grant to the Chambers and to ERN is made on the basis of an agreed business plan.

  Regional Planning Guidance
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he expects to make an announcement on the regional planning guidance for the North West; and if he will make a statement. [97654]

  Mr. McNulty
  It is anticipated that an announcement concerning the publication of Regional Planning Guidance for the North West (RPG13) will be made in March 2003.

  Social Housing
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the effect of rent restructuring on tenants' rents in social and supported housing in inner city wards, where there has been high house price inflation. [97671]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not collect social housing rents data at ward level. Therefore no such assessment has been made. However, at a national average level, local authority and housing association rents are expected to go up over the 10 year rent restructuring period much more slowly than over the preceding 10 years. 30 per cent. of the Government's national rents formula is based on January 1999 relative property values, with the remaining 70 per cent. taking account of local earnings for affordability. The formula rent is therefore not affected by house price inflation since January 1999. In addition, absolute caps on formula rents, and limits on individual rent rises were introduced in autumn 2001 to address the concerns that formula rents would otherwise cause affordability problems for a small number of tenants. The housing benefit system forms an additional safeguard for those on the lowest incomes.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many properties were built with funding from local authority social housing grant (LASHG) in each Government office region in each year since 1996–97; how many new properties were built with LASHG funding in each local authority in London in each year since 1996–97; and what each London local authority spent on LASHG in each year since 1996–97. [102320]

  Mr. McNulty
  Information about properties built with funding from Local Authority Social Housing Grant since 1996–97 by region and in each local authority in London is being collated. I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of the letter in the Library of the House.

  Standards Board
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many complaints have been received by the Standards Board for England since May 2002; and of these, how many(a) have so far proceeded to investigation stage, (b) were up held and (c) are outstanding. [96848]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Between May 2002 and December 2002 (the latest date for which full figures are available) the Standards Board for England received 1,985 allegations of councillor misconduct.

  Of those 1,985 allegations, (a) 695 were referred for investigation; (b) 41 have led to a referral to the Adjudication Panel for England; (c) 160 are awaiting consideration by the Standards Board as to whether to refer the case for investigation and 506 are under investigation.

  1 On 16 January the Adjudication Panel heard the first case referred by an Ethical Standards Officer. The Panel concluded that the code had been breached, and the Councillor concerned was suspended for one year from being a member of his authority.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the average length has been of an investigation by the Standards Board for England since 2002. [96849]
  328W
  Mr. Raynsford
  The average length of an investigation completed by the Standards Board during 2002 to the present date, from referral of an allegation from the board to ESO final finding, is four months.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the budget is for the Standards Board for England in 2002–03; and what the average cost is of an investigation by the Standards Board for England. [96850]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Standards Board for England's budget for 2002–03, as set out in the Board's Corporate Plan (which is available in the Library of the House) is £7.9 million.

  A figure for the average cost of an investigation is not yet available.

  Starter Home Initiative
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many(a) teachers, (b) police officers, (c) nurses and health workers and (d) others have been assisted through the Starter Home Initiative in each (i) local authority area and (ii) Government office of the region it operates in each year of the initiative. [97805]

  Mr. McNulty
  As at 31 January 2003, some 2,000 key workers had purchased with Starter Home Initiative assistance homes that otherwise they would have been unable to afford. The information has been placed in the Library.

  Supporting People Scheme
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what measures he is taking to ensure children's support services in refuges are retained under the Supporting People initiative. [97748]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Supporting People programme will continue to pay for services that are currently paid for from the legacy funding streams that will go into the Supporting People pot. Children's services are not currently funded in this way, and Supporting People Grant would therefore generally not be used for these services.

  Some children's services within refuges may, however, also provide housing-related support for mothers, and these services are likely to be funded under the Supporting People programme. For example, the provision of housing related support within children's services may include supporting women with parenting to ensure children settle in the refuge.

  Support which predominantly involves direct individual and group support work with children is not fundable under Supporting People. It is therefore important that clear links are established between Supporting People Strategies and local Children's Services Plans and that relevant Social Care and Health workers are aware of the support needs of children living in households vulnerable to domestic violence. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will shortly be issuing guidance to local authorities on preparing their five-year strategies, and this will emphasise the importance of making these strategic links to ensuring that service users' needs are properly met.

  Sustainable Communities
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will define the term key worker as used in "Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future". [98576]

  Mr. McNulty
  For the purposes of "Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future", the Government has targeted key workers in the public sector. Wider housing policies to increase the supply of affordable homes, particularly in areas where demand is high, will benefit other key workers.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what is intended by his statement that "We will work with partners in the Tees Valley who are tackling the issue of market failure, in the implementation of the Tees Valley Housing Strategy" in the document "Sustainable Communities in the North East". [97213]

  Mr. McNulty
  The North East Communities Plan recognises the valuable work currently under way across the region addressing housing and wider community issues. Among the examples selected to give a flavour of this activity is the important work of the stakeholders in the Tees Valley sub-region to address market failure. Furthermore, the problem of market failure has been recognised as a key issue in a draft regional housing strategy, prepared by the North East Housing Forum. It is likely therefore that this will be a priority for the new North East Housing Board to address.

  The Board will address this and other housing issues through the Regional Housing Strategy which it has been tasked to submit to Ministers by July 2003. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will be looking to partners across the region, including Tees Valley, to come forward with proposals for the Board to consider.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister in what way the announcements in the document "Sustainable Communities in the North East" support housing renewal in Redcar and Cleveland. [97214]

  Mr. McNulty
  "Sustainable Communities in the North East" recognises that 20 per cent. of the housing stock in the region is at risk from low or changing patterns of demand, including Redcar and Cleveland in Teesside. One of the key announcements is the establishment of a Regional Housing Board. The North East Regional Housing Board will address the national priorities of bringing social housing into decent condition and to take action to tackle low demand. This is in line with the national priorities set out in "Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future".

  Nationally we are making available £2.8 billion to improve council housing and £500 million to tackle low demand and abandonment over the next three years. As from 2004–05 we will be bringing together the Housing Corporation's Approved Development Programme and local authority Housing Investment Programme into a new single pot for housing capital investment. The Board will advise Ministers on the allocation of this new single pot so that investment is targeted more effectively on regional and local priorities.

  The national plan also identifies tools and actions to tackle low demand more widely, including: building on existing regeneration programmes such as
  330W
  Neighbourhood Renewal Fund and New Deal for Communities; proposals to speed up compulsory purchase of land and property; increasing the minimum payments made to people whose homes are compulsorily purchased under the 'Home Loss' scheme from £1,500 to £2,600; legislating to allow local authorities to license private landlords in low demand areas; and launching a new EU approved 'Gap Funding' housing scheme to pump prime regeneration in deprived areas.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what extra resources the Department will make available in 2003–04 for housing renewal in(a) Redcar and Cleveland and (b) Teesside. [97217]

  Mr. McNulty
  The bulk of Government support for local authorities housing capital spend is provided through the Major Repairs Allowance (MRA), which is ring-fenced for use on council housing, and the housing Annual Capital Guideline (ACG). The housing ACG, which is allocated as part of the Single Capital Pot, provides support for either improvements to existing housing (council or private sector) or provision of new affordable housing.

  Redcar and Cleveland's housing ACG for 2003–04 is £2 million; the total for the five Tees Valley authorities (Redcar and Cleveland, Middlesbrough, Hartlepool, Darlington and Stockton on Tees) for 2003–04 amounts to £10.6 million. These figures are not directly comparable with allocations for 2002–03 as they no longer include an element assumed to be funded from authorities useable capital receipts. After taking account of this change, resources going to Tees Valley are estimated to have increased by 5–10 per cent.

  Redcar and Cleveland no longer receives an MRA as the council housing stock transferred to Coast and County Housing in July 2002. The 2003–04 MRA allocations for other Tees Valley authorities total £21.3 million. These are formula-based allocations that depend on the number and type of dwellings owned by the council.

  It should also be noted that the provisions of the Regulatory Reform Order on Housing Renewal, which came into force on 6 June 2002, gave local authorities much greater discretion on how they can provide assistance for housing renewal.

  Lastly, HIP resources are only a part of the resources made available by Government to tackle issues of deprivation, including housing. Most notably £35.3 million is available to Tees Valley authorities under the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund (including £7.8 million for Redcar and Cleveland) and Hartlepool and Middlesbrough both benefit from New Deal for Communities moneys. The latter amounts to £52 million in West Middlesbrough and £54 million in Hartlepool, of which £12.5 million and £10.5 million respectively are earmarked for housing and environment spend.

  Tenancies
  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the impact of
  331W
  the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 on local authority and housing association tenancies. [96592]

  Mr. McNulty
  We expect all local authorities and Registered Social Landlords (commonly known as housing associations) to take these regulations into account when issuing tenancy agreements to their tenants. I am not aware that the regulations have had any particular impact on these tenancies.

  Travellers
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has under the new provisions to move travellers on immediately from unauthorised sites where authorised sites are provided by the local authority. [98066]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Government are proposing to introduce new police powers to move on illegal Gypsy and Traveller camps. The details of how this will work are currently being worked up by the Home Office, and no legislative vehicle has yet been identified to take this forward.

  This new power is not intended to replace existing legislation currently in place under sections 61 to 62 and 77 to 79 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which enables local authorities and police forces to move illegal encampments. This will remain alongside the new power.

  Pilot location

  Host agents

  Period of contract

  Nottingham

  City Wide Construction

  June 2002-June 2005

  Greater Merseyside

  Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council

  July 2002-July 2005

  Greater Manchester

  Manchester Economic and Regeneration Partnership

  June 2002-June 2005

  Leeds and Bradford

  Leeds City Council

  June 2002-June 2005

  Coventry and Warwickshire

  CovWise Ltd.

  Sept 2002-Aug 2005

  Paddington

  Carillion Construction Training

  Sept 2002-Aug 2005

  The contracting timetable for Ambition Construction sought for delivery of contracts to begin on 24 June 2002. Extended contract negotiations led to delays in the Merseyside, and Coventry and Warwickshire pilots. In Paddington, a delay followed the withdrawal of the initial training provider and a re-tendering of the contract. Despite these delays, all pilots are successfully up and running and are contracted to run for a full three years.

  Departmental Offices (Rural Areas)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what consultation took place prior to the proposals to close some of the Department's offices in rural areas. [101238]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 10 March 2003]: Jobcentre Plus is in consultation with the Countryside Agency at a national level about the impact of the new integrated Jobcentre Plus offices on rural areas. Decisions on closing of old offices and opening of new offices as part of the Jobcentre Plus national rollout are made after careful consideration of the rural impact of

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Ambition Construction Initiative
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what preliminary information is available from conducting the Ambition Construction Initiative pilots; [98015]

  (2) what contracts have been awarded and in what locations, to deliver the Ambition Construction Initiative; to whom they have been awarded; what timescale has been set for delivering the contracts; and what delays there are compared with the original tender specifications. [98020]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Since June 2002, we have launched six Ambition Construction pilots to help unemployed and disadvantaged people gain the right skills to meet the needs of employers in the construction industry.

  The pilots are in their early stages and it is too soon to draw conclusions about their performance. However, initial indications are that there is a strong commitment from employers and training providers to making the programme a success. We are monitoring the pilots closely and are working in partnership with the contractors and employers to ensure that the needs of the construction industry are being met and the job opportunities available to participants are maximised.

  The table identifies the location of the six pilots, the contracts awarded and the period they cover.

  those decisions and made with reference to the 'rural proofing' checklist developed by the Countryside Agency.

  Employers Liability
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) when he expects the review announced on 27 November on employers liability to be completed; and when he expects that a report will be published; [102376]

  (2) what the terms of reference were of the review on employers liability. [102378]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 11 March 2003]I refer the hon. Member to the written ministerial statement I gave on 12 December 2002,Official Report, columns 23–24W.

  Employment Statistics
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of people aged 50 and over were not in employment in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999, (d) 2000, (e) 2001 and (f) 2002 in (i) Coventry and (ii) the UK. [101189]
  333W
  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 10 March 2003]: I have been asked to reply.

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Jim Cunningham, dated 12 March 2003:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about people aged 50 and over who are not in employment. (101189)
  The attached tables give the information requested for the three-month period ending November of each year from 1997 to 2002. These estimates are from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) and are subject to sampling variability from year to year. They are not seasonally adjusted.

  Table 1: Percentage of people aged 50–59/641 who are not in employment; United Kingdom, 1997 to 2002

  September to November

  Per cent.not seasonally adjusted

  1997

  35.3

  1998

  33.6

  1999

  33.5

  2000

  32.9

  2001

  31.9

  2002

  31.2

  1 Men aged 50–64 and women aged 50–59.

  Note

  These Labour Force Survey (LFS) estimates have been adjusted to reflect the 2001 Census results.

  Source

  ONS Labour Force Survey

  Table 2: Percentage of people aged 50–59/641 who are not in employment; Coventry local authority district; 1997 to 2002

  September to November

  Per cent. not seasonally adjusted

  1997

  32.4

  1998

  34.3

  1999

  40.6

  2000

  36.9

  2001

  33.3

  2002

  48.4

  1 Men aged 50–64 and women aged 50–59.

  Note

  These Labour Force Survey (LFS) estimates have not yet been adjusted to reflect the 2001 Census results.

  Source

  ONS Labour Force Survey

  New Deal
  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer of 27 January 2003,Official Report, column 660W, on the New Deal, if he will make a statement on the difference of outcomes for those leaving the subsidised employment option of the New Deal for Young People and the New Deal 25 plus. [97781]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  We have not conducted a comparative evaluation of outcomes between the New Deal for Young People and New Deal 25 plus. The client groups for the programmes have very different characteristics and the programmes themselves are not identical. People aged between 18 and 24 can join the New Deal for Young People at six months of unemployment. In contrast, individuals are eligible for New Deal 25 plus following a period of 18 months or 334W
  18 out of 21 months of unemployment. As New Deal 25 plus participants have faced longer terms of unemployment, and hence greater barriers to work, fewer job outcomes through subsidised employment are likely.

  Up to September 2002 the New Deal for Young People and New Deal 25 plus have helped well over half a million people move from benefit and into work. Both programmes are continuing to help significant numbers of disadvantaged people into jobs. We building on their success and providing extra help for those facing the greatest disadvantages in the labour market.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many businesses were established under the New Deal self-employment model for(a) young people, (b) 25 plus and (c) lone parents in each year since its creation; and how many of those businesses were still trading after (i) one year, (ii) two years, (iii) three years., (iv) four years and (v) five years and above, from the end of the third stage of test trading. [93409]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The information requested is not available. However, we do record the number of people who move into sustained employment of 13 weeks or more following test trading under the New Deal for Young People and New Deal 25 plus. This information is in the tables. Equivalent information is not available for the New Deal for Lone Parents.

  New deal for young people

  Left new deal for sustained employment following test trading1

  April 1998 to December 2000

  1,000

  January to December 2001

  450

  January to September 2002

  220

  Total

  1,680

  New deal 25 plus2

  Left new deal fir sustained employment following test trading1

  April to December 2001

  30

  January to December 2002

  410

  Total

  440

  1 Figures include people who moved into sustained employment as employees following test trading.

  2 New deal 25 plus did not have a self-employed option until it was enhanced in April 2001.

  Note

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  Source

  Labour Market System and New Deal Evaluation Database

  Asbestos
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the(a) expert advisers and (b) scientists consulted by (i) his Department and (ii) the Health and Safety Executive in connection with the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002; and if he will list the qualifications and experience in relation to asbestos of each such adviser and scientist. [98659]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The general policy underlying the new duty to manage asbestos was informed by considerable research evidence. Annexe I of the Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) sets out a list of
  335W
  all the other external and HSE research reviewed in 2001 on the levels of exposure to asbestos that could be caused by maintenance work.

  The RIA is available in the Library.

  Weekly Earnings Disregard
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when the weekly earnings disregard for incapacity and invalidity benefit(a) was introduced and (b) has subsequently been amended; at what level it stands in real terms compared with that of the time of introduction; and what plans he has to review the level of the disregard. [101726]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Weekly earnings disregards are not a feature of incapacity benefit (IB). Entitlement is based primarily on a person's national insurance contribution record, and generally no account is taken of any income that a person may have.
  336W
  There has, however, always been provision within the rules governing incapacity benefit and its predecessors for people wishing to undertake some work for therapeutic purposes.

  We modernised the rules governing therapeutic work from April 2002, giving people greater freedom to try out work without fear of losing their benefit. For the first time, people claiming IB can work for up to and including £20 a week for an unlimited period. In addition, a person may work for less than 16 hours a week and earn up to and including £67.50 from a week for 26 weeks. This can be extended for a further 26 weeks where a job broker, disability employment advisor, or personal adviser supports the extension.

  The earnings limit is regularly uprated to keep pace with the national minimum wage, and has increased from £48 per week in 1998 to its current limit. We have no plans to change these arrangements at present.

HEALTH

  Diabetes
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what restenosis rate was associated with the use of bare stents in diabetics in the last year for which figures are available. [102143]

  Ms Blears
  No information is held on restenosis levels among patients suffering from diabetes.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of how many diabetics with heart disease would benefit from the use of drug eluting stents in percutaneous coronary intervention. [102144]

  Ms Blears
  The current evaluation by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence of the clinical and cost effectiveness of drug eluting stents will consider, inter alia, the implications of patient co-morbidity. Publication of the evaluation's results is expected during August 2003.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide guidance to primary care trusts on the use of drug eluting stents in patients who are at high risk of having restenosis. [102145]

  Ms Blears
  Guidance to clinicians is currently in preparation by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence on the clinical effectiveness of drug eluting stents. Publication of this guidance is scheduled for August 2003. Pending publication, the national health service has standing guidance to take decisions locally on the best available evidence as to whether, and in what circumstances, to fund and deploy any particular intervention.

  Worcestershire Acute Hospital NHS Trust
  Dr. Richard Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the costs to the Worcestershire Acute Hospital NHS Trust are of providing the off-site storage for patient records on the Hampton Lovett Industrial Estate; how many tenders were received for providing this service; and at what level the decision was made to accept the successful tender. [102149]

  Mr. Lammy
  The operating costs of the medical records storage facility at Hampton Lovett are approximately £140,000 per annum. The service itself is operated by staff of the Worcestershire Acute Hospitals National Health Service Trust in a leased warehouse. In line with normal NHS procedures for property leasing, the process followed was to identify storage of suitable size and location and to have the rent and rates negotiated and ratified by the district valuer. Competitive tendering was used to award contracts for the internal refurbishment of the building.

  Cancer
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research the Government is carrying out on the link between acrylamide and(a) bowel, (b) bladder and (c) kidney cancer. [101385]
  338W
  Ms Blears
  Acrylamide has been found to occur in a wide range of home-cooked and processed foods, including chips and crisps. It has not been found in uncooked or boiled foods, and appears to be formed during cooking by methods such as frying and baking.

  Acrylamide has been shown to cause various types of cancer in laboratory animals, although not of the bowel, bladder and kidney. It is considered to have the potential to cause cancer in humans, but a link has not been proven.

  The Food Standards Agency (FSA) considers that exposure to acrylamide should be kept as low as reasonably practicable and is commissioning research and surveillance that will minimise the amounts occurring in food. Meanwhile the FSA advice remains that on the basis of current evidence people should eat a balanced diet including a variety of fruit and vegetables, and that as part of a balanced diet people should moderate their consumption of fried and fatty foods.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many care home beds there are in Greater London.; and how many there were in May 1997. [101250]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 6 March 2003]The number of places in residential and nursing care homes in London is shown in the table as at 31 March for 1997 and 2001. Data for 2002 are not yet available.

  Number of residential and nursing care home places1 in London2at 31 March 1997 and 2001

  Rounded numbers

  As at 31 March 1997

  As at 31 March 2001

  Residential

  30,070

  29,340

  Nursing3

  15,310

  18,080

  Total

  45,380

  47,430

  1 Data includes places in dual registered homes.

  2 All residential homes in councils with social services responsibilities in inner and outer London and all nursing homes in health authorities within London.

  3 Nursing home places covers general and mental nursing homes, private hospitals and clinics.

  Note

  Totals may not sum due to rounding.

  Children's Services
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to publish his NSF for children's services; what his priorities are for improving children's health services; and how much NHS money has been spent on children's health services in each of the last six years. [89928]

  Jacqui Smith
  The publication date of the full children's national service framework has not been finalised yet. The NSF will cover children's health and social care services. The first module, covering standards for children in hospital, will be published shortly.

  The health service has a particular contribution to make in ensuring that all children have the opportunity to achieve their full potential. The NSF will set out our plans for improving services for children based on the

  339W
  aims in the NHS Plan of developing services around the need of individuals and improving their experience of care.

  The planning and priorities framework issued last year by the Department of Health set out a number of targets to improve services from the national health service for people of all ages. Specific areas for improvement for children included targets to reduce health inequalities, improve access to child and adolescent mental health services, tackle teenage pregnancy and improve the life chances of children in the care of local authorities.

  The total cost of children's hospital services1 in England for 2000–2001 is estimated to be £2.4 billion2. Data for other health services for children is not available.

  1 "Children's hospital services" are defined here as hospital admissions, day cases, and out-patient appointments for 0 to 19-year-olds.

  2 This figure has been calculated by the Department of Health Economics and Operational Research Branch drawing on data from the following sources:

  http://www.doh.gov.uk/hes/—Admissions of 0–19 year olds to NHS hospitals (data available by order). http://www.doh.gov.uk/nhsexec/refcosts2001.htm#spred—National Schedule of Reference Costs—mean costs of Healthcare Resource Groups.

  http://www. doh.gov.uk/hospitalactivity/statistics/2000–01/ outpatient attendances/y00.htm—Out-patient attendances, England 2000–01.

  "Living in Britain: Results from the General Household Survey", The Stationery Office 2001, p.103—Trends in percentages of persons who reported attending an out-patient or casualty department in a three month reference period: 1972 to 2000. http:// www.gad.gov.uk—The Government Actuary's Department Population Projections, England 2000.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether it is possible for a local authority to be rated excellent for its child and family social services division without the child and adolescent mental health services element being rated good or better; [100495]

  (2)whether inspections by social service departments of child and family services include consideration of joint working with child and adolescent mental health services. [100496]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Social Services Inspectorate (SSI) assess the child and family social services in each council and categorise this performance by rating whether they are "serving people well" as "no", "some", "most" or "yes". There is no separate, explicit categorisation for child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS), but it is one of a number of service areas that feed into the overall children's services judgement. As a result, a council could receive the highest rated children's social services judgement ("serving people well", categorised as "yes"), without their CAMHS being considered good.

  Inspections of child and family social services are carried out by SSI, with the results feeding into the overall assessment of performance. The most recent inspection standards, published in September 2002, state that there should be "effective joint working between agencies at the point of service delivery, which puts children's needs before the convenience of organisations".

  Flu Vaccines
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether his Department is taking steps to monitor the long-term effects of flu vaccines on the mental health of those inoculated; and if he will make a statement; [100057]

  (2) what information he has received on the side effects of flu vaccines; when these were notified to GPs; and if he will make a statement; [100055]

  (3) what research he has evaluated on possible links between flu vaccines and (a) Alzheimer's disease and (b) other brain function impairing conditions; and if he will make a statement. [100056]

  Ms Blears
  Influenza is a serious disease that can be fatal, particularly in the elderly, and influenza vaccines have a significant benefit in helping to reduce morbidity and mortality from the disease. As with any vaccine or medicine, influenza vaccines are not without possible side-effects in some recipients. The known side-effects of influenza vaccines are listed in the product information available to general practitioners and other health professionals and available in the Association of British Pharmaceutical Industries compendium of data sheets and summaries of product characteristics and the electronic medicines compendium.

  The Medicines Control Agency (MCA) and the Committee of Safety of Medicines keeps the safety of all vaccines under continual review. The MCA is not aware of any evidence to support reported claims that immunisation with influenza vaccines may lead to the development of Alzheimer's disease or other related mental health disorders.

  Some neurological conditions have been rarely reported in association with influenza vaccines and these are listed in the product information. These are neuralgia, convulsions, encephalomyelitis, neuritis and Guillain-Barré syndrome. These rare risks are far outweighed by the benefits of influenza vaccine in protecting against influenza virus infection and its complications.

  Foster Care
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 25 February 2003, on foster care allowance, why information is not held centrally with reference to his answer to question number 96092. [100691]

  Jacqui Smith
  Data on fostering allowances are not collected centrally. The setting of fostering allowance levels by local authorities is a matter for local decision. The choice protects review is looking at all aspects of the fostering service, and is working closely with stakeholders.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children are in foster care with(a) direct local authority foster carers and (b) foster carers from independent fostering agencies. [100777]
  341W
  Jacqui Smith
  The latest information available on looked after children in foster care with foster carers provided by the local council responsible for the child and with foster carers arranged through external agencies is shown in the table.

  Number of looked after children in foster care in England at 31 March 2001, by type of foster placement

  At 31 March 2001

  Number

  All children in foster placements1

  38,400

  Of which:

  Placement provided by council responsible for the child

  28,100

  Placement arranged through external agency

  3,700

  Child fostered with relative or friend

  6,600

  1 Figures exclude children looked after under an agreed series of short term placements

  Foundation Hospitals
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what basis the governing boards of foundation hospitals will be constituted; and what role the Commissioners for Public Appointments will play. [100765]

  Mr. Hutton
  Our policy for the constitution of the Boards of Governors for National Health Service foundation trusts is explained in paragraphs 2.19 to 2.24 of 'A Guide to NHS Foundation Trusts'. The election of governors from the membership is set out in paragraphs 2.25 to 2.28. The Commissioners for Public Appointments will not be involved in the process.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to review the regulations concerning the declaration of vacancies for general practitioners. [100318]

  Mr. Hutton
  Under proposals for a new general medical services contract, practices will have the flexibility to introduce new partners or employ the staff they need in order to meet their needs and the needs of their patients. If general practitioners vote to accept the contract, the existing system of statutory vacancies will be replaced with these new arrangements.

  Hepatitis B (Overseas Staff)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of(a) nurses and (b) doctors recruited from overseas in the latest year for which figures are available have hepatitis B. [102136]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 11 March 2003]I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) on 4 February 2003,Official Report, column 220W.

  Home Treatment
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence he collects on the relationship between the distance from home patients are treated, and their recovery rate from acute conditions. [101555]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department does not collect this data centrally.

  Illegal Meat Imports
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what resources he is committing through the Food Standards Agency to(a) prevent and (b) detect illegally imported meat entering the UK. [102162]

  Ms Blears
  The Food Standards Agency (FSA) is assisting local authorities in the prevention and detection of illegally imported meat through delivery of its 10 point plan to enhance imported food controls. This plan includes provision of training, enhanced liaison and provision of enforcement guidance to authorities. This summer, the FSA is to deliver a specific training programme to all United Kingdom local authorities relating to detection and removal of illegal imports.

  The FSA is also assisting the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise as part of a cross-government action plan on illegal imports.

  Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 13 January 2003,Official Report, column 499W, on Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust, if he will set out the reasons that were given for not renewing the contract with NHS professionals. [95857]

  Mr. Hutton
  This is a matter for the Trust.

  Mental Health
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the Mental Health Bill will place a legal obligation on health and social services authorities to honour advance statements and advance directives. [100781]

  Jacqui Smith
  It is not proposed that the Mental Health Bill should place a legal obligation on health and social services to honour advance statements and advance directives since the use of compulsory powers under the Bill is based on the concept of treatment being necessary rather than the capacity of the individual to take decisions, whether those decisions are expressed at the time or in an advance statement or directive.

  As part of our consideration of the Mental Health Bill consultation responses we are, however, looking further at how best to ensure that clinical teams take notice of patients' wishes and feelings.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many investigations took place last year into patient deaths in mental health trust centres; [101069]

  (2) what steps his Department is taking against mental health trusts which do not accurately report how many (a) suicides and (b) killings took place in their care; [101072]

  (3) how many mental health trust centres staff are suspended regarding patient deaths; [101070]
  343W
  (4)what discussions his Department has had with (a) mental health trust chief executives and (b) the Commission for Health Improvement regarding patient deaths in mental health trust centres. [101071]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department does not collect data from individual mental health trusts on the number of investigations that take place into patient deaths or on staff who are suspended regarding patient deaths. All serious untoward incidents are investigated by the relevant trust and the suspension of staff is a disciplinary issue dealt with at local level. If there is a homicide by a person in the care of a mental health trust, it is obligatory to hold an independent inquiry under HSG(94)27.

  The Department is not aware of any problem in the reporting of serious untoward incidents by mental health trusts. All trusts are required to report serious incidents to strategic health authorities and to the relevant Directorate of Health and Social Care/ Regional Director of Public Health and the Department of Health. In such cases, the Department works closely with all relevant organisations to ensure that advice and support is provided to enable the service to learn lessons, which can prevent further incidents occurring. The development of the new Commission for Health Audit and Inspection, and the integration within it of the Mental Health Act Commission, will ensure an even stronger focus on mental health issues for the new organisation.

  The Department funds the National Confidential Inquiry into Suicide and Homicide by People with Mental Illness to ensure that every one involved with mental health services learns and implements lessons from the factors associated with serious incidents.

  The Government have also established the National Patient Safety Agency (NPSA) to improve the safety of NHS patient care by introducing a national reporting and learning system for adverse events. Guidance on the introduction of new arrangements will be issued when the system is rolled out, from summer 2003. In future, all serious service failures or dysfunction will be subject to a full root cause analysis to establish what went wrong, to learn lessons and to take appropriate action. Reports of all incidents, including those subject to a root cause analysis, will be made to the NPSA. This overview will enable the NPSA to identify trends and patterns of avoidable adverse events, learn lessons that can be fed back to the service and produce solutions to prevent further harm occurring.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of whether the NHS response to the mental health needs of ex-servicemen is in accordance with(a) international best practice and (b) the international evidence. [101073]

  Jacqui Smith
  The spectrum of mental health disorders in the United Kingdom armed forces is broadly the same as in the matched civilian community. The national health service already has a commitment to an evidence-based approach in the context of individual assessment of needs.

  Health authorities have a responsibility to provide services to meet the mental health needs of all those who are eligible. Decisions about treatment and care are
  344W
  taken on the basis of an individualised assessment of needs, the patient's wishes, the evidence base for effective treatment and available resources. The general practitioner remains the first port of call for anyone suffering from mental health problems. The Department published guidance to help GPs know more about the most effective treatments in the mental health national service framework and in specific guidance on psychological therapies and counselling. These are available on our website at www.doh.qov.uk/ mentalhealth.

  There is also current guidance relevant to priority treatment for war pensioners (HSG (97)31) which says:
  that the referral should make specific reference to the fact that the patient is a war pensioner and requires treatment for the condition(s) for which he was awarded a pension; and
  that war pensioners can use the NHS complaints system to resolve any alleged breakdowns in the arrangements for priority treatment (leading, ultimately, to the Ombudsman).

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many members of the British armed forces who served in the last Gulf war were subsequently diagnosed with mental health problems. [101081]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 6 March 2003]Primary health care records for the 53,000 or so veterans of the 1990–91 Gulf Conflict are held by their doctors and are not accessible centrally for reasons of patient confidentiality.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to ensure the NHS can cope with increase in demand for specialist mental health services as a result of forthcoming military action in the Gulf. [101082]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 6 March 2003]Contingency planning between the Department of Health, Ministry of Defence and the national health service is ongoing. The Ministry of Defence has one specialist hospital and about 15 community units providing mental health services for military personnel and hence has the capacity to meet the needs of service personnel who develop mental illness. We will use the operational flexibility we have in the system to make sure that NHS mental health services can also be made available.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set up a system of specialist mental health services for returning service men and women along the lines of that in the US. [101085]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 6 March 2003]Returning service men and women will still be in-service and therefore the responsibility of the Defence Medical Services. The Ministry of Defence has one specialised hospital and around 15 community units providing mental health services for military personnel. The operational flexibility we have in the system can also be used to ensure that national health service mental health services are made available.
  345W
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department has taken to ensure appropriate arrangements are made to handle the transition between(a) children and adolescent and adult mental health services and (b) adult and older people mental health services. [96636]

  Jacqui Smith
  Ensuring a smooth transition for people as they move from child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) to adult services, and from adult to older people's services has been a priority in the modernisation of mental health services.

  Progress has been monitored in the last two years' annual local implementation plan process. The self-report from the 162 local implementation teams nationally has shown a steady increase in those who rated themselves as having adequate and effective transition protocols.

  The transition from CAMHS to adult services is currently being considered by the CAMHS module of the children's national service framework (NSF) who will make recommendations in their report.

  A key element of the NSF for older people is the need for all localities to have plans for the assessment and integration of mental health services. The implementation of the single assessment process and the care programme approach guidance will ensure that care planning in the transition between the services is smooth.

  MumpsVac
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on the supply of the MumpsVac vaccine in England and Wales. [96812]

  Ms Blears
  The Department of Health has never provided single mumps vaccine and believes that the combined measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine is the best way to protect children against three serious and potentially fatal diseases.

  Although a single mumps vaccine is licensed in the UK, the pharmaceutical company that holds the product licence does not manufacture or market the vaccine for use in this country. Single mumps vaccines that are being prescribed and administered are imported and therefore unlicensed.

  Muscular Dystrophy
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his estimate is of the number of(a) children and (b) young adults with muscular dystrophy in each of the last 10 years. [100967]

  Jacqui Smith
  The data show counts of in-patient admissions to national health service hospitals in England since 1995 where muscular dystrophy was diagnosed during the first episode of care. We do not have the equivalent figures prior to 1995–96. This is due to changes in coding, which took place in 1995.
  346W

  All diagnoses, first episode of spell G71.0 muscular dystrophy,finished consultant episodes: Count of in-year admissions—NHS hospitals England 1995–96 to 2001–02

  0–17

  18–24

  25–34

  35 and over

  Not known

  Total

  1995–96

  477

  144

  175

  623

  2

  1,421

  1996–97

  552

  125

  146

  730

  0

  1,553

  1997–98

  673

  217

  169

  751

  2

  1,812

  1998–99

  677

  220

  187

  837

  0

  1,921

  1999–2000

  619

  176

  182

  783

  1

  1,761

  2000–01

  652

  168

  186

  760

  0

  1,766

  2001–02

  635

  191

  197

  751

  3

  1,777

  Note

  This table is derived from ungrossed HES data.

  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on Government policy with respect to muscular dystrophy. [100969]

  Jacqui Smith
  Patients with muscular dystrophy (MD) can take advantage of a range of primary, secondary and tertiary services available. Children with MD form a considerable part of the caseload for children's community nursing services and many receive services from children's hospices. The children's national service framework will develop new national standards across the National Health Service and social services for children, including those with MD. The new standards will help to ensure better access and smoother progression in the provision of services for children, from initial contact with the NHS, via a general practitioner's surgery or NHS hospital, through to social services support.

  Clinical and laboratory services for the diagnosis of MD are available through existing networks of regional genetics centres. In January 2002, my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Health, announced the spending of £11 million to boost capacity in NHS genetics services. This should help patients with muscular dystrophy and other genetic diseases.

  There is no specific treatment for any of the forms of MD. Physical therapy and corrective orthopaedic surgery may be needed to improve the quality of life in some cases.

  NHS Access
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the consistency of access to(a) rheumatology services, (b) hydrotherapy services and (c) orthopaedic services in the NHS in different parts of England. [101656]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 7 March 2003]Arthritis and rheumatism together account for one quarter of visits to general practitioners. A general practitioner will decide if to refer a patient to a specialist team of rheumatologists, physiotherapists, and occupational therapists. They will provide the most effective care and treatment for arthritic patients especially those with rheumatoid arthritis.

  Hydrotherapy is one form of treatment that a physiotherapist might choose for a patient's condition and access is through this route. However, hydrotherapy pools do not exist in all areas, so access could be limited

  347W
  for this reason. Referral to physiotherapy is usually through the GP, consultant or, in some cases, through direct referral from the patient.

  Access to orthopaedic services for elective care is through referral to an orthopaedic consultant by the patient's general practitioner. The Modernisation Agency is running two programmes, which aim to improve patient access to orthopaedic care. The "Action on Orthopaedics" programme has a number of pilot sites across the country and is gathering information on best practice with the objective of showing the improvements in patients' access that can be achieved through an integrated approach within health communities. The orthopaedic services collaborative is a quality improvement initiative and has the participation of nearly two thirds of the 177 orthopaedic services departments in England examining potential changes that might be made in their processes and systems to bring about optimal outcomes and improved patient care.

  Through improvements in general hospital care and especially through the new single assessment process, older people's health care needs will be properly targeted, ensuring that the services that are provided are most appropriate to their needs, including people with arthritis.

  NHS Beds
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of beds listed in the NHS that are trolleys or couches. [97705]

  Mr. Hutton
  No estimate has been made as trolleys and couches are not included in the headline bed figures.

  NHS Database
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the NHS national database covers patients in Scotland. [102139]

  Mr. Lammy
  The national health service strategic tracing service and the NHS central register in Southport covers NHS patients in England and Wales. The Scottish NHS has a separate central register for NHS patients in Scotland. The two registers co-operate fully to ensure that patients moving between the countries are not lost from sight and that users see a seamless service.

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) doctors in training, (b) nurses in training, (c) medical students and (d) nursing students there were in (i) each health authority area in the North East in 1996 and (ii) in each PCT area in the North East at the most recent date for which figures are available. [100562]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 4 March 2003]The available information on the number of doctors and nurses in training, and on the number of nursing students have been placed in the Library.
  348W
  The information on the number of medical school students within each health authority area is not collected centrally. However, Newcastle University's intake for 1996, was 161. For the autumn term 2002, Newcastle University's intake of medical students was 344.

  Northwich Park Hospital
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much direct funding from the Strategic or Regional Health Authority Northwich Park Hospital received in each of the last five years; and for what purpose. [100596]

  Mr. Hutton
  For the last five years, the Department has allocated revenue allocations to health authorities. Northwick Park Hospital is part of the North West London Hospitals National Health Service Trust. The Trust is located within Brent Primary Care Trust, previously part of Brent and Harrow Health Authority. Revenue allocations to Brent and Harrow HA over the last five years are shown in the table.

  Year

  Allocation(£)

  1998–99

  239,173,000

  1999–2000

  310,879,000

  2000–01

  342,135,000

  2001–02

  371,479,000

  2002–03

  432,599,000

  The figures for 1999–2000 onwards are not comparable with those for 1998–99, which cover hospital and community health services (HCHS) only. 1999–2000 was the first year of unified allocations, which cover HCHS, prescribing and discretionary general medical services.

  The above figures represent initial revenue allocations. Any further in-year allocations will also have been made to health authorities.

  Patient Choice
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many choices of alternative hospital patients in West Yorkshire needing eye operations will have. [99104]

  Mr. Hutton
  I refer the hon. Member to the response I gave him on 3 March 2003,Official Report, column 889W.

  Patients' Forums
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether patients' forums will be set up before community health councils are abolished on 1 September 2003. [101580]

  Mr. Lammy
  Patients' forums will not be set up before community health councils are abolished. The Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health is responsible for recruiting members and putting in place the support and infrastructure arrangements for patients' forums. This process will be well under way by 1 September 2003, and the Commission will be working towards the achievement of full coverage of forums by the end of the year.

  Post-traumatic Stress Disorder
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set up a specialist centre of excellence within the NHS for dealing with post-traumatic stress disorder. [101084]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 6 March 2003]There are no current plans to set up a specialist centre of excellence within the national health service for dealing with post-traumatic stress disorder. Health authorities have a responsibility to provide services to meet the mental health needs of all those who are eligible. Decisions about treatment and care are taken on the basis of an individualised assessment of needs, the patients wishes, the evidence base for effective treatment and available resources.

  The general practitioner remains the first port of call for anyone suffering from mental health problems. The Department published guidance to help GPs know more about the most effective treatments in the mental health national service framework and in specific guidance on psychological therapies and counselling. These are available on our website at www.doh.qov.uk/ mentalhealth.

  Red Button Alert Devices
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have received a red button alert device, broken down by region. [98264]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information on the numbers of people receiving a red button alert device is not collected centrally.

  Rheumatoid Arthritis
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to increase the access of patients to(a) Cox-2, (b) Anti TNFs and (c) metal on metal hip resurfacing; and if he will make a statement. [101659]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 7 March 2003]The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) was asked to appraise the use of infliximab (Remicade) and etanercept (Enbrel) in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. NICE issued its guidance on 22 March 2002, which recommended the use of etanercept for the treatment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis and etanercept and infliximab for adult rheumatoid arthritis.

  NICE issued guidance on 26 July 2001 on the use of four drugs for the treatment of osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis to the national health service in England and Wales. The four drugs, celecoxib, etodolac, rofecoxib and meloxicam, are Cox II selective inhibitors and are a type of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug used for short-term treatment of acute inflammation in joints caused by arthritis. They recommended they be considered in preference to standard treatments only when there is a high risk of patients suffering from gastrointestinal problems as a side effect of treatment.
  350W
  NICE also issued guidance on 19 June 2002 recommending the selective use of a technique called metal on metal hip resurfacing, used to treat hip disease. They recommended that metal on metal hip resurfacing be considered as an option for people with advanced hip disease who would otherwise receive conventional primary total hip replacements and are likely to live longer than the device is likely to last. It also recommended that information be collected on the long-term effectiveness of the technique.

