Sitting of 20 October 2003

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

    Youth Unemployment
    Mr. Graham Allen: When he next plans to visit Nottingham, North to discuss youth unemployment. [132602]
    The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith): I shall be happy to visit my hon. Friend's constituency, especially as long-term youth unemployment there has been cut by 71 per cent., with 1,500 young people already helped into jobs by the new deal and by the good work of local bodies which I know enjoy energetic support from my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Allen: Will my right hon. Friend continue to remind everybody that in 1997 in constituencies such as mine unemployment was the No. 1 problem and that it has been tackled effectively by his team and by previous teams? More than 2,000 people who were unemployed are now in jobs in my constituency as a result of the new deal programmes.
    Will my right hon. Friend reassure me that the rumours that I have heard that the Opposition still intend to abolish large chunks of the new deal policy—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should be seated. The Secretary of State should say nothing about Opposition proposals.
    Mr. Smith: strongly and warmly endorse the parts of the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) that commended the new deal and our other policies for economic stability. Keeping people attached to the labour market has transformed the experience and the culture of expectations in Nottingham and places right across the country that previously endured mass unemployment. We have been proud to cut unemployment, and it would stagger me if anyone were to suggest abandoning programmes that have helped to give us the lowest unemployment in the G7 and the highest rate of employment.

    Health and Safety (Royal Mint Llantrisant)
    Huw Irranca-Davies: If he will make a statement on Crown immunity from prosecution for health and safety offences as it relates to the Royal Mint in Llantrisant. [132603]
    The Minister for Work (Mr. Desmond Browne): The Government remain committed to removing Crown immunity from statutory health and safety enforcement and will seek a legislative opportunity to do so when parliamentary time allows.
    In the meantime, the Health and Safety Executive applies Crown censure procedures where prosecution would have been justified but for Crown immunity. On 11 September 2002, the Royal Mint was censured under those procedures in respect of the circumstances of the accidental death of John Wynne.
    Huw Irranca-Davies: I thank the Minister for that response and for the assurances that he has given and which I have received in writing from the Department. Does he agree that, for the benefit of Mr. Wynne's widow and family and the many others affected by Crown immunity from prosecution, the Health and Safety Executive recommendation of 1978 that Crown prosecution immunity should be lifted should be acted on as soon as possible? If the Government cannot find time in their legislative programme, will my hon. Friend be willing to support a private Member's Bill should one be forthcoming?
    Mr. Browne: As my earlier answer implied, I am aware of the circumstances of the tragic death of John Wynne. Before I go on to the detail of my hon. Friend's question, I express my condolences to Mr. Wynne's widow, Mrs. Katrina Wynne, and to the rest of the family. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend's hard work on behalf of his constituent in that case.
    My hon. Friend raises an important issue relating to the timing of this overdue reform. I can only repeat that the Government are committed to that reform and that as soon as an appropriate legislative opportunity makes itself available we shall reform the law in that regard.

    Minimum Income Guarantee
    Phil Sawford: How many pensioners in the Kettering constituency are in receipt of the minimum income guarantee. [132604]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): About 3,100 pensioners in the Kettering constituency were receiving the minimum income guarantee. I can confirm that all my hon. Friend's constituents on the minimum income guarantee are now receiving pension credit.
    Phil Sawford: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Thousands of my constituents have benefited from the minimum income guarantee and welcomed the fact that they were all transferred to the new pension credit. What

    357
    action does my hon. Friend propose to ensure more take-up so that more people who may be entitled to the new tax credit claim it?
    Maria Eagle: My hon. Friend will be aware that we have undertaken to write to all pensioners to encourage them to apply for their entitlement. There has also been a lot of publicity from the Department. Obviously, there is a certain amount of controversy about the policy and that, too, might raise people's awareness that there is an entitlement for which they can claim. I hope that, despite the controversy about the policy from the Opposition, all Members will urge their constituents, many of whom could be up to £400 a year better off on average, to claim the pension credit.
    Mr. Oliver Heald: Of course we would urge constituents in all constituencies, particularly Kettering, to claim the pension credit, but has not the Minister estimated that 1.4 million of the poorest pensioners in the country will still not be claiming pension credit in 2006? Is Kettering a typical constituency? If it is, does that not mean that 2,000 of the poorest pensioners in Kettering will not be receiving the pension credit in 2006?
    Maria Eagle: The hon. Gentleman is being a little disingenuous. He knows as well as we do that the 2006 figure that he quotes is a target, not a ceiling. My hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions has made it clear that we want everyone who is entitled to pension credit to claim, and the truth is that the Conservative party does not want them to claim because it does not want the policy to be the great success that it is going to be.
    Mr. Gordon Marsden: My hon. Friend and the Government are to be commended for introducing the pension credit. When I have gone around Blackpool to talk to some of my older pensioner constituents in the past two to three years, one issue that has been raised with me concerns those people with very small savings who have not been getting benefits. Will my hon. Friend assure me that, in the process of rolling out the pension credit to an increasingly broad group of people—[HON. MEMBERS: "Kettering?"]—as in Kettering.
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Maria Eagle rose
    Mr. Marsden: Will my hon. Friend ensure that her officials give full attention to the need to be clear and concise in the language that they use on the hotlines and elsewhere?
    Maria Eagle: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I mistook the great cheer as meaning that my hon. Friend had finished, seemingly on a high.
    Kettering is like many other constituencies in the sense that any of us who knock on doors regularly and talk to pensioners—whether in Kettering or elsewhere round the country—know very well that pensioners were greatly concerned that they were just missing out on help if they had been prudent enough to save during
    358
    their working lives. The pension credit is the first policy adopted that rewards saving, rather than penalises it, and it should be supported throughout the House.

    Pensioners (Means-tested Benefits)
    Mr. Peter Viggers: What proportion of pensioners are eligible for means-tested benefits. [132605]
    The Minister for Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): Pension credit has removed the old weekly and intrusive means test. Instead, most pensioners aged 65 and over will have their award fixed for five years and only have to tell us about major changes in their circumstances. About half of all pensioner households will be eligible for pension credit and other income-related benefits, standing to gain £400 a year on average. Already, more than 1.1 million pensioner households on the credit will receive more money than they did before.
    Mr. Viggers: With a firm of actuaries calculating that a couple would need to save £180,000 to float free from means-tested benefits, what advice does the Minister have to give to young couples on modest means who are planning for their retirement?
    Malcolm Wicks: The example presented by the shadow Secretary of State was specific, very long-term and assumed that the couple were not owner-occupiers, which would not be typical of elderly households, so I dispute its usefulness. In the here and now, large numbers of people in Gosport—and, indeed, Kettering—stand to benefit from pension credit. I am pleased to inform the hon. Gentleman that 70 of his constituents attended a recent advice session in the Gosport bingo hall, which I am sure he is very familiar with, and they were given very good advice. Already, people in Gosport are benefiting from pension credit. Let us focus on that.
    Mr. Frank Roy: My hon. Friend supports total uptake in the pension credit system, but will he look into the fact that pensioners are not allowed to go into the Pension Service building in Motherwell to meet the staff face to face to discuss their claims?
    Malcolm Wicks: We are very concerned—hon. Members' advice will be most welcome—to reach all elderly people who might be eligible for pension credit. That is why we have a number of advice surgeries in my hon. Friend's constituency and in all constituencies. There is also a telephone line, a freephone line, and we are arranging many home visits, but I should like to talk to my hon. Friend to get his advice on how to make pension credit even more accessible in his constituency.
    Mr. David Willetts: I was very disappointed that the Minister did not accept the estimate by an independent firm of actuaries that a couple would need to save £180,000 during their working lives to secure

    359
    enough income to keep them off means-tested benefits when they retire, but if he does not agree with that figure, could he tell the House what his estimate is?
    Malcolm Wicks: May I say that I have a report that Mercer actuary Deborah Cooper, who did the calculation, says that
    "reports that people should save £180,000 or not bother at all are misleading"?
    It would help the House if we had studies that were not only accurate but helped us in the discussion. Under the last Conservative Government, there was no incentive for savings: there was a penalty knocking off any savings or occupational pension pound for pound. Why does not the hon. Gentleman welcome the fact that at long last pension credit rewards savings and does not penalise them?
    Mr. Willetts: Why does the Minister not give a simple answer to a simple question? All that Members of the House and the entire savings industry want to know is how much people need to have saved to build up a sum of money sufficient to float them off means-tested benefits. That is the sum needed to be confident that one has not mis-sold a pension. If the Minister does not accept the figure produced by Mercer, he owes the House an account of what his estimate is.
    Malcolm Wicks: The hon. Gentleman's problem seems to be that Mercer may not accept the example that he cites. He asked for simple estimates, but he is being simplistic. What the figure might be depends on a wide range of assumptions, but bringing forward a figure that is in denial of owner-occupation, which is the common experience of pensioners, is not at all helpful. Pension credit is a major advance in recognising savings in this country.
    Siobhain McDonagh: Can I bring my hon. Friend's attention to the response of one of my real—not made-up constituents, Mr. Catt of Pollards Hill? He wrote to me:
    "the really exciting news for me was the result from a claim made for minimum income support…not only have I been granted assistance with some MIG, but the increase within the new pension credit…is almost too good to be true. To be so much more financially independent is akin to the Promised Land."
    Is my hon. Friend getting many similar responses from pensioners across the country?
    Malcolm Wicks: Yes, indeed, and while Opposition Members may be more interested in the simplicity of far-fetched actuarial assumptions, I am pleased that my hon. Friend has brought this debate down to earth by talking about real people. I am delighted that in the Gosport constituency, for example, someone who had a home visit and had not been receiving minimum income guarantee previously is now £20 a week better off. In fact, because one of her friends happened to be there, too, that friend is also claiming attendance allowance for the first time. Surely we should welcome those human experiences and not knock a real social policy advance.
    Annabelle Ewing: Is the Minister satisfied with the take-up rate of the means-tested pension credit in
    360
    Scotland by pensioners other than those who were already in receipt of the minimum income guarantee? If he is not satisfied, what does he plan to do to ensure that all pensioners in Scotland receive their entitlement, and that they do so as quickly as possible?
    Malcolm Wicks: Of course we want every eligible elderly person in Scotland and across Great Britain to receive pension credit. That is why we have said previously that, although we have planning assumptions, we will not be satisfied until we reach every pensioner who might be eligible. May I say to the hon. Lady, however, that given that pension credit has only been in existence for a week or two, I hope that she will understand that it will take a little longer before we reach the targets that we have set.
    Jeremy Corbyn: What estimate does the Minister have of the comparative costs of administration of the pension credit compared with increasing the state pension to an equivalent level and recouping the excess wealth from others through income tax rather than through this system of administration of pension credit?
    Malcolm Wicks: Of course there will be higher administrative costs for a targeted system than for a flat-rate system. By 2004–05, however, when the full pension credit will have been in place for a whole financial year, we will be spending over £9 billion more than in 1997. That gives my hon. Friend's constituents around Highbury stadium in Islington far more money, when they are on low incomes, than simply raising the basic pension. I am sure that he would welcome that for his constituents in Islington.
    Mr. Hugo Swire: Does the Minister not accept that, by extending means-testing in this way and by changing Government policy yet again, he is adding to the confusion of many of my elderly pensioners? Does he share the concern of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry about the payment of pensions? Post offices up and down the country—such as Knowle post office near Budleigh Salterton, which shut last week—are closing, so what practical steps can the Minister take to reassure real people such as my pensioners and the elderly and confused that they will find it easy to claim their pensions in future?
    Malcolm Wicks: People use the term "means-testing", but we need a serious and adult discussion about this. Pension credit is a million miles away from the old-fashioned weekly means test over which the hon. Gentleman's Government used to preside. His constituents can, through one phone call, find out whether they are eligible for pension credit, or there can be a home visit. Direct payments and the introduction of the Post Office card account are likely to guarantee the security of more local post offices as they start to use modern banking systems not only for the Post Office card account but for access to other accounts. That is the point.

    Widowers' Benefit
    Mr. Ben Chapman: If he will make a statement on widowers' claims to benefits pre-dating April 2001. [132606]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Chris Pond): We introduced bereavement benefits in April 2001, for the first time extending support to both widows and widowers. Prior to April 2001, there was no statutory basis on which to pay widows' benefits to men. This is being contested in both the domestic and European courts. Following a judgment of the Court of Appeal on 18 June, all parties have petitioned the House of Lords to appeal further. We are awaiting its decision on the petitions.
    Mr. Chapman: My hon. Friend will be aware that that decision will be eagerly awaited by my constituents, many of whom are widowers, and not least by the Wirral TUC, which has long campaigned on this issue. The decision to equalise bereavement benefits for men and women in April 2001 was very welcome, but is it not time that it was carried to its logical conclusion and that backdated payments were made to widowers as the European Court of Human Rights has ruled and that widowers were included who had lost their spouses prior to the change in the law? What hope can my hon. Friend give widowers in my constituency that this matter will move forward as quickly as it can? Bereavement benefits are effectively being denied to some widowers in my constituency, who are suffering as a result. They want a decision as quickly as they can get it.
    Mr. Pond: The whole House will wish to pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his tenacity and hard work in pursuing this issue over a considerable time. He will appreciate that, while these matters are before the courts, it is not appropriate for me to speculate about the outcome. However, I appreciate his welcome for the changes that we made to the system of supporting bereavement. They are intended to focus help when and where it is needed most in the immediate aftermath of a loss when children are present, and towards older bereaved men and women.

    Social Exclusion
    Paul Farrelly: If he will make a statement on the steps his Department has taken to tackle poverty and social exclusion. [132607]
    Mr. Huw Edwards: What research his Department has commissioned within the last two years to evaluate its policies for tackling social exclusion. [132614]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): We recently published "Opportunity for all"—the fifth annual report that provides a detailed account of our strategy and policies for tackling poverty and social exclusion. That report was supported by a wide range of research and evaluation evidence drawn from a variety of sources, including departmental research.
    362
    There is significant progress to show. There are now 500,000 fewer children in relative low-income households than in 1997. Since 1997, we have helped nearly 2 million more people into permanent jobs and virtually eradicated long-term youth unemployment and, for the first time ever, more than half of lone parents are now in work.
    Paul Farrelly: I thank the Minister for her reply. I know from experience in my constituency of Newcastle-under-Lyme that, through the minimum wage, the various tax credits, and initiatives such as sure start, we are seeing the benefits of the Government's commitment to tackling poverty and social exclusion. Time and again in the constituency, however, I come across young people who have stopped education and become lone parents at much too young an age. What steps is the Minister taking to improve their life chances by helping them into work, and to train and study?
    Maria Eagle: My hon. Friend is right to note the increase in employment in his constituency. It has increased by 6.9 per cent. since 1997, and now stands at 81.3 per cent., which is higher than both the regional and national averages. My hon. Friend is also right to suggest that particular groups such as lone parents find it harder to get into work because of the barriers that they face. He will be aware of the new deal for lone parents, which has already helped 280 lone parents in his constituency into sustained employment. Programmes such as sure start, and the help available through the Connexions service, can also put young lone parents in touch with the programmes that can help them. This is in contrast to the declared war on lone parents by the Conservatives—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker:Order.
    Mr. Edwards: May I commend my hon. Friend and her colleagues on ensuring that many of their policies are subjected to evaluation? Will she join me in paying tribute to those who undertake that evaluation in universities and other research institutions? What conclusions has she reached about the Government's policies on encouraging people with disabilities to get into employment?
    Maria Eagle: I echo my hon. Friend's thanks and congratulations to those who carry out that research. Everyone in the House will know that they do not always come up with the results that we might like to see, but that just proves the independence and quality of the work that is being done. I join my hon. Friend in congratulating them on that work, because without that evidence, it would not be so easy for us to come up with policy initiatives that will make a difference.
    Mr. Willetts: And they help us to criticise the Government, too.
    Maria Eagle: Indeed; the hon. Gentleman would otherwise have nothing whatever to do.
    In respect of helping disabled people into work, my hon. Friend is right to identify them as one of the harder-to-help groups who perhaps find it more difficult even than lone parents to overcome the barriers to work.

    363
    There is no doubt that, despite the lessening gap between the overall employment rate and that for disabled people, there is still a lot more to do. In that regard, I hope that the pathways into work pilot, which is starting this month, will show us a way forward in assisting into work those disabled people who have been out of the labour market for some time.
    Sir Archy Kirkwood: The Minister is quite entitled to refer to the publication last month of "Opportunity for All" as a very valuable document and an annual statement of the Government's progress. According to my account, they are making valuable progress on 33 of the 55 poverty indicators in "Opportunity for All", and that is welcome. But may I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that the proportion of pensioners in the categories dealing with pensioners in persistent poverty is gradually increasing, in three years out of every four? This is at the same time as the minimum income guarantee and means-tested benefits for pensioners are being increased by the Government. Does the Minister accept that that is a worrying figure? What plans do the Government have to tackle the problem for that group of retirement pensioners?
    Maria Eagle: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. He is absolutely right to say that the persistence of poverty is perhaps one of the most difficult problems that "Opportunity for All" and the statistics that it regularly produces have highlighted. There is a time lag between the publication of statistics and the implementation of the measures that we have put in place to try to tackle some of these issues, particularly in respect of the persistence of poverty. Pension credit and some of the other measures that the Government are now introducing will have an impact on the persistence of poverty, but there is no doubt that it is one of the most difficult issues to tackle in relation to poverty. However, simply redistributing to all pensioners the cash that is currently going to the poorest pensioners would have nothing other than a negative impact on the problem.
    Mr. Gary Streeter: Is it not true that every person helped back into work is a person helped to escape from poverty and social exclusion? Presumably, that is why we are seeing so many television adverts at the moment featuring road blocks and encouraging people back into work, which I applaud. Have the Minister and her Department yet found a way of measuring how many people are specifically encouraged to make contact with the Connections service and other local agencies as a result of those television adverts, which were probably rather expensive? Is there a way of measuring whether they are effective, so that we may know whether taxpayers' money is being effectively spent?
    Maria Eaglec:The hon. Gentleman began by making some excellent points. I very much approve of the Joseph Rowntree report, which recently said that work for those who can work has made a real contribution to reducing poverty, and that poverty would be much
    364
    worse without the improvements that have been made to the tax and benefits system for those on low incomes. That is undoubtedly true.
    Advertising campaigns are evaluated. Some of the self-same researchers on whom my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) heaped praise, with which I agreed, are evaluating the value for money of those campaigns. That information is, of course, in the public domain.

    Employment (Older People)
    Syd Rapson: If he will make a statement on progress in encouraging the employment of people above pensionable age. [132608]
    The Minister for Work (Mr. Desmond Browne): Our "Age Positive" campaign is encouraging employers to adopt non-ageist employment practices. Studies show that there has been a marked reduction in the number of companies using age in recruitment. Currently around 930,000 pensioners work. That represents an increase in the employment rate of pensioners from 7.8 to 8.5 per cent. since 1997. Furthermore, we are committed to extending opportunities for older workers and to introducing age discrimination legislation. We are promoting employment among those aged 50 and over and helping people over pensionable age to remain in work if they wish to do so.
    Syd Rapson: I thank the Minister for his reply. I cannot understand anyone wanting to work after pensionable age and I shall not be joining them. On behalf of my constituents who have an interest, however, may I ask the Government to take seriously the proposals agreed at the Labour party conference that those in occupational pensions should be able to draw their lump sum, carry on working and draw their pension when eventually they voluntarily retire, without encountering any disbenefit?
    Mr. Browne: The implication of my hon. Friend's question is correct. If people choose to take the state pension later while they work on, they deserve a better deal. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made the direction of the Government's policy clear at the conference. In addition to enhancing the situation in relation to deferment by increasing the percentage points by 7.5 to 10.4, we propose to offer people the choice for the first time ever of a taxable lump sum if they defer their pension.
    Mr. James Gray: If the Government are so committed to ending ageism in the workplace, why is there a compulsory retirement age of 60 in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office?
    Mr. Browne: The hon. Gentleman probably knows fine well that it is Government policy across the civil service to move from a pension age of 60 to 65. That is a matter for consultation. Once those consultations have concluded, it will be clear how that will apply across each Department.
    Mr. Roger Berry: Would it not be helpful for Government Departments to set an example?

    365
    Why, for example, should the Ministry of Defence tell one of my constituents who worked as a health and safety adviser that he must retire at the age of 60 not because he could no longer do the job—indeed, he was first employed 12 months ago—but because he had reached the age of compulsory retirement?
    Mr. Browne: My hon. Friend highlights why it is so important for the Government to change the policy not only in their Departments but across the country. I cannot, of course, comment on individual cases, but we all know that older workers, whether they be in the Ministry of Defence or elsewhere, have a wealth of skills and experience that can benefit businesses, public services and the economy as a whole. We want employers not only to allow people to work, but actively to recruit workers of that age range.

    Private Pension Schemes
    Chris Grayling: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on private pension schemes. [132609]
    The Minister for Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): Our document "Action on Occupational Pensions", published in June, sets out a balanced package of measures seeking to ease financial and administrative burdens on employers while ensuring protection for scheme members. By increasing protection, promoting confidence, simplifying the system and enabling people to make informed choices, people will be able to use private pension savings alongside their state support to build up the level of retirement income that they need and expect.
    Chris Grayling: I think the Minister's reply is rather thin. The Government appear to believe that the solution to the pensions crisis is either to make people work longer or to use means-testing as a way of rationing the cost. Does the Minister not think it would be smarter just to encourage people to save more for their retirement?
    Malcolm Wicks: My brief answer covered much substance in policy, which I recommend the hon. Gentleman studies at some stage. As we have already said this afternoon, pension credit encourages savings. The hon. Gentleman says that our proposals are thin, but they include the introduction for the first time in Great Britain of a pension protection fund to protect pensions when companies go bankrupt. That is not thin—that is a major advance towards social justice.
    Kevin Brennan: On that point, was my hon. Friend surprised by the comments made last week by the Confederation of British Industry about the Government's proposal of a pension protection fund? The CBI made some critical remarks, which have subsequently been criticised by the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation. Is it not likely that in the past some of the CBI's members got away with not losing their pensions by taking a runner before their company went bust, as usual leaving the workers—such as those at Allied Steel and Wire in Cardiff and Sheerness, and at
    366
    Dexion in Hemel Hempstead, and for all I know workers in Kettering as well—without their pensions? As well as legislating for the pension protection fund, as he has promised to do, will he do something to compensate those workers?
    Malcolm Wicks: Workers who are already in severe difficulty, such as the Dexion workers whom I met only the other day, are examples of the tragedy of companies going bust leaving people who have been saving for 30 or 40 years bereft of any hope of substantial benefits. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said that we will look at any sensible proposals in relation to that group, but it is difficult to legislate retrospectively. I am pleased that, in future, the pension protection fund will put an end to such scandals.
    Mr. Steve Webb: To pursue that issue, the Government will be well aware that compensation schemes are quite common. All such matters could be regarded as retrospective, but compensation is not an unfamiliar concept to Government. Why cannot the workers who have lost catastrophically and who are absolutely innocent receive compensation? Will the Minister tell us what he thinks is the principal stumbling block to introducing such a scheme? Will he accept my offer to work with the Secretary of State and himself and their officials, on a cross-party basis, to draw up proposals to deal with the problem that could be included in the pensions Bill?
    Malcolm Wicks: Despite the discussions proper in the House of Commons, I hope that we can get cross-party support for the new pension protection fund. I am afraid that I can only repeat that we are examining sensible suggestions. It would be wrong of anyone in this House to raise false hopes in respect of a complex situation.
    Mr. Nigel Waterson: May I remind the Minister that he has had cross-party support, at least from the Conservatives, for the past year or so in tackling the grotesque injustice affecting long-serving workers whose pension funds become insolvent? Why has he still not taken action to change the rules on winding up pension funds that become insolvent? Will he promise today to announce his detailed plans very soon—perhaps at the pensions summit on 4 November?
    Malcolm Wicks: Those details will be with the House very shortly. If the hon. Gentleman is offering cross-party support in this important and complex area, I very much welcome it.

    Housing Benefit
    Mr. Tom Harris: What progress he has made with his plans to reform housing benefit. [132610]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Chris Pond): Our priorities for reforming housing benefit are to improve administration, promote choice and responsibility, enhance work incentives and reduce levels of fraud and error in the system. We have already made considerable progress. In particular, our major structural reform—

    367
    the local housing allowance—will begin in the first pathfinder authority next month. That is the single most radical reform to housing benefit since its introduction in 1988.
    Mr. Harris: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although withdrawal of housing benefit from antisocial neighbours should be used only as a last resort, where it is used it might prove to be an effective sanction? If the Government choose not to use such a measure, is there not a danger that they will be accused of, in effect, subsidising antisocial behaviour by tenants whose rent, after all, is being paid by the Government?
    Mr. Pond: My hon. Friend and the House will be aware that we have consulted on proposals to introduce powers for local authorities to apply housing benefit sanctions to those engaged in antisocial behaviour. The consultation ended in August and we are considering the responses. My hon. Friend will not be surprised that many organisations were not overenthusiastic about the idea, but I am sure that his constituents, like mine, believe that the right to housing benefit should be balanced by the responsibility to ensure that individuals receiving it do not make their neighbour's lives a misery through loutish antisocial behaviour.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Whatever the need to change and reform the housing benefit system, are the Government having any more success in tackling the many abuses in housing benefit fraud? The Minister may know that I have been asking questions of the Government for the past two or three years. Can he report any significant progress in dealing with this costly fraud?
    Mr. Pond: The hon. Gentleman will know that for the first time ever we have an explicit target for dealing with fraud and error in housing benefit. We are making that a priority, and are putting the necessary resources in to ensure that we deal with fraud and error. We are rightly putting a lot of resources into the housing benefit system, but we want to make sure that those resources go to the people who need and deserve that help, not to the cheats and fraudsters in the system.
    Mr. Derek Wyatt: Does the Minister have any good news for my constituents, as payment of housing benefit by Swale borough council is now seven months behind? My poorest constituents have taken out overdrafts, which have been called in. They have then foolishly taken out loans on credit cards, but those credit card facilities have been called in. It is desperate. What good news does the Minister have about housing benefit in my constituency?
    Mr. Pond: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the impact that failure to administer housing benefit effectively can have on both his constituents and all of our constituents, which is why we want to work with local authorities to ensure that we improve performance. Again, we have established firm targets for the performance levels that we expect, and we are investing £200 million over three years to improve local authorities' performance. However, if they do not respond to that assistance and if we are unable to
    368
    achieve an improvement in performance in other ways, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has the ability to direct local authorities to take appropriate action. In certain cases, we must consider whether constituents' interests desperately need such intervention.

    Child Support Agency
    Bob Russell: How many prosecutions have been made in the past year against parents making false statements to the Child Support Agency. [132611]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Chris Pond): Fourteen people have been prosecuted under the Child Support Act 1991 for making false statements, and 163 have been prosecuted and convicted for failure to provide information, 16 in the past month alone.
    Bob Russell: My main concern is that the Child Support Agency does not appear to be as diligent as it ought to be in pursuing people who are clearly lying in the information that they give it. Does the Minister agree that more prosecutions and greater publicity are needed so that people who make false declarations are made aware of what will happen and so that the parents, children and taxpayers who are being cheated get the right result?
    Mr. Pond: We should, and we will, come down hard on those cheats who cheat their children, not just the Child Support Agency, by providing false information. It is a criminal offence, and is subject to a maximum penalty of £1,000. However, our main purpose is to make sure that non-resident parents provide information and make the appropriate payments. The reforms that we are making to the child support system ensure that by replacing a complex assessment with a much simpler formula the agency's resources can go into enforcement and compliance, not into it spending most of its time working out the assessment in the first place.
    David Taylor: May I put to the Minister a circumstance that is well known to virtually all Members who have dealt with a CSA case in their advice sessions? Communication links between the CSA, the Inland Revenue, the Department for Work and Pensions and others are often less than sound, and they are not always using the information available to them as effectively and efficiently as possible. Could a cross-Government departmental group be formed to try to integrate that flow of information so that we can pursue more vigorously as an example to others people who are lying, deceiving and cheating the taxpayer as well as their children and ex-partner?
    Mr. Pond: My hon. Friend is right to say that the Child Support Agency works with the Inland Revenue and other agencies. [Interruption.] As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State just remarked from a sedentary position, the same people may be lying to those agencies as well, but we are taking every measure possible to ensure that information is shared between Government Departments and agencies, so that the support that those children need goes to them, and so

    369
    that parents who are lying and cheating to avoid their responsibilities to their own children are brought to account.
    Andrew Selous: Why do the Government give themselves powers in this area that they then fail to use? The Minister will be aware that in nine of the 11 cases in which the CSA started moves to take away driving licences from non-resident parents who persistently failed to pay, payment started without the driving licences having to be taken away. Should we not see more of that? What does the Minister intend to do about it?
    Mr. Pond: The hon. Gentleman makes precisely the point that the main purpose should be to ensure that the money needed to support those children goes to them. For the most part, prosecution must be the last resort. We want to make sure that non-resident parents understand that if they will not meet their responsibilities, we have the power to take action. The great majority of non-resident parents do meet those responsibilities, but we have made it clear that, where necessary, we will use those powers, and we are increasingly using them, as I said in my response to the main question.
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important that we start to switch staff away from calculating the debts and into enforcement action. Could he say how many staff will be switched to enforcement action and over what period, so that we can get to grips with the huge unrecovered backlog of debt owed by absent parents towards the upkeep of their children?
    Mr. Pond: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. We are shifting resources, as he acknowledged, from the assessment of cases to compliance. The agency is reviewing the best way of transferring resources in that process as we move over to the new system through child support reform. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will report to the House once we have agreed the best way of transferring those resources across.
    Mr. Paul Goodman: Following the question from the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), the Minister will be aware that non-payers cannot be prosecuted if they are not identified, and that up to a million old cases are waiting to be transferred to the new scheme. On 2 July Doug Smith, the chief executive of the Child Support Agency, told the Select Committee on Work and Pensions:
    "The software that we needed to do bulk conversions…was intended to be available to us around the autumn of this year. It is now clear that that will not be available…into the spring of next year."
    Can the Minister confirm that the software will indeed be available next spring? What date has he set for the transfer of old cases to the new scheme?
    Mr. Pond: We have said that we will transfer the old cases to the new scheme as soon as we are sure that the software and the other parts of the mechanism are working properly. [Laughter.] Despite the giggles from the Opposition Front Bench, we want to make sure that
    370
    parents with care and the children whom they are caring for get the resources that they need. It would be irresponsible of us to try and transfer all the old cases across until we are sure that that will happen. Thousands of cases each week are currently being dealt with under the new system. We are improving all the time in terms of the number of cases that are cleared, and when we are satisfied that the system is working properly and that the software is running properly, we will transfer the old cases across.

    Occupational Pensions
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: What plans he has to use pensions protection funds to underwrite deficits in occupational pensions. [132612]
    The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith): Through the introduction of the pension protection fund, we are taking action to ensure that a pension promise made is a pension promise honoured. The fund will step in to protect members of defined benefit schemes if their sponsoring employer goes bust and the scheme is underfunded.
    Mr. Cunningham: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, in particular the detail that he went into, but I am sure that he is aware that there is widespread anger in Coventry about the way that the ex-employees of Massey Ferguson were treated in respect of their pension fund. Equally, is he aware that the employees at Rolls-Royce have been balloted recently, because, once again, a company looks as though it is going to default on its occupational pension fund? Does he have any plans to meet those companies to discuss these matters?
    Mr. Smith: First, I praise my hon. Friend for the energy with which he has been advancing and representing the needs of his constituents. As he knows, I was pleased to meet him and our hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) to discuss those very matters. I understand that the Massey Ferguson situation is the subject of legal action, so I cannot comment further on it. In relation to Rolls-Royce and any other company that is contemplating, or perhaps reported to be contemplating, changes to its defined benefit arrangements, I have to say that I well understand when the employees and their trade union representatives move the issue up the bargaining agenda and say that the promises that have been made to workers over the years must and should be honoured. Of course, the pension protection fund that we are bringing in is an important way of ensuring that that is indeed the case. I hope that the fund will have support in all parts of the House.
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: When the Secretary of State brings in that fund, does he intend that the public sector should contribute to it?
    Mr. Smith: We are already supporting the provision of occupational pensions through our proposals to simplify pensions legislation and the costs of operating schemes by cutting away acres and acres of red tape on those schemes, which, with the best of intentions, was introduced by Conservative legislation. As far as

    371
    whether the public should stand as a guarantor of the fund, that would be wholly inappropriate. First, there would be the moral hazard. Secondly, I hope that a moment's reflection would underline the importance of not nationalising that risk, which is what the hon. Gentleman is advocating amounts to. The state cannot stand behind the hundreds of billions of pounds of what are private sector obligations. Moreover, the scheme that operates in the United States has no such underwriting from the US Government.
    Jim Dobbin: As I understand it, the Secretary of State has received suggestions from a pensions expert, Dr. Ros Altmann, as to how the Government could make those compensation payments with little or no cost to themselves. I have a number of constituents in this category. Has my right hon. Friend had time to consider those proposals?
    Mr. Smith: Like my hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions and other colleagues in our team, I have met a number of representatives and workers affected by this tragic, awful situation where funds have gone under and they have no means of ensuring that people get the pension that they were promised. As my hon. Friend said in his answers, we are looking seriously and carefully at any serious, sensible propositions here and I am happy that offers were made earlier of cross-party support on the matter. However, it would be quite wrong for us to raise false hopes that those people can get extra help until or unless we know that that is the position. We do not know now that that is the position.
    I too have met Ros Altmann and others, and I have encouraged our officials to engage with her and with those who are campaigning for Allied Steel and Wire and for United Engineering Forgings as well as for other workers affected. However, I do not want to raise expectations until we know that something can be done to help those people.

    Stakeholder Pensions
    Gregory Barker: If he will make a statement on the take-up of stakeholder pensions. [132613]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle):Over 1.5 million stakeholder pensions have been sold since their introduction in April 2001—over 500,000 in the last 12 months for which figures are available. That is an encouraging start and a sign that stakeholder pensions are a valuable option for many.
    Gregory Barker: I thank the Minister for that answer, but since the launch of stakeholder pensions they have been targeted specifically on the about 5 million lower-income earners who have no other form of occupational pension. Of the figure quoted, how many are from that target group—with no form of occupational pension—as opposed to people just transferring provision from
    372
    elsewhere? What does she believe to be the acceptable de minimis in respect of take-up from that target group before the policy can be judged a success?
    Maria Eagle: As the hon. Gentleman must realise, stakeholder pensions provide a flexible and low-cost option for those who had no such option before their introduction. They are also portable.
    Financial Services Authority figures show that 70 per cent. of stakeholder pension sales are to those earning less than £30,000 a year, and 46 per cent. to those earning less than £20,000. The hon. Gentleman suggested that such pensions were for grandchildren. Figures from the Association of British Insurers indicate that 97 per cent. of sales are to people of working age—although I do not understand why Opposition Members should object to grandparents' buying their grandchildren pensions if they wish to do so. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman's question.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: Does the Minister agree that if there is to be maximum confidence in stakeholder pensions there must be a fair and efficient system for resolving disputes? Can she explain the current crisis in the pension ombudsman system? It is taking more than a year for a file even to be opened when disputes arise. Will she investigate, and suggest some solutions?
    Maria Eagle: I will think about what the hon. Gentleman has said. I understand that we are discussing with the ombudsman the resources that he needs in order to deal with the matter. If I have anything further to say to him, I will write to him separately.

    Pension Credit
    Mr. John Robertson: What assessment he has made of the impact of the pension credit on (a) poorer pensioners and (b) women pensioners. [132615]
    The Minister for Pensions (Malcolm Wicks):
    The new pension credit proposals are a major weapon in our attack on pensioner poverty. Pension credit, however, is not just for the poorest; it is also for those who might be described as being on modest incomes, or as hard-pressed£such as the couple in Glasgow who were not eligible for minimum income guarantee, but who, following a visit from the Pension Service, are now receiving £24 a week in pension credit. My hon. Friend will welcome that news, as he is himself a mighty champion of pensioners in his constituency.
    As for the benefits for women, it is very significant that two out of three pension credit beneficiaries are expected to be women.
    John Robertson: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer, and congratulate him and his colleagues on all the work that they have done on pension credit.

    373
    Like many other Members, I am worried about uptake. I do not just mean telephone uptake. Some people do not like talking on the telephone, and the forms, letters and other correspondence issued to pensioners are difficult to understand. Will the Minister try to simplify the system?
    Malcolm Wicks: We will always look for improvements on what is a very new policy, but the important thing is that we are making access to the new credit as easy as possible by not requiring people to fill out forms if they do not want to. They can deal with the matter on the telephone, and there will be advice surgeries in my hon. Friend's and all our constituencies, as well as home visits.
    I hope that all Members will get behind pension credit. There are people out there who deserve extra support, and it is our duty to ensure that they receive it.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Is the Minister aware of the difficulties being experienced by care homes during the current delay in processing information on whether a poorer or female pensioner is eligible? Will he ask the Department to review the position so that care homes do not lose out?
    Malcolm Wicks: It is obviously important for people throughout the community to have their entitlement,
    374
    including often frail and elderly people living in care homes. I was not aware of this difficulty; perhaps I could discuss it with the hon. Lady.
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: Are not those who try to dissuade pensioners from claiming the credit by trying to make out that it is the same as the horrible means tests of decades ago, introduced by the Tories, doing those pensioners a disservice? Although some pensioners in my constituency are finding the performance of the Pension Service in processing their claims a bit patchy, they do not find the questions demeaning, because they are similar to questions that they have often had to answer when signing hire purchase agreements to buy cars and the like.
    Malcolm Wicks: We are not complacent. We need to learn from the roll-out of pension credit: that is why we did not introduce it for every pensioner in one week, or one month. My hon. Friend makes an important point, however. Whatever one's views on the important question of selectivity versus universality, this form of income testing is very different from the old weekly means test over which the last Government presided, and a million miles away from what we had in the 1930s. I hope that when people make public comments on the subject they will avoid using absurd terminology such as "stigma" and "demeaning", because that puts off people who are entitled to the money, many of whom live in poverty. We want to ensure that they have that money, as I hope the whole House does.

European Council
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the European Council, which the Prime Minister and I attended last Thursday and Friday—16 and 17 October. I saw the Prime Minister earlier this afternoon. I am pleased to tell the House that he is in very good form and fully recovered from yesterday. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
At the summit in Brussels, European Union Heads of State and Government had their first substantive discussion of the draft constitutional treaty, focusing on the size of the Commission, the role of the chair of the European Council, changes in the rotating presidency and the weighting of votes after enlargement. The Prime Minister set out the United Kingdom's position in the White Paper that was published to the House on 9 September.
The Council discussed the European economy and agreed a number of measures to encourage growth. I have placed a copy of the conclusions in the Library. They stress the European Union's commitment to structural reform, flexibility of capital and labour markets, and innovation and investment in research and development. But between now and the spring Council on the European economy, work needs to begin to reform European competition policy; to make the new system of regulatory assessment work effectively; and to take forward the ideas of the recent report by a leading economist, Professor Andre Sapir, on how the EU budget can better be focused on economic reform priorities. That agenda remains a high priority for the Government. We are working closely with the Irish Government who, as the EU presidency, will chair the economic summit in the spring.
The European Council discussed defence at a Heads of State and Government dinner. The EU has mounted two European security and defence policy military operations this year, both with UK contributions. In March, an EU-led military mission took over from NATO in the stabilisation role in Macedonia and in June the EU deployed troops to the Democratic Republic of the Congo to support UN activity there. Both operations followed the approach agreed by the Prime Minister and President Chirac in launching the European security and defence policy initiative at St. Malo in 1998—that is, that the EU will act militarily only
"where the Alliance as a whole is not engaged".
In Macedonia, NATO has decided to terminate its mission and to support an EU successor force through the Berlin-plus arrangements. In the case of the DRC, the EU decided to deploy a force after consultation with NATO and once it was clear that NATO did not intend to engage militarily in that area.
It obviously makes sense for EU nations to strengthen Europe's contribution to the alliance and to enable Europe to act in circumstances where NATO does not want to. However, it would not make sense, and it is unacceptable to us, for the EU unrealistically to aspire to provide a territorial defence commitment for Europe.
376
That must be a matter for NATO. Three years ago, at Nice, the European Council recognised, in approving the permanent arrangements for ESDP, that
"NATO remains the basis of the collective defence of its members".
The Government believe in a strong Europe and a strong NATO. Our leading role in ESDP has been based on those twin commitments, which are widely shared across the enlarging European Union and the Atlantic alliance and will be at the heart of the development of ESDP in the intergovernmental conference and beyond.
Let me turn now to Iraq. The European Council welcomed the unanimous decision of United Nations Security Council resolution 1511 on Iraq on 16 October. Its successful passage by 15 votes to nil reflects weeks of intensive negotiations, and is a great testament to the tireless work of the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell.
The resolution sets a deadline of 15 December, by when the Iraqi interim governing council should provide a timeline and a programme leading to an Iraqi constitution, and to democratic elections. We want to give control of Iraq back to its people as soon as is possible and practicable. Iraqi Ministers are already heavily involved in much of the country's day-to-day business, and they will be more involved in the weeks and months ahead.
The new resolution, 1511, confirms the United Nations' central role and encourages its member states and international bodies to support the reconstruction of Iraq. The next step will be the Madrid donors' conference, to be held at the end of this week, at which the United Kingdom will pledge a further £300 million in assistance over two years. Together with money already committed, this will bring the UK's assistance for the three years from April 2003 to £550 million. That is on top of the very substantial contribution that we are making through our commitment of British troops.
The security situation, especially in the Baghdad area, is not satisfactory, but since Saddam's downfall the coalition has made huge efforts to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure. Power generation is now exceeding pre-war averages. Last week, oil production reached 2 million barrels per day for the first time since military operations ceased. Nearly all schools and hospitals are open. Iraq has a new currency, banks have reopened and businesses are coming back to life. Security sector reform remains a key focus for the coalition, and the challenge is to put Iraqis in charge. Iraq now has 40,000 police, and this number will rise to 70,000 within a year. The first battalions of the new Iraqi army have graduated. Training for additional Iraqi military continues, and there is now an independent judiciary.
The Prime Minister asked particularly that I emphasise his personal tribute to United Kingdom servicemen and women, to other UK personnel and to other coalition partners, who are working selflessly in difficult and dangerous circumstances for the good of the Iraqi people. Much still needs to be done, but much is now being achieved.
The European Council also discussed Iran, and again urged the Iranian Government to co-operate fully with the International Atomic Energy Agency. Resolving the doubts surrounding Iran's nuclear programme is a matter of grave concern to the European Union and to the wider international community. Immediately after

377
making this statement I will travel to Tehran to join my French and German counterparts, Dominique de Villepin and Joschka Fischer, for talks on that issue, at the Iranian Government's invitation. We will press on the Iranians the urgent need for compliance with all of the requirements of the resolution passed last month by the International Atomic Energy Agency's board of governors. This means that we shall seek full cooperation and transparency to enable the IAEA to resolve outstanding questions, and we shall press the Iranians on key issues raised by the resolution. These include early signature, ratification and implementation of an additional protocol to Iran's existing safeguards agreement, and the suspension of all enrichment and reprocessing activities.
The European Council considered the worsening situation in the middle east and condemned the intensification of suicide attacks and other violence, in particular the attack that killed three United States citizens in the Gaza strip on 15 October. The Union again called on the Palestinian Authority to do all that it could to fight against extremist violence. It also expressed particular concern over the route of the so-called "security fence." Apart from the humanitarian and economic hardship that this project is already bringing to many Palestinians, it could also make the two-state solution, which is the Security Council's policy, impossible to implement.
Let me now return to the question of the intergovernmental conference. We shall work hard to achieve a successful outcome under the Italian presidency this year, and we are very grateful to the leadership of the Italian Government in these negotiations. [HON. MEMBERS: "Keep a straight face, Jack."] We had a very happy time in Brussels on Thursday and Friday.
The draft constitutional treaty is designed to improve the way in which the European Union will work after enlargement, by reform, by clarification and by consolidation, as everyone who has bothered to read the document, rather than the transcriptions provided by Conservative central office, knows. The claims made by the Opposition and others that the treaty would undermine Britain's independence are, frankly, absurd. They are, in truth, not arguments against the draft treaty or anything in it, but as the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) pointed out in an excellent pamphlet earlier this week, they are arguments against British membership of the European Union itself. The logic of those on the Conservative Front Bench, and of some, but by no means all, other Opposition Members, would be to take Britain out of the European Union altogether, and the British people need to know that.
The European constitutional treaty has to be based on independent sovereign nation states co-operating, not on some federal superstate—and so it will be. A constitutional treaty embodying those principles will contribute to a strong and successful European Union. That is essential for our economic prosperity and our
378
security, and for Europe's stability. We believe that this patriotic approach is in the interests of this country, and I strongly recommend it to the House.
Mr. Michael Ancram: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement, and for giving me advance sight of it. We fully understand why the Prime Minister cannot be here today, and we are delighted to hear that he is fully restored to good health again. I wish the Foreign Secretary well in his trip to Iran; it is an important trip and we hope that he succeeds in making some progress.
The summit was wide ranging, and we have heard the Foreign Secretary's report on many of the important issues, such as the reform of capital and labour markets. I regret, however, that the Lisbon agenda is apparently still regarded as "an abstract idea", and was not substantially advanced at the Council. I very much share the concern that the Foreign Secretary expressed about the situation in the middle east, and I hope that the Government will provide time for us to debate that important issue as soon as possible.
On Iraq, we welcome the new United Nations resolution, and we agree that there should now be a realistic schedule for handing over political responsibility to the Iraqis. Has the Foreign Secretary a date in mind?
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, however, the real interest in this Council was in the more fundamental issues that were discussed by the Prime Minister in the margins. Those issues go to the heart of our relationship with the European Union, which is, I suspect, why the Foreign Secretary spent so little of his statement dealing with those issues, and so much of it dealing with other issues not concerning Europe.
It is time for the Government to start being honest about Europe. On Friday the Prime Minister told the media:
"take it from me, there is nothing we are going to agree here that's going to put at risk any of the key red lines".
Take it from him? Why should we take it from him? We took it from him three years ago when he told us that a constitution was not necessary. Now he tells us that it is. We took it from him when he told us that the charter of fundamental rights would not be legally binding. Now we are told that it will be. So why should we take anything from him, or from his Foreign Secretary, now?
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned European defence. In February 2001, President Bush told the press that the Prime Minister had assured him that
"the European Defence would in no way undermine NATO…that there would be a joint command and that planning would take place within NATO".
Yet in Berlin last month it was reported in Der Spiegel that the Prime Minister had agreed with his French and German counterparts—[Interruption.] That was supposed to be a minute of the meeting that was held; let the Foreign Secretary deny it if it was not. It said that the Prime Minister and his French and German counterparts agreed that
"the EU must be able to plan and conduct operations without the backing of NATO assets and NATO capability".

379
No wonder that over the weekend the United States has expressed outrage, with its NATO ambassador Burns describing this as
"one of the greatest dangers to the transatlantic relationship".
The United States obviously does not share the view of that policy set out today by the Foreign Secretary.
So what is the Government's current policy? I presume that they are setting it out at the convened emergency meeting of NATO, which the Americans felt was necessary in the circumstances today. Apparently that policy is not what it was two years ago. Does the Foreign Secretary deny that structured co-operation under article 213 of the draft European constitution will undermine any UK veto over EU military planning? Is that not why the Prime Minister supported Chancellor Schroeder and President Chirac in Berlin last month?
What will be the effect of the constitution on our relationship with the EU? The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have told us time and again that it does not involve fundamental change. How does that square with Joschka Fischer's description of it as "historic" and
"the most important treaty since the formation of the EEC"?
Closer to home, the Chancellor of the Exchequer wrote in The Wall Street Journal last Thursday that the
"new constitutional debate—is Europe's most significant political change for decades."
Why are the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary so apparently out of line with their colleagues? Does the Foreign Secretary agree with his French counterpart, Mr. de Villepin, who said last night that, if Europe wants to hold its own in the world, it must have
"its own foreign policy…That is what the draft Constitution provides for. The appointment of a European Foreign Minister, together with the creation of a European defence policy"?
He went on to say:
"Ours must be a political Union".
Is not that, in a nutshell, what the draft constitution is about, and would it not be better if the Government came clean and began to admit it? Why do they alone pretend that this is, to quote an official this week,
"simply a consolidation of existing treaties"?
How stupid do they think the British people are? Why will they not have the courage to let the people decide?
Why will the Foreign Secretary not accept the French Prime Minister's advice that
"it will be necessary to have a referendum to ratify the European Constitution",
or President Chirac's comment that a referendum
"would be the only legitimate way"?
Why will the Government not follow Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, Denmark and Ireland in trusting their voters? Why are the Government so frightened of the British people? The Foreign Secretary should promise them a referendum today.
Mr. Straw: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks about the Prime Minister and for his best wishes for my trip to Iran. I shall, of course, make my report to the House as quickly as I can. The right hon. Gentleman asked about the possibility of having a debate in Government time on the middle east.
380
Personally, I accept that case, but he knows that it is a matter of the allocation of time and should be dealt with through the usual channels.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about a date for handing over power in Iraq. Resolution 1511 provides a clear date—15 December—by which the governing council, in consultation with the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the coalition provisional authority, should produce its own time scale for developing a draft constitution and a handover of power. We await those proposals. We felt that it was important that, rather than imposing a time scale on the most representative body in Iraq today, it would be better to encourage that body to come up with its own time scale in two months' time. It is bound to be discussed both with the Secretary-General's representative and with us before being reported to the Security Council.
The right hon. Gentleman made several points about the draft constitution. He dismissed all the other issues that were discussed as somehow "not concerning Europe". However, my statement today properly reflected the balance of discussion in the European Council between economic reform, foreign and security policy and the intergovernmental conference. I know that the right hon. Gentleman and some of his Front-Bench colleagues are absolutely obsessed with the issue of the draft constitution, but I have to say that the rest of us are not, and nor are the British people.
The simple fact remains that, however one analyses the draft constitution, it does not represent any fundamental shift in the balance of the relationship between ourselves and the EU. If anything, as the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues in the House of Lords European Scrutiny Committee pointed out, it shifts the balance back towards member states. Moreover, again on any analysis, as a former distinguished Conservative Home Secretary, Lord Howe, pointed out in a debate in the House of Lords, the treaty of Maastricht and the Single European Act of 1986 involved far more significant changes than does the proposed draft constitution.
The right hon. Gentleman professed shock and horror at the idea of the creation of a European defence policy. [Interruption.] He is muttering about the American ambassador, Mr. Nicholas Burns, who is an excellent man. I believe that I probably know more about Mr. Burns' views than does the right hon. Gentleman. I also recall in exquisite detail, as will others who were Members of Parliament in 1992, that the right hon. Gentleman made a terrific speech, banging the drum against a referendum on Maastricht and fully in favour of every last dot and comma of the treaty. The treaty states—[Interruption.] He should listen to this, because this is what he supported. It states that the Union shall aim
"to assert its identity on the international scene, in particular through the implementation of a common foreign and security policy including the eventual framing of a common defence policy, which might in time lead to a common defence".
That is what the right hon. Gentleman signed up to in 1992. I have heard him say nothing in the endless debates that we have had to resile from that. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, that policy was enthused and inspired by none other than Baroness Thatcher, who

381
wrote a terrific, ground-breaking pamphlet for presentation to the European Council held at Fontainebleau on 25 and 26 June 1984, in which she said:
"The objective should be the progressive attainment of a common external policy."
The right hon. Gentleman is trying to create a confection about what is in this draft treaty. He claims that it will lead to the creation of a superstate and the end of civilisation as we know it, but that is exactly what the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) said, when he was the Leader of the Opposition, about Nice. In statement after statement, he claimed that Nice would lead to a superstate and that we should have a referendum. We did not have a referendum and Nice is now in force. Where is the superstate? The right hon. Member for Devizes did not even mention Nice.
Time and again, we hear confection and invention from the right hon. Gentleman. He dared to quote my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but he misquoted him. In his excellent article in the The Wall Street Journal, my right hon. Friend did not say that Europe's new constitutional debate is Europe's most significant political change for decades. In fact, he said:
"The enlargement of Europe—ending centuries of European division and the catalyst for Europe's new constitutional debate—is Europe's most significant political change for decades."
That is a completely different statement, and my right hon. Friend was right in what he said. The time to be honest on Europe, to coin a phrase, is the time for the Conservative party to be honest about its policy. If it ever got a chance to lead this country, it would move inexorably towards detaching Britain from Europe and setting this country up as a free trade area—as the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), the shadow Attorney-General, has suggested. That would not relieve us of any of the obligations of European Union membership or of paying a higher contribution than many other member states pay, but it would relieve us of any influence, thus damaging British industry, British jobs, British prosperity and British security.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, may I extend our warmest good wishes to the Prime Minister for a complete recovery?
On Iran, I hope that, whatever is said in Washington, the Foreign Secretary will continue with his policy of measured engagement with the Iranian Government, which clearly has support on both sides of the House.
In relation to the middle east, the Foreign Secretary told the House that the meeting of Heads of Government had condemned both the building of the security fence and the continued expansion of settlements, as it has done before. Does he understand, however, that when people throughout the middle east hear of such condemnation, some of them ask what the European Union is prepared to do about either the security fence or the expanding settlements?
No one can take comfort from the crossed wires in recent days over European defence. I was pleased that, in his statement, the Foreign Secretary returned to first principles, but may I suggest for his consideration some
382
other components of such a policy? Surely, it must be right that there should always be complete transparency with NATO if Europe decides to act on its own. Should we not also have a formal right of first refusal for NATO? Should not planning for any European operation be from within NATO by officials with twin responsibilities—double-hatted, in the jargon? Must we not also go to considerable lengths to avoid the duplication and decoupling foreshadowed by Madeleine Albright several years ago? Is not there a risk that, however well intentioned alternative structures may be, once they come into existence they may engender rivalries?
In the course of the happy times that the Foreign Secretary enjoyed in Brussels, did he have discussions with Heads of Government who were intending to hold a referendum in their countries even though they were not constitutionally obliged to do so? If our Government are so confident that they will have a good case, why not put the IGC proposals to a referendum so that the Foreign Secretary and I, and many other Members, can make a reinvigorated case for Europe throughout the whole of the United Kingdom?
Mr. Straw: On the right hon. and learned Gentleman's last point, I detect a certain amount of variation in the Liberals' approach. Sometimes they say that they are wholly in favour of a referendum; sometimes they say that they may or may not have one, depending on whether it would represent a fundamental shift in the balance of power between ourselves and the EU. With respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, it is important even for the Liberal Democrats to have a principle, and to follow it, for referendums as for other issues.
It is rather difficult to define that principle at present, given the fact that certainly neither we nor—as far as I can remember—the Liberals called for a referendum on the Single European Act. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, we do not dispute the case for a referendum in certain circumstances; indeed, we have provided for a referendum in certain circumstances, compared with the Conservative party which has always set itself against that. In our judgment, we should provide a referendum where the issue is whether to join or leave a completely new institution, or where a major constitutional issue is at stake, for example, in respect of the euro.
I am grateful for what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said about Iran. On the middle east, there is a fair amount of concern not only about the situation but also about the lack of power that the European Union or any individual actor, including the United States, has over that desperate situation, which will continue as long as the rejectionist terrorist groups continue to try to blow up the peace process. The EU is a major player in the Quartet, along with the United States, the United Nations and the Russian Federation. Back in June, there was great hope, but not at present. There are many reasons for that, but the key reason is the rejectionist terrorist groups which set about killing innocent Israelis and which, in doing so, are blowing up the whole prospect of the road map for the time being.
On defence, I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman about the need for transparency. That is why we welcome the debate that is taking place in