  On 5 December 2001, the Government announced that they would meet their commitment to ensure that patients receive drugs and treatments recommended by NICE on the NHS if deemed appropriate by their clinicians. Directions were issued on 11 December 2001 obliging health authorities and primary care trusts to provide appropriate funding for recommended treatments.

  Stroke Care
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what mechanisms will be put in place to monitor the April 2003 milestone contained in Standard Five of the National Health Service Framework for Older People, for every hospital which cares for older people with strokes to have established clinical audit systems to ensure delivery of the Royal College of Physicians clinical guidelines for stroke care. [94580]

  Jacqui Smith
  "Improvement, Expansion and Reform", the priorities and planning framework for 2003–06, has the April 2004 milestone for specialised stroke services in all general hospitals caring for people with stroke as a key delivery target. The level of monitoring is currently being determined.

  Other aspects of Standard Five will be monitored through existing information collections (including the Sentinel Stroke Audit), discussions with the field and through a network of older people national health service and social care leads.

  Tuberculosis
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many specialist tuberculosis nurses were employed in(a) the NHS and (b) each health authority in London last year. [100506]

  Ms Blears
  The number of specialist tuberculosis nurses employed in the national health service is not held centrally.

  London is broken down by five sectors. The number of TB nurses in each sector is shown in the table.

  Sector

  Number of nurses

  North West

  22

  North Central

  13.5

  North East

  19

  South East

  12

  South West

  6

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the Lord Chancellor intends to reply to the letter to him dated 31 January from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to unadopted roads. [101062]

  Yvette Cooper
  My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor replied on 6 March.

  Industrial Action
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many working days were lost owing to industrial action by staff in her Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies in 2002. [101958]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  None.

  Ministerial Transport
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what her estimate is of the cost(a) ministerial cars and drivers and (b) taxis for her Department in 2002. [101853]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Part(a) of this question will be addressed in a letter from Mr. Nick Matheson, Chief Executive of the Government Car and Despatch Agency to the hon. Member for Buckingham. As for part (b), expenditure of £40,407 was incurred against the departmental taxi service contract between 1 April 2002 and 28 February 2003. This figure excludes any amounts spent on taxi hire outside of the departmental contract and reclaimed by officials as travel and subsistence expenditure. That information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Church Repairs
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners 352W
  pursuant to his oral statement of 3 February 2003, Official Report, column 20, on Church Repairs and VAT, when he expects the review of the sixth VAT directive to be completed. [101642]

  Mr. Bell
  I understand that work is ongoing between Commission officials and member states to finalise the details of the revision to the Sixth Directive. The aim is to get sufficient agreement in the Council for the 'Recast' Directive to be formally adopted before the next enlargement of the EU, scheduled for May-June 2004.

  The 'recasting of the Sixth VAT Directive' is a separate exercise to other elements of the Sixth Directive being revised, such as the reduced rates review, scheduled to take place later this year, or the Labour Intensive Services Experiment.

  Clergy Pensions
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners if he will make a statement on the pension rights of clergy. [101436]

  Mr. Bell
  Clergy in office receive a stipend and are housed. When they retire they make their own housing provision, but they receive a pension from the State as well as that provided by the Church's clergy pension scheme. The basis for determining the benefits provided by the latter—a lump sum at retirement plus a pension—was designed to take into account all of these factors. The full service pension (payable after 37 years of service) has since April 2002 been £10,693 per annum and will increase by 3 per cent. from April 2003. The retirement lump sum is £32,079.

  Following a thorough consultation with interested parties in the Church, culminating in a General Synod debate last November, it was decided to retain the defined benefit scheme. The Church has resisted the increasingly common alternative of moving to money purchase schemes, thereby shifting risk onto the employee, in a demonstration of its commitment to adequate provision for the clergy in their retirement.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Bind Overs
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Hilary Benn)
  We are today publishing a consultation paper on Bind Overs, on which views are sought by 16 June 2003.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Combined Heat and Power Station, Hythe
  The Minister for Energy and Construction (Mr. Brian Wilson)
  I have today given consent to increase the capacity of the combined heat and power station at the Polimeri Europa Ltd works at Hythe from 48MW to 53 MW. I have also given revised clearance under section 14 of the Energy Act 1976 for the larger station to be fuelled by natural gas.

  The decision demonstrates the Government's continuing commitment to promote CHP, wherever practicable, and our commitment to reducing emissions of greenhouse gases and our aim to put the UK among the top 25 per cent. of the most energy efficient economies rather than mid-ranking as we currently are.

  Copies of the press notice, section 36 decision letter and consent, and the section 14clearance letter are being placed in the Library of the House.

  Wind Farm (Kent)
  The Minister for Energy and Construction (Mr. Brian Wilson)
  I have today decided to grant consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 to GREP UK Marine Ltd to build a 129 MW wind farm approximately 8.5 km north of Herne Bay, Kent.

  The wind farm will produce enough electricity to power up to 100,000 homes and make a vital contribution to the Government's target to generate 10 per cent. of the UK's electricity from renewable sources by 2010.

  Copies of the press notice, decision letter and consent are being placed in the Library of the House.

  Offshore Wind Farm, Walney Island
  The Minister for Energy and Construction (Mr. Brian Wilson)
  I have today decided to grant consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 to Warwick Energy Ltd. to build a 108 MW wind farm approximately 7.5 km south west of Walney Island, Cumbria.
  14WS
  The wind farm will produce enough electricity to power 80,000 homes and make a vital contribution to the Government's target to generate 10 per cent. of the UK's electricity from renewable sources by 2010.

  Copies of the press notice, decision letter and consent are being placed in the Library of the House.

DEFENCE

  Future Integrated Soldier Technology
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram)
  The FIST programme will bring the benefits of improved technology to the soldier by providing an integrated suite of personal equipment to enhance dismounted close combat capability. This will include the latest surveillance, target acquisition, navigation, communications and miniaturisation technologies, all integrated into robust, flexible and reliable military equipment, capable of operation anywhere in the world. It will further increase the tempo of our battlefield operations, ensuring British forces engaged on the battlefields of the future will be among the best equipped in the world.

  Four companies were invited to compete for the role of FIST assessment phase prime contractor. BAE SYSTEMS Ltd, Marconi Mobile Ltd, Raytheon Systems Ltd and Thales Optronics Ltd, a division of Thales UK. All submitted strong bids. Following detailed consideration of the proposals, the four tenderers were reduced to two during August 2002. The final phase of the competition focused on the remaining companies plans for the management of the assessment phase. After a further period of evaluation, the Ministry of Defence has today selected Thales Optronics Ltd as the prime contractor for the assessment phase.

  The contract with Thales UK has a value of £20 million. The FIST assessment phase will sustain and create around 70 jobs at Thales plants in the UK. In time, the demonstration and manufacture phase, for which we retain the option to compete the requirement, will sustain and create many more.

  The assessment phase will last until 2006. An in service date for FIST will not be set until the main investment decision, but current estimates are around the end of the decade.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Flood and Coastal Defence Funding Review
  The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett)
  I am pleased to inform the House of the Government's conclusions on the Flood and Coastal Defence Funding Review.

  The review was conducted by an inter-departmental steering group which considered the most appropriate means of delivering and funding the flood and coastal defence service. The Government consulted on the steering group's recommendations last year and received over 300 responses. I placed a report on these responses on the Department's website last October.
  15WS
  Most respondents argued that the Exchequer should continue to fund all or most of the flood and coastal defence service, perhaps supported by locally raised funds. The funding and organisational arrangements, and the arrangements for implementing flood defence schemes, were considered to be over-complex and in need of streamlining, but with a strong local input into decision making. The responsibilities for flooding also needed to be made much clearer. There was, however, no clear consensus about what the precise future institutional arrangements should be.

  Taking account of these comments, the Government have reached the following conclusions on the review.

  The service should continue to be funded primarily by the Exchequer. As a measure of our commitment to this we have increased Government funding in successive spending reviews and following the 2000 floods. Following last year's spending review total provision for spending in England is set to increase to around £564 million by 2005–06, an additional £150 million a year on this year.

  We also accept the steering group's argument that in principle a fair proportion of funding should come from local beneficiaries of the flood defence service. No decisions have yet been taken on local funding mechanisms and we are continuing to work on them. For example, one possible option is a charge payable by developers in the flood plain to reflect the general flood defence service provided in those areas. We shall of course pay full regard to comments made on the various options.

  In terms of flood defence responsibilities, we have concluded that the Environment Agency should take responsibility for all rivers creating the greatest flood risk. Many of these rivers have already been identified and we will work with the agency in ensuring that they transfer to their control as soon as the necessary statutory procedures can be completed.

  The rivers that will transfer to the agency are currently the responsibility of local authorities and internal drainage boards. The performance of those bodies in relation to these rivers has been patchy. There are concerns, for example, about some local authorities not taking any interest in these rivers and over the position taken by some IDBs towards nature conservation. Equally, however, I am aware and value the fact that many local authorities and internal drainage boards do an excellent job.

  By transferring responsibility for these rivers to the Environment Agency the Government will place accountability for flood defence on all rivers creating greatest flood risk squarely in the hands of one body, something which will be welcome to hon. and right hon. Members as well as most respondents to our consultation. But we do expect the agency to contract back the day-to-day operational work to the local authorities and internal drainage boards which are willing and able to do the work, and have a good track record. Such contracts will ensure that work is in future undertaken efficiently and effectively but also in a way which is sympathetic to the Government's objectives for both nature conservation and flood protection.
  16WS
  Local authorities and internal drainage boards will continue to have flood defence and land drainage responsibilities under our proposals, and we shall be considering whether further measures are necessary to influence the way that these are exercised, including in drawing up and implementing water level management plans. We will consider a further elaboration of the Environment Agency's current general flood defence supervisory duty, will be reviewing our high level targets, and will be considering bringing internal drainage boards under the ambit of the local government ombudsman. A particular issue that we shall want to address is the present number and size of internal drainage boards, many of which are very small. We will also seek to ensure that the membership of IDBs is broadened to reflect a wider constituency of interest than at present.

  The Government do not propose any change to the present responsibilities of local authorities for coastal defences. We shall look to the coastal local authorities to continue playing a full part in shoreline management plans to ensure that defence measures are properly planned and responsibilities properly attributed between themselves and the Environment Agency, leading to greater clarity for the public.

  The Government propose that the Environment Agency's flood defence work in England should—subject to facilitative measures contained in the Water Bill—be funded by a single stream of Defra block grant covering both its capital and revenue expenditure. This will mean that the agency will no longer have to seek individual approval of capital projects below specified thresholds. This recognises the agency's position as a national body and its responsibility for developing and procuring schemes. The agency will, therefore, no longer raise most of its funding from levies on local authorities, which in turn are supported through the local government funding arrangements. We expect to introduce capital block grant from 1 April 2004; timing of implementation of revenue block grant requires further consideration.

  The move to a single stream of block grant will remove many of the present uncertainties surrounding the annual funding available to the agency from local authorities. The agency will be able to plan ahead over a longer period than at present, providing greater certainty of delivering the flood defence service across the country. It will also remove the present distinction between capital and revenue work, and the apparently perverse incentive to encourage capital work, which attracts Defra grant, rather than maintenance work which does not.

  We also propose that there should be a single tier of flood defence committee. Six of the nine flood defence regions in England have a single, regional, committee but three regions have a second tier of between 3 and 5 local committees. Local committees consume substantial resources in managing them and their accounts, but even more importantly they blur accountability with decisions made by one tier being second guessed by the other. Recognising the need for local input and decision making, we will work with the Environment Agency in consulting local interests to see whether some of the current regions need to be split into, say, two or three smaller parts each served by a single

  17WS
  tier flood defence committee. Facilitative amendments contained in the Water Bill will allow the creation of additional single tier committees.

  Many respondents to our consultation were concerned about the lengthy process for approving flood defence schemes. Some of the time taken is irreducible, reflecting the need to design bespoke schemes to meet the needs of the area to be defended as well as the need to obtain planning permission, to carry out environmental impact assessments and, in some cases, to secure compulsory purchase of land or property. But we need to streamline where possible and we are therefore taking action to simplify the present procedures for approving flood defence schemes in Defra. We propose to consider Environment Agency schemes at the "option choice" stage rather than waiting for detailed design. This will mean that the Agency will be given the certainty of Defra funding at an earlier stage and before devoting resources to detailed design.

  We shall be looking hard at whether, how and when such approaches might be applied to local authorities and internal drainage boards. The Government also intend to consider further its relationship with the Environment Agency, in the light of the changes we now propose, to see whether, and how, further streamlining might be introduced to reduce the overheads associated with provision of flood defences, especially following the introduction of block grant to the capital programme from 1 April 2004.

  The decisions I have announced today are substantive and should result in real improvements. I recognise that we have much work to do with the Environment Agency and other stakeholders in implementing this outcome.

  We will also be liaising with the Welsh Assembly Government on issues arising from cross-border catchments.

  We shall agree the financial consequences with local authorities and others with an interest. For local authorities, we will adhere to the new burdens principle to ensure that councils are not adversely affected financially by these proposals. We will also honour the undertaking in the Local Government White Paper to ensure that most grant reaches councils as general funding.

  We shall be drawing up an implementation plan, with target dates, in the next month or so and I will arrange for this to be published on the Department's Website.

  We recognise that flood and coastal defence policy is a long term commitment and requires stability of strategic approaches and structures for delivery. The approach I have announced today, including the roles of IDBs and of local authorities in coastal defence, will be subject to review after three years of operation. We shall want to
  18WS
  assess their effectiveness in delivering a streamlined and more effective service which also properly reflects wider needs including those of nature conservation. We shall also need to take account of currently emerging issues, such as the Government's regional agenda and implementation of the Water Framework directive. These, taken together with the outcome of work on new funding streams will influence whether more fundamental changes might be required in future.

LORD CHANCELLOR

  Tribunal System
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Ms Rosie Winterton)
  Reform of the justice system is one of this Government's priorities. Since 1997 we have implemented major improvements in the criminal and civil courts. In 2000 the Lord Chancellor asked Sir Andrew Leggatt to review the tribunal system. We published Sir Andrew's radical blueprint for reform—"Tribunals for Users: One System, One Service"—in August 2001.

  Since then the Government have been determining how best to meet the challenge set by Sir Andrew. We have taken a wide range of views, including through a formal consultation exercise. A summary of the responses to that consultation has now been published; a copy has been placed in the Library of the House and it has been published on my Department's website at www.lcd.gov.uk/civil/tribunals.htm

  The Government have decided that the best way to take tribunal reform forward is to bring most non-devolved central Government tribunals together into a single service. The service will reflect the needs and specialisms of individual jurisdictions and will in particular respect the differences between party v. party and citizen v. state tribunals. It will be a distinct part of the justice system, accountable to the Lord Chancellor. Initially the new service will be based on the ten largest tribunals. Of these, the Immigration Appellate Authorities, the Office of the Social Security and Child Support Commission, the Tax Appeals Tribunals, the Pension Appeals Tribunal, and the Lands Tribunal already form part of my Department. The Appeals Service, Employment Tribunals, Mental Health Review Tribunal, Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal, and Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeal Panel will transfer to the LCD over the period 2004–05 to2007–8 from their current parent Departments. Where appropriate, other smaller tribunals will also join the new service. The Government will publish a White Paper later this year on the reform and modernisation of the tribunals justice system within an increasingly unified tribunals service.

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

The Archbishop of Canterbury
Rowan Douglas, Lord Archbishop of Canterbury—Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of London and the Lord Bishop of Durham.
The Duke of Norfolk—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Clerk of the Parliaments: Retirement of Sir Michael Davies, KCB
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, it is my duty to notify your Lordships that I have received the following letter from the Clerk of the Parliaments, Sir Michael Davies:
"Dear Leader of the House, I should be grateful if you would inform the House that I have asked the Prime Minister to submit to Her Majesty the Queen my resignation from the office of Clerk of the Parliaments with effect from Monday, 14 July. The Prime Minister has indicated to me that Her Majesty will be informed.
I shall have held the office for some 6½years, during a period of very great change in the House of Lords. The composition of the House, its working practices and its administration have all been more fundamentally altered during my clerkship than during that of any of my predecessors. The issue of further House of Lords reform remains unsettled, but I believe that it is now right to make way for someone who will take forward the many management and procedural reforms which have recently been introduced.
It has been an immense privilege to have held my historic office at such a challenging time. I have enjoyed my 39 years in the House of Lords more than I can say. I cannot imagine a friendlier place in which to work and I shall take my leave with nothing but happy memories. I shall follow with great interest any progress towards further changes in the House of Lords, trusting that its current role in our parliamentary system is enhanced rather than diminished.
Please would you convey to all Members of the House my thanks for their friendship, co-operation and many kindnesses throughout my career.
Yours sincerely, Michael Davies".
Following receipt of Sir Michael's letter, I consulted the Lord Chancellor, the Leaders of the other two political Parties in the House and the Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers, and it has been agreed by us all that a successor to Sir Michael should be appointed following a trawl among the staff of this House, the staff of the House of Commons and the staff of the devolved Assemblies. That decision should in no way be seen as a criticism of the manner in which Sir Michael's colleagues at the Table have been seen to perform their duties, but rather as a recognition that modern appointment procedures should apply to this very senior and crucial post. The timetable set out for the trawl should mean that the recommendation of a successor to Sir Michael can be made to Her Majesty early in May.
1306
I am sure that it will be your Lordships' wish, in due course, to pay tribute to the service of Sir Michael in this House. I am advised that the proper manner of doing that is for the Leader of the House to table a Motion recording the House's appreciation of Sir Michael's services.

Smoking
2.44 p.m.
Baroness Galeasked Her Majesty's Government:
How many people have successfully given up smoking due to the smoking cessation services; and how many people they would expect to give up smoking if smoking were to be banned in all workplaces.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, between April 1999 and September 2002, over 481,000 people set a date to quit smoking with the help of NHS smoking cessation services. When followed up four weeks later, nearly 245,000 had successfully quit. There is good evidence that smoke-free workplaces encourage smokers to quit or to reduce consumption. Precise figures are not available for the United Kingdom.
Baroness Gale: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Today is No Smoking Day so I ask the Minister what strategies are in place to assist people to give up smoking, bearing in mind that in the interests of promoting a healthy workforce, more effort should be made to protect people from passive smoking? Is she aware that sensitive groups, such as the 2 million people in this country who suffer from asthma, are affected by passive smoking in the workplace and that it could be a barrier to employment? Does she agree that more measures should be put in place to protect such people?
Baroness Andrews: Yes, my Lords. I can think of no better way to mark No Smoking Day than for the no smoking champion of the House of Lords to ask such a Question. We are committed to informing people about the dangers of passive smoking and to encouraging them in their workplace to persuade their employers to withdraw smoking facilities. We are funding new research projects to find out what employers can and will do in different workplaces, including small and medium enterprises where there is a real problem. The Department of Health is co-ordinating and funding tobacco control alliances in local areas to persuade people of the dangers of passive smoking. More recently we have been putting together new packages of public education and information resources in the media to raise awareness.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, does the Minister welcome, as I do, the World Health Organisation's draft convention on tobacco control? Does she recognise that as the first such global public health

1307
measure it is a significant breakthrough? Even though it has its limitations, will the Government sign up to it in May?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, we certainly support the convention and have supported it all along. Some of our provisions are ahead of the convention. There are 192 countries involved which is excellent and we shall give it our full support.
Lord Peston: My Lords, is your Lordships' House defined as a workplace? If so, is it not about time—particularly today—that we gave a lead on this matter and banned smoking throughout these premises?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the definition of the House of Lords as a workplace is fraught with difficulty. I cannot give a definitive answer on that. Recently we have had before us some revolutionary proposals. However, there may still be a whiff of cordite in the air, so we shall have to wait to see what the House authorities think about it.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the 2001 official survey, Smoking related behaviour and attitudes, which among other findings, found that only 9 per cent of people worked in places, including the open air, where there were no restrictions on smoking? I declare an interest as a paid-up member of the Lords and Commons Pipe and Cigar Smokers' Club. Can the Minister give an assurance that such minority interests will not continue to be victimised?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I believe that 3 million people still work in environments where smoking is permitted and are affected by smoking. While we respect the rights of the individual, we are concerned that passive smoking is dangerous and we are doing all that we can to encourage employers and employees to create smoke-free environments.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, the Minister will be aware of the Motion passed in the National Assembly for Wales, promoted by Mr Alun Pugh Assembly Member, that indicated that the Assembly demanded or requested primary legislation in Westminster to enable the Assembly to regulate smoking in public places in Wales. Will the Minister indicate whether there has been discussion within government at Westminster on this matter and whether it is likely that time will be made available in both Houses of Parliament for such important legislation to be enacted?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, today is an auspicious day on which to say that Wales has often been a source of inspiration, as has Ireland where there is to be a public ban on smoking. Wales has made a decision in principle that it would like to have such a measure and the matter is before the Secretary of State for Wales.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that while the measures on workplace smoking
1308
that she has announced are welcome, there is still considerable concern about the delay in government implementation of the approved code of practice on smoking in the workplace? Is she aware that that is of concern not only to those trying to quit smoking, but also to those who cannot, but want to, exercise the freedom not to work in a smoke-filled environment and to those who are at risk of death and disease from passive smoking?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I respect the noble Baroness's role in promoting the effects of passive smoking particularly in relation to cancer. We are still consulting on the advisory code of practice. We want to get it right, particularly for the small and medium enterprises that are often located in areas of poverty and disadvantage. We will carry on as speedily as possible with the prospect of introducing it.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, can my noble friend indicate how many people in the United Kingdom she expects will die during the next 12 months as a result of active and passive smoking respectively?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the annual figure for deaths from smoking is about 120,000. However, we are looking at the smoking cessation service that we have introduced—I do not want to puff the Government too much—and other countries are judging it to be world class. We hope that that figure will reduce.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that an unfortunate side effect of firms operating no smoking policies in the workplace is that people smoke outside buildings and to enter those buildings one has to walk through an ashtray? Can the Government think of a way to persuade those who operate no smoking polices to provide ashtrays for their employees to use?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I agree. There are few more pathetic sights than to see people standing in the road outside buildings smoking. I am pleased to say that as of the end of the month the Department of Health will have closed all its smoking rooms. We are promoting that idea across Whitehall, although I do not believe that we shall provide ashtrays outside buildings.
Lord Carter: My Lords, are the Government satisfied that their policy for achieving a reduction in the number of people who smoke is reaching lower income families and other socially disadvantaged groups?
Baroness Andrews: Yes, my Lords. We have always treated attending to such groups who smoke as a priority. There is a higher concentration of smokers at the lower income scale. The health action areas will prioritise and through our research we have noticed that we are making more impression among those on income support than among others.

Dangerous Drivers Causing Death
2.52 p.m.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgateasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to change sentencing provisions for causing death by dangerous driving.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, we intend to increase the maximum penalty for the offence of causing death by dangerous driving from 10 years' imprisonment to 14 years' imprisonment. That follows our report on the Review of Road Traffic Penalties published in July of last year. We intend to legislate as soon as parliamentary time allows.
The Criminal Justice Bill contains provisions that will empower the courts to impose indeterminate sentences on dangerous drivers causing death who are assessed as presenting a significant risk of significant harm to the public.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that Answer with which I am delighted. Is lie aware of the case of Ian Carr who, on New Year's Eve, drove a stolen car and crashed into the saloon car of the Sawyer family, killing little Rebecca Sawyer, aged 6 years, and seriously injuring her baby sister? Ian Carr fled the scene. He was found to have 89 previous convictions, one of which was for causing death by dangerous driving.
I thank the noble and learned Lord for his Answer because I was going to ask whether he would bring in an indeterminate sentence which would enable the authorities—and I hope that he will agree with me—once someone was released as a result of an indeterminate sentence, to take him or her hack into custody before the commission of a further offence. That would mean that the horrors that were visited on the Sawyer family on New Year's Eve would not be repeated.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I was aware of the case of Ian Carr who was sentenced to nine and a half years' imprisonment for causing the death of Rebecca Sawyer and for seriously injuring her baby sister. I was also aware that Carr had on a previous occasion been convicted of causing death by dangerous driving and that he had committed 89 other traffic offences. Victims of such crimes often feel that crimes with those kind of consequences are not treated seriously enough. He was sentenced, as I have said, to nine and a half years' imprisonment. There are too many cases where people have been sentenced at the top of the range, which indicates that the maximum is not enough, and that is why we intend to increase it.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord give us an assurance that the Director of Public Prosecutions, who in fact brings cases and not the police, is not under any kind of performance or
1310
incentive regime to prefer lesser charges than causing death by dangerous driving so that he may achieve a higher success rate?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it is for the Crown Prosecution Service to bring each prosecution. It is well aware that manslaughter is a possible charge in cases where gross negligence occurs. It makes a judgment in each individual case. There are no performance targets in relation to how many causing death by dangerous driving or manslaughter charges it brings. It must make its judgment on the basis of the evidence presented to it.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that what is needed is the creation of an intermediate offence of causing death by careless driving, with a much lower maximum sentence but involving compulsory disqualification for an extended period?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords., the Department for Transport produced a consultation paper last year or the year before which raised that specific issue. It is a difficult issue to decide whether or not the charge itself should be changed. People are becoming increasingly aware that a road traffic incident which causes death is as serious as any crime. Therefore, it should be more easy to prosecute.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, does the introduction of an indeterminate sentence herald the stopping of the tariff system? Furthermore, are there any plans to increase the maximum penalty for driving without due care?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as far as concerns the indeterminate sentence, "tariff", which is a reference normally to a life sentence, is the punishment aspect; the indeterminate sentence deals with where one is still a danger to the public. The case referred to by my noble friend Lord Mackenzie is that of a man who when in a car was a real danger to the public—see the 89 offences and the fact that he killed two people in two separate incidents. He remains a danger to the public. As long as he remains a danger to the public, he should remain in custody. There is no present intention to change the penalty for careless driving.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, first, given that the Government have—I think it is fair to say—flooded the statute book with new criminal offences to an unparalleled degree, and, secondly, raised maximum sentences left right and centre, to what does the noble and learned Lord ascribe this general and unique state of affairs?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I think it would be unfair to say that we have flooded the statute book with new offences. Yes, the noble Lord is right that we have increased the maximum penalty from time to time in relation to a number of offences. The

1311
reason, as in the case of causing death by dangerous driving, is that the courts, which make the decisions, feel that the maximum is not high enough. If there are a large number of cases where one is at or near the maximum, that is an indication that the tools of the court are not adequate to deal with the kind of crimes coming before them.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that the right way is to increase the maximum available to the courts, as he is doing, rather than introducing mandatory sentencing?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I assume the reference is to mandatory minimum sentencing. There are cases where mandatory minimum sentencing is appropriate; for example, in relation to the gun crime charges where we are going to introduce a mandatory minimum sentence. The reason for so doing is that it sends the strongest possible message that a particular sentence will be dished out for a particular crime.

Homes: Energy Efficiency
2.59 p.m.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In so doing, I declare an interest as a trustee of the National Energy Foundation.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to ensure wider awareness of the standard assessment procedure, to inform prospective house buyers of the energy efficiency of their homes.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, whenever a new home is built in England and Wales its energy rating, calculated in accordance with the SAP, is required to be prominently displayed inside. When parliamentary time allows, the Government will legislate to introduce sellers' packs in England and Wales. We propose that sellers' packs should include an energy report containing an SAP energy rating. The energy report and the SAP will be made compliant with EU directive 2002/91/EC. That will enable prospective buyers of new and second-hand homes to understand how energy efficient the property is.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I am sure he will be aware that in a survey carried out by National Energy Services and De Montford University, it was found that although it has been law for new houses to display their SAP rating, that was not the case on 98 per cent of building sites. Indeed, three-quarters of sales negotiators on sites did not understand the SAP rating and at least half of them did not even know that it existed. Can the noble Lord assure me, given that we are awaiting parliamentary time, that the Government will take
1312
urgent action to get the building industry on side on the matter? It has been law for two years. How on earth are we to persuade and influence buyers of houses in their decisions if that basic information is not available at the point of sale?
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, the report to which the noble Baroness refers is an extremely good report: well written, well balanced, comprehensive and constructive. It informs the Government that, as she said, our wish that every new home should have an energy rating displayed is simply not working. It explains why and points out the way forward in a constructive manner. Among other things, it suggests improving the design of the SAP notice and a new impetus by the home building industry to ensure that that part of the building regulations is strictly enforced.
The Government will shortly publish for consultation a draft housing Bill that will include provisions to introduce sellers' packs in England and Wales, in line with our manifesto commitment. The Bill will contain provision for a home condition report, which will include a report on energy efficiency. Obviously, that will take time. In the meantime, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is conducting urgent talks with the building trade to try to get what is already law acted on immediately. As the noble Baroness said, it is unsatisfactory that, two years later, that important government objective is not being implemented.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, having listened to the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, does the Minister agree that the system is not clearly understood even in relation to new property? But he has said that in the sellers' packs, everyone selling a second-hand home will have to provide details of the standard assessment procedure for energy. If I were to offer my home for sale when the sellers' packs are introduced, exactly how would I go about having it assessed? Who will do the assessments? How will the public know about that? If they do not understand the procedure for new build, how will they even begin to understand it for second-hand homes?
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, there is no disguising that there are huge problems. One of the most interesting parts of the report explained why the provision has not been implemented. The report states that there are logistical problems in getting SAP notices in the correct site at the right time in the first place, let alone in ensuring that the notices are kept safe on a busy site or sales office. When the draft housing Bill is published for consultation, the points raised by the noble Baroness will form part of the consultation process. We must find a satisfactory conclusion.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, perhaps to the Minister's surprise, I welcome all of his replies in response to this Question. I am sure that he is aware of the current system in Denmark, whereby all homes, be they

1313
apartments, flats, houses, second-hand or new, are assessed for energy efficiency. The certificate that goes with the property makes a significant difference to the value of the home when it is sold. Will the Minister encourage his colleagues to promote that avenue as hard as possible, because it makes sense for all concerned?
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for mentioning the example of Denmark, of which we are fully aware. As part of the consultations that we are now commencing with the building trade to help to solve the problem before the new Bill is published, we are considering the Danish example. As the noble Lord said, if we can implement that provision here, we shall have no problem with the matter.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, should not the lawyers representing prospective purchasers raise an inquiry about that matter at the very beginning of the transaction? In that way, every potential purchaser would know what was the liability.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I agree that what my noble friend describes is the central point of the sellers' pack, which will be part of the Bill to be published as early as the end of this month.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, while remembering that the sellers' pack did not receive an enormous amount of support last time, whose responsibility is it to provide the notices and ensure that they are on display? What liabilities and redress are there for people buying property for which that information is not made available? What redress do they have against whoever is meant to have displayed the notice if they do not receive the correct information?
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I am aware that the notion of the sellers' pack has already been before this House and did not receive universal acclaim. Because of the general election, that provision was lost but will now be reintroduced. It is impossible for me to say what will be in the draft Bill, because I have not read it, but we shall certainly want to consider the issues raised by the noble Baroness when we discuss it in the House.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the Minister referred to the recently issued European directive on energy efficiency in buildings. Have the Government worked out a programme for its implementation in this country? Is it their objective for an energy efficiency certificate to be issued for all buildings?
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, the Government have accepted the EU directive. It came into force on 4th January 2003 and allows three years, until January 2006, to effect transposition—with a
1314
possible further three years for full application of some provisions, including those on energy performance certificates.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, most noble Lords and other people buy and sell houses using estate agents and wonder what they get for their 2, 3, 4 or higher per cent fee. What discussions have the Government had about getting estate agencies involved, in addition to the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis?
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, as far as I know, we have had no discussion with estate agents. We consider that the problem must be solved and settled with the building trade, which, as has been said, is obliged under law to provide certificates for new houses but is not doing so.

Western Eye Hospital, Paddington
3.8 p.m.
Earl Howeasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the future of the Western Eye Hospital, Paddington.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the ophthalmology services at the Western Eye Hospital in Paddington are part of St Mary's NHS Trust. Plans for the future of those services are currently being re-examined to determine the best option for how they should be provided in future to patients in north-west London. One option is to keep services at the Western Eye Hospital; other options include moving the service to a more modern environment. A decision will be made following publication of a report at the end of March.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Was she as concerned as I was to read in Monday's press that that prestigious hospital may have to close because its new premises, being built under the private finance initiative, will not be big enough to accommodate it? Will she do everything possible to ensure that that does not happen because, if it does, it will result in the loss of an international centre of excellence and in the fragmentation of ophthalmology services across London?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I agree entirely that it is an excellent centre. It is used by 70,000 people a year and has a very high reputation. I can reassure the noble Lord that closure of the hospital is not an option. The intention is that the services will be reviewed in the light of the problems caused.
I shall explain my understanding of how the problems arose. When the outline business case for the Paddington basin, which is an exciting project bringing together Harefield Hospital, Brompton Hospital, St Mary's Hospital and so on, was given the go-ahead in October 2000, it was written to comply with building notes available at the time. They already took account of the need for single accommodation.

1315
But guidance published later, in October 2001, proposed what it defined as consumerism, but it actually meant providing patients with more privacy and space. We have had that in mind for a long time. When it was published, after the outline business plan was completed, it was not taken into account, which was regrettable. It has had a significant impact on plans for the Paddington basin.
But the current review with the strategic health authority is looking at a different range of options. The object will be to keep teaching and research intact, and to continue to provide the excellent services offered at present.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that the story as she recounts it, particularly the failure to take on board at a draft stage new requirements of space for patients, indicates a breathtaking level of ineffective, poor decision-taking? That is particularly the case because it puts in danger an extremely important facility. We have all been slightly reassured by her answers on the continuing work of the Western Eye Hospital itself.
But that leaves open another question: how will the financial problem be solved? As I understand it, the construction of the new hospital, in which there is not room for the Western Eye Hospital, depends upon the sale of the site on which the Western Eye Hospital is constructed. Can she reassure us that, despite that, the Government will be able to maintain the extremely important facility?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the noble Baroness asked whether I was in despair as to how the decision came to be taken. It is not a matter for me to judge. But the review will look at the circumstances that gave rise to it. We will have more answers when it reports. The NHS made clear in its plan that we were concerned that patients should have more privacy and space in new build hospitals. I know that all noble Lords support that. There is good motivation for it.
On funding, there is no reason why the services should not continue to operate and to flourish. But the missing millions of pounds that will result if the hospital is not sold will be a matter for the trusts and the project managers.
Lord Elton: My Lords, if the new building will not be big enough to house the whole present hospital, how will it be possible to continue without fragmentation of the service that it provides, as my noble friend asked?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, it will be for the review to examine that matter. Among the options will be to find another location. As I said, we shall have to wait and see what emerges from the review.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, will the Minister comment on the effect of the loss of the sale proceeds of the Western Eye Hospital on the value for money of
1316
the PFI scheme at Paddington? Will not the loss of those proceeds mean that the PFI scheme will probably not deliver value for money, and, therefore, should not go ahead?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the decision was taken in terms of the planning of services. PFI has not yet kicked in. At present, the project is looking for partners. I am not sure that the noble Baroness's question is strictly relevant or one that I could answer. As I said, it is a matter for the trust itself and the able hands of those who will run it.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is it correct that there are only two such eye hospitals in London, the other being Moorfields? Can the Minister assure us that, whatever happens or wherever the hospital is relocated, it will continue to cover that half of London?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the noble Baroness is correct. The hospital takes patients from all over London. I am sure that it will want to continue the service to the patients who depend on it at present. A diagnosis and treatment centre might be set up, for example, to make cataract services more swift and efficient. I am sure that it would want to serve exactly the same people as it does at present.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, does the Minister remember the debates that we had during the previous health Bill in which concern was expressed that specialised medicine might be lost under the new reorganisation? This strikes me as a case in point. Here is a national specialist centre, providing a service for not only London, which is in danger of being spread all over the site because nobody looked out for it.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, that is exactly why I said that the intention is to keep the specialist teaching and research intact, and why part of the genius of the idea is that Imperial College London research is on site also. I think that that will be successful. We want to preserve that at all costs.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I am sure that the House is aware that I am chairman of St Mary's Hospital, so I listen to the debate with considerable interest. Does the Minister accept my assurance that the intention is to maintain the service at all costs? It is a valuable, well-run specialist service, with university teaching and research attached to it. There is no intention of disseminating the service beyond the borders of north-west London. It is a valuable part of the medical services within this part of London. Will the Minister accept those assurances?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I am absolutely delighted to do so.

Begging
3.16 p.m.
Earl Russellasked Her Majesty's Government:
What consideration they have given to the possibility that the proposal to outlaw begging might be found to he contrary to Article 2 or Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, Section 3 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 as amended already makes begging in a public place an offence. On conviction, the offender may be sentenced to a maximum fine of £1,000. We have no plans to change the formulation of the offence or to increase the penalties. No one in this country should beg. We need to protect more vulnerable people from being drawn into street activity and to guard against the sustaining of harmful drug addictions.
The White Paper on anti-social behaviour published today looks at making the offence of begging recordable. Making the offence of begging recordable would enable the police and the courts to take into account the full range of begging offences and other criminal offences. In addition, after three fines, courts would have the option of imposing a community penalty, which could involve drug treatment. We do not consider that the measures would contravene Articles 2 or 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for explaining the Government's intentions better than whoever recently informed the press did. I hope that the Minister received notice of my request to know also how many people are at present subject either to total or partial benefit sanctions. Does he agree that if people are deprived of income, and if thereafter an attempt is made to prevent them achieving an income by begging, there is a risk that that double whammy might be held to cross the threshold of destitution used to establish inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I received several conflicting accounts of what the noble Earl's supplementary question would be. But one of them was that that he would ask that question.
Benefit sanctions fall into two categories. The first is where the conditions of the benefit are such that, if you do not comply with them, you lose all or part of the benefit. The best example is jobseeker's allowance. In 2001–02, 193,001 were so sanctioned. The noble Earl will know that research on the effect of that sanction was carried out and published. Loss of benefit had a significant impact on the respondents. Some had fears of falling into debt and some were able to claim hardship payments. Respondents differed in how the disallowance or sanction had influenced their behaviour, Very many of them ceased the conduct that led to the sanction, for example, refusing to carry out directions in seeking jobs.
1318
There is a second, separate category; namely, where benefit sanctions are imposed as a result, for example, of non-compliance with a community sentence. The number of people so sanctioned between 15th October 2001 and 3rd January 2003 was 612.
Lord St John of Fawsley: My Lords, does not the proposal further to penalise beggars run contrary to something of even higher authority than the European Convention on Human Rights, namely the beatitudes? They declare unequivocally and unreservedly, "Blessed are the poor". Why should such people be penalised further, when they are in desperation?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as I made clear to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the proposal is not designed to penalise such people further or to increase the amount of the fine. The purpose is to record the fact that someone has been fined. If he or she has been fined on three occasions, it will be possible for the courts to impose a community sentence that might help them to get out of the circumstances that led to begging. Many of them are dependent on drugs. A community sentence could help them to deal with that.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that many of the beggars on the Underground are foreigners and very possibly, I imagine, illegal immigrants? What can we do about them?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, one sees that people of a range of nationalities are involved. The right thing to do is to make sure that we have a record of the occasions on which such people have come up against the authorities so that we do not just go on and on imposing a fine but do more intrusive things to help them.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that many asylum seekers, genuine or not, have no idea that they must make an immediate claim for benefit on their arrival in this country? Recent research by some of the detainee visitors' boards shows that, in several airports, there is no clear indication in different languages that that is a requirement for receiving benefit. Some of the people begging are simply unaware that they could have made a claim and have no means of support.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, there should be notices at all embarkation or arrival ports for aircraft, or whatever, indicating the position. I agree that proper notice should be given. The Question was about begging and about what happens when someone comes up against the law. The proposal that has been made is that the courts should not simply go on fining such people but should make sure that they can intervene in other ways. Members in all parts of the House will applaud that.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, some time ago I asked the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, what the point of fining beggars was. What is the success rate for recovering the money that such people are fined?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not have those statistics. The noble Countess makes a good point. It indicates why it is sensible, after a beggar has been fined on several occasions, that the courts should try something else rather than simply fining them again. That is why making the information recordable and giving the courts the power to pass a community sentence after the third offence may be a more productive way forward.
The Lord Bishop of Derby: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, as well as the effort and energy put into outlawing beggars, a good deal of effort, energy and other resources could be put into helping organisations such as the Salvation Army that do their best to keep beggars off the streets in a humane and caring way?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I agree entirely. An example might be the work into which the Government put significant resources to help people who were otherwise sleeping rough into hostels and, beyond that, into more permanent accommodation. I agree with the point made by the right reverend Prelate.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that, although there may be great sympathy—quite correctly—for people who are poor, there is not a great deal of sympathy for beggars? I was once accosted by a beggar who, when I declined his invitation, referred to me as "an effing judge". In that instance, he was incorrect in his use of both the adjective and the noun, although it may have been a reflection of his view of the judiciary. Having had no success with me, he turned and accosted some young ladies, again without success. When a police car arrived, he took cover.
The inference to be drawn is that he knew that he was doing wrong and that the police have an effect. Such incidents cause great distress to people in the streets, who do not like to see them happen. That does not mean that people are not sympathetic to someone's condition.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am not sure which the noble Earl found more offensive—the "effing" or the "judge". I apologise to all the judges in the House—and to all the others. The noble Earl makes a valid point. There are many reported incidents of aggressive begging, which causes considerable distress to people using public places. That is why it is important to deal as effectively as possible with begging, for the sake of the people who use the streets and of the beggars themselves. They should not be in the degrading position of having to beg.