383
NATO this afternoon. There is a hierarchy in military planning. It is not formally established in treaty but it has been followed and we want it to continue to be followed: NATO first, then the Berlin-plus arrangements, which are operated by EU member states or others, making use of NATO assets, and thirdly, wholly autonomous operations. It is not the case that military planning is currently done only in NATO: for some time, EU military staff based in Cortenberg have carried out strategic planning. That should continue—it is fine by us but the issue for us is that there is no case for having operational planning and the running of operations per se in an EU headquarters, separate either from Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, SHAPE, or from national headquarters. We are pursuing that point, and nothing that we have done so far, or will do, is in any sense inconsistent with that approach.
Mr. Wayne David: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his very positive statement, but in his future negotiations with our partners in Europe will he stress the need to uphold the principle of subsidiarity? In particular, will he argue for a stronger role for national Parliaments in the European decision-making structure?
Mr. Straw: Yes. My hon. Friend may be aware that, thanks to the good work of our hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) in chairing the working party on national Parliaments, on page 150 of Command Paper 5897, as every hon. Member will recall, a protocol on the role of national Parliaments provides that any draft legislation—the protocol on subsidiarity and proportionality is on page 152—has to be referred to national Parliaments and that, if more than a third of the parliamentary Chambers take an opposite view to the draft legislation, it will be referred back to the Commission. We should like that provision to be strengthened, but I am very clear that this is the first time that any EU constitution has had a mechanism to deliver on subsidiarity. Again, that is contrary to the protestations of those in the Conservative party. They called for it; we have delivered it. We will try to strengthen it, but it is far, far better than what has gone before.
Sir Teddy Taylor: I very much welcome the Secretary of State's willingness to co-operate in the deputation to Iran, where I think he will find great willingness to co-operate, but does he agree that the one encouraging feature of this very worrying Convention is in title IX, where for the first time in any European treaty we have proposals for the right of voluntary withdrawal? However, it seems that that is, in fact, subject to the majority of the Ministers and the majority of the European Parliament agreeing. Is the right hon. Gentleman willing to try to establish the EU as a democratic organisation by saying that, if the majority of the people of any member state and the majority of the democratic Parliament ask to withdraw they should be allowed to do so?
Mr. Straw: One of the good features of all this is that, for the first time, there is provision for member states to withdraw from the EU. The hon. Gentleman is a man
384
whose integrity and honesty has always gone before him, and I assume from what he says that he is tempted to make use of that provision. That is fine; it is his democratic right to propose that we leave the EU. That is a clear position. Costs will follow from it, but he is entitled to his view. However, a credible Opposition—or the current incredible Opposition—are not entitled to say that they want to stay in the EU and to make proposals that are wholly inconsistent with that position.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Since the level of ministerial responsibility matters nowhere on the planet more than in Tehran, may I express delight that the Foreign Secretary himself is going to Tehran at this critical moment? But would it not be wise to take with him a couple of scientists from BNFL Sellafield or Risley to consider the matter of the suspension, as he puts it in his statement,
"of all enrichment and reprocessing activities",
which would cause some difficulty, because determining whether there is weapons use or legitimate civil use is a very technical matter? Will he also bear in mind what my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield said on "The World Tonight" last night about the feeling in Tehran about Argentine extradition? Might it not be wise to take some silver-tongued lawyer who could explain the difficulties?
Mr. Straw: I am not sure whether the new Member for Chesterfield is yet on the Privy Council. I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to our close friend the former Member for Chesterfield, Tony Benn.
Mr. Dalyell: No, Eric Illsley.
Mr. Straw: Oh, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley)—Barnsley, my father's birthplace, is somewhere different. Members of the Foreign Affairs Committee are out in Tehran at the moment, and I look forward to seeing them tomorrow.
On the last point that my hon. Friend made, which I think was a reference to the Soleimanpour case, he will understand that I cannot get involved in discussing that because it is currently before my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary as an extradition matter.
On the wider issues, I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support for this mission, which will be my fifth trip to Tehran in the last two and a half years. Although I will not have with me nuclear scientists from the United Kingdom, we and the Iranians have access to the great expertise of the International Atomic Energy Agency, and France, Germany and ourselves, in cooperation with our other international partners, have been anxious to complement the IAEA's assessment and not to get in the way of it in any sense. I am pleased to say that as a result of our co-operation with Dr. ElBaradei of the IAEA our trip has his full support.
Dr. Vincent Cable: After statements from the Treasury that the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot accept article I.14 of the draft treaty relating to the co-ordination of economic and employment policy,

385
will the Foreign Secretary say what success the Prime Minister has had in negotiating its removal or amendment?
Mr. Straw: There is no surprise in the position adopted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as it was well laid out in the White Paper that I published on 9 September. That specific issue has not yet been the subject of formal negotiation in the intergovernmental conference, either at Heads of Government level or Foreign Minister level, although the Italian presidency and the Council secretariat are well aware of our views.
Alan Howarth: In the European Council's consideration of how to get better economic growth in Europe, was serious consideration given to reform of the stability and growth pact to get rid of the deflationary bias that has existed in European policy for many years?
Mr. Straw:As I recall, that was not specifically on the agenda at the summit, but it is certainly under active consideration.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: I know that the Foreign Secretary will have seen the British press this morning, but has he seen the French press? Although my translation may not be 100 per cent. accurate, is it true that Dominique de Villepin said that the constitution will lead to fundamental changes in the integrity and sovereignty of the different nation states? Will Her Majesty the Queen now become a citizen of the EU, and will we, as I presume, have a new ultimate Head of State? Surely the British people ought to have the final say on that with a referendum.
Mr. Straw: On this wonderfully wacky story that the European Union is going to take over Her Majesty and the British monarchy, let me reassure the hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members who are having nightmares about it that it is simply not true. Six other European member states are monarchies, and I have never heard any of them suggest that their monarchies would be affected, and nor will ours.
As for Dominique de Villepin, it is not necessary to read the French press, because he gave the Dimbleby lecture in English. I will provide the hon. Gentleman with a copy, although it was no doubt good for his French homework.
On the issue of Her Majesty being a citizen, it was Maastricht that provided for European Union citizenship for all British citizens, not the draft constitution.
Ms Gisela Stuart: When the draft constitution was still a draft, it included a provision that would have prevented the same person from being President of the Commission and President of the Council, but that provision disappeared rather belatedly. Have there been any discussions to reinsert such a provision to prevent the merging of those two offices?
Mr. Straw: There have not been any in the formal discussions, but I agree with my hon. Friend that it is
386
extremely important that the two functions are separate, as they reflect the balance of power between the European Council and the European Commission. That separation and balance is one of the reasons why the EU has been as successful as it has been since its formation in 1957.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: In the course of the Council, the Prime Minister ruled out a British referendum on the EU constitution. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that referendums have legitimacy because they are a free and unconstrained expression of public opinion? If a parliamentary vote is to have similar legitimacy, it should be on the basis of a free and unwhipped vote. In the absence of that, surely only a referendum will do.
Mr. Straw: I welcome the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is shifting the Conservative party's position on this issue. I believe—I thought that this was once the Tory party's view—in the legitimacy of Parliament and the elected House of Commons. I have conceded that there are some cases where referendums are acceptable, but I do not believe—for reasons that we have explained—that one would be appropriate in this case.
As for the whipping of a vote, this is Government business and we should certainly apply a Whip on our side, but I realise that the idea of a seriously whipped vote in the Conservative party is a contradiction in terms.
Jane Griffiths: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and, in particular, for highlighting the groundbreaking work being done by EU-led military missions to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Does he agree that the carpers and nitpickers on the Conservative Benches damage British interests by endeavouring to sow dissension on the subject of Europe?
Mr. Straw: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. The fact that the Macedonian operation is taking place in cooperation with NATO and using NATO's assets under Berlin-plus and that the operation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo is taking place very smoothly with British troops working in support of a French-led operation gives the lie to the nonsense and fantasies that we keep hearing from Conservative Members.
Mr. John Bercow: Given that the subsidiarity and proportionality protocol to which the right hon. Gentleman has already and unsatisfactorily referred imposes no obligation whatsoever on the European Commission to withdraw inappropriate legislative proposals and that many of us are concerned that it will prove to be but a thin cover for the EU's continued legislative imperialism, what discussions has he had over the weekend with his EU counterparts about bolstering subsidiarity to give it the real teeth that the Prime Minister promised to the House as long ago as 18 June 1997, but that the Foreign Secretary admitted on 21 May this year simply has not happened?
Mr. Straw: That part of the draft treaty was not discussed formally in the room, but it was a matter for

387
many individual discussions in the margins of the meetings. I do not accept that the protocol on pages 150 and 152 of the draft treaty lacks real teeth, although I accept that it could do with strengthening. It is true that, if the Commission receives back a proposal because a third of the national parliamentary Chambers have said that it should go back, it could in theory send it straight back. However, it must take account of the fact that, if a third of member states' national parliamentary Chambers say that a matter is unacceptable, it is possible—depending on the size of the member states—that the proposal would fail to win a qualified majority vote, which, under these proposals, requires 50 per cent. of member states and 60 per cent. of them by population to vote for it. In any case, that would raise an amber warning.
I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman and those on the Opposition Front Bench, but my view is that the concept of federalism in Europe has been and gone. It is very striking that the concept of an ever closer Union has been dropped from this text. [Interruption.] That is true. We got it dropped, and we also got federalism dropped. It has gone.
Mr. Ancram: What about your friend Dominique de Villepin's remarks last night?
Mr. Straw: I am making a serious point. The very fact that there are now 25 states in the Union and that eight of them are new, proud sovereign states that have been released from the yoke of Soviet imperialism means that the shift in the balance of power has been away from the small group of federalists and in favour of those who see the Union, as is very clear from this text, as an association of sovereign member states pooling their sovereignty for the benefit of their individual peoples.
Mr. Tom Clarke: Were my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister able to discuss with their European colleagues their commitment to developing countries? In the light of the huge disappointment after Cancun, does the Foreign Secretary accept that the European Union is in a strong position to offer a strategy for the elimination of global poverty, and that his lead, as well as that of the Department for International Development, means that we in Britain can offer a positive contribution in that regard?
Mr. Straw: We did indeed discuss the failure at Cancun, and the concern of the European Council is highlighted in paragraph 40 of the Council's conclusions from last Friday. We have invited the Commission both to reflect on the European Union's strategy and to explore with key WTO players the possibility of future progress, emphasising that a commitment under the Doha development agenda will be indispensable to any successful resumption of negotiations.
Mr. James Paice: Just as the right hon. Gentleman has learned over the past 20 years that total withdrawal, which he espoused in 1983, is not the right way forward, have we not also learned—if we have learned anything from the subsequent succession of EU treaties and agreements—that the vagueness of the language used in those documents can
388
lead them to be interpreted later to mean something totally different from what we believed them to mean when they were first signed? Will the Foreign Secretary give the House an undertaking that he will ensure that Britain does not agree to a constitution that leaves vagueness within it and allows the possibility of the European Court or Commission deciding at a later stage that any clause of the constitution meant something that countered the red lines that the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister are so committed to achieving?
Mr. Straw: I take the hon. Gentleman's main point that the looser the language, the more potentially dangerous it is, but that is true of any legislation. We have been scouring the draft treaty for infelicitous language, as well as language that is clear but with which we disagree, and we shall continue to do so.
Mr. Bercow: May we help?
Mr. Straw: Of course. I have sought to involve Parliament in these matters—as is its right and duty—to a far greater degree than it has been involved in the past. That is why we have had six debates on the issue, and why we have established the Standing Committee on the Intergovernmental Conference, which is meeting this afternoon at 5 o'clock. I should like to present my apologies, through you, Mr. Speaker, for my inattendance, because I shall be on my way to Tehran. We want suggestions on these matters from both sides of the House.
Mr. Ian Davidson: During the discussions on the economic reform priorities, did the Minister have the opportunity to hear the German Government's proposals to cut pensions? Was the logical conclusion drawn that membership of the euro has enabled Germany to cut its pension system? Does he also regret the section in the third-last paragraph of his speech, in which he suggests that all those who have reservations about the creation of a European superstate are automatically in favour of withdrawal? Does he accept that that is a dishonest statement to make, and that it will not be made by him or any other Government spokesman in future?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is capable of making any dishonest remark in the House. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will withdraw that suggestion.
Mr. Davidson:I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Straw: On my hon. Friend's first point, I do not have reservations about a European superstate, a federal state—I am against one. However, I think that people should follow the consistency of their own position. My complaint about the Conservative party's position is that, on the one hand, it says that it wants to remain committed to the European Union, while, on the other—as the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) has pointed out in an excellent pamphlet—the detailed policies that it is pursuing would take it straight down the road of associate status. The Conservatives should have the courage to spell that out. Norway is in that position, as are one or two other

389
countries. This is not a cost-free approach. I will send my hon. Friend a copy of that pamphlet for his delectation and information.
So far as Germany is concerned, I discussed with Joschka Fischer in the margins why he was not going to be at the European Council. He was going to be in the Bundestag on Friday instead. The matter is for a sovereign nation state to decide. Most German commentators do not blame the euro for the problems facing the German economy, but instead blame far deeper structural and social problems, including a rigidity in their labour market.
Annabelle Ewing: The Foreign Secretary will be aware of the draconian proposals on cod stocks announced in Brussels today. The proposals threaten the very existence of the Scottish fishing fleet, which the Foreign Secretary will recognise is a vital Scottish national interest. Have the UK Government now intimated to the EU their intention to resist the constitutional entrenchment of fisheries as an exclusive EU competence, or should we in Scotland accept that the UK Government's claim today that they are pursuing a patriotic approach stops short at the border?
Mr. Straw: I know that the hon. Lady's party is trying to make a great issue out of that, but it is wrong and she is wrong. Articles I.12 and I.13 of the treaty do not entrench the division between marine biological resources, which is an exclusive competence, and fisheries excluding the conservation of marine biological resources, which is a shared competence. The treaty simply repeats what has been E U law for ever and a day, and the basis on which we joined the Common Market in 1973.
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the serious concerns inside the Treasury about the proposed EU constitution. A recent press report quoted an unnamed Treasury insider as suggesting that
"signing the Constitution in its current state is a non-starter. It's littered with Brussels generalities which would leave us at Brussels' mercy. Once signed it's too late."
It also suggests that the Chancellor's
"view is that it should not be signed in its current form."
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor cannot speak for himself—he has other happy family events on at the moment—but is my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary not worried about the Treasury's concerns?
Mr. Straw: Far from being concerned about what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor says, I agree with him, as I agree with all my Cabinet colleagues, all of whom came together to set out the clear policy statement in the White Paper published on 9 September. I reassure my hon. Friend that the draft constitutional treaty is a starting basis for negotiations; it will not be where the negotiations finish. The draft treaty before the IGC will be put to the national Parliaments of member states, not the draft conventional treaty from the Convention.
Mr. Ian Taylor: The Foreign Secretary will have picked up from the two acerbic
390
comments that we just heard from two of his Back Benchers that the debate on the constitutional treaty will be lively. Those of us who firmly believe in the primacy of the House of Commons believe that this is where we should discuss it.
I thank the Foreign Secretary for endorsing a pamphlet by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), which I published as chairman of the Tory Europe Network. It is excellent and I agree with it.
On defence, structured co-operation clearly needs to be properly financed. It cannot duplicate NATO resources because, frankly, the European powers by themselves do not have them. Will the Foreign Secretary tell the US ambassador that the US Government's behaviour was one way to undermine NATO when they effectively dismissed triggering article 5 in support of the United States after the events of 9/11? On top of the coalition of the willing, that led to the fragmentation policy pursued by the US against European NATO allies. That simply cannot be allowed to happen if NATO is to hold together and the European powers are to be cohesive with the Americans.
Mr. Straw: I will decline the hon. Gentleman's specific invitation. There has been considerable tension in some aspects of the transatlantic relationship over the past three years, not so much for us as for other EU member states. I think that there is now a sense that both sides of the debate wish to come together, as was reflected in the position on Iraq that was finally adopted in the Security Council.
As for structured co-operation, which is raised by article I.40.6 of the draft constitution, we accept that that needs to be amended, as does article I.40.7, which currently provides for a defence guarantee among the European Union.
Mr. Andrew Miller: If Europe does not ratify the treaty that emerges from the draft, presumably we will fall back on Nice and the preceding treaties, together with the process of enlargement having taken place. With the greatest respect to my right hon. Friend, it seems to me that that would be a lawyers' paradise. How does he think that that would impact on the cost base of the enlarged European Union?
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is right to say that unless and until any draft treaty is ratified by all 25 member states, Nice and the predecessor treaties will apply. They will in any case apply for a period preceding ratification, which will be a long and complex process. That is not the end of the world. This emphasises my point about the treaty, which is that it, too, is not the end of the world. We happen to think that it is an improvement on the existing four overlaying and slightly incoherent treaties.
I cannot give my hon. Friend a precise idea of the cost, but I can say that this area of law will continue to be complicated and will provide an honest living for some of my friends who are still practising law for some time to come.
Mr. John Redwood: On the subject of economic structural reform, when will the Government

391
introduce the higher taxes on home ownership in Britain that they think are necessary to prepare the way for the euro?
Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman obviously missed an excellent interview on this morning's "Today" programme with one of the Treasury Ministers—
Mr. Bercow: Who?
Mr. Straw:The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Ruth Kelly), made an emphatic denial on behalf of the Chancellor.
Mr. Chris Bryant: The Foreign Secretary has been instrumental in binding together the European Union around a shared foreign policy on Iran, which is obviously paying significant dividends at this critical point. Does not that show that, often, the only way in which Britain can pursue its national interest on the world stage is by bringing the whole of the EU together around a shared foreign policy? Does my right hon. Friend still hope to see significant changes to article I.40, so that there is less ambiguity about the relationship with NATO?
Mr. Straw: We want changes in article I.40, not least in respect of I.40.7 and I.40.6, and the articles in part III that it triggers, as I have already explained. My response to my hon. Friend's first point is straightforward: of course we can do things by ourselves, but working in alliance with the United States and with our European partners—not seeing those as alternatives, but with the alliance with the United States complementing and strengthening our alliance with our European partners—we can do so much more good in the world and be so much more effective in pursuing our British foreign policy.
Hugh Robertson: In purely practical terms, what difference would the European security and defence policy, once implemented, have made to operations in Afghanistan or Iraq?
Mr. Straw: In Afghanistan, it might have made a difference, because some of the arrangements might have been operated under ESDP arrangements. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the International Security and Assistance Force is now under NATO command. It is not impossible to foresee circumstances in which part of the NATO command in a large country is made subject to sub-arrangements of an ESDP type.
On Iraq, Europe was split. Europe is an association of sovereign nation states, each of which sets its own foreign policy. Sometimes there is a split, and that will continue even if every last word of the current draft is passed, because it is an intergovernmental matter. However, where we can do so it surely makes sense for Europe to work together on defence, as we are doing in the Balkans and in the Congo and as we may do in future. It is the responsibility of European member states to recognise the phenomenal humiliation of what happened in the Balkans in the mid-1990s, for example. We should have faced up to our responsibilities then and we should do so in future.

Orders of the Day

  Courts Bill [Lords]
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  [Relevant documents: The First Report from the Committee on the Lord Chancellor's Department of Session 2002–03, HC 526, Courts Bill, and the Government response thereto, Cm 5889.]

  Courts Bill [Lords]
    New Clause 2

      JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE
      'The Lord Chancellor is under a general duty to preserve and maintain the independence of the judiciary.'.—[Mr. Heath.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      4.30 pm
      Mr. David Heath: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
      New clause 4—General duty—
      'The Lord Chancellor and the Department for Constitutional Affairs are under a general duty to preserve and maintain the independence, impartiality and integrity of the judiciary and the lay magistracy.'.
      Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 5 [Clause 1], leave out 'and effective' and insert `, effective and accessible'.
      Amendment No. 48, in page 1, line 10, leave out 'and'.
      Amendment No. 49, in page 1, line 10, at end insert
      ', and that there is at least one magistrates' court in every local government area in the United Kingdom (at least one within every borough and district council area in England and Wales)'.
      Amendment No. 50, in page 2, line 2, at end insert
      'which must include a report on the operation of this legislation and must contain a report by analysts independent of Her Majesty's Government about how the changes brought about by this legislation and other changes since May 1997 have affected the accessibility of courts to court users.'.
      Amendment No. 55, in page 44, line 14 [Clause 92], at end insert—
      '(3A) The Lord Chancellor may not under this section prescribe fees which seek to recover—

      (a) the costs of judicial salaries; or

      (b) the notional cost in use of heritage buildings.'.

      Mr. Heath: At the first sitting of the Committee that considered the Bill, I said that the first group of amendments that we were debating went to the crux of the Bill and dealt with the key issue for many Committee members—the accessibility to justice that is conferred or denied by the Bill. The present group of amendments goes even wider and deals with three key issues that will be encapsulated in our debates this afternoon. First, there is the issue of judicial independence; secondly, physical accessibility to justice; and thirdly, financial accessibility to justice. I shall deal with each issue in turn.
      The issue of judicial independence is encapsulated in new clause 2, as well as new clause 4, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins). Without wishing to be too pompous about the issue,

      393
      there is a fundamental constitutional arrangement that we would be unwise to dislodge. There are three pillars of democracy—the Executive, the legislature and the judiciary—and our democracy works best when each not only preserves its identity but maintains its independence from the others. Indeed, although it has never been written in our constitution because we have no written constitution, it appears in the constitutions of countries with similar jurisprudence. It was clearly enunciated, for instance, by the founding fathers of the democracy of the United States—John Adams could not have been plainer in what he said on the issue.
      When we are talking about the independence of the judiciary, we are not talking about some supposed freedom from criticism that the judiciary ought to enjoy. It is entirely proper that occasionally both the legislature and the Executive have the opportunity to criticise the court process. Indeed, people who say that politicians should have nothing to do with the structures of the judiciary are wrong, as that is essentially a political issue. However, we must be sure that the judiciary is independent in its actions, decision making and the way in which it operates. If those dividing lines begin to be blurred, it is too easy for an Executive to exercise an unhealthy influence on the judiciary. It is probably unfashionable to quote Plato, but he said it all in "The Republic":
      "What I say is that 'just' or 'right' means nothing but what is in the interest of the stronger party."
      The stronger party will always be the Executive if left to its own devices, which is why we hold the judiciary's independence to be important.
      Friction is to be expected—there will always be times when the judiciary takes a different view from the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State must accept that. Some do so with good grace, and some do so with rather less than good grace. Although I am not the greatest fan of Lord Irvine, I believe he did a good job of preserving that view of the independence of the judiciary, both in Cabinet and elsewhere. In evidence that he gave to a Committee of this House, he said that
      "maturity requires that when you get court decisions you favour, you do not clap and when you get a court decision which is against you, you do not boo."
      He was right. He did not refer to the Home Secretary by name, so one cannot assume that he had the Home Secretary in mind. Nevertheless, there is a clear dictum there that is worth underlining.
      Mr. A. J. Beith: My hon. Friend may have noted that although we were able to elicit those words from Lord Irvine in Committee, we had difficulty in getting anything quite so strong out of the current Lord Chancellor when we put the same questions to him, hoping that he would be as robust in his response.
      Mr. Heath: Not for the first time, my right hon. Friend goes to the heart of the matter. The changes in the Department, not just in personnel—it is unhealthy to personalise the matter too much—the changes in the way that the Department works, and particularly the changes that are envisaged, such as the removal of the
      394
      position of Lord Chancellor and the moves towards a new Department, mean that there are far fewer protections than there have been up to this point. Up to now, however unsatisfactory it has been, we have had a Cabinet Minister who was also a member of the legislature and the head of the judiciary, and could make that point repeatedly if the judiciary was under attack from other Ministers. In future that will not be the case unless we do something to replace the present situation. There is a lacuna in the make-up of the Cabinet that needs to be filled.
      Some may hope that that will be done not in the Cabinet but outside, by the Lord Chief Justice. Lord Woolf is doing a remarkably good job of maintaining that position. So adamant is he that he will protect the position of the judiciary that he has delayed his retirement expressly for that purpose. Having said that he learned at "a very late hour" of the significant constitutional changes that the Government have put in train, he feels it is his duty as Lord Chief Justice to ensure that judicial independence is protected, and that the quality of justice for future generations is protected. I agree with him, but I do not believe that that can be done entirely from the position of the judiciary outside Government. That is why the new clause is so important.
      The Government accept that there is a risk of the principle of judicial independence being eroded. They made reference to it in the consultation papers that they issued. They said that there is a question that is properly asked, and I accept that. I want to make clear our reply to that question, which is that there is a need for a statutory basis for judicial independence, and that the Bill is as good a vehicle as any to establish it. I hope that the Minister will respond in kind to that before we consider very important legislation in the next Session dealing with the setting up of the Supreme Court and the process for taking judicial appointments away from the Lord Chancellor.
      Mr. John Bercow: I am working on the assumption that new clause 2 is a probing clause, notwithstanding the legitimate and good intentions that underlie it. On the strength of the Government's track record to date, does the hon. Gentleman fear that the likely response will be for Ministers to profess their support for the principle of the independence of the judiciary in general, while in practice failing to observe it in the particular?
      Mr. Heath: In the latter point the hon. Gentleman is right, but in the former he is not. I am deadly serious about having something in statute that at least attempts to preserve the independence of the judiciary. Indeed, his colleagues clearly feel the same way in terms of the new clause that they have tabled to the same effect.
      I have my worries, because as soon as we move away from the specific position of Lord Chancellor to dealing with a Secretary of State—as we know, in the way that British law is constituted, Secretaries of State are interchangeable and there is no specific Secretary of State to whom a duty may be applied, other than the Lord Chancellor—the duty will become a general duty, which I think will be largely ignored. This may be imperfect phrasing, but the principle must be right and it must be one on which the House has a clear view. I hope that it will be expressed later this evening.

      395
      I am happy to see that my amendment No. 1 also carries the names of Conservative Front Benchers, which is hardly surprising as we made common cause on the issue in Committee and elsewhere. The amendment deals with accessibility, which has been at the core of almost all our debates on the subject. We had sapient advice from the Select Committee on the Lord Chancellor's Department as to what ought to be in the Bill. Indeed, the wording I have chosen is exactly that recommended by the Committee, which I believe it took from evidence it received from Professor Bridges of Warwick university. I think that it is right.
      The amendment deals with a general duty of ensuring not only that courts are simply "efficient and effective", as the Bill says, but that they are accessible to the people who need access to them. The words "efficient and effective" are good in themselves, but they can disguise a multitude of sins. As I said in Committee, it would be efficient and effective to have a single court, which would run at a low unit cost. It would not, however, be accessible to most of our constituents and it would not be in the interests of justice.
      The Government's response throughout has been to point to clause 30, which deals with the accessibility of courthouses, and the amendment that, with whatever degree of reluctance, they accepted from another place. I shall be clear about this: I accept that that is a major advance. The Government tried desperately to prevent it in the Lords, despite the fact that they are now saying that it is the best thing since sliced bread. They did not want it in the Bill because they know, as I do, that throughout the country courthouses have been closing year after year. I have to say, however, that that happened not only under this Administration but under the previous one.
      What is the effect of those courthouses closing? First, people feel more and more remote from the criminal justice system. Secondly, particularly in rural areas such as mine and in small towns throughout the country, they feel that neither the police nor any other aspect of the criminal justice system has any interest in them any more. Furthermore, it will make for extra expense and inconvenience for everybody who has to use the courts—whether that be defendants, witnesses, the probation service, the police service or solicitors, who are finding it increasingly difficult to recruit to local criminal practice—other than those who run them. An additional and perverse effect will be that where police officers are required to escort prisoners they will be taken out for long periods from the local areas where we all want to see them policing. That is unfortunate.
      The Government's view is that once courthouses have been dealt with, the whole problem has been dealt with. I disagree, because there is a lot more in the Bill where accessibility ought to underlie the position of the Lord Chancellor and the Department. For instance, it would be possible to maintain a courthouse and not hold a single sitting in it. That would be ludicrous, but we have seen similar things happen on the railways, where services are maintained but not advertised so that they can eventually be closed. It is quite likely, however, that major cases will be consistently moved to more and more distant courthouses. I believe not just that the geographical position of courthouses should be maintained, but that courts should hold convenient and regular sittings. Amendment No. 1 provides for that general duty of accessibility.
      396
      4.45 pm
      Another point made in Committee—a valid point, I think—was that some courthouses might be accessible in geographical terms but not accessible in terms of structure to some people. My amendment would ensure that what is now the Department for Constitutional Affairs had an interest not just in maintaining the existence of courthouses, but in bringing them to a standard appropriate for the administration of justice, particularly in rural areas. I believe that all Opposition parties support the amendment. I shall listen carefully to the Minister's response, because we may well wish to press the amendment to a Division later.
      Amendment No. 55 deals with fee structure and with financial barriers to justice. An extraordinary arrangement introduced not by the current Government but by their predecessor, by stealth, has had insidious effects. Under that arrangement, civil court fees should recover the full costs of the proceedings. That has never been publicly announced as a policy, and the House has never been asked to adjudicate on it. At one stage it was axiomatic that the state met the costs of judicial salaries and court accommodation; fees were not a product of the costs incurred in the administration of justice. I am very concerned about the change, which presages a vicious spiral in costs that will eventually deprive many people of fair process.
      I am not alone in that view. My amendment is very similar to one suggested by the Law Society, which rightly takes the matter extremely seriously. It says that the policy of full cost recovery has placed considerable pressure on court fees, which have risen by about 12 per cent. in the past three or four years—about double the rate of inflation. Nor does the arrangement provide enough cash for the courts; the civil courts are still experiencing a great deal of difficulty.
      Full cost recovery would be fine if—a big "if"—it were held that the court system in civil cases was there purely for the good of those involved in the proceedings, but I do not believe that to be the case. I believe that there is a common good in providing justice and mediation in such cases. That is the traditional view, held by most English-speaking jurisdictions. This policy is clearly Treasury-led: I cannot believe that any Lord Chancellor initiated it. What can be done to ameliorate it? My amendment provides for two major exceptions.
      The first exception relates to judicial salaries. It is nonsensical that we should seek to recover the salary costs of the judiciary through court fees. That is a non sequitur—it is inappropriate and we should finish it. Secondly, there is the notional cost of heritage buildings. It will not have escaped hon. Members' notice that many of our court buildings are rather fine and are often in very expensive parts of the cities that they serve. We have only to look at the Royal Courts of Justice to see the apotheosis of high architecture in the court system. It is an enormously expensive listed building with huge maintenance requirements to keep it in the style in which English Heritage believes that it should be accustomed. Those costs are loaded on to the court fees that are applied. That is ridiculous. The average litigant, if asked to give their opinion on the appropriate venue, would say, "The cheapest hut that you can find, m'lud, because that will reduce my court fees." I do not advocate that because some court buildings are fine buildings that are

      397
      well suited to their purpose, but the notional cost of their usage that the Treasury works out should not be recovered from people who are seeking justice. My proposal is a sensible compromise—it is a compromise because I do not believe that there should be any linkage between costs and fees—that would at least take out some of the most unacceptable parts of the calculation of recovery costs.
      This group of amendments addresses three basic principles: first, judicial independence, because nothing could be more important in constitutional terms; secondly, the physical accessibility of courts, because nothing could be more important to many of our constituents who find themselves deprived of a courthouse within easy reach of where they live; and thirdly, financial accessibility, because it is a fundamental principle that no one should be deprived of justice simply because they cannot afford to go to court to establish the rightness of their claim. I look forward to the Minister's response.
      Mr. Nick Hawkins: As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said, our parties made common cause on several issues in Committee, and we do so again today. As well as commenting on the Liberal Democrat new clauses and amendments, I shall discuss those that we have tabled.
      I join the hon. Gentleman in his appropriate tributes to the continuing work of the Lord Chief Justice in standing up for judicial independence. I agree with the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who is Chairman of the Select Committee on the Lord Chancellor's Department, that the present Lord Chancellor appears to be not as robust a defender of that crucial principle as was his predecessor. I agree with the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome that there is a gap in the Cabinet in terms of fighting for judicial independence.
      The issue goes beyond judicial independence. We are concerned, too, about the independence and impartiality with which the Government will treat the lay magistracy. Our new clause 4 therefore goes a little further than the Liberal Democrat new clause by proposing that the Lord Chancellor and the new Department for Constitutional Affairs should be
      "under a general duty to preserve and maintain the independence, impartiality and integrity of the judiciary and the lay magistracy".
      Are we right to be so suspicious about the Government? We have every ground to be suspicious, not only because of such matters as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome rightly talked about—the closure of courthouses and other interferences, and the Home Secretary's regular levelling of criticism, in public print, of judges—but because of the way in which this Government have approached other senior appointments in recent times. In particular, I want to draw attention to the recent, rather bizarre, choice of the new Director of Public Prosecutions. It has caused great concern at all levels of the legal profession, particularly among criminal practitioners to whom I have spoken, that a senior barrister—albeit of undoubted ability—whose whole career has been based on criminal defence work has suddenly been appointed as the new DPP.
      398
      There is also great concern that more than an element of cronyism might be involved in that appointment, given the chambers from which that gentleman came.
      It is strongly felt—not only by us, but by practitioners of many political persuasions and of none—that many more highly qualified people with experience of prosecutions should have been considered for the post of DPP, ahead of the person whom the Government chose. Of course, it subsequently being revealed that the new DPP had a serious criminal conviction for drugs offences—albeit from a long time ago in his youth—was also a matter of grave concern. Sufficient question marks exist for that appointment not to have happened. The possibility that such things might happen in future reinforces the need for the Bill to include a protection for the independence, integrity and impartiality of the judiciary and of the lay magistracy. Of course, we do not disagree with the Liberal Democrats' new clause 2, but our new clause 4 is certainly more far-reaching. I hope that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome agrees that either new clause would be an improvement on the Government's current drafting—[Interruption.] I am glad to receive his assent to that proposition.
      The Government have closed many courthouses—more than 100, according to the answer to my last parliamentary written question on the matter. The Minister will say that courthouses were closing under the previous Government, which is of course true, but that does not justify yet further closures. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome rightly said, as a result justice is becoming less local and less accessible. We debated this matter extensively in Committee, but it is worth ensuring that such important points are made again today in this Chamber. Often, commentators and reporters pay far too little attention to what happens in Committee; more notice is taken of what is said on Report and on Third Reading. We have become too used to Ministers trotting out the same tired cliché: that magistrates courts committees are taking decisions on court closures. As we pointed out in Committee, MCCs have been so boxed in by Government guidance that, in effect, such guidance is forcing court closures. That is happening because the Government do not value the local element of justice sufficiently highly.
      During the past few years, we have heard at parliamentary questions many examples of the effects of court closures. In a highly publicised case in rural Wales, a defendant had to walk to court because the courthouse in which his case might have been tried many years ago had been closed, and there was no effective public transport. The case came to prominence when the defendant received a more lenient sentence because the court felt that, in the absence of public transport, he had made valiant attempts to get to court, walking some 30 miles. I agree very much with the forceful words of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome that we must return to the basis of local magistrates, with knowledge of their local area, making judgments on cases.
      Our amendments Nos. 48, 49 and 50 are intended to introduce into the Bill a mechanism to ensure that we have local justice again. There should be a magistrates court in every local authority. My local authority has just lost its last one, and it is wrong that a town the size of Camberley—the main town in my constituency—and a local authority the size of Surrey Heath should no longer have a single magistrates court between them.

      399
      5 pm
      The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said that his suggestion that courthouse buildings might stay open but not be used might be far-fetched, and drew a parallel with railway lines that were theoretically open, but the service never publicised. However, with the last remaining courthouse in my constituency, the Government did precisely what he is worried about. Technically, the courthouse at Camberley remained a courthouse, but it was not used for some time—more than a year, I think—before a closure decision was finally announced. What the hon. Gentleman suggested is already happening, so his example was not far-fetched at all. Our three amendments, taken together, will introduce a proper safeguard so that there are no more magistrates court closures than are absolutely necessary.
      Amendment No. 50 would also ensure that there was a proper check on how the legislation is working. I have already said that there are good reasons not to trust the Government on such issues, and in the amendment I have sought to ensure that in future a proper analysis is made. This is a Government of constantly fiddled figures in every area, from health to education and from law and order to transport, so we need a completely independent analysis, unconnected with Her Majesty's Government, in the form of a report back to the House—and, undoubtedly, the incoming Conservative Government after the next election will need to correct the errors.
      We agree with the Liberal Democrats' amendment No. 55 on judicial salaries, although as it was tabled quite late, as were some of ours, we did not have the chance to add our names to it. I strongly agree with the views of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome both on judicial salaries and on heritage building costs. As he rightly says, even now, with increases in court costs well above inflation, imposing an enormous strain on practitioners and their clients, the civil courts in particular still have problems, and we are concerned about that.
      It is always difficult to predict the future, but unless complete disasters arise as a result of the Bill, it seems unlikely that there will be another major piece of courts legislation for a few years at least, so we ought to take the opportunity offered by the Bill to ensure that issues such as the accessibility of courthouses and the independence of the judiciary and the lay magistracy are dealt with now. Although, as the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, in another place the Government were dragged kicking and screaming to agree to an amendment to clause 30, it would be far better for those crucial issues to be dealt with right at the beginning of what will become the Courts Act. Unless that happens, the legislation will be too weak to protect sufficiently the independence of one of the three pillars of our constitution.
      There is common cause between the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome and myself on a number of the issues. Our amendments, taken together, go somewhat wider than his and would be even more appropriate. I, like him, will now wait to see whether we hear the same tired old clichés from the Minister, or whether he will address the issues seriously.
      Mr. George Howarth: I apologise to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) because I was not in my place for the early part of his speech. Unfortunately, I was travelling on the west coast main line, which has not been at its most reliable today. I shall be brief and focus on new clause 4 and the speech of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins).
      If one reads new clause 4, it is difficult to oppose—rather like motherhood and apple pie. It talks about maintaining
      "the independence, impartiality and integrity of the judiciary and the lay magistracy."
      What I find disturbing about the speech made by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath—and, to some extent, disturbing about what I heard of the speech of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome—is the complacency of it all. It is as though everything is working wonderfully, and all we have to do is maintain the integrity of the judiciary and the lay magistracy so that everything will be okay. I have to say that, if the experience of my constituency is anything to go by, it is not all going very well.
      I provide one small example to illustrate my point. Obviously, I shall not mention any names because court cases may still be pending. A young man in my constituency, aged 15, is on an antisocial behaviour order. Strictly speaking, it is an interim ASBO. He is a one-child crime wave, which is the tabloid way of describing it. Frankly, he represents considerable and dangerous aggravation to people living in the area: people are intimidated and afraid. Because of this young man's activities, one block of flats may have to be pulled down.
      This young man was put on an interim ASBO, but he breached it on five occasions and was taken back to the magistrates court, which then decided to release him, causing outrage to constituents living in the vicinity of where he lives and carries out his activities. His solicitor then took the case to the Crown Court and had the conditions of the ASBO, which included the stipulation that he should not drive a motorised vehicle, varied, with the result that, for some reason beyond my comprehension, the Crown Court decided to take that condition out altogether. It is in any case an offence for him to drive or take a vehicle without the owner's consent, but why the Crown Court should remove that condition is, as I said, totally beyond me. Subsequently, the young man committed further breaches and was taken to see a judge in chambers to discuss bail conditions. The judge decided that, because they were all public order offences, none of them should carry a custodial sentence. Now that young man is back out on the streets.
      The local authority and the police had done much painstaking work in that case, and were utterly shattered by the way in which the courts dealt with it. Such cases are often seen as low-grade street crime and disorder. In fact, whole communities are literally locked into their houses because of such activities, particularly at night. They are not taken sufficiently seriously and I believe that that problem needs to be dealt with.
      I have written to the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, not with the intention of interfering in any subsequent court cases, but simply to

      401
      point out that the system is not working. The truth is that communities feel desperately let down by the judiciary in such cases. If ASBOs cannot take into account a series of otherwise unimportant offences, which create a pattern when put together, the whole point of the legislation—I was a junior Minister in the Home Office when the original legislation was passed—has been missed. If the courts are not prepared to use custodial sentences, when the orders attached to an ASBO are breached, ASBOs are virtually unenforceable. When local authorities and the police do their job properly—as they have done in my area for some time—and take cases to court, but the courts fail to deal with them properly, the failure lies with the courts, not with the local authorities and the police. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath should be a little less complacent in speaking about the courts than he was in his speech a few minutes ago.
      Mr. Beith: The members of the Committee will be glad that both Conservative and Liberal Democrat Front Benchers have taken seriously several points that the Committee drew to the attention of the House earlier, and that we are continuing to pursue them at this stage in the Bill's progress. The issue of judicial independence, referred to in new clauses 2 and 4, did not arise on Report, but it has occupied us since, especially in the light of the constitutional changes announced by the Government that are starting to take effect. I am persuaded that it would improve the Bill to have the duty to ensure judicial independence listed as one of the Lord Chancellor's duties in statute and the Bill provides the opportunity to do so.
      I do not claim that the current occupant of the post of Lord Chancellor, the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, is not, in principle, in favour of judicial independence, but I am not convinced that he regards himself as having a uniquely important role in defending it, as his predecessor did. Indeed, over many years, many of his predecessors saw it as part of their constitutional duty as Lord Chancellor. For many of them, it justified the hybrid nature of the Lord Chancellor's role. They felt that as judge and head of the judiciary they were in a better position to defend judicial independence in Cabinet. I agree with the Government that that hybrid role is unsatisfactory in principle, even though many occupants of the position have made it work well in practice. I do not, therefore, oppose the Government's general line of reform, but we are in danger of losing the Lord Chancellor's unique role in Cabinet of standing up for the principle of judicial independence in certain political circumstances that have led Ministers in various Governments to attack judges or to create a sense of insecurity because they have been unhappy with judges' decisions.
      The Lord Chancellor's frantic attempts to divest himself of his role to meet some timetable for abolishing the post altogether militate against ensuring that the important jobs that he now does remain provided for in the system in a way that does not dilute them or make them less significant. My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) mentioned the fact that duties imposed on a Secretary of State are common to Secretaries of State generally, and can be reallocated
      402
      at will between them. That is how our system of government works. However, that does not apply to the duties of the Lord Chancellor, especially his duty in relation to judicial independence. Therefore, unless some other mechanism is found, the removal of the post puts that duty at risk. Members of the judiciary fear that it will weaken their independence and deprive them of one of the means of asserting it at Cabinet level.
      The Lord Chancellor is in such a desperate hurry to remove his role because he has been given a timetable to do so. The original timetable for abolishing the post of Lord Chancellor was between 6 pm and 10 pm on the Thursday that the changes were announced, until it became clear that that was impossible. By 10 pm, we had a Lord Chancellor in place who had to get his wig ready for the following morning's sitting of the House of Lords. It is not a necessary part of removing his role as a judge or as Speaker of the House of Lords that we should hastily remove his duty to ensure judicial independence. At times, the Lord Chancellor seems to be like a stripper with an early train to catch, removing items of clothing-almost literally-as quickly as possible to meet the timetable.
      5.15 pm
      The Lord Chancellor's duty is important and it must be safeguarded. If that means that the post of Lord Chancellor, divested of some of its constitutionally hybrid duties, has to remain in Cabinet for some time to come, what harm would there be? The holding of the post of Lord Chancellor alongside that of Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs has become part of the system. The post of Lord Chancellor and the duties that have accrued to it, as well as any others that we may specify in the measure, would be one way of continuing to safeguard those things until the Government come up with another or better way. So far, they have not done so. I welcome the inclusion of such a provision in the Bill.
      My second point is about the general duty on accessibility, which relates to amendment No. 1. The Committee referred to the desirability of that general duty. Paragraph 19 of our report stated that
      "the Bill as presently drafted may lead to centralised decision-making on court closures which does not take proper account of local circumstances. Accessibility includes ensuring that courts sit in places which are geographically convenient to victims, witnesses and other court users and are accessible by public transport".
      The Committee felt that those factors should be part of the general duty.
      Some attempt has been made to meet the requirement in other ways, but Ministers must be aware from the representations that they receive that Members on both sides of the House are deeply concerned about closures, either those that have happened or those that they fear may happen in future, and about other aspects of accessibility. Sometimes, as my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome pointed out, those aspects may conflict; for example, ensuring that courts are accessible to the disabled can give rise to questions about some courthouses. However, the difficulty and delay in ensuring that a courthouse is fit for the disabled should be attended to; it should not lead to closure, thus making the courthouse inaccessible for many other

      403
      people. It is highly desirable that the general duty of accessibility should be placed on the Lord Chancellor, which is why we want it to be included in the Bill.
      My final point relates to amendment No. 55 and was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome: full cost recovery. In its evidence to the Select Committee, the Law Society summed up the case rather well. It stated that the concept of full cost recovery
      "fails to recognise that the courts have a public as well as a private role".
      We said:
      "The judicial process serves important public functions by clarifying and developing the law and setting precedents for litigants to settle their cases or run their affairs, which is of wider benefit."
      The decisions that a particular court makes and the process whereby it makes them are important to people who will never see the inside of that courtroom and who are not paying the costs of that case. The case may settle issues that will enable them to know what the law is and to reach sensible decisions on matters affected by the law. That wider public benefit makes nonsense of any attempt to move towards a system of full cost recovery. In representing the concerns of the Select Committee, I should be happier if the legislation could be worded so that that point was much clearer.
      The Department has serious budgetary problems and is under constant Treasury pressure to achieve full cost recovery—a notion that is present in so many other parts of the public service but when applied to the courts is plain wrong. A balance must be struck. The contribution from fines and fees is the means neither to fund our courts system nor to decide what the total budget of the system should be. When considering the case sometimes put by the Treasury—that the litigants in a case should always meet the entire cost—Ministers must have regard to the much wider public service that courts provide. Of course, there are circumstances in which it is entirely appropriate that substantial costs should be met by litigants, but there are others in which it is not and the wider public benefit must be recognised.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): Clearly, in Committee, we touched on a number of those matters, and it is not surprising therefore that both Opposition parties have posed questions about accessibility, independence and so on in this group of amendments. I will try my best to respond to each amendment and new clause in turn.
      New clause 2, which was tabled by the Liberal Democrats, and new clause 4, which is very similar and was tabled by the official Opposition, are both about trying to ensure that the Lord Chancellor has a duty to preserve and maintain judicial independence. It is clear that the Lord Chancellor's existing role and duty is to uphold and maintain the independence of the judiciary and magistracy. That has been a cornerstone of the Lord Chancellor's role for a very long time indeed, so a general duty and responsibility already exists. Of course, the Lord Chancellor's duty is not statutory, but it is no less real for that fact. It is a duty of very real constitutional significance, as the consultation paper on judicial appointments already makes clear.
      Successive Lord Chancellors have regarded the maintenance of judicial independence as one of their most serious and important responsibilities. I can assure
      404
      the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) that the current Lord Chancellor also continues to observe that responsibility with the highest regard. I am not quite sure about the right hon. Gentleman's analogy with a stripper trying to catch a train, but I will ensure that I pass on his observations in great detail.
      Of course the judges have always recognised that the Lord Chancellor has such a duty, which is a well-established and widely acknowledged characteristic of the Lord Chancellor's role. So there is an accepted duty that does not rely in itself on legislation to strengthen it. Nevertheless, new changes are clearly afoot: the move to abolish the office of Lord Chancellor and developing a new focus as the new office of Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs has been created.
      Those serious issues merit consideration, and the consultation paper on judicial appointments asks in paragraph 21 whether the Lord Chancellor's responsibilities to defend judicial independence should be embodied in statute, but it would be wrong to reach a conclusion now, as that would pre-empt the ongoing consultation exercise, which runs until 7 November. We need to consider the responses to that consultation very carefully before reaching a conclusion on whether it would be appropriate to legislate in such a way.
      Some respondents might prefer to follow the example of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002, by which a statutory duty to protect judicial independence was placed on all those concerned in the administration of justice, not just on the Secretary of State alone. Again, we should be open-minded—the consultation has not finished—so the time to decide has not yet been reached, and in any case I do not believe that the Bill is the appropriate vehicle. The Government believe that the question will be addressed again during the process of abolishing the post of Lord Chancellor, and we will return to the issue at that point, when we are fully in possession of the consultation responses.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) made a number of comments. He is clearly keen to see radical improvements in the justice system to serve the public. Of course we are talking about judicial independence when we refer to new clauses 2 and 4, but that does not preclude hon. Members on both sides of the House from voicing their views and concerns about the operation of the criminal justice service. He made powerful points, and he is absolutely right to suggest that we must all strive to have a more effective justice system.
      Under amendment No. 1—originally a Liberal Democrat amendment, to which Conservative Members have subsequently added their names—the Lord Chancellor would have a duty to ensure that the courts system is accessible. Of course, accessibility is extremely important, but the Bill already covers that matter quite amply. First, the Government have already accepted amendments about accessibility. Clause 30(2), which relates to the places, dates and sittings, now states:
      "In exercising his powers…the Lord Chancellor shall have regard to the need to ensure that court-houses are accessible to persons resident in each local justice area."
      I am glad that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) says that that is a major advance;

      405
      indeed, it is. Furthermore, on the issue of fees, clause 92 says that the Lord Chancellor
      "must have regard to the principle that access to the courts must not be denied."
      Accessibility is therefore already included in the Bill. The duty to run an effective justice system already encompasses the concept of accessibility, and clause 1 places on the Lord Chancellor the duty to run an efficient and effective court system. Surely the word "effective" encompasses notions of accessibility. There are of course many different, laudable descriptives that could be added to the Bill, and we could have a long debate about which objectives should be inserted with the key concepts of "efficient" and "effective". Should we have a "responsive" court system, a "high-quality" court system, an "open and transparent" system, or a "user-friendly" system? All those are, of course, important, and all are encompassed by the sense, as we framed it in the Bill, of an effective court system.
      Accessibility will be enhanced by the Bill, but it will also be enhanced by the unification of courts administration, which is a central tenet mentioned and provided for in this Bill. It will enable a more flexible use of the court estate, with the possibility of shared courtroom accommodation, which could prevent courts from closing as new opportunities to use their space productively are opened up. Courts boards, too, will be a new, additional safeguard to accessibility, and will be community-focused, contributing to the development of local plans and local priorities, and much more tailored to local needs. No courthouse will be closed without the involvement of a courts board in the decision.
      Accessibility is also about the facilities available to court users, on which the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome touched earlier. Location is not the only consideration for accessibility, and facilities such as video links allowing vulnerable witnesses easier and less traumatic opportunities to give evidence all help to facilitate accessibility. Using the internet, such as the money claims online site that has been developed for issuing claims and checking on case progress, also aids accessibility. As several hon. Members have observed, improving disabled access to court buildings and the court estate is also crucial. I therefore believe that the issue of accessibility is amply dealt with in the Bill, and that amendment No. 1 is not required.
      Under amendments Nos. 48 and 49, the Opposition suggest that the Lord Chancellor should have a duty to ensure that at least one magistrates court is provided per district council or per local authority borough area. It is a crude attempt to raise the issue, but I accept that Opposition Members are seeking to highlight what they perceive as an insufficiency of supply of magistrates courts at a local level. I have to say to hon. Members that decisions on where courts should be located are based on much more than simply local authority council areas. Local authorities vary greatly in size and geography: some metropolitan councils are enormous and some local councils are very small. It is not fair or equitable to base a strategic decision on court location simply on the basis of where a local authority boundary lies. The clauses on the unification of courts administration will help, and better use of the courts estate and of non-court buildings will allow more
      406
      appropriate and flexible approaches to be taken, potentially allowing magistrates courts to be located in future where none exist at present. There are a number of other reasons why these amendments should not be accepted, not least because they refer to the United Kingdom whereas the clause extends only to England and Wales, but I do not want to fall back on the old issue of deficiencies in drafting. Suffice it to say that at present we have 388 magistrates courts in England and Wales and 352 unitary authorities, district councils and boroughs. Although I am sure that not every council area has a magistrates court within it, it is most likely that the vast majority of them do.
      5.30 pm
      Amendment No. 50, tabled by the Opposition, rather oddly suggests that the annual report that the Lord Chancellor must produce should include a report on the whole of the legislation and on other changes since May 1997. The scope of the proposed annual report is already wide. It will be an annual report into the efficiency and effectiveness of the court system. It is quite odd to suggest that the focus should be on this Bill when it is not just about the court system or unification of the courts administration, but contains provisions about the Northern Ireland Official Solicitor and the process for making periodical payments for civil damages. The legislative vehicle is not the best vessel to mirror if we are aiming to produce a well-written, well-structured annual report.
      It is also interesting that Opposition Members have picked May 1997 as the start for the court system report. It is tempting to consider what activities took place before that date, but perhaps comment on those adverse circumstances is best left to another occasion.
      The amendment also calls for an independent analysis of the effect that the Bill and other pieces of legislation since 1997 have had. We already have a robust process for audit and scrutiny. The Government are not against independent scrutiny. The new Constitutional Affairs Committee was established earlier this year under the august chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed—I say that because I have not yet appeared before the Committee; who knows I might change my view. With the publication of the reports of the magistrates courts service inspectorate and the National Audit Office, there are already ample opportunities for independent scrutiny. Amendment No. 50 does not stand the test of what is required.
      Amendment No. 55 is significant in that it suggests that fees prescribed in civil courts cannot be used to recover the cost of judicial salaries or the notional cost of using heritage buildings, which are presumably listed buildings. Although it is a slightly separate matter, it is important to consider the context. Fees are prescribed in the civil court justice system because, unlike in the criminal courts, cases are brought by private individuals or bodies seeking damages and redress, rather than on the basis of public interest. The Government have a long-standing policy of seeking to recover the full cost of the civil court services provided, including judicial salaries—something that was decided in 1992—and the notional cost of using buildings in the court estate, as decided in 1982.

      407
      That policy is based on the general principle that parties to cases are expected to pay the full cost of that part of the civil justice system that they use to resolve their private disputes. Recovering those court costs through fees ensures the protection of taxpayer resources, which can best be targeted at priority areas for the public benefit. To exclude the elements in question would understate the true cost of the service by about £130 million a year for the cost of civil judicial salaries alone. No doubt that would all be paid for by the top rate of tax to be imposed by the Liberal Democrats. It is worth totting that up as a spending commitment for future reference.
      The amendment would institute a subsidy of that sum—and more besides—for all types of civil cases, including business cases brought by large corporations. A far better system than that crude subsidy is one in which exemptions and remissions are based on need, as they are in the case of the family proceedings subsidy or the 5 million people who are eligible for automatic exemptions from fees because they are receiving working family tax credit, pension credit, income support and so forth. That is a better approach than excluding whole categories of costs from the fees that should be paid by litigants. It is perfectly reasonable for fees to include a recovery element, and to look for full recovery of costs to cover those matters. I hope that the amendment is rejected and that the House will not accept this group of amendments.
      Mr. Heath: With the leave of the House, I should like to say that we have had an interesting little debate. I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) for his support, and that of his colleagues, and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), whose analogy of the Lord Chancellor as a stripper with a train to catch will live long in my memory. The next time I see the noble Lord Falconer, I shall try hard not to let that image form in my mind as I am speaking to him.
      I understand the frustrations of the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) with the legal system; I often share them. He is not the only one to have experienced cases such as these, as he knows. I have no difficulty accepting that there is a proper place for criticism of the system as a whole and, sometimes, of individual decisions. Indeed, the judiciary is sometimes guilty of the charge of a degree of unwarranted complacency. I recall that Lord Hewart told the Lord Mayor's banquet in 1936 that
      "His Majesty's Judges are satisfied with the almost universal admiration in which they are held."
      I would not suggest that that is necessarily a statement of the current position; nor would I suggest that many present-day judges would be quite so complacent about the esteem in which they may or may not be held by the public. There is, however, a clear division between criticism and pressure from a person in a position of authority—that is, a Cabinet Minister, or the Government as a whole. That was the distinction that I was trying to draw.
      Mr. George Howarth:I would not want the hon. Gentleman to think that I believe that the Secretary of State should be able to bring pressure to bear in any particular case. I was using the case that I mentioned to
      408
      illustrate a general principle, namely that the courts do not seem willing to deal with these serious matters in a serious manner.
      Mr. Heath: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and I do not think that there is much between us on this issue. When we return to the question of sentencing guidelines councils in the context of the Criminal Justice Bill, on which there has been broad agreement between the Front Benches and Back Benches of all parties, we shall see that there is a case for not only the Executive, but the House having some sort of handle on what happens in our courts—as long as it does not go further and compromise the independence of the judiciary in coming to their legal decisions.
      Amendment No. 55 deals with the full recovery of costs. The Minister does not seem to accept the idea, which I think is self-evident, that there is a common good in having disputes settled through the legal process. A moment's thought will surely tell us that we are better off living in a country in which these issues are arranged through the courts rather than through fisticuffs, which is often the alternative. There is, therefore, a proper role for the Government in supporting that function. That was always accepted without question until relatively recently—full cost recovery was introduced only relatively recently—and the justification for refusing any support to the system is a flimsy one indeed.
      On the second and perhaps more substantial point of accessibility, this is a matter that we debated long and hard in Committee. Opposition Members are absolutely clear that, whatever the Minister's protestations, a general duty of accessibility needs to be written into the Bill. Judging by what the Minister has said, he does not seem to have a problem with that, because he believes that that is being achieved in any case. The only thing that he does not like is the word that we want to insert into the Bill. He said that we could have a long debate on the words that could be added, but we do not need to do that. We just want one word: "accessibility". I also believe that the House wants that word to be added, and should I have the opportunity later, I should like to test the opinion of the House on that matter.
      I think I have said enough on independence. The Minister asks that we do not pre-empt the consultation process on his White Paper. I believe that constitutional principle pre-empts administrative arrangements. The Lord Chancellor has had a specific role in maintaining judicial independence. Given that that will inevitably be lost in the process of reform, we must ensure that it is stated in some form in statute. We have the support of the Select Committee and the judiciary, which acutely feels under threat. In the light of that, the House should express an opinion.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 122, Noes 284.