Business of the House: Debates this Day
3.24 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords. I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Brennan set down for today shall be limited to three hours and that in the name of the Lord Redesdale to two hours. —(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Anti-social Behaviour
3.25 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"Mr Speaker, with permission, I wish to make a Statement on tackling the scourge of anti-social behaviour.
"In recent years, we have made significant progress in tackling crime and disorder. In the past six years, crime is down by more than a quarter, street crime reduced dramatically. The chance of being a victim of crime is the lowest in more than 20 years. Yet, the fear of crime remains high. No one will believe that crime has fallen, unless they experience it in their own lives and those of family and friends.
"More than one in three consider that anti-social behaviour is still affecting their quality of life. Over 30 per cent are intimidated by gangs hanging around their neighbourhood. Too many lives are affected by the irresponsibility, disrespect and loutishness of others.
"Anti-social behaviour can affect people physically and emotionally, undermining health and destroying family life. It can also hold back the regeneration of our most disadvantaged areas, creating the environment in which crime can take hold.
"Where enforcement is poor and anti-social behaviour goes unpunished, criminals learn that they can get away with lawlessness. That is why we are now leading a new drive to work with individuals, families and communities to build effective action.
"Rights and responsibilities must go hand-in-hand. This White Paper and the legislation to follow aim to put in place support and help for those who are prepared to accept it, and clear, speedy, and effective enforcement, when they are not.
"Our public spaces should be open for everyone to use freely. Our streets should be free of loutishness, gangs of drunken hooligans, or drug dealers capturing the lives of young people. Neighbours creating noise and nuisance, and those intimidating others, are a blight on our society.

1321
"Those who do not suffer this, should not get in the way of protecting those who do. That is why we will crack down on noise and nuisance. Fixed penalty notices of £100 w ill be available to environmental health officers. Persistent abuse will lead to a reversion to probationary tenancies, court action and fast-track eviction.
"Automatic rehousing is no longer an option. Children of persistently anti-social and dysfunctional families will be offered new intensive fostering. Tenants and landlords must share responsibility. Anti-social tenants will lose their right to buy.
"But we intend to go further. Tenants must not be allowed to make the lives of others a misery. We will empower local authorities to license landlords, so that they no longer automatically receive direct benefit payments. We will also consult on the appropriateness of measures to withdraw from individual tenants the automatic right to be granted housing benefit. Where the problem is caused by pubs or clubs, environmental health officers will have the power to close them.
"Unscrupulous drug dealers can exploit weak tenants and owners of property. New fast-track closure powers for crack houses will enable the police to act decisively in sealing such properties.
"But gangs of youths can often be the catalyst for further crime, as well as intimidation. We will enable the police to designate areas experiencing high levels of anti-social behaviour, within which new powers to disperse groups causing trouble will be available. We will merge these powers with those of child curfews, to enable unaccompanied children out late at night to he removed from the streets.
"We are well aware of other forms of behaviour threatening neighbourhoods. We have already announced measures to tackle the misuse of air weapons and the availability of replica guns. We will make carrying an air weapon or imitation in a public place an arrestable offence. We will support wholeheartedly the new proposals to restrict the sale and use of fireworks.
"But we recognise that family problems, poor educational attainment, unemployment and alcohol and drug misuse, can all contribute to unacceptable behaviour. These do not constitute an excuse, but we must act to enable people to rebuild their lives. We will take cross-government action to provide support, while ensuring the principle of 'something for something'.
"No longer should an individual child disrupt a school, nor should inaction by parents disable that child for the future by non-attendance at school. Parents have a duty to ensure that their children are in school and behaving. Persistent failure will result in parenting orders, fines, or fast-track court action.
"We will support families to overcome their problems, through parenting classes and new fast-track parenting orders. We will examine residential provision as a compulsory part of education and rehabilitation.
1322
"At the heart of anti-social behaviour is a lack of respect for others—the simple belief that you get away with whatever you can get away with
"We need the help of the community as a whole in changing the culture: parents to instil a sense of responsibility and respect; communities to build the confidence to provide witnesses and to stand up to the thugs; and businesses to accept their responsibilities.
"Record police numbers; the historic reform of police pay and regulations; and the new extended police family, including community support officers, specials, street and neighbourhood wardens, all have their part to play.
"We have an effective armoury of measures; fast-tracked, slimmed-down anti-social behaviour orders, acceptable behaviour contracts, and parenting orders. Since August almost 2,000 fixed penalty notices have been issued in the four pilot areas. We are clear that breaches of orders must he treated decisively.
"We must slim down bureaucracy, free up the police and enforcement agencies to do their job and engage the public, business, and landlords, in creating a safer, saner world.
"I would like to thank all those who have contributed to this White Paper and for the co-operation of ministerial colleagues in this cross-government drive to rebuild civic society.
"I know every Member of this House believes that families should teach respect, that had behaviour must be dealt with decisively, and that there is a need to restore pride in our communities. This is the challenge we face in the decade ahead. I ask the House to support the measures I have outlined today as a contribution to that endeavour".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.33 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made a short while ago by his right honourable friend in another place. For the past 18 months, we on these Benches have been talking about the importance of "re-establishing the neighbourly society" and "recapturing the streets for the honest citizen". The Minister's excellent catch-phrase, "respect and responsibility" is remarkably similar. I do not complain about that—far from it.
The similarity of our language derives from the fact that we and the Government share the same diagnosis of the same problem. We both recognise that there has been and still is, in too many parts of Britain, a retreat from civilisation. We both recognise the truth behind the "broken windows" thesis that has guided American cities in their successful efforts to reduce low-level disorder and crime.
We both recognise that if our children are to grow up into the people we want them to be, they need to grow up in a society that is orderly and respectful and not on streets that are controlled by gangs and drug

1323
dealers. The difference between the Government and ourselves is not one of diagnosis, but of what the cure should be.
Since the Government came to power, they have battered us with 15 Bills dealing with crime and disorder. Legislation continues to pour out of the Home Office at a rate of knots. The problem is quite simply that we doubt today whether the latest battery of proposals will prove any more effective than the last at curing the problems which we both diagnose to be undermining our civil society.
The simple fact is that the gangs on the streets—the drug dealers—do not show any signs of avidly reading the Government's block-buster tomes of legislation. They go their own way confident that their activity will go unchecked.
Of course, we all recognise that police numbers are important. And of course we all recognise, as the Minister did today, that it is important that they should not be tied up with bureaucracy. However, I am afraid that that is precisely what this Government have done to the police. It is important that the police are set free to do their real job of policing.
Will the Minister assure the House that when these new orders are introduced, they will not go the same way as child curfew orders that have never been issued? Will he assure us that they will not go the same way as the night-time courts that now appear to have been abandoned after costing—according to Written Answers in another place—£6,000 an hour and £7,000 a case?
How will parenting orders be any less bureaucratic than the anti-social behaviour orders that have proved so difficult to obtain? I noticed one slight deviation in the text delivered by the Minister from that delivered by the Home Secretary in another place. With regard to the reference to tenants not being allowed to make the lives of others a misery and the Government empowering local authorities to license landlords, I noticed that the noble and learned Lord omitted that the people to be licensed—that is, the landlords—would be designated private-sector landlords. Will the Minister tell us whether the omission was simply a slip of the tongue or was there something more significant about it?
The Minister says that children of persistently anti-social and dysfunctional families will be offered new intensive fostering. Why cannot the Children Act 1989 achieve that? What is "intensive fostering"?
I note that the White Paper states at paragraph 2.24 that the Government will take powers to enable intensive fostering to occur as an alternative to custody. On what basis would this be enforced by the courts? Would it be by the family proceedings court or by the youth court? That is an important issue.
During Question Time, there was an important Question from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, regarding begging proposals. Today, the Government have made much in the press and on television of their new measures concerning begging and the enforcement of the existing vagrancy laws. Will the Minister expand
1324
on his helpful response to my noble friend Lady Sharpies? Will the Minister assure the House that in any legislation on begging they will differentiate between the types of beggars? He alluded to that, but he was not clear. Will the Government differentiate between organised gangs who approach begging as a lucrative business; aggressive beggars who terrorise people on our streets and, in London, on the Underground; and between those who are genuinely the damaged and vulnerable people in our society who need help to overcome the difficulties they face and not penalties to thrust them further into problems? Has the Minister read and taken note of the powerful briefing note provided to noble Lords by Crisis, entitled, Compassion Not Coercion?
Today, the Minister announced a huge raft of detailed proposals. They deserve much scrutiny since they involve cross-departmental co-operation on a grand scale. It is astonishing that the Government have published this document only four weeks before the Bill is to be introduced in another place, if the Government's Whips Office is to be believed.
I am ever the optimist: I would not survive long here if I were not—I mean, in this House, not on these Benches. Therefore, I hope, for the sake of the future of our society, that the Government begin to think about a coherent, long-term strategy for the programmes that lift our young people off the conveyor belt to crime. In future, I hope that the Government listen more carefully to their own Social Exclusion Unit whose recent advice is that they should let existing legislation settle down and be effective instead of hurrying into a panoply of penalties for the sake of one good PR day.
3.38 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. There is no dispute that we believe and share in the goal for a more respectful and less abusive society. The Government measures have been based on the experience of anti-social behaviour orders which were introduced under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. These are civil orders which become criminal only when they are breached.
We are concerned that ASBOs, as they are now termed, tend to distract the public from the continuing failures of six years of law and order policy, rather than contributing to the coherent development of successful existing policy. Existing research points out that ASBOs are cumbersome, costly and difficult to enforce. NACRO—a body which I chair—found that the average ASBO costs more than £5,000 to enforce and takes more than three months to obtain. More than one-third of ASBOs were breached within the first nine months of issue. That does not build much confidence in the present system.
It would be helpful to know whether the Government have sought a more holistic approach, combining enforcement with preventive initiatives tailored to local conditions. Examples of good practice include the use of acceptable behaviour contracts and parental control agreements, along with youth

1325
schemes to provide activity programmes and mentoring. I suggest that the noble and learned Lord should look at the ASBO contract introduced in Islington, where the whole family is included in the process of designing the contract. It is then evaluated and monitored.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister whether the definition of anti-social behaviour is clear. Evidence points to confusion among local authorities over how to identify and respond to problems that are rife in certain areas. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 defines anti-social behaviour as acting in a manner,
"likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons not of the same household".
Home Office research shows that ASBOs have been used in response to behaviours as diverse as graffiti, noise, trespass, assault and prostitution. The public wants long-term policies that deal effectively with crime and the causes of crime. Local solutions—devised locally—which gain the confidence of the community are worth any number of centralised solutions. If more was invested in the many good schemes providing incentives and rewards for good behaviour and effective discouragement for bad, then we really would begin to deal with the causes of crime rather than chasing after the consequences.
The reduction of alcohol and drug abuse, the use of guns and knives and violent crime should he the central thrust of government policy. That is why dealing more effectively with crack houses is welcome. But further criminalising beggars will simply marginalise people already existing on the edge of society. Beggars need support and routes hack into settled lives, not ever-longer criminal records.
It should be the role of central government to provide the funding necessary for local policing, community safety and youth work. There is a real danger that the Home Office is suffocating the efforts of those who have to bring about change in our local communities by the use of more and more unrealistic legislation.
We shall study carefully the measures that will require further legislation. We accept that anti-social behaviour acts as a catalyst for more serious crime and disorder. However, we must strike the right balance. Large numbers of our young people are law-abiding and lead useful lives. However, if breaches of ASBOs continue at the present level, their impact on the criminal justice system will be substantial. The fact that we have more than 72,000 people in prison is a clear sign that many pre-emptive measures could be taken. We need to identify the legal measures outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, before using ASBOs.
Evidence so far shows that more than three court hearings have been required before a decision was reached on an anti-social behaviour order. What plans has the Minister drawn up to ensure that the same will not happen with future orders?
1326
Overall, we would support measures which include enforcement, prevention and education. We trust that those aims will be reflected in the forthcoming legislation.
3.43 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, and to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for the welcome they have given to the Statement. Obviously we need to examine closely the detail of the Bill when it comes through.
Perhaps I may deal first with the specific points raised by the noble Baroness. She asked whether intensive fostering will be enforced by the family court or the youth justice court. The provision indicates that we would envisage intensive fostering being made available both in relation to Children Act proceedings and in relation to criminal proceedings. Thus both courts will have a role to play.
She asked whether these ASBO proposals will go the same way as the child curfew order. ASBOs have now been up and running for a number of years and are providing real help. Acceptable behaviour contracts have been in place for some time and also provide real help, as do parenting orders. Furthermore, as I indicated when repeating the Statement of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, fixed penalty notices are also up and running and they, too, provide real help. However, we need to address the problem identified by the noble Baroness in her remarks. The measures we have proposed will bring comfort in relation to that.
As regards the issue of begging, the noble Baroness asked whether we intend to draw a distinction between the various types of beggars. Making begging a recordable offence and ensuring that after three convictions the court has available alternative actions will make it possible for courts to draw the kinds of distinctions that are needed. It is also worth bearing in mind that begging may be one emanation of a problem, but where there is intimidating or aggressive behaviour, it may be another kind of crime altogether.
The noble Baroness pointed out that a Bill was expected imminently. Yes, we expect to see the legislation during this Session. We need to be ready for it because the problem is urgent and urgent measures are needed to deal with it. She also asked whether there was a difference between what I said in the Statement and what was said by the Home Secretary. My role is simply to repeat that which has been said in another place. If I failed to repeat the Statement with precise accuracy, that was my mistake. I simply repeat rather than originate Statements. Perhaps I may confirm that "designated private sector landlord" is the correct phrase. It means that in those areas where there is a problem, then and only then can a landlord be so designated.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, asked the Government to think about prevention as well as punishment. I agree absolutely with him; we have to adopt an holistic approach. I support and endorse all

1327
he said about considering ventures such as the acceptable behaviour contracts introduced in Islington. They have worked well in helping to reduce problems within the local community.
The noble Lord said that ASBOs are expensive and that in some respects they are too complicated to secure. He pointed out that sometimes it can take as many as three court hearings to have an ASBO put in place. We have sought to address the problems of over-complication and over-complexity in the Police Reform Act 2002. As a result, it is now possible to impose an interim ASBO straightaway, so that the protection is in place. That has cut down considerably on bureaucracy. The cheapest ASBO was one obtained in Manchester at an estimated cost of £300, so it is possible to secure the orders in a cost-efficient manner.
The noble Lord was right to note that, where a specific problem exists, the court saying, "You shall not do this. If you do, you will be subject to the criminal law", is a right and sensible approach. But it should be regarded as only one part of the armoury now available to the police and local authorities to combat anti-social behaviour.
The noble Lord said that more clarity is needed as regards what is meant by anti-social behaviour. He went on to draw our attention to the definition set out in the White Paper, referring to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Anti-social behaviour is defined as,
"where a person has acted in a manner that caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons not of the same household as himself".
The noble Lord will know better than I that such behaviour can manifest itself in a hundred ways and in a hundred locations. However, the effect of that behaviour is immediate, real and personal for the community which has to endure it.
The noble Lord commented on the position with regard to beggars. He made the point that we should be careful both in relation to begging and ASBOs that we do not increase the size of the prison population. I have already indicated that the move will be to make begging recordable and to allow for a community sentence to be passed after three occasions. Some 700 ASBOs have been granted. I should stress, however, that such anti-social behaviour can be as corrosive in a community as can many of what may be regarded as more serious crimes. Therefore, in appropriate cases, one needs the ultimate sanction.
3.48 p.m.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, one passage in the Statement indicates that where problems of anti-social behaviour are,
"caused by pubs or clubs, environmental health officers will have the power to close them".
Is that a reference to pubs and clubs being used by drug dealers? Is it a reference to drunken behaviour that spills out on to the street, adding to anti-social behaviour? If so, is it suggested that an environmental health officer could close a pub or a club without
1328
recourse to the courts? If not, what does that statement mean? Surely it is an illustration of the fact that while this Statement is strong on rhetoric, it is extremely difficult to see exactly what specific measures the Home Secretary has in mind.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the noble Lord has rightly referred to two possible areas, one where loud noise is generated or people gather in large groups close to a pub, causing distress and harassment to the neighbourhood; or, secondly, where particular kinds of crime, including drug dealing, are carried on at a certain pub.
Subject to appropriate safeguards that are referred to in the White Paper, power is given to close down such places if the effect on the neighbourhood is such that they should not be allowed to continue operating.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I, too, welcome the many measures outlined in the White Paper leading, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, to a more respectful and less abusive society. The White Paper also refers to the early identification of children at risk and the legislation that is to follow. How will the resources required to achieve these aims be split? Given that the cost of anti-social behaviour and worse can be considerable if it is allowed to develop, should not the emphasis be on the identification of children at risk at an early age?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I endorse what the noble Baroness says about the need to take preventive measures. We need to identify at the earliest possible stage children and young people who might become engaged in anti-social behaviour and take steps to divert them from such conduct. We thoroughly endorse such an approach. We shall produce a Green Paper soon which will deal specifically with that issue.
But it is not a question of either/or. It is not possible to say to the community, "All our focus is on preventive measures and therefore we shall not do anything about the crime or anti-social behaviour that is going on at the moment". We need to emphasise both because both matter. If we do not deal with the immediate effects of crime and anti-social behaviour, the community will lose confidence in its own future. A community that has proper protection is much more confident in ensuring that its children and young people grow up and have gainful lives rather than being sucked into crime and anti-social behaviour.
The noble Baroness asked how the resources would be split between the two aims. I cannot give a precise figure. It is almost impossible to calculate what the percentage will be. We have to concentrate on both because they are equally important.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I wish to ask the Minister two questions. First, as regards the crackdown on noise and fixed penalty notices, it appears that environmental officers are to be allowed to make judgments which, as anyone familiar with the difficulties that can exist between neighbours will

1329
know, will need to be the judgments of Solomon. Is the environmental health officer to be judge, jury, enforcer and so on? Will there be any right of appeal against failure to pay the £100 fine?
Secondly, has the Minister considered that the deplorable behaviour in our streets, on our housing estates and between people has come about because of a lack of respect between people themselves; because of a dumbing down in education and on TV; because of a lack of respect between teacher and pupil and child and parent; and because of the awful, vicious programmes shown on television every day and every night at virtually any hour, particularly when children are about?
Has the noble and learned Lord seen the latest study from the United States which seems to prove what everyone previously denied—that vicious, awful television programmes have an effect on children's behaviour which follows them into adulthood?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as to fixed penalty notices, we propose that where there is excessive noise and an appropriate warning has been given, which will be for a short period of time, if the noise does not stop the local authority—in effect, the environmental health officer will make the decision—can issue a £100 fixed penalty notice. That is a straightforward, sensible way of dealing with noise, which can occur late at night and be very disturbing. If the person does not pay or wants to challenge the penalty notice, he can go to court. It is an unbureaucratic, sensible way of dealing with the problem.
The noble Lord asks: is there a lack of respect between individuals in our society? Yes, there is. That lack of respect is one of the reasons why anti-social behaviour is perceived to be on the rise. Is it caused by the content of television programmes? I suspect that, in the case of some television programmes, it is. I do not know about the research referred to by the noble Lord, hut I suspect that the content of some programmes does have an effect in terms of people's lack of respect. One must seek to increase people's respect for one another and the way they treat each other in their daily lives.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lady Howe and welcome the general direction of the Statement. I note what was said about educational under-achievement. Do the Government accept that truancy from school, which can lead to exclusion and suspension, is where a great deal—perhaps not all—anti-social behaviour arises? What extra resources have been allocated to deal with these matters? How effective have been the measures taken so far?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that once truancy starts it leads to a whole range of other problems. The White Paper on anti-social behaviour focuses specifically on
1330
truancy and provides a range of measures, including parenting contracts, which seek to reduce the incidence of truancy.
I also agree that when a point is reached where a pupil has to be excluded—which may be reached in order to deal with the problem of the other children in the school—it is very important, as we have committed ourselves to doing, to ensure that opportunities for proper education are provided for the excluded child. The more people are cut off from education, the more chance that crime and anti-social behaviour will grow.
Perhaps I may provide the noble Lord with the specific resource figures through correspondence.
Earl Russell: My Lords, have Ministers found what I have found through my experience both as a parent and as a teacher—that is, that the way people discharge their responsibilities to me shows an uncomfortable correlation with the way I discharge my responsibilities to them? Does the noble and learned Lord agree that the keystone which closes up the arch of rights and responsibilities is the responsibility of governments to keep their subjects alive? In this context, during Questions the Minister referred to research on the way people survive benefit sanctions. Can he, either now or in writing, give me the references for that research. Ministers have often recommended me to research on the subject; I have looked in all the places they mentioned but I have never found the information I sought.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the noble Earl skilfully uses the Statement to return to an issue he raised during Questions. The papers that I have in relation to research into the effects of benefit sanctions are DSS Research Report 11, TSO 2000 and DSS Research Report 116, ISO 2000. If the identification numbers are wrong, I shall write to the noble Earl and tell him so.
I agree with the proposition put at the outset of the supplementary question to the supplementary question to the Starred Question—namely, yes, the way in which a person behaves towards one is determined by how one behaves towards the other person.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, returning to the Minister's answer to my noble friend Lord Waddington, he said that where the problem is caused by pubs or clubs, environmental health officers will have the power to close them. Do not the police or the licensing authority have an existing power to close a public house on objection being taken to the continuation of its licence? Is it proposed that environmental health officers should have the right, without applying to anyone, to direct a public house to close in the way the police now can?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct in his reference to the existing licensing provision. The White Paper makes it clear that where there is, for example, excessive noise and, as a result, significant anti-social behaviour in a neighbourhood,

1331
the environmental health officers, subject to appropriate safeguards, will have the power to close a premises, which does, as the noble Lord identifies, represent a change.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, will the Minister elaborate on the proposals for intensive fostering? How many children are likely to be involved? Where will funding for the placements come from? Is he concerned about the shortage of foster carers in certain areas? What impact will the proposals have due to that factor?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as regards the proposal in paragraph 2.2 and following paragraphs of the White Paper, it is obvious that, both in relation to proceedings brought under the Children Act 1989 and in the youth court, intensive fostering—that is, placing a child away from its current environment and in the care of foster parents experienced in dealing with the kinds of problems that the child may exhibit—would be a very sensible alternative. I do not know how many children will be involved. The numbers of foster parents available to provide the intensive fostering can be built up only slowly over time, and they are a rare commodity. Where the resources come from will depend on the extent to which the focus is on the social services and the extent to which it relates to the criminal justice system. It will take time to build up, but it is an important resource both for social services and for the criminal courts.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I am sure I am not the only person who is concerned about dysfunctional families. We know that such families are the single greatest predictor of offending behaviour. I myself have been involved, as a school governor, in ejecting from a school a child who, at five years old, was already totally unmanageable, even by experienced teachers. He came from such a family. What can we do at an earlier stage in the life of the family?
We know that such families can be cyclical. You cannot learn to be a good parent unless you yourself have been properly parented. "Respect" does not merely mean that of the child for the parent, but that of the parent for the child. We learn respect only by being respected. What can we do to intervene at an early stage and teach those who do not have the skills—who may even realise that—how to be good parents?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, that is an incredibly difficult but well-judged question. First, we must identify the children at risk. Secondly, we must make sure that the response to the child and the family is properly co-ordinated—not trying merely to deal with the problem as it develops at school but looking at whether the social services have a role. Thirdly, we must regard the problem as a family problem, not a childcentric problem. Parenting classes are often viewed with suspicion by families; but subsequent research indicates that parents say that they wish they
1332
had received that kind of help earlier. Fourthly, we must look at health problems. Fifthly, we must look at whether a family is involved in drug or alcohol abuse, which is frequently a predictor of trouble.
One could continue at length. The three critical factors are: early identification; a co-ordinated response; and someone having responsibility for ensuring that a co-ordinated response occurs. It is not a complete answer, but I suspect that there would never be a complete answer.
Lord Brooke of Sutton-Mandeville: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the first use of the word "civilisation" was by Mirabeau in 1757? It is therefore a youngish articulated concept. Does the Minister have views or suggestions on how individuals within the silent majority can make anti-social behaviour less likely?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, one of the things that happens when anti-social behaviour starts—for example, if a park or a street look increasingly untidy—is that the rest of the community begin to let their standards drop. So they begin to drop litter. If they step outside their front door and see a "tip" outside, that reduces the standard of their own conduct. How can society as a whole react? People can refuse to accept that kind of anti-social behaviour and ensure that what they see around them does not necessarily lead to a drop in their own standards.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I declare an interest as vice-chairman of the Thames Valley Police Authority. Last Monday, I was at Slough magistrates' court. There were no probation officers—because there are no probation officers: there is no one to do the job. There is a grave shortage of court clerks and barristers—legal representatives are hired in by the Crown Prosecution Service on a jobbing basis. They are not professionals.
The police have put huge resources into Slough. The wall of the police station is covered with the names of people who have been arrested for street crime—which is what the Government want. But the courts system and the probation system are creaking at the seams. There are not enough officers. People cannot be found a place on a drug placement scheme because there are no places. The magistrates are told not to send people to prison because the prisons are bursting at the seams. The firm that collects people to take them to prison—Premier Prisons—does not do its job efficiently.
I am afraid that the anti-social behaviour order is a very good layer on the top, but I can assure the Minister that the foundations are awful. Is something being done to address these extremely serious problems?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the spending round in 2000 increased resources to the criminal justice system. So, since SR 2000, the numbers of police and prosecutors have gone up. The picture that the noble Lord gives of the courts system is not borne

1333
out by the statistics, save in one respect, because they have been dealing for the past 10 years approximately with the same number of cases.
There is certainly a difficulty in relation to the Probation Service, but the spending on probation has risen by about 50 per cent since 1997 and in the past year by about £70 million. So the numbers have risen, but the demands being made on the Probation Service have increased, for all of the reasons that we have been discussing. The difficulty is not that people do not want to become probation officers. They have to be trained. There is not an endless supply.
It should be remembered that the number of prosecutors has risen; police numbers have risen; the courts are not dealing with any more cases; and we are asking the Probation Service to do more and more—and rightly. We must be patient while the stream of people with qualifications are trained to deal with this work.
So far as concerns prisons, there are about 72,000 people in prison. That is a large number. But the way in which the Prison Service has dealt with the problem over the past five years is very impressive.
We need to do lots to make the criminal justice system work better. I believe that we are going in the right direction. I believe that we are increasing the amount of resources. These problems cannot be dealt with overnight. One of the biggest issues is getting the trained manpower to deal with them. I was amazed by one remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. He said that there is a shortage of barristers. I have never heard that before.

Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, and read a first time.

Corporate Governance
4.9 p.m.
Lord Brennanrose to call attention to the issues of corporate governance, following the recent reports on non-executive directors, auditing and accountancy; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in a capitalist system there is an inevitable tension between two aspects of human behaviour. One is greed; the other is trust. It is by the resolution of this tension that we control greed, and yet recreate trust where it needs to be recreated. That is the task that we shall debate.
The 1990s were an era of "boom". A German banker commented earlier this year that, in his experience, booms diminish vigilance, induce complacency, make for sloppy thinking and, above all, lead to hero worship. Who are the heroes of the 1990s?
M r Kenneth Lay, who regularly appeared before the United States Congress to demand deregulation, abhorred any public intervention into commercial
1334
activity because with deregulation and without public intervention they could set about their task of maximising shareholder value. The message was preached and we listened, but the time came when we realised that it was not the right message, and that the messengers were those who had given in to greed. By doing so, they had foregone the trust which it was their duty in corporate life to maintain.
Enron involved activities with five major banks. It led to the demise of Arthur Andersen and now involves law firms subject to civil and potentially criminal actions. It was followed by the very substantial accounting irregularities revealed by Xerox. A firm called Sprint was described by a Wall Street commentator as a "serial governance abuser". He was right, because the company spent its time creating stock options which, when thought not to be generous enough by the recipients, led to them demanding that the board reprice the options so as to make them more advantageous.
As for investment banks, the present chief executive officer of Credit Suisse First Boston described its activities in the 1990s as those of a "giant casino". It has suffered a 25 per cent drop in the discretionary funds given to it by outside investors, and it has made provision against action by the Securities and Exchange Commission and other claimants of 600 million dollars.
Companies, accountants, directors and banks all to some extent fell into the problem of greed and, as a result, trust was lost.
I hope that I have not exaggerated this history, nor would I wish to infer that it is representative of the way in which we think and act in this country. However, we cannot take matters for granted.
In Holland, a month ago, Royal Ahold, the third biggest food retailer in the world, declared accounting irregularities of around 500 million dollars. The share price has fallen by 60 per cent. Alltran in France has been threatened with prosecution for giving false information to the markets. Camroad in Germany suffered the indignity of a chief executive officer beginning a seven-year sentence for creating a balance sheet based on fictitious sales. Last year, Elan in Ireland suffered a substantial drop in its value because of off-balance-sheet activities.
Those actions, both in the United States and in Europe, are not separate from the community in which we live as ordinary people. They lead to pensions being lost, savings vanishing and jobs going. They lead to a substantial drop in the financial net worth of corporate activity and, above all, they damage investor confidence. That confidence must be restored; jobs and savings must be protected; and action is required, at least with regard to listed companies.
I accept the sense of the comment that nobody can completely eliminate the determined fraudster, and nobody can guard in every way against the ingenious mind that will find its way around regulation and voluntary controls. However, that does not mean that we should not try our best to ensure that it does not happen.

1335
If your Lordships will forgive the crudity of the introduction, I shall speak on the bosses and the books. I begin with the bosses and the issue of power. The role of non-executive directors, as envisaged in recent debate and by the Higgs report, is to ensure that three things are avoided: first, lack of independence; secondly, weak oversight; and, thirdly, excessive pay to executive directors.
Allowing for the debate that will take place about the Higgs report, one can crystallise the role of non-executive directors, briefly but accurately. Their central job is how to deal with the chief executive officer—how to choose him and, having chosen him, how to evaluate his or her performance continually, with an eye to good financial standards. That is a short but, I hope, appropriate encapsulation of the duties of a board.
Who would best fit that requirement? The objective observer would say that it would be the non-executive director, because he or she does not have an immediate interest in terms of compensation or career such as executives have. It is the non-executive director's role to make the balance between the entrepreneurial drive of the permanent staff, coupled with intelligent comment and, when appropriate, pointed criticism. Surely, that is what the Higgs report seeks to achieve. At least half the board should be non-executive; independence should be strengthened, and there should be a clear separation between the roles of chief executive officer and chairman.
The CBI's reaction to the Higgs report was a little disappointing. Of the 100 heads of the FTSE companies approached to answer the questionnaire, only 61 were able to do so. That is a low response from such a small number of companies to what is probably the most significant report about corporate life that they will face in the next few years. The response is in the form not of a report, but of a summary of a questionnaire reviewing the answers to four questions.
The response to two of the questions is an extreme reaction against two Higgs' suggestions. Respondents objected, first, to the suggestion that the nominations committee should be chaired by an independent non-executive director and, secondly, to the role suggested for the senior non-executive director in relation to the chairman of the company. The voting response showed a more balanced reaction to two other suggestions: first, that there should be a meeting once a year of non-executive directors without a chairman; and, secondly, that the roles of chief executive and chairman should be separated. As yet, we have no response in terms of CBI thinking about independence, systems of appointment, training or tenure. I hope that it will come soon.
The critical question that comes next after attempts to control the power of chief executives and chairmen is that of pay. Whatever we thought a few years ago about rewarding the entrepreneur, as we were told, "high payment required"—and looking to just the recent past—the fact is that the payments reached levels that could properly be described as grotesque.
1336
Share options are the vehicle for such reward. As one is maximising shareholder value, the inevitable temptation to any ambitious man or woman is to maximise the value of his or her share option. That objective is perfectly reasonable if it balances with the long-term development of the company. It is not reasonable if it becomes the primary objective.
Therefore, the recent Smith recommendations about audit and remuneration committees are surely unexceptional. The first recommendation is that they should be made up of entirely independent directors, one of whom should have relevant financial experience. The second is that they should monitor the performance of the company's auditors. The third is that they should exercise special care as to non-audit services. Europe will add to those recommendations. Internal Market Commissioner Bolkestein is about to issue voluntary proposals on corporate governance. The noble Lord, Lord Sterling of Plaistow, is reported in this morning's newspapers as saying that these proposals from Higgs—and others like them, I infer—
"create mistrust, are highly divisive and will stifle entrepreneurial drive".
I disagree. As he said:
"The objective of a board is based on trust",
but the higher objective is that the investor and the public should have trust in corporate integrity.
I am happy to say that I can be brief on auditing and accounting, because I understand that the major firms and the thinkers in this field have accepted the general thrust of the audit report of the Co-ordinating Committee and the new accountancy approach which has led to some significant proposals. Other changes include: Sir David Tweedie, a very persuasive and powerful proponent of UK practices, to be the new head of the IASB: by 2005, all listed companies within the European Union to follow the standards of that board; and by that year, if possible, convergence between us and the United States on accounting standards.
I conclude by suggesting that it will be good for corporate life and good for all of us if business schools emphasise the principles of good corporate governance as part of training and if we in Europe set up a European Centre for Financial Standards to investigate how they are presently working, how they might need to be changed and how corporate life can properly be educated about them.
The proposals in all these new reports, although they may be debated in detail, are surely tough and yet measured. There has to be a correct balance between rule making and playing by the rules. If you do not play by the rules, you cannot be too upset if you face some rule making. The question is how we strike the balance. In the debate which I hope that we will now enjoy, the balance must be determined by society, not by the corporate world. Democracy is the counterweight to capitalism. We in Parliament debate how that counterweight should strike the balance: the least amount of regulation, but the greatest amount of

1337
trust to be expected, all in the service of corporate profit and health, for the general good of the community. I beg to move for Papers.
4.24 p.m.
Lord Freeman: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, on this important debate. It is almost one year since he introduced a similar debate and it is timely that we should return to the subject. He has painted skilfully on a very large canvas. In the limited time available to me, I intend to focus on just a few points. I agree with a good deal of what he said in specifics, particularly about the Higgs report. I shall come to that in a moment. I declare a number of interests which I have registered but in my judgment they are not relevant to this debate because I speak for myself and based on my experience.
In the debate 12 months ago, the noble Lord called for no complacency and for action. He pointed to the events in the United States to galvanise both public and private sectors in this country into action. That has happened. Thank goodness we had a co-ordinating group chaired by two very able junior Ministers to, as it were, look after the great number of reports that have been presented by both the professions and the public sector. I should like briefly to record some of the most important ones. There was the government review of the regulatory framework to which the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, referred; the report of the Office of Fair Trading; the Treasury Select Committee report; the Higgs report; the Smith report—and, incidentally, Sir Robert is the chairman of the Financial Reporting Council, the new regulator of the accountancy profession; professional guidance issued by the leading professional accountancy institute in England; and the Report on a Modern Regulatory Framework for Company Law in Europe, the chairman of which was Mr Jaap Winter, published just before the end of the year.
In my judgment, the response in the United Kingdom in the 12 months since our previous debate has been measured, proportionate and practical. There is much to be welcomed. I have four points to make in as many minutes. It would be helpful if the Minister responded to some or all of them in his reply. The first is on Europe. I think that it would be fair to say that the United Kingdom has had a record of leading reform of corporate governance ahead of other European nations. Looking back over the past 12 months, particularly to the recommendations on auditor independence from the European Commissioner last May, I think that the United Kingdom has responded well by accepting all the recommendations. Briefly, the recommendations are that the audit partner must rotate every five years; that there should be a cooling-off period, rather like that for the Civil Service, so that an audit partner could not work for his or her client within a period normally of two years; and tighter controls on the non-audit work done by auditors for their clients.
As the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, said, Frits Bolkestein, the Commissioner for the Internal Market, plans to publish an action plan, as he calls it, in May,
1338
to begin the process of setting common corporate governance requirements across Europe. That is to be welcomed, and I am sure that the United Kingdom will encourage the Commissioner in that endeavour. However, the Commissioner himself has quite rightly said that, as each nation has a different history of company law, each will have its own approach to corporate governance. That must be right. I think that his rather enlightened approach to this important subject is to be welcomed.
My second point is on the United States. Thank heavens that we have in this country an approach based partly on a voluntary code. Companies have either to comply with the suggested Higgs requirements on non-executive directors or with Smith on the audit report or explain why they are not complying. That approach seems better than the prescriptive, legalistic approach in the United States. Following Sarbanes-Oxley—the legislation governing the audit and accountancy professions—the SEC has produced literally thousands of pages of regulations, which are either already implemented or to be implemented. We have adopted a different approach, which I very much welcome.
There is a specific problem in relation to the United States which the right honourable lady Patricia Hewitt, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, is fighting together with Commissioner Bolkestein. I am sure that your Lordships will wish to encourage the Minister to raise it with the Public Companies Accounting Oversight Board—the oversight board—the new regulator in the United States set up by the SEC, because the Americans seek to regulate UK and, indeed, for that matter, European auditors and accountants if they carry out work for companies that are listed in the United States. So there is double jeopardy and double regulation, which I argue is unnecessary. I hope very much that the Minister will be able to confirm that the policy of Her Majesty's Government is to pursue with the SEC the need to recognise that other countries, particularly in Europe and above all in the United Kingdom, have high standards of corporate governance and regulation of auditors and accountants. The Americans should not seek to begin again the process of regulation of companies that are listed in the United States and audited in Europe.
Thirdly—here I find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Brennan—the Higgs report is to be welcomed in its entirety. I think that most fair-minded people reading the many recommendations—frankly, many of them have been misunderstood by colleagues in industry and commerce and, indeed, by some newspapers—will recognise that they are prudent and sensible. All of them should be welcomed. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is right to welcome the report. I mention one of the many recommendations; namely, that the nominations committee should not be chaired by the chairman but by an independent director, with the chairman sitting on that body. That seems to be a sensible way forward

1339
in terms of best practice as one is thus better able to widen the pool of non-executive directors who wish to serve on the boards of companies.
However, there is one problem with the Higgs report and that is the speed with which it seeks to be implemented—a few months after its publication is far too short a period. When changes were made to the codes 10 or 15 years ago there was a much longer period of consultation and explanation. I plead with Mr Howard Davies of the FSA—the body ultimately responsible for the introduction of the code—to take a few more months to ensure that the code can be explained fully to the companies it covers.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, that the Smith report is excellent. Let us have its recommendations introduced immediately. I have heard no criticism, either within the world of audit and accountancy or in business, of the recommendation that audit committees—we touched on that matter in the debate last year—should govern appointments, pay and the non-audit work of auditors. I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate he will be able to give some indication of when the Companies Bill might be introduced and whether draft clauses could be discussed by your Lordships and another place before we get that Bill. Frankly, a Bill in draft, discussed by your Lordships and another place before it is introduced, is much to be preferred. We have only to compare the recent examples of the Communications Bill discussed in another place and the Licensing Bill to appreciate that argument.
4.34 p.m.
Lord Sharman: My Lords, before I begin I must declare an interest. My business interests are set out in the Register of Members' Interests. Particularly relevant to the issue we are debating is the fact that I sit on the boards of three listed companies in the UK and I am the former chairman of KPMG where I continue as a paid adviser.
I should like to thank and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, for the opportunity to debate once more the issue of corporate governance—a year ago we discussed the Enron collapse—and the issues affecting corporate governance and audit and accountancy. A number of inquiries have taken place which I shall not list, as the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, has already done so. The reports, certainly as regards the UK—I echo the noble Lord's comments in that regard—have proceeded on the very well proven approach based on broad principles rather than strict rules. To my way of thinking that has the great advantage of recognising the critically important point that no two boards of directors are the same or operate in the same manner.
Mr Higgs is to be congratulated on the approach he took in understanding that good governance is concerned with the behavioural aspects of boards as well as their structure. The Higgs report—I wish that more people had read it in total—makes clear that he takes that into account in making his
1340
recommendations. I believe that is important as at least part of the reason for the failure of Enron, WorldCom, and other companies to which the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, referred, was due to the fact that they operated in an environment with a strict set of rules for auditing, accounting and governance. Strict sets of rules generate an industry composed of accountants, lawyers and investment bankers who design schemes to get round the rules. It is much easier to overcome the objective of the rules than to circumvent a principle based approach.
As the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, said, it is also worthy of note that by and large the reaction of the market-place to the reports is positive. The reports have been well accepted, particularly as regards the recommendations on auditors, audit committees and accounting and their regulation. It is important to recognise the way in which the market-place and the system of regulation work in this country. In that regard credit is due to some of the institutional shareholder associations. Back in April/May of last year the ABI wrote to the chairmen of all the audit committees of the FTSE 100. It followed that up with a subsequent letter to the chairmen of the audit committees of the FTSE 250. In that letter it drew attention to developments in audit committee practice, procedure and policy. It specifically drew attention to the examples of two companies—Unilever and Rio Tinto Zinc—that had addressed those issues in their annual reports. The ABI asked that all FTSE 100 companies should consider doing the same thing. Some time later, Phillips, an international company based in the Netherlands, published its own audit committee charter or terms of reference and policy on auditor independence. That was published over the web and was a first.
As a result of those initiatives audit committees and boards started to re-evaluate their own policies and procedures. As a result best practice was quickly disseminated. I am therefore not surprised that many of our larger companies will have no difficulty whatever in complying with the recommendations of Sir Robert Smith.
I wish that I could say the same about the Higgs report. There has of late been somewhat more noise as regards the recommendations of Mr Higgs. The concern seems to be that the Higgs recommendations will undermine the role of the chairman. Although that is a concern that is easy to understand, particularly if one is a chairman as I am, Higgs makes it very clear in his recommendations that that is not his intention. He says that the chairman,
"has a pivotal role in creating the continued conditions for individual director and board effectiveness".
It is worth remembering that of the 55 or so recommendations that Higgs makes only some six or seven are the cause of the noise. Like the noble Lord. Lord Freeman, I believe that we should accept the report. There are, however, three issues on which I wish to comment as they constitute anomalies.
I beg to differ with the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, on the nominations committee. It is illogical to expect the chairman to carry out that pivotal role and yet at

1341
the same time not chair the committee. We should remember that the committee is not solely concerned with the appointment of non-executive directors. It appoints the chief executive and chief financial officer. In many cases, it appoints the key executive directors. The chairman has to work with them as a team.
Higgs's recommendations on the interaction of the senior independent director and other non-executives with the shareholders has also created some disagreement. It is accepted by most people that involvement of the institutional shareholding bodies with the companies in which they invest would be desirable. We want to see more of that. The only issue that arises is how we do that and who does it. Higgs recommends a role for the senior non-executive director that is beyond question. He is a backstop. That is Higgs's principal recommendation. If no one else can deal with the problem for the shareholders, the senior non-executive director should.
How do we then understand the themes and concerns of the general body of shareholders? It might well be preferable to suggest a similar approach to that which Higgs suggests between the chairman and the chief executive. Who is responsible for what in the board should be defined, reduced to writing and agreed by the board. With it, there should be the objective that the whole board should understand the themes and issues important to its shareholding base.
The final area about which I am worried is that the chairman and chief executive have no provision for rotation, yet the suggestion is that individuals on the non-executive body rotate every six years. I am not sure that having a rotating body of non-executives every six years, with the chairman and chief executive semi-permanent, will increase the effectiveness of corporate governance. More stability in the body might be desirable.
We have before us the results of a considerable body of work. I am confident that if we proceed along the route of tried and tested approaches of principles followed by "comply or explain", we will make good progress in further developing effective corporate governance. Let us get on with the implementation. We do not need any more reports.
4.43 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on introducing the debate. His timing is excellent. The consultation on the Higgs report ends on 14th April, and surely a debate of this nature must be a helpful contribution to the consultation.
I wonder if my noble friend has visited Halifax. In the 19th century, Halifax prospered through business and industry and, after Sir Charles Barry had done a pretty good job building the Houses of Parliament, the people of Halifax decided to engage him to build a town hall to celebrate their commercial success. The phrase "corporate governance" had not been invented then, but the citizens of Halifax decided that they wanted the key to their prosperity to be written on the front of their town hall. The two-word inscription is still there and reads, "Act Wisely". To me, the simple
1342
principle that action and wisdom go together describes corporate governance perfectly. It also deals with the greed and trust mentioned by my noble friend.
I can look back on a career of 30 years in the textile business, which is how I know Halifax. In spite of the list of wickedness given by my noble friend, in this country it has always seemed to me that poor strategies have been a bigger destroyer of businesses than wickedness. Business is a pretty risky affair. Action without strategy or direction rarely succeeds in doing the things that really matter and make a lasting difference. That is why corporate governance is about involvement in a business, not just policing it. I therefore agree with Higgs about enlarging the role of non-executive directors, but I would also like to see it deepened.
Of course it is right that companies should state their values, which will indicate how they will deal with people, conduct their business and behave in their relationships with other stakeholders. However, that has to be more than mere words. No one could argue with a company that stated its core values as respect, integrity, communication and excellence, but those were the stated core values of Enron. They were the words on the banners outside its offices in Houston. They are a modern version of the inscription on Halifax Town Hall, I suppose. The point is that simple compliance with having core values is not enough. Non-executive directors have to be sure that those values are part of a company's culture, and have a part in how a company operates. That needs deeper involvement. Corporate governance is about involvement, not just rules.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, in that we should not run the risk of a prescriptive rulebook becoming a barrier to innovation. Innovation is where our future lies. We cannot hold back technological change. We cannot and should not try to slow the growth of developing countries, and we cannot compete solely on the basis of costs. Our response to faster change and greater competition cannot be protectionism. It has to he innovation, and that is encouraged not by policing behaviour but by getting the strategies right. That is the task of the directors.
I agree with Higgs that non-executive directors have a role to play in instilling a culture of integrity. However, others have an even greater role, such as the professional institutions, particularly the accountants and also the lawyers and bankers, who lowered their standards and allowed themselves to become poachers. They must raise their standards once again so that they become gamekeepers.
But other professional organisations such as engineers, human resources, technologists and designers have an important role to play in addition to supporting their members in their professional work. They agree with me that, in addition, they must give their members the comfort and support of decent values and high standards of integrity to help and support them through the market-driven turmoil of their daily work. At a time when the public are wondering how much they can trust business, it seems

1343
to me that in that way they can perhaps give confidence to the public and comfort to those who have to work every day in the rough and tumble of a difficult business environment. Extending corporate governance to the professions in that way would do a lot to raise ethical standards, which is one of the purposes of the Higgs report.
I also agree with Higgs on the need to widen the pool of non-executive directors and to introduce new blood. We need more, because Higgs is asking for more of them and I am saying there should be deeper involvement. Directors understand that they owe a duty to the company. They are accountable to the shareholders and indeed are responsible to all the stakeholders. To fulfil those duties fully, a director needs to be involved in a company's reputation, its key relationships and its innovation as well as the financial risks. There are many courses, seminars and meetings to explain and discuss all those tasks. However, it seems that we have not seriously set about increasing the pool of non-executive directors and ensuring their professionalism, especially if we are to have senior non-executives.
How is that done elsewhere—in the Civil Service, the police or the Army? How do they promote the meritocracy that Higgs seeks? The answer is that they have a staff college. In this country, we have more than 50 business schools. For some time, I have been suggesting that one of them should turn itself into a staff college for non-executive directors. I refer to a college where people can enter themselves or be sent for a part-time or full-time course to acquire or polish up the skills and knowledge that they need to be an involved non-executive director; a college that can be at the centre of excellence for best practice; and a college that can be part of active share ownership. Such a staff college could borrow the words from Halifax town hall because its task would be to equip non-executive directors to act wisely.
4.50 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, like previous speakers, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, for bringing this interesting subject to our attention. In doing so, I must declare an interest. I have been on boards of FTSE 100 companies for 20 years and for many years a member of audit committees.
I have lived through all the developments since then, which have been classified by some as the "bad old days". As in every part of life—be it corporate, political, national or even international—there were, and probably are, bad practices. I welcome any suggestions guaranteed to improve the perception that our corporate governance can be relied upon to be honest and transparent. In terms of our reputation, both nationally and internationally, nothing else is acceptable. I deliberately use the word "perception". The word haunts us all the time but it has become central to so much that we do, even here in the House of Lords.
1344
As we are time limited I shall not dwell on the current "perception" of the operation of boards of directors. We have had masses of negative comment. I accept the old adage that there is "no smoke without fire". However, in my experience, boards of directors have worked very hard to fall in line with the demands of successive reports—Cadbury, Greenbury, Hempel and now Higgs—not to mention the continuous recommendations relating to other business issues such as accountancy. The latest recommendation is the Smith report on audit committees and the combined code of guidance.
Boards of directors of all the companies of which I am aware have examined those reports and given a big welcome to much of the content. There is undoubted value in the reports but I fear that we are now getting to the point where boards spend more time making sure that all the corporate governance proposals are met than dealing with very important issues such as strategy. The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, mentioned strategy, and I thought that I would repeat it.
All these proposals are of a "best practice" nature. They are not encapsulated in law. However, the concept of "comply or explain", which has now been brought to the fore by Higgs, seems exceedingly prescriptive. I know there is a feeling, which is quite widely felt, that it is only a matter of time before we are presented with a raft of draft legislation. That will prove exceedingly lucrative for squads of lawyers, as the Higgs report is proving to be to consultants who are peddling advice to boards, and to headhunters already rubbing their hands in glee in anticipation of a huge demand for new independent directors. However, is it going to improve overall performance of British companies and, by extension, the performance of corporate Britain?
Before dealing with the points that concern me greatly I believe that it is not frivolous to point out that the stream of reports on the subject of corporate governance resulting in the "something new" part in each succeeding report has two results. First, proposals have become so numerous that they could well act as a deterrent to truly independent, experienced directors of proven expertise who decide that the approach is becoming just a box-ticking exercise that limits their input to the board by virtue of the preponderance of "measuring up to the best practice" proposals. One company secretary sent me 16 pages of changes to existing practices which must be considered and, fortuitously, today gave me a further checklist of how best we can carry out the proposed evaluation of the board. I refer to paragraph 11.22 of the Higgs report. The latest document he has presented me with is composed of two parts. The first deals with the performance evaluation of the board and consists of no fewer than 62 questions, each of which requires comment, not just box-ticking. That is in line with the guidance in Annex J of the Higgs report. The second part deals with the performance evaluation of independent directors. There are 10 questions requiring detailed comments on each individual independent director. In the case of this particular board, there are eight independent directors, so I have

1345
to ruminate at length on the answers to 70 questions. Unfortunately, I cannot fill in my own evaluation. The costs of running the board could well escalate to such a level that shareholders would be quite within their rights to object.
Let us not forget that the business world has been inundated by prescriptions to improve corporate governance. I shall give a few examples. In the US, there is Sarbanes Oxley, which is the only one encapsulated in law; in France there are two reports, Vienot in the late 1990s and Bouton this year: and there are also all of our reports, which I have already listed. My slightly facetious mind is reminded of a song from "Annie get your Gun"; it is, "Anything you can do I can do better". The process is in danger of taking over. Business entrepreneurship, creativity, the ability to be light on one's feet in grasping opportunities and the ability to compete worldwide could be hampered by concentration on that process.
The really serious points, which have already been mentioned, include the recommendations relating to the choice and role of the chairman. It is crazy to suggest that the chairman should not be chairman of the nominations committee. I am afraid that I cannot agree with the views of my noble friend Lord Freeman on the nominations committee. The proposal is just crazy. The operation of the board depends so much on the chemistry of the board, as demonstrated by the ability of the chairman to have respect for, and trust in, all the directors. How could that be achieved without the chairman's input and, indeed, leadership in the final selection of a proposed independent director? After all, as has been said, that is a pivotal role. A pivotal role not being chairman? How?
Secondly, the only situation in which it would be in the interest of the company for the senior independent director to approach the shareholders would be in the case of a weak chairman who was not up to the job. In such a situation, that should be done by the whole hoard, not just by the senior independent director who might have a not-so-hidden agenda. That would also result in a two-class board, signalling demise of the unitary hoard. I believe that most people in British industry and commerce would agree that that is a good thing. A pivotal role for the chairman? I think not.
The third serious point is that the cost of all of this has so far been passed over. What about the additional reporting requirements—chunks of it—in the annual report? What about the costs of consultants to assist in carrying out the performance review? I have already alluded to costs of headhunters. Costs, cost, costs, my Lords, just at a time when we are all struggling to survive.
The definition of independence makes passing reference to a person being,
"independent in character and judgement".
Those are pretty fundamental personal characteristics, which are so basic that they are unlikely to be diminished in any way irrespective of whether the person sits on a board for six years. That period actually equates to a period of 72 days if one measures the contribution and effectiveness of the director by
1346
attendance at and contribution to board meetings. The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, said that integrity should be introduced. Does he mean that people should be trained to have integrity? Surely people either have integrity or they do not as a basic personal characteristic. If the director has that independence of "character and judgement", how come he or she is in danger of losing those basic characteristics to a point that they,
"could affect, or appear to affect, the director's judgement"?
I quote from lines four and five on page 37. In my personal experience, the longer that one is on the board the more independent one becomes. Let us remember that to lose the services and contribution of an experienced director on the spurious basis of lack of independence, based on a fallible description of independence, is unjustifiable in fact. If it works, do not fix it.
In the time available to us—I am about to overrun—we are certainly not in a position to enumerate concerns or to consider more carefully the more positive points. I hope that if the Government feel minded to encapsulate the recommendations of the Higgs review, they will think long and hard and give your Lordships' House much more time to consider the matter further.
4.58 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, I point out that I intend to concentrate more on the values that inform the policies and practices of public companies than on the structure of governance. Before doing so, I apologise to the Minister and to your Lordships' House that, not knowing that there would be a Statement this afternoon, I find myself in the situation of having to be at a long-standing commitment in Greenwich at seven o'clock. I may have to leave shortly before the winding-up speeches, for which I apologise.
Ideally, the values of companies should work together with the right structures of governance. However, my point is that to concentrate exclusively on codes, rules and regulations can easily miss the point. After all, the old Soviet Union had, on paper, a most impressive constitution of checks and balances. The Germans, as always, have a word for what I want to talk about—the issue of values. They speak of the Geist—spirit—which is necessary to bring to life the bare bones of formal institutional blueprints. The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, has already referred to that.
Companies are human institutions like any other. They are not value-free, except perhaps in the minds of academic economists. Rotten leadership produces rotten companies, as Enron and others have recently reminded us. Conversely, integrity produces good companies.
First, I shall say a brief word on Higgs. Much of the report is timely and good common sense, and I welcome that, but I find two of his conclusions dubious. Here, I declare an interest as a former member of the board of Rio Tinto, a FTSE listed company, with a continuing role as adviser to the

1347
chairman. Although I believe that it is right to identify a senior independent director and right that institutional investors should, at times of crisis, have access to him—in practice, they do anyway—I consider it entirely wrong that he should beat a path around the City confusing everyone as to the company's normal investor relations.
Incidentally, I believe that one useful and appropriate function for SID—perhaps we should call him El Cid to distinguish him from the British Gas shareholders—might be to make him the ultimate destination for internal whistle-blowers who cannot find satisfaction for their concerns through the specified channels. That would be a proper check and balance for SID.
Then we come to the issue of the chairmanship of the nominations committee. Here, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain. I can see no case for taking this pivotal role out of the hands of the chairman, one of whose key responsibilities is to build and balance a team. Indeed, the more the chairman is placed, à la Higgs, in a quasi independent mode—non-executive only, not having been a former CEO of the company—the less easy it is to see why that responsibility should be taken away from him.
I now want to revert to the question of sound values, which should be reflected in the way the company is managed and how it does its business. I believe it is idle to pretend that the leaderships of large companies do not face a significant deficit in trust and public confidence. It is often said that we have moved from a "tell me" world to a "show me" world. A great deal of urgent thought is going on in a number of leading companies as to how, by a clear demonstration of the right policies in action, confidence can be earned and trust restored.
That requires leadership from the top of the company—the boardroom. But, if it is to be more than public relations, it also requires ownership on the part of all the employees, and it is noticeable that one of the key drivers to improvement in corporate standards is the wish of able young people to join companies which they feel they can respect. A recent survey by Environics International, the global research company whose advisory board I chair, showed that 83 per cent of employees of large companies believed that the more socially responsible their company was, the more motivated and loyal they were.
Therefore, the key desirable characteristic of a healthy corporate culture is responsibility. By that, I mean that, without diluting in any way the accountability to the shareholder for the creation of long-term value—and how difficult our financial system makes it to keep eyes fixed on the longer term—the company should seek to exercise care, consideration and high standards in all its key relationships with consumers, customers and suppliers, host communities and, above all, its employees. Power in a democratic society—large companies do have power—should always be exercised accountably and responsibly.
1348
That is why the publication on corporate social responsibility, Making Good Business Sense, which I co-authored with Sir Philip Watts, now chairman of Shell, on behalf of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, recommended that every company should set out clearly what it stands for and the standards of conduct by which it should be judged and then get on with living up to the commitment. A growing number of companies have joined Shell and Rio Tinto in doing exactly that.
In my view, alongside responsibility, the other two cardinal virtues are transparency and a sense of proportion. The merit of greater openness, subject to reasonable commercial confidentiality, should be obvious. Transparency on the part of a company removes suspicions; it allows boardrooms to learn from their mistakes; and it promotes greater confidence all round.
As for a sense of proportion, perhaps I may mention one issue to which the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, referred in his introductory speech. It is an issue where reason seems to have fled from some boardrooms—that of grossly excessive remuneration. It is what Warren Buffett, the sage of Omaha, two days ago called "obscene pay". This contagion has spread from the United States, often carried on the wings of so-called "remuneration consultants" whose recommendations, curiously, always seem to ratchet package levels upwards and never downwards.
Of course, the world of senior executives is internationally competitive and of course exceptional performance should be commensurately rewarded. But what, in some cases, seems merely to be excessive greed, in bad times as well as good, must be curbed if the social acceptance of the useful role of business in society is not to be fatally damaged.
Others have spoken eloquently about setting the right framework. That is important. But if we are to have more than a culture of box-ticking—bare compliance, as it were—and if we are to have a culture of compliance-plus, it is also important to build on the wish of companies themselves to do better in restoring trust. Therefore, my plea for responsibility, transparency and proportionality is in that spirit.
5.6 p.m.
Lord Fyfe of Fairfield: My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lord Brennan on initiating this debate. Inevitably my contribution is conditioned by my own personal experience. I want to concentrate on the Higgs report.
Until I retired from full-time business around two-and-a-half years ago, I was chairman of the Co-operative Group, the CWS, chief executive of the Midlands Co-operative Society, a director and vice-chairman of the Co-operative Bank, a director of the Co-operative Insurance Society, and the chairman of a footwear multiple. Therefore, I believe that under those circumstances I have breached several provisions of the Higgs report.
Frankly, at the time I undertook those responsibilities, I did not feel that there was a risk of any conflict of interest or, indeed, of my

1349
responsibilities being excessive. But, with the benefit of hindsight—we all have that—I believe that perhaps there were occasions when I took on too many responsibilities and perhaps, at times, there were areas of conflict. Therefore, I believe that Higgs has much to contribute in that sphere. Now I have learnt my lesson. Since I retired, I have confined myself to the chairmanship of the Unity Trust Bank.
The debate on chairmen and chief executives has been fought and won and very few large companies now embody both roles in one individual. From my own personal knowledge, a chairman requires a chief executive and a chief executive requires a chairman. But I want to focus on several items in the Higgs report which some may consider relatively trivial in the scheme of things.
First, I turn to the subject of the ubiquitous SID—the senior independent director. This paragon will attempt to resolve concerns that have not been satisfied by consultation with the chairman or the chief executive. I submit that if that process is necessary, there is something wrong with the chairman or the chief executive, perhaps both. If such a matter arises, surely it is a concern for the board as a whole and should be tackled as a whole. It may demonstrate that something is lacking in the ability of the chairman or the chief executive to solve the problem. In my opinion, SID could become a glorified complaints officer or a focus of discontent. That could lead to disruption in the boardroom and to politics in the board. From my experience of boardrooms, some directors are much more adept politicians than many of the inhabitants of the Westminster village.
I take issue with some speakers on the nomination process for non-executives. If a chairman elected by his peers as capable of chairing a company is not capable of or responsible for chairing the nominations committee, I would submit that a problem exists with that chairman who in those circumstances, as has been said, has a pivotal role. Who should serve that function? Does the ubiquitous—I should not have used that word because it is too complicated—SID come into the scheme of events once again to perform that function and so exaggerate his own importance?
Incidentally, it is not easy to recruit non-executive directors. Capable people with the time, the sense of responsibility and the knowledge to undertake the functions do not grow on trees. Thank heaven that the days have gone when simply by being a Peer or a knight one could be granted a relatively easy passage to a boardroom.
Tenure of office concerns me. While two three-year terms may be appropriate for some companies, the Higgs proposals do not appear to have regard for the size and complexity of some businesses. I speak from personal experience. I was chairman of the Co-operative Group which covered a wide sphere. Overall, all directors were responsible for retailing, farming, travel, funeral, banking, insurance, manufacturing and other sectors. Could any non-executive director entering such a job attempt to master the complexities of that business in two three-year terms? My experience is that non-executive
1350
directors become of real value only when they have had considerable experience of a large business and have become involved in it.
On the remuneration committee, Higgs makes the passing comment that the chief executive's opinion and the chairman's opinion should be taken into account. I do not believe that that is strong enough. The chief executive should always be in attendance. He does not necessarily have to be a member of the remuneration committee but he should always be in attendance at the remuneration committee meetings when the remuneration of his executive colleagues is being discussed. Who better to measure the strengths and weaknesses of his executive colleagues than the chief executive who works with them on a daily basis? Of course, he should not be involved in deciding the remuneration of the chairman or the non-executive directors.
There are many depressing aspects of corporate greed and downright incompetence in British business. I shall not go into them; it is not part of the Higgs remit. I hope that many of the sensible comments that he makes can go some way to alleviate that. I welcome many parts of the report, but there is little point in companies heading for Carey Street—I am being old-fashioned—or heading for Canary Wharf protesting that they have ticked all the right boxes. That would be no consolation whatever to shareholders. Business has failed to regulate itself so often that governments must act, but at the same time they must create the environment in which business can prosper. There should be sensible, although not necessarily benign regulation but not over-prescription. While the report has much to commend it there are some areas in which it lacks practicality and common sense, but common sense is not very common.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Stewartby: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, for giving us this timely opportunity to debate a topical subject. Like others, I must declare various interests. Perhaps I may do so in an omnibus way. My current commitments are listed in the register, but at one time or another over the past 30 years I have been a non-executive director of 10 public companies. Currently I am chairman of the audit committee of two financial companies and, for my sins, senior independent director. Not surprisingly, in the past few months my workload has increased exponentially.
There is a great deal of sense in the Higgs report. Inevitably, public comment on it will have focused on those areas where there is a case for disagreement. I do not propose to run through a catalogue of points about which I am a little unhappy. I certainly shall riot open up the subject of the senior independent director, because I believe that it has had more than enough attention outside this Chamber. On a personal basis I am a little anxious about what it may imply.
I want to comment on one or two points to illustrate where I believe that Higgs has become too prescriptive. Independent non-executive directors feature

1351
prominently in the scheme that is now being developed and I wonder whether public expectations of the capacity and effectiveness of non-executive directors are being exaggerated. They play an important role that must be undertaken properly, but some discussions on the subject seem to imply that they can sort out everything on their own, which of course they cannot because they are part of a unitary board. Nevertheless, Higgs has bravely offered a definition of "independent". Most elements that he quotes are entirely reasonable—for example, a conflict of interest in a business connection with another company or a former employee—although a couple appear to me to be arbitrary and not entirely realistic, at least in the light of my own experience.
The first is that if two members of the board of company A are also members of the board of company B, they are both deemed not to be fully independent on either board. I do not believe that that is necessarily sensible. The right kind of people will not be contaminated by having a connection with someone on another board. As the noble Lord, Lord Fyfe, has said, these days it is not easy to recruit good non-executive directors and particularly ones who are willing to serve on audit committees and remuneration committees. I believe that we should limit by an artificial criterion the factors that enable one to qualify. In my experience, one of the most useful ways of judging whether someone will be a good contributor to a board is to have some experience of how he or she already performs on a board. Therefore, knowing his or her performance in another context is a positive advantage.
Sometimes the press give the impression that directors are recruited on a golf club buddy basis. That is far from my experience. These days, most large companies use head hunters because the role of a non-executive director is very complex and responsible and it is not easy to find people capable and willing to carry out such a role. That area makes me uncomfortable.
Another part of the definition of independence relates to the time that board members have served. Six years is far too short for many businesses. That issue needs to be addressed. Anyone who sits on a board for 10 years and at that point ceases to have independence of mind should probably never have been on it in the first place. If one cannot handle that kind of experience, how on earth can one have the independence of mind needed to make the necessary contribution?
One or two long-serving directors on a board arc very useful. Not only do they have historical perspective and know what arguments were previously brought for and against when business issues arise, but over time they can acquire a feel for a company and a feel for the way that the board and the management operate: they get a "nose" for things. If one cuts them off just after they have become really useful, one tends to harm the effectiveness of the board. Certainly, that has been the case in all the companies that I have served.
1352
Both the points which I have raised by way of illustration could be markers for careful reappraisal. If they were, rather than a description of what is expected to be normal practice, it would be valuable. I do not see why they should not be seen in that light. That brings me to the final key point about comply or explain. There is already in the corporate governance industry—because one has to call it that—a tendency towards box ticking. Corporate governance is becoming an industry in its own right. The pressures will be towards compliance rather than explanation, even when compliance may provide a less suitable answer.
I believe that a company should have a board that it needs for the proper direction and management of its business. It should be very sensitive to the Higgs requirements, but it should not be in any way ashamed to provide a robust justification of where it does not comply.
In conclusion, one of the best things about Higgs is that it recognises that detailed legislation on all these subjects would not be in the interests of the process we are all trying to promote. It is important that he and the Government have reached that view. But it will be absolutely essential, if the Higgs formula is going to work well, that companies that arc well run and properly governed should not get black marks for choosing explanation rather than compliance where they think that that is the proper course.
5.23 p.m.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, I say at once how much I enjoyed the noble Lord's remarks. I was becoming increasingly depressed by what seemed to be moving towards an uninterrupted "love-in" over a document which I think is significantly flawed.
I declare my interests. I have been a director, as have all speakers in the debate, of 18 companies. I was chairman of 10 of them. They were based variously in Toronto, Montreal, New York, Paris, Hong Kong and London. So I am interested in what goes on elsewhere. I should also declare that I am not only currently the chairman of an investment trust, but that it happens to be a split-capital investment trust. It has paid off all its zero dividend preference shareholders everything they expected on 20th December last year, which was when they expected it. I get that matter out of the way before someone goes to the Library.
The noble Lord, Lord Brennan, opened the debate, as always very effectively, by listing all the terrible things that have happened. They were concentrated understandably very much on what has been happening relatively recently in the United States. I shall come on to that. I say in passing only that he listed the various professions that were usually to be

1353
found involved in these activities. But I could not understand why he left out the lawyers, some of whom played a prominent part in the Maxwell débâcle.
Lord Brennan: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. He was not concentrating sufficiently. When he looks at tomorrow's Hansard, he will find that they figure clearly in the list.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, I am glad that I did not misjudge my affection for the noble Lord.
There was also a reference to the fact that "confidence needs to be restored". My basic criticism of the report—and for me it is a serious one—is that it assumes a level of amateurism at board level which has not existed in this country for some years past. Few human institutions ever achieve perfection and the company boardroom is no exception. But the changes that have taken place over recent years, starting in the mid-1980s and going right through the 1990s, have produced a much more sophisticated and effective corporate governance and financial regime in the United Kingdom and—I am sticking my neck out—it is certainly in advance of that in the United States.
Yet some people are still living in a world where they conjure up this bogey board that is comprised of old colonels and which puts each other's mates on it. Of course there are small hoards that do, but there is a degree of personal liability—and I shall return to that subject—which hovers above every director of a public company. As I have often said, I have never been particularly moral, but I am distinctly cowardly on these occasions and board members do not take kindly to people they cannot rely on and trust nowadays.
So my first point is that the situation has changed. Of course corporate management needs to be continually monitored because change is a constant feature of a modern global business. But the suggestion so often implied in this country that corporate incompetence exists on a scale which threatens a systemic failure is simply not true. If it were true, we would not have the high performance of our businesses in this country in industry and, in particular, in commerce.
I do not believe that Enron could happen today in this country. Having recently had to approve the audit committee report of a company I chair, I was then handed a 13-page draft letter to the auditor which explained in great detail how each member of the board fully understood and took responsibility for every single issue identified in the report and accounts. I do not complain about that. I believe it is a very good thing. But it exists to an extent which is not the case in some other countries.
On that point,. one area where we are weak and where the Americans are ahead of us is that people who commit offences which they must know as directors are "dodgy"—to use the vernacular—should go wherever possible to gaol. If that is not possible, they should at least be disqualified. That did not happen in Maxwell as a result of the embarrassment it would have caused both political parties and it has not
1354
happened in a number of other cases. That is one way far more effective than any other to get discipline into such companies.
So what does that 120-page document bring to the British boardroom? Much of it—surprisingly, given the high reputation of the author—is a series of statements of the obvious that make it difficult to take the rest of the report seriously. I shall cite only a couple of the many similar exercises in banality. In a paragraph on the company secretary—let us remember that the report is addressed to members of boards—it states:
"The role of the company secretary is important in the provision of information and more widely in supporting the effective performance of non-executive directors".
Another paragraph states:
"The company secretary has a wide range of responsibilities but among those most central to enhancing non-executive director performance are the facilitation of good information flows, provision of impartial information"—
and it continues at length and states:
"All the board also need a clear understanding of the role of the company secretary".
If I found that I had joined a board whose members did not understand the role of the company secretary, they would not see my backside for dust.
I choose another example at random. Much of the document views the appointment of hoard members as one would that of executives—but they are not the same. There is, for example, a,
"Pre-appointment due diligence checklist for new hoard members".
It states that the first question that candidates should ask themselves is:
"What is the company's financial position and what has its financial track record been over the last three years?".
Other questions include:
"What are the exact nature and extent of the company's business activities?",
and,
"Who owns the company … ?".
A candidate who would not have already obtained that information should not be allowed out on his own at night, much less join a board.
I am running over my time, for which I apologise. Basically, no board can function effectively unless its members trust and respect each other. Several noble Lords have effectively said that no board can be left to its own devices. The role and responsibilities of directors of public companies are unique within the company. They are not the same as the role of a middle rank executive; that produces constraints and is why directors will usually seek someone with some understanding of board procedures, not necessarily with experience of serving on a hoard, but a senior executive with experience of being called before the board.
This is a bad report.
5.33 p.m.
Lord Paul: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Brennan for initiating this debate. I declare an interest as chairman of Caparo Group, a United Kingdom industrial company.
I applaud attempts to amend our business policy and to institute structural reforms of businesses. I therefore welcome the Higgs and Smith reports and hope that we continue to maintain a discussion about mending flawed institutions.
However, the Confederation of British Industry's recent survey of company chairmen suggests that business leaders do not agree with all of the structural reforms proposed in the Higgs report. There is a reason for that concern. If we create too many structural regulations and limitations, running a company may become difficult. For instance, it simply does not seem practical to have directors watching over each other. That would take executive directors' time away from more productive work, making even perfectly honest businesses less efficient and less competitive. Although such efficiency losses would be worthwhile if we could thereby eliminate corporate fraud from our economy, the fear is that such institutional reforms might fail to bring about true change in business practices.
To my mind, there are two issues. The first is that the key to corporate governance is the accountability of individuals and corporate bodies and a clear understanding by shareholders, employees and the community of the obligations and duties of corporate managers. Further work is required in that area. For example, my company Caparo sued for negligence the auditors of a public company that it acquired in which the directors had perpetrated a massive fraud. The case came to your Lordships' House, where it was ruled that auditors owed a duty of care only to the company, not to the investors, shareholders or any other stakeholder.
Although one can accept that as a correct interpretation of the law, it runs contrary to popular belief about the role of auditors in corporate governance. So, in addition to establishing a framework of corporate governance, more needs to be done to communicate to stakeholders at large what are the exact duties and responsibilities of individuals and corporate bodies.
The second issue is more concerned with the future as, so far, we in this country have been fortunate. When a corporate leader comes to believe in material success as an end in itself, no matter what it takes to acquire that success, structural obstacles to fraud and corruption become just obstacles—to be overcome, to be surmounted.
An entrepreneurial individual who has managed to lead a powerful company successfully has already proven his comfort with risk and willingness to face obstacles fearlessly. We must therefore address the most fundamental aspect of corporate governance, which is the personal honesty and integrity of business leaders. For a company to be successful—for it to benefit not just its shareholders but its workers and the
1356
community that it serves—its managers must act ethically. Wealth can be a menace that can sometimes lead decent people astray. I do not say that power and wealth will always corrupt. But although a businessman without ethics may be financially successful, his success will come at the expense of the community at large.
So how can government encourage self-restraint in those who would misuse wealth and power? To be really effective, restraint—restraint that stems from a sense of responsibility and therefore produces moral obligations—must come from within the individual, not from legislation. We are not born with restraint; we must learn by example. Those who accept the need for moral values must expound those principles. As a Parliament, we must embrace discussion of personal ethics and responsibility.
I am hopeful that an emphasis on personal integrity will become an important part of all future discussion of corporate governance. Sadly, we are seeing a new bumper crop of trouble in the business world. We have again seen that the root cause has been greed, coupled with the abdication of personal responsibility. Let us, then, not shy away from an ongoing discussion of how to ensure that ethics—norms of honesty and integrity—become entrenched in the mindset of the entire business world.
5.39 p.m.
Viscount Chandos: My Lords, I join noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lord Brennan for his initiative in proposing the debate on this important subject and for the clarity and elegance of his introduction. I declare my interests, listed on the Register of Members' Interests, as the chairman of one listed company, an independent non-executive director of another and the director of a number of private companies.
My 15 minutes of fame last year, when I was named runner-up to the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, in the number of directorships declared in the Register of Lords' Interests, illustrates the difficulties of being prescriptive about the number of directorships that might properly be held, given that many of my entries related to a single activity as a venture capitalist. The Financial Times, adopting the journalistic standards of the Sunday Sport—"Elvis Presley is alive and well and sits on the Enron audit committee"—tried then to draw a conclusion on corporate governance and the relationship between Parliament and business, based on an analysis conducted with the thoroughness and logical coherence of a last-minute undergraduate essay.
By contrast, the Higgs report has steered deftly through the opposing rocks of complacency and over-prescriptiveness. Whatever refinements and amendments might be proposed should be warmly welcomed. In the time available, I shall concentrate my comments on the Higgs report. But I welcome the equally helpful and valuable report chaired by Sir Robert Smith.

1357
The expressions of outrage emanating from some of the past and present chairmen of our largest companies do not represent a sensible contribution to this important debate—it is more like the harumphing of bull elephants confronted by the need to walk a little further to find their water hole. I hope that, if in the future my noble friend Lord Brennan introduces a third debate on the subject, some of the distinguished FTSE chairmen and chief executives past and present who are Members of your Lordships' House will be able to put their views directly to noble Lords.
Although corporate governance in the UK is generally good by international comparison and has been improving, we should recognise the many and varied imperfections that have existed and, to some extent, persist. My happy memories as a board colleague of the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, cannot reduce the extent of my disagreement with him on that point.
Ten years ago, the ubiquitous Sir Roland Smith, whose multiple directorships prompted the Financial Times to propose a Roland Smith index of companies, was asked, shortly after his removal as chairman of British Aerospace, what was the most important attribute in a non-executive director. "Loyalty", he cried—and I do not think he meant loyalty towards the interests of shareholders.
Much more recently, when I was advising a substantial listed company, I expressed surprise to one of the non-executive directors at the financial commitments that had been made by the chairman to activities far outside the company's core business without any identifiable process of board approval. "Ah!", said this pillar of the City establishment, "you must understand that we have continued to be run very much like a family company".
Let me read from an announcement made to the London Stock Exchange:
"Following a preliminary investigation … it is clear that all but a small proportion of the company's cash holdings are no longer under the company's control. The exact whereabouts of the company's funds are still being investigated. However, it has been established that most of the company's funds have been transferred to associates of Orb a.r.l.".
The date of the announcement was 10th January 2003. The company, Izodia plc, may not be a household name, and the sums missing—"only" £30 million, I understand—may not rank with the greatest corporate disasters, but it is a timely reminder to guard against complacency.
That last example provokes this question: what do we believe good corporate governance is intended to achieve? Are we most concerned about protecting companies, their shareholders and employees from the foolishness of fools or the knavery of knaves? I believe that it is both, equally. The comments of my noble friend Lord Haskel on that point were correct.
As my noble friend Lord Brennan said, it is undeniable that well-planned fraud is difficult for an executive director, let alone a non-executive director, to detect in time. But an effective board should preside over systems, controls and a corporate ethos that minimise the risk of such fraud being perpetrated.
1358
Companies must take risks to survive, let alone to grow. Sometimes that risk is encapsulated in a strategic decision—or a series of decisions—in which the whole board will have been intimately involved. Whatever the quality or the independence of the non-executive directors, those strategic decisions will sometimes be wrong, occasionally disastrous. But an effective board, once more, with non-executive directors who are, as my noble friend Lord Haskel advocated, constructively involved as well as rigorously vigilant, should improve the odds of success, which, as those of our colleagues who may be at Cheltenham would confirm, is what it is all about.
As the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, said, the Higgs report as a whole should be welcomed because its recommendations should contribute to the effectiveness of boards in both the areas that I have just outlined. I do not believe that the recommendations regarded as most contentious— the role of the senior independent director and the chairmanship of the nominations committee—represent a real threat to the authority or effectiveness of a company's chairman. What is more, those recommendations are always subject to the principle of "comply or explain". In particular, Mr Higgs has justified his decision not to propose separate guidelines for smaller listed companies by the ability of companies to explain their reasons for incomplete compliance.
It is on that key issue that I should like to end. "Comply or explain" lies at the heart of the non-prescriptive approach of the Higgs report and is crucial to the workability of the proposed system, particularly for smaller companies. However, what the principle requires to work is the commitment of institutional shareholders to give the time to assess each company's explanation of partial compliance; otherwise the desired flexibility of Higgs will be lost and its guidelines will instead become by default a rigid set of rules. The institutions, which in my experience have been generous in their provision of time to consider and agree selective non-compliance by a company one-hundredth the size of a top-20 FTSE group, face a significant challenge in maintaining that standard as their caseload continues to grow.
5.47 p.m.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I join those who congratulated my noble friend Lord Brennan on initiating this important debate. I have registered a number of modest interests in non-executive roles in minor companies that are not strictly relevant to Higgs. I assume from the title of the debate that it refers largely to Higgs. There have been many other reports before Higgs—the Cadbury report, the Greenbury report, the Hampel report, combined codes, corporate governance codes, the "Winter group" in the European Union and the Myners report. To those reports we now add Higgs.
In the short time available, I shall not deal with the detail of Higgs. I shall concentrate on the central question of corporate governance: who controls the

1359
major companies, and who should control them? I refer not only to the FTSE 100—some large companies drop out from time to time.
I share many of the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, on the Higgs report. I found much of it trivial and vacuous, to be honest. I shall give some small examples. Page 5 states:
"The board is collectively responsible".
Well, that is a shock to us. It is stated on the same page:
"The chairman has a pivotal role".
He certainly has a role. Page 6 states:
"All directors should take decisions objectively in the interests of the company".
That is a surprise; maybe some do so. On page 77, under the heading "Principle", the report states:
"Every listed company should be headed by an effective board".
Well, there you are. That is what needs to be done. Talk about a statement of the obvious, as the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, said; that is precisely what those are.
We did not need Higgs to tell us the action that was needed. Nevertheless, there are, in those 120 pages, some items with which I agree. There are some proposals that are worth consideration. Certainly, the status quo is not an option, and action is needed.
There is some confusion in the Government's position, if I may say so to my noble friend who will reply to the debate. As usual, I am not sure whether the DTI or the Treasury is in charge of the matter. There have been many Treasury statements about who is backing or not backing the Higgs report or letting it go by the board. Perhaps, my noble friend will tell us. In the most recent article in the Financial Times, we are told that the Government back Higgs. I will be interested to hear my noble friend clarify the Government's position today. He usually accepts my advice: he did so yesterday with regard to excessive remuneration, although he did not tell me what he considered to be excessive.
I hope that he will confirm today that the Government do not have in mind legislation to implement Higgs. That would be the last thing that we need. I assume that my noble friend can tell us that he proposes to have a code-based system and that the code will he in the charge of the Financial Reporting Council, even though, as we are told in some quarters, the FRC is likely to water down Higgs. I will be interested to hear from my noble friend what he would do if it proposes to water down Higgs, which I would not mind.
We are told that the chairman has a pivotal role. That is true, whether he is an executive or non-executive chairman. The chief executive, the finance director and the chairman run the major companies; we need not dispute that. Who appoints those people? That is what I want to concentrate on. Who keeps them in their job, when they do a disastrous job? That is a crucial matter, but it is not a matter for legislation.
1360
Legislation cannot decide who is a good chairman or a good chief executive. It is for the owners of the company to decide.
Not enough has been said about the owners of companies. In most FTSE 100 and other large companies, the owners are not the small shareholders; more than 70 per cent of ownership is in the hands of major institutions. Often, those institutions are not doing the job that they should do. They are responsible—or should be—for the appointment of non-executive directors, who play a crucial role in making sure that the management of a company does a decent job.
My noble friend Lord Fyfe of Fairfield made the good point that good non-executive directors do not grow on trees. That is true. Institutional shareholders are not doing the job. Too many non-executive directors do not or cannot either do the job or give up enough time to do it. That is a challenge to the owners of the company. We do not need to be told that they need integrity; of course, they do. They need competence, as well; they must be able people. Too many are appointed because they are friends of the chairman or the chief executive—not all, but too many. As I said, legislation will not produce better non-executive directors.
The real answer must be for the owners of companies to do the job that they should be doing on behalf of all the shareholders. The major institutions do little or nothing of the job that they should do. If they do anything, it is usually too late. The first solution must be for those major institutions—not the Government—to ensure that non-executive members of boards of companies in which they have a major shareholding are not just cronies, if that is the word, but are good, able people of considerable integrity and ability and do not sit on too many other boards.
The job should include a proper internal audit system. Happily, I do not think that we are likely to have another Enron-type affair here, for the reasons that have been given. Fraud involving collusion between the chairman, the chief executive, the finance director and the senior audit partner would not be easy to spot for even the finest, most able non-executive directors. However, if, at least, there were a proper internal audit system—however costly—there would be a chance of spotting it. Without it, there is no chance. Good non-executive directors will ensure that there is a good internal audit system, and their appointment is the responsibility of the institutional shareholders who own the companies. They are not doing the job: I hope that we can ensure that, in future, they will.
5.55 p.m.
Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, in intervening in the debate, I declare an interest as a non-executive director of Whitbread plc and a member of its audit, nomination and remuneration committees.
In recent years, there have been several reports—good, for the most part—on corporate governance.They have generated a large corporate governance