      Division No. 327]

      [5:40 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Bercow, John

      Allan, Richard

      Blunt, Crispin

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Boswell, Tim

      Bacon, Richard

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Barrett, John

      Brady, Graham

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Breed, Colin

      409

      Burnside, David

      Maples, John

      Burt, Alistair

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

      Butterfill, John

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Moore, Michael

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Moss, Malcolm

      Cameron, David

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Page, Richard

      Cash, William

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Randall, John

      Redwood, rh John

      Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Cotter, Brian

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Sanders, Adrian

      Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Doughty, Sue

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

      Shepherd, Richard

      Evans, Nigel

      Simmonds, Mark

      Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

      Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

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

      Flight, Howard

      Forth, rh Eric

      Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

      Francois, Mark

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Garnier, Edward

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Goodman, Paul

      Streeter, Gary

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Stunell, Andrew

      Greenway, John

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Syms, Robert

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Heath, David

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Hendry, Charles

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Teather, Sarah

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Holmes, Paul

      Thurso, John

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Trend, Michael

      Howard, rh Michael

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Viggers, Peter

      Jack, rh Michael

      Watkinson, Angela

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Keetch, Paul

      Whittingdale, John

      Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

      Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

      Wiggin, Bill

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Willetts, David

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Lansley, Andrew

      Willis, Phil

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Wilshire, David

      Leigh, Edward

      Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Lidington, David

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      Loughton, Tim

      Young, rh Sir George

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Mclntosh, Miss Anne

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Maclean, rh David

      Tom Brake and

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Mrs. Annette L. Brooke

      NOES

      Ainger, Nick

      Beard, Nigel

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Bell, Stuart

      Alexander, Douglas

      Bennett, Andrew

      Allen, Graham

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Berry Roger

      Best Harold

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Belts, Clive

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Blackman, Liz

      Bailey, Adrian

      Blizzard. Bob

      Baird, Vera

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Banks, Tony

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Brennan, Kevin

      410

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Browne, Desmond

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      Bryant, Chris

      Gardiner, Barry

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Gerrard, Neil

      Burden, Richard

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Burgon, Colin

      Goggins, Paul

      Burnham, Andy

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Grogan, John

      Caborn, rh Richard

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Cairns, David

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Hanson, David

      Caplin Ivor

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Casale Roger

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      Caton, Martin

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Healev, John

      Challen Colin

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Hendrick, Mark

      Chaytor, David

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Clapham, Michael

      Hesford, Stephen

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Heyes, David

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Hodge, Margaret

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hoey, Kate (vauxhall)

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Hopkins Kelvin

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Howarth, rh Alan Newport E

      Clelland, David

      Howarth George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Coaker Vernon

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Cohen, Harry

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Coleman, Iain

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Connarty, Michael

      Hutton, rh John

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Iddon Dr Brian

      Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Cooper, Yvette

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Cousins, Jim

      Cranston, Ross

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Crausby, David

      Jenkins Brian

      Cruddas, Jon

      Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Cummings, John

      Jones Helen (Warrington N)

      Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

      Jones Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Jones Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Jones Martyn (clwyd S)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Joyce Eric (Falkirk W)

      Darling, rh Alistair

      Keen Alan (Feltnam

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Kelly Ruth (Bolton W)

      David, Wayne

      Kemp, Fraser

      Davidson, Ian

      Kidney, David

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      King, Ms Oona (Bethna Green & Bow

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Denham, rh John

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Dismore, Andrew

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Lammy, David

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Edwards, Huw

      Leslie, Christopher

      Efford, Clive

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Farrelly, Paul

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

      Love, Andrew

      Fisher, Mark

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

      Follett, Barbara

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      411

      McCabe, Stephen

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      MacDonald, Calum

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      MacDougall, John

      Salter, Martin

      McFall, John

      Sawford, Phil

      Mclsaac, Shona

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McKechin, Ann

      Shaw, Jonathan

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Sheerman, Barry

      McNulty, Tony

      Sheridan, Jim

      MacShane, Denis

      Short, rh Clare

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

      McWalter, Tony

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Singh, Marsha

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mallaber, Judy

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Stevenson, George

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Martlew, Eric

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Merron, Gillian

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Michael, rh Alun

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Stringer, Graham

      Miliband, David

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Miller, Andrew

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Mole, Chris

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Mountford, Kali

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Tipping, Paddy

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood) Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke) Truswell, Paul

      O' Brien Mike (N Warks)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      O' Hara Edward

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Organ, Diana

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr) Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Perham, Linda

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Picking, Anne

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Plaskitt, James

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Pollard, Kerry

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham) Watts, David

      Pound, Stephen

      White, Brian

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Wills, Michael

      Purchase, Ken

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Purnell, James

      Woodward, Shaun

      Quin rh Joyce

      Woolas, Phil

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Worthington, Tony

      Rammell, Bill

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

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

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      Margaret Moran and

      Ruane, Chris

      Mr. John Heppell

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 3

      CIRCUITS
      '() The courts boards within an individual Circuit may from time to time meet together to consider matters relating to the courts in that Circuit area.
      412
      () Before altering any Circuit area, the Lord Chancellor must consult with the courts boards affected.'.—[Mr. Heath.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Heath: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 56, in page 3, line 35 [Clause 4], leave out from 'specifying' to first 'the' in line 38 and insert—

      '(a) in respect of areas except London, areas which are the same as, or fall entirely within, the police areas listed in Schedule 1 to the Police Act 1996 (c. 16) (division of England and Wales, except London, into police areas), and

      (b) in respect of London, at least five separate areas falling entirely within'.

      No 2, in page 3, line 35 [Clause 4], leave out from 'which' to first 'the' in line 38 and insert—

      '(a) in respect of areas except London, are the same as, or fall entirely within, the police areas listed in Schedule 1 to the Police Act 1996 (c. 16) (division of England and Wales, except London, into police areas), and

      (b) in respect of London, fall entirely within'.

      No. 51, in page 3, line 35 [Clause 4], after 'as', insert
      '(or in any event no larger than)'.
      No. 3, in page 4, line 6 [Clause 5], after 'concerned', insert—
      '() in particular, to scrutinise, review and make recommendations about the way in which the Lord Chancellor is discharging his duty under section 21 in relation to the courts with which the board is concerned;'.
      No. 57, in page 61, line 7 [Schedule 1], after 'board', insert
      ',except the courts board for London,'.
      No. 58, in page 61, line 18 [Schedule 1], at end insert—
      '2A The courts board for London must have—

      (a) at least three members who are judges,

      (b) at least six members who are lay justices, each of whom is assigned to a local justice area the whole or part of which is included in the board's area,

      (c) at least six other members who are persons appearing to the Lord Chancellor to have appropriate knowledge or experience of the work of the courts in the area for which the board acts, and

      (d) at least six more members who are persons appearing to the Lord Chancellor to be representative of people living in the area,

      and may have other such members of a description mentioned in subparagraphs (a) to (d) as the Lord Chancellor considers appropriate.'.
      No. 59, in page 62, line 10 [Schedule 1], at end insert—
      '(c) the establishment of consultation arrangements with local authorities in the area for which the board acts.'.
      Mr. Heath: New clause 3 was tabled by Liberal Democrat and Conservative spokesmen, and is a bit of an anomaly, as it deals with circuits. Originally, I had no intention of bringing up the matter, as generally circuits are not a thing of statute—they are an administrative convenience, albeit one whose foundation goes back to the mists of time. I did not think that we needed clear legislation on court circuits in the Bill. However, my view was entirely changed by my hon. Friend the

      413
      Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke), who passed on to me some disturbing correspondence that she had received from the resident judge at Dorchester, his honour Judge John Beashel, who objected strongly to the way in which the Government have behaved in seeking to amend the western circuit by arbitrarily removing Winchester Crown court from Hampshire and adding it to the south-east circuit. He feels strongly about that, but more importantly, there is unity in the judicial profession on the subject. Indeed, Judge Beashel said in his letter to my hon. Friend:
      "The judiciary are as one in opining that such a move would be very damaging to the administration of justice."
      Judge Beashel includes in his correspondence, of which I have copies, a letter to The Times from the chancellor of the dioceses of Winchester and Portsmouth, Mr. Clark QC, and another letter published in a newspaper that could not have been signed by a more distinguished group of lawyers, including Lord Bridge of Harwich, Lord Ackner, Lord Nolan and others.
      Mr. Mark Oaten rose—
      Mr. Heath: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), who has no doubt received representations on the matter.
      Mr. Oaten: May I supplement my hon. Friend's list by adding that that is the view of many judges in Winchester. Indeed, so concerned are they that they have even attended my surgeries to make representations. The general view is: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
      Mr. Heath: I fully agree with my hon. Friend's observation. Having had to countenance the view of the Lord Chancellor as a stripper with a train to catch, the thought of circuit judges queuing up at my hon. Friend's constituency surgery, presumably appropriately robed, to make their representations, is one that will remain with me for some time.
      To corroborate my hon. Friend's point, however, Judge Brodrick, the resident judge at Winchester—I am sure that he has approached my hon. Friend—and the president of the Council of Her Majesty's Circuit Judges was good enough to produce a briefing paper on the implications of the change. The Government's only argument for changing the western circuit, which has been in existence since time immemorial, although perhaps not in legal terms, is one of bureaucratic tidiness. They want the legal circuits to correspond with the Government office regions.
      6 pm
      I cannot for the life of me see any logic to that. Even in the broadest terms, I do not see how the administration of justice is improved by it, but I do see the cogent arguments adduced by the judges against the proposals. Taking away Winchester produces a great imbalance between the south-eastern and the western circuit in terms of courthouses and the number of judges, especially judges experienced in particular
      414
      specialties, and will affect the travel patterns of people who require access to the law courts, especially in Dorset and areas near Winchester but not near the other courts of the western circuit. I see such strong arguments against that that I cannot believe that the Lord Chancellor is serious in his proposals.
      I understand that the final decision has not yet been taken, but will be made shortly. If such arbitrary decisions are to be made, we need a mechanism to interact with the Lord Chancellor. The courts boards for a whole circuit area seem the most appropriate means of establishing that mechanism.
      It is interesting that the circumstances of Winchester do not seem to apply in Wales and Chester, where the Government are content to allow the anomaly to continue because they say that the legal administrative arrangements are too difficult to disentangle. Exactly the same arguments seem to me as a lay person to apply in Winchester, and my view is supported by members of the judiciary, who have to make the system work. I hope the Minister will give us a simple explanation of such an apparently arbitrary and highhanded decision by the Lord Chancellor, of why there was not prior consultation with those affected, and of what he believes to be the advantages of the proposed arrangement that outweigh the patent disadvantages that have been identified.
      There are six other amendments in the group. I shall say very little about amendment No. 56, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) hopes to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. The arguments are principally to do with London, and as a London Member, my hon. Friend has a particular interest.
      The amendment revisits the argument that we had in Committee about the size of the courts boards areas. It appears to be the Government's view that the courts boards areas will be coterminous with the present police authority areas for the greater part of the country, and in the case of London will be coterminous with the Metropolitan police area, including the area of the City of London police. I argued in Committee and I argue again today through amendment No. 2 that that is a false reconciliation of the relevant areas.
      I am glad that the courts boards areas are not to be bigger than the police authority areas, as was feared in the initial stages of the Bill, but many joint board areas go well beyond the county area for police authorities. I think of my own in Avon and Somerset, as well as the Thames Valley police area and the Greater Manchester area covering a substantial metropolitan area, and similarly in the west midlands. It seems anomalous that simply because there is a single police authority area, there should be a single courts board area for those, whereas for the smaller county constabularies, there should be a discrete courts board area for each—for example, a separate area for Gwent, and another for Bedfordshire.
      It makes sense for courts boards areas not to extend over more than one police authority, and thus more than one probation service or other judicial organisation area. I accept that. However, we have reached a point where the areas are too big to properly represent local citizens. It would be far better were we to resile a little from such amalgamations and consider

      415
      constituent parts of police authority areas. The best example is London, where the situation is rather silly, but the problem exists elsewhere in the country as well.
      On amendment No. 3, we are supported by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) and his hon. Friends. It would allow for scrutiny of the way in which the Lord Chancellor carries out his duty under clause 21 to consult the lay justices, as we must now call them. That is crucial to the successful implementation of the Bill. It is essential that the Lord Chancellor properly consult the lay magistracy to ensure that what he is proposing through the relevant mechanisms will work in local areas.
      The basic level of scrutiny that we suggest in the amendment would provide some sort of check and balance to ensure that the Lord Chancellor keeps to the commitments that he made in the course of discussion of the Bill and in the Bill itself, and that the lay magistracy have a clear avenue through which to raise their concerns if, as I suspect we may find some time in the future, their views are not being taken sufficiently into account.
      New clause 3 on circuits is largely a probing clause to help us better understand the Government's thinking. The proposals on the courts boards encapsulated in amendments Nos. 56, 2 and 57 to 59 are more substantive. The important role of scrutiny is dealt with in amendment No. 3.
      Mr. Hawkins: Once again, as was often the case in Committee, we make common cause with the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and his hon. Friends. On new clause 3, dealing with circuits, like those hon. Members, especially the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), I have had approaches about the matter. I know the strength of feeling among members of the judiciary and members of the Bar. I am delighted to hear that members of the judiciary have even been attending the surgery of the hon. Member for Winchester. The strength of feeling was reinforced for me when the matter was raised with me by a member of the Bar last weekend while I was at a family wedding. In addition to the views expressed by members of the judiciary and senior members of the Bar, the fact that matters are raised at surgeries and even with Members at social events shows the strength of feeling.
      I know Winchester well from my own time in practice. More recently, I had the privilege of sitting with some of the judges there while doing my training for consideration for possible appointment to a recordership, so in relatively recent times I have met some of the judges, just before the proposal was published. Knowing the exceptionally high quality of the judges who sit at Winchester, I understand their concern.
      I very much share the extremely strong views expressed by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome on the lack of logic of making this change simply to fit into what in any event Conservative Members would regard as a rather artificial grouping of areas in a Government office area. I could not agree with him more strongly that there is no logic in saying that a circuit area must match the area of operation of a Government office. Often in Committee, on this Bill
      416
      and on other legislation, I have attacked the Government's mania for change for change's sake and the belief that modernisation is somehow a god that they must aim at in every possible way. This proposal would simply cause damage where there is no positive benefit to be gained whatever.
      As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." I would say, "If it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change." This is one of those occasions on which it is necessary not to change. It would be far better for the administration of justice in Winchester and the surrounding area if the Government backed off from this ill considered proposal. The hon. Gentleman says he hopes that the die is not yet cast and that the final decision has not yet been made. I devoutly hope that too.
      I remember the angst on my old circuit, the historic Midlands and Oxford, when similarly, not all that long ago, Oxford was removed. There was great concern and sadness about that, but this would be an even worse decision. I am therefore pleased to add the views of Conservative Members to the strong views expressed by the hon. Gentleman. I suspect from the presence in the Chamber of the hon. Member for Winchester that we may hear more about this from him in a while.
      Liberal Democrat amendment No. 56 is, in effect, a replacement for the more modest Liberal Democrat amendment No. 2—we will hear about that in due course from the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)—and we have tabled amendment No. 51 to similar effect, which seeks further security that the court areas should not expand. We debated that at length in Committee, but we and the Liberal Democrats are trying to back up the same concept here.
      As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome rightly said, our names appear with those of Liberal Democrat Members on their amendment No. 3 because we agree that clause 5 must provide for a review of what the Lord Chancellor is really up to. We think that it should be clear in the legislation that he must consult lay justices properly under clause 21. For the same reasons as we do not have a great deal of faith in the Government's agenda and their reliability on these matters, we think that this part of the Bill would be a great deal stronger if that provision were written into it.
      Liberal Democrat amendments Nos. 57 and 58 are specific London-based amendments to schedule 1. I am rather cynical about the Liberal Democrats' last-minute replacement of their original amendments with some of these London-based proposals. I suspect that it might be to do with the demotion of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey to being only the future failed Lib Dem mayoral candidate. It must be so depressing to know that he is going into something in which he can only ever come a poor third. Nevertheless, Liberal Democrat amendment No. 59 is a sensible measure on consultation with local authorities. That is well worth while.
      There is a general theme to these proposals—backing up the concept of putting in the Bill safeguards to ensure that the Government do their consultation with the lay magistracy properly and that they do not

      417
      tinker with circuit areas for no good reason. I hope very much that the Minister can respond positively to some of the serious concerns expressed by the Liberal Democrats and me.
      6.15 pm
      Simon Hughes: I am happy to speak in particular to amendments Nos. 56 to 59 and I am grateful for the Minister's courteous response outside the Chamber to the proposal in principle. I look forward to what he will say in response to the amendments standing in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath).
      These proposals would have been on the amendment paper whether I had continued with the full panoply of responsibility for home affairs, whether I was responsible for London matters for my party in this Chamber or whether I was responsible for neither. The issue came to my attention earlier in the year from people in my constituency and elsewhere in London as important for London. In a moment, I will turn to why the amendments have been tabled and why I hope that they find support among Labour Members.
      May I add a word in the context of the wider debate, which my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome introduced? For the record, in my practising years I, too, was a member of the midlands and Oxford circuit. The traditional circuits are not, of course, theologically based or divinely inspired. They were a practical development of a grouping that was convenient for people in terms of carrying out legal work. If people in Hampshire, and in particular in Winchester, feel that they are more naturally linked to their colleagues in the western circuit, it seems to me that they must know best. They do the job day in, day out, week in, week out and year in, year out.
      I hope that the Minister will be positive about the joint pleas from my hon. Friends the Members for Somerton and Frome, for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) and for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) and Conservative Front Benchers. I hope also that we do not go down the road whereby everything always has to follow exactly the same boundaries simply because somebody once decided that they were administratively convenient for something else.
      On the London proposals, may I make remarks to the Minister by way of introduction and to explain where they come from? I share with the Government the view that if the criminal justice system is to be accountable, the ordinary people of England and Wales need to be able to have access to it not only when they are defendants, witnesses, called to sit on the jury or as magistrates or, sadly, are victims, but when they want to know whether the system is working.
      From the Liberal Democrat Benches, my hon. Friends and I have argued that just as we are coming to a consensus in Parliament that the police should be accountable locally in the boroughs, districts, counties and council areas that we all live in, so it is only right that the other bits of the criminal justice system—the probation service and the Court Service—should also be accountable locally. The courts understand that.
      418
      The other day, I went to a very good open day at the Southwark Crown court building by HMS Belfast on the edge of the River Thames. It was a Saturday and there was a very large turnout of people who were seeking to ensure in part that the Court Service is more accessible in that way. I also mean that the public often want to know why certain decisions were made. For example, when the police catch someone who has stolen a car for the fourth time, why do the magistrates or the Crown court pass a sentence that might release that person back into the community perhaps to commit the same offence for a fifth time? It seems to me that such accountability has to be achieved when the accountability of the police and the probation service, as well as that of custodial institutions such as prisons or young offenders' institutions, is being addressed.
      One way in which we need to think of the structures is in terms of how the Court Service can be seen to be growing in confidence in respect of the community. The second is how the people who run it relate to those who are their customers day in, day out. The proposition behind our original proposal—amendment No. 2—also stands in amendments Nos. 56 to 59, which were tabled by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome. It is simply that London, which has three times the population of the next biggest police area in England and Wales, will not be served appropriately by a courts board with the same limited number of representatives—12—as can be found in the smallest police area and all those in between.
      I am not making special pleading because London is the capital city, although that might be relevant, nor am I saying that there might be a special case because we have the central criminal court and the law courts in the Strand as well as the Judicial Committee here and the future supreme court, but I am saying that we have far more courts at all levels in our 33 local authorities. It is just not possible for them to be represented by 12 people. With the best will in the world, it is just not possible. That is not only my view; it is the view of those who share my local bench at Camberwell Green and Tower Bridge.
      I have given the Government two options, amplifying the original proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome. Amendment No. 56 asks for five areas; in fact, it states that there shall be five areas. My hon. Friend originally proposed that London should not be required to be a single area, but I want to ensure that we have five areas. The alternative contained in amendments Nos. 57 to 59 would make the courts board for London much bigger and therefore more representative. I have simply allowed for three times as many members as the Government, because London is three times as big as anywhere else.
      Amendment No. 58 says that there must be at least three members who are judges, at least six members who are lay justices, at least six with relevant experience and six who are representative of the community. That at least gives the huge diversity of communities in the north, south and east, and in central London—people with all sorts of backgrounds and faiths, of all ages and from all walks of life—a chance to begin to be represented. The system will not be perfect, but there will be that chance. Specifying 12 members gives people out on the Hertfordshire and Buckinghamshire borders,

      419
      down on the Kent and Surrey borders, and on the Essex borders, as well as those from inner-London boroughs and the City, no chance of representation.
      At the time of the last census, the population of outer London was 4.4 million and that of inner London was 2.766 million. Next came the West Midlands police area with 2.5 million, followed by Greater Manchester with just under that, West Yorkshire with just over 2 million and Merseyside with 1.3 million. Obviously, I did not pluck those figures out of the air; I talked to people about the best possible number of areas for London.
      I understand that both the Crown Prosecution Service and the Greater London Magistrates Courts Authority currently divide London into five regions. The London organisation of the CPS has a central criminal court section, and sections for the south, west, centre and north and east combined. Confusingly—this is why we need to rationalise and co-ordinate the arrangements—the Greater London Magistrates Courts Authority has five different regions owing to its historical genesis: the north-east, north-west, southwest, south-east and central regions. Both bodies, however, have concluded that five is the right number.
      I think that this should be the subject of the consultation that will follow the paper produced in September. January is the deadline for responses. I hope that we can then secure some agreement. It may be considered logical to have north, south, east, west and central areas for the courts, reflecting the way in which people move. The central area could involve the central criminal court and the law courts in the Strand, for instance.
      Amendment No. 59 proposes consultation with local authorities in London—the 32 boroughs and the City. They are proper stakeholders, and I feel that they should be able to understand and be comfortable with the operation of the courts—they are, after all, responsible for increasing amounts of criminal justice under legislation relating to crime and the police that was enacted in the late 1990s. Liaison between police and local government is much better than it was, and I think the same should apply to local government and the courts.
      There is one last way out for the Government if they resist the idea of five areas, or the idea of a board three times as big to reflect the population—of the two, I prefer the five-area model—which is the introduction of an overarching board, a sort of supreme court of courts boards, with five subsidiary areas acting as subcommittees. I hope it is deemed helpful rather than confrontational of me to tell the Minister that people I have talked to who are in the know and doing the job think that such a model could work. They would prefer five separate areas, but there is logic in the notion of five sub-committees, as it were, feeding into a central courts board.
      This may sound dry in relation to the exciting political issues of our day, but the administration of the courts is all about what we read in the newspapers, once a week if not more often—about people taken to court, people found guilty, people being sentenced. It is all about access to justice locally. It is all about people feeling that they can go to the civil courts easily, and obtain expeditious justice. It is all about whether people feel that justice is delivered on their doorsteps. In a great
      420
      metropolitan area such as London, the doorsteps of those living in Sutton, Croydon and Bromley are not in Barnet, Hillingdon or Havering. They need to feel that the justice system is working for them, and that the courts they read about in their local paper that are imposing sentences are administered by people whom they know, can choose and can influence.
      I ask the Minister to accept that this is about making the Court Service properly accountable in the metropolitan area, just as it will be—I hope—in the rest of the country. People need to feel that they can influence the running of the service, and can tell those in charge if the courts are in the wrong place or open at the wrong times, if there is not the right public transport, or if the provision of probation officers, facilities for the public, magistrates or the right mix of magistrates is not adequate. All that matters hugely to the functioning of the service.
      I hope the Minister will assure us that London will be treated differently because of its large size. Above all, I hope we shall have a structure reflecting the diversity of London and allowing it to be reflected in one of the most important parts of the criminal justice system.
      Mr. Leslie: I am grateful to the Opposition Members who tabled this string of amendments relating, in particular, to the courts boards that we hope to set up. They give us an opportunity to look at how they will operate within the overall agency structure of the new unified courts administration. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) was right to say that while these matters may seem dry, in many ways they go to the core of issues picked up regularly by the media: the operation of the courts and how they serve the public, and the criminal justice system in particular.
      New clause 3 seeks to allow courts boards to meet one another, and also to be consulted on changes to circuit or regional boundaries. Of course we want courts boards to meet from time to time. Our aim in establishing them is not to create exclusive "silos" that never communicate with each other. Guidance will be issued to boards on how they should operate, and the ability to work across boundaries will be a key part of the new system. Boards will need to be aware of that in practice, and will need to consult each other in the same way as neighbouring managers.
      Secondly, on the proposal that courts boards should be consulted about any proposals to alter circuit boundaries, I can assure the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey that the relevant courts boards would be consulted if we were to change regional boundaries in future. A change to regional boundaries might well have consequences for courts board areas; that is why consultation is already required under clause 4(6). At present, the only statutory requirement is for the Lord Chancellor to consult the Lord Chief Justice.
      6.30 pm
      Changes to the regional boundaries would necessitate consultation with all the parties who would be affected. If the Lord Chancellor decides to make future alterations to the boundaries, a similar level of consultation will be required, and the views of affected

      421
      courts boards, as part of the new administration, would be part of that. There is no need to single out courts boards for special consideration in that process, as the new clause proposes; indeed, that would ignore the important views of other groups with a fundamental interest in circuit and regional boundary issues.
      Having considered the views expressed by stakeholders on the options for the unified courts administration, we concluded that there should be 42 local areas and that the courts boards should match those. We also decided that there should be a regional tier of management to ensure that the agency can best support civil and family work, as well as the criminal jurisdiction, in dealing with cross-boundary issues and the deployment of the judiciary.
      Simon Hughes: The Minister will have spotted the obvious anomaly that there is to be a London region, but, uniquely, only one board within it. Every other region in England and Wales will have several courts boards. Is not that a strong argument for the amendments?
      Mr. Leslie: The hon. Gentleman is champing at the bit for me to turn to my comments on London. I assure him that there are good grounds for the conclusions that we have reached; I shall deal with that in a moment.
      The Government's policy is that regional boundaries should match those of the nine Government regions and Wales unless there is a compelling reason to the contrary. The 42 criminal justice areas fit within those boundaries. Having accepted that nine regions and Wales are too many given the size of the organisation, we decided that there should be seven regions. It is clear from the comments of the hon. Members for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) and for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), among others, that much attention is focusing on which region will include Hampshire. A decision on whether it will be in the south-east or the south-west region will be made no later than 31 October. We have held meetings with the senior judiciary, representatives of the Bar Council and judges and barristers from the western circuit to assess the potential impact of a move away from the western circuit. We are listening to the views of all interested parties before reaching a conclusion. I do not want to pre-empt that decision, but I have no doubt that whatever the outcome hon. Members will find ingenious ways of raising the issue and cross-examining Ministers to hold us to account for our decision.
      Amendments Nos. 2 and 56 propose that courts boards areas should be the same as, or fall within, police authority areas. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey suggests that London should have five courts boards. A balance must be struck between ensuring effective management and addressing community needs in as local and responsive a way as possible. It is our intention that courts boards will provide members of local communities with much more input and influence over the administration of all the courts in their area—not only criminal courts—than they have ever had before. It cannot be denied that there are wide contrasts between communities in all areas, not just London. We must strike a balance between meeting
      422
      community needs and ensuring a workable management structure. In particular, a courts board area must have a certain core of workload volume, court business and courthouses. Police authority areas strike the right balance in London and elsewhere. They match those used by the probation service and the Crown Prosecution Service, while fitting in with local authorities.
      Turning to London, we decided that there should be a courts board at the Greater London level because that is the level at which decisions are taken in the capital. In particular, the Criminal Justice Board brings together the criminal justice agencies, including the Crown Prosecution Service, the police, the probation service and the courts. It is also the basis for the seat of the Mayor of London. If the London area were to be fragmented into freestanding sub-areas, where would the line be drawn? The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey argues that there should be five courts boards in London on the basis of the administrative regions that are employed by the Greater London Magistrates Courts Authority. However, those five will not necessarily automatically be more representative of London's diverse community or include a full range of boroughs. However, I see the sense of the hon. Gentleman's point in the broader sense, and I am happy to assure him that if the London courts board thinks that it needs a further sub-structure in order properly to drill down into local community needs, we will give that close consideration.
      As an alternative proposal, the hon. Gentleman suggests that the London courts board needs to be an exception and that it should have at least three times more members than those in other regions. I do not believe that the figure of 21 would be particularly workable. We must strike a balance: a courts board must be not only workable and capable of taking a strategic view, but able to make decisions without having the "large committee" feeling that could result from an excessive number of members. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his ingenuity in arguing for three times the membership for the London courts board, but even that figure would not necessarily include everyone he would want to have a seat. Having seven members on each courts board is a realistic and workable starting point, but the Bill offers a great deal of scope for adding more members if that is deemed appropriate. In practice, therefore, if the London courts board, in common with those in the rest of the country, thinks that it needs more members, the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State will be happy to consider it.
      Simon Hughes: Can the Minister put on the record the balance of the representations that he has received on the London issue? If not, will he do so in writing? Will he further undertake that in the course of the consultation he will not only read, but have his opinion influenced by, the balance of views that are expressed? He knows as well as I do that there is a strong feeling that we need a structure that works for the whole community across London.
      Mr. Leslie: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we need to pay close attention to the particular circumstances facing a London courts board, but it is important that it is able to match the boundaries of the

      423
      Crown Prosecution Service, the probation service and the Greater London Authority. I will ensure that we have further opportunities to consider the matter.
      Mr. Heath: Will the Minister turn his attention for a moment to the royal courts of justice? The Lord Chief Justice believes that he has an agreement with the Lord Chancellor that there will be a special arrangement for the royal courts of justice. Can the Minister confirm whether that is the case?
      Mr. Leslie: I am afraid that I do not have the minutes of any meeting between the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor regarding the situation of the royal courts of justice in respect of a London courts board. It is an interesting point. I shall discuss it with my noble Friend and write to the hon. Gentleman.
      Amendment No. 59 seeks to establish that regulations will be made in terms of how courts boards should liase with local councils. To single out local authorities for special legislative treatment is questionable. Many other agencies and groups, including the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, have a key role to play in the administration of justice in a local area. It would be better management practice to establish good links with all of those groups. The Lord Chancellor will require agency managers and the courts boards to consult and to take account of their wider stakeholder base, and they must make sure that arrangements are put in place to ensure that that happens. That will of course include local authorities, as a good partnership will be vital in policy areas such as children, housing and tackling antisocial behaviour, to name but three. As the guidance that we issue will make clear, that will be critical in the case of London as well, but we do not need to allow the boards the freedom to consider just local authorities. However, they should have the freedom to reflect the need to consult a much wider area. I therefore hope that hon. Members agree that this amendment is not necessary.
      Amendment No. 51—under the terms of which, courts boards would not exceed the size of police authority areas—is too restrictive. We have announced that from the start of the new agency, courts board areas and agency managerial units will match the 42 police authority areas. However, it is theoretically possible that when matters have bedded down—I am not prejudging the issue—it might make sense to join up some areas, given that work moves across their boundaries frequently. It would be wrong to close off that option simply because of the legislative obstacle that this amendment would constitute. It is also important to remember that courts boards will not be concerned with criminal business alone; they will have a wider remit, including civil courts, family courts and so forth, so simply to restrict them to police authority areas is not the right approach. The consensus may well be reached that merging areas is the right way to proceed, and it would be wrong if courts boards were to discover a legislative obstacle that prevented them from doing so. As I said, we intend at this stage that the courts boards match the 42 police authority areas, but at the moment it would be wrong to include such a fettering amendment.
      Under amendment No. 3, courts boards would have a particular duty to monitor how well the Lord Chancellor consults magistrates. Courts boards already
      424
      have a statutory duty to scrutinise, review and make recommendations on the way in which the Lord Chancellor is discharging his general duty. An essential component of that duty will be to scrutinise the way in which the new agencies work with all of their stakeholders: magistrates and judges, lay and professional court users, and members of the local community. There is no need, therefore, to create a link between clauses 5 and 21. It would be wrong to single out magistrates and only partially to reflect courts boards' wider role; to do so would imply a narrower role for courts boards than we currently envisage. They will be concerned not just with local magistrates courts, but with the needs of local areas in their entirety, and of the entire courts system. For that reason, amendment No. 3 would be an incorrect route to take.
      Clause 21, which was included in the Bill with the backing of the Magistrates Association, already includes a duty to build effective lines of communication with all stakeholders. It guarantees magistrates that, in terms of what affects them in the performance of their judicial duties, proper lines of communication will be established between them and courts' administration. It is unnecessary to go further by giving special prominence to magistrates in respect of the duties of courts boards. We are discussing with the Magistrates Association what clause 21 means in practice, with a view to identifying the key issues and some guiding principles for magistrates and managers. The balance that the Bill strikes is therefore the right one, so I ask hon. Members to withdraw the new clause and related amendments.
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Heath: I am grateful to the Minister for his courteous and detailed reply; to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins); and to my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) in particular for his comments in support of the amendments. I accept that we are not going to agree on the need for the courts boards to monitor the Lord Chancellor's performance in respect of clause 21, but I still feel that it is desperately important that they do so. Irrespective of whether we pursue the matter through legislation, I hope that the clear understanding exists that one of the courts boards' functions will be to express concerns that feed through the system to them, from magistrates and lay justices, about what is happening in a particular courts board area, and that that will include the degree to which the Lord Chancellor, or his successor in title, is working with—or against—the interests of local justice in that area.
      I hear what the Minister says about the arrangements for the western circuit, but he will not have satisfied those who feel strongly about this issue, particularly the judicial interests involved. He said that there is no need for the courts boards—either en bloc or individually—to have a specific remit to look at this issue because they will be consulted as a matter of course. He also said that at the moment, the only statutory consultee is the Lord Chief Justice. It is interesting to note that the Lord Chief Justice was the one correspondent whom I did not mention in my introductory remarks, so let us correct

      425
      that omission. His letter to the Lord Chancellor makes his opinion very clear:
      "While writing to you, I should make it clear that I personally have the greatest concerns about the possibility of Hampshire not remaining part of the Western Circuit. I, of course, accept you have concerns as to the importance of regional Government, however, regional justice is also important. To include Hampshire as part of the South Eastern Circuit would make that circuit, which is already very large, excessive to manage from a judicial point of view. More seriously, if Hampshire were to be moved from the Western Circuit, the delivery of justice on that circuit could be seriously undermined."
      The Lord Chief Justice could not have expressed his concerns in a more open and considered way. I hope that when reaching a decision, account is taken of those concerns. One thing that the Minister said was absolutely right—if such account is not taken, Members of this House will find ways to raise the issue with him and to make his life hell. The danger is that bureaucracy will triumph over common sense and the interests of the judicial system.
      On the size of courts boards, the Minister seemed to be edging towards the position set out so well by my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. He recognises that there is a desperate problem with London. It makes no sense to have a single authority area for London, so he is edging towards a solution that involves a single courts board for the entire metropolitan area, and an airy-fairy, rather nebulous arrangement below it that will have no clear remit or structure, and which will not achieve what we want it to achieve. Such a structure would be better than nothing, so let me not argue against what the Minister may, or may not, be edging towards. However, my hon. Friend's proposal is a much more sensible suggestion, dealing as it does with London's different localities by giving them a proper voice. Indeed, such an approach is normal for those areas that, by happenstance of history, have small shire constabulary areas.
      I was somewhat concerned that the Minister appeared not to know about the correspondence on the royal courts of justice. However, he said that he will write to me on that specific issue, and I am grateful to him. Nevertheless, this House should be able to express a view on the courts boards for London, with which amendment No. 56 deals. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw new clause 3, but I shall ask the House to divide on amendment No. 56.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 1

      THE GENERAL DUTY
      Amendment proposed: No. 1, in page 1, line 5, leave out 'and effective' and insert ', effective and accessible'.—[Mr. Heath.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 107, Noes 275.

      Division No. 328]

      [6:50 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Barrett, John

      Allan, Richard

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Bercow, John

      Bacon, Richard

      Blunt, Crispin

      426

      Boswell, Tim

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Lidington, David

      Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Loughton, Tim

      Brady, Graham

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Breed, Colin

      Mclntosh, Miss Anne

      Burnett, John

      Maclean, rh David

      Burnside, David

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Burt, Alistair

      Moore, Michael

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Moss, Malcolm

      Cameron, David

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Cash, William

      Randall, John

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Redwood, rh John

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

      Clappison, James

      Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Cotter, Brian

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

      Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

      Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

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

      Flight, Howard

      Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

      Forth, rh Eric

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Francois, Mark

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Garnier, Edward

      Streeter, Gary

      Goodman, Paul

      Stunell, Andrew

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Syms, Robert

      Hawkins, Nick

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Heath, David

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Hendry, Charles

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Trend, Michael

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Holmes, Paul

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Watkinson, Angela

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Jack, rh Michael

      Whittingdale, John

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Wiggin, Bill

      Keetch, Paul

      Willetts, David

      Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Willis, Phil

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Wilshire, David

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Young, rh Sir George

      Lansley, Andrew

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Leigh, Edward

      Tom Brake and

      Letwin, rh Oliver

      Mrs. Annette L. Brooke

      NOES

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Best, Harold

      Ainger, Nick

      Betts, Clive

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Alexander, Douglas

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Allen, Graham

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Brennan, Kevin

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Bailey, Adrian

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Baird, Vera

      Burden, Richard

      Banks, Tony

      Burgon, Colin

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Burnham, Andy

      Beard, Nigel

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Bell, Stuart

      Cairns, David

      Benn, Hilary

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Bennett, Andrew

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Berry, Roger

      Caplin, Ivor

      427

      Casale, Roger

      Hendrick, Mark

      Caton, Martin

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Heppell, John

      Challen, Colin

      Hesford, Stephen

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Heyes, David

      Chaytor, David

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Clapham, Michael

      Hodge, Margaret

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Selton E)

      Clelland, David

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Cohen, Harry

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Coleman, Iain

      Hutton, rh John

      Connarty, Michael

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Cooper, Yvette

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Cousins, Jim

      Crausby, David

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Cruddas, Jon

      Jenkins, Brian

      Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield

      Cummings, John

      Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      David, Wayne

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Davidson, Ian

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Kemp, Fraser

      Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Kidney, David

      Dawson, Hilton

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Denham rh, John

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Dismore, Andrew

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Dobson rh, Frank

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Lammy, David

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Edwards, Huw

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Efford, Clive

      Leslie, Christopher

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Farrelly, Paul

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Fisher, Mark

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Love, Andrew

      Follett, Barbara

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      McCabe, Stephen

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Gardiner, Barry

      MacDonald, Calum

      Gerrard, Neil

      McDonnell, John

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      MacDougall, John

      Gilroy, Linda

      Mclsaac, Shona

      Goggins, Paul

      McKechin, Ann

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Grogan, John

      McNulty, Tony

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      MacShane, Denis

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      McWalter, Tony

      Hanson, David

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Healey, John

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      428

      Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Singh, Marsha

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Skinner, Dennis

      Martlew, Eric

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury);

      Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

      Michael, rh Alun

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Miller, Andrew

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Moffatt, Laura

      Stevenson, George

      Mole, Chris

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Moran, Margaret

      Mountford, Kali

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Stringer, Graham

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Stuart Ms Gisela

      O'Hara, Edward

      Sutcliffe, Gerrv

      Organ Diana

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Taylor, David NW Leics

      Perham, Linda

      Thomas, Gareth Clwyd W)

      Picking, Anne

      Tipping, Paddy

      Pickthall, Colin

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Plaskitt, James

      Touhig Don (Islwyn)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Truswell, Paul

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Pound, Stephen

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Prennce, Gordon (Pendle)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Tynan Bill (Hamilton S)

      Purnell, James

      Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Rammell, Bill

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Watts David

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      White Brian

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

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Wills. Michael

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaste C)

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      Ruane, Chris

      Woodward, Shaun

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

      Woolas, Phil

      Worthington, Tony

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Salter, Martin

      Sawford, Phil

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Sheerman, Barry

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Sheridan, Jim

      Gillian Merron and

      Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

      Jim Fitzpatrick

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 4

      ESTABLISHMENT OF COURTS BOARDS
      Amendment proposed: No. 56, in page 3, line 35, leave out from 'specifying' to first 'the' in line 38 and insert—

      '(a) in respect of areas except London, areas which are the same as, or fall entirely within, the police areas listed in Schedule 1 to the Police Act 1996 (c. 16) (division of England and Wales, except London, into police areas), and

      (b) in respect of London, at least five separate areas falling entirely within'.—[Mr. Heath.]

      Question put. That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 98, Noes 278.

      Division No. 329]

      [7:03 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Allan, Richard

      Lidington, David

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Barrett, John

      Loughton, Tim

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Bercow, John

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Blunt, Crispin

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Boswell, Tim

      Moore, Michael

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Brady, Graham

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      Breed, Colin

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Burnett, John

      Öpik, Lembit

      Burnside, David

      Osborne, George (Talton)

      Burt, Alistair

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Cameron, David

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

      Randall, John

      Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

      Redwood, rh John

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

      Cash, William

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Clappison, James

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Cotter, Brian

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

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

      Donaldson Jeffrey M.

      Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

      Doughty Sue

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Flook, Adrian

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Forth rh Eric

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Francois, Mark

      Streeter, Gary

      Gale, Roger (N Thanes)

      Stunell, Andrew

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      Garnier, Edward

      Syms Robert

      Goodman, Paul

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Teather, Sarah

      Hawkins, Nick

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Hendry, Charles

      Trend, Michael

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Holmes, Paul

      Watkinson, Angela

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Whittingdale, John

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Wiggin, Bill

      Jack, rh Michael

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Willis, Phil

      Keetch, Paul

      Wilshire, David

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Young, rh Sir George

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Lansley, Andrew

      Tom Brake and

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Mrs. Annette L. Brooke

      NOES

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Ainger, Nick

      Berry, Roger

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Best, Harold

      Alexander, Douglas

      Betts, Clive

      Allen, Graham

      Blackman, Liz

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Brennan, Kevin

      Bailey, Adrian

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Baird, Vera

      Banks, Tony

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Beard, Nigel

      Burden, Richard

      Bell, Stuart

      Burgon, Colin

      Benn, Hilary

      Burnham, Andy

      Bennett, Andrew

      Byers, rh Stephen

      430

      Caborn, rh Richard

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Cairns, David

      Hanson, David

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C bridge)

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Healey, John

      Casale, Roger

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Caton, Martin

      Hendrick, Mark

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Challen, Colin

      Heppell, John

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Chaytor, David

      Heyes, David

      Clapham, Michael

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Hodge, Margaret

      Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Clelland, David

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Cohen, Harry

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Coleman, Iain

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Connarty, Michael

      Hutton, rh John

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Cooper, Yvette

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Cousins, Jim

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Crausby, David

      Cruddas, Jon

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Cummings, John

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack(Copeland)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      David, Wayne

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Davidson, Ian

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Kemp, Fraser

      Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Kidney, David

      Dawson, Hilton

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Denham, rh John

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Dismore, Andrew

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Lammy, David

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Edwards, Huw

      Leslie, Christopher

      Efford, Clive

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Farrelly, Paul

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Fisher, Mark

      Love, Andrew

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Follett, Barbara

      Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      McCabe, Stephen

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      MacDonald, Calum

      Gardiner, Barry

      McDonnell, John

      Gerrard, Neil

      MacDougall, John

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Mclsaac, Shona

      Gilroy, Linda

      McKechin, Ann

      Goggins, Paul

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      McNulty, Tony

      Grogan, John

      MacShane, Denis

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      McWalter, Tony

      431

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Sheerman, Barry

      Mallaber, Judy

      Sheridan, Jim

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Singh, Marsha

      Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

      Martlew, Eric

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Michael, rh Alun

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Stevenson, George

      Miller, Andrew

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Mole Chris

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Moran, Margaret

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Mountford Kali

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Mudie George

      Stringer, Graham

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Taylor, Dan (Stockton S)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Organ Diana

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Palmer, Dr. Dr Nick

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Perham Linda

      Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

      Picking, Anne

      Truswell, Paul

      Pickthall, Colin

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Plaskitt, James

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Pound, Stephen

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Purnell, James

      Watts, David

      Quinn, Lawrie

      White, Brian

      Rammell, Bill

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Wills, Michael

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

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Woolas, Phil

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Worthington, Tony

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Ruane, Chris

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      Salter, Martin

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Sawford, Phil

      Gillian Merron and

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Jim Fitzpatrick

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 8

      LOCAL JUSTICE AREAS
      7.15 pm
      Mr. Heath: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 5, line 13, at end insert—
      '() No local justice area may include areas which form part of more than one area specified under section 4.'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
      432
      No. 5, in page 5, line 13, at end insert—
      '() No local justice area may include areas which form part of more than one area established under Schedule 11 to the Police Act 1996 (c. 16).'.
      No. 52, in page 5, line 14, at end insert
      'but only with the prior consent of the lay justices for that area and in any event not in a way which removes the coterminosity of a local justice area with a police authority area'.
      Mr. Heath: This group of amendments deals not with courts boards but with local justice areas, which will be more familiar to most Members as the petty sessions areas that they effectively replace under the Bill. Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 are simple. They propose that a local justice area should not straddle the borders of courts boards areas or of police authorities under the Police Act 1996. However, I cannot believe that it is anyone's intention to make them do so, and it could be argued that if one requirement is satisfied, so is the other, by virtue of what we have already said about coterminosity.
      It cannot be in the interests of good administration if the local justice area—which is, as the smallest unit, the building block of the revised structure of the justice system—were to come under the jurisdiction of more than one courts board area. Conflicting advice could be given to the Secretary of State or Lord Chancellor on the interests of a specific local justice area. Magistrates might not know to which courts board they should address any views on the administration of courts in their bench areas. In short, we would have completely unnecessary confusion.
      When we discussed the matter in Committee, the Minister covered his tracks by saying that the courts boards deal with more than just the magistrates courts in their area, and that is true. However, if we are agreed that the local justice areas are, as the Minister put it, the essential building blocks on which the whole structure is based, they should not teeter between two different areas. Even though the courts board has an interest in the family courts, the civil courts and the youth court structure, it does not alter the fact that a single local justice area should fall within a single courts board area; otherwise, unnecessary and easily avoidable confusion would arise.
      Amendment No. 5 makes the same argument in terms of police authorities. Such authorities can be very large, and the whole thrust of Government policy, for some years, has been to achieve a degree of coterminosity between police authority areas and all the other agencies that are relevant to the work of the police. Indeed, that argument was made strongly in the debate that we have just had. It was argued that the courts boards should be—wherever possible and with the exception of London—identical to the police authority areas. If that is the case, where is the logic in having a local justice area, dealing with one or more magistrates courts, which straddles police authority areas? It flies in the face of what we are led to believe is the Government's policy, which cannot be what they intend.
      The only argument for not clearly stating that in statute, thereby making it the basis of the structure, would be that there was a need for transitional

      433
      arrangements when petty sessions areas straddled police authority areas and needed special treatment. I have two arguments against that suggestion: first, it would not be impossible to devise transitional arrangements and, secondly and more cogently, it should not happen. If we are to set up a new, unified court structure whose building blocks are to be the local justice areas, those areas should be so constructed as not to go from one police authority area to another, from one probation service area to another or from one CPS area to another—all the arguments prayed in aid in our earlier debate for not having more than one courts board in a police authority area.
      When I put all those points together it is difficult to find a reasonable argument against our amendments. My only suggestion for the Minister would be that they do not apply because as the justice areas are already encompassed within the measure, no adjustment will be necessary, and that it is not necessary to include the proposals in the statutes because some future Secretary of State might choose, willy-nilly, to create new justice areas that straddle police authority or courts board boundaries. I do not think that is a sensible argument, however, and I hope that the Minister will not make it.
      If we are to set up a unified courts structure, with an integrated system, it should be based on common building blocks making up several local justice areas, courts areas and police authority areas so that there is an organised and regimented structure for the whole country. Both the Minister and I want to see that pyramid. My amendments would make that happen; in their absence, it may not happen.
      Mr. Hawkins: Once again, as we did on this issue in Committee, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and I are arguing from a similar perspective. The Opposition take the view that the Bill would give the Lord Chancellor too wide and unfettered a discretion. Currently, clause 8(4) states baldly:
      "The Lord Chancellor may make orders altering local justice areas."
      There are no restrictions and, under subsection (5), the powers are widened further.
      The Opposition want to set up some control on what the Lord Chancellor is or is not allowed to do, but in a slightly different way to that proposed by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome. We want to include the rather ugly word "coterminosity" that was used in Committee. Under our amendment No. 52, the Lord Chancellor would not be able to alter the local justice area
      "in a way which removes the coterminosity of a local justice area with a police authority area".
      We want to achieve the same kind of restrictions as those proposed in the Liberal Democrat amendments, but we want a specific requirement that the lay justices be involved in any decision to change. We think that if the Bill required that the lay justices were consulted they would try to ensure that logic and coterminosity remained. No future Lord Chancellor should be able to change things without the prior consent of the lay justices for that area.
      We are pressing the Government in the same way as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome and I did in Committee. The Bill should include restrictions. The
      434
      Lord Chancellor should not have unfettered discretion to do things that would be illogical and could be damaging, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out. That is the basis for our amendment and I very much endorse his views on the importance of the building blocks. We shall, of course, listen to what the Minister has to say, but I was not persuaded by the Government in Committee and I am not persuaded now. The Bill would be much better if it included the safeguards either of the Liberal Democrat amendments or, more specifically, of our amendment No. 52.
      Mr. Leslie: As we have just heard, the effect of amendment No. 4 would be to ensure that no local justice area may include areas that form part of more than one courts board. Amendment No. 5 would ensure that no local justice area may include areas that form part of more than one police authority area. The second part of amendment No. 52 largely covers the same issue. As I said earlier, the Government have made a commitment that courts board areas will be coterminous with criminal justice areas—police authority areas—so I shall deal with all the amendments together.
      The amendments are unnecessary and undesirable. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) tried to pre-empt my justification for resisting his amendments and made very good arguments against them, which I hope to supplement in some small way. In fact, the amendments try to put the cart before the horse, which is the fundamental point of my argument. Currently, the first building block is the petty sessions area, which is more or less what we envisage as the local justice area, and it is the fundamental aspect of the magistrates courts system, whereas courts board areas are an administrative structure whereby the administration of the courts, and not only magistrates courts, is enhanced.
      Clearly, in determining a courts board area, consideration should be given to ensuring that petty sessions area and local justice area boundaries are not compromised. That is common sense. However, I am not convinced that we need to erect the concrete walls that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome suggests. In fact, subsection (6) of clause 8 already provides for consultation with the relevant courts board if boundary changes are under consideration. The powers are not entirely unfettered, but we need to realise that if the local justice area—the petty sessions area—is to be the main building block we need to ensure that there is some provision for latitude without the need for an Act of Parliament.
      Amendment No. 5 would require that no local justice area would straddle more than one police authority area—sometimes known nowadays as a criminal justice system area—apart from the City-Metropolitan boundary in London. That is the current position with petty sessions area boundaries and it will also, initially, be the case for local justice area boundaries.
      The second part of amendment No. 52 again refers to coterminosity with police areas. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) does not like the word "coterminosity", as it neatly describes what we are talking about. We expect a local justice area to have boundaries that will in future remain within those of a criminal justice system area but we would not want to

      435
      fetter our future discretion by making that a requirement of the Bill. It is important to remember that magistrates courts hear civil and family cases as well as criminal cases, so the organisation of a local justice area should not relate solely to the needs of the police and the CPS. We must allow some latitude to recognise those aspects that could affect the shape of a local justice area, but I do not envisage that this will be a significant issue in the initial establishment that we currently plan.
      7.30 pm
      Amendment No. 52 is slightly different, as the Opposition seek, in effect, to require the consent of only magistrates for any reorganisation of a local justice area. That would be both unworkable and unfair, especially to local authorities and local courts boards, to which equal consideration should perhaps be given on proposed reorganisations. In fact, that amendment would give a magistrate the power to exercise a veto on the proposed shape of local justice areas, and it might even allow for such reorganisation to be prevented by a single opposing magistrate, despite any view that may have been provided by either the local authority or the local courts board. Clearly, that would be undesirable.
      Nevertheless, it is, of course, entirely right that local magistrates should be involved in such decisions, which is why we have provided in clause 8(6)(a) for consultation with justices of the peace, as well as the local authorities and local courts boards, before any reorganisation. Amendment No. 52 is quite unacceptable. It cannot be right to give magistrates the power of veto over proposed reorganisations when the local courts board, which is a more representative body, might be consulted only in passing.
      I hope that those amendments are now seen in that light—they are unnecessary and undesirable—and I invite the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Heath: While listening to the hon. Gentleman, I was trying to remember the laws of thermodynamics, although not as digression from what he was saying. Is it the third law of thermodynamics that states that entropy increases in any system? It seems a bizarre legislative stroke of genius to legislate right from the start of proceedings for an increase in entropy in the system that is to be set up. That seemed to be the tenor of what the hon. Gentleman said. He said that he had a nice, neat system, but someone at some stage in the future might want to make it very untidy, by creating local justice areas that cross police authority areas or criminal justice areas, as the hon. Gentleman called them. I do not know anyone who calls them criminal justice areas, but I am sure that there is a Government consultative paper somewhere that refers to them as such.
      The Minister thinks that a future Secretary of State may want to create local justice areas where they do not exist at the moment, so he believes that he ought to include that possibility in the Bill, or allow for that possible eventuality by leaving arrangements open, because it would be nice to have a bit of untidiness if someone wanted it at some future stage. Well, that is a strange way to create a system.
      I listened hard to the hon. Gentleman's argument on amendment No. 4, as well. He reiterated a point that he made in Committee, where I was happy to accept it, that
      436
      the building blocks—we have all learned to call them that—of the new system are the local justice areas, but he then said that including my amendment, which seeks to ensure that they do not cross boundaries, would somehow give primacy to the courts board, rather than the local justice area. Well, of course, it would not.
      If there were a sensible way to frame an amendment saying that courts areas must consist of an integer of local justice areas, I suppose that we could have done such things that way—it would come to exactly the same thing—and that would have presumably passed the Minister's test about which comes first, the chicken or the egg. However, that would not make a jot of difference to the outcome, which is to try to ensure that we have an orderly system that builds on those blocks, so that, if the boundaries of a local justice area spilled over in future, there would be the corollary amendment to the courts board area to maintain the integrity and sensible nature of the system, without, as the hon. Gentleman put it, compromising the effectiveness of the arrangements.
      Why should I bother? Those arrangements will be dealt with administratively; they do not have to be stated in the Bill. I simply think that, with a Bill that is essentially intended to unify the courts system, it is preferable to say what we mean, rather than not to say what we mean, and to start from a basis of hard structures, rather than fuzzy structures, which is what the Minister apparently prefers when dealing with an eventuality that he cannot identify.
      If we were in Committee, I should be very tempted to press the amendment to a Division. Given that we are now debating the Bill on Report, that I have done my best to persuade the Minister of the correctness of my point of view and that he has failed dismally to respond to what I have said, there would be very little point in pressing the amendment to a Division. So, with some regret and some sadness at the lack of precision that the Minister has evidenced in his response to this group of amendments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 17

      CHAIRMAN AND DEPUTY CHAIRMEN: SELECTION
      Mr. Leslie: I beg to move amendment No. 37, in page 9, line 8, leave out paragraph (c).
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 39 and 40.
      Government new schedule—Transitional provisions and savings.
      Government amendments Nos. 44 and 45.
      Mr. Leslie: This group of miscellaneous Government amendments essentially covers four different policy areas, but the amendments are significant none the less and I shall briefly run through the reasons why we have tabled them.