1361
industry. I suppose that, like me, all company directors receive their daily postbag of invitations to seminars and breakfasts on the subject. The reports have also generated a remarkable facility among company secretaries for inserting ticks in appropriate boxes.
Now we have the Higgs report, and with it has come an element of unjustified polarisation between the assumption that all the report's conclusions are, almost by definition, good and the opposite view, summarised by the Financial Times headline,
"FTSE 100 chiefs oppose Higgs reforms".
The Minister may say that the Government are more selective in their approach to the Higgs recommendations. If so, I shall be glad to hear that. However, the impression of a polarisation of views is evident in press and other comment.
It would be odd if, after so much attention has been paid to corporate governance, a report were to come forward that was worthy of complete acceptance or rejection. That cannot he the case. There is a series of recommendations: some desirable, others a matter of judgment and some likely to have only a marginal effect. I am in favour of proposals to widen the range of persons—male and, particularly, female—suitable and willing to serve on company boards. I am also in favour of separating the role of chairman and chief executive, not so much as a matter of corporate governance or propriety but because both jobs require a substantial commitment of time and attention. Whatever is done with regard to other recommendations, it is important that nothing be done that, perhaps inadvertently, diminishes the role of the chairman, who has the greatest responsibility for the health of the company.
Some other recommendations are rather innocuous. I would not be prepared to go to the barricades about them, particularly if two things were recognised. First, different circumstances in different companies may make it undesirable to follow a particular recommendation. Secondly—this is self-evident—a company should always indicate why it has not followed a recommendation.
I shall make two more general comments on matters to which I attach importance. First, I am surprised by the assumption that a board consists of two blocs of members—the executive and non-executive directors. In the direction of a company, it is just as likely that there will be disagreement among the non-executives as it is that there will be disagreement between the executives and the non-executives. The fear that executive directors will be hell-bent on some dangerous scheme, while the non-executives restrain them, is, to say the least, an excessively simplified view of the difficult choices on a company's development that the whole board must make. In short, non-executives have a role, and improvements in the way in which it is performed, resulting from the attention given in recent years to corporate governance, are, generally, good. But it is hardly realistic to think that they can, in themselves, determine the development of a company.
1362
Secondly, it is naive in the extreme to suppose that there is a direct and necessary relationship between passing the good governance tests and running a profitable company for the benefit of its personnel, shareholders and the country.
Some facts about past experience, like the facts about loss of value by public companies even before 11th September, are rather uncomfortable. However, I should like to refer to them in order to emphasise that further action on good governance may be desirable in itself but that it does not—I repeat, not—necessarily correlate with good financial results. Even that paragon of financial comment, the Financial Times, in an editorial on Monday stated:
"Investors have seen share price collapses in companies such as Marconi, BAE and Reuters whose corporate governance would have fallen foul of Higgs",
at least implying that there was some connection.
Some of the companies which have gained most in value have been least compliant with past recommendations on governance; and some of the companies which have lost most value have been most compliant on governance. For example, looking at the total return to shareholders of the FTSE 100 companies in the five years ending 2001—thus excluding any distortion from recent political events—some companies made very good increases, but the bottom quartile made a negative return. In short, their shareholders would have done better to put their money on bank deposit, because it was worth less to shareholders at the end of the five years than at the beginning.
However, we also note that these poorly performing companies scored the highest marks for corporate governance; and the best performing companies scored the lowest marks for corporate governance. We must not confuse the form of corporate governance with the reality of long-run total shareholder return. Furthermore, the salaries of the chief executive officers of the worst performing companies were higher than the salaries of the chief executive officers of the best performing companies.
I do not want to be misunderstood. I do not say that that implies that the whole of the corporate governance industry should be thrown on the scrap-heap. On the contrary: I have already indicated that I fully support some important recommendations of the Higgs report. However, the past experience that I have quoted deserves serious reflection, particularly in a period when many pension funds are holding shares in companies which have fallen disastrously in value.
My own conclusion is a more general one. Our prime objective today should be to do all that we can to ensure that we do not have widespread loss of value in public companies. That means attention should be given to the burdens of bureaucracy, taxation and too much short-termism—issues which we all know are wrong—and that we do encourage shareholders to give a lot of attention to a link between salaries and performance. In short, not the form but the substance.
6.3 p.m.
Baroness Cohen of Pimlico: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Brennan for introducing the debate. It is extremely timely. We speak of little else in the City. I have been dying to give my own views rather than listening to other people.
Against that background, I declare an interest; I am chairman of a smallish FTSE company and a director of the London Stock Exchange. That makes it particularly important to state that my views are my own. The London Stock Exchange has not yet had the opportunity to take a collective view on both Higgs and Smith; and I should not wish to label them with mine.
Both the Higgs and Smith reports arise out of a statement of objection—as so often occurs—to the state of affairs in America that led to the strong regulatory reaction of Sarbanes Oxley. On thinking about what went quite so wrong in the United States of America and in the conduct of major US companies, it is important to understand that their attitude to accounting—to "doing the numbers"—at that time was very different from our attitude in the United Kingdom. It is odd that I, a lawyer, am defending the accountancy profession, but I think that we always did it differently.
We do not always get it right, but auditors of United Kingdom companies are looking for and certifying that the accounts represent a "true and fair" picture of what is happening in the company. That was not a concept that United States' companies adhered to very much. They believed that there were rules applying to a set of accounts. Within those rules you put your best foot forward—you put down what you could get away with. In the United Kingdom, I believe that our auditors—whatever their omissions and difficulties—have always started from the basis of a "true and fair" account.
That is very different from the American concept of "aggressive accounting", when one tries to do one's best. Of course, there are all sorts of other conflicts and difficulties in US corporate life. but I believe that at the bottom of the worst excesses lays the concept of aggressive accounting—only tell as much of the truth as you absolutely have to, as opposed to the concept of a "true and fair" view of the company.
I always start with the accounts because I believe that they are truly important. Therefore, I have only trivial reservations about Sir Robert Smith's suggestions. Sir Robert and I were colleagues in The Charterhouse Group. He ran a distinguished venture capital operation. No man is better equipped to get at the truth of a company's accounts than a serious venture capitalist who bets his name and reputation on just that ability.
However, I have some reservations about the recommendations of Mr Higgs. I hesitate to offer them because I have been around long enough to remember the cries of grief and outrage from some quarters that greeted the recommendations of Sir Adrian Cadbury.
1364
"Three non-executive directors", we cried in horror. "Chairman and chief executive not to be the same person". "Woe to this fair country."
Although in 20years I may turn to what I say today and wince, I believe that the recommendations of Mr Higgs would, if implemented, make the role of a chairman substantially more difficult. And I speak as a chairman. I need to chair the nominations committee. I need to speak directly to my shareholders, at the same time, and, roughly speaking, say the same as my chief executive officer. If shareholders do not trust either of us, they are quite capable of organising a coup without the help of a senior non-executive director. They would probably use the press; they do not need a senior non-executive director.
The Higgs report is also stiff with recommendations which to a small company will come very expensive. At the company which I have the honour to chair, I would have to appoint another two non-executive directors, in addition to the three we already have, in order to out-number my executive directors. In terms of pay, rations and management, we would be grossly top-heavy. When I raised that point with Mr Higgs recently, he said that all his recommendations were on a "comply or explain basis".
"Up to a point, Mr Higgs" and for that matter, my noble friend Lord Chandos. Tell that to the institutional shareholders who will. I believe, ultimately be driven by their own structures to force us all to comply with every last bit of it—whatever it turns out to be. All right, there are distinguished and visionary institutions which will accept an explanation rather than compliance, but most of them will force us through the whole course—whether this be a code or a basis for legislation. Therefore, I am very anxious about some of the more onerous recommendations.
I agree that more non-executive directors are needed. I have never shared the view that there is a self-selecting crony group of people appointing each other to company boards. If there were such a group, I wish it would ask me to join. But it does not apply to women: I am quite, quite sure of that. I am sure, too, that the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, would support such a group. I do not think that either of us have ever been appointed to a job other than by grinding through the executive search process.
However, there are difficulties with widening the scope. Unless there are to be two classes of non-executive director—one of whom is not required to sign the onerous documents which state that we have looked at the system of financial control, that we are satisfied that it exists, and that we are satisfied that it works—a good deal of technical training will be necessary if the ranks of non-executive directors are to be widened, for instance, into the ranks of academics or other useful groups. Quite a serious training requirement will arise, which I know a good many people are thinking about. I hope, too, that the business schools are considering it, because we shall need new types of recruits if we are to have more and better non-executive directors.

1365
Finally, I would observe that if you want to limit the number of non-executive directorships held by an individual—I think that should be done, or perhaps I am just jealous—then the pay will have to be better. The going rate for a non-executive director is £25,000. If someone has retired early and is serious about maintaining their income as a former senior executive, then quite a number of non-executive directorships are needed to make up the pay. Furthermore, the sheer weight of demands being made on non-executive directors means that we shall have to think about paying them more.
That remark takes me back to the point I made earlier about the burden on small companies. Some of the proposals will prove to be excessive and top-heavy. With those reservations, on the whole I welcome both the Higgs report and the debate.
6.11 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Brennan on the debate. I certainly support the Higgs recommendations and I am pleased that the Government do so as well. I believe that the House, too, has given a general welcome to the proposals this afternoon.
The Higgs report relates to public companies, but I suggest that the Government should set an example by including certain relevant parts of it in the rules governing non-departmental government bodies, or quangos, which is the term I shall use during my remarks. It is easier to say. I cite the Strategic Rail Authority as an example of a quango that would benefit from some of the recommendations. In doing so I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group.
I should like to look at some of the recommendations that might be relevant to a quango such as the SRA. There are many similarities in relation to corporate governance. First, I turn to shareholders. Let us be clear: quangos have shareholders in the form of government, Parliament and us, the taxpayers. Secondly, turn to the question of whether there should be a separate chairman and chief executive. Many noble Lords have commented on this. Higgs has recommended that the roles must be separate, but within the Strategic Rail Authority they are not. The noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, suggested that the roles were too much for one person if they are properly to run a company. I agree with him. We should note that effectively the SRA is managing the railway system.
Within the SRA, the chief executive is the accounting officer responsible to Parliament for reporting on finance and keeping within budget, while the chairman's role is probably to ensure that the shareholders and outside interests are involved. Those interests include parliamentarians, local authorities, pressure groups, real customers, the media and many others. Of course it is also necessary for the SRA to comply with all the relevant legislation, directions and guidance sent out rather frequently by the Secretary of State. I suggest that all that is too much for one person to handle properly.
1366
Luckily, however, the chairman and chief executive of the SRA have a board that meets every two weeks or so. But who appoints the board? Higgs has recommended that the board should be appointed by a nomination committee not chaired by the chairman. One or two noble Lords have disagreed with that proposal. The Secretary of State appoints the board of the Strategic Rail Authority on the recommendation of the chairman. As many public limited companies have noted, it can be said that the board comprises a nice, cosy group of friends—although I realise that my noble friend Lady Cohen would not agree with that Comment—who have every incentive not to ask awkward questions or rock the boat. Perhaps the Higgs recommendation that the board members should sometimes meet formally without the chairman being present would help.
Then we have the customers, or shareholders. Passengers are represented by a statutory body, the Rail Passengers Council, whose duty it is to look after passengers' interests. Who funds that council? It is the Strategic Rail Authority. That is rather like a public limited company funding its own shareholder action group and then complaining loudly if the group disagrees ever so slightly with company policy. I do not think that that quite follows the Higgs line of thinking. He would probably veto such a system. But that is what is happening on the railways.
Another Higgs recommendation states that separate independent directors should be made available to shareholders so that they can raise concerns if contacts with the chairman or chief executive—who is the same person, of course—do not resolve them. That is an excellent idea that again could equally well apply to the Strategic Rail Authority.
Higgs noted that fears are still being expressed that an individual can wield too much power, which may be detrimental to a company or its shareholders. However, the power of patronage, be it financial, in terms of employment or in some other form, makes change quite difficult to achieve. The only forms of redress usually available to shareholders is to sell their shares or to form an action group. It is more difficult for quangos. One can seek redress through the National Audit Office or through judicial review, but some might say that either of those options is possibly a bit nuclear. You would not want to do that every day.
The SRA is in a position similar to that of many plcs at the moment. Apparently it is short of money, while its shareholders—its customers—in spite of their financial reliance on the authority, are becoming increasingly vocal in their complaints about its operation and management. However, they seem unable to do very much about the situation. So I want to urge the Government to set a constructive example here. It is clear that they wish to see the Higgs recommendations implemented in the private sector. I suggest that they could also be implemented. where appropriate, in the public sector. As many recommendations as are relevant and possible could

1367
be applied to quangos such as the SRA. I believe that the authority and other organisations like it would work much better as a result.
6.16 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Brennan for introducing the debate and to my noble friend Lord Berkeley for taking on the Higgsian spirit of widening the pool of contributions. I thought that I might be the only speaker so to do. I had begun to feel some trepidation, not to say a little regret, that I do not have a remunerated non-executive directorship to declare in speaking in the debate.
I was most taken by the comments of my noble friend about the capitalist system when he introduced the debate. He referred to the tensions between greed and trust created within the system, as well as the importance of the role of good corporate governance in seeking to resolve those tensions. Of course we live in a mixed economy, one that also has a public sector, a not-for-profit sector and a charitable sector. As my noble friend Lord Berkeley remarked, the principles of good corporate governance are just as important in those sectors as they are in the commercial sector. Indeed, Higgs recognised that in parts of his report. Furthermore, the issues of creating trust, maintaining accountability to stakeholders—who are sometimes more diverse, complex and difficult to identify than shareholders—and the difficulties of reporting and measuring success are challenging for those involved.
Here I have interests and experience to declare. Although I have not had experience as a non-executive director in the private sector, I have been a non-executive director—that is, a governor—and chair of a school governing body; the chair of an NHS trust, a unitary body with executive and non-executive members. I am now a trustee—a non-executive—of a small charity and of a non-governmental departmental public body, the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew. Lastly, I chair a charity whose turnover amounts to a quarter of a billion pounds a year and employs some 3,000 people. The charity has real responsibilities and accountabilities and must face real issues about reporting standards, as well as real issues about its responsibilities towards donors. Thus we have to be sure that we have in place the right processes for reporting.
I have no desire to be overly prescriptive in any of the different areas of the mixed economy. Equally, however, I do not think that we should be overly Panglossian in assuming that at the moment we are doing everything right. The challenges in some of the sectors I have described—particularly in regard to the recruitment of non-executive trustees—are particularly acute. The selection, the induction and the assessment of performance of those who take on non-executive roles are very important. It is sometimes most difficult to achieve in an area where people are not paid. It is sometimes very difficult for trustee bodies to bring in those disciplines because people are giving of their time in a totally voluntary fashion.
1368
However, it is not impossible that they are not doing their job in the best interests of donors and the people who are meant to be the recipients of services. As government uses the voluntary sector more and more in the delivery of public services, these issues will come more and more to the fore.
I look with some interest at the ways in which Higgs can be applied. As I said, there are already new accounting standards in the charitable sector, which will be developed. Reporting standards will equally be developed. The "comply or explain" principle is perfectly appropriate. It is a counsel of despair to say, "It is a perfectly appropriate system but it will not work because the regulators will not follow it properly". It is up to everyone concerned—the Government, the organisations and the regulators—to make sure that it does work and that the explanation can be just as positive and important as the tick-box compliance, which none of us wants to see.
Perhaps I may conclude by saying a couple of words about widening the pool. Some 20 years or so ago in the public sector I had experience of widening the pool of those who became governors and those who became involved in the governance of the health service. Widening the pool—in what, for the purpose of today's debate, would seem to be the reverse way—by bringing people from the private sector into public sector administration was absolutely the right thing to do. It was enormously valuable. The people involved enriched and improved the standards of governance in many areas of public life, as they do in many areas of charitable life.
But I never heard anyone who came in and took up those roles say, in simple language, "This is a doddle compared to my real life. There are no complexities here. There are no challenges here. There are no skilled people working here. There are no talented managers working here". Quite the reverse. They were always seized by the number of constituencies, the number of stakeholders, the complexities of some of the relationships and the nuances of not having some of the ordinary, simple levers to pull or the ordinary measures of share performance, profit or whatever by which to judge performance. It is against that background that I endorse the recommendations in Higgs.
Much has been said about the difficulties of recruiting good non-executive directors. I believe that there is a pool of people in the not-for-profit, voluntary sector with the diverse backgrounds described by Higgs. I hesitate to include women as part of the "diverse background", although apparently we are meant to do so. Women have always been more in the foreground for me and I am not sure that that is the right way to look at the issue.
A conversation was related to me recently about a head-hunter who had found a candidate who completely fitted the personal specifications drawn up by the board. He put forward the woman's name and was told, "No, I am sorry. We had a woman once and it did not work". It is a sad reflection, but it is not unique.

1369
I hope that the recommendations in Higgs in regard to diversity and looking into the wider pool will be carried out in the spirit of improvement and meritocratic appointment, not of political correctness.
6.25 p.m
Lord Razzall: My Lords, I join every noble Lord who has spoken in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, for introducing this important debate. I join every noble Lord who has spoken—apart from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman—in declaring an interest: I hold the directorships stated in the Register of Members' interests. As the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, has risen to his and my defence, I shall not intrude on private grief and further lambaste the Financial Times for its misrepresentation of his and my position on its front pages in August. I shall leave that to the noble Viscount's words, which are recorded in Hansard.
It is obvious from the polite debate that has been conducted in your Lordships' House that there is absolute fundamental disagreement between the two sides of the argument. Apart from congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, on having introduced the debate and the importance of the issue, there was not one thing said by either the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, on the one hand, or the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, on the other, with which the other would agree. We should recognise that there is a fundamental disagreement, both in the City and in the political debate, on this extremely important issue.
I endorse the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos—more subtly than I propose to do. We have a number of chairmen and chief executives of FTSE 100 companies in this House who found the time to come and vote for a wholly appointed House—presumably on the basis, with which I agree, that their expertise would be relevant to a debate such as this. It is therefore a great pity that, with one or two notable exceptions, few of them could find the time to give us the benefit of their expertise direct. It is a great shame.
Even the background for the debate would not be agreed by the two sides of the argument. On the one side, a number of noble Lords take the position adopted by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. They believe that Enron and WorldCom could probably never happen here and that the strength of our corporate governance provisions already in place would be sufficient. That is not a view which the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, would necessarily share.
As to the perceived excesses of boardrooms, many years ago a Tory Prime Minister referred to the "unacceptable face of capitalism" in regard to the behaviour of the Lonrho board at that time. The view has been ably expressed by many noble Lords that most of the excesses of the past have been dealt with already and that the Higgs report is not closing the stable door after the horse has bolted but is closing a door that does not need to be shut. On the other side of the argument, a number of noble Lords believe that further steps need to be taken.
1370
There is a view—I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Cohen, has not been allowed into the club, and I share her view—that FTSE 100 companies have far too often appointed directors from other FTSE 100 companies who share the company's ethos, in particular in regard to boardroom pay. It is a view which some noble Lords have and others do not.
There is also the view—although one or two corporate colleagues would not necessarily share it—that if you get your friend onto the board as a non-executive director he is unlikely to move for your removal if the company is not doing well. Again, I suspect that that is a view which would split your Lordships.
I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate he will answer a number of questions in regard to the Government's position on these issues. It is all very well for us to have our different views—if we debated this subject for a further three hours, I do not think we should arrive at a consensus—but the Government are in a position to do something about it. These are my direct questions for the Minister to address in his reply.
First, does he believe that an Enron or a WorldCom could happen to one of our major FTSE 100 companies? My view is: Enron less likely, WorldCom more likely—because even with the best corporate governance structure in the world it is difficult to regulate for what was clearly a fraud. What happened at Enron related more to accounting rules. I should welcome the Government's view. Is the Minister prepared to say that the current corporate governance rules—both those that have been implemented and those that will be implemented following the Higgs report—make a situation such as at Enron or WorldCom unlikely?
Secondly—a point raised in the past by my noble friend Lord Sharman which is germane to the accounting position—is the Minister in favour of the National Audit Office being given power to audit the private sector? We understand that the NAO would like to be able to do so. It does not have the same problems as leading firms of chartered accountants as regards a potential conflict of interest in terms of consultancy income.
Thirdly, assuming that the Higgs report is implemented in full—initially for the FTSE 100 companies and thereafter for all the listed companies, down to 350 in number—where will the pool of non-executive directors come from to enable the proposals in the Higgs report to be fully implemented, particularly in the light of the increased directors' liability that directors of major companies, or indeed any company, will necessarily incur, and in the light of the trade-off between those risks and liabilities and the likely fees that will be made available to that pool of non-executive directors?
Fourthly, what position do the Government take on "comply or explain"? Do they say that if almost all companies are simply explaining and not complying they will introduce legislation? Or will they simply say that the doctrine is "comply or explain" and so long as people are explaining, it is not the Government's role

1371
to legislate? What will the position be from the point of view of the Stock Exchange, the ABI and new listings? It is all very well for regulations to be introduced on a "comply or explain" basis for existing companies. but what will happen to new companies? Will the insurance organisations—the ABI, for example—or the pension fund organisations start to say, "We are not prepared to accept the explanation; therefore you have to comply"? "Comply or explain" will not work in an environment in which the quasi-regulatory bodies are simply telling firms to comply.
Finally, are the Government prepared to contemplate a consideration of the idea floated by Sir Lain Vallance—an experienced former chairman of FTSE 100 companies, currently the deputy chairman of one of our major banks and a former president of the Confederation of British Industry—that company law should be amended so that, on the appointment of directors only, it is a case of "one shareholder one vote"? In other words, that, as a shareholder in a company, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, would have exactly the same vote as would the Pru. That idea has been floated by Sir lain Valiance. I do not know why I picked on the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. It is just habit, I think.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: You always do!
Lord Razzall: My Lords, are the Government prepared at least to consider that idea put forward by Sir lain Valiance?
6.35 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, why should the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, change the habit of a lifetime?
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, I cannot declare an interest as a non-executive director because I am not one and it would not be wise to say that I was. However, that does not stop me having a view on what I believe a non-executive director should be able to do. I have been a chairman of voluntary organisations and a charity, and a director of various commercial enterprises.
Unlike an executive director, a non-executive director need not have a detailed technical knowledge of the business that he is entering. I used my experience within a very short time of becoming a member of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. We found ourselves dealing with aspects of the contact lens business, the cost of music tapes versus compact discs and allegations of predatory pricing in bus services. It was a quick learning curve.
One of the points that I found interesting was that one entered that process without necessarily having any preconceptions. That is quite a good idea, if you are very knowledgeable as a non-executive director, if you have an understanding of administration and business, if you have integrity, if you have worked in large businesses and if you have a grasp of all the matters involved—and confidence, which is essential.
1372
No less important is to have the strength of character to be truly independent of the main board—particularly as you may possibly have an overbearing chairman or managing director. It is your job to look round and see what is going on. You need not be frightened to open your mouth and say what you think and, if necessary, have the strength of character to do something about it.
With those personal views in mind, I read with interest Mr Higgs' job description of a non-executive director. While I have no difficulty in agreeing with what he calls "the key elements" of the functions of a non-executive director—under the headings: strategy, performance, risk and people—I do find it strange that it is suggested that he should also,
"provide entrepreneurial leadership … ensure the necessary financial and human resources".
I thought that entrepreneurial leadership was the province of the executive directors in the day-to-day operation of the company. Otherwise, there would be no difference between the two types of directors; and the non-executive director would have onerous duties and responsibilities without the powers vested in the main board. I think that that is quite dangerous.
Perhaps this is the right moment to congratulate Mr Higgs on the speed with which he conducted his consultation and produced the report, right on schedule as promised. Similarly, Sir Robert Smith and his colleagues are to be congratulated on their comprehensive report of their inquiry, commissioned by the Financial Reporting Council, which was published at the same time as the Higgs report.
When the report was presented to the other place on 29th January, my honourable friend the Member for South Suffolk, gave it a general welcome—which. I suppose, puts me on that side of the fence. He did, however, mention a number of matters that are of great concern to us—I suppose that puts me on the other side of the fence. His points were not fully answered then, but I hope that the Minister will be able to answer them when he replies. I shall come to them later.
The Secretary of State announced in another place that the Auditing Practices Board should,
"take over from professional bodies the responsibility of setting standards for objectivity and integrity".
She said, furthermore, that there would be a new professional oversight board in place of the Ethics Standards Board, and that,
"a new independent inspection unit, located within the FRC, should take over from the professional bodies responsibility for monitoring audits of listed companies, major charities and pension funds".
Thirdly, the Secretary of State said that,
"the long-delayed investigation and discipline board should come into operation quickly".—[Official Report, Commons, 29/1/03; col. 883.]
She promised that the package should be implemented as soon as possible, with changes to the regulatory structure being made immediately.

1373
An implementation steering group has been set up which includes the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. I am sorry that the noble Lord is not in his place. I hope that we shall have some news of progress and a possible timetable for completion of that implementation. That does not mean that I want everything done quickly, as the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, said, but it would be nice to know whether the Government have any ideas on the matter.
How do the Government intend to implement those parts of the Higgs report that they accept? The urgent need for clarification on the mode of implementation arises from the fact that articles in the press during the weekend made it clear that the report has not been received with undiluted enthusiasm. In fact, that may be an understatement. For example, we found a quote that said the Tesco board left Higgs on the shelf. The Times business section carried the headline, "Top chairmen condemn Higgs". The Daily Telegraph headline said, "Top chairmen close ranks against Higgs". It may not be possible to achieve a voluntary code of practice, which is why I asked what the Government intend to do, how they intend to do it, and when.
I now come to our reservations about the report. We agree with Higgs, and disagree with the CBI, on the matter of separating the roles of chairman and chief executive officer. That is a useful proposal, enabling one to keep a check on the other. However, one size may not suit all, and in small companies which have a history, or in a family company, that should not be across the board. In many companies, it has proved successful to have one person doing both jobs. Neither Mr Higgs nor the Government should override the wishes of shareholders. If the Government intend to legislate on that point, there should not be an absolute prohibition. That would be pretty awful.
In this country, we can congratulate ourselves on a regulatory regime that is better than most in the world of commerce—including, and especially, that of the United States, which has been the home of some recent major financial scandals. Of course, we have also had problems with companies such as Barings and Marconi. A sharp tug on the reins by a non-executive member might have prevented those difficulties from occurring. I refer not to the problem of fraud, but to things that have not been run properly.
It is regrettable that no amount of regulations, ethical standards or codes of professional conduct can prevent the consequences of greed, corruption, incompetence, folly and, in some cases, fraud. In the end, the best safeguards for companies' shareholders, workers and creditors, is the integrity and conscientiousness of those in the position of authority. There is nothing better than that—it is a very good thing.
My honourable friend Tim Yeo pointed out in another place that
"any change to existing practice must he scrutinised for its effect on Britain's competitive position and whether it makes wealth creation easier or harder".—[Official Report, commons, 29/1/03; col. 884.]
1374
Self-regulation should be the preferred option for professions such as accountancy.
The Secretary of State told my honourable friend that the new regime would not apply to the alternative investment market companies, and did not reply to his query about the regime's application to foreign companies listed in London. Surely, that is a loophole. Why is it thought that investors, workers and creditors of that kind of company are less deserving of protection?
We share the concerns of the CBI about the recommendation that shareholders should have the right to meet with the so-called senior non-executive director. If something is going wrong, the board should be involved at that level, not one individual senior director. The CBI thought that might he divisive in the board; I believe that it probably would, and I am not sure how it would help in the long term.
Higgs also made the suggestion that half the board should be non-existing—I mean, non-executive—directors. They had better exist, or we would really be in trouble. We do not believe that half the board is a practical proportion for the smallest of companies. We suggest that smaller companies would exclude companies outside the FTSE 350.
In conclusion, in common with other noble Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, who introduced this important debate on the Higgs and Smith reports. We have had the opportunity to scrutinise and discuss them in a way in which Members in another place have not. As the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, said, we may not have reached agreement, but it justifies your Lordships' House as a democratic forum that we can discuss these matters.
Lastly, this country has a reputation for financial integrity and probity. Despite the occasional breaches by the odd rogue or villain, that makes us still an important world financial and commercial centre. We hope that the strengthening of controls as recommended in the Higgs report, without imposing impractical or impossible restrictions, will enhance our reputation and help to add to the wealth of the nation by encouraging investors and institutions to base themselves in our country.
Lord Hiaskel: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, referred to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. He had intended to speak, but he is unwell.
6.46 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Brennan on initiating this timely debate. I agree that we should never forget the human consequences of the financial scandals that have occurred in recent years. I also agree with almost everything that he said about non-executive directors and board remuneration. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, believes that our significant reforms have been "tough and measured". That is how we would like them to be seen, and it is important that they are seen in that light.

1375
The noble Lord, Lord Razzall, suggested that the House was totally split on this issue, but I disagree. There seems to be almost overwhelming support for what we are doing—with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, who was in a small minority. However, that is where he is normally most happy, so I was not deeply worried about it.
We all recognise that sound corporate governance and reliable financial statements are vital for sustained investor and market confidence. There is no doubt that the failures in the United States shook that confidence severely, and continue to do so. The consequences of a lack of faith in our markets should not be underestimated. Lower share prices, higher costs of capital, lower investment and a more risk-averse attitude to innovation can all, to some extent if not totally, be traced back to the catastrophic collapses of Enron, WorldCom and Arthur Andersen.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Cohen, that there are differences between UK and US accounting. As she said, the UK relies heavily on a principles approach and a true and fair view. That emphasises the substance of accounts over the form, which is a strength. The US relies much more on detailed rules, which tends to promote a different approach. However, it is wrong to be complacent about the UK's position. For example, the UK Auditing Practices Board recently warned about the dangers of aggressive earnings management in the UK. The problems with Enron and WorldCom may have been less likely to happen here than in America, but we cannot be certain. The Higgs report recommendations, and the other changes that we are making, will help to make such problems less likely to occur here.
We need to take a long hard look at corporate governance issues across the piece. The Co-ordinating Group on Audit and Accounting (CGAA) was established to ensure that auditing and accounting issues raised by the Enron collapse were addressed thoroughly by appropriate regulators. Separate reviews were taken forward by Derek Higgs on the role of non-executive directors and by Sir Robert Smith on audit committees, as well as a DTI review of regulation of the accountancy profession.
I listened carefully to all the points made about the various reports and reviews, and I shall address the specific points in due course. First, however, let me stress that the proposals need to be seen as a mutually supportive whole; they should not be judged in isolation.
Some of the proposed changes address the issues from a boardroom perspective, some from the perspective of the auditors, and some address the issue of oversight and regulation. The overall objective is to raise standards of corporate governance, strengthen our accountancy and audit professions and provide for a more effective system of regulation of those professions.
In her Statement to the House on 29th January, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry strongly welcomed the Higgs
1376
report and emphasised its importance. She highlighted Derek Higgs's conclusion that at least half the board, as well as the chairman at the time of appointment, should be independent; that all members of the audit and remuneration committees should be independent; and that the separate roles of chairman and chief executive should be reinforced. She also stressed how crucial she thought it was that appointments should be made on merit—not, as is the case for over half the appointments at present, through personal contacts and friendships.
However, my right honourable friend also stressed that that was not a regulatory approach. The way to raise corporate governance standards is to use the existing, very successful approach of the combined code guidance. The principle is "comply or explain", whereby a company—for example, a small listed company—that is unable or considers it inappropriate to comply with the recommendations can, as now, explain why it is not doing so. Its shareholders and the market will judge whether that explanation is a reasonable one.
Since publication of the Higgs report, we have seen plenty of media coverage about its implications. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, that the CBI's response was disappointing. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, and the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, were supportive of its overall approach. We are well aware of the responses to what I thought were very selective and biased questions from the CBI. Of course we note the concerns. However, the institutional investor community is supportive of the report, and many in business have supported the report's findings.
As the Secretary of State said, there is a strong belief that British corporate governance is the best in the world. The Government are committed to maintain that position, but we cannot afford to be complacent. The Secretary of State has already made clear to Parliament, and confirmed in her Mansion House speech, that the Government welcome the Higgs report. We think that it marks an important contribution to corporate governance and restoring investor confidence.
I am delighted to be able to give the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, an answer which he has not already given me. The recommended changes to the combined code are presently out for comment under the auspices of the FRC. It is the FRC that is responsible for the combined code, not the Government. The FRC has invited comments by 14th April on the proposed changes to the combined code before it issues a definitive revised code. I am sure that the FRC will consider all the comments it receives. The issues now need to be considered carefully and debated sensibly, and that is what the FRC will do.
I should add—I thought that there was no mystery about—this that the Treasury and the DTI were both very much involved in all the work, particularly in relation to the co-ordinating committee. The two departments worked very carefully on the matter, as we both have an interest in it. I think that joined-up

1377
government is a rare commodity and that, when we come across it, we should celebrate it and not consider it a demonstration of lack of clarity about responsibilities. I should also add that we are not considering legislation. We are working on the principle of "comply or explain". I am, however, not saying that we would never change that.
It is worth remembering that Derek Higgs publicly consulted last June. He saw and spoke to a great many players during the conduct of his work and took soundings with the major representative organisations on his proposals as well as doing detailed research, the results of which are available on the review website. I have stressed that the corporate governance improvements—not just Higgs. but also Sir Robert Smith's very important recommendations on the role of audit committees—are not about regulation or coercion, but rely on the very effective mechanism of "comply or explain". However, we must also recognise that Enron raises issues about "who guards the guards"—about the role of the auditor, the relationship between the professional accountancy bodies and the independent regulators, and about the enforcement of standards. That is why my right honourable friend announced in her Statement on 29th January a number of tough new measures to ensure independent oversight and auditor independence. Various issues have been raised concerning those measures and I shall attempt to address them in a moment.
First, I should like to set out the main changes that we have announced. There is to be a unified national body to oversee the accountancy profession—an expanded Financial Reporting Council, under Sir Bryan Nicholson—with three clear responsibilities: setting accounting and audit standards, enforcing or monitoring them and overseeing major accountancy bodies. That body will be more accountable and transparent. The setting of auditor independence standards by the Auditing Practices Board under this new structure, and a new unit for inspection of major audits, mean a tougher independent challenge of audit. Those roles will become clearly independent of the professional bodies.
The changes to the oversight regime, when combined with the recommendations of Sir Robert Smith's review, to which I have referred, will help safeguard auditor independence. Specifically, they will provide a clearer and stronger role for audit committees in approving the auditor and the purchase of non-audit services, backed up by stronger combined code provisions and detailed guidance, and tougher ethical standards for the audit profession. These standards are to be set by a fully independent body with independent monitoring and discipline. Finally, and importantly, we are toughening up enforcement of the accounting requirements through a new more proactive regime which will make more effective use of Financial Reporting Review Panel and FSA expertise.
I turn to some of the specific points raised. I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, about the need to widen the pool of non-executive directors and to deepen their involvement. Non-executive directors must not be seen simply as policemen; they
1378
must be seen as bringing valuable skills and knowledge to the board and to help rather than hinder the achievement of competitive advantage. Derek Higgs placed strategy at the top of the list—alongside performance, risk and people—as the main elements of the role of a non-executive director. He described the non-executive director's role as a constructive challenge and contribution to the development of strategy. Research commissioned for the review showed that there was no contradiction between the strategic and monitoring roles of the non-executive director.
I assure the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, that we will certainly continue to pursue with the SEC the point that it should take account of the excellent regulation in this country. There has been a recent visit to the United States and I think that we may be making some progress.
The noble Lord, Lord Freeman, also asked about the timing of the new company law Bill and how we will handle it. We will bring forward a Bill as soon as practicable. However, as I am sure he will appreciate, this is a task of great scale and complexity. We are considering having a pre-legislative committee as a useful device to help take forward that legislation. He was also right to say that the EU is proceeding on the very sensible basis of "one size does not fit all". We agree that that is the right approach.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharman, raised a number of points, including whether to allow the chairman to chair the nomination committee; the role of the senior non-executive directors in relation to investors—which I think is rightly described as the back stop approach in the Higgs report; and rotating the board of non-executive directors. I do not want to get into the detail of the specific proposals now because, as I said, they are being reviewed and consulted on by the FRC. However, I should like to clarify the position, not for the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, but possibly for other noble Lords. He was quite right to describe that approach as a backstop. It would operate only when communication between the chairman and the investors had essentially broken down and there was a lack of confidence. Only then is it envisaged that the senior non-executive director would take action. Such action seems very practical and not to be a threat to the chairman's overall role.
As regards the rotation of non-executive directors—the noble Lord, Lord Stewartby, also raised that point—Higgs says that there is a need to be flexible on that issue. He accepts that there will be cases where a non-executive director remains on a board for longer than six years and recommends that shareholders should be asked to re-elect non-executives each year after they have served for nine years. That seems an eminently practical approach.
The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, asked whether the proposed changes would raise the performance of a board. If the changes prevent a few of the failures of corporate governance that we have seen in recent years, they will be worth while. The

1379
essence of regulation is that it should be proportionate. We believe that the proposed changes are proportionate to the seriousness of the issues involved.
The noble Baroness also asked what would happen if investors and a board were unhappy with a chairman. She suggested that they and the board should confront the chairman. In my experience that is not the way these things work. Having another channel of communication between board members, investors and the chairman may result in action being taken in circumstances where board members are not at all keen to tell the chairman that he should not be in charge of the board.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Holme, that companies need respect and trust if they are to operate effectively and recruit idealistic young people. The noble Lord, Lord Fyfe of Fairfield, mentioned the senior independent director. The detail of the Higgs report makes clear that that is a very limited role in particular circumstances.
The noble Lord, Lord Stewartby, may not have been selected at his golf club, but the record shows that half of non-executive directors are selected on a personal basis. It is interesting to note that only 4 per cent have a formal interview. Therefore, in general, the system is open to charges of cronyism, which is something we all want to avoid.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, that standards of corporate governance in the UK are certainly very much higher than they were in the past. However, it is a mistake to be complacent. The boards on which the noble Lord has sat may be comprised only of paragons of good sense and virtue. However, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, who has probably had experience of more companies than the rest of us put together, would agree with me that in the past many non-executive directors joined boards without being aware of all the activities or of the financial practices of the company that they joined.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Paul, that corporate governance rules will always struggle to control energetic and skilful entrepreneurs. However, government and investors must try to make certain that the rules are as good as they should be. We cannot rely on society providing a stream of individuals of great personal integrity, although we should in all areas try to stress the importance of personal integrity.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, that we should not see boards in terms of two blocks of executive and non-executive directors. But, equally, we should appreciate that they have different roles. I agree with him that it is crucial to have a strong link between remuneration and performance. That is why we introduced the remuneration regulations 2002.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, mentioned the parallels between corporate governance and quangos. There are important similarities, but we should always remember that they are not exact. We should see what can be learnt from Higgs but not think that one can
1380
make exact comparisons. The existence or not of shareholders is an important difference here and one that cannot be ignored.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, referred to the same issue. She mentioned some of the difficulties of applying the Higgs principles to the voluntary and public sectors. It is valuable to explore those issues, even if it is sometimes difficult to apply the principles to voluntary work.
The noble Lord, Lord Razzall, asked whether the National Audit Office could audit private companies. I do not think that the Government have any strong views on that issue. It is not a particularly important issue in terms of corporate governance one way or the other. I do not believe that we have considered the question of the imbalance of each shareholder carrying the same "weight" as regards certain decisions. Perhaps that is because that is not a very good idea. It seems to me that that is not an idea that commends itself immediately to many people.
I was surprised to note that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, appeared to move in two directions at the same time. Apparently, she wants a detailed timetable for the implementation of the regulatory changes but she does not want action to be taken too quickly. We have already begun to put the regulatory changes into practice. Some changes will be implemented quicker than others. I am sure the noble Baroness is not surprised to hear that the fact that Tesco left the report on the shelf does not move me strongly one way or the other.
In summing up, I welcome the debate. These are important issues and not easy ones. We may all agree as regards the overall objective, but, as the debate has shown, there is more than one way of achieving that objective. Of course, these are issues that are being grappled with around the world. The US has already made its response—a strong and immediate response—through the Sarbanes Oxley Act. The European Commission is taking forward work on both corporate governance and auditor independence—work which the UK is in a good position to influence and lead. Others such as Australia and Japan are also carrying out fundamental reviews.
If Enron has shown us anything, it is that these are truly global issues, not national ones. But I think it is fair to say that the UK's response has been widely recognised around the world as sensible and effective. It is neither knee-jerk and disproportionate, nor complacent and foot-dragging. It is tough where that is needed but measured and mature, building on our existing, well respected system of corporate governance. That is the basis on which we shall go forward.
7.7 p.m.
Lord Brennan: My Lords, the continued vibrancy of British corporate life has been richly illustrated this evening by our finding out that the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, and the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, manage to sit together on the same board. I thank