      437
      Government amendment No. 37 deals with rules to make provision for the election of the chairman and deputy chairmen of a bench of magistrates in a local justice area. As a bit of background, I wish to say that clause 17 provides for the magistrates of a local justice area to elect from their number a chairman and one or more deputy chairmen and gives the Lord Chancellor a rule-making power to designate how that will operate. Clause 17 would simply re-enact those parts of section 22 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997 that relate to those elections. However, the framework for the current rules would disfranchise magistrates who have been appointed only recently to a local justice area, restricting participation to those who have experience in that local justice area.
      Opposition Members certainly highlighted such issues in Committee. Having heard the debate in Committee and considered such issues, I thought that those arrangements seemed rather odd, so I then agreed to reconsider the provision. It is not the Government's intention to prevent any justices from taking part in the full range of their duties and therefore, to make that clear, we wish to delete clause 17(5)(c), so that there will be no suggestion that only those with more experience should take part in or contest those chairmen or deputy chairmen elections.
      We do not have a tradition in this country of limiting any franchise to people who have lived within the borders of a constituency for a certain time. People can vote as soon as they are on the electoral roll. We believe therefore that the same principle should apply to lay justices when choosing the chairman for their area. The current rules to do not exploit such a bias against newer local magistrates, but that change will make it clear that we have no intention of taking such a discriminatory approach.
      Government amendment No. 39 relates to the appointment of the Official Solicitor for Northern Ireland. The Official Solicitor is the person responsible for acting in the interests of children and others people where no one else is suitable, willing or able to act on their behalf. Such cases are typically referred to the Official Solicitor by the courts. In England and Wales, the post of Official Solicitor can be filled by either a solicitor or a barrister. However, there is a question mark over whether a barrister would be entitled to appointment to the Northern Ireland post.
      Following discussions in Committee—I am grateful to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) for pointing this out—I have taken the opportunity to consult the professions in Northern Ireland about a proposed change. Not surprisingly, the Bar considers the current position to be indefensible. However, the Law Society considers that a full consultation exercise might be required before it could take a view one way or the other. While noting the Law Society's requests, I have decided that the opportunity should now be taken to open that post to barristers, so under Government amendment No. 39, the Government seek to end the apparent anomaly and to remove the different eligibility criteria for the posts, allowing barristers the chance to be appointed as the Official Solicitor for Northern Ireland. I trust that the House will agree that that makes good sense.
      438
      Government amendment No. 40 and new schedule 1 are transitional, smoothing measures to ensure, among other things, that the provisions for new local justice areas will initially be the same as the petty sessions areas at the date of commencement. The new schedule includes several transitional provisions designed to aid the smooth passage from the current arrangements to the new ones. We believe that users of the court system will find it more helpful to have those included in the Bill, and I hope that the House will accept that that is to be welcomed. Continuity is the main purpose of the new schedule, so that, for example, justices' clerks will be treated as having been appointed and designated as clerks under the Bill and as having been assigned to the areas in which they have been working prior to the commencement of the Act. It will also safeguard their compensation entitlements, about which many Members are concerned. Lay justices who are currently on panels for family proceedings courts will be treated as having been authorised to sit in those courts under the Bill. Those entered on the supplemental list will automatically go on the new list. Entries on the current register of judgments will be treated as included in the new register.
      Furthermore, the schedule allows for what are known as savings provisions, which were new to me. The function of a savings provision in legislation is to preserve or "save" a law, a right, a privilege or an obligation that would otherwise be repealed or cease to have effect. We therefore intend the Bill to permit a saving of the contracting-out orders already made under the previous legislation and the saving of provisions to ensure that the positions of Keeper of the Rolls, chairmen of benches, senior district judges and courts inspectors can continue. Often, that kind of transitional and saving provision is made by order, after legislation is enacted, but we felt that it was important to bring those forward so that they can go into the Bill proper, although other transitional provisions may need to be made by order under clause 109(3)(b) later. Again, I hope that the House will agree that that is a positive step.
      Finally, Government amendments Nos. 44 and 45 allow the continuing presence of lay magistrates sitting on local police authorities as currently provided for in the Police Act 1996. Although the Bill has the effect of abolishing magistrates courts committees, it is clear that we still need to make provision for a mechanism whereby magistrates are selected to sit on police authorities as under the 1996 Act. Lay justices make a full and professional contribution to the work of police authorities, and that should be continued. The amendments therefore allow for a continuity of input from a key section of the criminal justice system. We propose to adapt the current system used in the appointment of independent members of police authorities, whereby a selection panel provides a shortlist from which other police authority members may make a final selection. The procedure with independent members is one whereby the selection panel produces a long list, which the Secretary of State reduces by half, and the designated members of the local police authority make the final selection. In the case of lay justices, it is sufficient to remove the role of the Secretary of State, and we feel that it is right to have localised rather than Whitehall-based selection.
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Hawkins: As the Minister has said, this is a group of miscellaneous amendments. First, however, I thank him for his response on behalf of the Government both to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) in relation to Government amendment No. 37, and to me in relation to Government amendment No. 39. As the Minister has explained, those were matters that we raised in Committee, and it is helpful that the Government have been able to respond positively to our concerns. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome seized on an important point that the provision should not be restricted to just experienced justices, and, in relation to what I said in Committee, at column 189 of the Official Report of the Committee proceedings on 8 July, I am delighted that the Minister has been able to agree with my view that there was no reason why a barrister in Northern Ireland should not be appointed as the Official Solicitor. I am also not at all surprised—neither was the Minister—that the Bar of Northern Ireland agreed with me on that. I am pleased that the Minister has responded positively. I thanked him in Committee when he signalled that he might be prepared to think about it again. I am pleased that he has not opted for a full consultation and yet further delay, as was suggested by his other consultee, the Law Society, in the Province.
      On Government amendment No. 40, which introduces new schedule 1 on transitional provisions and savings, I had one concern. When the Minister responds to my comments and those of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome I wonder whether he can say a little more about the heading to paragraph 2 in relation to contracting-out. While I understand entirely what the Minister says about smoothing provisions and making sure that there is continuity, it strikes me that a little more detail might need to be given about existing contracting-out provisions and how those are being dealt with. Paragraph 2 of new schedule 1 does not give us a lot of detail. If the Minister is not able to respond today—I appreciate that he might not be able to do so—I wonder whether he would kindly write to me and other hon. Members interested in that matter, to give us a little more detail about how the contracting-out provisions will work in that new schedule.
      Government amendment No. 44, the changes to schedule 8 and the introduction of schedule 3A on the selection of lay justice members for police authorities may change with the incoming Conservative Government after the next election because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) has set out, there will be greater local democratic control of policing. I therefore hope that the Minister realises that what he is talking about, in terms of changes to police authorities, may not survive in law for long. Can he say a little more about how sub-paragraph (6) of proposed new schedule 3A will operate in relation to designated members? The term "designated members" is used in various ways both in the new schedule that he is putting forward and elsewhere in this legislation. It seemed to me that it was not entirely clear which were the designated members to whom he referred who have a casting vote when too few people are on the shortlist. I was slightly puzzled with that, and if he is not able to give me a detailed reply today about why only
      440
      designated members will decide in the unusual situation in which too few candidates are on the shortlist, I hope that he will write to me and to other interested Members.
      In a letter that the Minister helpfully sent to me about this group, the Government claim that they are simply introducing an effective procedure. If it is to be an effective procedure, we must all be entirely clear about how it will operate. I am sure that the Minister will agree about that. Government amendment No. 45 seems purely technical, so I have no concerns about it.
      I thank the Minister once again for the way in which he has responded to concerns raised in Committee and particularly for agreeing with me about Government amendment No. 39. I hope that when the first barrister in Northern Ireland is appointed as Official Solicitor he will reflect back on the Hawkins amendment to this legislation.
      Mr. Heath: And when the first magistrate who would otherwise have been deprived votes in an election, I hope that it will be recalled equally that it was my amendment that prompted the Government's helpful response. I am grateful to the Minister for listening to what I thought was a fairly unanswerable argument. He clearly felt the same because this evening he repeated the argument that I put in Committee. I am glad that we have sorted out what seemed to be a glaring anomaly, which proves an old adage: we should not just lift bits of old legislation and put them into new legislation without applying the test of whether they work. I am afraid that, because of the volume of legislation with which we deal in this place, we are too prone simply to lifting bits of previous legislation, and assuming that, because no one has complained, they are all right. I have never taken that view. We must look at each and every previous enactment and apply the following tests: first, whether it works satisfactorily; secondly, whether it is right; and thirdly, whether it is open to challenge in the future.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. David Lammy)indicated assent.
      Mr. Heath: I see the Minister nodding, so he obviously agrees with me on that point.
      I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) for Government amendment No. 37 and for Government amendment No. 39, for which the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) rightly takes the credit. It is a minor but important change that I am sure somebody in Northern Ireland will have reason to complain about at some stage. However, let us assume that his amendment is helpful.
      I have very little to say about Government amendment No. 40 and new schedule 1. I have examined the transitional arrangements and they look broadly sensible. I have a slight quibble about them being introduced so late in our consideration. In a well ordered Bill, they might have appeared before us in Committee or earlier during the Bill's consideration in this House. The Bill started in another place and has had a long passage through the House. The transitional arrangements are fundamental to the operation of the new system.

      441
      Government amendments Nos. 44 and 45 deal with the constitution of police authorities. I pinched myself when I listened to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath. Apart from his absurd pretension that the Conservatives might form the next Government, it seems that those on the Conservative Front Bench now wish to rubbish the very arrangements that were introduced by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who still plays a part on the Opposition Front Bench and may play a greater part in the future.
      We are dealing with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's proposals—they were not dreamt up by the present Government or a Liberal Democrat policy group. They were pushed through when I had the misfortune to be the chairman of a police authority and had to make them work. I remember thinking that, if anyone ever wanted to bring the whole system of appointment into disrepute, they would create the byzantine structure that he introduced. It is an absurd structure that defies any understanding of how it might sensibly have been put together. It is like that because the right hon. and learned Gentleman originally wanted to appoint the lot. He made no bones about that. His original proposal was that the members of a police authority should not be appointed by local people—the hon. Member for Surrey Heath now says he is very much in favour of that—but that they should be appointed by the Secretary of State.
      When that proposition caused uproar across the country, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had to row back and produced a system that was so complicated that nobody could understand it. That was how we ended with the police authority structures that we have today. When I hear the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) say that we now have an appalling system for police authorities, I want everyone to remember who set it up—the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe, who is the right hon. Gentleman's colleague on the Front Bench and is in charge of the Conservative Opposition's financial policy. Some interesting discussions must be going on behind the scenes on this and a great many other subjects.
      To return to the amendments, I had hoped that the Government might have been even more radical in their response to the present arrangements. However, they have moved a little way in removing one of the absurd stages in the process of the Secretary of State's involvement, and I am grateful for that. On the basis that this is not a police authority reform Bill, I suspect that that is as much as could reasonably be expected. Let us welcome the small progress that has been made while recognising that police authorities still have an odd structure that would repay closer examination in the near future.
      Mr. Leslie: I am glad that hon. Members have welcomed some of the Government amendments. Those hon. Members were instrumental in highlighting some of the peculiar aspects that were carried over from previous legislation, and that proves that scrutiny in Committee is of value. I do not know whether they will be termed the Hawkins and Heath amendments or
      442
      whether Leslie will get a look in, but I am glad that they will appear on the statute book and that small numbers of people will benefit from them.
      I cannot immediately help the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) with the details of what would happen should the shortlist for the selection of magistrates be too small and with which designated members would oversee the process. I shall endeavour to write to him to clarify the issue, but I shall not be drawn into the Conservative party's proposals for elected sheriffs in its desperate last-gasp attempt to curry favour with the wider world. I suspect that that debate is for another day.
      I will answer the hon. Gentleman's specific question about contracting out. Orders already allow for the contracting out of certain functions in the courts under the provisions of the Courts Act 1971. Nothing in this Bill calls into question the legitimacy of those orders, which are proper and effective. The provisions merely confirm that the existing contracts will continue. In a sense, it is another way of underlining the fact by having transitional and smoothing provisions to ensure that there is no room for dispute about the facts.
      The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) referred to police authorities and the magistrates membership on them. I do not think that this is the right place or time to go into that matter. As he said, this is not a police authority reform Bill, but I hope that the House will recognise that there is much sense in the Government amendments.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 30

      PLACES, DATES AND TIMES OF SITTINGS
      Mr. Heath: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 14, line 14, after 'courts', insert
      '(including family proceedings courts and youth courts)'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 6, in page 14, line 33, after 'place', insert
      'in the local justice area'.
      No. 7, in page 14, line 33, at end insert—
      '(e) a place where specific facilities are available which are necessary in the interests of justice'.
      Mr. Heath: These amendments are in my name, but I am grateful to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) and his hon. Friends for attaching their names to them.
      We return to the issue of accessibility. The clause is headed, "Places, dates and times of sittings", and that might be considered to be at the crux of whether a court is likely to be accessible to the people who use it. Amendment No. 8 expressly extends the clause's remit to include family proceedings and youth courts, and amendment No. 6 would amend clause 30(5)(d) by inserting the words
      "in the local justice area",
      which appear in the previous four paragraphs. Amendment No. 7 would introduce a new category of

      443
      "a place where specific facilities are available which are necessary in the interests of justice".
      I shall expand on what I intend by the amendments. My prime reason for amendment No. 8 takes us back to the position in London and to proposals that were suggested by the Greater London Magistrates Court Authority for a change in the structure of the family courts in the metropolis. The issue has caused a great deal of controversy. I fear that I have included the whole family of the Lord Chief Justice in today's debates, because one of the leading protagonists on this matter is Lady Woolf, the wife of the Lord Chief Justice and a magistrate of 27 years standing. She is the chairman of the Richmond family proceedings court and has a clear understanding of the issues involved.
      The proposals would have put an end to the present system for family courts across most of London, particularly south London, and they would have concentrated proceedings in three specialist family centres. Those family centres were to be situated in central and north London.
      8 pm
      There is an argument for having specialist family court centres. I understand that argument and I do not intend to ridicule it in any way. The real fear that was expressed by Lady Woolf, as well as by other chairmen of family proceedings Benches and a great many other people across London, was that the consequence of the proposal would be that some of the most vulnerable people to be dealt with by the court system at the most vulnerable time of their lives would be placed in the almost impossible situation of having to travel across London to attend a specialist family centre, rather than having access to family proceedings courts in their own locality.
      That proposal quite properly set a lot of alarm bells ringing. We often deal with children at risk, with battered wives, and with people in all manner of appalling circumstances. These people are probably the least able to afford to travel long distances, and the least able to do so in physical terms if they have young children in tow, because that is often what the family proceedings courts are about. Yet they are the people who are being asked to travel from the extremities of the metropolis—down in south-west London, over in Hillingdon, or down in Bexley, for example—to central London to be dealt with by a specialist centre. That is not a sensible suggestion, and it is unlikely to command the agreement of the people of London. Indeed, I have spoken to my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) about this, and he entirely concurs with my views in this respect. He has more experience than most from his own constituency of the difficulties involved.
      I know that these plans have now been rethought in the face of the opposition that was expressed in the consultation exercise. I do not, therefore, want to prolong this argument, because I know that we shall be seeing different proposals that will take account of the underlying principles of the scheme and of the realities of life in London and the needs of the customers.
      444
      This matter seems, however, to underline the principle that the Government have accepted the Lords amendment, to which I shall draw attention when we talk later about matters of accessibility. Clause 30(2) states:
      "In exercising his powers under subsection (1), the Lord Chancellor shall have regard to the need to ensure that court-houses are accessible to persons resident in each local justice area."
      Well, hallelujah to that, but let us be absolutely clear that that should apply to family proceedings courts and to youth courts as well. In fact, it should almost do so more than is the case with magistrates courts, because of the nature of the people involved in the proceedings. The arguments that hold true for magistrates courts should hold doubly true for family proceedings courts and youth courts. If my amendment is passed today, as I hope it will be, it will explicitly incorporate family proceedings courts and youth courts in the province governed by clause 30(2), and will therefore ensure that the Lord Chancellor will have regard to accessibility when making the decisions that he will inevitably have to make.
      Amendment No. 6 is equally important, and we had a debate on this issue in Committee. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath and I held very similar views on it. There is only one way in which I can interpret clause 30(5)(d). Subsection (5) identifies the places where courts are to be held. The first is
      "a place in the local justice area in which the offence is alleged to have been committed".
      The second is
      "a place in the local justice area in which the person charged with the offence resides".
      The third is
      "a place in the local justice area in which the witnesses, or the majority of the witnesses, reside".
      Fine; I have no problem with any of those. Each of them specifically refers to "the local justice area". When we get to the fourth provision, in clause 30(5)(d), however, it simply refers to
      "a place where other cases raising similar issues are being dealt with."
      It makes no reference to the local justice area, or to the locality, at all. It could mean anywhere in the country where other cases raising similar issues are being dealt with.
      In replying to the debate on this matter in Committee, the Minister laid a red herring across the trail. He said that specific facilities might be required for a particular type of case which might not be available in the local justice area, and that it might therefore be better to hear the case elsewhere. I have made allowance for that eventuality in amendment No. 7, which adds a new paragraph to deal specifically with that issue. I accept that, on very rare occasions, facilities such as video transmission systems might be needed, for example, or some other specific facility that is not available in the local courthouse.
      The mischief that we are trying to remedy by tabling amendment No. 6 is the batch-processing of cases. It alarms the magistracy and many others that the Government might deem it convenient, efficient and effective to deal with many hundreds of cases of the same kind in one magistrates court in one central

      445
      location—however inconvenient that might be for the defendant, the witnesses and everyone else involved—because that would enable the swift prosecution and resolution of those cases. We already see this happening to a certain extent with traffic offences.
      The provision in the Bill would allow for an escalation of batch-processing. That is undesirable in all sorts of ways. It is undesirable in terms of accessibility to justice, as I have already suggested, and in terms of the convenience of those involved in the case. It is also undesirable in terms of the interests of justice. When a batch-processing system deals with a great number of similar cases, it is unlikely that the same care and consideration will be given to each individual case, because the similarities of the cases will disguise the differences between them and the individual circumstances of each person before the bench. Lastly, it is undesirable from the point of view of members of the bench. It is unsatisfactory for a magistrate to deal with one kind of case, day in and day out, in that kind of process. Nor is it satisfactory for the remaining members of the bench, who would effectively have had a whole category of offences taken out of their jurisdiction by this process, to be left with the remnants.
      The facility in the clause to allow batch-processing must be rigorously resisted. A combination of amendments Nos. 6 and 7 would answer the case that the Minister put in Committee, restore the basic premise that justice should be locally administered in the local justice area—as stated in the remainder of clause 30(5)—and ensure that the Bill was a better one.
      My proposals contain two basic premises: the first deals with family and youth courts; the second deals with batch-processing. It is very important that we receive a satisfactory response from the Minister tonight.
      Mr. Hawkins: Once again, our perspective is similar to that of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). As he rightly said, we raised these matters in Committee. Batch-processing provoked an interesting discussion on 1 July this year, at columns 104 onwards. It was noteworthy that Back Benchers on both sides of the Committee were worried. My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) raised the problem of making journalists aware of when cases were being heard. It is not satisfactory for press coverage if cases relating to one area are dealt with in courts miles away. The Labour Back Bencher, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), raised his concerns about batch-processing and gave the example of a constituent who was denied the chance of mitigation.
      I am especially aware of the problem because some of the courts in which I practised, such as Northampton, have used batch-processing for fixed-penalty notices for the whole country. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said, it can be an efficient system for the purposes of administrative convenience of the state, but that is not a good reason to allow it to happen.
      I also share the hon. Gentleman's concern about family proceedings and youth courts. Although, as he rightly says, some of the issues raised by Lady Woolf
      446
      have been taken on board so that some of the problems with family proceedings in the London area have been reconsidered, it is fair to say that because there was a threat to introduce the system that worried Lady Woolf and many others, including those who wrote to me, the fear exists that that mentality will continue to operate. Although we have beaten off that risk this time and forced further consultation, it does not mean that those who prefer administrative convenience to the interests of justice will not be tempted to return to the same batch-processing mentality. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said, there is only one way in which the qualifying phrase in clause 30(5)(d) can be read. It is all about administrative convenience.
      The House will realise that we have added our names to amendments Nos. 6 and 8 but not to amendment No. 7. That is not because we do not understand what the hon. Gentleman is trying to do, but because we are a bit worried that he is being too generous to the Government by giving them a way to reintroduce their red herring. I thought it better to stick simply to amendments Nos. 6 and 8. There is a judgment call to be made on whether we should give the Government any flexibility by introducing amendment No. 7.
      I hope that even at this late stage the Government will be more flexible and recognise that we have a serious concern, which hon. Members on both sides of the Committee recognised. The concern is widely shared by senior magistrates, such as Lady Woolf and others. I hope that the Minister is prepared to accept that the amendments will not damage the Bill but will simply introduce extra safeguards.
      Mr. Leslie: Amendment No. 8 would make it clear that the Lord Chancellor's powers to give direction on the places where magistrates courts may sit should include family proceedings courts and youth courts. I assure Opposition Members that the term "magistrates court" already includes those courts unless an Act states otherwise. Section 67 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 and section 45 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 describe that more fully. I am more than happy to provide hon. Members with copies of the relevant sections. In short, I assure hon. Members that the issue dealt with in amendment No. 8 is already covered, so it is redundant.
      I do, however, appreciate what the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said about the London specialist family proceeding centres. Clearly, Lady Woolf s involvement has helped to raise that issue in the public arena. The Greater London Magistrates Courts Authority is reconsidering its position, in particular to take account of accessibility. At the moment, location issues are entirely a matter for the authority. The best I can do now is to note the hon. Gentleman's representations.
      8.15 pm
      Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 would allow cases to be heard outside the local justice area only if specific facilities are not available and are needed in the interests of justice. Let me set clause 30 in context. It is necessary to make courts more accessible by removing restrictions on where magistrates courts may sit and by allowing the use of non-court buildings where appropriate. The new

      447
      unified administration of the entire court estate will allow more opportunities for the co-location of county courts with magistrates courts, especially in rural areas that have no criminal court nearby.
      It is true that clause 30(5)(d) allows a case to leave a local justice area if it raises similar issues that are being dealt with elsewhere. That is not simply for reasons of batch-processing the mass of standard cases, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome implied. The Government intend to strike the right balance between running an efficient and effective court system. Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 would fetter the flexibility necessary to run such a system by restricting the transfer of cases outside a locality to circumstances related solely to court facilities rather than to the nature of the case itself. Serious criminal cases that cross a wide area of the country, as organised crime and drugs cases often do, might require specific magistrate training or prosecuting or defending needs. In such similar but numerous cases, why should court administrators be inhibited from co-locating them in a place best suited to the circumstances? Why should facilities be the only determining factor, allowing cases to cross a local justice area boundary?
      Mr. Heath: The Minister's rhetorical question goes to the heart of the amendments. There may be a case if facilities are the issue, but the mere similarity of cases, with no crossover of people, is not an argument for reducing the accessibility to the case for local people who are interested in seeing justice done in their area. A crossover of people is, of course, allowed for in other subsections of clause 30.
      Mr. Leslie: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's amendment is framed in such a way as to allow cases to go outside the local justice area only because of the facilities provided. They do not relate to the services for victims and witnesses that might need to be tailored to particular cases and are not classed as facilities. We need to retain flexibility to allow the courts better to serve the needs of court users. Let me give examples of cases other than terrorism that may need to cross boundaries: serial cases might sometimes need committing across local justice area boundaries to ensure that defendants are tried in a single location for a string of offences; it might not be possible for a local court to cater for vulnerable witnesses or victims with special needs if the problem is not simply one of physical facilities; and consistency of sentencing is sometimes needed when violent demonstrations take place in different locations and could be tried in a single court.
      Some Opposition Members seem to dislike the notion of processing certain cases in specialist magistrates courts. Many magistrates courts deal with a lot of cases and are, to be frank, overburdened with important but relatively routine minor offences, such as television licence cases and minor traffic violations. In my view, it would be wrong to force all such cases to be dispersed across the whole country, potentially clogging up some courts and delaying more important cases or preventing them from being heard more swiftly locally, where it matters most. We need flexibility in the system to allocate cases sensibly, with the vast majority of offences heard locally, but keeping open options for specialist courts to hear cases that raise similar issues. I believe that the Bill as framed strikes the correct
      448
      balance, and I trust that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome will think again and withdraw his amendment.
      Mr. Heath: First, let me deal with the lead amendment. I am grateful to the Minister for stating explicitly that family proceedings courts and youth courts are included within the definition of magistrates courts for the purposes of this part of the Bill. That is a clear undertaking that the provisions of clause 30(2) about accessibility apply just as much to family proceedings courts and youth courts as to magistrates courts. We will hold him to that undertaking in future. The opportunity to have that put explicitly on the record was a useful end in itself, and I do not intend to take the matter further.
      I am also grateful to the Minister for his comments on the position in London. I hope that that will be resolved, but many of us will watch carefully to see what the end result will be and hope that it is acceptable to the very large number of people who reside in London but not in central London. Their needs must be catered for just as much as the needs of residents of the City, Soho or any other part of central London. Many hon. Members will carefully scrutinise any proposals that emerge.
      On amendments Nos. 6 and 7, the Minister has entirely failed to persuade me of his case—in fact, he has made matters worse by his comments. Having suspected that what is proposed is batch-processing, we now know that what is proposed is batch-processing of those minor cases that are apparently such an administrative bore for local justices that they have to be put into a central receiving centre and dealt with there. Never mind the interests of defendants, witnesses, or anyone else involved—that is how such cases will be dealt with.
      I listened carefully to the examples the Minister gave of what he has in mind. First, he mentioned serial offences. They already come within the provisions of subsection (5), because the offences will have been committed elsewhere, so it entirely proper that they be dealt with on that basis. Secondly, he spoke about cases involving terrorist offences, wherein the main requirement is facilities to house the proceedings properly. Clearly, such facilities are covered by amendment No. 7. Then, quite extraordinarily, the Minister posited that if there were demonstrations in several parts of the country, it would obviously be for everyone's convenience if a single court were to deal with them. That is so far from local justice administered locally that it is laughable.
      It is surely not the Government's intention or the intention behind the Bill that, for administrative convenience, cases involving different offences—or allegations of offences—committed in different parts of the country should be heard by a single court that is not aware of local circumstances or the context in which the offences took place, which would cause great inconvenience to all concerned, whether defendants, witnesses, victims or representatives of those involved. Yet that is what the Minister says he is legislating for through the provisions of clause 30. That may be what the Minister wants, but it is not what I want, nor, I suspect, what many hon. Members want.
      Mr. Leslie: I realise that the Liberal Democrats do not always have to consider issues of efficiency and

      449
      effectiveness, but can the hon. Gentleman envisage circumstances in which, for example, training for specialist magistrates or specific prosecution or defence needs might require cases to be heard outside local justice areas, the issue being not facilities, but particular services that might be needed? Is he really arguing that we should never, in any circumstances, consider such cases outside local justice areas?
      Mr. Heath: In the first instance, the matter should be for magistrates for the local area to determine. We are not discussing proceedings in Crown court or the higher courts; we are talking about magistrates courts—the local bench hearing cases involving local offences and applying local justice to their considerations. If the Minister does not understand that, all our debates on the Bill have been a complete waste of time.
      Now, stripped of rhetoric and pretence, we see the reality of the Government's proposals. I am not sure that it will profit the House to continue to debate this matter, but I am glad that we now have clarity about the Government's purpose, which gives us a clear objective to vote against. I have listened to the Minister's comments on amendment No. 8 and, in the circumstances, I am prepared to seek leave to withdraw it, but my views on amendment No. 6 have been strongly reinforced by his remarks and I am now determined to press it to a Division.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment proposed: No. 6, in page 14, line 33, after 'place', insert
      'in the local justice area'.—[Mr. Heath.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 86, Noes 278.

      Division No. 330]

      [8.27 pm

      AYES

      Allan, Richard

      Garnier, Edward

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Gidley, Sandra

      Barrett, John

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Blunt, Crispin

      Greenway, John

      Boswell, Tim

      Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Breed, Colin

      Hawkins, Nick

      Burnett, John

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Burnside, David

      Heath, David

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Cameron, David

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

      Holmes, Paul

      Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

      Jack, rh Michael

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Cash, William

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Lamb, Norman

      Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Lansley, Andrew

      Cotter, Brian

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Doughty, Sue

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

      Lidington, David

      Evans, Nigel

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Flook, Adrian

      Loughton, Tim

      Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      450

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Streeter, Gary

      Maclean, rh David

      Stunell, Andrew

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Syms, Robert

      Moore, Michael

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Teather, Sarah

      Öpik, Lembit

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Osborne, George (Tattoo)

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Trend, Michael

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Whittingdale, John

      Willetts, David

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

      Willis, Phil

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Young, rh Sir George

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

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Tom Brake and

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Mrs. Annette L. Brooke

      NOES

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Ainger, Nick

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Cohen, Harry

      Alexander, Douglas

      Coleman, Iain

      Allen, Graham

      Connarty, Michael

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Cousins, Jim

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Cranston, Ross

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Crausby, David

      Bailey, Adrian

      Cruddas, Jon

      Baird, Vera

      Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Beard, Nigel

      Cummings, John

      Bell, Stuart

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Benn, Hilary

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Bennett, Andrew

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Darling, rh Alistair

      Berry, Roger

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Best, Harold

      David, Wayne

      Betts, Clive

      Davidson, Ian

      Blackman, Liz

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Borrow, David

      Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Brennan, Kevin

      Denham, rh John

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Dismore, Andrew

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Bryant, Chris

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Burden, Richard

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Burgon, Colin

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Burnham, Andy

      Edwards, Huw

      Caborn, rh Richard

      Efford, Clive

      Cairns, David

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Farrelly, Paul

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Fisher, Mark

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Follett, Barbara

      Casale, Roger

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Caton, Martin

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Challen, Colin

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      Clapham, Michael

      Gardiner, Barry

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Gilroy, Linda

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Goggins, Paul

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Clelland, David

      Grogan, John

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      451

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Mandelson, rh Peter

      Hanson, David

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

      Healey, John

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Martlew, Eric

      Hendrick, Mark

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

      Heppell, John

      Merron, Gillian

      Hesford, Stephen

      Miliband, David

      Heyes, David

      Miller, Andrew

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hodge, Margaret

      Mole, Chris

      Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

      Moran, Margaret

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Morley, Elliot

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Mountford, Kali

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Mudie, George

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Mullin, Chris

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Hutton, rh John

      O'Hara, Edward

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Organ, Diana

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Owen, Albert

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Perham, Linda

      Jenkins, Brian

      Picking, Anne

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Plaskitt, James

      Pollard, Kerry

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Pound, Stephen

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Jowell, rh Tessa

      Prescott, rh John

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Purchase, Ken

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Purnell, James

      Kidney, David

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Quinn, Lawrie

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

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

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Lammy, David

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Ruane, Chris

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

      Love, Andrew

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

      Salter, Martin

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Sawford, Phil

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McCabe, Stephen

      Shaw, Jonathan

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Sheerman, Barry

      MacDonald, Calum

      Sheridan, Jim

      McDonnell, John

      Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

      MacDougall, John

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Singh, Marsha

      McKechin, Ann

      Skinner, Dennis

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      McNulty, Tony

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &Finsbury)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      McWalter, Tony

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Steinberg, Gerry

      452

      Stevenson, George

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Watts, David

      Stringer, Graham

      White, Brian

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Wills, Michael

      Taylor David (NW Leics)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Tipping, Paddy

      Woolas, Phil

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Worthington, Tony

      Touhig, Don (IsIwyn)

      Wright Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Truswell, Paul

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Mr. Fraser Kemp and

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Jim Fitzpatrick

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 93

      AWARD OF COSTS AGAINST THIRD PARTIES
      Mr. Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 53, in page 45, line 6, leave out 'and'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 54, in page 45, line 8, at end insert
      ', and
      (c) the proceedings have been instigated by or with the consent of the Attorney General.'.
      Mr. Hawkins: This matter was debated in detail in Committee at column 171 and the following columns on 8 July. Concern was expressed by a number of organisations, including the Fleet Street Lawyers Society and the Newspaper Society, about the provisions for the award of costs against third parties. I, together with my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) for the Liberal Democrats, presented those views in the debate in Committee.
      The Minister gave us some helpful indications, which enabled us to reassure those outside this place on the issues related to clause 93 and the award of costs. In particular, the Minister made it clear that regulations would deal with some of the points that we raised. Nevertheless, there is still the question whether such proceedings ought to take place without the Attorney-General's consent. In relation to matters of contempt of court, as the Minister and the Government well know, it has always been the practice for the Attorney-General to be involved in the decision making. Contempt of court cases on behalf of the Government are usually brought by the Attorney-General. I have not only a great respect for the historic role of the Attorney-General, but a personal respect for the present Attorney-General, because he was chairman of the Bar Council for one of the years that I served on the general management committee—the inner cabinet of the Bar Council—when I chaired the corporate Bar. It would be a helpful safeguard for the Attorney-General, who has

      453
      always had a role in such matters, to be able to play a part in the decision to make an application for the award of costs against a third party.
      It is fair to say that the Newspaper Society and the Fleet Street Lawyers Society suggested further amendments, but I did not entirely accept every part of the case that they made to me. I felt, however, that amendments introducing the requirement that the Attorney-General's consent must be obtained for the instigation of proceedings or the making of any order, such as an application for an award of costs against a third party, would provide an independent safeguard against any arbitrary court action.
      We have always been very proud in this country of the freedom of the press. If the Government were to accept our amendments, the Bill's provisions would mirror the statutory consent requirements that already exist in relation to contempt of court proceedings and breaches of reporting restrictions in the court. Guidance that might be drafted by the Attorney-General or regulations are not as good as having something in the Bill. Prior consent of the Attorney-General would avoid injustice, the costs that would result from unmerited proceedings for orders for costs and the making of unmerited orders, even if those were followed by successful appeals.
      I hope very much that, on this small point, which does not go as far as some of those representing the press would wish to go, the Government will understand that we have been moderate in our suggestion, which is simply that the Attorney-General's prior consent should be obtained, as in contempt proceedings and proceedings for breaches of reporting restrictions in relation to court proceedings. I hope also that the Minister is prepared to accept our amendments.
      Mr. Leslie: I understand why the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) has raised this point. May I briefly give a little of the background? Clause 93 will introduce provisions that are designed to fill a lacuna in the criminal costs provisions in section 19 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. Section 19 already allows for the court to order one party to pay the costs incurred by the other as a result of the first party's unnecessary or improper act or omission.
      Section 19A allows the court to make a wasted costs order against a party's legal representative where costs are wasted as a result of that representative's improper, unreasonable or negligent act or omission. Proposed new section 19B will simply extend liability for wasted costs to third parties. A power for courts to order third parties to pay costs is not novel. A broader power already exists in the civil courts. However, the power introduced by this measure will be limited to instances of serious misconduct by a third party.
      I am afraid that I believe that the amendments cannot be accepted, and I shall explain why. We believe that the new provision that we propose contains sufficient safeguards to ensure the protection of third parties. In the first instance, the courts will have to establish that the impropriety constitutes serious misconduct.
      As we have explained in earlier debates, we have not tried to set out in legislation what constitutes serious misconduct. Instead, our policy intention is to allow the
      454
      courts to decide, given the circumstances surrounding each impropriety, whether the third party's actions constitute serious misconduct. The court will have to determine whether the serious misconduct caused a party or parties to proceedings to incur costs and, if so, whether it is appropriate for the third party to pay some or all of them. I say some or all, because the court should also consider the third party's ability to pay. As we have explained in earlier debates, the intention is not to put third parties such as small publishers out of business, but to ensure that if their serious misconduct causes parties to incur costs they should be liable for them, or for an appropriate portion of them.
      8.45 pm
      Before bringing third party costs proceedings, the court will have to give notice to the third party. The third party will have the right of representation at the third party costs hearing, and there will also be an automatic right of appeal. We therefore do not see why it should be necessary or helpful to engage the Attorney-General in criminal third party costs issues when he is not engaged with other costs matters. We rightly trust the courts to deal with the existing costs regimes, both civil and criminal, without the Attorney-General's intervention; and, as I said earlier, the criminal courts can already order costs against legal representatives when their improper, unreasonable or negligent act or omission causes wasted costs. In those instances it is not deemed necessary to bring in the Bar Council or the Law Society, because costs orders are a matter for the court rather than the professions' governing bodies.
      The Attorney-General is of course involved in bringing proceedings for contempt of court, but the outcome of a costs order is very different from the possible outcome of being found to be in contempt, when there is a real possibility of being sent to prison. Even in contempt proceedings, it is only necessary to involve the Attorney-General when bringing proceedings under the strict liability rule, when publications appear to have interfered with the course of justice. In other contempt proceedings, we are content to allow the courts to deal with matters themselves.
      The courts, both civil and criminal, have been dealing with costs orders for a very long time without the intervention of the Attorney-General. Clause 93 does no more than extend the criminal courts' costs powers to include third parties. We should trust the courts to operate the new legislation as well as they use their existing powers.
      I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Hawkins: I am not entirely satisfied by what the Minister has said. As I am sure he recognises, there is a legitimate fear among the press that the third party costs provisions could be used oppressively. That is why we thought it would be sensible, when a third party costs order was being sought—against a newspaper, for example—for the Attorney-General to be able to look into the matter before the application for the order was made. As the Minister was helpful in Committee when

      455
      we raised other concerns on behalf of the Newspaper Society and the Fleet Street Lawyers Society, however, I shall not press the matter.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 97

      COLLECTION OF FINES AND DISCHARGE OF FINES BY UNPAID WORK
      Mr. Leslie: I beg to move amendment No. 38, in page 47, line 27, leave out
      'a local justice area, or particular local justice areas'
      and insert
      'the local justice area or areas specified in the order'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government amendments Nos. 41 to 43 and Government amendments Nos. 11 to 36.
      Mr. Leslie: I shall try to be brief, as these are relatively minor technical and drafting changes, none of which affects the substance of policy in schedules 5 and 6. If Members indicate that they would be interested, I can speak at length and in fascinating and minute detail about all or at least some of the amendments; otherwise, I shall speak about them generally.
      Broadly, the amendments allow nationwide piloting to be within the scope of the piloting undertaken in respect of the fines enforcement arrangements that we envisage. We want to broaden the term "fines officer" to "fines office", so that if a fines officer is off ill we are not caught out by semantics. We want to clarify slightly the definition of "fine", and to tighten provisions in respect of the unpaid work scheme to discharge fines.
      Mr. Hawkins: I am afraid that I must ask the Minister to speak at a little more length on certain points. I hope that he can answer my questions this evening or in writing to me and other interested Members.
      The Minister says that some of the amendments are technical. Certainly, amendment No. 38 makes a technical change to insert a reference to
      "the local justice area…specified in the order".
      Will he provide more detail on the reason for that change?
      Amendment No. 41 replaces the words "a pecuniary penalty" with the word "any", thus widening the scope of schedule 5. Will he clarify the thinking behind that?
      Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 replace "fines officer" with "fines office". That is a sensible and helpful change that makes the provision clearer and more flexible, because the court will not get caught out if a named fines officer is unavailable through illness or absence.
      As the Minister said, amendments Nos. 11 to 36 make technical changes to schedule 6 in relation to work orders and the like. However, I wonder whether amendments Nos. 26 to 32 might have a sting in the tail. I sense something sinister in the proposal to refer not to magistrates, but to any court. Is that part of the Government agenda, which we have seen in one or two other contexts, to downgrade the role of the lay
      456
      magistracy by trying to use stipendiaries—or district judges, as they are now called—rather more? The Minister shakes his head, but I would be grateful for reassurance on the record.
      Amendment No. 36 inserts a reference to the national minimum wage. When I first saw the Bill as originally drafted, it struck me that only in the peculiar culture that this Government have brought about since 1997 could anybody think that someone doing work in relation to a compensation order qualifies for the national minimum wage. I hope that the Minister will say that the Government inserted it for the avoidance of doubt, but Conservative Members would think it common sense that such a person could not possibly be so regarded.
      I do not want to detain the House any longer, but I should be grateful for the Minister's further clarification on those points.
      Mr. Heath: I do not want to spend a long time on the amendments: they are fairly self-explanatory and I have no argument with them. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) mentioned amendment No. 36, which relates to the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, and which he took to mean that a person doing unpaid work in mitigation of a penalty would additionally be entitled to the national minimum wage.
      Mr. Hawkins: No, that is not right.
      Mr. Heath: In that case, I misunderstood him; I shall not impute any further meaning to his remarks.
      There is a slightly more complex issue that the Minister needs to explain. My understanding is that a notional wage would be attached to any work carried out by a convicted person in mitigation of their penalty, which would count against the total pecuniary penalty incurred as a result of their offence. Here, the 1998 Act probably ought to apply. Given that the notional wage indicates work being done instead of paying a penalty, such work ought surely to be valued, at minimum, at the level of the national minimum wage, to be consistent with the Government's policies. Otherwise, it is being devalued and the offender is, in effect, paying more than they would be subject to paying if they were fined instead. Perhaps I have grievously misunderstood the Minister's intentions—I probably have—but amendment No. 36 seems to introduce an internal inconsistency to the Government's policies. I would expect such work to attract a notional value at least equal to, not less than, the national minimum wage. However, it is hard to understand what other construction can be applied to the amendment.
      I think that I take a different view from the hon. Member for Surrey Heath on this issue, although it is clear that I misunderstood what he had to say on it. That said, nor do I entirely understand what the Government had to say on it. They seem to be saying that some form of reduced value work will be offset against a pecuniary fine. If that is the intention, will the Minister publish a tariff, so that we know what value the courts are expected to place on such work in part-payment of a fine? What is the minimum at which they will set the value of that work, or is it open to magistrates courts simply to say that a person who has no means can work

      457
      for ever and a day in discharging a fairly modest fine? That surely cannot be the intention—there must be some arbitration as to the value of work in such circumstances—but it is not clear what the level will be once the amendment is passed. Perhaps it is set down in guidance, but if so we have not seen it yet.
      Mr. Leslie: I knew that I should not have tried to be brief in speaking to these amendments—perhaps I was encouraged by others to ensure that I take a strategic approach to the Bill—but I am happy to provide detail on some of the specific issues raised.
      The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) mentioned amendment No. 38, the purpose of which is to make a small change to clause 97 to allow national piloting of attachment of earnings orders and deductions from benefits applications. Currently, clause 97(5) allows only local pilots to take place before national implementation of the measures contained in schedule 5. National pilots were not envisaged when the clause was originally drafted. However, the courts already have access to attachments and deductions, and in conjunction with the Treasury I have decided that the wider use of attachment of earnings orders and deductions from benefits applications justifies national piloting, given the greater benefits that they will provide across the country. The measures will therefore be piloted nationwide, together with national roll-out of the new offences on provision of means information. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman's question.
      The hon. Gentleman also asked about amendment No. 41, which seeks to clarify what we mean by a "fine". It is a technical amendment, the intention of which is to reduce the confusion generated by the term "pecuniary penalty" by removing it from the schedule altogether. A "pecuniary penalty" means any financial penalty, and includes, for example, fixed penalty notices before they are registered as fines. The use of the words "pecuniary penalty" in the definition of the word "fine" therefore widens the meaning of that word beyond what was intended—I hope I have taken the House with me so far.
      Both the word "fine" and the word "penalty" can mean different things in different enactments. For example, it can be convenient for the term "fine" to cover money ordered to be paid on conviction to someone other than the state. Although it is reasonable to talk about a fine as a pecuniary penalty, not every pecuniary penalty is a fine. We are satisfied that deleting the reference to pecuniary penalties will bring into the scheme pecuniary penalties that are classed as fines.
      The hon. Member for Surrey Heath asked about amendment No. 21, and suggested that because we are changing the term "magistrates' court" to the term "relevant court" we intend, in a sinister way, to move discreetly towards a greater use of stipendiary magistrates or district judges in their place. That is not the case. This is simply about providing flexibility and making sure that all the courts, should they be involved with these provisions, have the same powers.
      458
      9 pm
      The hon. Member for Surrey Heath says that amendment No. 36 is something to do with the peculiar culture that has existed since 1997. Well, I am glad that our "peculiar culture" includes a national minimum wage, but for the avoidance of doubt, when we are talking about punishing offenders we need to make it clear that when those who cannot afford to pay fines carry out unpaid work to discharge those fines, we shall not actually pay them the national minimum wage for doing so. They do not qualify for it.
      As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome suggested, we may want to introduce an equivalent work rate, and the Bill gives us a regulation-making power to do so, but I must make it clear that we do not intend to pay offenders for the work that they do.
      Mr. Heath: I certainly did not expect the Minister to say that the offender would be paid for the work; the phrase "unpaid work" makes that clear. However, it would be helpful if he said whether he intends to say in regulation that the tariff for unpaid work in place of a fine will be set at the level of the national minimum wage. I think that it should be, and I am asking for the Minister's confirmation that it will be.
      Mr. Leslie: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that confirmation, because I have not decided yet—but the most important thing is to make it clear that the offender will not get a payment, whether the national minimum wage or anything else: the work to discharge a fine will be unpaid. Offenders need to pay the price for their offences, and unpaid work is one mechanism by which they can do so. We need to ensure that the exclusion from the National Minimum Wage Act is in place.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 100

      PERIODICAL PAYMENTS
      Mr. Andrew Dismore:I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 49, line 17, after 'may', insert
      ', if the claimant consents,'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take amendment No. 10, in page 50, leave out lines 27 to 34.
      Mr. Dismore: I should declare an interest, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I remain a partner in a firm of solicitors that specialises in personal injury cases, although I have not dealt with any since I entered the House. I also remain a member of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers; I was formerly a member of its executive committee and I chaired its damages specialist interest group. In that capacity I was closely involved in the original development of what were then known as structured settlements and are now called periodic payments. That was in the late 1980s.
      I am a great believer in that system of compensation for the right cases in the right circumstances. There is a risk of overdoing things, but I am pleased that progress in the development of the law in that area, for that important remedy, has been so successful. Nevertheless, problems remain, and the Bill addresses some of them—

      459
      but unfortunately, new ones are created, especially in relation to consent. I also think that an opportunity was missed when we considered how inflation should be dealt with.
      My amendment No. 9 deals with consent. It is important to point out that periodical payments have both advantages and disadvantages. Claimants would not have to fear running out of compensation, as they would if damages were ordered as a lump sum, but periodical payments create a lifetime relationship between the claimant and the defendant which the claimant may find extremely difficult. For that reason, the merits of imposing periodical payments must be assessed on an individual case-by-case basis, and I am concerned that, under clause 100, awards for future pecuniary loss—the lion's share of any award—can be made irrespective of whether the claimant consents. That is particularly important if periodical payments are being linked to the retail prices index in respect of inflation because it would prevent the claimant from looking for a better rate of return. Under clause 100, it is possible for a court to order a periodical payment without the consent of either party, let alone just that of the claimant. That puts the claimant completely at the mercy of the court's discretion and the defendant's arguments. I believe that that is unfair because only the claimant is able to say how an award can best be used to place him in the position that he was in before the injury.
      In 1991 I wrote a paper for the Law Commission on that very issue. I summarised my views then and they have not changed at all on this particular issue. I wrote:
      "It is the Plaintiff who has been injured by the Defendant, and it should be for the Plaintiff to decide whether he or she wishes to have the damages by lump sum or structured periodic payments. The Court should not have power to compel a Plaintiff to accept a structured settlement if the Plaintiff prefers a lump sum award…The only exception…should be where the Plaintiff is under a legal disability, when the Court has a role in approving any terms of settlement, and in those circumstances, it may be appropriate for the Court to have the power".
      In response to my submission and others, the Law Commission produced a report in 1994. Paragraph 3.38 on page 38 summarises the position:
      "The corollary of this liberal principle"—
      the question of how the plaintiff should be able to spend the damages—
      "is that plaintiffs should be able to insist on receiving their reward in the form of an immediate lump sum payment. Imposition of a different form of award has been seen as interference with freedom of contract. It is also argued by some that it is wrong to introduce paternalism into personal injury awards when awards of damages in other areas of the law continue to leave plaintiffs in receipt of lump sums which they are free to spend as they wish."
      Baroness Scotland said in another place:
      "We agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that the views of the claimant in relation to periodical payments is the important issue."
      She continued later:
      "The weight to be given to the claimant's wishes, for example, might depend on the reasons for them and the quality of advice on which they are based."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 March 2003; Vol. 646, c. 937.]
      That is to adopt a nanny state approach to this important issue. Elsewhere it has been suggested that if the claimant wanted to set up a business, the court
      460
      should start to examine the claimant's business case to see whether it was sensible, but that is putting the cart before the horse.
      My experience of claimants over more than 20 years in active practice before I became a Member of Parliament is that they are sensible and cautious people, concerned to ensure that their money will not run out. Whether through a lump sum or a structured settlement, they are concerned to ensure that their money is invested and spent wisely. It is the claimant's right to say how he or she should receive their compensation. In taking that right away from claimants, the Bill creates more problems than it will resolve. It is wrong for the courts to impose an award against the wishes of the claimant, let alone those of the defendant.
      However, my main concerns about clause 100 are expressed primarily in amendment No. 10, which deals with the question of how to operate a periodic payment in respect of inflation. The clause provides that such operation should, except at the court's discretion, be by reference to the retail prices index. The current position in common law was restated in the Court of Appeal in three cases only last week. The lead case was Sheppard v. Stibbe. The appeal was brought on behalf of a young boy aged nine, Ben Sheppard, who suffered serious spinal injuries—his five-year-old sister was killed—in a car accident in June 2001. Ben is now in a wheelchair; the driver of the other vehicle was convicted of dangerous driving.
      Another case was that of Mr. Page, who suffered brain injuries when a motorcycle struck him when he was 13; and another was a 12-year-old from Bristol, Sonni Cooke, who suffered permanently disabling injuries during birth. The cases were appealed against the refusal by judges in the lower courts to admit accountancy evidence to the effect that the future cost of care in each case would be grossly underestimated if the conventional method—the discount rate or, for our argument, the retail prices index, which is the mirror image of the same argument—were applied, thus grossly underestimating the damages. The Court of Appeal ruled that the substance of the appeals constituted an assault on the rate set by the Lord Chancellor—the discount rate of 2.5 per cent., which was applied to compensation for future losses, such as we are discussing in clause 100.
      Lord Justice Laws ruled that if a
      "single discount rate is taken across the board, as has been done by the Lord Chancellor's order, the full compensation principle will only be achieved in a rough and ready way. Counsel for the appellants would, of course, roundly insist that that is scant comfort to their clients, who it is said stand to suffer very substantial shortfalls. Be it so on the facts of these cases: still, it cannot in my judgment amount to a proper basis for allowing these appeals to prosper. The court is obliged by ordinary constitutional principles to act in its decisions case by case conformably with the discount rate set by the Lord Chancellor…He may be persuaded at the political level to set a different rate. He may (I encourage nothing) be amenable to judicial review. But so long as the rate he has set is extant, the courts cannot in the adjudication of personal injury claims subvert or undermine it."
      The effect of the current position—including clause 100—can be seen by using the Ben Shepherd case as an example. Future care costs would be assessed on the conventional basis of the RPI, so he would receive about £900,000 under that head. Between 1963 and 2000, the costs of care increased 2.5 per cent annually above the

      461
      rate of inflation. If that higher rate were taken into account, the damages would be increased by 149 per cent. to more than £2.2 million. Similarly, compensation for future loss of earnings would go up from about £500,000 to almost £900,000, and damages for medical treatment would be increased from under £700,000 to more than £1 million.
      If, as expected, Ben lives into his late 70s, the money will run out and there will be nothing left to pay for his care for the last 30 years of his life. He will be thrown back into dependency on the state. In the past, the practice has been that general damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity have been used to cross-subsidise the cost of care, but that is effectively subsidising the insurance company and is not the answer.
      The Government's position was stated in the other place by Baroness Scotland, who said:
      "It is important that the real value of periodical payments can be preserved over the whole period for which they are payable. The indexation of payments is already a matter for the court's discretion and the Bill does not affect that."
      However, as I have just illustrated, the courts are not using that discretion in practice. She continued:
      "At present, it is common practice to link payments to the retail prices index. However, it would not be appropriate to prescribe this as a blanket index to which all payments must be linked. In some cases it may be appropriate to link different heads of damage to different indices. The court currently has that flexibility."
      However—as I have suggested—it is not used in practice. She continued further:
      "We believe that it is important to retain the current flexibility and for indexation to be left to the discretion of the court"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 March 2003; Vol. 646, c. 934.]
      In practice, that discretion is fettered by, for example, the rate set by the Lord Chancellor under the Damages Act 1996 at 2.5 per cent. Now the Government have put the RPI in the Bill, theoretically to reflect the current position, but in practice it would have the effect of further fettering the discretion of the court when awarding damages for future loss by way of periodic payment.
      The draft rule amendments to part 40 of the civil procedure rules, which are supposed to bring into effect clause 100, should it be passed by the House, set out the criteria that should be considered when deciding whether to uprate. It says that
      "the amount of the payments shall vary annually by reference to the retail prices index, unless the court orders otherwise under section 2(9) of the 1996 Act."
      In other words, we are back to where we started. It is a circular argument. The draft practice direction amendments contain nothing to specify how the discretion to depart from RPI should be exercised. I should have thought that if the intention was for that discretion to be used properly, there would at least be something in the draft practice direction to set out guidance to judges on the use of that discretion. In fact, the explanatory notes to the Bill make the position even worse. They emphasise RPI as the appropriate approach. Explanatory note 275 states:
      "To ensure that the real value of periodical payments is preserved over the whole period for which they are payable, new
      462
      section 2 provides that periodical payments orders will be treated as linking the payments to the…RPI"—
      subject to discretion. Again, that emphasises the RPI as the norm.
      9.15 pm
      Why is that important? Usually, periodic payments are only of use in high-value cases involving serious injury, usually with substantial care costs. The current position, reproduced in clause 100, is inadequate. The greatest proportion of such awards relates to the cost of future care for the claimant and to the claimant's loss of earnings. The costs of both over a long period will increase by considerably more than the RPI, which means that the compensation that is intended to provide for those needs will be insufficient; in particular, the money paid periodically to cover the cost of care will quickly become inadequate to pay for a care regime that the court has said is necessary.
      As the explanatory notes show, it is expected that periodical payments will be linked to the RPI in the great majority of cases, so it can be anticipated that the RPI will indeed be applied in that way by the courts, which will be disastrous for the claimants who are in most need of help. Surely, the whole point of periodical payments is to improve on the old lump-sum position. In the original consultation paper on the issue, "Damages for Future Loss: Giving the Courts the Power to Order Periodical Payments for Future Loss and Care Costs in Personal Injury Cases", the then Lord Chancellor's Department noted:
      "We consider that periodical payments can provide a fairer and more certain way of ensuring that claimants awarded damages for future losses and care costs, often for the remainder of their lives, receive the compensation to which they are entitled."
      The paper stated that periodical payments
      "place the risks associated with life expectancy and investment on defendants rather than claimants. This ensures that claimants who live longer than expected enjoy the quality of life they are entitled to, and do not have to fall back on social security when the money runs out."
      However, that is exactly what will happen if clause 100 is accepted. If the current position is to be improved, periodical payments should be linked to more relevant indices, such as the average earnings index and the Department of Health's care cost index.
      There is wide recognition in the higher courts that there may be a need to index awards by reference to indices other than the RPI. The Department of Health recognises that hospital and community health service inflation is likely to outstrip the RPI for the foreseeable future and concern has been expressed in the Judicial Committee of another place about the ability of awards to keep pace with expense. There is real concern that the cost of future care for the claimant and the claimant's loss of earnings will, over a long period, increase by considerably more than the RPI, which will mean that the compensation that was intended to provide for those needs will be insufficient. In particular, the money paid periodically to cover the cost of care will quickly become inadequate to pay for a care regime that the court has awarded.
      The key argument is that while the RPI may be a sound basis for calculating damages for non-pecuniary loss, other more appropriate indices should be used to

      463
      calculate pecuniary losses accurately, to ensure that the claimant is neither undercompensated nor overcompensated. I understand that the Civil Justice Council's serious injury and clinical negligence committee has also expressed extreme concern about the proposed RPI link.
      In Standing Committee, my hon. Friend the Minister said of a not dissimilar amendment that it made no provision for indexation, in which case the claimant would be worse off. Moreover, the suggestion that there should be links to another index raises the worry that insurers would be unable to provide a product, as financial regulations limit the index-linked products that they can supply.
      If there were no provision, claimants would be no worse off at common law than they are at present. My main concern is that the common law position needs to be improved and the Bill would not achieve that. My hon. Friend the Minister prays in aid the insurance difficulties, but the insurer stands in the place of the tortfeasor and the purpose of compensation, as was recognised by Baroness Scotland, is to put the victim in the position in which he or she would have been had the accident not occurred. The effect of the clause would be unjustly to enrich the guilty tortfeasor or his insurers at the expense of the innocent claimant victim, contrary to all principles of common law.
      Surely, it is the responsibility of the insurance industry to develop new products if periodical payments are to achieve the objectives laid out in the original consultation. While the Bill requires only the majority of cases to be linked to RPI, the insurance industry has no incentive to bring in alternative products.
      The Financial Services Authority says that periodical payments have to be linked to the RPI under the close-matching regulations, but back in the late 1980s, we had all sorts of problems with the Treasury, the taxation system, the various controls over the financial industry and how to structure settlements. In practice, all those problems were overcome by various amendments and concessions made by the Treasury. There is no reason why similar amendments could not be made now to provide just and fair compensation to victims. Victims should not lose out. In any event, the argument about insurance products does not apply to claims against the state for clinical negligence, as it is unlikely that the state would purchase annuity products anyway but would proceed on the basis of self-insurance.
      What can be done at this late stage? I am realistic; I recognise that the prospect of my being able to put the amendment to the vote and carry it are somewhat slim, but I put it to my hon. Friend the Minister that, even at this late stage, he could issue a clear indication in responding to the debate that discretion should be used to ensure that victims do not lose out, especially on care costs, and to depart from the RPI where it can be shown that claimants would substantially lose out if the RPI applied in respect of care costs. If my hon. Friend were to do that, those who bring such cases could use the Pepper v. Hart principle to ensure that his remarks were brought before the court and claimants would then have a reasonable chance of getting fair and adequate compensation.
      The second thing that my hon. Friend could do is to say that he would try to bring before the rules committee his view that the draft practice direction amendments
      464
      should themselves be amended to set out the circumstances in which discretion is appropriate, for example, in relation to substantial care costs or future earnings. If we were able to do that, it would at least bring to the attention of the courts the circumstances in which claimants would otherwise be undercompensated if the RPI were to seen simply as the norm.
      I urge my hon. Friend to say that he will at least consider those two very simple and straightforward things that would ensure that victims do not lose out, that they get fair compensation and that insurers do not get a windfall at the expense of the taxpayer, who will have to pick up the tab through the social security system when the money runs out.
      Mr. Hawkins: The hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), from his expertise as an active member of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, has obviously considered the detail of what we debated in Committee, when Liberal Democrat Members moved an amendment not dissimilar to that which the hon. Gentleman moved tonight. He is also aware that I have some familiarity with medical negligence cases, although perhaps not his depth of detailed experience. I dealt with such cases at the Bar and in my subsequent work as a corporate lawyer, working in insurance.
      As I said in Committee, I am indebted to, among others, my noble Friend Lord Hunt of Wirral and Dr. Gerard Panting and Shelley McNicol from the Medial Protection Society for some of the detailed briefing that I have received in relation to the indexation and RPI issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised.
      We in the House are always concerned when any change is proposed that could lead to what has become known in America as defensive medicine—any situation in which surgeons or other medical consultants or doctors would perhaps feel unable to take steps in surgery or other medical procedures that might be vital to the patient's needs but contain an element of risk. If medical specialists were unwilling to use their skills fully because they were looking over their shoulder, worrying about possible negligence claims and the possible insurance position, there would be great concern in the House, and not only among Conservative Members.
      Although the Medical Protection Society, which has more than 114,000 members in the United Kingdom alone and more than 200,000 members throughout the world, generally welcomes a move away from lump-sum settlements to providing periodical payments in clinical negligence cases, it has serious concerns about the way in which indexation would operate.
      The hon. Member for Hendon has already referred to the debate in another place on 19 May this year, at columns 536 to 538 of House of Lords Hansard. An exchange took place between the noble Lord Goodhart, of the Liberal Democrats and the Minister, Baroness Scotland. In response to clarification by Baroness Scotland of the reference to RPI in this context, my noble Friend Lord Hunt was able to withdraw his amendment, which had sought to limit the operation of an opt-out clause to exceptional circumstances. The hon. Member for Hendon is having another go at getting rid of all reference to the RPI. In Committee, the Liberal Democrats were working on the basis of advice from Mr. David Kemp, QC, who is probably acknowledged as the greatest expert in the field of damages for personal injury and medical negligence.