1381
them both for their contributions. I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, for making sharp satire appear merely delicately sardonic. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, for eventually being able to overcome his natural capacity for reserve.
I thank all other noble Lords who contributed to the debate, especially those who gave us what I call wisdom. I refer to the noble Lords, Lord Barnett, Lord Paul and Lord Haskel, on my side of the House, to the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, and the noble Lord, Lord Stewartby, on the Conservative Benches, and to the noble Lord, Lord Holme, in particular on the Liberal Democrat Benches.
We can extract from the contributions three conclusions. First, we are in a process of consultation about something that is immensely important. It is not just a matter of avoiding another Enron situation but of ensuring competence in British corporate life. That requires a balanced debate about how to match commercial freedom with public protection. In making a balanced judgment we should surely apply good values. Finally, we should take action sooner rather than later. I commend the Government's expedition and the clarity of the exposition of the Government's views by my noble friend the Minister. I hope that we shall not discuss the subject again next year. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Missile Defence: Fylingdales
7.9 p.m.
Lord Redesdalerose to call attention to the policy implications of the decision to upgrade the United States Missile Defence Programme at Fylingdales; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I start by thanking the Government for giving us the opportunity for the debate. There could have been a government debate, but they kindly allowed us to have this debate in respect of the recent debate on Iraq.
The debate will not be a long one, as we do not have a long list of speakers. I wondered why that was, as I find the issue of immense importance. There are two reasons. The first is that the issue is probably overshadowed by Iraq, but that is also incredibly pertinent to the debate. The comments by Donald Rumsfeld over the weekend about the unilateral position of America in its approach to Iraq is of consequence to the development of the National Missile Defence system. If it is to lead to the defence of this country, there will have to be a joint effort between America and its allies. It would be extremely worrying if the missile defence system, which originated as the National Missile Defence programme, did not defend all America's allies equally.
The second reason is because, in a Statement on 15th January 2003, the Minister repeated the words of his right honourable friend in another place. Summing up on that debate—I apologise to him for quoting his words back to him—he said:
1382
"We are announcing that it is the Ministry of Defence's and the Government's preliminary view that the request from the United States, which has not itself decided on a deployed missile defence system, for the existing equipment at Fylingdales to be upgraded should be given permission by the British Government. That is all. We are not making a decision today about whether or not the United Kingdom requires a missile defence system. That is something that we and Parliament must consider, and that will be done in due course. We are simply announcing that we are tending towards the view that we should be prepared to allow the United States' request".—[Official Report, 15/1/03; col. 264.]
That sounds eminently reasonable, and gives the impression that the decision has been taken for a minor change.
Indeed, the decision at Fylingdales appears to be a minor upgrade of software and hardware. It does not include massive changes at Fylingdales at present. However, what is being done has huge ramifications for international stability. The changes at Fylingdales hammer a nail into the coffin of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty that was allowed to lapse on 13th June 2002. Obviously, that was a bilateral agreement between the United States and Russia. Those who said that there could have been problems with the Russians on the subject have said that their acquiescence means that they do not see it as something of great import.
There is an alternative view. The Russians are not in a position to implement a missile defence system of their own and the Cold War is over. Nevertheless, as they hold a large number of nuclear missiles, the implication could be that they see missile defence as a threat, viewing it as an offensive weapon against a state with few nuclear weapons for first-strike capability. That could be a reason for Russia not to disarm the number of nuclear weapons that it might. I put that forward only as a hypothesis, but it could be extremely dangerous. Over the next few years, we all hope that the number of nuclear warheads held by Russia and the United States will decrease, but that might not be the case, which is of real concern.
A missile defence system, if seen in any other light, could be seen as having an offensive capability against a country with limited strategic capability. I speak of China. That is obviously not the reason for developing missile defence. However, the implications for strategic thinking in China would be worrying. It would see its limited strategic arsenal countermanded by an effective missile defence. That might lead to the escalation of its own nuclear weapons to counter that check. I put that forward only as a hypothesis, not as a realistic scenario. However, it will be in the background thinking of all those who deal with nuclear policy in other countries.
Another question with relevance in this country is this: with an effective missile defence system, what is the role of our own nuclear deterrent or that of, say, France? I put that forward only as a thought for the Ministry of Defence. Our nuclear deterrent is based on the principle of mutual assured destruction. If that principle is broken down by missile defence, is there any need for us to spend scarce resources on nuclear capability, as we will obviously be spending a vast amount of money on missile defence? We will have to

1383
meet its cost somehow. There might be a trade-off between having nuclear capability and paying our dues towards the procurement of a missile defence system.
The Minister will counter those arguments by saying that, at the moment, missile defence does not exist. The technology does not exist to make it work, but is being developed quickly. However, it is the declared intention of the US Administration that it should be a priority. They are moving with such speed on it that there is also talk of the deployment of an untried system in Alaska in the next two to three years, and a second system in California. It seems unfortunate to move with such speed, because so much money will be spent on trying to procure the system that it might destroy the whole concept of the system itself if military spending in the US has to be cut back. The Administration have procured an enormous amount of money for missile defence. They have upgraded their defence spending by 50 billion dollars a year, much of it to meet the costs of missile defence.
The concept is not new. It goes back to the Reagan era and the Strategic Defence Initiative or Star Wars. That system of space-based lasers foundered on the problem of technological feasibility. One of the victories of Star Wars is the claim that the Russians could not afford to counter it. However, we have to ask whether the present-day system is affordable. There are some worries about the technology about which we are talking, such as the short-range interceptors that will be positioned around rogue nations to intercept ballistic missiles shortly after launch. I foresee a number of problems with that. It assumes that countries around rogue nations will be used for the deployment of American missile systems, which could be destabilising in many parts of the world.
The second issue is that the ballistic missile would be counteracted when it left the Earth's atmosphere in the space/air area, which has real implications. How would that be done? If it was done from a launch from Earth, Fylingdales would pick up any such launch and an interceptor would be launched at that point. Is that technology currently feasible? Discussions on this issue have started to refer to basing weapons in space to counteract the space flight of any missile. That involves the weaponisation of space, which has real implications for the future. The Minister might respond that that is for the future but it is worth discussing now. Space-based weapons can be seen as a threat to almost any nation on Earth.
I turn to point defence, which would be for specific targets, such as small cities or installations that could be used in a missile defence programme, including Fylingdales. If the missile defence system is brought to a conclusion, we and the Americans might feel that it was necessary to defend Fylingdales with a point defence system. That would cause much concern to those living in Yorkshire because it would involve basing missile systems around the county. There is also the issue that point short-range interceptors when dealing with incoming missiles are most effective when
1384
nuclear tipped. That might be totally unacceptable. I realise that at this point no such missile defence system has been developed and that all of this is for the future.
The Government may say that it is inherently responsible for a government to consider this country's defence against the threat of a ballistic attack from a rogue nation. I must admit that I agree. The point of this debate is not to attack the Government's policy. We must in future make a measured judgment. I do not believe that we can say that this is the end of the argument and that there is currently no such issue. It will obviously involve much debate within the MoD and throughout the country—this issue will affect us all.
Is a ballistic attack the only threat that we face? Obviously not. By developing a missile defence system, we might well make it more attractive for potential aggressors to use other forms of delivery. If one wants to deliver a nuclear weapon, one could simply put it in a container, wrap it with lead and send it freight to one of many ports in the world. Current detecting systems would not pick up a nuclear weapon in a freight container. That is an horrendous scenario. One could also go for the non-nuclear option. Nuclear weapons are expensive to produce. As the situation in Iraq shows, chemical and biological weapons are much smaller, easier to mass produce and can be shifted around more easily than a nuclear weapon.
We must also consider the extent to which missile defence is cost effective in that scenario. The cost to the country will be huge. The Americans are obviously paying for the system's research and development. However, is it realistic to expect that we will not have to fork out for the cost of a missile defence system in this country? The cost of such a system could run into billions. The defence for that approach has been advanced. British industry, which has definite capabilities and expertise in missile defence and interceptor technology, will benefit from that. The future benefits must be carefully considered. Analysis of the Star Wars initiative showed that this country benefited financially hardly at all from its industrial research on the programme. We must also question whether the Americans will want to share the system's information technology. I am summing up—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we are into the 17th minute now.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I apologise; I have gone over the time. I had a piece of paper that referred to 20 minutes for starting.
I end with a point raised in the First Special Report. It states:
"We deplore the manner in which the public debate on that issue of the upgrade has been handled by the Ministry of Defence. It has shown no respect for either the views of those affected locally by the decision or for the arguments of those opposed to the upgrade in principle".
The Government have countered that argument in their response. This debate will not finish at this point; however, this is the starting point for any debate.
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
7.26 p.m.
Lord Powell of Bayswater: My Lords, looking at the list of speakers for this debate, I rather get the feeling that I am gate-crashing a private party. Listening to the opening speech of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, I am a hit worried that it is the sort of private party at which hallucinogens will be passed around. However, I am grateful to the noble Lord for initiating this debate, which gives me the chance to put a rather different point of view.
My involvement with missile defence goes back some 20 years, to the discussions that the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher—the then Prime Minister—had with President Reagan about his strategic defence initiative in 1983. Like her, I have always supported the concept but recognised from the beginning the immense technical difficulties of building a defensive system, which meant that it would inevitably be many years before a deployable system would be available. Also, it was clear that it would never be 100 per cent effective, which is why it is essential to retain nuclear deterrence alongside defence.
In the 20 years that have passed since President Reagan's initiative, substantial progress has been made. Technical advances have now brought a first-generation system of missile defence within sight. It is not by a long chalk President Reagan's original vision of a global space-based system; it is a land-based system, which will provide a degree of protection against missile attack from rogue states with limited arsenals and against accidental launches.
One would have to be particularly ostrich-like to fail to recognise that both of those dangers have increased and will increase further as a growing number of unscrupulous yet relatively unsophisticated states get their hands on long-range missile technology. Indeed, the need for missile defence becomes clearer almost every day. The North Koreans have resumed testing of their ballistic missiles, just as the noble Lord the Minister warned this House on 15th January they were likely to do. They have the declared aim of developing the capability to strike the west coast of the United States before long. It does not require much of a jump from the evidence of North Korea's programme to understand the likely long-term ambitions of other rogue states in North Africa or the Middle East, whose missiles could one day—possibly quite soon—pose a threat to Britain and Europe as well as to the United States.
Ballistic missile defence also has a vital role in preventing the US and the UK from being deterred by rogue states. To make the point: if Saddam Hussein today had nuclear-tipped missiles capable of hitting London—let alone New York—would British and American troops be on Iraq's borders? My answer is: only if we had missile defence to protect ourselves.
Of course, missile attack is not the only danger facing the US and the UK, as 11th September demonstrated. But just because ballistic missile defence does not protect against every conceivable threat, that does not mean that it is unnecessary or repugnant. In practice, ballistic missiles are likely to
1386
remain the rogue state's weapon of choice. They are easy for dictators to control, and they have a higher probability of getting through than alternatives such as hand-carried WMD materials, against which the United States is strengthening homeland defence. In that perspective, ballistic missile defence can be seen as an adjunct to improved homeland defence.
The downside of ballistic missile defence has been consistently exaggerated and distorted. Over the years, we have heard endless dire warnings from European governments and from the opponents of missile defence in this country that pressing ahead with such defence would be destabilising, would undermine arms control and would jeopardise relations with the new Russia. Actually, none of those calamities has happened or is likely to happen. Instead, developing missile defences has gone hand-in-hand with a commitment to a far greater reduction in ballistic missile and nuclear warheads than we would have dreamed possible only a few years ago. Therefore, missile defence is needed, and it is compatible with reductions in other weapons and with strategic stability.
Turning to the present issue, now that the Americans are confident enough of the progress of the technology to prepare for deployment of a first-generation system, they are seeking to upgrade, here in Britain and also in Greenland, the radar facilities whose role will be to give early warning of any attack on the US. It is hard to think of a more benign purpose than that—providing warning of an impending attack so that our closest ally can defend itself.
The Government have been absolutely right to indicate willingness to agree to the upgrading of Fylingdales, which will be an essential part of a future defence network. That is, of course, only a first phase, and I have no doubt that the Americans will have further requests to make in the years ahead—to which I hope our response will he equally prompt and positive.
For the reasons that I have given, we should also consider how the United Kingdom and Europe can benefit directly from the protection of ballistic missile defence. In his Statement of 15th January, the Minister said that the Fylingdales upgrade would indicate no commitment to further missile defence deployments. I accept that it is too early for decisions on that. But I hope that the Government will, at the very least, monitor closely the progress of ballistic missile defence technology within the United States so that they are able to understand the potential implications—and the obvious advantages—of missile defence in protecting the United Kingdom as well.
Informal studies have shown that the cost to the United Kingdom of buying a first-generation, land-based defence system would not necessarily be prohibitive or detract from other essential defence programmes. Moreover, given our important role in the defence of the United States against missile attack, we are surely well placed to bargain for access to missile defence on highly advantageous terms in exactly the same way as we have benefited from the

1387
Trident missile programme. And not only should we benefit from the defence but we should participate in the technology and eventually the production of the defensive system.
In conclusion, I encourage the Government to look ahead in their defence planning to ensure that Britain has the whole range of systems needed to defend us against new threats, an effective nuclear deterrent, beefed-up homeland security and, in time, the protection of missile defence.
7.33 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I declare an interest as the vice-president—or, at least, one of them; there are several of us—of the Council for National Parks, and I shall speak first in that role.
The Minister will be aware that the decision to change the use of RAF Fylingdales, which is what the term "upgrade" means, raises the possibility of the need for further development. That has particular implications in planning terms because RAF Fylingdales is situated within a national park—the North York Moors National Park. As my noble friend Lord Redesdale said in his excellent introductory speech, the term "upgrade" is rather disingenuous.
The initial lack of consultation with the park authority and, indeed, with the public on the change of use runs contrary to well-established policy. It was greeted with dismay by many, including the Council for National Parks and, I believe, the Commons Defence Committee. In PPG7, planning guidance is clear on the matter of development in a national park. I know how much this Government value the purpose of national parks because that was restated frequently by the Government and by Members of these Benches in this House during the passage of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act.
I believe that the types of issue that must be considered by a development test include the requirement for a demonstration of exceptional circumstances and of public interest before any major development can proceed. They must also include the availability of alternatives—both alternative sites and alternative ways of meeting that need. In my opinion, that test may prove to be especially important. Does Britain, let alone the park, need this development? Lastly, the development must pass the test of the impact on the statutory purposes of the park and on the local economy.
Therefore, I am pleased that Dr Lewis Moonie, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Ministry of Defence, met representatives of the Council for National Parks and agreed a way forward. I believe he has given a written undertaking that any major changes at RAF Fylingdales will include a wide and timely public consultation and, indeed, clarification concerning the use of RAF Fylingdales to track space debris, both military and civil. I believe that the Ministry of Defence is preparing an environmental report that will address the planning and environmental impact and sustainability issues raised by this so-called "upgrade".
1388
That is particularly welcome, as is the greater recognition that the Ministry of Defence intends to give to the protected landscape status of any of its core sites that fall within a national park. I should place on record the help given by the Minister's noble friend Lord Judd in ensuring that both sides—the Council for National Parks and the Ministry of Defence—were able to resolve upon that path within a fairly short time. I hope that, in his concluding remarks, the Minister will be able to put on record that the events in the North York Moors National Park were an exception. I also hope that the Minister has re-emphasised to his department, as I believe he has, the value of protected landscapes.
I turn briefly to my own feelings about this matter. It evokes for me strong memories of the early 1980s at Greenham Common. If Fylingdales is developed as a base in the way that the US Government envisage, I believe that we may well see another Greenham Common-type protest against the use of our country as a kind of island outpost of the United States. The anger that people in Britain felt then will be rekindled. The protests of recent weeks have made the Government aware that people in this country do not wish to be part of the United States' current military plans. People may well not wish to be part of any future US military plans, and certainly not without much consultation.
Greenham Common politicised a generation of women and enabled many of us to find our voice. I believe that recently a new generation has found its voice. At present, it is using that voice to express its disquiet about the situation concerning Iraq. Young men and young women, along with many of the older generation—I do not believe that they are ostrich-like, as the noble Lord, Lord Powell, implied a moment ago—simply do not believe in the same vision of the future. I believe that when the situation with Iraq is resolved one way or the other, people will expect the Government to consult widely on whether to allow Britain to become a missile launch pad. People will expect to be able to use their voice during that consultation.
7.39 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I declare an interest as someone with a house in Yorkshire who intends to retire to Yorkshire. One of the main pleasures in my life is walking through Yorkshire's national parks. Although the pyramid of Fylingdales is not a particular eyesore, the "golf balls" of Menwith Hill are one thing that hit me every time I walk from Airedale into Wharfedale.
I particularly welcome the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Powell, to the debate and I wish that there were more like him. As he rightly said, this is a very important issue. The issue of weapons of mass destruction is one of the most difficult on the international agenda and we all need to discuss it.
One problem with the way in which the Government have handled the issue is the pretence that it is purely a technical decision. They announced that they had

1389
received a letter from the United States on 17th December and that they were to consult widely, but on 15th January they announced that after wide consultation, during a period in which most people were happily occupied with other issues, they were minded to accept the proposal.
This is not a technical change; it is a fundamental change in the main purpose for which Fylingdales was intended. Fylingdales was a radar base intended to detect missile attacks from the Soviet Union in a Cold War context. We are now talking of Fylingdales being part of an American missile system based on different threats.
As regards the threat, I am increasingly sceptical about the way in which an American-led debate talks of weapons of mass destruction as though nuclear, chemical and biological weapons all fall into the same category. Nuclear weapons are easily delivered on ballistic missiles. I am not sure that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Powell, if I understood him correctly, that ballistic missiles are likely to remain rogue states' weapons of choice. There are many other possible delivery systems now, including the dreadful, what I should perhaps call dual use technologies such as civilian airliners, container ships and so on. They are so much cheaper than ballistic missile systems that I fear that we are moving towards those different kinds of delivery systems. Incidentally, we are discovering that the threat from rogues in the world—not necessarily from rogue states, but non-state actors—is that they have the ability, particular with chemical and biological weapons, to deliver with a high degree of accuracy and they may not require to use nuclear weapons.
What should be the appropriate response of Her Majesty's Government? The first question that we should ask and what worries me most about this is whether we should look for containment of the threat within an arms control regime or whether we should leave it up to the United States to define the nature of the threat and of the response. After all there is a long history of a number of people—Donald Rumsfeld being one—wanting to bust the nuclear arms control regime and space-based arms control and to put into effect a dominant American approach to global security.
The SDI has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Powell, but the current debate started with the 1998 report to Congress commissioned by a Republican majority in Congress led by Donald Rumsfeld. Since the new Administration came into power the drive has been led by the most ideological Republicans. John Bolton was here in November telling us all that we had to get on board because the Americans were going ahead anyway.
I am unhappy about an allegedly left of centre British Government accepting an agenda defined by the right wing of a rather divided Republican Administration in Washington. The Minister shakes his head, but that is what it looks like. The absence of any attempt so far by the British Government to put the matter of missile defence back into a multilateral context causes us concern.
1390
On an appropriate response, we have to ask whether we are happy to tag along behind an American system, designed to protect the United States without any reference to the European allies. Yesterday I was reading a Heritage Foundation paper on my computer that said that of course it is in America's interests to keep the Europeans as divided as possible because then they will not pose any threat to the United States. We continue to define the nature of the case. In recent months they have been successful, as the Heritage Foundation paper said, in ensuring that the Europeans stay divided. The British may have helped in that regard.
On the nature of the current threat, it now comes from the south and the east. The Americans may be better off if this kind of radar were in Bulgaria or Italy. A European framework appears appropriate. In terms of the credible potential threat, if missiles cross British territory they are likely to travel first across Italy, France, Greece and the Balkans.
On UK sovereignty and British democratic accountability, I am becoming increasingly used to the idea that in matters of national security the Government operate on the basis of the Royal prerogative and do not report to Parliament. Yesterday, when reading up on the subject, I was struck by how differently the Danish Government have approached the same request to upgrade the Thule radar. Much more detailed information was available to the Danish Parliament on what the United States have asked and there was information on how the Danish Government will respond.
The Minister kindly sent me a letter on the leasing issue in response to my unanswered question of some months ago. It points out that there is no lease to govern Menwith Hill or Fylingdales because the agreements are not legally binding. It also points out that under assurances given to the American authorities in 1955, and again in 1976, the site will be made available for a period of 21 years. Unless my arithmetic is wrong, that means that the assurances ran out in 1997. Perhaps the Minister could tell me where we are now, why Parliament has not been informed at least in principle about the state of play and why the Danish Government can inform the Danish Parliament of such matters when the British Government believe that it is not necessary to do so.
There are real questions about democratic accountability and about British sovereignty. Fylingdales and Menwith Hill are riot US sovereign base areas, but the British Government appear to operate as though they are. I understand that there are almost no Americans attached to Fylingdales. I gather that the current number is one. I also understand that there were over 1,000 American personnel at Menwith Hill and since 11th September 2001 that number has increased considerably. That has not been reported to the British Parliament, but that is the word that has filtered through to people like me.
We also understand that Menwith Hill is used not only for space-based infra-red systems related to the missile system, but also for a whole range of other

1391
activities, including, if recent reports are to be believed, listening in on America's allies in relation to what policy they may take on votes in the UN Security Council.
The democratic acceptability point that my noble friend Lady Miller suggested is a real one. At a time when we have declining trust in the United Kingdom in the overall approach to global security of the current American Administration, the acceptability of the current arrangements is likely to be thrown into question.
That leads me to two other points. What about the potential cost? I love the phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Powell, that the cost will not necessarily be prohibitive. I think that means that it will cost an awful lot of money, but it may not mean more than, say, a 25 per cent increase in the defence budget. I hope that that is the case. If the United Kingdom is not simply to serve American needs then we need a more open debate about how far we need to participate. If the United Kingdom is to go down that road, we need to do so with partners. How far do we tag along behind the United States or do we raise this matter with our partners in Europe with whom we share the likely threat? I repeat that arms control regimes are cheaper, as well as better. The pursuit of robust multilateral enforcement regimes is a preferable response to the unilateralism of the kind propounded by John Bolton, Donald Rumsfeld and others.
Then there are references to hopes that British industry will benefit if we join in. In the early stages of the strategic defence initiative, I remember well that being one of the supposed advantages for Britain. We did not gain very much. It is likely to be an illusion again. Treatment of the British defence industry is so different from that of other sectors of industry. Our hope that our defence industry will be cut into these deals is increasingly open to question. We are also told that in order to keep the industry going we must approve active pursuit of defence sales to countries which are not entirely stable. There are also some large issues there.
I end by saying that we on these Benches strongly endorse the criticism of the House of Commons report published in January on the way in which this decision has been taken. That was very strongly put. I entirely agree with it. We call for a much more cautious approach to an issue which is important, to a decision which is not purely technical and to a broad new threat which we need to discuss with all our allies and not simply to accept a ideologically-driven debate by the Right of the Republican Party in the United States.
7.51 p.m.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for introducing this debate today. Your Lordships have expressed a number of most interesting points.
On these Benches we have consistently supported the Fylingdales upgrade and have warned of the potential risks and loss of trade to British industry if
1392
we do not participate. In our opinion there is no dispute about the threat. The need for missile defence is beyond doubt and we should be fully committed in principle to global defence now.
An assessment has been made that currently there is no significant immediate threat to the UK from ballistic missiles. However, Iraq, North Korea, Iran and Libya cause serious concern as they have developed, or are seeking to develop, or acquire ballistic missiles of increasing range. Some already have active and relatively sophisticated ballistic missile programmes and weapons of mass destruction. However, in this debate there is no time to comment any more on the ballistic missiles of North Korea, Iran and Libya.
Iraq is the most immediate threat to global security as it possesses the combination of missiles and weapons of mass destruction—and has used them in the past—and is seeking to develop long-range ballistic missiles. There is no time to go into specific detail, but what has happened to the 25 Scuds and their 50 warheads covertly retained by Iraq? What has happened to the remaining Al-Samoud 2 missiles and their 567 Volga engines and what has happened to the documents relating to the propellant used in these prohibited missiles?
Iraq possesses and has useable offensive chemical and biological weapon capabilities, which include warheads for the Scud missiles filled with nerve agents, anthrax, botulinum toxin and aflatoxin. It has used chemical and biological weapons and killed horrific numbers of Iranians and Kurds, and hundreds of thousands of its own Marsh Arabs. Very recent press reports reveal that Iraq has built secretly a new and potentially lethal unmanned drone that could spray chemical and biological weapons on advancing troops. That was recorded on page 14 of the latest 173-page report from the United Nations weapons inspectors, which was declassified last Friday. This find appears to support allied claims that Iraq has continued to produce the means to deliver banned weapons of mass destruction. It was not declared by Iraq and is a further violation of UN resolutions.
Turning to chemical and biological agents, where are the 550 x 155 mm shells and the 450 R400 aerial bombs filled with mustard gas and the remaining 80 tonnes of mustard gas? Where are the 6,500 chemical weapon bombs? What has happened to the VX nerve agent, the 11,000 litres of botulinum toxin and the 10,000 litres of anthrax? All these chemical and biological substances could be delivered by ballistic missiles if Iraq continued to produce those missiles.
Terrorist organisations are unlikely to use long-range ballistic missiles as a means of delivery as it would be beyond their financial means and even acquisition from off-the-shelf is unlikely. These terrorist organisations are more likely to deliver weapons of mass destruction by covert means such as in suitcase bombs or packages.
However, the role of Fylingdales should enable the USA to develop and enhance its ideas and emerging technologies to produce ultimately a layered missile

1393
defence system. The plan is not to destroy large numbers of missiles as in Star Wars, but to provide a capability with a less extensive global protection system against a limited strike programme involving far fewer ballistic missiles. Royal Air Force Fylingdales has been in operation since about 1963 as one of the radars that provide early warning of ballistic missiles against the United Kingdom, western Europe and the USA. It monitors continuously what is happening in space and the launch and track of rockets from sites within its field of view.
Implementation of the agreement to the US request would give the USA protection from missiles from the Middle East, but it brings no immediate defensive missile cover to the UK unless ground or sea-based interceptors are also located in south-eastern Europe. Some local people are concerned that the upgrade to the hardware and software programmes will increase radiation emissions to dangerous levels. The current levels are safe and many times lower than the safety limits set by the authorities. The Secretary of State has said there will be no change in the power output of the radar and no health risk to people or livestock should arise.
However, there is no need to co-locate interceptors with the radars. The upgrade of the USA radars at Fylingdales will provide us, at no cost to the United Kingdom, with a vital building block on which missile defence for this country and for our European neighbours could be developed if the need arose. Surely we should preserve the possibility of such defences protecting the people of the United Kingdom. Some argue that Fylingdales will become a target once it has been upgraded. However, there is no evidence that it will be at any more risk than it is now even with a terrorist threat, and since the end of the Cold War it could well be argued that it is less of a risk.
Some of the implications stemming from missile defence are that the United States is now looking at working closely with friends and allies to develop defences, which enhance global security in the face of potential threats from rogue states. It has also refocused its efforts on the much more limited and realistic aim of defending against potential threats. The United Kingdom needs to maintain the ability with its allies to intervene in regional crises where our national interests or international stability are threatened, or the will of the international community is being flouted. We need to be prepared for a scenario in which a state carries out a regional act of aggression, and then seeks to deter intervention by threatening population centres with ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction.
The agreed upgrade does not in itself commit the United Kingdom to any greater participation in the United States missile defence programme. It does, however, keep open the prospect of acquiring missile defence capabilities for the UK, should we desire such protection at some point in the future, but it may well be a very expensive, although necessary, option. The risk to the UK from ballistic missiles and hence the desirability of a missile defence system will be driven by the inimical intentions of other states and
1394
improvement in ballistic missile technology and accuracy, and not by the existence of the US missile defence programme. Safety lies in recognising threats as they arise, and in taking proactive steps to address them.
On the issue of international stability, the aim is to tackle limited threats from states of concern with emerging missile capabilities, which seek to acquire and threaten to use ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction in contravention of widely accepted conventions.
It has been said that we are trying to protect ourselves and friends and allies from threats from countries that may not be deterred by our possession of nuclear weapons, reserving the right to use them in specific circumstances. However, future decisions on the existence of effective missile defences should help to dissuade any states that might be weighing up whether to embark on the costly and technically difficult path of developing or procuring ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction in the first place. It is important to consider missile defence in the context of emerging threats from states that pay no attention to the safety and welfare of their own people.
I end my comments with statements from the Prime Minister and the Chief of Defence Staff. The Prime Minister said:
"There is a threat to our security from unstable states acquiring nuclear weapons … and if you can develop a defensive system, and this is a defensive system, that can give us some protection against that, I don't think that is the wrong thing to do. On the contrary I think there is merit in it".
The Chief of the Defence Staff said:
"If there is a defence system around which we can make use of, then it must be essential for us to investigate it … It would benefit the Country in the longer term".
I agree with those statements and that it is right for the United Kingdom to have agreed to the upgrade for the Fylingdales radar, not least because of the importance of the United States/United Kingdom special relationship. In addition, the upgrade will improve the vital early warning capability and we shall retain the opportunity to keep open the prospect of future missile defence for the United Kingdom and the potential for UK industrial participation.
Missile defences threaten no one and the capability would have to be used only if a ballistic missile had been fired. Once such a missile is in the air and threatening a devastating impact, it is unthinkable that anyone could not want to be in a position to shoot it down. I reiterate that we should be fully committed to global missile defence now.
8.2 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, on securing the debate and all noble Lords for their contributions. It has certainly been an interesting discussion However, having heard both defence and foreign affairs spokesmen for the Liberal Democrats, I am left in a dilemma. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, may be able to assist me. In spite of the many words spoken

1395
with passion by both noble Lords, I still do not know whether the Liberal Democrats support or oppose the decision made by Her Majesty's Government. That is not an academic point; it is an important one. The Liberal Democrat Party is a serious political party. It must have views on whether the Government's decision is a good or a bad thing. I hope that we shall hear what is its view.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. As I said in my speech, if he reads it carefully, we are concerned about how the Government reached that decision. We do not think that they needed to reach it with such haste. We had hoped that there would be a great deal more debate. We are not opposed to a missile defence system and have not said that we oppose it; we just wish that there had been more debate about the implications before we moved forward. We may well support missile defence and the decision at this stage; we are just concerned about the implications for the future.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, but it must be me. I still do not know whether that is a yes or no about whether the Liberal Democrats support the Government's decision. That is probably the best answer I shall receive, but I still do not know whether they support the Government's decision to agree to the United States request for an upgrade of Fylingdales or not. From what their spokesman in another place said, it is impossible to tell. Having heard the debate today, I still do not know. It is quite important that the electorate should know.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, the system is unproven in the United States. The decision to deploy missiles in Alaska has been criticised by many in the US Congress, because the system is still experimental. Our case is that it is unnecessary at this stage for the British Government to give such a rapid reply. There is room for debate—especially about the multilateral framework within which we should have replied.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am afraid that I am still none the wiser as to whether the answer is yes or no to that government decision. As a serious political party, it is my view that the Liberal Democrats should tell us. This is a perfect debate for them to do so. I take the view that they have declined to do so.
I begin with the position that we have reached. Back in October, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence set out the Government's thinking on the development of ballistic missile defence systems and called for debate on how missile defences might be relevant to the United Kingdom's own strategy for dealing with the potential threat from ballistic missiles.
We have been criticised about timetables. That criticism is completely unjustified. On 9th December the Ministry of Defence published a discussion paper to inform the policy debate. On 17th December we received the request from the United States
1396
Government seeking permission to upgrade the early warning radar at Fylingdales for missile defence purposes.
The Government were keen to encourage people to make their views known: in Parliament, where there were opportunities for debate on 15th and 22nd January; in two public meetings attended by the Defence Secretary in North Yorkshire on 6th January; in a large number of letters and e-mails to the Ministry of Defence; and through the House of Commons Defence Select Committee. The committee's report, which has been referred to tonight, was published on 29th January. It recommended that the United Kingdom should agree to the upgrade. It, at least, was decisive.
Once the Government were confident that they had taken all the views and arguments into account, we were able to come to a final decision. The fundamental test was whether the upgrade would ultimately enhance the security of the United Kingdom and the NATO alliance. It does so by providing the opportunity in future to defend our country and the European continent against the increasing threat from ballistic missiles armed with weapons of mass destruction. Those missiles do not, we believe, present an immediate threat to the United Kingdom population. But it would be an irresponsible government who could claim that such a threat would never develop. RAF Fylingdales would be a crucial building block on which protection for this country could be acquired. Therefore, as I informed noble Lords on 5th February, we have now replied to the United States Government agreeing to their request.
We have debated today the policy implications of that decision. The most important point is that the upgrade of RAF Fylingdales does not imply any commitment to greater participation in the US missile defence system. The US has not requested the basing of interceptors in the UK; nor has it any plans to site an X-band radar in this country.
The United States has, however, offered to extend missile defence coverage to the UK as the evolution of the system permits and subject to appropriate political and financial arrangements. At the appropriate time, the Government will need to consider whether we wish to acquire missile defence capabilities for the United Kingdom. That would involve broad consideration of the strategic circumstances of the time, including an analysis of how the threat is developing and the technological solutions available, and an assessment of the approach that offers best value for money. The insight that the Government and industry will have of the US programme will be of great benefit in informing that analysis. But that would be a discrete decision some way downstream.
I shall now outline the implications for RAF Fylingdales. Visitors to the station are often astonished to discover that it is controlled and staffed entirely by the Royal Air Force. The only US military presence at the base is a single liaison officer. I emphasise again that Fylingdales is a British base. It will continue to he controlled by the UK. Operational

1397
command will continue to abide by the principle of joint decision-making. The radar will continue to play a crucial role for Britain within the ballistic missile early warning system as a whole. That system of radars and satellites provides warning of ballistic missiles heading towards the UK. It also tracks all objects in low space orbit around the earth. We have access to all the data that we require for those two missions from the whole system, and those arrangements will continue after the upgrade.
Noble Lords will be aware that the upgrade involves no new development, no expansion of the base and no changes to the radar's external appearance. The power output of the radar is also unaffected. As the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said, the upgrade essentially involves the modification of computer hardware and software within the base. When a ballistic missile is launched, the upgraded radar will be able to track the incoming missile accurately enough to enable it to be intercepted. Other than in that extreme circumstance, the radar will be in missile defence mode only for brief testing periods. The UK will have access to the data generated during those periods as well.
I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, whose expertise in environmental matters is well known throughout the House, that the Ministry of Defence has been in close touch with the North York Moors National Park Authority about the upgrade, as I think she knows. It is preparing for the planning authorities a detailed report that will include environmental and health issues. But I am afraid that the noble Baroness is wrong in what she says is envisaged for Fylingdales. It is not a change of use. The radar will continue to play a crucial role for Britain as an early warning radar. Its missile defence role would be used only to track a real incoming missile or for training for around a few hours a year. Nor is it a major development. Indeed, there is no development work at all. It is, frankly, a computer upgrade.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, commented on leasing arrangements for both Fylingdales and Menwith Hill. I am grateful to him for referring to my recent letter to him. I shall try to make the position as clear as possible. As he said, there is no lease for RAF Fylingdales. The base is not made available to the United States visiting forces (USVF). It is, and will continue to be, commanded and operated by the RAF. The United States visiting forces have never been granted a lease to occupy RAF Menwith Hill, which is a joint US/UK base. The presence of the USVF at RAF Menwith Hill is governed by the NATO SOFA—the Status of Forces Agreement 1951. There are additional confidential government-to-government arrangements covering administrative matters. But before noble Lords get too excited about that, it is not peculiar or special to Menwith Hill. It exists at all USVF bases in the United Kingdom.
In 1955 and again in 1976, in order to facilitate the commitment of funding by the US Congress for investment in the base, the US authorities were assured of security of tenure at Menwith Hill for a period of 21 years. The arrangements were an administrative mechanism, were not legally binding and did not
1398
constitute any form of renewable lease for the site. In 1997, the assurance expired, and no further such security of tenure assurance was required.
Menwith Hill has nothing to do with missile defence. In 1997 the US no longer required the security of tenure assurances that we had provided in the past so that Congress investment could be secured, so they were allowed to expire. I have taken a little time on that matter, as I know that the noble Lord has a considerable interest in it. He deserves an answer to the points he made.
Some noble Lords referred to strategic implications. The decision has no major strategic impact. It is hard to argue that it changes fundamentally the relationship between this country and the United States, two countries whose security interests have been closely intertwined for many years. Nor does it affect strategic relations with Russia and China. China has expressed some concerns, and both countries have given measured reactions to the development of missile defence. I need hardly point out that the United States and Russia are involved in an active process of dialogue to explore the possibilities for co-operation on missile defence systems.
The upgrade does not alter the strategic importance of Fylingdales as part of our ballistic missile early warning system. It will enable the United States to intercept a ballistic missile fired by a state of concern at its territory. I cannot believe that anyone would want such a missile to land.
Of course, should we so decide, Fylingdales would also in the future be able to help defend the UK and Europe, provided that it was linked to interceptors based in Europe. I have emphasised that that is a decision for the future, but perhaps it is worth briefly considering some of the issues surrounding the prospect of missile defences for this country, an issue that noble Lords have raised.
We already have a wide and comprehensive strategy to deal with the proliferation of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction. It includes a wide range of measures, from non-proliferation and counter-proliferation to intelligence co-operation; and from law enforcement and conflict prevention to diplomacy and deterrence. All those will remain crucial elements of the UK's response to proliferation. For example, the UK took a lead in instigating the creation of the new Hague code of conduct against ballistic missile proliferation, a politically binding code to which more than 100 countries have already subscribed.
There can be no guarantee that that wide range of measures will be 100 per cent effective. If, at some point, a ballistic missile is launched at this country, there will be nothing more that co-operation and conflict prevention can do. The only means of preventing catastrophe—defending this country and its people—is shooting that missile down. If noble Lords will forgive me for stating the obvious, I must say that that is all that missile defence can do. It is not for killing people. It is not for threatening other countries. It cannot even attack military targets. The

1399
sole purpose of missile defence is to find, intercept and destroy a missile that has already been fired at us in an act of aggression or terror and may carry a weapon of mass destruction.
We should be in no doubt about the existence of that threat. The noble Lord, Lord Powell of Bayswater, referred to it. It is a huge threat to our security. It is often said that threat is a combination of capability and intent. North Korea may be a single flight test away from confirming her ability to reach Europe and the United States with a ballistic missile. Iraq has already shown intent to use weapons of mass destruction and to fire ballistic missiles at its enemies. We must not ignore the evidence.
Why do those countries and others—often with a desperately poor population to feed—choose to spend their resources on such weapons? There are two reasons. The first is that they seek to hold other states to ransom by threatening the delivery of weapons of mass destruction. The second is that they seek to export missile technology to other countries trying to acquire such capabilities. It is not exaggerating to say that the danger is spreading. We cannot just wait for a direct threat to the UK to emerge, before exploring what we might do to defend ourselves against such a threat of devastation.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, made some remarks about a left-of-centre British government and a right-wing Republican American administration. In putting the argument that way, the noble Lord forgets that, as far as concerns missile defence, the previous administration, led by President Clinton, who could not, by anyone's definition, be described as a right-wing Republican, took almost precisely the same view as the present Administration. Indeed, in some regards on space he may even have taken a different and more hardline attitude. Therefore, I do not believe that it helps the argument to compare governments of whatever political persuasion.
The question is: is there a real problem here—a real threat? The answer of Her Majesty's Government is that there is. It is not just the United States and the UK who face that increasing threat. All our NATO allies recognise the potential threat from weapons of mass destruction.
On a number of occasions the United States has made plain its willingness to extend protection to friends and allies. NATO heads of state and government agreed at the Prague summit, an important decision, to examine ways to address the increasing threat posed by ballistic missile proliferation—not just ballistic theatre missiles, but ballistic missiles that would attack homelands—and initiated a new missile defence feasibility study in that regard.
I hope that this part of my argument will appeal to the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. The Government strongly support this work within NATO. In agreeing to upgrade Fylingdales, we have opened the possibility of this radar being the foundation of a missile defence system protecting the whole of Europe.
1400
I want to conclude by providing noble Lords with more detail on the industrial implications of our decision. British industry—rather cavalierly dealt with in one or two speeches today—has been involved alongside the United States in research on missile defence since 1985. Industrial opportunities for UK companies will now increase, with the United States looking to bring in the expertise of a wider "international team" as its programme expands. British companies, large and small, as well as universities and research centres, have an excellent opportunity to contribute to the international effort. We are playing a major part in facilitating that.
We are negotiating a new memorandum of understanding with the United States to allow a proper two-way exchange of technical information with the UK. That is very important, not just in this field but in the wider one too. We are establishing a new missile defence centre which will form the main vehicle for bilateral discussions with the United States. It is proposed that the missile defence centre will be jointly funded by government and UK industry. Through it we shall seek to understand the missile defence architectures being developed for the defence of Europe and to influence the emerging concepts to our advantage.
Lord Roper: My Lords, the Captain of the Yeomen of the Guard made a remark when my noble friend spoke into his 21st minute. It seems that the Minister is speaking into his.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I spoke after the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, had gone two minutes beyond his time.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am sure that this is my fault, but as I understand it, if the actual time for the end of the debate has not been reached, the Minister winding up is entitled to use that time. I am told I am wrong about that—not for the first time—by my noble friend the Deputy Chief Whip. I shall wind up if I may, but please do not leave me in mid-air.
Our objectives are to inform our future decision-making while at the same time promoting UK industry—and what is wrong with that?—to enable it to win work fairly on a value-for-money basis. Negotiating the necessary arrangements will, of course, be critical. I recently visited the US Missile Defense Agency in Washington and discussed the missile defence programme with American colleagues. I received the clear indication from the United States that it seeks the closest possible involvement of the UK—both government and industry—for our mutual benefit. Therefore, I remain confident of success. That does not mean that we are to have our own missile defence system. It means that our industry which has great expertise in this field, as conceded by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, should be able to compete.
In conclusion, the upgrading of Fylingdales has essentially no financial cost to this country, no environmental cost to this country and comes at no material cost to our security. On the contrary. In

1401
addition to contributing directly to the security of our closest ally, the upgrade keeps open the opportunity for the United Kingdom and Europe to defend themselves should a potentially ruinous threat become a reality.
The Government's decision is unquestionably in the best interests of this country's security. We shall continue to work closely with the United States and other allies to ensure that Britain has the security which it requires into the future. I hope that we may have the support of all parts of the House.
8.25 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, it remains for me to thank all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. They have approached the issue from slightly different angles.
Perhaps it is only fair to answer the question put to me by the Minister, because he has asked for a "yes" or "no" response to whether we are for or against the decision. I think that that is the wrong question; we cannot say "yes" or "no" because obviously we shall come to a conclusion about the matter. Our problem is that we do not believe that the decision should have been taken when it was taken. That is not only our view—we are a serious political party—it was the view also taken in the introductory statement of the House of Commons Defence Committee special report. I shall not read out the quotation at this point.
Lord Bach: My Lords, the committee goes on to state that it supports the Government's decision. Why cannot the Liberal Democrats say that?
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, perhaps I should read out the quotation:
"But by announcing on 15 January that it was his preliminary conclusion that the UK must agree to the request, he effectively prevented that debate from taking place".
The committee goes on to state that
"We can find no reason for this sudden urgency".
We believe that there was no need for the decision to be taken in such haste. Indeed, missile defence involves multi-European co-operation. The issues were not discussed in either the European Union or in NATO. The Government's decision pre-empts the conditions that have locked missile defence into a multilateral rather than a bilateral or unilateral framework.
This issue will raise its head again. The Government have reached a decision. However, I think that we are looking at a real threat. Noble Lords on these Benches support a missile defence programme that would stop a real threat to this country. No one could say that we are against the concept of a missile defence system that actually worked to prevent a threat. However, there is al present no system that works, so there was no need to rush into the decision. We believe that the country should have been given the time to make a decision. It should not have been reached as a result of the Americans simply asking for it and us agreeing to it. It is something over which we should have taken time.
1402
Having said that, I thank the Minister for his courteous response to many of our questions. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Patients' Protection Bill [H.L.]
8.28 p.m.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
On the face of it, it is incredible that a Bill such as this should be necessary. Surely patients in hospital are always given such basic necessities as food and fluid? Well, no. I am afraid that sometimes they are riot, especially if they are old and a doctor judges their life to be useless. But surely no one in hospital is being deliberately starved to death? I am very sorry to say that some are and I shall give examples.
The Bill has become necessary because, first, in 1992 a Law Lords ruling stated that it can be lawful to withdraw tube-delivered food and fluid; and, secondly, the BMA has claimed that feeding by artificial means is "treatment". So while it cannot be denied on the one hand that no human being can live without food or fluid, on the other hand, hospitals are allowed to stop giving them.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mustill, one of the Law Lords who gave the ruling to which I have referred, has said that the law is now left in a morally and intellectually misshapen state. The legal advice I received last week is that Britain is in contravention of Article 2 of the European convention and of the Human Rights Act 1998, which states:
"No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally".
There are no caveats or exemptions which would meet what is now happening in our hospitals.
Yesterday I received a lengthy opinion from a Queen's Counsel, who stated:
"I consider that the provision of hydration in such cases is likely to fall within the scope of the state's positive obligations under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Failure even to advise clinicians of the importance of compliance with the principles set out in case law and with the obligations under Articles 6, 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights renders this guidance unlawful"—
that is the BMA's guidance on withholding food or fluid. So not only is failing to give patients sustenance illegal; it is illegal not to make that clear to hospital staff.
I completely agree with the well-known judgment that it is wrong to kill but,
"Thou shouldst not strive officiously to keep alive".
If a machine is all that is keeping a heart beating, or surgery will prolong a life for only a short and suffering time, I would vote for stopping the operation or the machine. But giving food and fluid is not "officiously keeping alive"; it is essential for life.
Doctors tell me that artificial feeding is distressing for the patient. Is it worse than dying or starving to death? Doctors have been feeding artificially for about

1403
100 years now. Have they not found ways to improve it? There is nothing in my Bill to force a 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.
The Government and the BMA state that the Bill is not necessary because it is already illegal to treat patients so as to cause death. If it is already illegal, why is it happening day after day?
There are many cases on record but I shall refer to only three recent ones. A lady told me last week that her much loved husband, a stroke victim, had all fluid intake withdrawn without a word to her or to him. She did not notice at first because when one visits a relative in hospital one immediately assumes that the hospital is giving the patient what he needs. But when she did notice she demanded to see the doctor in charge and demanded that her husband should continue to get fluid. This was reinstated "reluctantly", she said. Although the man is still ill today, he has made visible progress and his family even hope to have him home.
In another case, a man visited an elderly friend in hospital and found him unconscious and receiving nothing. The doctor had decided to remove the saline drip and to ban all nutrition, after which he popped off for the week-end. My correspondent was horrified. His friend was not seriously ill, just old. He contacted the man's wife and together they engaged a private consultant to visit the patient. That doctor immediately reinstated the saline drip. Last week the old man was still alive, conscious and able to speak. Incidentally, the hospital consultant complained bitterly that my correspondent had dared to interfere—though the patient may well have been dead by now if he had not.
A valued colleague and dear friend of mine, Andrew Hunter, who has been a Member of Parliament for over 20 years, supports my Bill. His wife, Jan, was seriously ill with cancer last October. He spent all the time he could sitting by her hospital bed. He did not realise instantly that her supply of food and fluid had been disconnected. When he did, he immediately expressed shock and anger: neither he nor Jan had ever given consent to any such thing. Sustenance was restored. But, when he complained, he was told that this was "normal practice". The hospital said: "We always assume it is the wish of patients' families". I find that incredible. Andrew told me that he found it hard to avoid the conclusion that the hospital was deliberately accelerating Jan's death in order to increase the throughput of patients. That cannot be right. I should be surprised if any of your Lordships could defend such an approach.
1404
Organisations are springing up to counter what is happening. One of them, SOS—NHS Patients in Danger, states:
"We have been contacted by hundreds of distressed and angry relatives who realised too late that their loved one's death had been deliberately brought about".
Another group has produced a human rights card to carry around like a donor card, which states that in the event of their being in hospital and unconscious or unable to speak, they want to be given food and fluid.
A television programme on this subject was screened last year. Viewers saw one old man lying in bed unable to speak who was not being given food or water. He took some 18 days to die and his awful suffering was apparent. A number of other patients in similar circumstances were shown. Many of the nurses and doctors showed kindness and sympathy, but that did not alter what was happening. This was no play; it was a programme about real people in a real hospital. Patients and relatives were real and identifiable. I think what has upset me most is the description correspondents give of their dear ones dying of thirst in front of them. One lady said that her mother had been begging for a drink and she gave her a wet sponge on a piece of stick. Her mother grabbed the sponge and she saw that her teeth were stuck to the flesh inside her mouth. Another lady whose husband was desperately asking to be given a drink thought that there was some medical reason why he could not have fluid and did not give him one. When he died, it was found that his tongue was rolled back in his mouth. I hate to contemplate the suffering that must have been caused to those people.
One colleague said, "Surely they can sue". That is not really the case. Many fear repercussions, either on themselves or on relatives if those relatives are still alive. Usually they are not—in which case, relatives tell me, money would never compensate anyway. There would be no point in bringing a case of that kind. Then there is the fear of cost. Litigation is very expensive, and there is no legal aid for this kind of case. Finally, I am told that it is virtually impossible to find a lawyer to take a case against the NHS, which is the biggest and most protected business in Europe, if not in the world.
Great suffering and distress is being caused. A hugely important international law is being breached. Legal rights and obligations are blurred and uncertain. I submit that there is a clear and present need for this Bill. I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Knight of Collingtree.)
8.39 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Knight of Collingtree, for bringing the Bill to your Lordships' House and for her clear and powerful explanation.
For elderly and severely disabled people, to fear going into hospital, as they do now, because of the risk that they may catch an infection not related to their condition and die is a worrying situation. But it is truly appalling that they should fear that they may be denied

1405
food and fluids because someone plays god and thinks that their life is not worth preserving. I think of Christ, when he was dying on the Cross. He was given a sponge soaked with vinegar to aggravate his craving thirst.
Surely, if the Government want to help patients, they will do something to protect them from those real fears. Friends and relations also need support in times of anxiety. when they see their loved ones being discarded and left to die, be it in hospitals or a care home.
Members of Hitler's SS special force no doubt became hardened to the practices in the concentration camps. The practice of denying people food and fluid could become common in pressurised hospitals, and staff could become hardened to this inhumane policy and turn a blind eye, as doctors had given instructions.
People who have had strokes, for example, sometimes cannot speak, but they know what is going on. Their swallowing may be affected, and they may need to be given fluid through a drip. Their swallowing can recover, as can their quality of life. Not to be able to say that they are desperate for a drink and leaving them until their kidneys and vital organs pack up is cruel beyond words. Surely, to make patients as comfortable as possible and let them die with dignity, without being starved, should be the aim of anyone who calls themselves a member of a caring profession.
Most people who have spent some time in a hospital with long-term patients will have seen some bad practices. For example, staff may put food down out of the reach of patients who cannot reach it or feed themselves. The food is then taken away by some assistant who does not bother or even notice that the food has not been touched. The Bill might make some people who have the responsibility of feeding patients take a little more care and attention over these matters and show some TLC—tender loving care.
Someone with the experience of the noble Baroness, Lady Knight of Collingtree, would not bring such a Bill before your Lordships unless there were a real need to protect vulnerable patients. Many people do not realise that doctors no longer have to take the Hippocratic oath. Therefore, I hope that the Bill will be successful and have a quick, untroubled passage through both Houses of Parliament.
We live in pressurised times, when vulnerable patients need protecting. There should be trust, rather than fear, in our hospitals and homes.
8.44 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, the issue we are considering is very serious. It is absolutely right that we should be debating it in this House. I am therefore extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, for bringing it before us this evening.
I should like to make it clear at the beginning that I am an unqualified opponent of euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide. Indeed, I was one of the two Anglican bishops who worked with two Roman Catholic bishops to make a joint statement to the
1406
House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics a few years ago which took that position. However, the question of the withdrawal of nutrition and hydration which is being administered by tubes and other means is in my view much more complex from an ethical point of view.
First, although much reference is made to the Tony Bland case in these discussions, I think that we need to be wary of associating PVS—a persistent vegetative state—with conditions such as a deep coma or advanced dementia. It seems to me that, from what I have read, PVS is a distinct medical condition—not quite brain death on the one hand, but not full human life on the other, not in any real sense. The judge in the Bland case, Sir Stephen Brown, said of Tony Bland:
"His spirit has left him and all that remains is the shell of his
body".
If, for the sake of argument, that is a true description of persistent vegetative state, I do not believe that it applies in relation to those in a deep coma or suffering from advanced dementia.
With that proviso, there are some important implications of the Bland case. I believe that in many, if not inevitably in all, cases the administration of nutrition and hydration by tubes and other means is an invasive medical procedure. A summary by the then Master of the Rolls was quoted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goff of Chieveley. He said:
"Mr Bland cannot swallow, and so cannot be spoon-fed without a high risk that food will be inhaled into the lungs. He is fed by means of a tube, threaded through the nose and down into the stomach, through which liquefied food is mechanically pumped. His bowels are evacuated by enema. His bladder is drained by catheter. He has been subjected to repeated bouts of infection infecting his urinary tract and chest, which are being treated by antibiotics. Drugs have also been administered to reduce salivation, to reduce muscle tone and severe sweating and to encourage gastric emptying. A tracheostomy tube has been inserted and removed. Urino-genetry problems have required surgical intervention. A patient in this condition requires very skilled nursing and close medical attention if he is to survive".
In the light of that description, I do not believe that nutrition and hydration administered by such means can in any sense count as part of the ordinary care, by normal means, which is due to every patient. However commonplace now, it constitutes a medical procedure of a fairly radical kind.
As a medical procedure, the question of whether it is burdensome arises. The papal declaration on euthanasia in 1980 said:
"One cannot impose on anyone the obligation to have recourse to a technique which is already in use but which carries a risk or is burdensome. Such a refusal … should be considered as an acceptance of the human condition, or a wish to avoid the application of a medical procedure disproportionate to the results which can be expected".
He went on to say:
"It is permitted in conscience to take the decision to refuse forms of treatment that would only secure a precarious and burdensome prolongation of life".
I should make it quite clear that, in that statement, the Pope was referring to patients who were dying. Nevertheless, making a judgment about whether a

1407
person is dying is not clear-cut. If a person is in a very deep coma and they are kept alive only by such medical means as I have indicated and that treatment ceased, then the person would of course die. They are being kept alive by medical means, which is absolutely right if there is some hope of improvement and the treatment is not burdensome. But if there is no hope of improvement and the treatment is burdensome, the situation is very different.
When my aunt was in a very deep coma, in order to give time to see whether she would make any kind of recovery she was fed artificially by the method already described. But in due course it became clear that not only was there no sign of recovery but that the body was beginning to reject the nutrition and hydration being pumped into it. The tubes were, quite rightly in my view, withdrawn and she died. That was an entirely proper medical judgment. My worry about the Bill as presently worded is that it would hinder doctors from making that essential judgment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Knight, mentioned some extremely disturbing examples. But I submit that those examples are very different from the example of my aunt. Perhaps the BMA ought to issue further guidance in order to tighten up some procedures. However, I put before your Lordships the situation of a person who for a very long time has been in a very deep coma and is kept alive only by very radical and intrusive medical means. That seems to me to be very different from the three examples that the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, put before us.
At this point it is important to emphasise that a refusal to subject a person to burdensome treatment in the first place, and a cessation of that treatment once it has started, are, from an ethical point of view, the same, even though the latter may be a more obviously distressing course of action. A person is, say, put on a life support machine. After a time it becomes clear that there is no hope of any kind of recovery of consciousness, so the machine is switched off. It was important for the procedure to be tried in the first place. But it is equally important, if the procedure has been tried and found to be having no effect, that that treatment should be allowed to cease. It would be quite wrong for doctors to be inhibited from putting people on life support machines because of a fear that switching off such a machine at a later point was more morally heinous than not putting them on to it in the first place.
So it may be right for a person to be kept alive by nutrition and hydration through tubes, drips and other medical procedures. But the time could come in a particular case, after considered judgment by those medically responsible for the patient, that this treatment was both burdensome and had no possibility of changing the condition of the patient, in which case doctors need to be free to make the appropriate medical decision.
1408
Finally, I want to look at the question of intention, which is mentioned in the heading of the Bill. It refers to,
"the intention of causing the death of a patient",
although the actual offence, as proposed, is withholding sustenance from the patient,
"if his purpose in doing so is to hasten or otherwise cause the death of the patient".
Here I need to make a distinction between what might be in the mind of the medical practitioner, the actual thrust of the action intended, and the foreseen consequences of that action. From a moral point of view, not everything that is foreseen is intended, for that which is intended morally concerns not so much the motivation of the action as the main thrust of the action.
To take an analogy from another sphere of moral reflection, it is a cardinal principle of the Christian tradition of the morality of the conduct of war that civilians must not be directly targeted. Very sadly and too often attacks on military targets result in the deaths of civilians in the surrounding area. They are foreseen and they have to be taken into account when weighing up the morality of the action. But if the attack is directed towards a military target, such civilian deaths do not constitute murder.
To take another analogy closer to the issue we are discussing, the main thrust or purpose of administering morphine is to reduce the pain of a patient. The fact that that dose may shorten the life of a patient is foreseen but it is not intended in the sense that that was not what the action was directed towards. In the case of the withdrawal of tubes, drips and so on, the intention of the action is to stop burdensome treatment that is having no effect. As it has been put:
"To decide to omit non-obligatory care, therefore, is not to intend the patient's death, but only to avoid the burden of the procedure. Hence, though foreseen, the patient's death is to be attributed to the patient's pathological condition and not to the omission of care … while it is always wrong directly to cause the death of such patients, the natural dying process which would have occurred without these interventions may be permitted to proceed".
All kinds of thoughts might be going on in the minds of relatives or medical practitioners, and their mental intentions may be very varied. However, the intention of the action—its purpose as measured by what is actually done in such cases—is not to kill the patient but to relieve him of burdensome treatment that is found to be useless and that is only prolonging life in a condition of increasing distress.
For those reasons, the issue is a much more complex one than euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide, which I reiterate that I strongly oppose. I would find it very difficult to support the Bill in its present form because it would inhibit doctors from making decisions that it is essential for them to make under certain circumstances as part of the proper care that they seek to give to their patients. In certain circumstances, the right judgment is to cease burdensome treatment. In my judgment, as in that of

1409
the BMA, nutrition and hydration delivered by the means that I have described is a medical procedure, and a very invasive one.
8.57 p.m.
Lord Tombs: My Lords, I would first like to join others in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, on bringing forward this simple but valuable measure, which I support. The proposition seems to me to be a very simple one—that doctors owe a duty of care to their patients. Any weakening of that long-recognised principle would have profoundly undesirable effects, leading to a breakdown of trust in the long-standing belief that doctors act in the best interests of their patients.
In recent years, there has been a disturbing number of reports of patients in hospitals having nourishment by tube withdrawn, so hastening their deaths through dehydration in a particularly unpleasant way. Sometimes, it seems, the patients' relatives have not been consulted or, worse, their wishes have been ignored.
Euthanasia is illegal in this country, yet it seems to be increasingly part of current medical thinking. For example, as has been said, the BMA has advised its members that withdrawal of artificial feeding can be considered in a wide range of conditions, not just the permanent vegetative state which underlay the Bland case of 1993. The decision of the courts in that unhappy case seems to have been taken as providing a justification for that, although the courts at all stages were careful to limit the scope of their judgment to that particular case.
The Bland case rested heavily on the clinical evidence of a permanent vegetative state, in which evidence of extensive brain damage precluded the possibility of recovery. That is clearly not the case in the BMA guidance, nor in the cases reported in the press. Those reported cases are probably the tip of a larger problem, given the secrecy of many hospitals and the notorious difficulty of establishing hard facts about the treatment administered. Those factors also militate against application by the relatives to the courts for relief from withdrawal of sustenance.
It would be wrong to suggest that the issue is a general medical problem, and it has been opposed in public by several caring practitioners with a clear view of the ethical responsibilities and legal limitations of a doctor's calling. However, as I have noted, the practice is present in a number of institutions, whether because of managerial pressure on bed space, simple medical indifference to a patient's right to life, or even perhaps a judgment that the quality of life justifies hastening the patient's death.
The Bill would simply state that actions intended to hasten death are illegal and would make the situation clear for medical practitioners and hospital managements. It would uphold the respect for life that underpins our society and would provide a clear reminder of the purpose of medicine in that society.
The courts in the Bland case called for parliamentary examination of the overall position, which has not been forthcoming. The Government and their
1410
predecessor can take no satisfaction from their failure to do so. But the practices that have resulted from that inactivity, coupled with a misreading of the Bland judgment, have produced a quite unacceptable position. The Bill provides a restatement of the present law in clear and unambiguous terms and, in doing so, reaffirms our society's respect for life and provides support for patients and their relatives. I believe that it is a modest and necessary measure that demands our support.
9 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, for generations, we have held that anyone who intentionally hastens a patient's death by any deliberate act or omission commits murder. However, in 1993, the Law Lords ruled in the Tony Bland case that it can be lawful for doctors and other medical staff intentionally to kill patients in a persistent vegetative state by withdrawing food and fluids.
It has long been held that hard cases make bad law. The Bland case was a hard case—a very hard case—and has made very bad law. I welcome my noble friend's Bill and thank her for introducing it.
I expect that the noble Baroness the Minister, when she responds to this debate, will say that there is no need for this Bill, because the law already makes it illegal for doctors to withdraw sustenance deliberately to cause the death of the patient. However, in 1999, the British Medical Association published a document, Withholding and Withdrawing Life-Prolonging Medical Treatment. That document recommended the withdrawal of food and fluid by tube from a range of patients who are not dying. That included, among others, a patient who had suffered a severe stroke, Alzheimer's disease and severely disabled new-born babies.
If a mother breast-feeds her baby, is she giving medical treatment? I do not think so. When you, my Lords, have a meal or a drink, are you undergoing medical treatment? I think not.
Despite the fact that the BMA report has been condemned by a number of Christian, Muslim and Jewish organisations, including medical groups, and that there have been four Early-Day Motions tabled in the House of Commons asking the Government to make it clear that the BMA report does not represent legal guidelines, the Government have taken no action to protect patients.
As has already been mentioned, there is already anecdotal evidence, if not hard evidence, that patients are having sustenance withheld without either their consent or the consent of their relatives or representatives. That must stop. In the Bland case, the doctors had to obtain the consent of a court to withdraw sustenance. That may take a little time and cost money but it was the correct way to deal with a hard case. That course should be followed in future in similar cases.
In this country, our medical services, as we all know, are under great pressure financially and in respect of the number of cases. It would appear that once a patient reaches a certain age, the National

1411
Health Service might give up on them. That, I suspect, is an attempt to reduce costs and waiting lists. We appear to have forgotten the old saying that a stitch in time saves nine. If we followed the Australian principle of keeping elderly people fit and well by giving treatment early, it would, in the end, save money and also reduce waiting lists.
I support the Bill. However, in my view, there is one amendment that we will have to make in Committee—that is, to the meaning of "sustenance", as set out in Clause 1(2). I suggest that in line 8 the word "or" should be replaced by "and"; otherwise, a patient could be fed dry food with no liquid and that would make it virtually impossible for him to swallow. I welcome the Bill.
9.5 p.m.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, the whole House should he grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Knight of Collingtree, for introducing the Bill and laying it before your Lordships' House. I join my noble friend Lady Masham and the noble Lords, Lord Tombs and Lord Swinfen, in welcoming the way that the noble Baroness introduced the Bill this evening.
In his speech, the right reverend Prelate invited us to tilt at what I consider to be imaginary windmills. I do not believe that there is any disagreement between us about what is often called the "heroic lengths" argument. As the right reverend Prelate rightly said, we are under no obligation to keep alive someone who would otherwise die. He said that he was opposed to euthanasia, and we agree about that. But undoubtedly, if we reclassify food and fluid as a burdensome treatment, then we shall sanction euthanasia.
This morning, a letter appeared in The Times which gets to the nub of the issue that we are debating this evening. The correspondent wrote that,
"many of us assumed that nutritional requirements of patients in hospital were so fundamental we would not even imagine that there was a lack of such service … If something so basic is not given priority it is little wonder that many other aspects of hospital care are ignored, such as cleanliness and hygiene. How can management allow such ineptitude to exist?"
Food and fluid, defined in this Bill as "sustenance", have always been regarded as basic care to which everyone is entitled. Your Lordships should be under no illusions that acceptance of the withdrawal of nutrition and hydration from non-dying patients has consistently been identified by the pro-euthanasia lobby as the precursor to the legalisation of positive euthanasia. The right reverend Prelate should be under no illusion about that.
Noble Lords should not take my word for that; they should listen to these words:
"If we can get people to accept the removal of all treatment and care—especially the removal of food and fluids—they will see what a painful way this is to die and then, in the patient's best interests, they will accept the lethal injection".
Those are the words of Dr Helgha Kuhse, pro-euthanasia bioethicist, speaking in September 1984 at the Fifth Biennial Congress of Societies for the Right
1412
to Die. Dr Kuhse's views are shared by Professor Sheila McLean, who referred to Bland and similar judgments as a form of non-voluntary euthanasia.
Let us remember that in one of our neighbouring countries—Holland—precisely those arguments led to the introduction there of voluntary euthanasia, its legalisation and now involuntary euthanasia, with more than 3,000 people being killed by doctors in one year alone. When defenders of life are turned into the destroyers of life, that is in no one's interest. It is little wonder that in a recent opinion poll in Holland, the vast majority of elderly people said that they were now frightened of going to their doctor because of the reversal of the traditional roles in which doctors and nurses have been placed.
We are told by some of those who oppose it outside your Lordships' House that the Bill is unnecessary as it simply makes illegal something that is already illegal—namely, killing patients. If only it were that simple. The killing of non-dying patients in a persistent vegetative state—PVS—and similar conditions by the withdrawal or withholding of sustenance was authorised, as we have already been told, in the Bland judgment and is supported, as we have heard, by the medical establishment.
The Patients' Protection Bill is about restoring integrity and coherence to the law of homicide. Until the Bland judgment in 1993, the common law was quite clear. It was always wrong to have as the purpose of one's conduct the bringing about of another person's death for any reason other than the requirements of justice. That common law principle is enshrined in Article 2 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Prior to 1993 it was a clearly understood part of the common law that murder can be committed not only by a positive act, but also by omission in situations where there is a duty to provide what is omitted. That covered doctors who owe their patients a duty of care.
In the Bland judgment, which the right reverend Prelate has defended, it was held that to stop feeding Tony Bland was a lawful omission. It was said that tube feeding was medical treatment that the doctors were under no duty to provide because it was not in the patient's best interests, was futile and was a course of conduct endorsed by a responsible body of medical opinion. However, we have not heard that three out of the five Law Lords stated—the others not dissenting—that the aim or purpose of withdrawing tube feeding was to bring about Tony Bland's death.
In a long quotation which I believe should be read into our record—I hope your Lordships will forgive me—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mustill, said:
"it is essential to face up squarely to the true nature of what is proposed … Emollient expressions such as 'letting nature take its course' and 'easing the passing' may have their uses, but they are out of place here, for they conceal both the ethical and the legal issues, and I will try to avoid them … The conclusion that the declarations can be upheld depends crucially on a distinction drawn by the criminal law between acts and omissions, and carries with it inescapably a distinction between, on the one hand what is often called 'mercy killing', where active steps are taken in a medical context to terminate the life of a suffering patient, and a

1413
situation such as the present where the proposed conduct has the aim for equally humane reasons of terminating the life of Anthony Bland by withholding from him the basic necessities of life. The acute unease which I feel about adopting this way through the legal and ethical maze is I believe due in an important part to the sensation that however much the terminologies may differ the ethical status of the two courses of action is for all relevant purposes indistinguishable".
Prior to Bland, such conduct was incompatible with the duty of care owed to a patient. Following Bland, conduct aimed at ending a patient's life, providing it counts as an omission, may well be deemed as compatible with the exercise of the duty of care for a patient if doctors judge that the patient's life is no longer worthwhile. Why, if the Government are so sure of their moral argument, are they misleading the public? I have a letter from David Lammy, Minister in the Department of Health in which he claims that it is untrue to state that the purpose of withdrawing food and fluid from Tony Bland was to cause his death. What other purpose could it possibly have? That is patently untrue.
The Bland case can be starkly contrasted with the case of one of my former constituents in Liverpool, Andrew Devine. The House will remember that on 15th April 1989, 96 people died at Hillsborough. Several of my then constituents were among the fatalities and others were injured. One was Andrew Devine who, like Tony Bland, went into a deep coma. Their conditions were identical. Shortly after the Hillsborough tragedy I visited Andrew and his parents. As the years passed I have followed Andrew's progress. Last week I asked Andrew's mother whether I could tell your Lordships what had happened to him in the intervening 14 years during which she and her husband had fought for Andrew's life, and she gave me her permission. Mrs Devine told me that having been told by medics that,
"Andrew will never be able to swallow or to eat food",
she felt that her son had "been written off". She was told that it,
"would be a waste of resources to treat him".
The medics also said that it would be clear within two years whether Andrew was going to make any progress. In fact, it took five years. They told his parents "nothing can be done" when quite a lot could be done and was done.
Many of your Lordships will recall the front page story from the Guardian in 1997 when Andrew's parents talked publicly about the improvements that had taken place in his health. Against all the predictions Andrew now eats heartily and eats solids. Mrs Devine is adamant that—I quote her words—
"From our point of view it was a hard enough battle to fight for the things we needed without being offered the chance to do away with Andrew".
She says,
"Starving or dehydrating someone is an unpleasant death—you might as well give a lethal injection".
Through their love and devotion Andrew's parents found the Brain Injury Rehabilitation and Development Centre at Broughton, near Chester, not because they were referred there, but because they found it via a
1414
television programme. They took Andrew to London, to the Royal Hospital for Neuro-disability at West Hill in Putney and paid for his first course of treatment themselves.
Mrs Devine argues that the law needs to be strengthened because
"economic pressures to free beds would be overwhelming; the pressure would be enormous".
And yet precisely that pressure is now being exerted, hence the need for legislation of the sort proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Knight.
Withdrawal of feeding, including oral feeding, is now being extended to patients who are not in PVS. In June 1999 the BMA published guidance on Withholding and Withdrawing Life prolonging Medical Treatment, in which they considered it appropriate to withdraw tube feeding from,
"patients who have suffered a stroke or have severe dementia".
That unethical practice has received support from the GMC in its 2002 publication, Withholding and Withdrawing Life prolonging Treatments: Good Practice in Decision-making. Sadly, the Government have shown no intention of protecting patients from the BMA guidelines. In their latest consultation document, Making Decisions: helping people who have difficulty deciding for themselves, nutrition and hydration are referred to throughout as "medical treatment".
It is simply not good enough to say that killing patients is already illegal therefore there is no need for the Bill. The decision of your Lordships' House in Bland, its confirmation in subsequent cases and the guidance emanating from the BMA and GMC have left the law, in the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mustill, quoted earlier by the noble Baroness,
"both morally and intellectually misshapen".
The Bill seeks to restore moral and intellectual clarity to the law. To allow doctors to withdraw sustenance from patients with the purpose of ending their lives subverts the law of murder. Hence the urgent need for the Bill.
As the noble Baroness mentioned, this week we have seen counsel's opinion that the BMA and GMC guidelines, in respect of the withdrawal of life-prolonging medical treatment, are unlawful. I have this evening placed a copy of the opinion in the Library of your Lordships' House.
Tube feeding or sustenance is not medical treatment. It is basic care. Many people with cystic fibrosis are fed by gastric tube and live an otherwise normal life. Others with paralysis of the throat and swallowing mechanisms feed via nasal tubes. Great progress has been made by nurses, doctors, dieticians and speech therapists working together to help those with swallowing difficulties. If swallowing is impossible, thirst should be relieved by fluids delivered by the least invasive method possible in the circumstances.
In all the time that my noble friend and I have been debating the matter, I have yet to hear a convincing explanation as to why nutrition and hydration,

1415
however so delivered, should be classified as medical treatment and not basic care. What medical ailment is being treated? Since when has hunger or thirst been considered an illness? It has even been established in the case of animals that freedom from hunger and freedom from thirst constitute two of the five welfare considerations to which all domestic animals are entitled. Surely it is not unreasonable for the same criteria to be applied to human beings.
It is deeply paradoxical that last week a shepherd was sentenced to six months in prison for not providing enough food and water for his sheep. If that had been a human being he would at least have been worth a judgment in your Lordships' House.
When the Minister replies she should clearly state, without citing the BMA or GMC guidelines, why food and fluid are considered medical treatment? If non-dying patients are denied nutrition and hydration then the inevitable consequence is death within days, whatever the pathology. By calling nutrition and hydration medical treatments the courts, the Government, the BMA and the GMC have over-medicalised sustenance and have opened the way to the killing of vulnerable, particularly elderly, patients in our hospitals. Regardless of whether nutrition and hydration is delivered by a spoon, by PEG, or by nasogastric tube, it does not alter the substance of what is being delivered. The means of delivery may be artificial—not the sustenance itself. To talk of artificial nutrition and hydration is a complete misnomer.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, noted in his judgment in Bland:
"If someone allows a small child or invalid in his care to starve to death, we do not say that he allowed nature to take its course. We think that he has committed a particularly wicked crime. We treat him as if he had introduced an external agency of death. It is the same ethical principle which requires doctors and hospitals to provide patients in their care with such medical attention and nursing as they are reasonably able to give … The giving of food to a helpful 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".
The Bill focuses on the purpose of the person responsible for the care of the patient. That draws on the commonsense understanding of the notion of purpose, which is integral to the law and to ethics. We always distinguish someone's purpose in acting from other consequences—even those that may be foreseen. If a person responsible for the care of a patient withholds or withdraws sustenance with the purpose of causing death, his conduct will be unlawful.
Nothing in the Bill obstructs good medical practice. The Bill does not impose any requirement on doctors to strive to keep alive patients who are dying. The role of doctors in terminal illness is to provide as peaceful and pain-free a death as possible. The Bill does not make unlawful the withholding or withdrawal of sustenance from a patient who is in the process of dying, where, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, mentioned, the risk or discomfort of the placement of feeding tubes would be regarded as unduly intrusive or excessive. That is far removed from the deliberate
1416
withholding or withdrawing of sustenance with the purpose of causing the death of a patient who is not otherwise dying.
The last thing that I want is good doctors being exposed to complaints or the risk of prosecution at the behest of aggrieved relatives. That is why purpose is the key. Those responsible for patient care should not fear the Bill. As your Lordships' Select Committee on Medical Ethics observed at paragraph 243,
"juries are asked every day to assess intention in all sorts of cases".
They could do so on the rare occasions where there was any reason to suspect that the doctor's purpose was to kill.
When sustenance is withdrawn for ethically and legally acceptable reasons, the data about a patient's clinical condition and the observations of other carers will support the person responsible for the care of the patient. Contrary to some assertions, the Bill will not encourage the practice of "defensive medicine". Nor will the Bill restrict patient autonomy. A doctor's respect for a competent patient's refusal of sustenance would involve no intention on his part other than a concern not to commit an assault, of which he would be guilty in imposing sustenance contrary to a competent patient's wishes.
Where health professionals remain concerned about the practical impact of the Bill, I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, has rightly agreed to meet them further to discuss their legitimate concerns. We cannot sit back and do nothing. The noble Baroness has given some disturbing examples of the withholding and withdrawal of nutrition and hydration from non-dying patients that has inevitably resulted in their deaths. Elderly patients with dementia or strokes appear most at risk. Last July, we had a damning report from the Commission for Health Improvement following its investigation into elderly deaths at Gosport War Memorial Hospital.
I could cite many other appalling cases, many of them collected by the patient lobby group SOS-NHS, which has been mentioned, which demonstrate why vulnerable patients need the protection of the Bill. Patient groups such as SOS-NHS are especially concerned about the increasingly common practice of sedating patients and then deliberately withholding nutrition and hydration until the patient dies. Having been sedated, the patient is unable to demand sustenance and his or her distress may not be readily apparent. The death certificate will commonly state that the cause of death was the underlying medical condition, not dehydration.
Last month, Radio 4's "File on Four" programme drew attention to that worrying practice. Citing disturbing examples of over-sedation and the withdrawal of food and water, the programme-makers suggested that they raised wider questions about the effectiveness of checks and controls in our care homes and about how we care for our ever-increasing number of elderly citizens. I shall arrange to place a transcript of the programme in the Library.