      465
      What we said about the Liberal Democrat amendment in Committee, which is similar to the proposal of the hon. Member for Hendon, is that any taking out of the RPI would virtually stop structured settlements in their tracks. It is difficult enough already to find any kind of insurance-based product that would enable provision to be made for periodical payments, even one that is increasing in accordance with the RPI. In the week before we debated the matter in Committee on 8 July, one insurance company had closed its doors to any new business of that kind, and another company was talking about limiting the range of products that it offers. Continuing attempts are being made in the courts to persuade judges to allow future care costs at a much higher level. To date, those attempts have not succeeded, but great concern was expressed not only by the chief medical officer, Sir Liam Donaldson, that courts may not take into account treatment being available under the NHS, but by the NHS Litigation Authority, which raised the matter with my noble Friend Lord Hunt of Wirral.
      What the hon. Member for Hendon has provided is a re-run of the amendment tabled in Committee by the Liberal Democrats. The Government's position then—and now, I suspect—was that the RPI index was the right approach in the great majority of cases. That has been the view not only of the Government but of the insurance industry. What the Opposition do not want is any change to these proposals that would make it more difficult for a responsible body such as the Medical Protection Society to represent its members, that would lead to defensive medicine, and that would make it more difficult for the insurance industry to provide any sort of cover for medical professionals. I suspect that when the Minister comes to respond, he will make similar comments.
      On the hon. Member for Hendon's other amendment, what the Opposition say is that the court has to consider the claimant's needs. We expect that rules of court will concentrate on such matters as are in the claimant's best interests. It seems to us that rules of court are the right place for these matters to be dealt with, and that experienced judges can be trusted to use their powers in accordance with rules of court to ensure that the claimant's needs are met. It would not be sensible to make further changes—even though I recognise that the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers holds strong views on the matter—which we believe would lead to the kind of problems of defensive medicine that have been so prevalent in recent years in the United States.
      Mr. Leslie: First, I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) on raising this issue. He discussed the question in Committee, and we talked about it then.
      Amendment No. 9 would allow the court to make a periodical payments order for civil court damages only with the claimant's consent. I am afraid to tell my hon. Friend that the Government cannot accept the amendment because it would go against the whole purpose of the provisions on periodical payments. In previous debates on this issue, Members of both Houses recognised the significant benefits of periodical payments. They help to ensure that people receive the
      466
      compensation to which they are entitled for as long as it is needed; they transfer investment responsibility from claimants to defendants, who are better able to bear it; and they can even benefit defendants, including the NHS, by allowing awards to be managed more cost effectively. The Government believe that a power for the court to order periodical payments is needed to realise those benefits.
      9.30 pm
      The court must be allowed to take into account all the individual circumstances of the case and weigh all the relevant factors against one another in making the order that it considers best meets the needs of the claimant. The Bill provides for rules of court to specify matters that the court must take into account when considering whether it needs to order periodical payments. We fully accept that the claimant's wishes are an important factor in this decision and they will certainly therefore be one of the factors that the court must consider. However, allowing the claimant effectively to veto an order for periodical payments will undermine the whole purpose of this clause, and we cannot allow that.
      We do not consider that claimants have an automatic entitlement to receive a lump sum. A central legal principle in awarding damages is to restore claimants, as far as is possible, to the financial position that they would have been in but for the accident. Before the accident, they would have received their future earnings and pension not in a single lifetime lump-sum payment, but in the form of a stream of income against which they could spend, save or borrow as they chose. Periodical payments reflect that position much more accurately than lump sums.
      Amendment No. 10 would remove any provision for the indexation of periodical payments from the Bill. Although I recognise concerns about indexation, I do not believe that amending the Bill in this way is appropriate.
      Clause 100 deals with how payments of personal injury compensation are made. It does not attempt to go into detail about how such claims are to be valued. The provisions in the Bill merely seek to reflect the current position in which the great majority of orders—whether for structural settlement purposes or for lump sums—are linked to the retail prices index. Moving away from the current indexation position would raise much wider issues of how care and medical costs are calculated, an issue on which the chief medical officer has recently made recommendations relating to clinical negligence. As the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) suggested, the amendment would raise regulatory issues for the insurance industry, which is restricted in the index-linked products that it can provide. Any change would result in substantial increased costs for the NHS and insurers. It would therefore not be appropriate to consider any change without full and wide-ranging consultation. All the issues and potential impacts of change would need to be taken into account, along with the chief medical officer's recommendations.
      The Bill therefore suggests that the retail prices index should be, as it is now, the norm. However, under clause 100 and proposed new section 2(9) of the Damages Act 1996, the court will remain able to take a different approach to indexation when it considers that the

      467
      particular circumstances of the case make it appropriate. That is a very important provision in the Bill.
      I hear what my hon. Friend says about the extent to which procedure rules give guidance on circumstances when the court may depart from the retail prices index, and I shall certainly undertake to consider the matter in more detail. Nevertheless, I remain of the view that the Bill is drafted flexibly and gives latitude and discretion to the court. I therefore invite him to withdraw his amendment.
      Mr. Dismore: I have listened to my hon. Friend and I am rather disappointed by what he said. Nevertheless, I take a crumb of comfort from the fact that he will consider the draft rules and guidance through the code. I urge him to reflect on the fact that the effect of his comments will be to ensure that accident victims will, yet again and as usual, lose out and that the insurance industry will, yet again and as usual, end up through its powerful lobby being quids in.
      I will not press the amendment to a vote even though I regard the Government's position as disappointing. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

    Clause 103

      OFFICIAL SOLICITOR OF NORTHERN IRELAND
      Amendment made: No. 39, in page 56, line 13, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
      '(3) For subsection (1) substitute—
      "(1) The Lord Chancellor, after consultation with the Lord Chief Justice, may appoint as Official Solicitor to the Supreme Court a person who is—

      (a) a solicitor of the Supreme Court of at least 7 years' standing, or

      (b) a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland of at least 7 years' standing.'"[Mr. Leslie.]

    Clause 109

      MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS, REPEALS, ETC.
      Amendment made: No. 40, in page 59, line 30, at end insert—
      '() Schedule (Transitional provisions and savings) contains transitional provisions and savings.'.—[Mr. Leslie.]

    New Schedule 1
      'TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND SAVINGS

        Interpretation
        1 In this Schedule "the JPA 1997" means the Justices of the Peace Act 1997 (c. 25).
        Orders contracting out the provision of officers and staff
        2 Any order which, immediately before section 2 comes into force, was in force under section 27(3) of the Courts Act 1971 (c. 23), including, in particular, any order made under section 27(3) by virtue of —

        (a) section 4(7) of the Taxes Management Act 1970 (c. 9), or

        (b) section 82(3) of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 (c. 23),

        shall have effect as if made under section 2 for the purpose of discharging the Lord Chancellor's general duty in relation to the courts (and may be amended or revoked accordingly).

        Local justice areas
        3 The first order under section 8 must specify as a local justice area each area which was a petty sessions area immediately before the time when that section comes into force.

        Appointment and assignment of lay justices
        4 A person who, immediately before section 10 comes into force, was a justice of the peace for a commission area under section 5 of the JPA 1997 shall be treated as having been—

        (a) appointed under section 10(1) as a lay justice for England and Wales, and

        (b) assigned under section 10(2)(a) to the local justice area which—

        (i) is specified as such in the first order under section 8, and

        (ii) immediately before section 10 comes into force, was the petty sessions area in and for which he ordinarily acted.

        The supplemental list
        5 (1) The existing supplemental list shall have effect as the supplemental list required to be kept by section 12; and any name which, immediately before that section comes into force, was included in that list under a provision listed in column 1 of the table shall be treated as having been entered in the list under the provision listed in column 2—

        Provision of the JPA 1997

        Provision of this Act

        Section 7(2)

        Section 13(1)

        Section 7(4)

        Section 13(5)

        Section 7(6)

        Section 13(4)

        (2) "The existing supplemental list" means the supplemental list having effect under the JPA 1997 immediately before section 12 comes into force.

        Keepers of the rolls
        6 A person who, immediately before section 16 comes into force, was under section 25 of the JPA 1997 keeper of the rolls for a commission area shall be treated as having been appointed under section 16 as keeper of the rolls for each local justice area which—

        (a) is specified as such in the first order under section 8, and

        (b) immediately before section 16 comes into force, formed part of, or consisted of, that commission area.

        Chairman and deputy chairmen of the bench
        7 A person who, immediately before section 17 comes into force, was under section 22 of the JPA 1997 the chairman (or a deputy chairman) of the justices for a petty sessions area shall be treated as having been chosen under section 17 as the chairman (or a deputy chairman) of the lay justices assigned to the corresponding local justice area specified in the first order under section 8.

        Senior District Judge (Chief Magistrate)
        8 (1) The person who, immediately before section 23 comes into force, was under section 10A of the JPA 1997 the Senior District Judge (Chief Magistrate) shall be treated as having been designated as such under section 23(a).
        (2) A person who, immediately before section 23 comes into force, was under section 10A of the JPA 1997 the deputy of the Senior District Judge (Chief Magistrate) shall be treated as having been designated as such under section 23(b).

        Justices' clerks and assistant clerks
        9 A person who—

        (a) immediately before section 27 comes into force, was a justices' clerk for a petty sessions area (or areas), and

        (b) is transferred to the Lord Chancellor's employment by virtue of paragraph 11 of Schedule 2,

        shall be treated as having been designated as a justices' clerk under section 27(1)(b) and assigned under section 27(3)(a) to the corresponding local justice area (or areas) specified in the first order under section 8.
        10 A person who—

        (a) immediately before section 27 comes into force, was employed to assist a justices' clerk by acting as a clerk in court in proceedings before a justice or justices, and

        (b) is transferred to the Lord Chancellor's employment by virtue of paragraph 11 of Schedule 2,

        shall be treated as having been designated as an assistant to a justices' clerk under section 27(5)(b).
        11 (1) Any regulations made under—

        (a) section 42 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1949 (c. 101) (compensation in connection with Parts 2 and 3 of the 1949 Act), or

        (b) paragraph 16 of Schedule 3 to the Justices of the Peace Act 1968 (c. 69) (compensation in connection with section 1 of the 1968 Act),

        and in force immediately before paragraph 20 of Schedule 4 to the JPA 1997 is repealed by this Act shall continue to have effect and may be revoked or amended despite the repeal by the Justices of the Peace Act 1979 (c. 55) of the provisions under which they were made.
        (2) The power to make amendments by virtue of subparagraph (1) of regulations falling within paragraph (a) of that subparagraph shall extend to making provision—

        (a) for compensation to or in respect of persons falling within subparagraph (3) to be payable if such persons suffer loss of employment, or loss or diminution of emoluments, attributable to anything done under Part 2;

        (b) for the determination by persons other than magistrates' courts committees of claims for compensation to be made;

        (c) for the payment by the Lord Chancellor of compensation payable under the regulations.

        (3) A person falls within this subparagraph if—

        (a) on 2nd February 1995 he held the office of justices' clerk or was employed to assist a justices' clerk, and

        (b) is transferred to the Lord Chancellor's employment by virtue of paragraph 11 of Schedule 2.

        (4) A person who under regulations made by virtue of subparagraph (2)(a) is entitled to compensation in respect of anything done under Part 2 is not entitled to compensation in respect of that thing under a scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 by virtue of section 2(2)(a) of that Act.

        Family proceedings courts
        12 Any justice of the peace who, immediately before section 49 comes into force, was qualified to sit as a member of a family proceedings court shall be treated as having been authorised to do so by the Lord Chancellor under section 67 of the 1980 Act (as substituted by section 49).
        Youth courts
        13 Any justice of the peace who, immediately before section 50 comes into force, was qualified to sit as a member of a youth court shall be treated as having been authorised to do so by the Lord Chancellor under section 45 of the 1933 Act (as substituted by section 50).
        Inspectors of court administration
        14 Any person who, immediately before section 58 comes into force, was an inspector of the magistrates' courts service under section 62 of the JPA 1997 shall be treated as having been appointed as an inspector of court administration under section 58(1).

        Collection of fines and discharge of fines by unpaid work
        15 (1) This paragraph applies if section 97 and Schedule 5 are brought into force before section 8.
        (2) Section 97 and Schedule 5 have effect in relation to the period ending with the date on which section 8 comes into force as if any reference to a local justice area were a reference to a petty sessions area.

        Register of judgments and orders
        16 The register having effect under section 73 of the County Courts Act 1984 (c. 28) immediately before section 98 comes into force shall be treated as part of the register required to be kept under section 98.'.—[Mr. Leslie.]
        Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
        Remaining Government amendments agreed to.
        Order for Third Reading read.
        9.35 pm
        Mr. Leslie: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
        I would like to take this opportunity to thank all hon. Members for their participation in the debate, particularly the members of Standing Committee D, some of whom are still in the Chamber. I would like to put on record how grateful I am for their help in the passage of the Bill through the Committee. The Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs also gave the Bill close consideration in its first report, for which I am grateful.
        The Courts Bill is a key part of the Government's overall aim to improve and modernise the criminal justice system. This Bill in particular contains a wide range of significant improvements to the entire justice system, to the work of the civil and family courts, and to the operation of the criminal courts. Courts are an institution central to the operation of our constitution, and are also integral to a fair and decent society. They need to be focused on good, just decision making, serving the interests of the public, of victims and of witnesses. We rely on the courts to deliver fair outcomes. We therefore have a duty to keep the courts efficient and effective in what they do. The new framework for the administration of the courts provided for in this Bill is a major reform that will create a more modern, more flexible institution, able to respond to local needs and changing circumstances, creating a unified courts administration that brings together in a new executive

        471
        agency the magistrates courts, county courts and Crown courts. This will mean improved management and better use of resources.
        The creation of courts boards will mean more reflective arrangements to replicate those within the community concerned with the input of the courts management, who will be able to look across the bigger picture. These arrangements will be better conceived than those for the magistrates courts committees. There will be new powers to improve safety and security in courthouses, with new court security officer posts being created. Proper arrangements for court inspection are also included in the Bill, as is a more appropriate structure for making court procedure rules and practice directions, along with new powers for the courts to impose costs on third parties for serious misconduct, and new powers for the civil courts to award damages as periodical payments, rather than simply in a lump sum.
        Importantly, the Bill also contains new fine enforcement powers. Fine enforcement is a critical issue right now; we need to ensure that the courts have the power to enforce against those who are defaulting on their fines. The Bill also contains new collection order powers for the courts, powers to deduct from earnings and benefits, an ability to allow fines to be discharged by unpaid work, and new powers to pilot innovative collection measures.
        All in all, the Bill signals important changes for the administration of justice, and I commend it to the House.
        9.38 pm
        Mr. Hawkins: I echo the Minister's thanks to the many people who have participated in the debates on the Bill—not only the members of the Standing Committee in this House but those who were involved in another place. I shall turn to what happened to the Bill in another place in a moment. I should also like to pay particular tribute to the Clerks who helped us on the Bill in Committee. Members of the Opposition parties are always particularly indebted to the Clerks for all their help with the tabling of amendments and discussions, and this Bill is no exception. I am sure that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) would agree that we have been particularly well served by the Clerk who helped this Bill's Committee.
        The Bill had a long early stage in another place. Many of my noble friends played a big part in discussions there, including Baroness Anelay of St. Johns and Lord Hunt of Wirral to name but two. The battle was long. More than five months were spent on the Bill. The good news from the Conservative Benches was that during that time we persuaded the Government to accept a wide range of amendments and to make concessions. The combined Opposition forces inflicted defeats on the Government, who accepted some of those defeats with good grace—I see the Minister smiling at that—and accepted that we were right. Further welcome concessions have been made this evening on the Heath and Hawkins amendments, as we have called them. I shall certainly think back to tonight with pleasure when the first member of the Northern Ireland Bar becomes the Official Solicitor for Northern Ireland.
        The Opposition led the campaign and won concessions from the Government on things that directly affect magistrates. We succeeded in establishing
        472
        that the supplemental list should not be abolished, as the Government originally intended, and that justices' clerks should be assigned to local justice areas. We established the fact that there should be a statutory duty on the Lord Chancellor to consult lay magistrates on matters affecting them. We managed to ensure, at least in clause 30, that courts should be locally accessible. We wanted to hold the Lord Chancellor to account for the closure of more than 100 magistrates courts since the Government came to power. When we began the debate in Committee on 26 June 2003, I observed at column 26 that it was unfortunate that the Government had not put the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor), an acknowledged expert and distinguished lay magistrate, on the Committee. I am delighted that he is in the Chamber. Perhaps he will favour us with some of the things he might have said in Committee had he been given the opportunity to do so.
        We also established in another place that an assessment of the Lord Chancellor's performance should be included in the new annual report of the unified courts administration. We further established that if the Lord Chancellor wants to change the guidelines on how the courts boards operate, he must obtain parliamentary approval first. However, we remain concerned that some of the new provisions for courts boards were not initially in a form that won the confidence of the magistracy. It is fair to say that some of the concerns that we and the Liberal Democrats share about courts boards have been ventilated again tonight. The Government were defeated several times in another place on clauses 4 and 5. We wanted to ensure that courts boards have at least two magistrates as members and that if the Lord Chancellor rejected the advice of courts boards, he should give them his reasons for doing so. Those were but two of the defeats that the Government suffered in another place.
        The Opposition are enormously indebted to the Magistrates Association and the Central Council of Magistrates Courts Committees for their advice throughout the Bill's proceedings. I have also been grateful for advice from bodies such as the Institute of Legal Executives, the Medical Protection Society, the Fleet Street Lawyers Society, the Newspaper Society and many others. Without the help that we get from such organisations, we would not achieve as much success as we do in another place and persuade the Government to accept the logic of our arguments.
        I am still disappointed that the Bill does not protect the position of the lay magistracy enough, that there are insufficient safeguards to prevent yet further court closures, and that we have not achieved enough to stop the Government's agenda of moving to more and more batch processing of cases. We debated and divided on some of those issues this evening.
        None the less, I believe that in many of its provisions—certainly those that were not contentious—the Bill will probably become a useful Act. I hope that, even though we have not been able to defeat the Government on all the issues relating to magistrates courts, we will find other means of defending the lay magistracy and preventing further court closures. We hope that, as the Bill has progressed toward the statute

        473
        book, the Opposition have played some part in improving it substantially from the form in which it originally emerged in another place.
        9.45 pm
        Mr. Heath: The Bill's genesis lies in another era—an era when the soi-disant Cardinal Wolsey of our time sat secure on the Woolsack in his full-bottomed wig, when magistrates and large parts of the judiciary were desperately concerned about the contents of the Bill, when magistrates clerks felt that they were being given the short end of the stick, and when many people felt that the Government simply had no idea of how to deliver justice effectively and locally other than through a modernising, centralising, integrating process. The Bill has ended in the era of decaff, the era of new "justice lite".
        In the process, the Bill has been improved by the attentions of my noble Friends and the noble Friends of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins). It has been helped by the Government's interest in getting their legislation though and by their listening to some of the arguments—I give credit to the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs for having listened to some of our arguments and responded positively. The Bill has been improved because of the weight of opinion outside this place that has been brought to bear on its provisions. The Bill that leaves this House this evening is a much better Bill than the one that was introduced in another place many months ago.
        I still have doubts about some of the provisions. We have won serious improvements, but I continue to doubt whether the Bill will deliver the level of accessibility that we want. I would have liked to have seen an explicit recognition of the need for the independence of the judiciary, as well as a better structure for the courts boards, especially those in London. However, I accept that the attentions of hon. Members on both sides of the House, both in Committee and during later stages, have improved the Bill.
        None of us has ever quarrelled with the stated intention to provide for a unified court system that will serve the interests of justice and of our constituents better than the present system does. I think that we will achieve that—marginally. I wish that we could have gone further, but I am content that, as it leaves this House, the Bill is sufficiently workable to achieve some of its objectives.
        I, too, thank all those who have been involved with the Bill. It has been a delight to work on it as a non-lawyer—a distinction I share with the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs. We sometimes felt outnumbered by the lawyers in Committee and elsewhere—
        Mr. Hawkins rose—
        Mr. Heath: I am being intervened on by a lawyer, to whom I shall give way briefly.
        Mr. Hawkins: Despite the fact that he is not a lawyer and I am, does the hon. Gentleman agree that he and I have in common a slight concern that, just as we
        474
        approached Report stage and Third Reading, we both received letters from the Lord Chancellor saying that the Bill might be used in another place as a vehicle for yet further changes on criminal procedure rules, which—even though that dog did not bark tonight—did not suggest that the Government had necessarily finished tinkering?
        Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman is too modest. Far from finishing their tinkering, the Government had in mind wholesale disruption. However, they were dissuaded from that course of action by one simple fact—they could never get it through another place. The Bill would have returned to the Commons as sure as eggs is eggs, and it would have ping-ponged backwards and forwards—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) says that eggs do not ping-pong, but this one would have done so and destructive tendencies would have been displayed in the process.
        Before I extend that metaphor any further, I will accept that it is time to call it a day. However, as I have said, we have established some base camps. Over the next few months, we will see the developing future of the judiciary and the Department, the development of a supreme court, the abolition of the Lord Chancellor and changes in judicial appointments. This is the biggest constitutional change in the judiciary for more than a century. It is essential that we get it right, so I make no bones about the fact that we will scrutinise the Department's next piece of legislation every bit as closely as we have the Bill, and we will make every attempt in, I hope, a constructive way, to make it better. However, if it does not do the job we will reject it either here or in another place.
        9.51 pm
        David Taylor: The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) expressed regret that he is not a member of the large minority of professional lawyers in the House. Neither am I—I am a member of the even more reviled minority of accountants.
        Mr. Heath: As a matter of record, I expressed no regrets whatsoever—it is a badge of honour.
        David Taylor: I accept that clarification and correction, but I draw to the attention of the House the fact that I am a member of the Magistrates Association, and was a lay magistrate on the Ashby petty sessional division in the '80s and early '90s sitting at Coalville courthouse, and am now a member of the supplemental list of that bench.
        Unifying the administrations of all the courts in England and Wales is a defining point in the history of the lay magistracy, and a watershed in the development of the judicial system. In future, magistrates will be welcomed as full partners in the judiciary—some may say that that is long overdue— and will share the same rules, guidance, guidelines, practice and procedures. The Bill introduces sweeping organisational changes to the court system in England and Wales, and many of its clauses relate to the lay magistracy. When it was first published, our concerns focused on the role and

        475
        function of what were then called courts administration councils—now courts boards. The key matters about which the lay magistracy expressed concern included consultation with magistrates, as the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) mentioned; the size and number of local justice areas; the recruitment strategy for magistrates—I am not yet convinced that one exists that is worthy of that name; and supplemental lists, the future of which I am glad has been secured. The House will have heard me say that I am a member of such a list. The lay magistracy also had reservations about the grounds for removal of magistrates from the bench; the training of magistrates; and the roles and powers of justices' clerks and fines officers.
        Amendments to the Bill in the House of Lords have fully met some concerns and improved the situation regarding others. However, there is great anxiety that none of those gains should he lost. The Government must keep certain matters under close review, and I shall give a small number of instances. In relation to the roles and functions of courts boards, for example, the unified administration of magistrates, crown and county courts naturally entailed the replacement of both magistrates courts committees and the Court Service. In their place, local management bodies with executive powers were needed. The original proposals for the court administration councils were quite unsatisfactory, as they were a hybrid of management and consultation. They appeared to be toothless talking shops with no local ownership and no ability to prioritise local requirements or reflect local needs. Magistrate membership of the CACs was minimal.
        Although the Government remain firm about the courts boards' role being non-executive, amendments to the Bill have improved the situation and resulted in courts boards being given an effective role and the ability to make genuine decisions. We welcome that. The Bill now provides that at least two magistrates will be members of each courts board. I congratulate the Government on these changes, and all those in the House and in another place who brought about the changes through pressure.
        Full executive power remains the preference of many magistrates, and any further strengthening of that role would be welcome. Any loss of the powers that have been gained would be disastrous.
        The number of courts boards has yet to be decided, but account must be taken of the desirability of ensuring that their areas are coterminous with current police authorities. It is important that the number should not be lower than 42, the number of police authorities, in order to retain that vital local accountability and identity. I urge the Government to accept that figure and acknowledge the importance of that principle.
        On consultation, as the hon. Member for Surrey Heath said, after much pressure in this place and elsewhere, not least from Back Benchers, the Government have imposed a duty on the Lord Chancellor to consult lay justices on matters affecting them in the performance of their duties. It was disappointing that that was not in the original Bill, but its inclusion in it now is to be welcomed. This is a separate matter from the administration of the court, but it is vital for confidence in the system. It is a welcome restatement of the centrality of local people to local justice.
        476
        Frequently, at Question Time, Ministers restate their view of the importance of local people administering local justice to local people in local courthouses. Current bench areas are to be renamed local justice areas, and we have been assured that the boundaries of these will be the same as existing benches to begin with. Any changes thereafter will involve consultation, but I regret that there are no guarantees or safeguards against future rationalisation or centralisation.
        The local justice areas must remain local. The greater distances already travelled following court closures and amalgamations are putting a strain on the court system and undermining local justice. Court closures have an enormous effect on a number of agencies and on the general public. The police have to spend more time coming to court for criminal matters. Youth offending teams, which are essential to the youth court, and the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, which is essential for family proceedings, lose links with their local courts. Those who have to attend as victims or witnesses suffer cost and inconvenience, and there is a greater risk that they will simply fail to appear.
        Newspapers cover courts less frequently if they are more distant, and that weakens the deterrent effect of judicial hearings and penalties. Should there be yet more court closures, there would be a related negative impact on the recruitment and retention of magistrates. Clause 30, as we heard, specifies that
        "the Lord Chancellor shall have regard to the need to ensure that court-houses are accessible to persons resident in each local justice area."
        The wording was rightly designed to cover both geographic and physical accessibility and is a crucial component of the Bill.
        On justices' clerks, the relationship between justices' clerks and benches is of the highest importance. I am pleased to see that clause 27 retains a specific link by assigning a justices' clerk to specific local justice areas. It is a welcome addition to the original Bill, and it must be a central feature of the new system.
        Finally, on fines officers, magistrates are broadly content with the new fines officers and the fines collection scheme. We are satisfied that the benches will retain judicial control, and that fines officers will be operating a scheme that has been agreed and imposed by a bench. Benches will also be able to retain a case, rather than make a collection order, if they think that is the proper course of action. The piloting of the collection scheme in order to test the efficacy of various options within it has met with wide support.
        The unified administration recommended by Lord Justice Auld has great benefits for court users and for the magistracy. For court users, there will be a clear understanding of the court system, a commonality of procedures and processes, and a logical use of court buildings. There is potential for a further streamlining of transfer of cases between magistrates courts and Crown court, and between family proceedings courts and county courts.
        For me, two key questions remain and I would like the Minister to address both. First, how will the unified administration of the courts affect the relationship between the magistracy and the higher judiciary? There is great potential for much more contact with the higher

        477
        judiciary and vice versa, which can only improve a consistency of approach to judicial decision making. For magistrates courts, there is an existing special relationship with justices' clerks, who must be part of any judicial consultative group.
        Secondly, is there an adequate number of justices? If not, what can we do to address that and how many will be required? Any new system of court administration will depend heavily on those foot soldiers of the whole process, the lay magistracy, so we must have the appropriate number in appropriate places who are appropriately trained and appropriately committed. However, the number of justices has decreased dramatically over the past few years. Now, the magistracy is approximately 3,000, or some 10 per cent., under strength.
        We know that the Lord Chancellor's Department has a national recruitment strategy, but it has to be backed up with resources, particularly those aimed at encouraging employers to allow their magistrate employees time off work. Inability to have time off for bench duties is a huge disincentive to applying for the magistracy and the most common cause of resignations.
        The Bill is a major step towards modernisation, transparency and justice for all. I support its core conclusions and its core clauses, and I believe that the improvements made to it enable it to be a measure that I can support. I commend the Bill to the House.
        Question put and agreed to.
        Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

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

        URBAN DEVELOPMENT
        That the Thurrock Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order 2003, dated 23rd June 2003, a copy of which was laid before this House on 2nd July, be approved.—[Margaret Moran.]
        Question agreed to.

      DELEGATED LEGISLATION
      Ordered,
      That the following Statutory Instrument be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation: the Housing Benefit (General) (Local Housing Allowance) Amendment Regulations 2003 (S.I., 2003, No. 2399).—[Margaret Moran.]

    DRAFT GAMBLING BILL (JOINT COMMITTEE) (POWER TO TRAVEL OUTSIDE THE UNITED KINGDOM)
    Ordered,
    That the Order of the House of 10th July 2003 appointing a Select Committee to join with a Committee of the Lords to consider and report on any Clauses of a draft Gambling Bill
    478
    presented to both Houses by a Minister of the Crown be amended by leaving out the words "within the United Kingdom".—[Margaret Moran.]

  COMMITTEES
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With permission, I shall put together motions 5 and 6.
  Ordered,

  COMMITTEES
    That Ian Lucas be discharged from the Environmental Audit Committee and Paul Flynn be added.
    JOINT COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS
    That Vera Baird be discharged from the Joint Committee on Human Rights and Mr Paul Stinchcombe be added.—[Margaret Moran.]

  COMMITTEES
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With permission, I shall put together motions 7 to 14.
  Ordered,

  COMMITTEES
    That Syd Rapson be discharged from the Accommodation and Works Committee and Mr Stephen Hepburn be added.
    DEFENCE
    That Patrick Mercer, Jim Knight and Syd Rapson be discharged from the Defence Committee and Mr Peter Viggers, Mike Gapes and Mr Dai Havard be added.
    That Ms Meg Munn be discharged from the Education and Skills Committee and Helen Jones be added.
    HEALTH
    That Andy Burnham and Julia Drown be discharged from the Health Committee and Mr Keith Bradley and Mr Jon Owen Jones be added.
    That Mr Stephen McCabe be discharged from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and Mr Iain Luke be added.
    That Eric Joyce be discharged from the Scottish Affairs Committee and Mr John MacDougall be added.
    TRADE AND INDUSTRY
    That Dr Ashok Kumar and Mrs Jackie Lawrence be discharged from the Trade and Industry Committee and Mr Michael Clapham and Judy Mallaber be added.
    That Dr Nick Palmer be discharged from the Treasury Committee and John Mann be added.—[Mr. Heppell.]
  PETITION

    Crown Immunity
    10.3 pm
    Huw Irranca-Davies: I wish to present the petition of Katrina Wynne and 1,500 petitioners of Ogmore in south Wales.
    The petition:
    Declares that there have been numerous incidents throughout the UK on government property such as Hospitals, Military Grounds, and the Royal Mint at Llantrisant; Many of these incidents have claimed the lives of loved ones through neglect of Health and Safety regulations; Due to Crown Immunity laws even if the employers are found guilty of non-compliance with Health and Safety regulations it is not possible to take legal action against them; This petition has been risen in memory of John Wynne, who was killed while working at the Royal Mint, due to various breaches of statutory Health and Safety laws.
    The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons remove the doctrine of Crown Immunity from prosecution under statutory Health and Safety law.
    And the Petitioners remain, etc.
    To lie upon the Table.

Veterinary Prescriptions
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Vernon Coaker.]
10.4 pm
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: I should first put on record a declarable interest: my wife is a practising veterinary surgeon and a partner in the firm of Flett and Carmichael veterinary surgeons in Kirkwall.
I am pleased to see the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality. I had thought that a Minister from the Department for Trade and Industry might reply, it being the Department that is driving the Competition Commission's proposals. I should be interested to learn how this Minister's Department deals with the potential conflict that I see between the introduction of competition proposals that pose a real threat to vets in farm practices particularly, and the Government's stated animal health and welfare policy, which envisages the role of vets in large animal practices as being central. Along with many people outside the House, I shall be interested to see how the Minister squares the circle.
There are three main worries about the Competition Commission's proposals. It is feared that, first, they will lead to increased consultation charges as vets not unreasonably seek to cover the shortfall in income that they currently receive from dispensing medicines in another way; secondly, there is a risk of inequitable and superficial price comparison, which I believe would damage the much-valued trust that currently exists between vets and clients; and thirdly, there will be a negative impact on the profitability of what is already a low-margin profession.
Many vets in country areas cannot charge more than they do now, simply because the farming clients on whom they rely cannot afford to pay them. Nowadays many animals cannot be treated, and are disposed of rather than being given the veterinary attention that they need.
Mr. David Heath: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing a debate for which I too applied. He is right: particularly in dairy farming areas such as mine, there is a limit to the amount that farmers can pay. Only a few weeks ago, when I visited the Delaware practice in my constituency, I was told the same thing—that farm animal practices will be in real trouble if the proposals are adopted.
Mr. Carmichael: That is true. When my wife began practising in 1987, many farmers would call her out to perform a Caesarean section. Often in the middle of the night, she would have to travel from mainland Orkney to one of the remote outer islands such as Westray. Those calls no longer come. The inevitable conclusion is that cows are being shot when they get into difficulties calving. Although the farming community should not be blamed for that, it is regrettable.
Ideally, I should like the Government to accept that the commission's proposals are flawed and damaging and to abandon them, but I have been here long enough to know that, inexorably and inevitably, they will probably be introduced in some form. I want to focus on

481
some of the main issues drawn to my attention by farmers and vets in my constituency, and their suggestions for making what are essentially bad proposals workable.
As the Minister knows, the history of this began with the Government's paper and "action plan for farming", which led to the Marsh inquiry and report and subsequently to the announcement by the Office of Fair Trading in October 2001 that the Competition Commission would conduct a further inquiry into the supply of prescription-only medicines in the United Kingdom.
The Competition Commission produced its final report in April this year. It included two sets of recommendations, the first of which suggested remedies under the Fair Trading Act 1973. In the course of recent correspondence with the DTI, I was told that it will hold a 13-week public consultation on the form of the order that gives effect to the recommendations. The draft order was expected in the autumn. As I notice that the leaves are beginning to fall from the trees, I hope that the Minister will tell us when we can expect to see it—although I should say in passing that I would rather see it right than see it quick. The second set of recommendations relate to the system of regulating veterinary medicines. The Government gave their view on those in a written statement on 9 July.
If veterinary surgeons are not to be the sole people who dispense animal medicine, some sort of prescription form system will require to be introduced. The Competition Commission appears to think that that should be done for no fee, which suggests to me that it has a basic lack of understanding of the profession with which it is dealing. I am inclined to suspect that it sees the process as being akin to a doctor sitting in his surgery scrawling a short note for a generic antibiotic to be taken twice a day for a week. For vets, the reality will be rather different. A vet who is called upon to prescribe for, say, a flock of turkeys or a herd of pigs will need to spend some considerable time deciding on the appropriate dosage and the way in which the drugs should be administered—for example, animals are often medicated through food or water. Those prescriptions will be complex documents that must be completed in some detail—a time-consuming business over and above the initial consultation period. I am told that when representatives from the British Small Animal Veterinary Association brought that up with civil servants at the DTI, the response was: "Can't you just include these costs in your consultation fee?" Although that may not be an unattractive idea, it would make it very difficult for vets to set a single consultation fee; and I gently suggest to the Minister that it rather defeats the Government's stated aim of trying to achieve transparency in pricing practice. To my mind, it illustrates the fact that the proposals are rather less than well thought out.
The Competition Commission proposed that under the Fair Trading Act 1973, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons should encourage vets to provide prescriptions in a form that allows the identification and dispensing of alternative medicines, which could include its drawing up of lists of comparable medicines. I do not understand exactly why the RCVS should be charged
482
with doing that. As a regulatory body, it is not its job to make judgments on effective clinical alternatives. Again, that will be exceptionally time-consuming and add further costs that must eventually be passed on to the owner of the animal. It is not clear whether some of those lists of alternatives might be expected to include generic medicines. That area is fraught with difficulty for vets, because they have to prescribe in accordance with the so-called cascade system, whereby they must use only drugs that are licensed for animals—if such a drug exists. The withdrawal times for meat entering the food chain can differ widely. That does not matter in terms of medicating people, because we have not yet reached the stage of eating dead people, but dealing with animals is a very different matter. Unfortunately, that subtlety has not struck home with the Competition Commission.
Andrew George: Does my hon. Friend agree that in constituencies such as his and mine, the proposal will resolve none of the problems about which constituents have complained, and that, if anything, it will create problems that result in their complaining to us about expensive and inaccessible services?
Mr. Carmichael: My hon. Friend's analysis is absolutely right. In particular, I do not look forward to being the MP who receives complaints about the pricing practices of his wife's practice.
The point needs to be made that an enormous amount of bureaucracy will be attached to this proposal, the genesis of which was a handful of ill-considered complaints from groups that, to be frank, have rowed back at a rate of knots. The only people who are now driving this proposal forward are those in the Competition Commission, rather than those who stand to be most directly affected.
The full bureaucratic madness of the Competition Commission's thinking becomes apparent only when one considers its suggestion that a large and prominent sign should be displayed in all veterinary surgeries, advising clients on the price of the 10 prescription-only medicines most commonly prescribed or dispensed by that surgery in a typical three-month period. There are several problems with this proposal. It will involve a substantial amount of extra work for vets, and a cost that must ultimately be passed on to the clients. If five different presentations or sizes of the same drug are produced by the same manufacturer, should they be considered as five different drugs? If they are grouped together, should prices be listed for each of the preparations? Should the cost include the cost of additional packaging?
Additionally, the list would have to be regularly changed as new prescriptions became available, or as the season dictated the increased use of a particular medicine. Crucially, there would be pressure from clients to be prescribed a cheaper preparation, when a more expensive alternative might be better suited to the case. The fundamental question, to which I hope the Minister has an answer, is this. If the issue is one of transparency, why is the burden being placed only on vets? Why will pharmacists not have to comply with the same regulations or prepare the same lists?
I want to look briefly at the recommendations for legislative change. The main recommendation is that the Secretary of State should change the law to allow

483
veterinary surgeons to dispense a veterinary prescription, whether or not the animal concerned is under their care. The Government accepted this in the statement of 9 July, which is to be deeply regretted. The recommendation is a cause of massive concern within the veterinary profession. Again, it betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of the profession and its ethical standards and practices. As a friend of mine in the profession said, "It is a very bad idea to enshrine stupidity into legislation." This measure would undoubtedly lead to confusion in the chain of responsibility. Who would bear responsibility for any adverse reaction to the medication: the prescriber or the dispenser? As the British Small Animal Veterinary Association stated:
"The potential for confusion of clinical responsibility outweighs the benefit of potential competition."
These reforms must be seen in the context of a declining large animal veterinary sector. Just 400 practices in the whole of the United Kingdom offer services for large animals. These reforms will only increase the financial pressure on remaining large animal practices to move into the small animal sector, which is seen as more profitable. According to the chief veterinary officer, Government funding for animal health and welfare is currently £50 million a year, and likely to fall in coming years. Can the Minister tell me how, therefore, the Government propose to increase agricultural veterinary cover?
When giving evidence to the Select Committee earlier this year, a Minister from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said that we must rely on the private sector for disease surveillance. It is my contention that unless something is done—and done quickly—to encourage vets into large animal practice, we are almost guaranteed another major disease outbreak sooner, rather than later. Any savings made through adopting proposals such as those offered by the Competition Commission will be small beer compared with the cost of another outbreak of foot and mouth disease or swine fever. During the foot and mouth outbreak of 2001, many vets in private practice with large animal experience felt it their duty to leave their practice and help in the fight to control the outbreak. It was difficult and often deeply distressing work. As the number of vets with farm animal experience fall, there simply will not be the same battery of expertise to call on in any future outbreak. The Government's own animal welfare strategy stands to be threatened by their own competition policy.
I started my speech with a declaration of interest regarding my wife's practice, and I conclude with an offer to the Minister. He is welcome to send some of the suits from the Competition Commission to Orkney to work alongside my wife and her colleagues and to spend time in her surgery and on the farms. They would then see the realities of the situation in which they seek to interfere; they would see how good a service we get from our vets, and how much damage the proposals stand to do.
10.20 pm
The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael): I congratulate the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) on promoting the family business—and
484
also on the offers that he has made to the House. He is right to point to the important role of the Department of Trade and Industry in leading on competition policy. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has responsibility for the topic of this debate—the prescription of medicines by veterinary surgeons—and that is why I am replying to the debate. I should mention that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), takes the lead on animal welfare and veterinary issues, but he is unable to come to the debate tonight. I cannot come to the debate with his expertise, but I have been able to cast a fresh eye on these issues in order to stand in for him.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland raised a series of practical questions, including the list proposal and a number of others, but it is precisely because such issues need to be dealt with from a practical perspective that we are approaching them in consultation with the professions and the industry.
The hon. Gentleman was sweepingly critical of the proposed changes, but I congratulate him on spotting the fact that leaves are falling from the trees at present. Consultation on detailed proposals will start later this year. The formalities are that a 13-week consultation has been agreed by the Department of Trade and Industry, which set the autumn as the time for its consultation on the draft statutory instrument. We are already talking to veterinary organisations, and we will use the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons code of professional conduct to implement the proposals where possible, rather than seeking to do so by statute.
Of course there are practical issues to be dealt with, which is why we are working with representatives of the profession to get them right. It does not help to refer disparagingly to alleged comments at meetings with officials of any Department, when none of us can check the veracity of such reports and no one has the opportunity to offer a correction.
As for the history of the proposals, the Competition Commission inquiry into the supply of prescription-only veterinary medicines was set up following complaints from farmers and pet owners about the cost of veterinary medicines. Those complaints were made to Ministers in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but MAFF Ministers had no statutory responsibility for the costs of veterinary medicines, so they referred the complaints to the Office of Fair Trading. I should say that DEFRA Ministers now would be in exactly the same position as MAFF Ministers were then.
The statement of issues to be considered by the Competition Commission was published on 16 April 2002. The inquiry focused on the supply of prescription-only medicines, on the ability of pharmacies to compete with veterinary surgeons at retail level, and on asking whether monopolies existed in the supply of those medicines, as was alleged.
The Competition Commission consulted veterinary groups, pharmaceutical companies and other interested parties, first to find out how the market worked and then, in September 2002, on its emerging findings, and likely remedies and recommendations. The report was submitted to the Secretary of State for Trade and

485
Industry and published on 11 April 2003. It recommended a number of remedies for that Secretary of State, and also made recommendations for DEFRA.
The commission's findings were that three complex monopoly situations operated against the public interest—precisely what the complainants had said. Those monopolies were recognised as being interconnected. Taken together, the commission said, they were preventing, restricting and distorting competition in the supply of prescription-only medicines, thus increasing the cost of those medicines at all levels of the supply chain, as well as to animal owners and keepers.
To address these findings, the Competition Commission proposed nine remedies under the Fair Trading Act 1986 and made 11 recommendations to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for changes in the regulation of veterinary medicines. The Government accepted all the remedies and most of the recommendations. The main effects will be to require vets to display the prices of the most commonly used prescription-only medicines; to require vets to offer a prescription routinely; and to allow veterinary surgeons to dispense a prescription for any animal, whether under their care or not. The commission went on to propose to give the widest distribution regime to all authorised products, which is consistent with product safety, and to improve the veterinary medicines directorate's procedures to minimise delays and consequent costs of authorisation. Finally, it wanted to encourage the proportionate cost of medicines to all animal owners and keepers.
The Government accepted the Competition Commission's report and agreed that changes in the marketing of veterinary prescription-only medicines were necessary to address the complex monopolies. The Government want to make veterinary prescriptions more widely available; to create greater competition in all levels of the supply chain; to give consumers greater choice and increased price transparency; and to reduce costs to owners and keepers. That applies as much to farmers as to owners of pet animals.
We thus come to the issue of how the Government will implement the changes. We have made it clear that we intend to do so in consultation with the veterinary profession and other interested groups. As I pointed out earlier, we will use the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' code of professional conduct rather than legislation, where possible.
Several concerns were raised, following the publication of the report, and the Government recognise the main concerns that have followed our response. The fears were that the proposed changes might lead to large animal practices becoming unavailable in some areas, which could result in an increase in the cost of veterinary services to farmers. It could also affect the ability of the Government to use private vets to implement important initiatives such as proactive farm health planning under the animal health and welfare strategy. It was also suggested that widening the veterinary surgeon's right to dispense another veterinary surgeon's prescription could blur the lines of responsibility for the health and welfare of the animal. Finally, it was felt by some that it would be unfair if vets
486
were not allowed to charge for writing a prescription. I should mention that the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is to report shortly, following its inquiry into veterinary services, and it may also raise related issues in its report.
We now come to continuing actions and other possible initiatives. As I have made absolutely clear, the Competition Commission's findings are being pursued through consultation with interested groups. Where possible, they will be implemented through the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' code of professional conduct rather than by legislation. Also, as part of the animal health and welfare strategy, DEFRA will establish a working group with the veterinary profession to consider the report of the Select Committee and to look at the future roles and availability of large animal practices.
The services supplied through the highlands and islands veterinary scheme in the hon. Gentleman's own constituency is an example of a specific provision which has been designed and implemented to meet the particular needs in one location. It may well be necessary to consider others that are appropriate for specific circumstances. Equally, large animal veterinary practices may find increased opportunities to develop the way in which they work with their farming clients. We are already aware of one practice that has linked the cost of its services to the price that the farmer receives for his milk, creating a clear business incentive for them both to succeed together.
Additionally, the effectiveness of the Competition Commission's remedies will be monitored by the Office of Fair Trading, which will also continue to monitor the provision of prescriptions by veterinary surgeons and their subsequent dispensing elsewhere and to consider whether the prohibition on charging for the provision of a prescription should be lifted after three years. The practicalities will be looked at and considered.
The animal health and welfare strategy recognises that there are concerns about the availability of prescribed veterinary medicines and associated problems such as "off label" use. The strategy includes a new initiative to assess the current availability of veterinary medicines and to discuss with the pharmaceutical industry how those concerns can be met. We are now considering how to take those issues forward as part of the implementation arrangements for the strategy.
I suggest to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland that two strands are evident: the strand of implementing the recommendations of the Commission, which are being approached with the veterinary profession, not separately from it; and the question of how the animal health and welfare strategy is taken forward, which is again being worked on in association with the profession. The monopolies identified by the Competition Commission have to be addressed. That was accepted when the report was made.
Mr. Carmichael: I have difficulty following the Minister's thinking. Why does he continue to look at the question of dispensing medicines in isolation, rather than as part of the totality of veterinary practice? Does

487
he not realise that in-creasing bureaucracy will increase consultation fees and that, ultimately, the consumer will end up paying more?
Alun Michael: I put the question back to the hon. Gentleman. Why does he not recognise that complaints were taken to the Competition Commission because the prices charged for dispensed medicines were seen by the complainants as unjustified and onerous? Indeed, those prices were found by the Competition Commission to be unjustified, and a distortion in the prices being charged was identified.
Mr. Carmichael: The Minister may need to write to me on this question, but perhaps he would be kind enough to find out how many complaints were made; my understanding is that it was dozens rather than hundreds. Many of the complaints were based on the differences between prices in Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom, and the Republic of Ireland, where very different licensing restrictions apply to the development of drugs. When will the Government tackle the pharmaceutical industry on that point?
Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman makes several assumptions, most of which are not justified. The number of complaints is not the issue when the Competition Commission considers a subject. The
488
Ministers involved considered that the complaints were sufficiently serious for the matter to be referred to the commission, and it then undertook its inquiry—as on a range of issues—and felt that there was a cross-subsidy that was not justified and that pricing was therefore not appropriate. I suggest that if the hon. Gentleman wishes to question the process by which the commission reached its conclusions, he discuss it with the commission, rather than assuming that it has not done a proper job. From my experience of reading reports from the commission in other contexts, it is assiduous in considering the competition issues and trying to understand the context of the trade, business or profession that it is judging. The hon. Gentleman should talk to the commission about its practices, so that he understands how it approaches such issues.
The Government will implement the Competition Commission's remedies and those of the recommendations that we have accepted—as spelled out at the time—in consultation with all interested parties and in discussion with the veterinary profession. That is the right way to take matters forward. The findings of the commission cannot be dismissed as lightly as the hon. Gentleman suggests.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to Eleven o'clock.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Pensioner Benefit Payments
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on(a) the proposed method of payment of state benefit for pensioners who cannot access a bank account and (b) the timetable for the receipt of such benefit after 2005. [132601]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  While over 90 per cent. of pensioners have bank or building society accounts, and nearly half of all pensioners already choose to be paid by Direct Payment, we of course recognise that there will be some whom we will not be able to pay in this way.

  We are presently consulting groups such as Age Concern, Help the Aged and the National Pensioners Convention about paying such pensioners by cheque.

  We plan to have this service in place from October next year.

  Departmental Job Losses
  Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he next expects to meet staff representatives to discuss job losses in departmental offices in East Anglia. [132616]

  Mr. Browne
  Jobcentre Plus and the Pensions Service are modernising the service we provide to our customers. Staff movement between different roles is an ongoing feature of the development of these-new services. Ministerial colleagues and I meet the Department's trade union representatives from time to time. Managers and union representatives at all levels meet routinely to discuss staffing plans.

  Savings Policy
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on saving for retirement. [132617]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Our aim is to help people choose how they plan for retirement, how much they save and how long they keep working. Our immediate priority was to tackle pensioner poverty and we have, through the Pension Credit, both increased the amount individual receive and also rewarded those who have saved. Through our Green Paper and Action on Occupational Pensions proposals we have sought to increase security, promote flexibility of provision and reinvigorate the pensions partnership. We want to give individuals real choices about the savings decisions they take through the provision of the right information and the right products—this we are doing through our informed choice programme and proposed suite of stakeholder 354W
  products, as proposed in the Sandler review. The Government's overall objective is to promote secure and sustainable pensions provision for individuals.

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the take-up of stakeholder pensions. [132618]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Over one-and-a-half million stakeholder pensions have been sold since their introduction in April 2001; over half a million in the last 12 months for which figures are available. This is an encouraging start, and a sign of confidence in the product.

  State Pension Reform
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on Government plans to reform state pensions. [132619]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We have done much to improve the State Pension. The introduction of State Second Pension focuses help on those with low to moderate earnings, and on qualifying carers and long term-disabled people who have broken work records.

  We have increased the basic State Pension by more than the RPI for the last three years. We have also guaranteed to increase the basic State Pension in future years by 2.5 per cent. or the increase in the September Retail Prices Index whichever is the higher.

  In addition, the new Pension Credit is designed to ensure that pensioners benefit from their savings. These initiatives will help provide greater security for tomorrow's pensioners.

  We will continue to look at sensible and affordable ways of improving the State Pension, such as giving a better deal to people who defer their State Pension.

  Pension Credit
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners the Government estimates will be receiving pension credit by 2006. [132620]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We are the first Government ever to set a take up target for any benefit and we aim to have at least 3 million pensioner households receiving Pension Credit by 2006.

  However, we want every pensioner to take up their entitlement. We have already written to 1.6 million pension households to tell them about Pension Credit and will be writing to the remainder by June 2004. In addition we are running a major advertising campaign on TV and in the press to familiarise, pensioners, their families and friends with Pension Credit and to encourage them to apply.

  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the implementation of the Pension Credit. [132623]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Around 1.9 million pensioner households on our systems are already being paid Pension Credit. This represents over two million
  355W
  individuals. Of the awards made, 1.15 million pension households (over 1.3 million pensioners) will get more than they would have before. We are contacting every pensioner household, and want all those who may be entitled, to take up Pension Credit.

  Anyone who applies by October 2004 will be able to receive payment from the start or the scheme or the first date they are entitled.

  Around half of all households are eligible for Pension Credit and stand to gain on average £400 a year (or around £7 a week).

  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners are entitled to Pension Credit in Waveney constituency. [132624]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is not available in the format requested. However, an estimated 300,000 pensioner households are eligible for Pension Credit in the Eastern region.

  Mr. Douglas Gowan
  Mr. Bacon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the latest position regarding a constituent, Mr. Douglas Gowan. [132622]

  Maria Eagle
  I wrote to the hon. Gentleman on 10 October 2003 as agreed at the Adjournment debate of 9 September 2003.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the inter-relationship between the Child Support Agency and the benefits system. [132621]

  Mr. Pond
  The Child Support Agency and Jobcentre Plus work closely together to provide customers with the best possible service.

  Jobcentre Plus staff gather information on behalf of the Child Support Agency to ascertain either the detail of the non-resident parent or the reasons why a parent with care on benefit does not wish to apply for child support. In the latter case, Jobcentre Plus staff also decide whether she has good cause.

  Jobcentre Plus also collect maintenance by making deductions from non-resident parents' benefit payments.

CABINET OFFICE

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what the total cost was of special advisers to the Office of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury in financial year 2002–03, broken down by(a) salary and related expenses and (b) other costs. [131770]

  Mr. Alexander
  The numbers of Special Advisers it each pay band by department and total salary costs were set out in the answer provided by the Prime Minister or 16 July 2003,Official Report, column 328W. Other costs
  356W
  cannot be separately identified from the running costs of the office as a whole without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office on how many occasions in financial year 2002–03 the special advisers to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury travelled abroad in an official capacity; which places were visited; and how much each visit cost. [131771]

  Mr. Alexander
  The special advisers to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury did not undertake any overseas travel in an official capacity in 2002–03.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many Questions directed to him remain unanswered. [130767]

  Mr. Alexander
  At 15 October four Parliamentary Questions remained unanswered.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Iraq
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews
  To ask the Solicitor-General pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) of 17 March 2003,Official Report, column 515W, on Iraq, to what extent, in concluding that it was plain that Iraq had failed to comply with Resolution 1441, the Attorney-General relied upon facts and assertions contained in the Government dossier published in January as material to hip conclusion and to the opinion he gave as to the authority to use force, specifying which such facts and assertions were so relied upon. [131002]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Attorney-General did not rely at all on the Government dossier published or 30 January in reaching the conclusion that Iraq had failed to comply with resolution 1441 and in stating his view that a legal basis for the use of force existed in the combined effect of UN Security Council resolutions 678, 687 and 1441. However, it was material to that conclusion that there was intelligence evidence that the Iraqi authorities had intimidated scientists which UNMOVIC wished to interview; that rooms designated for such interviews had been bugged; and that some potential interviewees had been kept away from UNMOVIC by the Iraqi authorities and that there was evidence that Iraqi scientists had been intimidated into refusing interviews with UNMOVIC outside Iraq These points were also covered in the section or interviews in chapter one of the dossier.

  Mr. Marshall-Andrews
  To ask the Solicitor-General pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) of 17 March 2003,Official Report column 515W, on Iraq, whether, in concluding that it was plain that Iraq had failed to comply with Resolution 1441, the Attorney-General relied upon the facts and assertions contained in Chapter 3 paragraphs (a) two to five, (b) six to seven, (c) eight to 11, (d) 12 to 13, (e) 14,

  357W
  (f) 15, (g) 16, (h) 18 to 23 and (i) 24 to 32 of the Government dossier published in September 2002 as material to his conclusion and to the opinion he gave as to the authority to use force. [131003]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Attorney-General did not rely upon any facts or assertions contained in the Government dossier published in September 2002 as material to his conclusion set out in his statement of 17 March that Iraq had failed to comply with resolution 1441 and that a legal base for the use of force existed in the combined effect of UN Security Council resolutions 678, 687 and 1441.

WALES

  Coroners Courts
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the annual budget is for each coroner's court in Wales; and what percentage is ring-fenced to enable the provisions in the Welsh Language Act 1993 to be met. [132423]

  Mr. Touhig
  Coroners' courts are funded by local authorities through the settlement and as such a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  European Year of Disabled People
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what initiatives his Department(a) has undertaken and (b) is taking to commemorate 2003 as the European Year of Disabled People. [133287]

  Mr. Touhig
  The Wales Office does not have direct responsibility for specific programmes. However, my right hon. Friend and I recognise the importance of promoting the rights of disabled people and raising awareness of the contribution they make to society. On 4 September my right hon. Friend spoke at Remploy's awards ceremony, honouring employers in Wales who have led the way in the employment of disabled people.

  The Disability Unit within the Department for Work and Pensions has been working closely with the National Assembly to promote the European Year of Disabled People in Wales. Joint sponsorship from DWF and the European Commission has enabled 13 special European Year projects to run in Wales covering a wide range of issues.

ADVOCATE-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND

  Legislative Competence
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Advocate-General if she will place in the Library copies of communications her Department has had with the Scottish Executive on consideration by her office of the legislative competence of the Bills detailed in Annex 9 of the Scotland Office Departmental Report 2003. [132984]

  The Advocate-General for Scotland
  Any such communications which take place between my, Department and the Scottish Executive are confidential
  358W

TRANSPORT

  Essex Coastguard Service
  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many full-time coastguards were employed by the Essex Coastguard Service on 1 September. [132630]

  Mr. McNulty
  On 1 September, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) employed 33 full-time coastguards in Essex.