1417
Such practices must end. The medical establishment has shown no desire to put its own house in order. Hence the introduction of the Bill. The 1994 report from the House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics concluded that the Bland judgment should not be enshrined in statute. It stated:
"We consider that the progressive development and ultimate acceptance of the notion that some treatment is inappropriate should make it unnecessary to consider the withdrawal of nutrition and hydration, except in circumstances where its administration is in itself evidently burdensome to the patient".
Sadly, its conclusions have been ignored by the Government and the withdrawal of nutrition and hydration from non-dying patients has become an accepted element of medical practice. Food and water are basic human needs that should never be withdrawn or withheld if the purpose in so doing is to hasten or otherwise cause the death of the patient.
In conclusion, the pro-euthanasia lobby sees acceptance of the withdrawal or withholding of sustenance from patients who are not dying as the first major hurdle to overcome on the road towards the legalisation of assisted suicide and positive euthanasia. The noble Lord, Lord Joffe, has already placed before your Lordships' House a Bill to achieve that purpose. After all, they argue, if it is legitimate to subject patients to a slow, painful and distressing death by starvation and dehydration, surely it is more compassionate to give them a lethal injection that will ensure a swift death. We must wake up to the pro-euthanasia agenda being promoted in our hospitals. To purposefully starve or dehydrate patients to death is unethical and should be illegal. I support the noble Baroness's Bill.
9.25 p.m.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, this debate is important. As a healthcare professional I must state that I think it essential that healthcare professionals act always in the best interests of the patient. Prior to this debate, I spoke to groups of physicians working in palliative care who are opposed to euthanasia, as I am. I have also taken soundings from the Guild of Catholic Doctors, which is opposed to euthanasia.
However, there is widespread concern over the Bill. The intentions behind it are good. Fluids and nutrition are a basic human need and right. To deny either with the express intention of ending life is against current law. I declare an interest, as I teach medical ethics. I have also been involved in taking decisions about how far to go with fluids or nutrition. I have agonised over such decisions with my team and all the different healthcare professionals involved.
It is almost impossible to make a prognosis predicting what will happen to a patient. At best, it is a best guess given the information available. But no healthcare professional can claim to have a crystal ball. I am not surprised at cases such as those we have heard about tonight where doctors predicted that there would be no recovery but there was an astounding one. In my own practice I have had patients I thought were dying who were sitting up having breakfast the next day. I have also had patients I expected to live for months who died within days. Making a prognosis is an impossible and very coarse art; it is not a science.
1418
There has been much public discussion about patients' death. But too little has been said about the importance of patients feeling assured that all is being done on their behalf to respect life and to value the days left to live, even when death scents imminent. The Bill is designed to protect the vulnerable, especially those with a non-progressing disease who are not competent to make decisions on their own care. It is indefensible to place food or fluids out of reach of patients or not to assist them to take in that food or fluid with good nursing care.
However, I contend that the Bill may complicate rather than clarify decision-making. Paramount to all interventions or treatment cessation is the patient's consent. When patients, for whatever reason, are unable to give consent or to signal competent refusal, the principle of best interest becomes the default position. That best interest should be for the patient as a person, and there should be default towards preserving life. The Bill does not mention the issue of patient consent or refusal.
As drafted, the Bill poses several difficulties. First, it deals only with nutrition and hydration by whatever means, yet oxygen is essential to life. Ventilation is often a difficult decision, but oxygen by mask is not. It is not covered in the Bill. Other aspects of care are essential too, such as turning a patient who is unable to do so to avoid pressure sores.
Secondly, although nutrition and hydration constitute ordinary care when given by ordinary means, there is some evidence that tube-feeding and total parenteral nutrition are futile and even harmful to some categories of patients. Both may be burdensome to the patient to such an extent that the patient considers the possible benefits to be outweighed by the burdens.
Insertion of the nasogastric tube is unpleasant and carries a risk of aspiration to the lungs, causing a potentially fatal pneumonia. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy is an unpleasant procedure. and failure may require a more extensive operation to put a tube directly into the stomach. Such an operation is not without its risks. The feeds themselves can cause severe diarrhoea, however carefully they are controlled by a dietician.
Total parenteral nutrition requires careful monitoring and is complex to manufacture. The high costs must be considered, so that it is used when evidence supports its efficacy but not otherwise. Certainly, it should not be used randomly. Current good practice dictates that, when such interventions to deliver nutrition will be of benefit, they should be available to patients. However, it would be invidious to force any of them on all patients.
The Bill would result in defensive medical practice, rather than practice in the interests of the individual patient. Some patients dying at home unable to swallow would he moved to an in-patient unit for parenteral fluids, lest the family later accuse the doctor of withholding hydration. In 1997, the National Council for Hospice and Specialist Palliative Care Services, along with the Association for Palliative Medicine, stated that good practice suggested that decisions regarding artificial hydration should involve

1419
the multi-professional team, the patient, the relatives and the carers but that the senior doctor should have ultimate responsibility for the decision. The competent patient has the right to refuse artificial hydration, even if it may be considered of clinical benefit. Incompetent patients retain that right through a valid advance refusal.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford laid out the ethical complexities of decision making and explained the problems with intention and the double effect that could occur when there was a foreseeable but unwanted outcome. I shall try to put it simply. Four main principles underlie medical decision making: autonomy; beneficence; non-maleficence; and justice. Autonomy is concerned with the individual's decision making, and from it flows criteria for consent. However, the autonomy of one person cannot override the autonomy of another. A doctor or nurse cannot be forced by relatives or others to give treatment that is not in the best interests of the patient, as they see them. The Bill would end that situation and would force treatment, irrespective of predicted outcome and scientific evidence.
Non-maleficence—avoiding harm—and beneficence—doing good—mean that futile treatments that may be unpleasant or distressing and bring no benefit should not be administered. The injudicious insertion of intravenous lines or of nasogastric or gastrostomy tubes would be unethical when no benefit is to be had. The principle of justice requires that the patient be given the best treatment within the resources available and that resources be justly allocated. It tries to cope with the problems of rationing. The Bill will promote the inappropriate and, hence, unjust use of total perenteral nutrition, as it states that,
"nutrition or hydration, however so delivered"
are required. I fear that the Bill will be a lawyer's charter and will be unenforceable in practice. Proof of the purpose of the actions of a clinician would be difficult, although intention may be recorded in the notes.
Current guidance on care of the dying was encapsulated in Changing Gear, a document published by the National Council for Hospice and Specialist Palliative Care Services. It has been embodied in care pathways for care in the last 48 hours of life. The diagnosis of dying as a specific clinical diagnosis is difficult to make and must be made at the point at which further interventions are deemed to be futile and burdensome. Such decisions must involve family and carers and must include all those involved in the care of the patient. Interventions aimed at comfort must be continued, but those that are futile must be stopped. These patients are dying as part of their disease process. There is little evidence from well-conducted studies that nutrition or hydration improves the patient's comfort or survival.
However, other care can be absolutely crucial to comfort. Many drugs cause a dry mouth. That does not mean that the patient is dehydrated and needing a drip. It means that meticulous attention to mouth care is essential. We have already heard a vivid description of a horrifically dry mouth. I must state that there are
1420
many drugs that make the patient's mouth as dry as sandpaper. Putting up a drip does not deal with that; excellent mouth care is needed.
Current practice has been laid out in guidance to the professions in withdrawing and withholding treatment. I am aware that that is currently under criticism. However, it requires that decisions are made on an individual basis and that each patient is separately and individually considered. It is because I fear that that would not happen that I have difficulty in supporting the Bill in its present form. However, I respect the principles behind the way that the Bill has been brought before us.
9.36 p.m.
Lord Brennan: My Lords, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to speak in the gap.
The first principle with regard to the sanctity of life is that we should not strive officiously to keep alive those who are dying. An exception to that principle of the sanctity of life is the judgment in the Bland case, which specifically stated that it was a special case in which someone in a persistent vegetative state could have doctors justifiably withdraw medical treatment by way of artificial feeding.
The third issue that occupies this debate, and which is to be stimulated soon by the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, is to determine, outside of the exceptional states, in what circumstances medical treatment can be given or withdrawn when it has the effect of terminating life—namely, when the patient is not dying and it does not come within the definition of Bland.
I suspect that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mustill, following his speech in Bland, would be extremely surprised to learn—and to do so some years after he said that less extreme cases than Bland should be approached with extreme caution; that Parliament must have a role; and that he did not accept that this was a medical question alone—that as a society we had accepted in large part that it is for the BMA and the GMC to determine the manner in which these decisions should be made by doctors. Do doctors have the moral or social capacity to do that? What role do families play in their decisions? What role do resources play in those decisions? Those are basic questions which we would expect this House and another place to consider.
In our society, the ultimate surety for the value of human life is Parliament, speaking for the moral will of the people. It is not, if I may respectfully suggest, government; it is not, if the noble Baroness will accept, necessarily in the Bill that she has presented; and it is certainly not in the Bill which the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, intends to present. We must be very clear that the issue of euthanasia, and that which might be thought to be euthanasia, will not go away. It is central in our social and moral debate in this country. If a resolution is not reached in this debate, there will be others in which we shall have to grapple with it.
I hope that in today's debate and later, that sentiment is borne in mind. We should be deciding questions which profoundly affect the way in which our society accepts and deals with the value of human life.
9.40 p.m.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Knight of Collingtree, on introducing the Bill with such clarity and charm. A small Bill that deals with so complex an issue has, by its brevity, a virtue rather than a vice. If only other Bills as important as this were so brief. This is the kind of issue that is ideally suited to debate in your Lordships' House. That has been demonstrated in our short debate. The issue is one which has no party political input, raises moral issues and asks further questions on which many noble Lords have an expert view.
I support the Bill because it is about purpose and not about consequence. I f the noble Baroness had sought to render unlawful yet another consequence—there is a tendency to render consequences criminal in the modern age—then I would immediately oppose it. I believe that to be a retrograde approach and one that has been taken increasingly by the present Government and their predecessors in the field of criminal justice. The Bill seeks to declare unlawful a purpose which plainly is and should be unlawful—on moral, religious, utilitarian and legal grounds.
I am one of those who will suspend his morning ablutions if the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford interrupts them at a quarter to eight with his "Thought for the Day". I must say, however, that I do not have his confidence. I would describe my own thoughts on religion and faith as being, at best, conscientious but with confused internal wrestling on a good day, while on a had day, a complete muddle. I do not believe that my religious views, such as they are, could provide much of a foundation for anything, least of all for making a moral judgment. So I approach the issue as a lawyer and a utilitarian; thus, I hope, making a decent, empirical, moral judgment as a result.
I agree completely with the right reverend Prelate about euthanasia. I shall be in the House to oppose the Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, and I shall be in the House on any other available occasion to oppose any legislation that attempts to introduce euthanasia, either by the front-door or by the back-door, into the law of this country. The experience of other countries has shown it to be impracticable and I think it renders a great disservice to humankind.
In my view, the law needs to be made clear. This Bill makes the law clearer and I do not think that it would do anything to harm the interests of, for example, the right reverend Prelate's aunt. I believe that the Bland case did not leave the law clear. The noble Lord, Lord Brennan, spoke eloquently, albeit briefly, about the opinion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mustill, in that case. I agree with him. I suspect that the noble and learned Lord would be surprised to find that his comments about what he stated to be an exception have been elevated to a principle. Indeed, he is not the only Law Lord to have noted that.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, had the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, in mind as well. He emphasised in the Bland case that it was an extreme case where it could be overwhelmingly
1422
proved that the patient was and would remain insensate. However, the noble and learned Lord went on to say that it would be desirable for Parliament to consider the moral, social and legal issues that the case had raised. Parliament had not considered properly those moral, social and legal issues until the Second Reading tonight of the Bill put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Knight. I think we should welcome the opportunity.
People at large tend to hold a hagiographic view of doctors. Somehow the doctor is elevated in status by society as a whole. My late father was a general practitioner. After his death, some of his patients described him in the most flattering way as a beloved physician. It was a fair view of his practice and his practices. However, even with my own prejudices in favour of doctors as a result of my experience of my own father, I have to say that sometimes doctors are quite ordinary people who find it difficult to wrestle with the moral and ethical judgments which they have to make. Indeed, we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, who, if I may say so, is making a handsome living out of the ordinariness of medical practitioners in his distinguished clinical negligence practice.
The law needs to be clear so that every doctor, if he looks in the right place, can read and understand his obligations on an everyday basis. The problem we are talking about in the Bill can be met at very short notice—it can be met daily—and I do not agree with the briefing that I received from the British Medical Association that the law is as free of doubt as it could be.
There has been a bit of a muddle in this debate between the British Medical Association, which represents doctors, and the General Medical Council, which is the registration body and which issues documents such as Withholding and Withdrawing Life-Prolonging Treatments: Good Practice in Decision Making published in August 2002. The General Medical Council has charge, in registration terms, of ethical matters of that kind, and failure to follow its guidance may, and sometimes will, affect the registration of a doctor.
Speaking as someone who was a lay member of the General Medical Council for 10 years from 1989 to 1999, in my view its document is not as clear as it could be. The noble Baroness, Lady Knight, referred to a leading counsel—I believe that she was referring to the well-known public lawyer, Richard Gordon QC—and he is also of that opinion. I have read his opinion, which seems to raise a number of doubts about the GMC document to which I have referred. Doctors need to know where they stand. If the GMC is unable to tell them exactly where they stand, then the general law—and that means Parliament—has to tell them.
My experience of the GMC taught me something else. It was an almost entirely positive experience which provided me with the opportunity to move on from the benign prejudices of my fattier to a much more general view of the medical profession, seeing it at its best and, I regret, occasionally at its worst.

1423
Over a period of 10 years, my membership of the GMC provided me with an opportunity to talk to hundreds of doctors, often in local social surroundings, about a wide range of issues but with a particular focus on medical ethics. I am left with the impression that no dutiful doctor wants to be left with a choice about the causing of death. No dutiful doctor is able deliberately to cause the death of a patient according to his Hippocratic oath—which, because most doctors no longer swear a Hippocratic oath, I take to be a metaphor for his perception of his duty. Rather it is an instinct trained into doctors; it is a practice bred in doctors that they do not cause the death of patients.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, said, it is important that patients should have no fear when they go into hospital that their lives will be terminated deliberately. I believe that the general attitude of doctors, with very rare and rightly criminalised exceptions, supports that view. It would be a rogue situation in which the purpose of actions was death.
Doctors alleviate extreme suffering daily. I have had the misfortune of seeing that for myself in a family situation on at least two occasions. They give morphine; morphine sometimes hastens death. But the purpose of giving the morphine in such situations is to relieve suffering, not to hasten death. The noble Baroness's Bill does nothing to criminalise what doctors do in such situations—far from it. I understand her to support that kind of action.
Sometimes conflicting issues call for a judgment. Sometimes conflict involving nutrition and hydration and treatment brings about a conflict in a doctor's mind and he has to make a legitimate judgment. But as long as that judgment is founded on therapy, and on his calculation of how best to alleviate suffering, it is properly made. This is familiar territory to all professional people. They have to make critical judgments on critical issues, at critical times. But they should be left to make their judgment with a clear understanding of where they stand if they cross the line and deliberately cause death. That is achieved by this Bill.
What cannot be acceptable is the deliberate withdrawal of the very basis of human life—food and water, nutrition and hydration. The withdrawal of food and water cannot have a therapeutic purpose. On its own, it can only lead to death. The withdrawal of food and water cannot on its own be treatment. It is simply, as I have said, a removal of the basic requirements of human life.
This Bill provides, at the very least, a basis for greater clarity in the law. For those reasons, speaking purely personally, I support it.
9.51 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, before I do anything else, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Knight on bringing forward the Bill and on her persuasive and powerful speech in moving its Second Reading. There is no doubt in my mind that she has raised a vitally important issue. I say that as someone who initially doubted, when the
1424
Bill first came to my notice, whether there really was an issue to be addressed in a debate of this kind. I do not feel any such doubts now; and I should add that the volume of letters and e-mails that I have received on the subject testifies to the widespread concern that exists among the public about the treatment of terminally ill and frail elderly people in our hospitals.
I begin with a statement that perhaps cannot be made often enough. The Conservative Party is against legalising euthanasia. By "euthanasia" I mean any deliberate intervention which has the purpose of ending life. That view rests on both ethical principle and pragmatism. As a matter of general principle, human life is intrinsically valuable and sacrosanct, and should be safeguarded in law and in practice. The law already recognises the special status of human life in the framing of the homicide laws and in the judicial penalties for murder and manslaughter. As a matter of pragmatism, our job as legislators is to protect the most vulnerable in society. If euthanasia were legalised, many frail and elderly people would feel pressurised into having their lives ended—they would imagine themselves to be a burden to others, or they might think or know that their relatives wished them to go. It would be a terrible slippery slope. We must never espouse the principle that some lives, such as those who are sick, disabled or depressed, are worth less than others. We are not even entitled to take such a view of our own lives. There are many cases of people who have expressed a fervent wish for euthanasia, only later to change their minds completely when the quality of their lives improved. It should not legally be within my gift to ask another person to kill me.
Unlawful killing, under English law, includes killing both by act and by omission. Indeed, in my opinion there is no ethical difference between the two. It should follow from that that, unless sanctioned by a court, the deliberate withdrawal or withholding of nutrition and hydration from a person constitutes unlawful killing. That was the position at which I started out when my noble friend's Bill first came to my attention: and it was why I said just now that initially I did not think there was a legal issue to be addressed. The significance of the Bland case, however, was that for the first time nutrition and hydration were classified by the court as constituting "medical treatment". It has never been unlawful to withdraw medical treatment from a patient when such treatment is regarded as oppressive and futile. Doctors are not under a duty to prolong life officiously by means of medical interventions when to do so is not in the best interests of the patient.
Tony Bland was in a persistent vegetative state; the Law Lords, on a majority decision, allowed medical staff to withdraw sustenance from him and he died of dehydration. That case was considered by the House of Lords on its own merits, and was not meant to act as a legal precedent. However, whether or not that was the intention, the consequence of the judgment was to act as a beacon for future medical practice. There has, I believe, been a subtle shift in medical ethics.
In its judgment on Bland, the House of Lords recommended that in all cases where the withdrawal of nutrition and hydration was being considered for a

1425
patient in a persistent vegetative state, a court declaration should be sought. That was reassuring. However, the BMA has made it clear that it regards that as an interim recommendation. Its recent guidance expresses the hope that,
"in future the Courts will decide that PVS cases no longer inevitably require court review, where consensus exists".
The guidelines then go further to cover non-PVS cases. They state:
"The BMA can see no reason to differentiate between decisions for patients in PVS and those for patients in other serious conditions where artificial nutrition and hydration is not considered to be a benefit, which are currently governed by established practice without the need for a legal review".
In other words, the BMA is asserting the right of doctors to decide that administering food and water may be futile for a patient who is not in a persistent vegetative state, as well as for one who is.
The type of patient referred to in this context is the adult who does not have the capacity to make or communicate decisions and who does not have a valid advance directive, as well as children and young people. Decisions to withdraw nutrition and hydration from such patients must, says the BMA, be subject to a formal clinical review by a senior clinician. The BMA admits that any decision to withdraw food and water from a patient leaves doctors open to a legal challenge. However, the guidance expressly sanctions the possibility of doctors taking such decisions under their own discretion.
The mother of a friend of mine had a massive stroke and could not move or communicate in any way. The doctors declared that she was in a persistent vegetative state and recommended the withdrawal of all fluids and nutrition. My friend did not believe them. She spent many hours talking to her mother and realised, from the blinks and slight movement of her eyes, that her mother could not only understand every word that was said but was perfectly rational. Still the doctors did not believe it. One day, however, by means of blinks, the mother was able to say to my friend that if the doctor and a certain nurse wished to conduct a sexual liaison, they should please do it outside her room. That was duly relayed to the doctor. Only then did he realise that the lady in the bed had all her mental faculties, and she was treated quite differently from then on. The standard test for PVS had never, of course, been done—the doctors had relied, wrongly, on outward symptoms.
The other category of patients directly affected by the Bland judgment is the patient who has left advance instructions about what he wants to happen to him if he falls ill and cannot communicate. Such instructions, according to the GMC, should be treated as binding. Those who sign so-called living wills, asking that they are not to be resuscitated in the event of serious and potentially terminal illness, may not realise that they may also be forgoing their right to receive basic nutrition and hydration. They are delegating to doctors, irrevocably, a decision about whether or not their life is worth saving. If the doctor decides that it is not, not only medicines and other care, but also food
1426
and fluid, will be withdrawn. A person incapacitated by a stroke, or in a coma, might not be cared for tong enough to see whether he recovers.
Whether the Law Lords were right or wrong to decide that nutrition and hydration constitute medical treatment is in a sense neither here nor there; debating that question is rather like dancing on the head of a pin. The issue for us is whether food and water should be regarded as separate and distinct from conventional medical treatment and whether the right for every patient, however ill, to receive food and water should be safeguarded in law.
I spoke just now of a subtle shift in medical ethics, and I believe that that is what has happened since Bland. My noble friend has referred to some very disturbing cases involving deliberate acts of omission by clinicians—acts intended either explicitly or implicitly to hasten the deaths of patients. I myself have been made aware of others. Your Lordships may have seen the letter in Monday's edition of The Times from the Marchioness of Salisbury which draws attention to the practice of withdrawing feeding from stroke patients. But Lady Salisbury also refers to reports about patients who have been admitted to hospital with conditions that are not life threatening and who are then sedated and allowed to die from dehydration. There is, I believe, a point at which anecdotal reports become a body of evidence. In my view, that point has been reached. The question is what to do about it.
My noble friend's Bill proposes that we should place an absolute ban on the withdrawal or withholding of artificial nutrition and hydration if the purpose of so doing is to hasten or cause the death of the patient. Her succinct explanation of that choice of words amply illuminated her very principled position. I wonder, however, whether she would allow me to pose one or two questions on the phraseology she has used.
My noble friend referred in her speech to food and fluid being a human right. Listening to the impressive opinion of the QC whom she quoted, I would ask whether that is actually correct. The QC's opinion referred only to hydration. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, with her immense direct experience of hospice care, made it clear, as I understood her, that there are circumstances in which to administer nutrition by tube, perhaps to a terminally ill patient, was the cruellest possible thing one could do to that person; for example, if the patient's bodily system could no longer cope with digestion. The GMC guidance says that, for some patients, not taking food and fluid may be part of the natural dying process. We need to take note of that.
My noble friend said that nothing in her Bill would force a patient to have a tube in his nose or a PEG in his stomach if he does not want that. But what if he is unable to communicate his wishes and has left no advance instructions? It seems to me in those circumstances that the Bill might leave doctors with no choice but to continue PEG-feeding the patient literally ad nauseam even when that might be physically oppressive to him. I hope that I am wrong in that. My noble friend can doubtless correct it.

1427
My noble friend did state that nothing in the Bill would prevent the withdrawal or withholding of food and fluid from a patient who is dying and where the tubes would be intrusive and the risks excessive. Again, however, I would simply ask her to explain how the wording of the Bill allows for that qualification. If the Bill became law, a doctor who believed that the kindest thing he could do for a suffering and terminally ill patient would be to withdraw a feeding tube from a patient's stomach would surely be prohibited from doing so if by that act he caused or hastened the patient's death. Furthermore, I wonder whether a court could sanction it either.
My noble friend should not misunderstand me. I believe that she has brought a very important issue to the notice of the House. Nevertheless, I know that she will agree with me that the implications of the Bill as worded need to be thought through carefully. Life is sacred, but at the same time we should never forget that life has a natural end. I ask my noble friend, if I may, whether she does not agree that in desperate cases such as that of Bland where all quality of life and all hope have gone, the kindest and most humane course is indeed to recognise that life in all meaningful senses has ended and to cease striving officiously to keep the patient alive. I hope that when she replies to the debate my noble friend will be able to explain how her Bill would allow a court to take that humane decision. As I read it, I cannot see that it would be able to.
It is for that reason that, although I support and deeply respect the intentions behind the Bill, I believe that it is appropriate to take a step back. My noble friend may be able to provide me with reassurance on the questions I have asked but I am concerned that the Bill as it stands will not do. Whether it is capable of amendment is not for me to say or judge but, in giving it a Second Reading tonight and reflecting on the powerful contributions we have heard during the debate, we perhaps need to consider whether it might not be the law that is at fault but rather the practice. If that is so, the focus of our concern should rest on how the medical profession should guide itself in future and how the approach of individual doctors to these very difficult life and death decisions can be made consistent with the letter and spirit of such guidance. The voice of Parliament in that context is, I believe, indispensable for there is no doubt that the grave worries that my noble friend has articulated today are worries held by many of our fellow citizens. Those worries, one way or another, must be dispelled.
10.6 p.m.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, we have had a most profound debate. I say on behalf of all noble Lords who have spoken that we are grateful to the noble Baroness for giving us the opportunity to have such a debate which raises issues which concern life and death. For the reasons that many noble Lords have already mentioned it is right that we should have the opportunity to discuss these issues in a reasoned and dispassionate context. But having listened to the
1428
debate, I understand how difficult it is sometimes to be dispassionate when one is considering ethical issues of such a profound nature.
We have had an excellent debate. Noble Lords have covered medical, ethical and legal boundaries in relation to these very personal issues. We are discussing one of the most difficult and sensitive issues of medical practice. I hope that I may borrow the language used by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, when I say that these are decisions which are as agonising for the doctor to take as they are for the patient or their family to contemplate. Differing views are held on the subject, as was shown in the debate. That is clear from debates in Parliament over the past few years, from the response to the Government's consultation on Who Decides?which started in 1997, and from the concerns raised by the very difficult cases of Dianne Pretty, Ms B and Reginald Crew, which have been highlighted in the press and which all represent extremely difficult decisions. None of the decisions is more difficult than that of withholding artificial nutrition and hydration. The noble Baroness spoke with great feeling of distressing cases to which I shall return in a few moments. Those are essentially individual and personal cases. As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said, the medical practice involved is something about which we should have grave concern.
I turn to the Bill. As a society we have a duty to provide care and support, to relieve pain and to alleviate symptoms for those who suffer chronic and terminal illness. But, above all, we have a duty to ensure that, however our law is framed, it is based on compassion for those who are suffering and those close to them.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, spoke of the equal value of all human life. We surely all agree with that. I was disturbed by the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, that there are some elderly people in our hospitals in whom medical staff have lost interest, and that there is a tendency to want to get them out of hospital in order to shorten waiting lists, however that is done. I hope sincerely that that is not a general opinion. I am sure that the NHS does not operate on those principles or in that way. It is right to put my response to that point on the record.
We welcome the opportunity for a debate on such complex and ethical issues. As the noble Baroness will appreciate, the normal role of the Government in relation to a Private Member's Bill, especially one which raises such profound issues of conscience, is to be neutral. The Bill anticipates a radical change in the law, so in my few minutes I want to set out the ethical and legal background to the current law and its full implications. I hope that that will help to provide a useful framework for further thoughts on the Bill.
As many noble Lords have said, the Government's current position on euthanasia—the intentional taking of life, albeit at the patient's request or for a merciful motive—is that it is unlawful. For a doctor to intervene actively to bring about a death is unlawful. Equally, a doctor who owes a duty of care to a patient and withdraws or withholds treatment without lawful

1429
excuse would commit an unlawful act. In so far as the Bill might be seen to restate what is already in our current law, it would seem unnecessary. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, anticipated that point.
There is, however, an important distinction in the current law between a deliberate intervention to end life and the omitting or withdrawing of treatment which has no curative or beneficial effect. It is that distinction which goes to the heart of the debate today. It rests on several fundamental ethical principles which have governed relationships between doctors and patients for many years. It is about the autonomy of patients and about their fundamental human right to have a say over what happens to their body and any treatment that they receive. Those are principles which, following the Tony Bland judgment in 1992 that has been referred to today, the courts have ruled should also apply to consideration of artificial sustenance as a form of medical treatment.
Let me set out the ethical framework to the current law. It is based on two fundamental principles, which are the right of the patient to refuse treatment and the duty of the doctor to act in the best interests of the patient. Both were referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. There is also a major distinction in the law between patients who have the mental capacity to make their own decisions, and those who cannot. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, raised that matter. The distinctions have a long history in common law, and have been reinforced by the Human Rights Act. The Bill raises important questions about both the principles.
I shall deal with the consent principle first. We hold as a principle that the firm basis for any decision to give, withdraw or withhold treatment must be the right of the patient to consent to, or refuse, that treatment if he or she is capable of making that decision. The only exceptions are those defined in the Mental Health Act 1983. In the word of one of the judgments made in the Bland case, every person's body is "inviolate". A competent adult has the right to refuse a treatment even if that may lead to their death, and they may even exercise that right in order to bring about their own death, if that is what they want.
I want to emphasise the importance of that right to be free from unwanted medical interventions, which if forced on a patient can lead to claims for assault and battery. The right has been confirmed by the European Convention on Human Rights. I should say—a question was asked about it—that there is no obligation under the Human Rights Act to provide any form of treatment that is futile to the patient.
The second principle is that of the best interests of the patient. Our law says that no one may consent on behalf of another adult. If an adult lacks the capacity 10 consent to a treatment and there is no valid advance refusal, any decision about their medical treatment must be based on an assessment of the patient's best interests. That does not mean only their medical interests, but their quality of life, their relationship with their family and their spiritual welfare.
1430
Under current case law, a doctor has a duty to offer treatment that is in the patient's best interests and would benefit the patient. If he omits or fails to offer beneficial treatment to a patient, that is as unlawful as an attempt to kill a patient using a toxic drug.
At the same time, where the doctor determines that there is no benefit in medical intervention or treatment and such an intervention would not be in the patient's best interests, there is no legal justification for continuing that treatment and no duty to provide it. However, it is important to say in this context that the withdrawal of such treatment should take place only after discussion with the healthcare team and with those close to the patient to ensure that the doctor knows that the views of the patient are taken well into account.
I come to the point about food and drink being the staff—the basics—of life. I make it absolutely clear that where a patient is capable of taking nourishment, it must always be offered. The cases we have heard about of food being placed beyond a patient's reach or not offered in a way in which the patient can take it himself involve extremely bad practice.
There may be circumstances where the doctor's assessment of a patient's best interests may mean withdrawing or withholding treatment. Where that is the case, doctors and healthcare professionals are still under an obligation to make the patient as comfortable as possible, to provide the best possible care—the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, discussed that—including palliative care in making patients comfortable. The BMA guidelines, which have been extensively referred to, although I shall not dwell on them, pay strict attention to that. There is considerable emphasis in the guidelines on making the patient comfortable, whether that involves relieving dryness of the throat or lips, or relieving pressure sores. Those are part of the normal duty of proper, decent quality care for patients.
Those two principles, "consent" and "best interests", are based fundamentally on the rights and wishes of the patients themselves. We all share that as our main concern. I stress the importance of those fundamental principles as a starting point.
I turn to some of the more specific issues raised by artificial nutrition and hydration. That is one of the most difficult areas in which such decisions are made. Artificial nutrition and hydration refers, according to the BMA definition—it is very specific—to those techniques that are used to bypass a pathology in the swallowing process, including, for example, the use of nasogastric tubes, as in the case of Tony Bland. It can also be referred to as technologically delivered feeding—the noble Lord. Lord Alton, mentioned that—which requires medical or nursing skills to administer.
We have discussed the tragic case of Tony Bland, who had sustained catastrophic and irreversible brain damage. The courts considered whether artificial nutrition and hydration are part of medical treatment and care or something entirely different. Their conclusion, based on—I quote the judgment—"overwhelming medical evidence", was that they constitute part of the medical

1431
treatment or care of the patient. Just as a ventilator is used to overcome a patient's difficulty in breathing, so, it was argued, artificial systems for delivering nutrition—in this case, a nasogastric tube—overcame difficulties in swallowing.
That means that the same principles apply legally to artificial nutrition and hydration as to other forms of medical treatment. In terms of the patient's interests, we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the right reverend Prelate that the provision of artificial nutrition and hydration can be burdensome, whatever the method. I know from my own experience with patients with senile dementia that some forms of intervention can be particularly distressing. Patients often attempt to rip out tubes and to resist. The process is extremely distressing to patients and the family. The burden involved and whether or not it is of benefit to the patient, and therefore justified, is part of the doctor's assessment of a patient's best interests. The decision is not whether the life is worth while but whether that approach is what is good and best for the patient.
I realise that this subject raises particularly strong feelings. If we go back to the Select Committee on Medical Ethics of 1994, we see from the range of evidence presented how difficult it was for the committee to come to a judgment.
I also want to emphasise that the decision to withdraw artificial nutrition and hydration does not mean that all medical treatment should be withdrawn from a patient. Each treatment must be judged on its own merits. Much can be done to relieve suffering, particularly towards the end of life. But I stress again that doctors are still under an obligation to ensure that the patient is as comfortable as possible and they must give any care or other treatments that are in the best interests of the patient. I reiterate the point raised by the noble Earl concerning whether we are talking about law or practice when we refer to some of the issues and cases raised by the Bill.
I now turn to the Bill and shall consider in a little more detail some of the issues raised. Because we share a belief in the intrinsic value of human life and because we share the compassion which demands that we do not neglect the care of those who are dying, I believe it is extremely important to appreciate the radical nature of the change that the Bill would bring about. The noble Lord, Lord Tombs, described it as a simple and modest Bill. However, it would change the emphasis of the law from the rights and best interests of the patient to the "purpose" of the doctor and to what was in his or her mind in relation to the decision taken.
I shall be quite clear. The interpretation of a doctor's intention or intentions when making decisions in connection with the withholding or withdrawal of medical treatment is central to the way that the Bill is drafted. In contrast to the current emphasis in the law on consent, the Bill would make the doctor's purposes the test of lawfulness. That is why it has such important implications.
1432
Ethically, the Bill would overturn one of the fundamental tenets of medical ethics—the autonomy of the patient and his or her right to make a choice. In making that change, the Bill defines a "patient" as,
"a person suffering from mental or physical illness or debility".
As drafted, crucially that does not distinguish between a patient with the capacity to take a decision about his treatment and a patient who is incapacitated. Not only would the Bill remove the possibility of withdrawing artificial nutrition and hydration from a patient who was not capable of making that decision; it would also mean that a competent patient would no longer have the right to refuse medical treatment in the form of artificial sustenance, whether at the time or through an advance refusal of treatment, if the result of that refusal would be his death. Where a competent patient had expressed such a wish and refused treatment, the Bill would make it unlawful for a doctor to follow the patient's wishes. In other words, by shifting the law to consideration of the doctor's purpose, the Bill would effectively prohibit a patient from refusing ANH. I shall return to that point later.
Perhaps I may illustrate the issue by referring to the recent case of Ms B. Ms B suffered a ruptured blood vessel and was paralysed. She spent a year in that condition, unable to move or breathe unaided, and her treatment included being maintained on a ventilator. It was her wish that that treatment should he withdrawn. The medical team considered that other options, such as rehabilitative treatment, should be pursued, and eventually the case came to court. The issue was essentially whether Ms B was able to give valid consent to the giving or withholding of treatment. The court decided that she was indeed capable of making a fully informed decision, and consequently her treatment was withdrawn by taking her off the ventilator. Sadly, but inevitably, she died peacefully on 29th April last year.
The central point that emerges from that case, and the matter of principle that it establishes, is that a competent adult has the right to consent or to decline medical treatment, even if the decision would result in his death. That position is well established in our current law. Any exception to such a right must be seriously justified.
In practical and medical terms, I now turn to the provisions of the Bill which concern intention and purpose.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. I am afraid that I do not understand the point that she has been making. The Bill as drafted deals with the doctor's purpose, if we take the doctor as the example. If the patient makes the decision that the nutrition should be withdrawn, that is not the doctor's purpose; it is the patient's purpose. I suggest that plainly the noble Baroness has overlooked the word "his" in the first clause of the Bill.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the point I am making is that our current law—case law and common law—rests on patient consent. That right would be overturned by putting the prior emphasis on the intention of the

1433
doctor to take that decision. We shall pursue these issues in Committee if the Bill receives a Second Reading. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said, it would be a lawyer's charter.
On intention and purpose, we have had an interesting debate, with contributions from many sides of the House on the issue of purpose. The implication of the Bill is that the law should consider each and every purpose of the doctor in order to decide whether an action is unlawful. The problem is how to make that work in practice. A doctor can certainly state his or her main purpose in carrying out an action or taking a decision about a patient's treatment. That statement may be sufficient to explain what has been done and the law can judge whether or not that is the case. The Bill invites us to be sceptical and to scrutinise the motive or intent of the doctor. But how can we ever know if the doctor concerned had any other purpose or interest? How can he or she prove otherwise?
The right reverend Prelate gave us many examples of the difference between foresight and intention. 'The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, described how difficult it is to predict the outcome of medicine. Where is the line between withdrawing artificial nutrition because the doctor judges that it is futile and a deliberate attempt to harm? What is the evidence that can be brought?
The long title of the Bill speaks of "intention". In criminal law, when juries are asked to consider "intent", factors they may be asked to take into account include the probability of the outcome and the extent to which that was appreciated by the defendant even if it were not their main intention. Therefore, if a doctor knew, as a virtual certainty, that withholding or withdrawing treatment, even at the patient's request, would result in the patient's death, the doctor could still be held to have positively intended the patient's death. I am not a lawyer, but I can see that we are entering something of a minefield.
Secondly, the Bill has other serious implications for the doctor concerned. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, spoke of it encouraging defensive medical practice. It would, in some circumstances, mean forcing a doctor to take a decision against his or her professional judgment and to continue with treatment knowing that it was unnecessarily burdensome and of no benefit to the patient. I refer to the speech made by the right reverend Prelate. It is a significant departure from the current position whereby a doctor cannot be obliged to provide treatment or care against his or her professional judgment. It would remove any flexibility in the clinical judgment. We need to think that through very carefully.
I turn to the issue of safeguards. I reiterate that I fully appreciate the intentions of the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, and her deep and compassionate concern to see that vulnerable people are protected. That is what the Bill intends to do and we appreciate the reasons for the shift in the law proposed by the noble Baroness. Like her, the Government are concerned to ensure that vulnerable people are protected. We have gone to great lengths to ensure transparency in how decisions are made regarding the treatment of people lacking the capacity to consent for themselves.
1434
As part of the Good Practice in Consent Initiative, the Department of Health has developed a series of guidance, consent forms and information leaflets on consent to examination or treatment. That sets out very clearly the obligation on the doctor to act in the best interests of a patient who lacks capacity. It also includes—this is significant—a form o n behalf of adults who are unable to consent to investigation or treatment to record the decision-making process in relation to their treatment. That includes an assessment of the patient's capacity and of their best interests, the reasons for any decisions taken about that person's medical treatment, and the involvement of the patient's family—an extremely important point. It is also designed to emphasise the importance of consent as a process throughout the treatment of the patient. Trusts have been asked to implement those forms. That has been in place since April 2002.
The BMA safeguards referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, also set out extra safeguards for decisions. We have heard about them. The guidance on this issue states that all proposals to withhold or withdraw ANH should he subject to formal clinical review by a senior clinician with experience of the condition from which the patient is suffering and who is not part of the treating team and can therefore look at the situation independently. All cases in which AN H has been withdrawn should also be available for clinical review.
We are fully in agreement that the law must provide adequate safeguards to ensure that such patients are given treatment which is of benefit to them. We have a duty to ensure that the law respects the wishes of a competent patient who does not want treatment. We also have, I believe, a duty to provide adequate safeguards against futile or unnecessarily burdensome intervention on a patient's body when he or she is incapacitated and at his or her most vulnerable.
Furthermore, I believe that we have a duty to support and protect the medical practitioners who are placed in the position of having to make very difficult and distressing decisions. We believe that the balance of the law, given the thought and care that has gone into the judgment over the past decade, protects the rights of the patient and the clinical autonomy of the doctors.
I conclude by saying that this is an extremely sensitive issue. All noble Lords who have spoken have addressed the matter in extremely sensitive and personal ways. We have to strike a compassionate and principled balance. These are issues that need broad and open public debate. For that reason, I thank the noble Baroness again for creating that opportunity and I thank all noble Lords who have spoken.
10.31 p.m.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, at this hour I shall, I am sure, do what all noble Lords wish, which is to be as brief as possible. But there are one or two important points that need to be made.
I express my great gratitude to noble Lords who have taken the trouble to stay until this late hour and join in a most interesting, wide-ranging and, I believe,

1435
extremely important debate. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for the wisdom of the legal judgment he has given tonight. The point of the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, must be stressed again. The problem began when the judgment with regard to Bland was made, and the very fact that it was made for a special case. Thos who made the ruling pointed out that it was a special case and not intended to change the way medical treatment is meted out. That is a most crucial point. We have indeed gone downhill since.
I say to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford that there is nothing in the Bill—and I said this in my speech and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, stressed it again—that means that a treatment which is judged medically to be burdensome, distressful or risky, such as occasionally putting in the peg or the other method of feeding through the nose, has to be carried through. I would also stress that to the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews.
My noble friend Lord Howe put three questions to me. First, the Bill was most carefully drafted, not by me because I am not trained in parliamentary drafting. It was drafted by people who know their business and is very carefully worded. For those who accuse me of not including oxygen and so on, I can assure them that—and I have had some experience of Private Members' Bills, having had five of them passed during my parliamentary lifetime—if any Bill put forward by a Back-Bench Member either of this House or of another place is lengthy, it has no hope of ever becoming law. So the crucial point is that one must be brief. That is one reason why the Bill is brief.
Secondly, I must say to my noble friend Lord Howe that the whole burden of the Bill is in the words:
"it shall be unlawful … if his purpose in doing so is to hasten or otherwise cause the death of the patient".
I should have thought that such things as patients' notes, for instance, would make it plain either that the treatment was invasive, burdensome, or whatever, or that there was a medical reason that could be clearly stated.
In the cases that I have cited—which are all recent and real—that was not the case. I mentioned that on two occasions it was felt to be a wretched nuisance that the patient's relative or friend interfered and asked
1436
that the patient should be given food and liquid. If the purpose is to avoid a patient suffering, that will not be illegal—I stress that.
Thirdly, I was asked: what if the patient cannot speak or is mentally handicapped? I should have thought that some reference should be made to the family. That seems reasonable. But then it is perfectly sensible to recognise that on occasion there is no family and it is not possible to ask anyone else. Then, of course, it must be the doctor's responsibility to weigh up the suffering involved in keeping a patient alive and in starving him to death. That is fairly straightforward.
Nothing in the Bill—I speak directly to the Minister—denies the patient's right to say what he or she may want. There is not a word that suggests that the matter be handed over to the doctor, with the patient having no right. I stress again that it is surely not so difficult to judge the doctor's intentions because it must be clearly written down and explained why a procedure was or was not adopted.
As I have said, the wording of the Bill is not mine but I believe that it is legally correct and addresses an issue that must be addressed. If I were sick and in hospital, I should love to have the Minister as my nurse because she exhibits enormous gentle care and I am sure that she would carry that through in any professional capacity when looking after a patient.
What distresses me is that cases such as those that I and other noble Lords have described arise all the time but nothing stops them. It is all very well to have the opinion that we do not like it happening, but who will stop it if the Bill does not? There is such great distress and suffering. We are in direct contravention of an international law. Those who have criticised the Bill—and criticism is fair and expected in a debate—have in no way addressed that point. Surely we care about whether we meet our obligations with regard to human rights. Legal rights and obligations are blurred and uncertain.
Listening to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, in particular, I cannot possibly do other than request that the House give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before eleven o'clock.

  Single Regional Housing Pot
  Single Regional Housing Pot
  Bind Overs
  Bind Overs
  Rape
  Rape
  Capita: Defra Contracts
  Capita: Defra Contracts
  Cotton Plants: Insect Control
  Cotton Plants: Insect Control
  NVQ Level 4
  NVQ Level 4
  Belfast Agreement: Parity of Esteem
  Belfast Agreement: Parity of Esteem
  Belfast Agreement: Rights Section
  Belfast Agreement: Rights Section
  Northern Ireland Civil Service: Legal Advice
  Northern Ireland Civil Service: Legal Advice
  North/South Ministerial Council Joint Secretariat (North)
  North/South Ministerial Council Joint Secretariat (North)
  Northern Ireland: Profile of Monitored Workforce
  Northern Ireland: Profile of Monitored Workforce
  National Attack Warning System
  National Attack Warning System