  Biofuels
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to ensure that the UK will meet the EU target for 2 per cent. of road transport to be fuelled by biofuels by December 2005; and if he will make a statement. [132870]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The European Union's Biofuels Directive requires member states to set their own indicative targets for sales of biofuels to be met in the years 2005 and 2010. The Government will be consulting early next year on the level of targets that might be appropriate for the UK, and on the steps that we might take to meet them.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Totnes of 17 June concerning the Teenage Cycle Safety Campaign; and what the reasons are for the delay. [132589]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I replied to the hon. Member on 7 July.

  Flight Paths (Walthamstow)
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what altitude restrictions apply to aircraft on flight paths above Walthamstow; and how these have changed in the last five years. [131582]

  Mr. McNulty
  [pursuant to his answer, 14 October 2003, Official Report, c. 168–69W]: The airspace over all of Walthamstow above 2,500 ft has been classified as 'controlled' for many years. Over the southernmost quarter of Walthamstow the airspace has been controlled to ground level since the opening of London City Airport. Aircraft using Heathrow and City operate within this controlled airspace. Aircraft inbound to Heathrow will normally be above 5,000 ft.

  Over the remainder of my hon. Friend's constituency below 2,500 ft, helicopters and general aviation aircraft from smaller aerodromes can determine routes and altitudes according to their particular requirements Such flights are subject to the Rules of the Air Regulations, notably Rule 5, which means most will be above 1,500 ft.

  There have been no changes to the airspace over Walthamstow in the last five years.

  Unmanned Level Crossings
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what recent discussions he has had with the Health and Safety Inspectorate on Network Rail's proposals to close unmanned level crossings in Scotland; [133121]
  359W
  (2) what recent representations he has received from organisations representing country pursuits regarding Network Rail's proposals to close unmanned level crossings in Scotland. [133122]

  Mr. McNulty
  None. This is an operational matter for Network Rail.

  However, I understand that there are continuing discussions between the Health and Safety Executive, Network Rail, the Ramblers' Association, the Scottish Executive, Scottish Natural Heritage, local authorities and residents about Network Rail's policy of preventing unauthorised use of a small number of private level crossings in Scotland. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has drawn the attention of Network Rail's Chief Executive to the need for decisions to enforce restrictions at such crossings to be properly justified on safety grounds.

  St Christopher House
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what percentage of the demolition waste from the demolition of St. Christopher House, London is being sent to landfill; [133117]

  (2) to what uses the waste from the demolition of St. Christopher House, London is being put; and what percentage of the total waste is being used in each way. [133118]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Highways Agency left St. Christopher House in September 2002 and the lease expired shortly after. The MOD remained for a few months longer, as their lease had not expired. The building was never a Crown building and it is being demolished by the private landlord. The Highways Agency now has nothing to do with the building.

  Thelwall Viaduct
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what steps he is taking to monitor traffic congestion in North Warrington with particular reference to the Winwick area, while repairs to the Thelwall viaduct are being carried out; [132685]

  (2) when he expects the repair work being carried out on the Thelwall viaduct to be completed. [132686]

  Mr. McNulty
  I have asked the acting Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, to write to my hon. Friend on these matters.

  Letter from Keith Miller to Helen Jones dated 20 October 2003:

  Tony McNulty has asked Stephen Hickey, Acting Chief Executive of the Highways Agency to reply to your two recent Parliamentary Questions about traffic congestion in North Warrington, arising from ongoing works to the M6 Motorway Thelwall Viaduct, and the expected timescale for completion of those works. Stephen is currently away on official business and I am writing on his behalf.

  The Highways Agency is responsible for the operation management, maintenance, and improvement, of the trunk road and motorway network in England, including the M6 Thelwall Viaduct. As you may be aware, the Agency's ongoing works are to replace 140 support bearings, following the discovery, during routine inspection in July 2002, of a single failed support bearing on the viaduct carrying northbound traffic. All but one lane of that particular viaduct was then closed, and traffic is now carried on
  360W
  this single lane allowing access to Warrington at Junction 21, and on six reduced-width lanes on the viaduct carrying southbound traffic (three lanes in each direction) in contraflow, with a 40mph speed limit. Detailed investigations were urgently carried out and these revealed other failures in the bridge support bearings.

  The Agency is conscious that traffic is diverting onto the local road network, including the Winwick area, as a result of the ongoing works and is working closely with Warrington Borough Council on this issue. Data is being collected by both the Council and the Agency to assess the impact of the traffic diversions.

  Our aim is to re-open the northbound viaduct as soon as is practicable, and expect to complete the repair works by Spring 2005. However, we are in discussions with the Contractor to identify whether an earlier completion date for the works is possible.

  I hope this is helpful. If you would like any further information on this matter, please contact the Agency's Project Manager for the viaduct repairs, David Brindle, Room 803, Sunley Tower, Piccadilly Plaza, Manchester M1 4BE telephone 0161 930 5653.

  US Ships (Dismantling)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport for what reason he has not responded to the letter from the hon. Member for Lewes, dated 11 September, on the proposal to allow the dismantling of ships from the US reserve fleet on Teesside; and if he will make a statement. [133289]

  Mr. McNulty
  Staff from my Department have contacted the hon. Member's office on a number of occasions asking for a copy of the letter but we have yet to receive it. When we do I shall reply to the hon. Member.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he undertook of the availability of facilities in the US to dismantle the ships from the US Reserve Fleet intended for dismantling in the United Kingdom before permission was given for that dismantling. [133291]

  Mr. McNulty
  Such availability is a matter for the US authorities which tendered the recycling contract. We understand that AbleUK won the particular contract for 13 ships in competition with US and foreign bidders and that other contracts have been won by US firms, Trade in waste for recovery or recycling is legal among OECD countries and the EU has its own needs for efficient and properly regulated ship recycling facilities as a contribution to sustainable development.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make it his policy to ask the directors of the(a) European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and (b) International Finance Corporation to vote against providing support for the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline; and if he will make a statement. [132460]

  Hilary Benn
  The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and the International Finance Corporation (IFC) of the World Bank Group are currently completing their normal thorough
  361W
  screening and safeguards procedures on the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline project. DFID will make its decision on how to vote on the project on the basis of formal project proposals brought to the Executive Boards of these institutions. As is standard procedure, the decision will be based on an assessment of the projects compliance with the Banks' mandates, policies and procedures.

  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will ask the directors of the(a) European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and (b) International Finance Corporation to vote against providing support for the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline. [132505]

  Hilary Benn
  The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and the International Finance Corporation (IFC) of the World Bank Group are currently completing their normal thorough screening and safeguards procedures on the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline project. DFID will make its decision on how to vote on the project on the basis of formal project proposals brought to the Executive Boards of these institutions. As is standard procedure, the decision will be based on an assessment of the projects compliance with the Banks' mandates, policies and procedures.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will ask the Director of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development to withhold support from the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline. [133628]

  Hilary Benn
  The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and the International Finance Corporation (IFC) of the World Bank Group are currently completing their normal thorough screening and safeguards procedures on the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline project. DFID will make its decision on how to vote on the project on the basis of formal project proposals brought to the Executive Boards of these institutions. As is standard procedure, the decision will be based on an assessment of the projects compliance with the Banks' mandates, policies and procedures.

  Call Centres
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether his Department plans to outsource call centre work to premises outside the United Kingdom. [132102]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID do not have responsibility for any call centres in the UK.

  Developing Countries
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment he has made of WTO procedures to meet the need for special and differential treatment for developing countries. [132429]

  Hilary Benn
  World Trade Organisation (WTO) agreements include a large number of special and differential treatment provisions (some 155 in all). However, there is dissatisfaction with the existing 362W
  system of differential treatment by both developed and developing countries alike. A total of 88 proposals have been submitted to amend and modify the existing provisions and to provide for new concessions. The UK has worked hard with the European Commission, and others to assess and meet the concerns of developing countries. Accordingly the WTO membership has now agreed to 25 of these agreement-specific proposals. However, central to the issue concerning special and differential treatment is how to take account of country differences (e.g. Singapore to Ghana) within WTO agreements. Developing countries are reluctant to address the issue of country classification now and only within the wider context of future negotiations. DFID is working with others on possible options to provide an effective delivery mechanism for special and differential treatment.

  Ethiopia
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State, Department for International Development if he will make a statement on the drought situation in Ethiopia. [129529]

  Hilary Benn
  The indications are that in most parts of Ethiopia rainfall has been better this year in terms of both quantity and distribution than it was in 2002. Assessments are under way, but at present it looks likely that food production will be better this year. This will have implications for the likely size and scope of humanitarian interventions; in particular food aid interventions may be less extensive.

  Risks to health remain a serious concern. At present there is a malaria epidemic in many parts of Ethiopia. We are planning to respond urgently.

  We are continuing to closely monitor the situation in Ethiopia, and as always we remain committed to playing our part in the international response. Since the beginning of 2002 we have provided £49.1 million of food and non-food humanitarian assistance to Ethiopia.

  Fossil Fuel Projects
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what his policy is on the provision of(a) loans and (b) loan guarantees by multilateral development banks to fossil fuel projects overseas; and if he will make a statement. [132494]

  Hilary Benn
  The UK is a shareholder in a number of multilateral development banks which provide loans and loan guarantees for fossil fuel projects. The Government's policy is to ensure that these institutions comply with their own policies and procedures in all projects for which they provide finance. In considering whether to provide loans or loan guarantees this should include an assessment of the possible social and environmental impacts. In addition, our policy is to fully understand the developmental implications of fossil fuel projects. We are particularly concerned that the management of revenues from such projects occurs transparently and with a positive developmental impact. We hope that initiatives such as the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative will help to achieve this.
  363W
  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what his policy is towards the provision of(a) loans and (b) loan guarantees by multilateral development banks to fossil fuel projects overseas; and what amendments he has made to it because of concerns about climate change. [132501]

  Hilary Benn
  The UK is a shareholder in a number of multilateral development banks which provide loans and loan guarantees for fossil fuel projects. The Government's policy is to ensure that these institutions comply with their own policies and procedures in all projects for which they provide finance. In considering whether to provide loans or loan guarantees this should include an assessment of the possible social and environmental impacts such as climate change. In addition, our policy is to fully understand the developmental implications of fossil fuel projects. We are particularly concerned that the management of revenues from such projects occurs transparently and with a positive developmental impact. We hope that initiatives such as the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative will help to achieve this.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether his Department has carried out an analysis of the extent to which his Department's support for fossil fuel investment is consistent with(a) the United Kingdom's obligations under the Kyoto Protocol and (b) the Government's environmental aims. [133630]

  Hilary Benn
  The UK government are committed to taking a lead in meeting obligations under the Kyoto Protocol, including reductions of carbon dioxide emissions. At the same time, we recognise the rights of other sovereign states to fulfil their own legitimate development needs. In considering support for fossil fuel based investments, it is standard procedure for DFID to liaise with other relevant Government Departments to ensure balance arid consistency between these objectives. In addition, our policy is to ensure that lending institutions take account of possible social and environmental impacts such as climate change as part of their policies and procedures in assessing fossil fuel projects, before providing loans or loan guarantees.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what is the total value is of support given by his Department to overseas projects for(a) the extraction of fossil fuels and (b) the development of renewable energy in each of the last three years. [133631]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID has not been involved in the direct funding of fossil fuel extraction projects over the past three years, although we are occasionally asked to comment on the proposals of lending institutions. While recognising that countries are entitled to exploit their own natural resources, either for export purposes or to meet domestic energy requirements, full account should be taken of possible social and environmental impacts, including climate change. Our policy is to ensure that institutions providing loans or guarantees take such factors fully into account.

  On the renewable energy issue, DFID has funded about £3.6 million of research projects over the past 10 years, about half of this over the past three years. We have about £500,000 of project work still in progress.
  364W
  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the total value of support is from his Department to overseas projects for(a) the extraction and transport of fossil fuels and (b) the development of renewable energy in 2003–04. [132502]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID has not been involved in the direct funding of fossil fuel extraction projects over the past three years, although we are occasionally asked to comment on the proposals of lending institutions. While recognising that countries are entitled to exploit their own natural resources, either for export purposes or to meet domestic energy requirements, full account should be taken of possible social and environmental impacts, including climate change. Our policy is to ensure that institutions providing loans or guarantees take such factors fully into account.

  On the renewable energy issue, we have about £500,000 of research project work currently in progress, having funded about £3.6 million of such projects over the past 10 years.

  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State, Department for International Development what assessment he has made of the extent to which his Department's support for fossil fuel investment is consistent with(a) the obligations under the Kyoto Protocol and (b) the goal of reducing UK carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. [132503]

  Hilary Benn
  The UK Government are committed to taking a lead in meeting obligations under the Kyoto Protocol, including reductions of carbon dioxide emissions. At the same time, we recognise the rights of other sovereign states to fulfil their own legitimate development needs. In considering support for fossil fuel based investments, it is standard procedure for DFID to liase with other relevant Government Departments to ensure balance and consistency between these objectives. In addition, our policy is to ensure that lending institutions take account of possible social and environmental impacts such as climate change as part of their policies and procedures in assessing fossil fuel projects, before providing loans or loan guarantees. I refer the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green to the reply to his question Hansard ref 132501 on this matter, at column 359W.

  The UK Energy White Paper sets out four core objectives of UK Energy Policy: Tackling Climate Change, Energy Security, Cutting Fuel Poverty and Competitiveness. DFID is working closely with other Government Departments, notably FCO, DTI and DEFRA, to ensure a co-ordinated Whitehall approach to international energy issues.

  General Agreement on Trade in Services
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether his Department has conducted an assessment of the development impact of the General Agreement on Trade in Services. [132430]

  Hilary Benn
  The ability to assess the domestic economic and social impact of commitments taken under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) is of vital importance to developing countries. Meaningful assessments will help ensure that the
  365W
  commitments they take on are in line with, and contribute to, wider economic growth and poverty reduction policies.

  It is important that such assessments are conducted by developing countries themselves in the process on making their own decisions during the GATS negotiations. We do however recognise the serious capacity constraints faced by many developing countries. We are therefore working closely with the World bank and UNCTAD to build a framework for supporting developing country efforts to carry out their own impact assessment work.

  Iraq
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps are being taken to reduce delays of convoys into Iraq at the Kuwait/Iraq border. [131140]

  Mr. Rammell
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are two military and one civilian crossing points between Kuwait and Iraq. The former are managed by the Coalition in close co-ordination with the Kuwaiti authorities. The civilian crossing point is under Kuwaiti control.

  The flow of traffic at the military crossing points is not currently subject to unacceptable delays. Nevertheless the US, in consultation with UK forces, is working with the Kuwaiti authorities on further expediting the flow of traffic across the border without compromising security. There are longer delays at the civilian crossing point. Because of well-founded concerns over security and smuggling, the Kuwaiti authorities check carefully both people and goods crossing the border. The Coalition and the Kuwaitis are working on ways to reduce the resulting delays while maintaining security.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will support the opening of a women's resources centre in Basra. [132150]

  Hilary Benn
  Opportunities for providing support on women's issues in Basra will be identified once the member of staff responsible for gender issues is in place. Initiatives such as a women's centre will be considered alongside other priorities.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans he has to deploy gender specialists to Iraq. [132152]

  Hilary Benn
  A member of staff responsible for gender issues is currently on a three-month deployment in Baghdad and a second specialist will shortly begin a six-month deployment in Basra.

  Kyoto Protocol
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the extent to which his Department's support for fossil fuel investment is consistent with (i) the UK's obligations under the Kyoto Protocol and (ii) the Government's target to reduce the UK's carbon dioxide emissions by 60 per cent. from 1990 levels by 2050; and if he will make a statement. [132457]
  366W
  Hilary Benn
  The UK government are committed to taking a lead in meeting obligations under the Kyoto Protocol, including reductions of carbon dioxide emissions. At the same time, we recognise the rights of other sovereign states to fulfil their own legitimate development needs. In considering support for fossil fuel based investments, it is standard procedure for DFID to liaise with other relevant Government Departments to ensure balance and consistency between these objectives. In addition, our policy is to ensure that lending institutions take account of possible social and environmental impacts such as climate change as part of their policies and procedures in assessing fossil fuel projects, before providing loans or loan guarantees.

  The UK Energy White Paper sets out four core objectives of UK Energy Policy: Tackling Climate Change, Energy Security, Cutting Fuel Poverty and Competitiveness. DFID is working closely with other Government Departments, notably FCO, DTI and DEFRA, to ensure a co-ordinated Whitehall approach to international energy issues.

  Malawi
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what financial assistance has been given to Malawi in the last six months. [132294]

  Hilary Benn
  In the first six months of this financial year, DFID spent a total of £14.2 million on development assistance to Malawi. Of this, £5.3 million was financial aid, which was administered directly by the Government of Malawi. Financial aid was disbursed in a number of key areas, notably on the Malawi Safety, Security and Access to Justice programme and the education and health sectors, where funds were used to build education and medical facilities as well as supplying drugs.

  Multinational Enterprises
  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what his policy is on instructing the UK directors of the(a) European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and (b) International Finance Corporation to grant support for projects that have been the subject of an on-going complaint for breach of OECD guidelines on multinational enterprises. [132504]

  Hilary Benn
  UK policy is to assess proposed EBRD and IFC projects against the mandates, policies and procedures of those institutions. The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises ("the Guidelines") are recommendations addressed by adhering countries to multi-national enterprises ("MNE's"). They represent a framework of principles of good conduct for multi-national companies in their business activities, designed to help ensure that they act in harmony with the policies of the countries in which they operate and that they consider the views of other stakeholders. The Guidelines aim to promote and develop a sustainable approach to business conduct and to build an atmosphere of confidence and predictability between business, labour, governments and society as a whole. It is intended that companies use the Guidelines as a benchmark when developing their own codes of conduct. The Government take complaints under the guidelines very seriously and have an established mechanism for dealing
  367W
  with complaints through the National Contact Point in DTI. This mechanism applies equally to projects for which financing by a multilateral financial institution is being considered.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what guidance his Department has given to UK directors of the(a) European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and (b) International Finance Corporation in relation to projects that are the subject of a complaint for a breach of OECD guidelines on multi-national enterprises; and if he will make a statement. [132459]

  Hilary Benn
  UK policy is to assess proposed EBRD and IFC projects against the mandates, policies and procedures of those institutions. The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises ("the Guidelines") are recommendations addressed by adhering countries to multi-national enterprises ("MNE's"). They represent a framework of principles of good conduct for multi-national companies in their business activities, designed to help ensure that they act in harmony with the policies of the countries in which they operate and that they consider the views of other stakeholders. The Guidelines aim to promote and develop a sustainable approach to business conduct and to build an atmosphere of confidence and predictability between business, labour, governments and society as a whole. It is intended that companies use the Guidelines as a benchmark when developing their own codes of conduct. The Government takes complaints under the guidelines very seriously and has an established mechanism for dealing with complaints through the National Contact Point in DTI. This mechanism applies equally to projects for which financing by a multilateral financial institution is being considered.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what his policy is on the role of the(a) European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and (b) International Finance Corporation of the World Bank in granting support to projects that are subject to an outstanding complaint for a breach of OECD guidelines on multi-national enterprises. [133629]

  Hilary Benn
  UK policy is to assess proposed EBRD and IFC projects against the mandates, policies and procedures of those institutions. The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises ("the Guidelines") are recommendations addressed by adhering countries to multi-national enterprises ("MNE's"). They represent a framework of principles of good conduct for multi-national companies in their business activities, designed to help ensure that they act in harmony with the policies of the countries in which they operate and that they consider the views of other stakeholders (for example in respect of social and environmental issues). The Guidelines aim to promote and develop a sustainable approach to business conduct and to build an atmosphere of confidence and predictability between business, labour, governments and society as a whole. It is intended that companies use the Guidelines as a benchmark when developing their own codes of conduct. The Government takes complaints under the guidelines very seriously and has an established mechanism for dealing with complaints through the 368W
  National Contact Point in DTI. This mechanism applies equally to projects for which financing by a multilateral financial institution is being considered.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on the value of support from his Department to projects overseas for(a) the extraction and transportation of fossil fuels and (b) the development of renewable energy. [132458]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID has not been involved in the direct funding of fossil fuel extraction and transportation (pipeline) projects over the past three years, although we are occasionally asked to comment on the proposals of lending institutions. While recognising that countries are entitled to exploit their own natural resources, either for export purposes or to meet domestic energy requirements, full account should be taken of possible social and environmental impacts, including climate change. Our policy is to ensure that institutions providing loans or guarantees take such factors fully into account.

  On the renewable energy issue, DFID has funded about £3.6 million of research projects over the past 10 years, about half of this over the past three years. We have about £500,000 of project work still in progress.

  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Department for International Development what the total value of support from his Department to overseas projects is for(a) the extraction and transport of fossil fuels and (b) the development of renewable energy. [132481]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID has not been involved in the direct funding of fossil fuel extraction and transportation (pipeline) projects over the past three years, although we are occasionally asked to comment on the proposals of lending institutions. While recognising that countries are entitled to exploit their own natural resources, either for export purposes or to meet domestic energy requirements, full account should be taken of possible social and environmental impacts, including climate change. Our policy is to ensure that institutions providing loans or guarantees take such factors fully into account.

  On the renewable energy issue, DFID has funded about £3.6 million of research projects over the past 10 years, about half of this over the past three years. We have about £500,000 of project work still in progress.

  Reproductive Health
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development pursuant to his answer of 14 October 2003, reference 131645 if he will list the(a) reproductive health and (b) family planning projects (i) run directly and (ii) supported financially by his Department in each Central American country, including an outline of each programme's aims and methods; and if he will make a statement. [132906]
  369W
  Hilary Benn
  DFID is supporting two key programmes that involve work on reproductive health and family planning across all of Central America including Nicaragua, Honduras, Ecuador, Guatemala and E1 Salvador:Direct support on a £1.5 million project to reduce the impact of HIV/AIDS through strengthening national and regional capacity in HIV/AIDS prevention, control and care, focusing on Nicaragua and Honduras.
  A £2.0 million cross-regional project on improving sexual health and reproductive health with the United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA) to reduce morbidity, mortality and the social problems associated with sexual and reproductive health in Central America. A component of this project involves funding for Marie Stopes International who are helping to provide access for adolescents to Sexual and Reproductive Health (SRH) services in Managua, Nicaragua.

  Sugar Regime
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development pursuant to his answer of 15 September 2003,Official Report, column 550W, on agricultural produce (EU reforms), if he will make a statement on the research undertaken by his Department on the impact on developing countries of the Four Families of Sugar regime reform options put forward by the European Commission earlier this year. [131952]

  Hilary Benn
  The discussions regarding reform to the EU sugar regime are still in a relatively early stage. On 23 September 2003, the European Commission published an Extended Impact Assessment and posed three possible reform options for the future of EU sugar policy. These options will now be debated by EU member states, which must agree to any major policy changes in the sector.

  With specific reference to the research undertaken by DFID, we have completed our own analysis on the reform options and commissioned a study, which is still in its drafting stage, to explore the potential need for adjustment assistance for ACP countries with preferential access to the EU sugar market that may lose out from the regime.

  Unused Medicines
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State, Department for International Development what schemes exist for sending unused medicines from the United Kingdom to Third World countries; and if he will make a statement. [129528]

  Hilary Benn
  The UK Government are committed to increasing access to medicines in the developing world. The factors recognised by the World Health Organisation (WHO) that can improve poor people's access are; affordable pricing, sustainable financing, reliable health and supply systems and the rational selection and use of existing drugs. Appropriate donations of medicines can play a useful role, including through the use of UK's tax relief on drug donations, although country-level procurement of affordable medicines is likely to be more sustainable in the long term.
  370W
  The Department of Health is aware of a recent proposal from a medical aid charity who supply medicines to Africa and is exploring a number of related issues connected to the scheme.

  The proposed scheme does not comply with the quality recommendations in the Guidelines for Drug Donations issued by the WHO and the Department of Health is seeking further advice from WHO on this aspect.

  There are also legal and ethical issues in which the Department of Health will be seeking the advice of the WHO where necessary.

  Zimbabwe
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment he has made of food shortages in Zimbabwe. [133561]

  Hilary Benn
  The Zimbabwe Emergency Food Security and Vulnerability Assessment released in April made a provisional estimate of 5.5 million people needing food aid by the first quarter of 2004. This figure might rise, since, with inflation now almost 500 per cent., many more people, particularly in cities and towns, cannot afford food even where it is available. The Government of Zimbabwe lacks the foreign exchange to import grains and continues to restrict the role of the private sector in importing and distributing food. The number of people needing feeding in urban areas is being assessed this month.

  To date, less than 40 per cent. of the funding required for the current World Food Programme's Emergency Operation has been pledged by donors. Food aid supplies are therefore secure only through December. An interruption in food supplies, combined with the high level of HIV/AIDS in Zimbabwe, would obviously risk a significant increase in mortality rates. We are working closely with other members of the international community to update the overall estimates of humanitarian need. We will continue to monitor the position closely and encourage further contributions as necessary. This week we announced an additional contribution of £5 million to the WFP Emergency Operation. This is in addition to some £11 million of new commitments we have already made this year through NGO partners for food aid and agricultural recovery, and some £2 million granted to UNICEF for vaccines to immunise against childhood diseases.

PRIME MINISTER

  Cabinet Committee on Biotechnology
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister what criteria govern decisions by Lord Sainsbury to withdraw from discussions at the Cabinet Committee on Biotechnology. [133097]

  The Prime Minister
  All Ministers are required to conduct themselves in accordance with the requirements set out in the Ministerial Code. As has already been made clear, Lord Sainsbury does not take part in any Government decisions or discussions relating to GM food including those at the Sci-Bio Committee.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the persons employed in an official capacity at No. 10 Downing street; what post each of them holds; and how much each is paid. [132455]

  The Prime Minister
  A list of the main office holders in the Prime Minister's Office is set out in the Civil Service Year Book, which is updated annually. Copies are available in the House Libraries.

  Information about an individual's pay is not disclosed under exemption 12 of Part 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  However, details of the pay of special advisers by payband are published on an annual basis. For details of the paybill for special advisers for 2002–03, I refer my right hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) on 16 July 2003, Official Report, columns 327–30W.

  International Treaties
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his Answer of 14 October 2003 to the honourable Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd),Official Report, column 60W, on international treaties, on what evidential basis he relied in his statement that a State may not plead its national law to escape its international law obligations, including its treaty obligations. [132934]

  The Prime Minister:
  The principle referred to in the answer of 14 October 2003, Official Report, column 60W, is well established. The Permanent Court of Arbitration, the Permanent Court of International Justice and the International Court of Justice have produced a consistent jurisprudence upholding this principle.

  Iraq
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what commitments he has given to the President of the United States in relation to the UK's financial contribution to(a) the cost of the provision of troops in and (b) the reconstruction of Iraq. [132754]

  The Prime Minister
  I have given no commitments to the President of the United States in relation to financial contributions to the provision of troops in, and the reconstruction of, Iraq. The Government are covering the costs of the deployment of British troops and providing some logistical help to Coalition partners operating under UK command in Multi-National Division South East (MND SE).

  The Government have pledged a UK financial commitment towards Iraq's reconstruction of £544 million for the three years from April 2003.
  372W
  David Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister what consultations he has had with the US President over the Iraq Governing Council opposition to Turkish troops being part of the occupying forces; and if he will make a statement. [132832]

  The Prime Minister
  I regularly discuss the situation in Iraq with President Bush.

  The Government is grateful for Turkey's efforts to aid in the reconstruction in Iraq. We welcome the generous offer of Turkish troops and the vote in the Turkish Parliament to approve this in principle. The practicalities of the potential deployment are a matter for the Coalition Provisional Authority and the US and Turkish authorities, taking into full consideration local sensitivities, including those raised by the Iraq Governing Council.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister when he received the letter on the nuclear weapons time-line in the Iraq Dossier, sent jointly by the hon. Members for Blaenau Gwent and for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) on 27 August; and when he will reply. [133400]

  The Prime Minister
  I received the letter on 28 August and replied to my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) on 6 October.

  Ministerial Code
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy for individuals not holding ministerial office but who carry out tasks of ministerial equivalence to be subject to the Ministerial Code of Conduct in respect of such tasks. [133100]

  The Prime Minister
  No. The Ministerial Code applies to Ministers.

  Reports (Provenance)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 15 October, (ref. 131973), what the provenance is of the reports referred to in his answer of 15 October. [133279]

  The Prime Minister
  The reports to which I referred in my answer of 15 October come to the Government through a variety of channels.

  I am unable to be more specific about the precise origins of all the information upon which our concerns are based, under Exemption 1(a) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Security Clearance
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister what level of security clearance applied to(a) the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) and (b) Mr. Jonathan Powell as of 1 October. [133114]

  The Prime Minister
  The security clearance of individual Members of Parliament is not a matter for the Government.

  Jonathan Powell has the appropriate level of security clearance to do his job.

DEFENCE

  Euro
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much has been spent in each year by his Department in preparing for UK entry to the euro; how much his Department plans to spend on preparations for UK entry to the euro for each year from the current financial year up to and including 2005–06; and what estimates he has made of the total costs to his Department of changeover to the European Single Currency. [131594]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 14 October 2003,Official Report, column 142W, by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ms Kelly).

  Bailed Soldiers
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his policy is on the allocation of duties to a soldier released on bail on charges of unlawful killing. [131984]

  Mr. Ingram
  A soldier will perform normal duties providing he or she is medically fit and the range of duties is in accordance with any specific requirements of bail.

  Departmental Travel
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department spent on foreign travel on official business in each year since 1999. [132125]

  Mr. Caplin
  This information is not held centrally in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Young Service Personnel (Welfare)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures he has taken to involve the families of young service personnel in safeguarding their welfare. [132182]

  Mr. Ingram
  The armed forces have a long standing tradition of including the families of all personnel in the overall welfare process which is an essential component in the maintenance of morale and operational effectiveness. A comprehensive audit of procedures within initial training establishments undertaken during 2002 nevertheless confirmed the need for units to sustain links with parents and for individuals to have regular access to external communications which is seen as significant in maintaining morale. Personnel staffs in each of the Services have identified best practices to be adopted. These include better access to mobile phones, the provision of internet cafes and plans to hard-wire internet infrastructure into barrack blocks, all with the aim of improving the ability of personnel of all ages to 374W
  maintain contact with their families. The parents of personnel under the age of 18 are written to, with background details of the training unit and the regime involved. In addition, some units are encouraging 'parent days' at which parents and families are able to visit their sons and daughters and discuss issues with appropriate staffs and unit personnel.

  Iraq
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many individuals in each of HM armed services were(a) charged and (b) disciplined for failing to answer call-up for the conflict in Iraq. [132183]

  Mr. Caplin
  Only the Reserve Forces are subject to call-out. To date no members of the Reserve Forces have been charged for failing to report for mobilisation after being served with a call-out notice. However, a small number of cases are still under investigation.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 17 September 2003,Official Report, column 754W, on weapons of mass destruction, whether any of the civil servants searching for weapons of mass destruction were specifically recruited for this purpose. [132831]

  Mr. Ingram
  On 16 October there were six civil servants in Iraq working for the Iraq Survey Group who were specifically recruited to assist it in its task of searching for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. This number will continue to change as new staff join and others complete their periods of duty.

  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many ex-RAF personnel subject to reserve list regulations were called up for duty during operation Telic, broken down by occupation. [133172]

  Mr. Caplin
  There were 165 RAF ex-regular reservists accepted into service for duty on Operation TELIC. Information on their civilian occupations is not held centrally and could be provided only at a disproportionate cost.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the total cost to date has been of weapons, missiles, munitions and ammunition used in(a) the conflict in Iraq and (b) security and policing since the end of the conflict. [133316]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence identifies the costs of Operations in terms of the net additional costs it has incurred. The costs which the Department would have incurred had the operation not been undertaken—expenditure on wages and salaries or on conducting training exercises, for example—are deducted from the total costs of the operation.

  Calculating all the costs of military action will take some time since they will include the cost of ammunition, bombs and guided weapons consumed in excess of peacetime levels and the cost of repairing and replacing equipment destroyed and damaged. I am afraid, therefore, that I cannot yet provide cost information in the detail my hon. Friend requires.

  Private Tesoni Vakacakaudrove
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements were made for the inquest into the death of Private Tesoni Vakacakaudrove at the Defence School of Transport, Leconfield, on 6 October 2002. [132191]

  Mr. Ingram
  These arrangements are a matter for HM Coroner in line with the Coroners' system in England and Wales.

  Sergeant Roger Timothy Paul Clements-Hunt
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many vehicles and of what description were involved in the motor accident resulting in the death of Sergeant Roger Timothy Paul Clements-Hunt on 8 March 2001 on army exercise in Germany; and what the findings of the health and safety investigation were. [132192]

  Mr. Ingram
  The two vehicles involved in this incident were a Danish registered Heavy Goods Vehicle and a Ministry of Defence (Army) Leyland DAF 4 ton GS truck. The incident was the subject of an investigation by the German Civil Authorities. I am not aware of any separate health and safety investigation.

  Corporal Thomas Rees
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the result was of the accident inquiry following the death of Corporal Thomas Rees on 23 May; and what the principal recommendations of the inquiry were. [132193]

  Mr. Ingram
  This incident has been investigated by the appropriate Civil Police authority, the Land Accident Investigation Team, and the Health and Safety Executive. The Health and Safety Executive has yet to report its findings. An Army Board of Inquiry will be convened in due course. It would be inappropriate for me to comment until all this work has concluded.

  Defence Export Services Organisation
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what procedures the Defence Export Services Organisation undertakes to ensure that special commissions for which it grants permission represent legitimate fees for services rendered. [132363]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Defence Export Services Organisation does not authorise the payment of commissions.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether BAE Systems sought or obtained clearance from his Department or from the Defence Export Services Organisation for payment of agency commission in connection with the sale of defence equipment to South Africa; [132365]

  (2) whether British Aerospace (a) sought and (b) obtained clearance from (i) his Department and (ii) the Defence Export Services Organisation for the payment of agency commission in connection with the sale of defence equipment to Qatar. [132367]
  376W
  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence gave on 1 September 2003,Official Report, column 899W, to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable).

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many requests for special commissions have been referred to the Defence Export Services Organisation since 1995; and how many such requests DESO have granted, in which countries and on what dates. [132364]

  Mr. Ingram
  None.

  Aldermaston
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many over-flights in the controlled airspace of Aldermaston have been recorded for each year since 2001 for which figures are available; and how many prosecutions have followed. [132659]

  Mr. Caplin
  Since 2001 there have been three alleged incursions by military aircraft into the restricted airspace around AWE Aldermaston. The RAF Police Defence Flying Complaints Investigation Team investigated all these incidents and in each case it was found that no breach of the restriction had occurred. Alleged incursions of the restricted airspace by civilian aircraft would be the responsibility of my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Transport.

  Colchester Garrison
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether the Ministry of Defence Police have jurisdiction over former Ministry of Defence dwellings and areas of the Colchester Garrison which have been sold by Annington Homes to private owners; [132813]

  (2) whether the security of military personnel and dependants living in Ministry of Defence housing at the Colchester Garrison has been reviewed following the disposal of dwellings by Annington Homes; and if he will make a statement. [132812]

  Mr. Caplin
  The security situation in the Colchester estates that are now occupied by Service families housed by the Defence Housing Executive (DHE), owner-occupiers and civilian housing association tenants, is unchanged since I replied to the hon. Member's question on this matter on 18 June 2003,Official Report, column 246. The regular routine patrols continue and there has been no increase in crime since DHE's releases of surplus property and the lease of properties by AHL to Colne Housing Association.

  Any incidents arising in the DHE patch are the responsibility of Ministry of Defence Police (MDP); the Essex police cover the non-DHE areas, and the two police forces assist each other when required. The Royal Military Police also patrol the estate. Overall these arrangements imply a greater police presence and better response times than anywhere else in Colchester.

  75 per cent. of the DHE properties have the recommended level of door furniture security; the remainder have chains and spy holes but, in some cases, only 3-lever locks. These will be replaced with 5-lever locks in this financial year.
  377W
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether he has been consulted by Annington Homes over(a) the disposal of former Ministry of Defence dwellings at the Colchester Garrison and (b) proposals by Annington Homes for the development of private housing on the site; [132814]

  (2) what discussions he has had with Annington Homes on proposals to demolish former Ministry of Defence housing at the Colchester Garrison and build private housing. [132811]

  Mr. Caplin
  Annington Homes Ltd (AHL) have not consulted the Ministry of Defence over the disposal of former MOD dwellings at Colchester Garrison or their proposals for the development of private housing on the site. Under the terms of the 1996 Sale Agreement it is entirely a matter for AHL how they dispose of the houses for which MOD has no future requirement and has handed back, or how they choose to redevelop a surplus site.

  Departmental Staff (Scotland)
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the manning changes in Ministry of Defence staff in Scotland for each quarter since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [132544]

  Mr. Caplin
  The number of civilian personnel located in Scotland in each quarter since January 1997 to October 2003 is set out in the table.

  Date

  Full-time equivalents1

  1997

  January

  9,476.4

  April

  9,624.4

  July

  9,783.5

  October

  9,882.2

  1998

  January

  9,865.3

  April

  9,614.1

  July

  9,193.6

  October

  9,444.7

  1999

  January

  9,069.5

  April

  9,292.1

  July

  9,273.8

  October

  9,097.8

  2000

  January

  9,065.2

  April

  9,394.2

  July

  9,329.4

  October

  9,476.5

  2001

  January

  9,446.6

  April

  9,421.3

  July

  9,140.3

  October

  9,111.0

  2002

  January

  9,055.8

  April

  28,597.2

  July

  8,595.0

  October

  8,443.6

  378W

  Date

  Full-time equivalents1

  2003

  January

  37,081.1

  April

  7,115.2

  July

  7,046.9

  October

  7,047.2

  1 Results shown are for all permanent staff including Trading Funds.

  2 A function previously performed in the Deputy Chief Defence Staff Commitments DCDS (P&P) area was transferred to the private sector.

  3 Management of Clyde dockyards moved to private sector.

  Detached Duties
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to discuss with the Chancellor of the Exchequer the taxation of armed forces pay during detached duties. [133173]

  Mr. Caplin
  I have no plans for such discussions.

  National Army Museum (North)
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions his Department has held with the Treasury on the granting of permission for the construction of the National Army Museum (North). [131703]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Ministry of Defence has had discussions with the Treasury on the National Army Museum (North) project and officials from both Departments last met, together with NAM staff, on 4 September 2003.

  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what obstacles remain to the commencement of works at the National Army Museum (North); and when he envisages such work will begin. [131704]

  Mr. Caplin
  Work continues to resolve a range of outstanding issues on this project, though none is currently thought to be insurmountable.

  Northern Ireland
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his estimate is of the number of Her Majesty's armed services personnel that have served in Northern Ireland since August 1969. [131961]

  Mr. Ingram
  Since August 1969, the total number of soldiers who have served at least one day in Northern Ireland is 322,120 while the number of officers who have served at least one day in Northern Ireland is 24,120. The figure for Officers is lower than that given in the answer to my hon. Friend on 5 March 2001,Official Report, columns 17–18. The inaccuracy has only come to light when we sought an update of those figures to answer this question. (These figures include regular soldiers, full and part-time members of the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Royal Irish Regiment. It also includes members of the TA who do not play any part in security operations in Northern Ireland, but it is not possible to extract these figures from the overall totals.)

  In the case of the Royal Air Force 2,380 Officers and 26,010 Airmen/Airwomen are recorded as having received pay while serving in Northern Ireland and will,

  379W
  therefore, have served at least one month in Province. Comparable information for the Royal Navy and Royal Marines is not available.

  Organophosphates
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if adequate protective equipment is available to British military units using organophosphate pesticides; and if he will make a statement. [94734]

  Mr. Caplin
  [holding answer 3 February 2003]: Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for use by United Kingdom armed forces is available through the normal supply chain. The Ministry of Defence has procedures in place to enable requirements for PPE to be met within the specified timescales.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the average time taken to answer written parliamentary questions has been in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [119160]

  Mr. Caplin
  Defence Ministers aim to answer Named Day written questions on the day specified and Ordinary written questions within five working days. The average time taken to answer written parliamentary questions could be calculated only at disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many questions directed to him remain unanswered. [130756]

  Mr. Caplin
  In the current session, up to and including 15 September, some 4,575 parliamentary questions were tabled to the Secretary of State for Defence. As of 14 October, 88 (1.9 per cent.) of these questions remained unanswered.

  Private Peter Watson
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what duties have been allocated to Private Peter Watson while on bail at Palace Barracks Holywood; what assurances were given to enable his release from custody; and what rank of officer made representations. [132479]

  Mr. Ingram
  In accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998,I am unable to make public any personal data relating to Private Watson unless the relevant conditions are met.

  Bail conditions are a matter for the civil courts. No assurances were sought from, or given by, the Ministry of Defence in connection with Private Watson's release from custody.

  Recruitment
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people from Fiji have been recruited into Her Majesty's armed forces in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [132806]

  Mr. Caplin
  The number of Fijian recruits to the Army for the last five years is shown in the table.
  380W

  Financial Year

  Number

  1998–99

  20

  1999–2000

  315

  2000–01

  265

  2001–02

  490

  2002–03

  470

  Figures for the Naval Service and Royal Air Force are not available, as this information is not held centrally.

  Reserve Forces
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the outcome was of his review of reservists' pay on mobilisation. [132933]

  Mr. Caplin
  There has been no review of mobilised reservists' pay. When called out for mobilised service, reservists receive the same rates of pay and are generally entitled to the same allowances as their regular counter-parts. In addition to receiving their military salary; reservists may claim financial assistance if their civilian earnings are greater than their military pay. The regulations governing the latter are currently under review.

  Service Accommodation
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of housing accommodation on RAF operational UK bases has been identified as below tolerable standards. [133174]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Defence Housing Executive (DHE) manages and maintains Service family housing in Great Britain. As these properties are managed on a tri-Service basis, statistical information on the individual Services is not available.

  DHE is working towards upgrading its entire core housing stock (around 41,000 properties) to Standard 1 for condition, the best standard of Service housing. Currently some 90 per cent. of Service families are in houses at either Standard 1 or Standard 2 for condition and only 63 core properties are still at Standard 4 for Condition, the lowest standard of Service housing.

  In the last financial year DHE exceeded its Key Target of 1,200 upgrades, bringing 1,440 properties up to Standard 1. Partial upgrades are also undertaken, with plans for improvements to over 4,600 homes this financial year.

  All properties are inspected before families move in to ensure that they are fit for occupation, and DHE has teams of technically qualified staff at regional and local level to deal with problems that occur during occupation.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Afghanistan
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the cross-departmental drug strategy to help Afghanistan achieve the target of eliminating poppy
  381W
  production within the next 10 years; and what plans he has to fulfil the role of international lead on counter-narcotics co-ordination in Afghanistan. [131772]

  Mr. Rammell
  The UK is the lead nation on Counter Narcotics (CN) in Afghanistan and has a Public Service Agreement (PSA) target to contribute to a reduction in poppy cultivation in Afghanistan by 70 per cent. in five years and by 100 per cent. in 10 years. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and the UK have worked with the Afghan Transitional Administration to help them produce their National Drug Control Strategy.

  The UK has developed a plan of activities to support the Afghan authorities in implementing their Strategy, including law enforcement, institution building, drugs demand reduction and alternative livelihoods for poppy farmers. Progress is monitored by stakeholders across Government.

  As the lead nation, the UK is contributing £70 million over three years and posting additional personnel to Afghanistan to lead this work. It is also planned to hold a counter-narcotics conference in January 2004 in Kabul, involving Afghan and international representation, to encourage further support for the delivery of this project.

  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the timetable is for elections in Afghanistan. [127138]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Under the Bonn Agreement, national elections are due to be held by June 2004. On 24 September in New York, President Karzai announced that the presidential elections will be held in June, in keeping with the Bonn Agreement, but that the parliamentary election will have to come later. However a firm timetable has yet to be agreed.

  Voter registration has already started under the auspices of the United Nations, with priority being given to remote areas that will be inaccessible during winter months. Registration is scheduled to conclude in May 2004. An Interim Electoral Commission and a Joint Electoral Management Body were appointed on 26 July to begin preparations for the 2004 ballot. The Interim Electoral Commission will hand over to an independent Electoral Commission before the ballot next year.

  Embassy Staff
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his answer of 17 September, 2003 ref.130397, on security clearance levels, for what reason locally-engaged personal assistants recruited by British embassies are subject to a lower vetting classification than the developed vetting required for UK-based personal assistants recruited for the same posts. [131695]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The appropriate level of security clearance for locally engaged personal assistants is determined, in accordance with HM Government's statement of vetting policy, as announced to the House on 15 December 1994 (Official Report, columns 764–66). The levels required for staff both locally engaged and UK based, are based on the need for them to have access to classified material. The requirement
  382W
  for such access for locally engaged personal assistants is usually different than for UK based personnel. In most cases locally recruited staff will not normally have access to classified material.

  Slovakia
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on visas for Slovakian citizens before their accession to the EU. [131481]

  Mr. Mullin
  All visa regimes, including that in respect of Slovak nationals, are kept under review and are lifted when it is judged that the circumstances which gave rise to the imposition of the requirement have been addressed. The visa regime on Slovak nationals will be lifted as soon as possible and at the latest by May 2004, when the Slovak Republic becomes a full member state of the European Union.

  Intergovernmental Conference
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, at the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference, the Government will seek to amend Article III-206, with particular reference to the provision that states that: When the Union has defined a position on a subject which is on the United Nations Security Council agenda, those member states which sit on the Security Council shall request that the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs be asked to present the Union's position; and if he will make a statement. [131512]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Government will not seek to change the aforementioned provision in Article III-206 at the Intergovernmental Conference. This Article allows for a continuation of the current practice, in line with the Security Council's Rules of Procedure, whereby the Presidency can speak at open meetings of the Council. Under the new Treaty, the European Foreign Minister instead of the Presidency will represent the Union where non-members of the Council are permitted to speak and when the Union has defined a common position on the subject of the meeting.

  The UK retains the right to speak in a national capacity as a permanent member of the Security Council. This is safeguarded in Art III-206.2, which states that
  "Member States which are members of the Security Council will, in the execution of their functions, defend the positions and the interests of the Union, without prejudice to their responsibilities under the provisions of the United Nations Charter".

  The Government would not accept the any proposal that meant giving up its permanent membership of the UN Security Council and the rights which go with that.

  Military Nuclear Testing
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions(a) he and (b) members of his Department have had since April with representatives of (i) the US Administration, (ii) the governments of the EU member states, (iii) the governments of prospective EU

  383W
  candidates, (iv) the Russian Government and (v) the Government of China about military nuclear testing; and if he will make a statement. [131530]

  Mr. MacShane
  My noble Friend, the Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean and officials spoke to representatives of governments from all the regional groupings at the Conference on the entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) in September 2003, which was attended by 102 State Parties. In her speech to the Conference, Baroness Symons reiterated the UK's continued strong support for the CTBT. The full text of the speech is available on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website: www. fco.gov.uk-speeches

  Prior to the Conference, we also participated in an extensive EU lobbying effort, including with both the United States and China, to urge their ratification of the Treaty.

  The UK has not carried out a nuclear explosion since November 1991. We signed the CTBT in 1996 and ratified it in 1998. We continue to urge all states that have not yet done so to sign and ratify the Treaty as soon as possible.

  Euro
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much has been spent in each year by his Department in preparing for UK entry to the euro; how much his Department plans to spend on preparations for UK entry to the euro for each year from the current financial year up to and including 2005–06; and what estimates he has made of the total costs to his Department of changeover to the European Single Currency. [131593]

  Mr. MacShane
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 14 October by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.

  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many speeches he has made since 1 June 2003 supporting entry into the eurozone. [131752]

  Mr. MacShane
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has made clear the Government's position on EMU—and indeed the EU more broadly—repeatedly over the last four months. May I draw my hon. Friend's attention in particular to the speech he gave to the Foreign Policy Centre on 27 August 2003.

  Pakistan
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with Pakistan. [131749]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UK has a close relationship with Pakistan. This relationship is strengthened by our historical links to Pakistan and by the very large number of Pakistani-origin British citizens. We have regular engagement with the Pakistani Government at all levels on a range of issues. Our relationship was further strengthened by the successful visit to the UK by President Musharraf in June 2003. The Pakistani Foreign Minister will be making an official visit to the UK as a Guest of Government in November 2003.
  384W
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will meet the new Pakistani High Commissioner. [131751]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary briefly met the new Pakistani High Commissioner at the Labour Party Conference and I had a substantive meeting with her on 22 September 2003.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his answer of 2 July 2003,Official Report, column 311W, on Pakistan, whether consular access to Mr. Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh has been granted; and if he will make a statement. [131773]

  Mr. Mullin
  We continue to seek consular access to Mr Sheikh. As explained to my hon. Friend on 2 July, if Mr Sheikh is a dual national, the Pakistani authorities are not obliged to give us consular access or information. We will, however, continue to press for access to ensure Mr Sheikh's welfare. The British Deputy High Commission in Karachi last wrote to the Pakistani Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 30 July, reminding them of the provisions of the Vienna Convention. We have not yet received a response.

  The British Deputy High Commission also wrote to Mr Sheikh's legal representative on 1 September, asking him to deliver a letter offering consular assistance to Mr. Sheikh. Mr. Sheikh's legal representative explained that an earlier letter from the Deputy High Commission had been passed to Mr Sheikh. He therefore declined to pass this more recent letter to Mr Sheikh.

  Visas
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many letters from hon. Members were received by UK visas in August 2003. [131882]

  Mr. Mullin
  In August 2003, UK visas received 1,466 letters from Members of Parliament.

  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he intends to fill the post of Director of Visas, India. [131883]

  Mr. Mullin
  The post of Director of Visas in India is currently filled by Chris Dix. A decision as to who will replace him has not yet been made.

  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the backlog of correspondence for UK visas was on 1 September. [131885]

  Mr. Mullin
  Ukvisas's computer system only enables the user to view current information and does not allow access to historical information. On 1 October the backlog of correspondence stood at 370. This refers to individual letters or e-mails that had not been answered within our deadlines (20 working days to reply to members of the public and 15 working days to reply to Members of Parliament). From January to week ending 22 August, the correspondence section received 15,892 letters, an increase of 37.5 per cent. over the same period in 2002. Ukvisas has also seen a 50 per cent. increase in the number of e-mail enquiries it is receiving (currently around 5 per cent. a month). We are constantly seeking
  385W
  to improve our working practices to deal with this rise in demand and are also expanding our correspondence unit.

  Turkey
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Turkish Government about the future entry of Turkey into the EU; and what issues were discussed. [132099]

  Mr. MacShane
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs met Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul at UNGA on 25 September. He reaffirmed the UK's support for Turkey's EU candidacy and welcomed the significant progress that Turkey has made, particularly the 6th and 7th EU-related reform packages this summer. He and his Turkish colleague agreed that consistent and effective implementation of these is now crucial.

  Call Centres
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether his Department plans to outsource call centre work to premises outside the United Kingdom. [132103]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) is currently managing a project to secure a private sector strategic partner to assist in the development and support of the next generation of its Firecrest IT infrastructure. The future management of the internal help desk will be part of discussions with the private sector, when this partner is appointed, probably next year. But there are no plans to place this work outside the UK.

  The FCO uses the MM call centre based in Bristol to provide travel advice. There are no plans to change this service.

  Iraq
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit Iraq to view the reconstruction programme. [132130]

  Mr. Rammell
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary last visited Iraq on 2 July. His travel plans, including plans to visit Iraq, are kept under review. He hopes to be able to return soon. My noble Friend, the Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean, Minister of State for the Middle East, visited Iraq between 7 and 8 October.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how regularly he holds discussions with the US Secretary of State on the activities of coalition forces in Iraq. [132134]

  Mr. Rammell
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discusses all aspects of policy on Iraq frequently with the US Secretary of State.

  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what support the UK is giving to the Iraq Governing Council and cabinet. [132241]
  386W
  Mr. Rammell
  Ministers have established a dialogue with Governing Council members and Iraqi Ministers on providing assistance. British officials in Iraq help the Council and Ministries with policy and resources. Budgets for the Council and Ministries for 2003–04 have been agreed with the Coalition. We are engaging Iraqi Ministers at political level. My right. hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, for example, hosted the Iraqi Foreign Minister on 7 October, and my noble Friend, the Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean met members of the Governing Council when she visited Baghdad on 8 October. Our policy objective remains to hand over full authority to Iraqis as soon as is practicable.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his assessment is of the political situation in Cyprus. [132236]

  Mr. MacShane
  The British Government continue to believe that securing a comprehensive settlement in Cyprus by 1 May 2004, and enabling Cyprus to accede to the EU as a reunited island, is in the best interests of all Cypriots, and of the wider region. It is clear that a majority of people in both the Greek Cypriot and the Turkish Cypriot communities are also looking to their leaders to bring this about.

  The best way to do so would be for the parties to re-engage on the basis of the detailed settlement proposals presented by the UN Secretary General. The Annan Plan is balanced, practicable and compatible with the EU acquis-the EU has frequently reiterated its strong preference for accession by a reunited island and its willingness to accommodate the terms of a settlement negotiated through the UN process.

  President Papadopoulos has affirmed that he is ready to negotiate on this basis. Mr. Denktash's latest statements, however, suggest that he is opposed not only to the Annan Plan but also to the UNSG's Good Offices. We hope the Turkish side will find a way out of this rejectionist stance, in time to enable all Cypriots and Turkey itself to reap the benefits.

  Democratic Republic of Congo
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his assessment is of the economic and political situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo. [132246]

  Mr. Mullin
  The political situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is encouraging. Apart from pockets of local violence the conflict has ended. The Transitional National Government in Kinshasa is in place. It has a huge task to exert its full authority throughout the country and to prepare for elections in two years, and it will have our full support.

  The DRC's economy has been devastated by years of poor government and, latterly, war. The DRC has made significant progress in stabilising the economy through a three year government economic reform programme supported by a US$786 million IMF poverty reduction and growth facility. For the first time in 13 years the economy achieved positive growth levels in 2002. The situation should improve further, with the decision on

  387W
  23 July by the international financial institutions to reduce the DRC's total external debt by around 80 per cent.—some US$10 billion in monetary terms.

  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he intends to visit the Democratic Republic of the Congo to discuss social reconstruction. [132247]

  Mr. Mullin
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has no immediate plans to visit the Democratic Republic of Congo. But he and Ministers from both the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development take every opportunity in contacts with the Transitional National Government to emphasise our readiness to support a range of post conflict development issues, including social reconstruction.

  Somalia
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his assessment is of the current economic and political situation in Somalia. [132248]

  Mr. Mullin
  While Somaliland has organised successful elections, which have brought stability to that region, the overall situation in Somalia remains unsettled without any form of effective Government.

  The Government continue to support the reconciliation talks between Somali leaders which are currently taking place in Nairobi under the auspices of the International Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD). We believe that these talks offer the best opportunity for securing a lasting peace.

  The Somaliland economy has been hit hard by the ban on livestock exports to Saudi Arabia, due to fears of transmission of Rift Valley Fever. The economy is dependent upon remittances from the diaspora.

  Bechtel
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the contracts for consultancy and other work carried out by Bechtel in each year since 1997, stating in each case(a) the nature of the work, (b) the value of the contract and (c) the duration of the contract; and if he will make a statement. [132596]

  Mr. Rammell
  We have not contracted with Bechtel during this period.

  Public Diplomacy
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the cost of promoting British branding and identity overseas in the last year for which figures are available; and what element of this expenditure promotes(a) Welsh, (b) Scottish and (c) Irish branding and identity as a distinct component of that of the United Kingdom as a whole. [131944]
  388W
  Mr. Mullin
  Our public diplomacy strategy aims to understand and improve foreign perceptions of the UK. It is overseen by a Public Diplomacy Strategy board made up of a number of government departments, the devolved administrations and other organisations which have an interest in the UK's "brand".

  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) public diplomacy expenditure in Financial Year 2003–04 includes:
  £1.9 million on a "Think UK" campaign in China, plus £360,000 for the development of campaigns in Central Europe (partnerships with accession states) and North America (UK Science and Technology) to run in 2004;
  A £2.4 million public diplomacy challenge fund which will support 81 projects in 51 different countries;
  £1.25 million for British Satellite News, supplying material to overseas broadcasters; £32. 35 million for scholarships to overseas students;
  £825,000 on a major FCO web infrastructure project, which includes www.i-uk.com; a central portal site to promote the UK overseas jointly with our public diplomacy partners (British Council, Trade Partners UK, Invest UK and VisitBritain);
  £797,201 on generic products, such as £292,461 on publications promoting the UK. Sums have also been allocated this FY for publications promoting specific regions:

  £12,750 on Scotland

  £25,300 on Wales

  £24,658 Northern Ireland

  £36,340 England

  £200,000 for public diplomacy activity promoting the UK's science and technology achievements overseas.

  In addition, the FCO provides grant-in-aid of:
  £166 million to the British Council
  £220 million to the BBC World Service

  Other than the publications on the Devolved Administrations, the FCO has not allocated separate expenditure for the promotion of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland overseas. However we actively encourage projects that promote their identity and they play an active role in our public diplomacy efforts, including participation in campaign steering groups as well as their representation on the Public Diplomacy Strategy Board.

  Our worldwide network of Press and Public Affairs Officers also play an important role in promoting the UK identity overseas through their everyday work.

  Burma
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions the Government has had with(a) Germany, (b) Austria and (c) Italy on targeted EU sanctions against the Burmese Government. [130635]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We regularly discuss sanctions and other possible EU measures against the Burmese Regime with all our EU partners at official level. The EU Common Position on Burma was strengthened on 16 June. We stand ready to respond proportionately to changes that occur in Burma.

  Colombia (Human Rights)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Government is taking to ensure that basic human rights in Colombia are observed; if he will make it his policy to support the call for an International Labour Organisation Commission of Inquiry into Colombia; and if he will make a statement. [132081]

  Mr. Rammell
  The London Meeting on International Support for Colombia in July impressed upon the Colombian Government the importance of human rights. This was reflected in the London Declaration issued after the Meeting. I reaffirmed our position when I met the Colombian Foreign Minister in the margins of the UN General Assembly in September. I made clear that implementation of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights' recommendations on Colombia must be a prime concern in the Colombian Government's pursuit of security and stability in Colombia. Representatives in Bogota of the donor countries who attended the London Meeting will monitor progress.

  The UK Government believe that improving workers' rights in Colombia is best achieved through a supportive approach. It considers the International Labour Organisation's Special Technical Cooperation Programme for Colombia an effective way of bringing about change. We do not think an ILO Commission of Inquiry at this stage would contribute to the Technical Co-operation process. We continue to monitor progress on the Programme, and will continue to discuss with the Colombian Government how best the international community can help improve workers' rights and the situation trade unionists face.

  Jamaica
  Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Jamaican nationals(a) applied for visitor's visas and (b) were refused in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [131459]

  Mr. Mullin
  The visa regime for Jamaican nationals was introduced on 9 January this year. From the period 9 January to 9 October, 21,328 Jamaican nationals applied for visas to visit the UK at our Embassies and High Commissions overseas. Of these, 8,340 were refused entry clearance.

  Surplus Armaments
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent steps have been taken to encourage developing countries to destroy surplus stocks of(a) illegally and (b) legally held armaments. [131137]

  Mr. MacShane
  The UK believes the weapons of greatest concern in developing countries are landmines and small arms and light weapons (SALW). It is on those weapons that we focus our efforts.
  390W
  The UK is at the forefront of international efforts to curb the problem of small arms proliferation and the damage they cause. The UK fully supports the UN Programme of Action on SALW and the OSCE document on SALW which commit states to dispose, preferably by destruction, of small arms stocks that are surplus to national requirements.

  The UK strategy on small arms and light weapons is supported by the £20 million (2001–04) SALW Global Conflict Prevention Pool jointly funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth. Office, the Department for International Development and the Ministry of Defence. The UK has given the United Nations Development Programme £7.5 million over three years to help fund a global programme of weapons collection, stockpile management, capacity building and destruction. In addition, the FCO has also directly funded SALW destruction projects in five developing countries including part funding for an EU SALW project in Cambodia.

  The Government spends approximately £15 million per year on humanitarian mine programmes. The Department for International Development is currently funding mine action in Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, Cambodia, Angola and Georgia. We also actively work towards the destruction of anti-personnel landmines by encouraging states which have not become party to the Ottawa Convention to ratify or accede at the earliest opportunity. Once party to the Convention, states are legally obliged to destroy stockpiled anti-personnel landmines and to clear mine-affected areas within a given timeframe.

  Switzerland
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the treatment(a) British and (b) other EU nationals receive from the Swiss justice system; and if he will make a statement. [131929]

  Mr. Mullin
  As in other countries we would expect any British or other EU nationals to be treated in accordance with the accepted standards under international law. We are currently unaware of any particular concerns about the treatment British nationals receive under the Swiss justice system.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of bilateral agreements on the free movement of labour and trade, between the EU and Switzerland; what steps the Government is taking to ensure these agreements are adhered to; and if he will make a statement. [131930]

  Mr. MacShane
  The bilateral agreements on trade provide an effective framework for trade between the EU and Switzerland. Switzerland is the EU's most important trading partner after the United States. In 2002 Switzerland was Britain's fourth biggest market for goods outside the EU with exports valued at £3.3 billion. The UK is Switzerland's fifth biggest export market, valued at £4.9 billion in 2002.
  391W
  The 1999 Agreement relating to free movement of workers between the EU and Switzerland allows member states and Switzerland to maintain quotas on granting residence to Swiss or EU workers respectively for a transition period up to 2014. The Agreement has been operating smoothly. The UK, like many member states, has chosen not to maintain such quotas, in the interests of reaping the full economic benefits of free movement of labour. Negotiations are now underway to amend this Agreement to take account of EU Enlargement.

  The Commission is directly responsible for monitoring the bilateral Agreements and does so through a framework of Joint Committees that meet at least once a month. The Government follows this process and can raise any relevant issues in Council Working Groups in Brussels.

  Job Levels by Main Sector in the UK, 1997–2002

  Thousands

  August 1997

  August 1998

  August 1999

  August 2000

  August 2001

  August 2002

  Public Sector

  4,954

  4,944

  5,094

  5,094

  5,212

  5,298

  Private Sector

  22,811

  23,083

  23,272

  23,537

  23,521

  23,610

  Total

  27,765

  28,027

  28,366

  28,631

  28,733

  28,908

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey and Administrative Returns from public bodies

  Stamp Duty
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations have been received by his Department from businesses regarding the proposed change in stamp duty. [132156]

  Ruth Kelly
  Extensive consultation with external representative bodies has been conducted both before Finance Act 2003 and after. Representations have also been received and considered from individuals, companies and organisations affected by the proposals and many useful suggestions have been made. These have been used to inform decision making, one example being the amendments I am today proposing to the Stamp Duty Land Tax treatment of leases, where continued consultation, as promised in the Budget, has helped shape the revisions to the Finance Act 2003.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate his Department has made of costs to business arising from the proposed change in stamp duty; and if he will make a statement. [132159]

  Ruth Kelly
  The costs to business were included in the red book for the 2003 Budget.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Totnes of 15 July concerning Mr. Ron Warner of Stoke Fleming, South Devon, acknowledged on 17 July (ref:/31877/2003). [132593]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I replied to the hon. Member on 28 August.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the level of debt as a percentage of

TREASURY

  Job Numbers
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) private sector and (b) public sector jobs there were in the UK in each year since 1997. [132653]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Hugo Swire, dated 20 October 2003:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question about jobs in the private and public sectors in the UK since 1997. (132653)

  The attached table shows the job levels in the public and private sectors from August 1997 to August 2002 (the latest available data).

  disposable income was (a) in general and (b) broken down by social class; and what the level of debt as a percentage of disposable income was in each of the last 10 years. [132453]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Michael Meacher, dated 20 October 2003:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question on the level of debt as a percentage of disposable income in each of the last 10 years. (132453)

  The available information is shown in the table below. The data for debt (households' total financial liabilities) and disposable income (households' gross disposable income) used in the calculations are national accounts series for the combined household and non-profit institutions serving households (NPISH) sectors. The accounts for the household and NPISH sectors are currently combined; separate estimates are not available.

  Information broken down by social class is not available.

  Household debt as a percentage of household disposable income

  1993

  106.5

  1994

  107.5

  1995

  106.6

  1996

  104.9

  1997

  104.8

  1998

  108.5

  1999

  111.7

  2000

  113.3

  2001

  116.8

  2002

  127.6

  Equitable Life
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the timetable is for the completion and publication
  393W
  of the Penrose Investigation into the origins of the problems surrounding Equitable Life; and if he will make a statement. [132872]

  Ruth Kelly
  The timetable for completing his report is a matter for Lord Penrose.

  Lord Penrose's report will be published as soon as practicable after it is received.

  Family Incomes
  Mr. Keith Bradley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the net income

  £

  Gross Earnings

  Income Tax

  National Insurance

  Child Benefit

  Working Tax Credit

  Child Tax Credit

  Total Tax Credits

  Net Income

  13,000

  1,610

  921

  1,394

  707

  3,418

  4,125

  15,988

  13,500

  1,724

  978

  1,394

  516

  3,418

  3,934

  16,145

  14,000

  1,827

  1,030

  1,394

  344

  3,418

  3,762

  16,287

  14,500

  1,941

  1,087

  1,394

  152

  3,418

  3,570

  16,444

  15,000

  2,044

  1,138

  1,394

  0

  3,398

  3,398

  16,585

  15,500

  2,159

  1,195

  1,394

  0

  3,206

  3,206

  16,742

  16,000

  2,273

  1,253

  1,394

  0

  3,015

  3,015

  16,899

  Industrial and Provident Societies
  Linda Gilroy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many representations he has received from hon. Members regarding the audit and account provisions for industrial and provident societies. [133012]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government has received a number of representations on this and other issues relating to industrial and provident societies. We are considering these as part of our ongoing work on the industrial and provident society sector.

  Iraq
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what financial provision he has so far made for the cost of the UK's contribution to(a) the conduct of active hostilities in Iraq earlier this year, (b) the provision of troops subsequently and (c) the financing of reconstruction in Iraq. [132778]

  Mr. Boateng
  As the Chancellor said in his 2003 Budget statement, "I can confirm that I have set aside £3 billion, in a special reserve available to the Ministry of Defence so that our troops continue to be properly equipped and given the resources that they deserve and have a right to expect."Official Report, 9 April 2003, column 271.

  It is too early to provide total costs of the military campaign in Iraq. However, the Ministry of Defence estimate for the preparatory phase, up to the point military operations began, at around £700 million.

  (c) In April 2003, the Department for International Development set aside £210 million for reconstruction and humanitarian work in Iraq. £154 million of this has been allocated to UN agencies, the Red Cross and Red Crescent movement and NGOs. A further £60 million was set aside by the Chancellor in the Budget to support the work of the UN on the reconstruction and development of Iraq. DFID also provides 19 per cent.
  394W
  of a family with two dependent children aged 18 and 12 with a gross income of (a) £13,000 a year, (b) £13,500 a year, (c) £14,000 a year, (d) £14,500 a year, (e) £15,000 a year, (f) £15,500 a year and (g) £16,000 a year; and what assessment he has made of the sources of that net income. [132687]

  Ruth Kelly
  Given annual gross earnings, a single full-time earner family with two dependent children aged 12 and 18 in full time education would have an annual net household income in 2003–04 that is tabulated as follows:

  of European Community (EC) funding for Iraq. The total EC commitment to Iraq currently stands at £100 million.

  Pensions
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer from which organisations he received representations on retirement pensions in the pre-budget consultation exercise last year, broken down by number of items received. [132660]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Chancellor receives representations from a wide range of organisations and interest groups on many topics which are relevant to retirement pensions. There is no central record of those making representations or of the number of items received from each of them.

  Pool Re
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the annual premiums collected and payments made have been in each year since the establishment of Pool Re; and if he will make a statement. [132873]

  Ruth Kelly
  Pool Re was established in 1993. The information requested is as follows:

  Gross written premiums (£ million)

  Paid claims

  1993

  222.1

  47.6

  1994

  389.3

  93.2

  1995

  195.8

  86.4

  1996

  287.2

  94.3

  1997

  318.8

  124.9

  1998

  173.2

  95.6

  1999

  50.8

  42.4

  2000

  56.0

  14.3

  2001

  70.8

  3.0

  2003

  142.9

  3.1

  Total

  1,906.9

  604.8

  Oil Revenue.
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the Government's revenue receipts have been on a monthly basis since January 2002 from(a) sales of petrol, (b) sales of petroleum products and (c) North Sea oil production; and if he will make a statement. [132878]

  Mr. Boateng
  Monthly data for all hydrocarbon oil duties and Petroleum Revenue tax receipts is available on the Customs and Excise and Inland Revenue respective websites (www.uktradeinfo.com and www. inlandrevenue.gov.uk). Information on revenue receipts from North Sea oil production is only available on an annual basis, again from the Inland Revenue website.

  Tax Burden
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the projected change in the overall tax burden as a percentage of GDP for 2003–04. [132988]

  Mr. Boateng
  The projected change in net taxes and social security contributions as a percentage of GDP in 2003–04, as shown in Table C10 of Budget 2003, is due to a number of factors, including:

  The return to trend of financial company profits from their current depressed levels;

  Normal fiscal drag; and

  Measures announced in Budget 2002.

  Unemployment (Wirral, South)
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on levels of unemployment in Wirral, South since 1997. [132867]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Ben Chapman, dated 20 October 2003:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question regarding the levels of unemployment in Wirral South since 1997. (132867)

  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) compiles statistics of unemployment from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) following the internationally standard International Labour Organisation definition. However the survey sample size is too small to provide estimates for the Wirral South Parliamentary Constituency. ONS also compiles statistics of those claiming Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) for local areas including Parliamentary Constituencies.

  In September 1997, the number of JSA claimants in the Wirral South Parliamentary Constituency stood at 1,776. The corresponding figure for September 2003, the latest date for which information is available, is 851.

  Banking
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made in implementing the findings of the Cruickshank report on United Kingdom banking; and if he will make a statement. [132871]

  Ruth Kelly
  There have been a number of recent developments.
  396W
  Following a recommendation of the Julius Banking Consumer Codes Review Group, Professor Elaine Kempson independently reviewed the Banking code in November 2002. The majority of her recommendations were accepted and the new Banking Code came into force in March of this year.

  Secondly, the OFT have agreed to a number of undertakings with the eight main clearing banks to address the findings of the Competition Commission Report into SME banking in March 2002. These remedies will make it easier for customers to shop around and to move accounts between banks. In addition the four leading clearing banks have agreed to offer SME customers in England and Wales an account paying interest of at least the Bank of England base rate minus 2.5 per cent., or a current account free of money transmission charges.

  Thirdly, the Government will make an announcement shortly on the commitment to review the Financial Services and Markets Act two years after it came into force.

  Finally, the Government remains committed to legislating to give the OFT new powers to ensure effective competition in payment systems, and will do so as soon as Parliamentary time allows.

  VAT (Children's Clothes)
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what guarantees have been obtained from the European Commission that zero-rating of children's clothes for VAT purposes may continue beyond 2007; [131996]

  (2) what research he has collated on the cost of (a) children's and (b) adults' clothing in each EU country. [131997]

  John Healey
  The Government does not need guarantees from the European Commission about the future of the UK's VAT zero rates. Any amendment to the EC Sixth VAT Directive must be agreed unanimously by all member states in the Council of Ministers, and the Government will not agree to changes which go against our national interests and social objectives.

  The Government remains committed to retaining the UK's zero rates on children's clothing and footwear.

  Data on the cost of children's and adults' clothing in the UK is routinely gathered by the Office for National Statistics and by the European Commission. In addition, Customs and Excise have collected pricing information on children's and adults' clothing and footwear from UK retailers.

  This evidence shows that the benefits of the VAT zero rates for children's clothing and footwear in the UK are passed on to consumers.

  Woodlands
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list woodlands which are in receipt of tax relief
  397W
  on condition of providing public access; what checks have been made in each case in the last year on whether public access is being provided; and what the result of the check was in each case. [132451]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Conditional exemption is not granted to woodlands as such, though many of the landholdings which have been exempted on account of their outstanding scenic, historic or scientific interest are wooded in whole or part. Details of conditionally exempt land, and the access available to them, are available on the Inland Revenue's website, at: www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/heritage The website invites members of the public to report any difficulties they encounter in visiting exempted property: the Revenue cannot recall any recent instances of problems with access to woodland. The Countryside Agency and its counterparts make inspection visits on the Revenue's

  UK farmgate prices in pence per litre

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  January

  24.16

  20.17

  19.31

  16.79

  18.32

  18.79

  17.69

  February

  23.79

  19.99

  19.03

  16.62

  18.18

  18.31

  17.66

  March

  23.74

  19.90

  18.98

  16.64

  17.88

  18.00

  17.39

  April

  20.70

  17.66

  17.56

  15.27

  18.45

  15.99

  16.85

  May

  19.76

  16.69

  16.42

  14.63

  17.90

  14.88

  16.00

  June

  20.91

  17.74

  17.23

  15.35

  18.70

  15.37

  16.52

  July

  24.08

  20.74

  19.79

  17.64

  20.45

  16.58

  18.22

  August

  23.89

  20.87

  19.83

  17.93

  20.86

  17.00

  —

  September

  22.99

  20.06

  19.17

  17.52

  20.70

  17.13

  —

  October

  21.03

  20.22

  18.12

  18.81

  20.46

  18.15

  —

  November

  20.60

  19.68

  17.69

  18.60

  20.05

  18.11

  —

  December

  20.30

  19.30

  17.36

  18.26

  19.60

  17.75

  —

  Note:

  Surveys run by Defra, SEERAD and DARD including retrospective bonus payments made by purchasers.

  Average retail price of milk in pence per pint

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  January

  36

  35

  34

  34

  35

  37

  February

  35

  34

  34

  34

  35

  36

  March

  35

  34

  35

  34

  36

  36

  April

  35

  34

  35

  34

  36

  36

  May

  35

  34

  34

  34

  37

  36

  June

  35

  34

  34

  34

  37

  36

  July

  35

  34

  34

  34

  37

  36

  August

  35

  34

  34

  34

  37

  36

  September

  35

  34

  34

  34

  37

  36

  October

  35

  34

  34

  35

  37

  —

  November

  35

  34

  34

  35

  37

  —

  December

  35

  34

  34

  35

  37

  —

  Annual average

  35

  34

  34

  34

  37

  —

  Notes:

  Average prices estimates include prices of delivered milk and shop bought milk. However, 80 per cent. price range includes only shop bought milk.

  From February 2002, the average price for milk is calculated as the average price of one pint of delivered milk and the one pint equivalent of two pints of shop bought milk. However, the 80 per cent. price range (which is the range of prices with the top 10 per cent. and the bottom 10 per cent. excluded) only includes shop bought milk.

  Source:

  National Statistics

  Beef Exports
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make 398W
  behalf at least once every five years to check that owners are complying with the undertakings they gave to secure exemption.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Milk
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list for dairy farmers within Shrewsbury and Atcham the average milk price in each month since 1997. [132208]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We do not hold milk price information for specific areas of the UK. However, we do have national statistics for the monthly farmgate price of milk in the UK and the average monthly retail price paid by the consumer in the UK. These figures since January 1997 are as follows:

  a statement on progress in United Kingdom export negotiations to free up the export market for (a) beef and (b) live cattle. [132391]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Secretary of State has discussed beef exports with Commissioner Byrne on a number of occasions, most recently on 22 September at the informal Agriculture Council at Taormina. Defra officials have also had regular meetings with the Commission officials. The Commission has sought advice from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on amending the Date-based Export Scheme (DBES) and our methodology of scaling up testing results to support our claim that restrictions should be lifted so that the UK can trade on the same basis as other member states. An EFSA Opinion is expected in early 2004.

  Large Combustion Plants Directive
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what assessment the Department has made of the impact on jobs in the deep mine coal industry of the implementation of the Large Combustion Plants Directive through(a) a national emission reduction plan and (b) emission limit values as proposed on the present consultation; [132401]

  (2) what analysis the Department has made of the impact on the deep-mined coal industry of the implementation of the Large Combustion Plants

  399W
  Directive by (a) a national emission reduction plan and (b) emission limit values as proposed in the current consultation. [132413]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Government has just completed a consultation on a proposal to implement the Large Combustion Plants Directive for plants first licensed before July 1987 using a national plan. Officials have discussed the potential impact of the alternative implementation routes with representatives of the UK coal industry and have received consultation responses from the Confederation of UK Coal Producers and other bodies and organisations with an interest in UK coal mining. The Government will take a decision on the most appropriate implementation approach after considering all of the consultation responses.

  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what modelling the Department has conducted of the financial dynamics of a sulphur dioxide trading scheme resulting from the implementation of the Large Combustion Plants Directive by a national emission reduction plan approach. [132407]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Government has just completed a consultation on a proposal to implement the Large Combustion Plants Directive for plants first licensed before July 1987 using a national plan. Analysis conducted for my Department suggested that such an approach would lead to significant cost-savings when compared to the alternative implementation approach. The financial dynamics of a trading scheme will depend on the decisions of operators of plants who take part in such emissions-trading. An outline of how such a trading scheme might operate was included in the consultation document but further consideration would be needed before the scheme could be introduced.

  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with(a) the UK mined coal industry and (b) trade unions about the likely impact of the Large Combustion Plants Directive implementation options proposed in the current consultation. [132409]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Officials have discussed the potential impact of the alternative implementation routes for the Large Combustion Plants Directive with representatives of the UK coal industry, who have also responded formally to the Government's consultation paper. Consultations closed on 29 September but some responses are still being received. The Government will take a decision on the most appropriate implementation approach after considering the responses to the consultation.

  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects to announce the Government's decision on the implementation options of the Large Combustion Plants Directive. [132410]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Government will take a decision on the most appropriate implementation approach after considering the responses to the consultation. If the UK is to adopt the national plan approach, the plan has to be with the European Commission by 27 November 2003.

  Animal Movements
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on EU proposals in respect of improved controls for the welfare of animals during transit. [133101]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We welcome publication of the Commission's proposals. They were overdue and now provide the opportunity to seek improvements in many areas, in particular, journey times, vehicle standards and enforcement. We have consulted widely and we are playing a full part in the forthcoming negotiations.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what information regarding animal welfare(a) on the journey and (b) at the final destination is requested by the animal exports division before authorisations for exports are granted; and if she will make a statement. [132442]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Before livestock are exported, transporters must submit a Route Plan setting out details of the proposed journey. Officials check that the transporter is authorised, that the proposed journey times are within the maximum allowable for the species and that all necessary rest, watering and feeding breaks are included. If assembly centres, staging points or slaughterhouses are included in the planned journey, staff check that these are EU approved premises. The use of Staging Points also requires the transporter to provide a statement to the effect that the necessary health requirements will be met there and that the animals are booked into the premises on the dates specified on the Route Plan.

  Once staff are satisfied that the proposed journey appears to meet these conditions, the plan is sent to a Local Veterinary Inspector. The animals are then inspected to ensure they are fit for their intended journey and that they meet the health requirements of transit and destination countries.

  Supervised loadings of vehicles may be carried out to ensure only fit and healthy animals are loaded, that the vehicle is suitable and that stocking densities are correct. Animals for slaughter or fattening may be inspected on arrival at the port or transfer onto a vessel.

  These checks are carried out scrupulously and only when all have been satisfactorily completed will the animals be allowed to start their journey.

  Atrazine
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to ban atrazine in the UK. [132493]

  Alun Michael
  Atrazine is to be withdrawn from use as an agricultural pesticide throughout the European Community, following a full scientific review. Products containing atrazine will be withdrawn over an 18-month period which will begin on formal adoption of the relevant European Commission decision, which we anticipate within the next few months. However, certain 'essential uses' will be permitted until the end of 2007. The essential uses agreed for the United Kingdom are for sweetcorn and forestry.

  Fisheries
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the fishing stop orders made in the last 12 months. [132528]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  No orders have been made in the last 12 months under the provisions of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 prohibiting fishing for specified quota stocks. However, individual groups of fishermen, including the under 10 metre fleet, have been prohibited from fishing for specified stocks through the variation of their fishing vessel licences.

  GM Crop Trials
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the chemical weedkillers used in the farm-scale evaluation trials on the(a) GM and (b) non-GM part of the field; and what the extent of use of each herbicide was. [1321541

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 14 October 2003]: The results of the farm scale evaluations of three spring-sown GM crops—including details of herbicides used, and the extent to which they were used—were published on 16 October by the Scientific Steering Committee and the research team that has overseen and carried out the evaluations. Copies of the results will be placed in the Library.

  Illegal Chemicals (Agricultural Produce)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the role of her Department in preventing the importation of agricultural produce which has been subjected to illegal chemicals during its production. [131903]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The role of the Food Standard Agency (FSA) regarding importation of agricultural produce includes ensuring necessary action is taken to protect public health where the use of illegal pesticides or veterinary medicines is detected. The FSA receives information on these from the European Commission and from surveillance carried out by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). The FSA can also carry out its own surveillance where there are concerns for public health. The FSA and local authorities have regulatory powers to prevent food that poses a threat to human health from entering the food chain or to withdraw it from sale.

  All food products of animal origin being imported to the United Kingdom from non-European Union countries are subject to documentary and identity checks at designated border inspection posts by an official veterinary surgeon. A percentage of consignments are subjected to a physical check, which may include laboratory tests for residues from illegal chemicals. These controls have been enhanced on certain produce from countries with known chemical residue problems. Products of non-animal origin are subject to routine inspection at ports of entry and may be examined, sampled and detained.
  402W
  Products of animal origin from other EU member states must have been produced in accordance with harmonised EU rules for hygienic production. Such products are in free circulation in the EU as part of the EU single market, but are subject to inspection inland as part of routine enforcement and surveillance activities.

  Given recent concerns over import controls, the FSA is taking forward a range of measures to improve the co-ordination and delivery of local authority inspection of imported foodstuffs and products of animal origin at ports and inland.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on how many occasions between 31 March 2002 and 31 March 2003(a) departmental and (b) non-departmental special advisers have travelled abroad in an official capacity; what places were visited; and how much each visit cost. [126665]

  Margaret Beckett
  Between 31 March 2002 and 31 March 2003, Defra special advisers travelled abroad in an official capacity on 12 occasions at an average cost of approximately £2,179 per trip. The countries visited were Belgium, Luxembourg, France, South Africa, Indonesia, USA, Canada and India.

  All travel by special advisers is undertaken fully in accordance with the guidelines set out in the Ministerial Code and the Civil Service Management Code.

  Waste Management
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list those individuals and organisations who responded to her consultation paper on the Large Combustion Plant Directive; and if she will place a summary of the responses in the Library. [132325]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 16 October 2003]: Some 68 substantive responses have been received so far from individuals. businesses, trade associations representing industry sectors, environmental groups, regulators, and Government agencies. A list of consultation respondents follows. In addition, some 1,550 individual letters have been received so far from employees of the coal mining and associated industries. I will place a summary in the Library once we have completed our analysis of the responses.

  Respondents to the LCPD Consultation (as at 10 October 2003):

  1. AEP Energy Services UK Generation Ltd.

  2. AES Drax

  3. AES Kilroot Power Station

  4. Alcan Smelting and Power UK

  5. All Party Parliamentary Coalfield Communities Group, Michael Clapham MP

  6. Association of Electricity Producers

  7. ATH Resources

  8. BASF plc

  9. BP Chemicals Saltend

  403W

  10. BPB Paperboard

  11. Brian Ricketts

  12. British Energy

  13. British Sugar

  14. Brunner Monday

  15. Business Healthcare

  16. Ciba

  17. Coal Authority

  18. Coal UK

  19. Coalfield Communities Campaign (CCC)

  20. Combustion Engineering Association (CEA)

  21. Combined Heat and Power Association (CHPA)

  22. Confederation of Paper Industries

  23. Confederation of UK Coal Producers (COAL PRO)

  24. Confederation of British Industry (CBI)

  25. ConocaPhillips Humber Refinery

  26. Corus

  27. Dakia

  28. Derek Lohmann

  29. Drax Power

  30. Dupont Invista Maydown site

  31. EDF Energy plc

  32. Electricity Association (EA)

  33. Enron Teesside Operations Ltd.

  34. Environment Agency (EA)

  35. Equality Commission

  36. Friends of the Earth

  37. H.J. Banking (Mining) Ltd.

  38. HRM Resources Ltd.

  39. Hudson Transport

  40. Huntsman Tioxide, Grimsby Site

  41. lneos Chlor

  42. lneos Chlor Silicas

  43. lnnogy plc

  44. International Power plc

  45. J. Fenton and Sons (Contractors) Ltd.

  46. John Grogan MP

  47. Joint Nature Conservation Committee

  48. Kodak

  49. LAW Mining Ltd

  50. Mayor of London and Greater London Authority

  51. National Society for Clean Air (NSCA)

  52. Northern Ireland Electric

  53. Ofgem

  54. Petroleum Industry Association Ltd. (UKPIA)

  55. Powergen

  56. Rugeley Power Station

  57. Scottish Power Generation Ltd.

  58. Slough Heat and Power Ltd.

  59. Solid Fuel Association

  60. The Coal Authority

  61. The Environmental Industries Commission

  62. The Scotch Whisky Association

  63. Total Lindsey Oil Refinery

  64. Total Milford Haven Oil Refinery

  65. UK Coal

  66. UK Coal Mining Ltd.

  67. UK Steel

  68. + one response that asked to be kept confidential.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Broadcasting Impartiality
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what steps she is taking to ensure that television and radio channels broadcasting in the United Kingdom maintain political impartiality; [131975]

  (2) what actions she is taking to ensure that television and radio channels in the UK maintain political impartiality. [132227]

  Estelle Morris
  The Government strongly supports impartiality in the broadcast media and there are relevant provisions in legislation to ensure that television and radio channels broadcasting in the UK maintain political impartiality.

  Responsibility for what is broadcast on television and radio rests with the broadcasters and the broadcasting regulatory bodies—the Governors of the BBC, the Independent Television Commission, the Welsh Fourth Channel Authority and the Radio Authority. The regulators' codes of practice place a requirement on broadcasters to treat controversial subjects with due accuracy and impartiality, both in news services and in the more general field of programmes dealing with matters of current public policy or industrial controversy. It is for the regulatory bodies, not Government, to decide whether any particular broadcaster is or is not complying with its obligations regarding impartiality.

  Under the Communications Act 2003 the Office of Communications (Ofcom) will have similar responsibilities for maintaining impartiality from the end of this year. The BBC Governors will retain their responsibility, under the Charter and Agreement, for maintaining the BBC's impartiality.

  Football (Violent Behaviour)
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations she has made to(a) the Football Association and (b) the Football League about violent behaviour by professional footballers during matches; and if she will make a statement. [132835]

  Mr. Caborn
  Professional footballers have a duty to ensure that their behaviour on the field of play is of the highest standard. I wrote to the chairmen of all 92 league clubs before the start of the 2002–03 season to remind them of their responsibilities.

  Since then, I have discussed the issues raised by player misbehaviour, and the responses of the football authorities, on a number of occasions during my regular and informal meetings with the management teams of the Premier and Football leagues.

  Public Libraries
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps the Government are taking to ensure the long-term survival of public libraries in England and Wales. [132228]

  Estelle Morris
  In February 2003 this Department published "Framework for the Future", setting out the Department's vision for the future of public libraries in
  405W
  England during the next 10 years. "Framework for the Future" identified three central themes vital to the further development of public libraries, the promotion of reading and learning, improving access to digital skills and services and helping to build and improve community and civic values.

  Resource, The Council for Museums, Archives and Libraries, has recently published a three year action plan setting out a range of programmes to help libraries achieve the vision set out in "Framework for the Future". I am arranging for copies of this document to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. DCMS and Resource will work closely with all stakeholders to ensure its success.

  Responsibility for public library policy in Wales is devolved to the Welsh Assembly.

SCOTLAND

  European Year of Disabled People
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what initiatives his Department(a) has undertaken and (b) is taking to commemorate 2003 as the European Year of Disabled people. [133286]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The Scotland Office has worked with the Disability Rights Commission, Capability Scotland and the RNIB on access issues for the Scottish Parliament elections. Additionally, my right hon. Friend, the former Secretary of State, and I have visited two of the three Scottish regional initiatives supported by the European Commission and the Department for Work and Pensions as part of EYDP.

  Manufacturing
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland pursuant to his answer of 16 September 2003,Official Report, column 640W, to the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale, on manufacturing, why he estimates the number of people employed in the manufacturing industry in Scotland has fallen since 1997; and what his Department is doing to reverse this trend. [132899]

  Mrs. McGuire
  Scotland's manufacturing sector, along with that of other advanced economies, has experienced falling output in recent times, due to the global slowdown and re-structuring in key industries such as electronics. Opportunities to grow manufacturing are recognised within the Government's Manufacturing Strategy, published in May 2002, which identified seven key areas of activity. Action is being taken in all of these areas to help UK manufacturers improve productivity in difficult global conditions.

  The Scotland Office will continue to work with the Scottish Executive and a wide range of manufacturing interests on initiatives such as the Scottish Manufacturing Steering Group.

  Microsoft (Licensing Fees)
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much was paid to Microsoft in licensing 406W
  fees by his Department and its agencies in each of the East three years; and how much has been budgeted for (a) 2003–04 and (b) 2004–05. [130679]

  Mrs. McGuire
  Information Technology systems and support for the Scotland Office are provided through the Scottish Executive. Details of Microsoft licensing fees for the office are not held separately and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Official Engagements
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland pursuant to his answer of 15 September 2003,Official Report, column 575W, to the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan), on official engagements, if he will list the Scotland Office official engagements he has undertaken since his appointment. [132900]

  Mr. Darling
  I have undertaken a number of both public and private engagements. It is not appropriate therefore to list them.

  Winter Fuel Allowance
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many pensioner households are receiving winter fuel allowance in(a) the North East of Scotland and (b) Gordon. [132595]

  Mrs. McGuire
  For winter 2002–03, 70,435 households in the North East of Scotland (taken to include Aberdeen Central, Aberdeen North, Aberdeen South, Banff and Buchan, Gordon, Moray and West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine constituencies) received winter fuel payments. In Gordon, winter fuel payments were made to 10,045 households for winter 2002–03.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Appointments
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the people appointed to ad hoc posts within his Department bearing the titles of advocate, tsar, adviser, champion and comparable titles since May 1997; what their job title is or was; what their role is or was; whether they were or are being paid; what the total costs of each such person was in each financial year, including expenses and benefits; what the expected cost of each such person is in 2003–04; to whom they are accountable; and if he will make a statement. [112458]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was created as a separate department on 29 May 2002. In the period since then, the Office has employed three Special Advisers, as defined in paragraph 50 of the Ministerial Code: Joan Hammell, Ian McKenzie, and Paul Hackett (part-time). Their role is to advise the Deputy Prime Minister and they are accountable to him for their decisions and actions. These are paid appointments. Under Exemption 12 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, remuneration details are not disclosed in order to protect the privacy of the individuals concerned.

  Building Control Performance Standards Advisory Group
  David Taylor
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what process governs membership of the Building Control Performance Standards Advisory Group; and if he will list the current membership. [132529]

  Phil Hope
  The advisory group was set up in May 2000 under the terms of a Memorandum of Understanding entered into by the Association of Consultant Approved Inspectors (ACAI), the Construction Industry Council (CIC), the District Surveyors Association (DSA), the Local Government Association (LGA), the Welsh Assembly Government (WAG) and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The Memorandum of Understanding provides that the six signatory bodies nominate a total of 10 members. In addition, the Building Regulations Advisory Committee (BRAC) nominates one of its members. The Chairman of the Advisory Group is appointed by the Minister at the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister responsible for building regulations, after consultation between the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the other five signatory bodies. The Memorandum of Understanding also provides for there to be members representing building users and construction clients, though these seats are not currently filled.

  The current membership is as follows:

  Chairman:

  Michael Finn FRICS

  Members:

  ACAI:Tony Threadgold, Paul Timmins

  CIC: Stuart Holt, David Lush

  DSA: John Leney, Adrian Prest

  LGA: Tony Hough, Geoff Luker

  ODPM: John Thompson

  WAG: Philip Gardiner

  BRAC: Paul Allen

  Compensation Claims
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much compensation has been paid in claims against local government in each year since 1990. [132738]

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

  Councillors
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to bring forward legislation to extend the tenure of councillors. [132913]

  Mr. Raynsford
  On 6 May 2003 the Government announced its intention to move the date of the English local council and Greater London authority elections in 2004 from 6 May to 10 June. This will enable them to be combined with the European Parliamentary elections and provide convenience to electors, enabling them to participate in all the elections at the same time rather than voting twice in a short period of time. As a consequence of combining these elections, the term of office for those sitting councillors in England affected 408W
  will be extended by five weeks with that for councillors elected on 10 June 2004 being reduced by five weeks. The Government will shortly be consulting key stakeholders on draft legislation which facilitates these intentions. More generally there are no plans at present to bring forward legislation to extend the tenure of Councillors but the Terms of Reference of the current review of electoral cycles in local government, being undertaken by the Electoral Commission, includes identifying options for change which may include, if appropriate, options involving changes to councillor's terms of office

  John Cryer
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will(a) estimate expenditure on councillors' allowances in each London borough in the past five years and (b) estimate expenditure on councillors' allowances in the financial year 2003–04 within each London borough. [133277]

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

  Essex Fire and Rescue Service
  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many regular firefighters were employed by the Essex Fire and Rescue Service on 1 September. [132637]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Figures supplied by the Essex Fire and Rescue Service show that there were 933 whole-time firefighters employed on 31 August 2003.

  Light Pollution (Astronomy)
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he will respond to the relevant recommendations of the Science and Technology Committee report on Light Pollution and Astronomy. [133593]

  Keith Hill
  The Government will aim to provide its response to the Science and Technology Select Committee report on Light Pollution and Astronomy within two months of the report's publication, as recommended by the Procedure Committee.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the revenue which would be raised by local authorities from charging(a) 100 per cent. council tax rate and (b) 100 per cent. business rate on long-term empty properties. [132448]

  Mr. Raynsford
  About £320 million per year would be raised by English local authorities if 100 per cent. council tax were charged on all long-term empty domestic property other than those subject to exemptions. This represents an additional £160 million because there is currently a 50 per cent. discount on council tax for long-term empty domestic properties. There are, in addition, some categories of long-term empty domestic property that are exempt from council tax. Figures for the revenue which would be raised if these exemptions were ended are not available.
  409W
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not have sufficiently detailed records to be able to calculate what would be raised if long-term empty domestic property were subject to non-domestic rates rather than council tax.

  About £1 billion per year in rates revenue in England is currently foregone as a result of reliefs granted on empty non-domestic properties. This comprises 100 per cent. mandatory relief on all non-domestic properties for the first three months for which they are vacant and, after three months: 100 per cent. mandatory relief for certain properties including factories and warehouses, 90 per cent. mandatory relief for charities and 50 per cent. mandatory relief for other properties.

  Mobile Phone Masts
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many planning appeals by mobile telephone companies against the refusal of local authorities for telephone masts have been made in each of the last three years for which figures are available; and of these how many were(a) successful and (b) turned down. [132815]

  Keith Hill
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The following information relates to appeal decisions about telecommunications development generally.

  Received

  Withdrawn

  Allowed

  Dismissed

  Total decisions

  2000–01

  135

  7

  81

  39

  120

  2001–02

  284

  18

  89

  69

  158

  2002–03

  232

  46

  164

  123

  287

  2003–041

  116

  0

  44

  26

  70

  1 Up to 17 October 2003

  Note:

  All figures relate to the year in which the appeal was received, not necessarily the year it was decided.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will advise the Planning Inspectorate to give greater weight to the views of local authorities when determining planning appeals made by mobile telephone companies against the refusal of applications for telephone masts. [132817]

  Keith Hill
  Planning Policy Guidance Note 8 Telecommunications (PPG8) already advises that all relevant matters will be considered as appropriate at all stages of the planning process.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what guidance has been given to the Planning Inspectorate to take into account health concerns as a reason for local authorities to refuse planning applications by mobile telephone companies for the erection of telephone masts; and if he will make a statement. [132818]

  Keith Hill
  The Courts have held that the Government's statements of planning policy are material considerations which must be taken into account, where relevant, in decisions on planning applications. These statements cannot make irrelevant any matter which is a material consideration in a particular case. Where such statements indicate the weight that should be given to relevant considerations, decision-makers must have proper regard to them.
  410W
  The guidance in Planning Policy Guidance Note 8 Telecommunications (PPG 8) says that health considerations and public concern can in principle be material considerations in determining applications for planning permission for telecommunications developments. Whether such matters are material in a particular case is ultimately a matter for the courts. In the first instance, it is for the decision-maker to determine what issues are material in any particular case and what weight to attach to them.

  Nevertheless, PPG8 states clearly that, in the Government's view, if a proposed mobile phone base station meets the international guidelines for public exposure (ICNIRP guidelines) it should not be necessary to give further consideration to the health aspects and any concerns about them, in processing an application for planning permission.

  Parish Councils
  David Taylor
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to increase parish councils' powers under section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972. [132898]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Section 118 of the Local Government Act provides for the maximum amount that a parish or town council can spend per elector under section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972 to be automatically uprated in line with the annual change in the retail prices index. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister intends that this power will come into effect in time for the next financial year.

  This is additional to the increase in the maximum amount, from £3.50 to £5.00 per elector per year, that took effect at the start of the current financial year.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many Questions directed to him remain unanswered. [130753]

  Yvette Cooper
  At 10 October 2003 of the 2,743 House of Commons Parliamentary Questions tabled to the Deputy Prime Minister in this Parliamentary session, 42 Questions remain unanswered and of these 12 were tabled since 8 September.

  Regeneration Schemes
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the regeneration schemes in(a) the last 10 and (b) the next three years, together with their (i) allocated amounts and (ii) actual amounts spent. [130054]

  Yvette Cooper
  Information on past regeneration schemes can be found in the Annual Reports of the former Department of the Environment; the former Department of the Environment Transport and the Regions; the former Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions; and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Copies of these are available in the Libraries of the House.
  411W
  Information about regeneration programmes to be funded between 2003–04 and 2005–06 by the Office can be found in "Sustainable Communities: building for the future" published in February 2003. A copy of this is also available in the Libraries of the House.

  US Ships (Dismantling)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the plans by Able UK to dismantle ships from the US Reserve Fleet and the relevant planning permission needs in respect of dry dock facilities. [133293]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister understands that Able UK has entered into a contract with the US Marine Administration to dismantle ships from the US Reserve Fleet. The decision on whether planning permission is needed for this operation, and for any associated development, and the determination of any planning applications, are, matters for Hartlepool Borough Council, in accordance with their local planning responsibilities.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Criminal Records
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long on average it took to process an application for screening for criminal records of care home workers in(a) July 2002, (b) October 2002, (c) January 2003, (d) April 2003 and (e) July 2003. [127463]

  Paul Goggins
  Information is not available in the form requested. There are no IT procedures at present to extract this information from the Criminal Records Bureau database. It is expected that, as systems develop, this information will become available at some point in the future.

  However, average turnaround times for Standard and Enhanced Disclosures during the periods specified are shown in the table:

  Days

  Standard

  Enhanced

  July 2002

  16.71

  21.04

  October 2002

  16.75

  32.00

  January 2003

  26.00

  47.72

  April 2003

  12.27

  23.18

  July 2003

  19.25

  25.91

  The turnaround times for January are higher than usual because of lost production days between Christmas and New Year due to staff holidays, and a training and consolidation exercise of new PNC procedures.

  The Criminal Records Bureau has been steadily improving its performance and output since October 2002. The increase in July can be attributed to a surge in applications during the last two weeks in June in advance of an increase in fees coming into effect on 1 July. Approximately 50,000 additional applications were received above the Bureau's normal intake at that time of about 43,000 applications per week. While this
  412W
  increase in applications temporarily increased the turnaround times for applications, the Criminal Records Bureau nevertheless continued to meet its service standard targets.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will exempt voluntary organisations from the recent increase in the level of charges to the Criminal Records Bureau for the remainder of financial year 2003–04 in respect of checks for paid staff; [127306]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the cost to voluntary organisations in financial year 2003–04 of the increase in the level of charges for checks by the Criminal Records Bureau in respect of paid staff. [127398]

  Paul Goggins
  We have no plans to exempt paid employees of voluntary organisations from paying the higher rates of fee which came into force on 1 July. Responsibility for paying the fee rests primarily with the individual applicant, although it is open to the employer to reimburse the charge. Charging a lower rate in some cases would mean adjusting the charge for others, who may be not better-placed to pay. Checks remain free to volunteers, saving the voluntary and community sector an estimated £10 million in the current financial year.

  I have placed in the Library a Regulatory Impact Assessment which assesses the impact of the fee increase across all sectors.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the changes to the disclosure levels regarding information which the Criminal Records Bureau will be required to provide to local authorities when they check on the suitability of persons to become Hackney carriage or private hire drivers; and if he will make a statement. [129184]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 11 September 2003]: At present, all applicants for licences as taxi and private hire vehicle drivers are eligible for a Standard Disclosure. Some—principally those whose duties regularly involve being in sole charge of unaccompanied children (for example, under a school contract) or vulnerable adults—are eligible for an Enhanced Disclosure. Earlier this year, as part of a wider consultation exercise about recommendations of the Independent Review Team appointed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to look at the operation of the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB), we sought views on a proposition that the criteria for levels of Disclosure should be set by Ministers, in consultation with relevant stakeholders, on the basis of risk assessment and that it would then be the function of the CRB to ensure that the criteria were observed. An analysis of the responses received was placed in the Library on 5 June. We have since received a number of representations on this matter, instigated by the National Association of Taxi and Private Hire Licensing and Enforcement Officers. These argue that licensing authorities should determine the level of Disclosure required. This view will be taken into account in arriving at a conclusion on the matter.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Criminal Records Bureau will issue a disclosure for Kau Bellah, CRB reference 2270071. [131176]
  413W
  Paul Goggins
  A disclosure was issued for Kau Bellah on 24 September.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with colleagues from the Department of Health on the proposal of care home owners to seek a delay in the implementation of Criminal Records Bureau plans to require complete record checks prior to the employment of staff. [131324]

  Paul Goggins
  None. I am aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has received a number of representations from representatives of the care home sector in the light of the National Care Standards Commission's decision to withdraw its interim guidance on Criminal Records Bureau checks for care home staff.

  The National Care Standards Commission, as the independent regulator, issued a press release on 22 September in order to make its position clear on this matter. It is available on the Commission's website at www.carestandards.org.uk.

  Aylesbury Young Offenders Institution
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his response to HM Chief Inspector of Prisons' report on Aylesbury YOI, published on 14 August. [130540]

  Paul Goggins
  The Prison Service produces an action plan for each inspection report based on the Chief Inspector's recommendations. Action plans list every recommendation and progress towards implementing each one. I see the original action plan and subsequent progress reports.

  The initial action plan for Aylesbury Young Offenders Institution should be ready by mid-October.

  Child Abuse Investigations
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps have been taken to ensure that, when the police conduct a trawl in child abuse investigations, complainants are offered victim support services from an early stage of involvement in the investigation. [128353]

  Paul Goggins
  The Handbook for Senior Investigating Officers produced by the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Government's Inter-Agency Guidance both detail steps to be taken to ensure that victims of historical abuse are offered victim support services as an initial step. The Inter-Agency Guidance says that "an unequivocal victim support strategy and protocol should be established at the outset" of investigations, including consideration and support for victims both during and after an investigation.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Government will reform(a) the law of similar fact evidence, as recommended by the Home Affairs Committee, to require a striking similarity in historical child abuse cases and (b) the law of severance to introduce a presumption in favour of severance in cases where the similar allegations are inadmissible on a similar fact basis. [128357]
  414W
  Paul Goggins
  The Government set out its position on these issues in its response, published in April this year, to the Fourth Report of the Home Affairs Committee (Session 2001–02) "The Conduct of Investigations into Past Cases of Abuse in Children's Homes":"55. The Committee's recommendation [that the law of similar fact evidence is reformed to require a "striking similarity" in historical child abuse cases] would return the law on similar fact evidence (for these cases) to the position that applied following the case of Boardman in 1975. However, the test for admitting such evidence has developed since then to recognise that its value is not limited to cases of "striking similarity". For example, multiple accusations against an offender have a significance that derives from the unlikelihood that a person will be independently falsely accused of offences of a like nature, whether or not there is a particular degree of similarity. Whilst such accusations do not establish that an incident is true, and issues of collusion need to be considered carefully (as they would if the threshold were "strikingly similar"), such evidence is certainly relevant to assessing the cogency of a witness's account. Evidence of ether incidents might also be relevant when considering an innocent explanation put forward by the defendant—what might credibly be explained as a mistake on one occasion becomes much less so in respect of repeated incidents. Here, too, the relevance of the other allegations does not depend on establishing a particular level of similarity between the events.
  56. The Government is therefore concerned that reverting to the "strikingly similar" test would risk denying juries and magistrates a range of potentially highly relevant evidence. Our approach, as embodied in our proposals for reforming the law on evidence of bad character in the Criminal Justice Bill currently before Parliament, is to enable juries and magistrates to hear the widest range of relevant evidence that will assist them to reach a fair verdict. The admissibility of bad character evidence should therefore depend on its relevance to the issues in the case, rather than on a particular degree of similarity.
  57. We are not, however, complacent that dangers cannot arise where evidence is admitted in these circumstances. However, there are safeguards to ensure that trials are fair. For example, in determining whether to admit the evidence, the courts must consider whether it would be more prejudicial than probative. The judge will therefore be able to direct that the charges be considered evidentially separate if necessary. And where this might not be sufficient to secure a fair trial, the judge can order that the various charges are tried separately, ensuring that the jury in each case is not aware of the evidence in the others. The Criminal Justice Bill also proposes that judges should be under a duty to withdraw a case from the jury where it becomes clear that seemingly independent allegations are in fact the result of collusion or other distortion and a conviction would be unsafe.
  58. The Committee also recommends a presumption in favour of ordering separate trials where allegations cannot be heard as evidence in support of each other on a similar fact basis. In their judgement in the case of Christou (1997), dealing with the severance of charges for sexual offences, the House of Lords held that a trial judge should exercise his discretion to sever to achieve a fair resolution of the issues. This is buttressed by the Human Rights Act 1958, which makes it clear that the courts must act in a way that is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights including ensuring a fair trial. Given the centrality of fairness to the issue of severance, it is not clear what the proposed presumption would substantively add. The Committee is concerned that "sexual offences tend to engender greater prejudice than non-sexual offences" (paragraph 96). However, we do not agree that this warrants a special rule to deal with historic child abuse cases: the issue of prejudice will clearly be an important aspect of deciding whether severance is required and to the extent that there is a greater risk of prejudice in any particular case, whether of historic child abuse or any other, the argument in favour of severance will clearly be stronger."
  415W

  Consultancies
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many consultancies were commissioned by his Department in the last two years for which figures are available: and what the cost of those contracts was. [130892]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The available information held by the Home Office on the cost for the use of external consultants for the financial years 2000–01 and 2001–02 is given in the table.

  Year

  Numner of Consultancies Commissioned

  Cost of contracts (£)

  2000–01

  Not known

  27,877,286

  2001–02

  145

  21,147,058

  We do not hold data on the number of consultancy contracts awarded for 2000–01 and to obtain this date would result in disproportionate cost. Information on cost or number of commissions for 2002–03 is not yet available.

  The increase in expenditure on consultancy in 2000–01 is primarily due to a major investment programme in the modernisation of the Home Office and in particular on IT related modernisation.

  Criminal Justice Bill
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Government will adopt the recommendation by the Home Affairs Committee to amend the Criminal Justice Bill so that where the prosecution wish to interview a defence witness in advance of trial(a) they should be required to notify the defence and offer to interview the witness in the presence of the defence and (b) that interview would be tape-recorded. [128523]

  Paul Goggins
  A Government amendment to Part 5 of the Criminal Justice Bill was agreed by the House of Lords on 14 July 2003. This introduced a new clause requiring the Secretary of State to prepare a code of practice giving guidance to police officers in relation to the arranging a conduct of police interviews with defence witnesses. This provides that the code must include guidance on the notification and presence of the accused's solicitor at the interview. It is also the Government's intention that the code should include guidance on making an accurate recording of the interview either by writing or audio-recording where this is appropriate. Further details of the amendment may be found in the House of Lords,Official Report, 14 July 2003, columns 744–45W.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Criminal Justice Bill's proposal to allow for greater admission at trial of a defendant's previous convictions. [128649]

  Paul Goggins
  The Criminal Justice Bill reforms the rules governing the admission of bad character evidence in criminal proceedings. The law already acknowledges that this sort of evidence has a proper role to play in appropriate circumstances. However, the rules 416W
  governing its admission have developed in a piecemeal fashion and lack a rational and coherent structure. Our proposals will provide a new and comprehensive statutory scheme that puts the law on a clear and accessible footing.

  Evidence will be admissible where it is relevant to a case and provided that there isn't an adverse affect on the fairness of the proceedings. There will be a number of safeguards for defendants, including a power for judges to exclude evidence where its prejudicial effect would outweigh its probative value.

  The Bill also offers new protection to witnesses to ensure that questions relating to their previous conduct has a clear bearing on the issues in the trial.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effects the proposal in the Criminal Justice Bill to allow for greater admission at trial of a defendant's previous convictions will have on criminal trials. [128650]

  Paul Goggins
  The Criminal Justice Bill reforms the rules governing the admission of bad character evidence in criminal proceedings. Our proposals will provide a new and comprehensive statutory scheme that puts the law on a clear and accessible footing.

  Evidence will be admissible where it is relevant to a case and provided that there is not an adverse affect on the fairness of the proceedings. There will be a number of safeguards for defendants, including a power for judges to exclude evidence where its prejudicial effect would outweigh its probative value.

  The Bill will encourage the admission of evidence of bad character in appropriate circumstances, ensuring that jurors and magistrates have available to them a full picture of the case. Rationalising and clarifying the rules will reduce the scope for legal arguments and make it more predictable for defendants when their record may be given in evidence.

  The new statutory scheme deals with witnesses as well as defendants, and offers new protection to ensure that questions about witnesses' previous conduct have a clear bearing on the issues in the trial. This will ensure a better balance between the rights of defendants and interests of witnesses.

  Home Detention Curfew Orders
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners released on home detention curfew were unlawfully at large on the latest date for which figures are available, broken down by(a) category of offence, (b) contract region and (c) police force area; and what penalties have been imposed on each contractor as a result. [124916]

  Paul Goggins
  There were 296 prisoners unlawfully at large as at 30 June 2003 (out of 75,000 prisoners who had been released on Home Detention Curfew between January 1999 and 30 June 2003) and who subsequently had their licences revoked for breaching the conditions of the scheme. The following table gives a breakdown of these prisoners according to their index offence. The Prison Service does not record centrally the contract region or police area for each of these prisoners and to provide such information would be at disproportionate
  417W
  cost. However, amendments to data collection systems will be made so that such information can be stored in the future.

  Once a prisoner has been reported unlawfully at large, it is the responsibility of the police and not the electronic monitoring contractor to apprehend that person. Therefore there is no financial penalty imposed upon the contractor in respect of these prisoners.

  Drug Rape
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what campaigns his Department is funding directed at warning people of the danger of drug rape; and what plans he has to do so in the future. [129618]

  Caroline Flint
  When the drug Gammahydroxybutyrate (GHB), commonly used in drug rape, was outlawed by the Government in July 2003, we ensured that this was accompanied by high media coverage.

  In addition, the Eastern Government Office Drug Team recently supported production of a new drug rape awareness video called Spiked! The Production of the video was funded through Drugscope's Millennium Awards scheme. The video was launched at the end of September and will be shown in public and university cinemas until November in Eastern Region cinema during screenings of newly released films. These showings are supported by the Regional Screen Agency for the East of England. The stylish but hard-hitting infomercial aims to increase awareness of the dangers of drug rape and make people aware of how they can protect themselves.

  Finally the Government's new drug awareness campaign, FRANK also supplies information about date rape. The FRANK website www.talktofrank.com pays particular attention to GHB. It warns the reader that GHB has been linked to rape cases. It states '…because it's almost tasteless it's easily slipped in a drink'.

  Food Expenditure
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much was spent on food by his Department and by each of the agencies for which it is responsible in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03; what proportion of that food by value was produced in the United Kingdom; what guidance he has issued to encourage the procurement of home-produced food; and if he will make a statement. [129369]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The Home Office (with the exception of the Prison Service) is not a direct purchaser of food as this is provided through Facilities Management Contracts. Food purchased directly relates to official hospitality and where applicable we pay a subsidy to the Facility Management contractors for the provision of food in staff restaurants. By subsidising the costs of meals in the staff restaurants we are able to reduce the daily costs of staff working in central London which aids staff retention and provides them with a variety of nutritional snacks and hot meals.
  418W
  Due to the disproportionate costs I am unable to provide you with all the details requested. I have though highlighted the subsidies that apply to the central London Headquarters and Croydon estates.

  Central London HQ

  Croydon Estate

  Expenditure on canteen subsidy 2001–02 (£)

  218,000

  99,716 (January-December 2001)

  Percentage of food products produced in the UK

  Not known

  Not known

  Expenditure on canteen subsidy 2002–03 (£)

  179,000

  79,098 (January-December 2002)

  Percentage of food products produced in the UK

  62

  Not known

  The Prison Service recorded expenditure on food was £40,155,638 in 2001–02 and £42,357,666 in 2002–03. No data is held on the value of food produced in the United Kingdom for 2001–02. In 2002–03, £31,104,289 (73 per cent.) was produced in the United Kingdom.

  The Home Office and Prison Service are both working with Department for the Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs (Defra) on the Sustainable Food Procurement Initiative which is part of the Government's strategy for Sustainable Farming and Food. This is intended, to encourage the public sector to procure food in a manner that promotes Sustainable development and does not discriminate against local and UK suppliers. As part of this the Home Office and Prison Service have developed separate action plans that will be used to measure progress towards meeting the initiatives objectives.

  Timber
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the inquiry into the use of Indonesian rainforest timber at 2 Marsham Street will be completed; and if he will place a copy of the report in the Library. [131677]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) on 1 September 2003,Official Report, column 985W. The report was prepared for internal use. An edited version is being placed in the Library which omits text covered by the exemptions in Part 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. The recommendations have been and are being implemented. Arrangements for monitoring construction timber purchased by the developer for their own use have now been put in place. This is in addition to the previously planned arrangements for monitoring timber that will be part of the new building. Despite extensive inquiries the developer has been unable to establish precisely the source of the timber used to manufacture plywood previously supplied to the site.

  Juvenile Prisoners (Strip Searches)
  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether the guidelines for strip searching juvenile prisoners are the same as for strip searching children in(a) local authority secure children's homes and (b) secure training centres; [130240]
  419W
  (2) whether the guidelines for strip searching juvenile prisoners are the same as for adult prisoners; [130241]

  (3) whether force may be used to strip search a juvenile prisoner. [130242]

  Paul Goggins
  The Prison Service Security Manual gives instruction to all prisons on how to strip search prisoners in line with Prison Rule 41 and Young Offender Institution Rule 43. The frequency with which this is carried out is generally decided by the prison governor and the area manager, except for certain activities where there is mandatory routine strip searching, such as reception.

  There is no equivalent central guidance issued by local authority secure children's homes. Each home operates its own policy according to their security needs. Some homes do not strip search any young persons in their care, while others may strip search all new arrivals. Strip searching may also be carried out where there is suspicion that illicit items are being concealed, sometimes with the assistance of the police. The methods used to perform a strip search are also decided by each centre without central guidance.

  The Secure Training Centre (STC) Rules 1998 and the Operational Procedures of the companies that run the three STCs provide guidance that must be followed by staff involved in strip searching. These techniques are similar to those used by the Prison Service.

  The current Prison Service Policy on strip searching in the Security Manual (Prison Service Order 1000) applies to all categories and types of prisoner. This includes instructions on techniques and frequency of strip searching.

  The Prison Service recognises the sensitivities around the strip searching of young prisoners, and separate guidance has recently been issued to Governors of prisons holding juvenile prisoners emphasising the need for staff to be aware of specific child protection issues.

  Training modules for new entrant officers also include specific advice for staff involved in conducting strip searches of young prisoners. Officers conducting strip searches are expected to be aware of the ways in which searches, and the way they are conducted, may affect young people.

  Young Offender Rules and the Prison Service Security Manual allow force to be used where a young person refuses to comply with a lawful order to submit to a strip search. No more force than is necessary will be used and it will be used only as a last resort.

  Community Policing
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police forces operate a system of named local police officers. [131657]

  Ms Blears
  The Home Office does not have information centrally on those police forces that operate a system of named local police officers. Community policing is emphasised to different degrees by different police forces.

  Citizen focused policing prioritises the need to access, understand and engage with communities by ensuring that the citizen perspective is embedded within their
  420W
  decision making, policies, practices and service delivery, in order to improve police effectiveness. We want to see all police forces putting more effort into actively engaging with their local communities. The Community beat officer is a vital link between the police service as a whole and the local community.

  Probation Services
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there will be a shortfall in the(a) National Probation Service and (b) National Probation Directorate budget for 2003–04. [131164]

  Paul Goggins
  The 2003–04 settlement added £70 million to the probation budget. An overspend on this budget is projected but this is not unusual at this time of the financial cycle and by the end of the year it is anticipated that the budget will be in balance.

  Terrorism Act
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many stops and searches have been carried out during 2003 by each police force in the UK under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000. [131585]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Figures on stops and searches under Section 44(1) and Section 44(2) of the Terrorism Act 2000 are published annually in the Home Office Statistical Bulletin. The latest published figures are for the financial year 2001–02. These are set out in the table. Figures for 2002–03 are due to be published in November this year. Figures for 2003–04 will be published when the relevant data has been collated and verified.

  Table P3 Searches of vehicles and occupants under section 44(1) and searches of pedestrians under section 44(2) of the Terrorism Act 20001 and resultant arrests, by police force area

  England and Wales 2001–02

  Number

  Stops and searches of vehicles and occupants under 44(1)

  Stops and searches of pedestrians under 44(2)

  Police force area

  Searches

  Resultant arrests

  Searches

  Resultant arrests

  Avon and Somerset

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bedfordshire

  8

  —

  —

  —

  Cambridgeshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cheshire

  385

  4

  2

  —

  Cleveland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cumbria

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Derbyshire

  20

  —

  —

  —

  Devon and Cornwall

  129

  —

  —

  —

  Dorset

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Durham

  235

  —

  3

  —

  Essex

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gloucestershire

  36

  —

  —

  —

  Greater Manchester

  36

  1

  —

  —

  Hampshire

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Hertfordshire

  4

  —

  —

  —

  Humberside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kent

  55

  —

  —

  —

  Lancashire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Leicestershire

  8

  —

  8

  —

  Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  London, City of

  3,409

  92

  86

  8

  Merseyside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Metropolitan police

  3,598

  63

  473

  11

  Norfolk

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Northamptonshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Northumbria

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Yorkshire

  8

  —

  —

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Yorkshire

  263

  —

  —

  —

  421W

  Table P3 Searches of vehicles and occupants under section 44(1) and searches of pedestrians under section 44(2) of the Terrorism Act 20001 and resultant arrests, by police force area

  England and Wales 2001–02

  Number

  Stops and searches of vehicles and occupants under 44(1)

  Stops and searches of pedestrians under 44(2)

  Police force area

  Searches

  Resultant arrests

  Searches

  Resultant arrests

  Staffordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Suffolk

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Surrey

  1

  1

  1

  —

  Sussex

  767

  1

  310

  T

  Thames Valley

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Warwickshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Mercia

  5

  —

  —

  —

  West Midlands

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wiltshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dyfed Powys

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gwent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Wales

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Wales

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  9,239

  169

  947

  20

  1 Formerly section 13A and 13B of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 and repealed under the Terrorism Act 2000 which came into force on 19 February 2001.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of those stopped and searched during the current year under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 have been(a) arrested, (b) charged with an offence and (c) charged with a terrorism offence. [131586]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The data collected on stops and searches made under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 is not automatically cross-referenced by the forces with the data they hold on arrests or on those charged. This information could therefore be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  British-Irish Council
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many times the British-Irish Council has met since April 1998. [132092]

  Mr. Leslie
  The British-Irish Council has met on the following occasions since its inception in December 1999:

  Summit Level

  17 December 1999;

  30 November 2001;

  14 June 2002; and

  22 November 2002.

  Sectoral formats

  2 October 2000—BIC Environment Ministers;

  19 December 2000—BIC Transport Ministers;

  25 February 2002—BIC Environment Ministers;

  22 March 2002—BIC Drugs Ministers;

  16 January 2003—BIC Environment Ministers; and

  7 February 2003—BIC Drug Ministers.

  422W
  The next British-Irish Summit is due to take place in November 2003, and a meeting of BIC Environment Ministers is due later this month. There have also been many official-level meetings and associated events, including seminars and conferences.

  Good Friday Agreement
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what measures have been taken in the last 12 months to promote co-operation in matters concerning work and pensions through the east-west dimension of the Good Friday Agreement. [131948]

  Mr. Leslie
  Strand Three of the Belfast or Good Friday Agreement did not identify work and pensions as one of a number of possible issues for early discussion within the British-Irish Council. The Council is currently working on a number of other priority areas.

  Post-mortem Retentions
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs whether the Government plans to restrict coroners' post mortem retentions only to material that is required for evidentiary purposes of a legal nature. [132339]

  Mr. Lammy
  The post-mortem examination in Northern Ireland is a key stage in the investigation of deaths referred to a coroner, as the findings identify the medical cause of death and often determine whether or not any further action on the part of the coroner is required. There are two main purposes for which it is necessary to retain organs or tissue samples, i.e. to enable the pathologist accurately to determine the cause of death or for evidential purposes in suspected criminal cases. It will therefore continue to be necessary to retain organs or tissue samples for both these reasons.

  Appeals (Terrorism/Immigration and Nationality Acts)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what steps he is taking to expedite appeals against(a) detention under the Terrorism Act 2000 and (b) removal of nationality under the Asylum and Nationality Act 1998; how many appeals (i) have been decided and (ii) remain to be decided in each case; and in relation to (ii) what the (A) longest period since the appeal was lodged and (B) the average period since the appeal was lodged was; and when he expects outstanding appeals to be heard. [133061]

  Mr. Lammy
  The preparation and listing of appeals takes place under the direction of the Chairman of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC), who is an independent member of the judiciary. It is always the intention for appeals to be heard as soon as they can be readied for hearing.

  No appeals concerning detention under the Anti-terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001 have been decided by SIAC, although two appeals have been abandoned. No appeals concerning deprivation of citizenship status under the British Nationality Act 1981 as amended by the Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 have been decided.
  423W
  18 appeals concerning detention remain to be decided, including 10 appeals where the hearing has taken place and the judgments are pending. One appeal concerning deprivation of citizenship remains to be decided.

  The first six appeals concerning detention were lodged in January 2002 and remain to be decided. The 18 appeals concerning detention still outstanding were lodged an average of 14 months ago. The one appeal concerning deprivation of citizenship has been outstanding for six months.

  The current schedule of appeals listed for hearing is as follows:

  Month

  Detained

  Citizenship

  November/December 2003

  2

  —

  January/March 2004

  2

  —

  April 2004

  —

  1

  Later

  4

  —

  Total

  8

  1

  Call Centres
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs whether his Department plans to outsource call centre work to premises outside the United Kingdom. [132106]

  Mr. Lammy
  No

  Law of Limitation (Child Sexual Abuse
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will introduce legislation to implement the recommendations by the Law Commission on revision of the law of limitation in relation to claims for child sexual abuse. [132087]

  Mr. Lammy
  In July 2002, the Government announced their acceptance in principle of the recommendations for reform of the 1980 Act contained in the Law Commission report, "Limitation of Actions", subject to further consideration of certain aspects. This further consideration will include the recommendations relating to claims for child sexual abuse. Legislation will be introduced to implement those recommendations which are accepted when an opportunity arises.

  Magistrates Courts (North Yorkshire)
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs when the outstanding decision on the appeal of North Yorkshire County Council against the closure of three magistrates' courts in North Yorkshire will be announced. [132405]

  Mr. Leslie
  Having received representations from North Yorkshire County Council and the North Yorkshire Magistrates' Courts Committee, I have decided that the County Council's appeal should be dismissed and the Magistrates' Courts Committee's decision to close the Courts at Richmond, Picketing and Whitby should be upheld. However, I understand that the Magistrates' Courts Committee have indicated their 424W
  intention that these courthouses should not close until the courthouses to which the work will be transferred haven been replaced or refurbished.

  Magistrates Courts (Private Finance Initiative)
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs when the decision on the application from the North Yorkshire Magistrates' Courts committee for private finance initiative funding for building new magistrates' courts in York and Selby will be announced. [132406]

  Mr. Leslie
  Further work is being undertaken on the business case and the Court Service and the Magistrates' Court Service are jointly reviewing their strategy for court provision in the area. This means that the earliest an announcement could be made is in spring 2004.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Anticoagulants
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many coagulometers were provided through the health service in Northern Ireland for patients to monitor international normalised ratio levels at home, in the last year for which figures are available. [131919]

  Angela Smith
  The Health and Personal Social Services in Northern Ireland does not provide coagulometers for home use. However, Roche Ltd. made a small number of coagulometers available and these were provided to patients for home use on a trial basis.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate he has made of the cost of monitoring international normalised ratio levels of patients in Northern Ireland on warfarin in the last year for which figures are available. [131920]

  Angela Smith
  Information in the form requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to make coagulometers more widely available in Northern Ireland for home monitoring of international normalised ratios by patients on warfarin. [131921]

  Angela Smith
  There are no plans at present to make coagulometers available for home use on the HPSS.

  Child Protection Training
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many teachers and schools within each education and library board participated in multi-disciplinary training for child protection(a) from 1 April 1993 to 31 March 2003 and (b) from 1 April 2003 to 31 August 2003; [132215]

  (2) how many teachers and schools within each education and library board are participating in multidisciplinary teaching for child protection. [132216]
  425W
  Jane Kennedy
  Training for teachers in child protection is not multi-disciplinary. It is provided by the Education and Library Boards and is focused on the particular needs of teachers and schools. Multi-disciplinary training has been offered by the Health and Social Services Trusts but information is not available on which teachers may have attended this.

  Commercial Rates
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many premises in Northern Ireland were charged a commercial rate for 2002–03. [132088]

  Mr. Pearson
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Rates Collection Agency to write to the hon. Lady in response to this question. A copy of the letter will be placed in the Library.

  Concessionary Fares
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what his policy is on the acceptance by Translink of concessionary public transport passes issued outside Northern Ireland. [133241]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Northern Ireland Concessionary Fares Scheme provides concessionary travel only for eligible Northern Ireland residents on scheduled public transport services within Northern Ireland. Consequently, Translink does not accept concessionary public transport passes issued outside Northern Ireland. We have no plans to extend the Concessionary Fares Scheme to include people who are not resident in Northern Ireland.

  Delayed Discharges
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money was spent by each health board in Northern Ireland to counter delayed discharges in each of the last three years. [132467]

  Angela Smith
  Information in the form requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many hospital in-patients in Northern Ireland had their discharge delayed while awaiting community care packages on 1 January(a) 2000, (b) 2001, (c) 2002 and (d) 2003. [132468]

  Angela Smith
  Information on delayed discharges is collected in respect of the position at the last day of each month. The numbers of acute hospital in-patients who had their discharge delayed while awaiting community care packages were 265 at 31 December 2000, 341 at 31 December 2001, and 323 at 31 December 2002. Equivalent information is not available for the position at 31 December 1999, but at February 2000 there were 319 in-patients whose discharge was delayed.

  Drug Treatment
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the age was of the youngest person in Northern Ireland treated in the last five years with an(a) anti-depressant, (b) anti-psychotic and (c) amphetamine drug. [132472]
  426W
  Angela Smith
  The information requested is not available.

  Equality Commission
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many press releases the Equality Commission has released in 2003; and of these how many were wholly or mainly on the issue of fair employment. [132214]

  Mr. Spellar
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland to write to the hon. Gentleman. A copy of the letter will be placed in the Library.

  Exotic Pets
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans there are to require the owners of exotic pets in Northern Ireland to register them. [132466]

  Angela Smith
  On 13 October I published the legislative proposals for public consultation to regulate dangerous wild animals kept by private individuals in Northern Ireland. The proposed legislation will require anyone owning or wishing to own a dangerous wild animal to apply to the Department of the Environment for a licence. It will also establish stringent criteria, on matters such as public safety, security of accommodation and animal welfare, which will need to be met, and confirmed by inspection, before the grant of a licence. The draft legislation also specifies licence conditions which the licence holder will have to meet while any dangerous wild animal is being kept. The consultation paper has been circulated and the Department of the Environment would welcome any views on the legislative proposals.

  Fuel Poverty
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many fuel poor households based on the 2001 Northern Ireland House Conditions Survey there are in each local authority area; and what his estimate is of how many children are living in fuel poor households. [132577]

  Mr. Spellar
  The number of fuel poor households identified in the 2001 House Condition Survey in each local authority area is following table:

  Local Authority Area

  Number

  Antrim

  6,799

  Ards

  7,912

  Armagh

  5,065

  Ballymena

  8,155

  Ballymoney

  4,070

  Banbridge

  4,676

  Belfast

  42,962

  Carrickfergus

  3,396

  Castlereagh

  5,654

  Coleraine

  6,520

  Cookstown

  3,606

  Craigavon

  13,449

  Down

  6,037

  Dungannon

  3,671

  Fermanagh

  6,462

  Larne

  4,396

  427W

  Local Authority Area

  Number

  Limavady

  4,019

  Lisburn

  10,569

  Londonderry

  13,086

  Magherafelt

  5,690

  Moyle

  2,170

  Newry & Mourne

  6,651

  Newtownabbey

  10,038

  North Down

  7,656

  Omagh

  5,101

  Strabane

  5,449

  The 2001 house condition survey estimated that there are some 114,000 children living in fuel poor households.

  General Practice
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many general practitioners practices in Northern Ireland are not accepting any new patients on to their lists. [132094]

  Angela Smith
  The information requested is not available.

  Health Service IT
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what comparative studies have been conducted on the cost of improving health service information technology in Northern Ireland and schemes in the rest of the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [131918]

  Angela Smith
  To date no formal comparative studies have been conducted on the cost of improving health service information technology in Northern Ireland and schemes in the rest of the United Kingdom. My Department published earlier this year a new ICT Strategy for the HPSS, which will set the overall direction of investment for modernising ICT services over the next 10 years. This strategy will be taken forward in a cost-effective way and will make use of developments, products and services sourced as far as possible from the same supplies who supply systems to the NHS.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on standards in NHS information technology; and what costs have been incurred from the recent modernisation of the technology. [131922]

  Angela Smith
  Northern Ireland works closely with the other UK administrations in the development of standards for use in ICT in healthcare and my Department is fully committed to adopting any UK-wide standards for use in the HPSS.

  In addition to using UK standards, within the HPSS the policy has historically been to use common IT solutions for common problems. This has led to the use of standard IT systems throughout the HPSS, for example in patient administration, clinical support services, finance and administration.

  Since 1 April 2002, costs incurred in NI-wide ICT modernization projects have been:
  428W

  i. £4.2 million for the implementation of a unique patient and client identifier for use within health and social care throughout Northern Ireland together with the provision of a highly secure 'always on' communications network and E-Mail and Internet services to all GPs (contract let July 2003).

  ii. £4.3 million for the consolidation of 104 obsolescent computers in the HPSS into two highly resilient, mutually supportive computer systems to serve the whole HPSS (Contract let December 2002).

  Both of these contracts were let by open competition under EC/GATT rules. £1.2 million has also been made available to HPSS bodies specifically to further encourage and facilitate the use of IT by health and social care clinical and professional staff, mainly through the provision of additional PCs and data communications equipment.

  Organ/Tissue Retention
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what payment has been made for organs and tissue removed and retained without informed consent in Northern Ireland in the last five years. [132338]

  Angela Smith
  No payment has been made for organs and tissue removed and retained without informed consent in Northern Ireland in the last five years.

  IRA Weapons Stocks
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate he has made of the amounts of(a) weapons and (b) explosives possessed by the Irish Republican Army (i) now, and (ii) in April 1998; and if he will make a statement. [131917]

  Jane Kennedy
  Estimates of the amount of weaponry held by paramilitary organisations are an intelligence matter on which it would be inappropriate to comment. The Government has consistently made clear that paramilitary groups must end all forms of terrorist activity and decommissioning should be carried out through the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning appointed by the Government for this purpose.

  Manufacturing Exports
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate he has made of export sales growth in Northern Ireland's manufacturing companies in each of the next three years. [133340]

  Mr. Pearson
  There are no forecasts of Northern Ireland manufacturing export sales. However, between 1996–97 and 2001–02, manufacturing export sales increased by 45 per cent. in real terms. The Invest NI Corporate Plan and "Building on Progress—Priorities and Plans 2003–06" includes a target for the growth of export sales. The current target is for manufacturing export sales to increase by 10 per cent. each year in real terms between April 2002 and March 2005.

  I am confident that a sustained global economic recovery will lead to an improvement in Northern Ireland's manufacturing performance. In that context, these challenging targets remain firm.
  429W

  Northern Ireland Mother and Baby Association
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what public funding has been received in the last year by the Northern Ireland Mother and Baby Association (NIMBA). [132465]

  Angela Smith
  A total of £41,000 from public funds was provided to NIMBA to support its activities, in the last financial year.

  Planning (Ravenblack)
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when a decision will be made on the planning application submitted by Ravenblack in November 2000 for a development in the Gocean area of Killyleagh; and if he will make a statement. [133236]

  Angela Smith
  In August 2003, I met with locally elected representatives and facilitated a further meeting with representatives at their request to discuss this proposal. I agreed that further consideration would be given to some of the issues raised, and further consultation was subsequently carried out with key organisations. Some of these responses are still outstanding. Once received and considered, the application will be processed to determination as expeditiously as possible.

  Police Leisure Facilities
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many applications have been received by the PSNI since 1 January from(a) former and (b) retired police officers for permission to use police leisure facilities; how many of those applications have been processed; and how many applicants have been informed that permission has been granted. [132078]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Chief Constable has advised me that to date 54 retired and former officers have applied for permission to use police leisure facilities. Some 33 applications have been processed and approved with the remainder being considered by PSNI Security Branch. No retired officers have been refused permission to use police leisure facilities and it remains the Chief Constable's policy to encourage retired officers to avail of the health and fitness facilities available.

  Prison Budgets
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what budget was allocated to each prison in Northern Ireland between 1 April and 31 August. [132219]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Northern Ireland Prison Service receives an annual budget allocation from the Northern Ireland Office through the spending review process. The 2003–04 allocation to the Service is as follows:

  £000

  Operating costs

  116,895

  Capital costs

  12,195

  430W
  The Director General has delegated authority to manage the Service's allocation in an effective, efficient and economic manner. The Service is managed as a whole. Budget allocations are made to budget holders throughout the Service and not on an establishment by establishment basis.

  Queen's University
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many members there are of the Senate of Queen's University; and how many of them completed undergraduate degrees at the University. [131923]

  Jane Kennedy
  There are 32 members of the Senate of Queen's University and 16 of those have completed undergraduate degrees at the University.

  Road Deaths
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people were killed on the roads in Northern Ireland in(a) 1973, (b) 1983 and (c) 1993. [132096]

  Jane Kennedy
  The information is set out in the following table.

  Year

  Fatalities

  1973

  335

  1983

  173

  1993

  143

  Security Measures (Health Service)
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much each health trust in Northern Ireland spent on security measures in the last 12 months. [132471]

  Angela Smith
  Information in the form requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Sports Funding
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what funding from Her Majesty's Government has been received by(a) the Gaelic Athletic Association, (b) the Irish Football Association and (c) the Irish Rugby Football Union, Ulster Branch, in each year since 1998. [132829]

  Angela Smith
  The Sports Council for Northern Ireland is responsible for the development of Sport in Northern Ireland including the distribution of Government Exchequer funding to governing bodies of Sport including the Gaelic Athletic Association (GAA), the Irish Football Association (IFA) and the Irish Rugby Football Union (IRFU), Ulster Branch. The following table provides information detailing the Exchequer funding distributed by the Sports Council NI in each year from 1998–99 to 2002–03 to the GAA, IFA and Ulster Branch of the IRFU:
  431W

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Total

  GAA

  30,000

  30,000

  30,000

  30,000

  45,000

  165,000

  IFA

  50,000

  50,000

  50,000

  59,000

  52,500

  261,500

  IRFU, Ulster Branch

  16,000

  16,000

  16,000

  16,000

  45,000

  109,000

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  University Applications
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on levels of applications to universities in the last three years from(a) international students, (b) UK students and (c) students from the West Midlands. [131452]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 14 October 2003]The latest available information from the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) covers applicants to full-time and sandwich undergraduate courses in the UK and is shown in the table. Comparable data for 2003 entry will not be published until January 2004, but the latest data for 2003 shows that, by early October, overall applicants were up by 3 per cent. This continued increase demonstrates that students realise that higher education can bring them better opportunities and are willing to make the investment.

  Applicants via UCAS by home domicile

  Year of entry

  Applicant domicile

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Overseas1

  52,937

  54,188

  59,511

  UK

  389,091

  399,645

  401,854

  West Midlands

  32,717

  34,459

  33,999

  1 Includes EU and non-EU students

  Dyslexia
  Jonathan Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the delivery of the Raising the Achievement of Dyslexia Pupils: Dyslexia Teaching project that was funded in 2002–03. [132204]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Raising the Achievement of Dyslexia Pupils: Dyslexia Friendly Teaching project was one of 16 projects in receipt of grant under the Department's Special Educational Needs (SEN) Training and Development Fund 2002–03. The fund was established to provide one-off pump priming support to aid the creation of new, or extended, in-service training and development opportunities for teachers and other staff, both in mainstream and special schools. The aim was to help improve and reinforce skills in the area of SEN and disabilities.

  This particular project is being delivered by the Institute of Education at Manchester Metropolitan University (MMU), working in collaboration with the British Dyslexia Association. It involves a validated module, targeted at new or recently qualified teachers and learning support assistants, and includes the creation of course materials and video case studies of successful practice in schools and classes. This material has now been completed and is in the process of being edited and transferred to a DVD format for the classroom and a CD-ROM covering the teaching
  432W
  methods and philosophies of the teachers involved. It is proposed that the material will be available via the MMU website.

  Additional School Funding (Armed Forces)
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent progress has been made towards providing additional funding for schools with a high percentage of pupils drawn from families serving in Her Majesty's armed forces. [132804]

  Mr. Miliband
  Additional funding for such schools would need to come through the budget shares calculated in accordance with the local education authority's school funding formula. Any school concerned with this issue should press for change through local consultative procedures. The Department will be considering the overall needs of such schools through a working group being set up this autumn.

  Pregnant Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what research has been conducted on assistance the Government might provide to pregnant asylum seekers who have been raped as a consequence of war; and if he will make a statement on support services for teenage asylum seekers who are victims of rape. [131959]

  Margaret Hodge
  On 16 July 2003 my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education pledged to commission research into the support networks of pregnant teenage asylum seekers,Official Report, column 95WH. Information gained from upcoming national events, organised by the Government's Teenage Pregnancy Unit, will identify areas that require further research, which can be addressed in the near future.

  In relation to support services, adult and child pregnant asylum seekers who have been raped as a consequence of war have the same rights of access to the national health service and its specialist services as their peers.

  The Government is currently considering how to improve the provision of interpreting services in the UK in addition to providing language support services for NHS Direct. This work is due to be completed by the end of 2003 and a contract for services will be in place by early 2004.

  Child Care
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to make child care more affordable. [132380]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Government recognises that making child care affordable is a key challenge for the National Childcare Strategy and has made a substantial investment to achieve this. We have funded a substantial expansion in child care provision in the public, private
  433W
  and voluntary sectors, with a wide variety of types of child care—nurseries, child minders, before and after school provision and increasingly delivered alongside early education and other family services—to ensure diversity and choice for parents and to provide better services for children.

  Working parents, subject to the level of their income, may receive support through the child care element of the Working Tax Credit (WTC). Tax credits are rightly targeted at lower and middle income families who may use a range of registered or approved child care. The child care element of the Working 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 childcare cost is £135), and up to £140 a week for two or more children (where the cost is £200).

  No Government has provided the kind of direct support for the costs of child care that is delivered by the child care element of the Working Tax Credit. Over £650 million a year is now spent on supporting parents with child care costs.

  Families are further supported through early education places, which can be used to off-set the cost of child care. As a result of our policies, all four year olds are able to access a free, good quality, part-time early education place. From April 2004, six months ahead of the original target. this will be extended to all three year olds. Currently 88 per cent. of three year olds are able to benefit from some level of free provision.

  Support is also available through various grants and access funds for parents studying further and higher education, for participants on the New Deals and those receiving Job Seekers' allowance.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to increase the number of childcare places in Redcar. [132381]

  Margaret Hodge
  The local authority area of Redcar and Cleveland is planning to create an additional 360 childcare places in 2003–04 bringing their total stock of childcare places to approximately 3100 by April 2004. This will represent some 13 places for every 100 children aged 0–14 in the area compared with an estimated national average by 2004 of 15 places for every 100 children.

  To help meet the national target for a further 250,000 new childcare places by March 2006 Redcar and Cleveland have been allocated a target to create 598 new childcare places in 2004–06. The local authority has written to confirm acceptance of this target and the funds being made available to support this growth.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the level of provision of workplace childcare in Redcar. [132421]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 16 October 2003]: I understand that there are currently no workplace nurseries in Redcar.

  The Government provides tax and National Insurance exemptions to encourage employers to provide workplace nurseries.
  434W
  We are currently reviewing the tax and National Insurance treatment of employer-supported childcare. Our proposals offer improvements to give a better incentive to employers to support a wider range of good quality childcare provision and will benefit a greater number of employees, especially those working for smaller employers who do not have workplace nurseries.

  Children and Young People's Unit
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his answer of 6 October,Official Report, columns 1127–28W, on the Children and Young People's Unit, what activities have been undertaken by the Unit in co-ordinating the UK's participation in (a) the EU Open Method of Co-ordination on Youth Policy and (b) the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. [132745]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Children and Young People's Unit co-ordinates UK participation in the EU Open Method of Co-ordination on Youth Policy (Youth OMC) and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) through a variety of methods.

  Co-ordination with the Devolved Administrations

  The Unit chairs a Devolved Administrations Liaison Group (DALG) which meets for half a day, four times a year. Membership is comprised of officials with responsibility for EU youth policy and child rights policy from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Youth OMC and the UNCRC are standing agenda items.

  The Unit holds two half-day bilateral meetings per year with officials in each of the Devolved Administrations. Again, the Youth OMC and the UNCRC are standing agenda items.

  The Unit has an information sharing arrangement with the Devolved Administrations where written information is circulated quarterly by e-mail to officials updating them on developments and new initiatives for children and young people in each country of the UK.

  These formal arrangements are reinforced with regular working-level contact between the Unit and each of the Devolved Administrations.

  Co-Ordination with Westminster Departments

  At a formal level, co-ordination on both the Youth OMC and the UNCRC has previously been undertaken through the Children and Young People's Unit Interdepartmental Steering Group. With the recent machinery of government changes following the creation of a Children and Families Directorate within the Department for Education and Skills, structures for cross-Whitehall co-ordination are currently being reviewed. Formal co-ordination of the Youth OMC and the UNCRC will become part of the new arrangements.

  At working-level, the Unit has daily contact with officials across Whitehall on these two issues.

  Examinations
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list for each local education authority(a) the floor target with respect to the percentage of year 11 pupils attending maintained

  435W
  schools gaining five or more GCSE results at Grades A* to C and (b) the date by which the floor target has to be achieved; whether the GCSE results of pupils attending academies will be included in calculating each local education authority's performance; and which local education authorities did not achieve the floor target in 2003. [131402]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 16 October 2003]The information regarding floor targets is as follows:

  The floor target is that 38 per cent. of 16-year-old pupils in schools in each LEA are to achieve five or more grades A*-C at GCSE/GNVQ by 2004. The GCSE/GNVQ results of pupils attending Academies will be taken into account in calculating each Local Education Authority's performance.

  Based on 2003 provisional figures, the following Local Education Authorities have not yet achieved the 2004 floor target yet: Bristol City (35.0 per cent.), Greenwich (34.5 per cent.), Hackney (36.8 per cent.), Haringey (37.5 per cent.), Islington (36.9 per cent.), Kingston-upon-Hull (31.6 per cent.), Knowsley (33.2 per cent.), North East Lincolnshire (35.0 per cent.), Nottingham City (34.3 per cent.), Salford (36.2 per cent.), Sandwell (35.3 per cent.) and Southwark (37.7 per cent.).

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent discussions his Department has had with(a) the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority and (b) the exam boards on control procedures for (i) GCSE and (ii) A level exams. [131808]

  Mr. Miliband
  The control procedures for public examinations are detailed in the GCSE, GCE, VCE, GNVQ and AEA Code of Practice which was jointly drawn up by the Regulatory Authorities in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) as Regulator, is responsible for ensuring the three unitary awarding bodies in England fulfil their obligations under the Code of Practice and conduct regular reviews to ensure parity.

  Undergraduate1 participation on Electronic and Electrical Engineering courses

  Electronic Engineeing

  Electrical Engineering

  Electronic/Electrical Engineering

  Academic year

  Number

  Percentage2

  Number

  Percentage2

  Number

  Percentage2

  2001–02

  21,734

  1,42

  5,022

  0.33

  26,756

  1.74

  2000–01

  19,790

  133

  5,143

  0.35

  24,933

  1.68

  1999–2000

  18,474

  1,28

  4,468

  0.31

  22,942

  1.59

  1998–99

  18,050

  1.25

  4,567

  0.32

  22,617

  1.57

  1997–98

  17,828

  1.26

  4,964

  0.35

  22,792

  1.61

  1 Figures cover all undergraduates studying full and part time courses at UK HE institutions.

  2 Percentage of all undergraduate enrolments

  Source:

  Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA)

  Minister for Children
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the responsibilities are of the Minister for Children; what immediate targets she has set; and what funding is available for her Department subsection. [128238]
  436W
  Following a recommendation from Mike Tomlinson's Inquiry into A Level standards last year, QCA strengthened the Code of Practice for the 2003 examinations, paying particular attention to the section governing the setting of grade boundaries.

  Good Friday Agreement
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures have been taken in the last 12 months to promote co-operation in matters concerning education and skills through the east-west dimension of the Good Friday Agreement. [131949]

  Mr. Lammy
  I have been asked to reply.

  Strand Three of the Belfast or Good Friday Agreement identified education as one of a number of possible issues for discussion within the British-Irish Council. The Council is currently working on a number of other priority areas, although some of them touch on education and skills issues.

  Graduate Teacher Scheme
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of(a) the number and (b) the percentage of newly qualified teachers trained under the graduate teacher scheme this year who have been unable to find employment in teaching. [132926]

  Mr. Miliband
  My right hon. Friend has made no such estimates.

  Electronics/Electrical Engineering
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what have been the student participation rates in(a) electronic. (b) electrical and (c) combined electronic/electrical engineering courses in the last five years. [131115]

  Alan Johnson
  The latest available information is in the table.

  Margaret Hodge
  I have responsibility within the Department for Education and Skills for policy on children, young people and families. The creation of the post of Minister for Children in June brought together within the DfES a number of key responsibilities including some from other Government Departments in order to improve the co-ordination of policy on
  437W
  children, young people and families. From September the title of this post was changed to Minister for Children, Young People and Families.

  The accountability arrangements for PSA and supporting targets affected by this change are:
  The transfer from the Department of Health of the PSA target on improving the life chances for children in care together with work on the adoption of looked after children.
  Joint ownership of the PSA target on reducing the under 18 conception rate by 50 per cent. by 2010.
  The Department of Health will retain the PSA target on improving life outcomes for adults and children with mental health problems with DfES having an important role in ensuring input from social care and other services.

  I will also retain responsibilities for the Sure Start targets which aim to ensure that accessible and high quality childcare, early education and other services are available for all young children and families.

  I will be reviewing all targets and structures are now being established within the Department to ensure that our policy ambitions are delivered in the most cost effective manner.

  School Noise Reduction
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what his Department is doing to enforce the recommended guidelines in reducing noise in schools; and if he will make a statement. [132568]

  Mr. Miliband
  Acoustic standards in schools have been subject to the Building Regulations, Approved Document E, since 1 July 2003. Approved Document E quotes DIES Building Bulletin 93 as the normal means of compliance with Regulation E4 which applies to schools. Building Bulletin 93, "The Acoustic Design of Schools", can be downloaded from the DfES acoustics website www.teachernet.gov.uk/acoustics and will be published by the Stationery Office (ISBN 0 11 2711057) in November 2003.

  Building Bulletin 93 contains recommendations that also apply to the refurbishment of existing schools which are not subject to Building Regulations. Some aspects of such refurbishment work are subject to the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act as it applies to pupils with hearing impairments.

  Building Bulletin 93 also gives recommendations on noise levels in playing fields and other areas of the school grounds. External noise considerations are subject to Policy Planning Guidance Note 24 and Planning law.

  Ofsted
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to the response from HM Chief Inspector of Schools to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury on 13 June, how many complaints have been made against Ofsted inspectors in each of the last three years for reasons other than their performance as inspectors in connection with Section 10 inspections; and whether de-registrations have subsequently resulted. [132753]
  438W
  Mr. Miliband
  This is a matter for Ofsted. HM Chief Inspector of Schools. David Bell will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of his letter in the Library.

  PGCE Citizenship Courses
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his answer of 18 September 2003,Official Report, column 985W, on Post-Graduate Certificate in Education (Citizenship), how many places (a) have been taken up and (b) were available for PGCE history courses in each year between 2001 and 2003; what percentage of teacher training institutions offer PGCE Citizenship courses; and if he will make a statement. [131950]

  Mr. Miliband
  The table shows the number of entrants to Postgraduate Certificate in Education courses in history and the number of places allocated to institutions in England by the Teacher Training Agency since 2001/02.

  Places

  Entrants1

  2001/02

  941

  922

  2002/03

  977

  982

  2003/042

  998

  n/a

  1 Does not include trainees on undergraduate or employment-based routes.

  2 The number of entrants to initial teacher training in 2003/04 is not yet available.

  Source:

  TTA

  Currently 13 per cent. of providers of initial teacher training courses in England offer a Postgraduate Certificate in Education course in Citizenship.

  School Finance (Essex)
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when he expects to respond to the request for additional financial resources made on 26 September by the Essex Secondary Headteachers' Association; and if he will make a statement. [132805]

  Mr. Miliband
  On 17 July the Secretary of State announced the changes we propose to make to restore stability to school funding in 2004–05 and 2005–06. We are currently working with national partners on the detail of his proposals and the Secretary of State will be announcing the outcome as soon as this work is complete.

  Sector Skills Councils
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the trailblazer sector skills councils; and if he will make a statement. [132497]

  Alan Johnson
  Five organisations were licensed as Trailblazer Sector Skills Councils in the spring of last year. A business case for Skill set (the Trailblazer SSC for audiovisual industries) is currently being considered and if accepted will lead to the award of a licence before the end of the year.
  439W
  The other Trailblazer Sector Skills Councils; Cogent Plus, Skillfast-UK, Lantra and Skillsmart, are expected, subject to SSDA Board approval to be awarded licences by June 2004.

  Sure Start
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what resources were allocated for research for each of the Birkenhead Sure Starts in each of the years since their inception; and how much of the funding has been spent; [129168]

  (2) how much (a) revenue and (b) capital has been allocated to each of the Birkenhead Sure Starts in each year since their inception; [129169]

  (3) how much of the (a) revenue and (b) capital allocation awarded to Birkenhead under the Sure Start programme has been used, broken down by financial year, since 2001–02. [129229]

  Table 2—Revenue

  Revenue (£)

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Sure Start local programme

  Allocation

  Spend

  Allocation

  Spend

  Allocation

  Spend

  Allocation

  Spend

  Birkenhead North

  394,500

  140,868

  743,400

  745,376

  745,000

  679,216

  745,327

  339,749

  Ferries

  n/a

  n/a

  100,000

  120,000

  550,000

  419,648

  714,095

  163,577

  Birkenhead Central

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  338,000

  280,971

  745,327

  178,759

  Table 3—Capital

  Capital Spend (£)

  Sure Start local programme

  Total Capital Allocation (£)

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Birkenhead North

  1,052,000

  21,519

  63,204

  44,598

  nil to date

  Ferries

  11,173,031

  n/a

  n/a

  17,500

  nil to date

  Birkenhead Central

  1,000,000

  n/a

  n/a

  13,000

  nil to date

  1 inclusive of irrecoverable VAT

  Note:

  Approval of Capital Spend for two of the programmes has been given in full to date. Birkenhead North has had £1,052,000 and Ferries £1,173,031 approved. Approval is on-going for the Birkenhead Central programme.

  Teachers (Essex)
  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many full-time secondary school teachers were employed by Essex county council on 1 September. [132638]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information is not available in the precise form requested. The official survey of teacher numbers and vacancies (Form 618g) is conducted annually on the third Thursday in January. At January 2003, 4,960 teachers were employed full-time in maintained secondary schools in the Essex local education authority area.

  Teaching Assistants (Leicestershire)
  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what the pay rates are for teaching assistants in Leicestershire; [132483]

  (2) what training opportunities exist for teaching assistants in Leicestershire; [132484]
  440W
  Margaret Hodge
  The available information for the three Sure Start local programmes in the Birkenhead area is shown in the following tables. These programmes were approved at different times—Birkenhead North in August 2000, Ferries in January 2002 and Birkenhead Central in January 2003. Information is drawn from the local programmes' delivery 9 plans and Sure Start Unit's finance and performance monitoring IT system. N/A denotes not applicable where year shown is before a programme's inception.

  Table 1—Research

  Research Spend (£)

  Sure Start local programme

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Birkenhead North

  nil

  21,145

  18,545

  nil to date

  Ferries

  n/a

  nil

  250

  nil to date

  Birkenhead Central

  n/a

  n/a

  5,803

  nil to date

  Note:

  Programmes are advised to spend around 5 per cent. of their Revenue allocation on research. There are no set amounts allocated.

  (3) what assessment he has made of the job content for a teaching assistant in Leicestershire. [132485]

  Mr. Miliband
  Pay, contractual arrangements and job descriptions are matters for local determination:the Government believe that this is the best way of ensuring a flexible system that can respond to local needs and circumstances. Many local authorities, including Leicestershire, have reviewed support staff pay and undertaken job evaluations in the light of the agreement—commonly known as the Single Status Agreement—made in 1997 by the National Joint Council for Local Government Services. I understand that that National Joint Council is in the process of issuing guidance about the grading of school support staff.

  The Standards Fund for 2003–04 contains a grant of £37.45 million for the training and development of support staff and Leicestershire's share of this is £424,542. Responsibility for deciding how to devolve the funding to schools rests with LEAs. The grant can be used for those participating in induction training programme for teaching assistants, developed by my

  441W
  Department, as well as for the professional development of more experienced teaching assistants including course fees for training leading to National Vocational Qualifications. Schools have always been able to use their own budgets to fund teaching assistant training and to 'buy in' or pay for any training available locally.

  The National Agreement on raising standards and tackling workload signed on 15 January 2003 by the Government, local authority employers and school work force unions will improve training and career progression opportunities for support staff and makes clear that we expect their pay to reflect their level of training, skills and responsibilities. Following the Agreement, the Teacher Training Agency has published standards for Higher Level Teaching Assistants and training and assessment for these standards will be rolled out from April 2004.

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Keith Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of university tuition fees will be paid to the university in advance. [132689]

  Alan Johnson
  We do not expect that any tuition fees will be paid to Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in advance of the academic year for which they are charged. From 2006, students will decide whether they will defer payment until after they graduate, or whether to pay their tuition fees up front. Where a student chooses to defer payment, the Government will pay the tuition fee to the HEI during the academic year for which it is charged. The details of the arrangements for the timing of the payment or payments during the academic year have yet to be finalised.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the(a) maximum and (b) minimum ranges of residual parental income are at which students may be (i) wholly and (ii) partly exempt from tuition fees in 2003–04. [132752]

  Alan Johnson
  For most higher education students, the maximum fee contribution for which they will be liable in 2003/04 is £1,125. Students will be wholly exempt from a contribution to their fees if their parents' residual income is less than £20,970. They will be liable for a partial contribution to their fees if their parents' residual income is between £20,790 and £31,230.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Alstom
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the Government's role in the threatened closure of the Alstom works in Birmingham. [131969]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 14 October 2003]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has met the President of Alstom UK, constituency MPs and trade unions to discuss Alstom's restructuring plans and their impact on the company's
  442W
  operations in the UK. The Government also have a role through its regional agencies in providing the best available help for the individuals who may be affected.

  Arms Sales
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much has been spent by her Department in each year since 1997–98 on promoting British military equipment and arms sales to foreign customers. [131110]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Defence Export Services Organisation (DESO) of the Ministry of Defence takes lead responsibility for promoting British military equipment and arms sales to foreign customers. The Department of Trade and Industry does provide some support to defence companies wishing to export where this is likely to produce economic benefit for the UK and complies with export control regulations imposed by the UK. However, it is not possible to separately identify the Department's overall spend on this activity in each year since 1997–98.

  British Trade International, through the Defence Manufacturers Association (DMA), support the presence of UK companies at overseas Exhibitions and Seminars using the Support for Exhibitions and Seminars scheme (SESA) and its predecessor the Trade Fair Support scheme. The amount of grant provided to companies through DMA is as follows:

  Grant (£)

  1997–98

  67,850

  1998–99

  707,015

  1999–2000

  167,832

  2000–01

  268,592

  2001–02

  164,089

  2002–03

  311,934

  Note:

  The annual variation in amounts reflects the variation in the number and type of major export events occurring each year.

  Asbestos
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much has been spent by her Department and its agencies on(a) asbestos surveys and (b) the management and removal of asbestos since 1 January 2001; and what budget is available to (i) commission asbestos surveys and (ii) manage and remove asbestos from buildings in (a) 2003 and (b) 2004. [130917]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) spend on asbestos surveys and on the management and removal of asbestos since 1 January 2001 has been small and the costs for this work are included in the normal operational costs associated with the DTI estate. For 2003 and 2004, there is no specific budget as provision for asbestos surveys and the removal of asbestos from buildings. For those agencies where the Department holds budgetary information, the position is similar.

  Letter from Alison Brimelow to Dr. Vincent Cable:

  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question 3978 tabled on 16 September 2003, about how much has been spent by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry's Department and its agencies on (a) asbestos surveys and (b) the management and

  443W
  removal of asbestos since 1st January 2001; and what budget is available to (i) commission asbestos surveys and (ii) manage and remove asbestos from buildings in (A) 2003 and (B) 2004.

  Of the three properties we administer, only one has any asbestos, and we had a survey done this year costing £1350. As a result we are aware that some remedial work needs to be done. There is no budget provision made for this yet as we are negotiating with the Landlord on the best way to proceed.

  With regard to the other buildings in our portfolio, Concept House was built in 1989/91 and does not contain any asbestos. Harmsworth House was completely refurbished before our occupation and also does not contain any asbestos.

  Letter from Claire Clancy to Dr. Vincent Cable:

  I am responding to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on behalf of Companies House, which is an Executive Agency of the DTI.

  Since 1 January 2001 Companies House has spent £11,500 on asbestos surveys, and £90,724 on the removal of asbestos. No more money has been budgeted to commission surveys as they are now complete. Removal of asbestos in the years 2003 and 2004 will not exceed £50,000 and can be accommodated in the existing budget.

  BAC Strikemaster
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she will reply to the letter dated 9 July from the hon. Member for North Norfolk concerning issues relating to the export of BAC Strikemaster jet aircraft. [132869]

  Nigel Griffiths
  I replied to the hon. Member's letter dated 19 June on 27 June. My Department has no record of having received a further letter from the hon. Member about Strikemaster aircraft.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions her Department has had with trade associations in the construction sector regarding the impact of increasing insurance premiums. [132868]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The DTI has regular discussions with various trade associations and umbrella bodies in the construction sector, and is working closely with the trade associations, to produce practical advice and guidance to construction firms on insurance matters.

  Consultancies
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many consultancies were commissioned by her Department in the last two years for which figures are available; and what the cost of those contracts was. [130904]

  Ms Hewitt
  During 2002–03, the Department's recorded expenditure on consultancy was £52 million in respect of some 180 projects. The comparable expenditure in 2001–02 was £55 million. No figures are available in respect of the number of projects commissioned for that year.
  444W
  The Department is currently undertaking a review of its consultancy expenditure, with the objective of maximising the value for money obtained from the deployment of consultants through:

  the effective management of consultancies and exploitation of their conclusions;

  more cost-effective procurement practices; and

  the consistent capture of data.

  Aggregate Exports
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of UK marine dredged aggregate is exported to(a) Holland and (b) other EU countries. [133253]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The information is not collected in the form requested. However, in the year ending June 2003—the latest quarter for which data are available—sales of sand and gravel in Great Britain amounted to 83,318,000 tonnes, of which 12,451,000 tonnes were marine dredged. Exports of sand to the EU totalled 232,000 tonnes over the same period, or slightly less that 0.3 per cent of the total, of which none was exported to the Netherlands. A further 121,000 tonnes were imported, a proportion of which may have been reexported. It is not possible to identify exports of sand by source, i.e. whether they were obtained from marine dredging or were land won.

  Power Supply
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment her Department has made of whether(a) electricity demand is likely to surpass 54.4 GW in England and Wales during this winter, (b) gas demand is likely to surpass 450 Mcm during this winter and (c) there is sufficient (i) electricity generation capacity and (ii) gas supply and storage capacity to meet this demand; and if she will make a statement. [132431]

  Mr. Timms
  National Grid Transco reports annually to Ofgem on the outlook for the forthcoming winter. Ofgem published the latest assessment on 14 October 2003. The assessment covers winter peak electricity and gas demand. It also covers electricity generation capacity and gas supply.

  The report is available in the Libraries of the House.

  DTI is working with Ofgem, through the joint energy security of supply working group (JESS) to monitor energy security, specifically taking a forward look and make the conclusions publicly available—allowing market participants to react in good time.

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent assessment she has made of the proportion of electricity demand in the United Kingdom in(a) 2005, (b) 2010, (c) 2015 and (d) 2020 that will be met by electricity generated using (i) gas and (ii) renewable fuels. [132432]

  Mr. Timms
  The latest provisional DTI energy projections which update those in Energy Paper 68, indicate a share for gas generation of 33 per cent. and 50 per cent. in 2005 and 2010 respectively. For renewables, the shares are 5 per cent. and 10 per cent. respectively. Further updating of these estimates is
  445W
  under way, including estimates for later years. The projections are available at the following website:http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/sepn/projections.pdf

  Environmental Measures
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 17 July 2003,Official Report, column 509W, on environmental measures, what assessment she has made of the economic benefits to UK environmental industries of the markets created by each measure; what methodology she used to carry out each assessment; and where each assessment is published. [131893]

  Ms Hewitt
  The regulatory impact assessments referred to in my answer of 17 July took account of the costs and benefits to all relevant sectors, and were produced in accordance with best practice, as set out in the Cabinet Office publication "Better Policy Making: A Guide to Regulatory Impact Assessment". All the assessments were published in the corresponding DTI and Defra consultation papers, and placed on the appropriate Departmental website.

  EU Emissions Trading Scheme
  Jonathan Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the impact on industry of liability for the costs of the EU Emissions Trading scheme, with particular reference to the paper industry. [131972]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 14 October 2003]: We are currently working on implementing the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. We have already undertaken a draft consultation on different methodologies and a consultation is under way on draft regulations. A consultation on the draft national allocation plan will start in December 2003. Other analytical work is under way. It is not possible at present to calculate the impact on specific sectors while a number of aspects of implementation are still to be agreed and action by other member states to be finalised.

  Hawk Contract
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what measures the Government will take to ensure that end-use undertakings made in relation to equipment or technology licensed for transfer to India as part of the intended sale of 66 Hawk jets to India will be honoured; [130773]

  (2) what conditions will be placed on the end-use of any equipment and technology licensed for transfer to India in relation to the 66 Hawk jets intended for sale to India. [130774]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have been asked to reply. All licence applications are assessed on a case-by-case basis against the Consolidated EU and National Arms Export Licensing Criteria. The stated end-use of the equipment is one factor taken into account when making the assessment.

  The Hawk trainer aircraft are intended solely for training purposes, although they would have limited combat capability as they are fitted with the necessary systems and interfaces to allow them to carry a range of weapons for training for combat.
  446W
  Beyond the standard end-user undertaking requirements for export licences (which our Posts overseas will monitor), no specific additional conditions would normally be placed on the end-use of any equipment and technology licensed for transfer to India.

  The Indian Air Force already has a range of other aircraft that are much more suitable for combat purposes, including modern Mirage 2000 and SU-30 aircraft. Although it would be possible for the Indians to convert the aircraft in an operational role, we are confident they are purchasing the aircraft for training purposes to fill a gap between their existing trainer aircraft and their front-line fast jets. The Hawk is to be used to teach Indian pilots to fly fast jets safely.

  Iraq
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether components of British manufacture from the two vehicles suspected of weapons of mass destruction production were bought with Export Credit Guarantee Department credits; and if she will make a statement. [131486]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 14 October 2003]: The coalition has not yet made a definitive identification of the vehicles and the components in question. From the information available to date, ECGD has no reason to believe that its cover was given in respect of such components.

  IT Industry
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her policy is on the relationship between the number of work permits granted to overseas applicants to work in the IT industry and vacancy levels and unemployment levels among domestic employees in that sector. [132309]

  Ms Hewitt
  The government's Sector Advisory Panel for IT meets regularly to assess the system for issuing work permits. The composition of the panel is broad and includes members from representative organisations and contractor groups. This panel advises in the UK's national interest and ensures that we strike the right balance between enabling employers to move skilled staff from within their companies while protecting job opportunities for resident workers. This policy is kept under regular review.

  Liverpool John Lennon Airport
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she was consulted on Royal Mail's proposal to withdraw air freight operations from Liverpool John Lennon airport; and if she will make a statement. [131476]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 14 October 2003]: DTI Ministers and officials meet representatives from the Royal Mail on a regular basis to discuss a wide range of issues, including the company's transport review.

  Decisions about the future structure of the company's air freight operations is a matter for the Royal Mail Board. I understand that while the company has proposed the closure of its operations at John Lennon airport, the Communication Workers Union has asked

  447W
  to put forward alternative proposals that could mean the retention of this site. Royal Mail has agreed to consider their proposals before any final decision is made.

  National Grid
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether(a) the continental gas interconnector, (b) the beach terminals, (c) the compressor stations, (d) the National Transmission System and (e) the national control centre in Hinckley rely on power from the National Grid to operate. [132436]

  Mr. Timms
  Yes, but all have back-up arrangements in place.

  Post Office Closures
  Sarah Teather
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what consultations she has had with the Post Office about(a) the closures of Crown post offices and (b) the consequences of closing the Crown Post Office at Brondesbury. [132725]

  Mr. Timms
  Decisions on closures of individual post offices are an operational matter for Post Office Ltd., but all such proposals are subject to public consultation under the Code of Practice agreed between Post Office Ltd. and Postwatch. Post Office Ltd's decision to close Brondesbury Crown post office has been taken in the context of its programme to restructure the urban post office network and the need to address the substantial losses made by the Crown office part of the network. I understand from Post Office Ltd. that there are three alternative offices between half and three-quarters of a mile from Brondesbury.

  Power Stations
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many gas-fired power stations are classified as(a) shipper nominated interruptible, (b) Transco nominated interruptible and (c) network sensitive loads. [132435]

  Mr. Timms
  There are 19 interruptible Combined Cycle Gas Turbine stations (CCGTs) in England and Wales. Transco has rights of interruption over all of these CCGTs. The shippers' contractual arrangements are not fully known, but it is thought that in the great majority of cases, they do have interruption rights. Even if they do not, the stations may still be self-interrupted in order to arbitrage between the gas and electricity markets. One of these CCGTs is a Network Sensitive Load, which means that its position within one of the Transco Networks makes it more likely to be interrupted for reasons of local capacity constraints. Another CCGT is in a network sensitive position from an electricity perspective. Based on National Grid Transco's latest information and experience of this station switching fuels when interrupted in the past, there is a high degree of confidence in the station's alternative fuel capability.

  Science Research Councils
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the members of each science research council. [132495]
  448W
  Ms Hewitt
  The following are the names of all members of the seven Research Councils.

  Members of the Seven Research Councils

  BBSRC

  Dr. Peter Ringrose—Council Chair

  Professor Julia Goodfellow—Chief Executive

  Dr. D. Brightman—Self-employed Farm Manager

  Professor H. Dalton—Chief Scientific Officer, DEFRA

  Dr. M. A. Darnbrough—Head of Bioscience Unit at DTI

  Professor R. B. Freedman—Head of Biological Sciences, University of Warwick

  Professor C. A. Gilligan—Professor of Plant Sciences, University of Cambridge

  Mr. J. S. Graham—Head of Rural Affairs Department, Scottish Executive

  Professor K. Gull—Professor of Pathology, University of Oxford

  Professor D. Kell—Professor of Chemistry, UMIST

  Professor TBL Kirkwood—Professor of Gerontology, University of Newcastle

  Professor A. A. Nash—Department of Veterinary Pathology, University of Edinburgh

  Dr. J. M. Padfield—Retired (ex Pharmaceutical Industry)

  Dr. A. Penman—Head of Laboratory, Unilever Research and Development

  DR. C. I. Ragan—Executive Director, Neuroscience Research Europe, Lilly Research Laboratories

  Professor C. A. Tickle—Professor of Life Sciences, University of Dundee

  CCLRC

  Sir Graeme Davies—Vice Chancellor, University of London

  Prof John Wood—Chief Executive CCLRC

  Dr. Derek Chadwick—Director of the Novartis Foundation

  Prof Mike Cruise—Pro-Vice-Chancellor, University of Birmingham

  Prof Graham Davies—Head of the School of Engineering, University of Birmingham

  Mr. Stephen Dexter—Grant Thornton

  Prof John Durell—Head of Physics and Astronomy, University of Manchester

  Prof Julia Goodfellow—Chief Executive BBSRC

  Mr. Peter Gregson—Deputy Vice-Chancellor, University of Southampton

  Prof Ian Halliday—Chief Executive PPARC

  Dr. Richard Henderson—MR.C Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Cambridge

  Ms Anne Kensall—Business Adviser

  Prof John Lawton—Chief Executive NERC

  Prof John O'Reilly—Chief Executive EPSRC

  Mr. Philip Ruffles—Rolls-Royce plc

  Prof David Williams—Head of Clinical Engineering. University of Liverpool

  EPSRC

  Professor Dame Julia Higgins—Council Chair

  Professor John O'Reilly—Chief Executive

  Professor John S. Archer, Principal and Vice-Chancellor Heriot-Watt University

  Professor John Chapman, Head of Physics and Astronomy Department, Glasgow University

  Professor Ann Dowling—Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge

  449W

  Professor Susan Gibson—Department of Chemistry, King's College London

  Dr. David Grant—Vice-Chancellor Cardiff University

  Dr. Peter Grindrod—Chair of Numbercraft Ltd.

  Mr. David Hughes—Director of Innovation, DTI

  Dr. J. Kennedy—Director Ove Arup and Partners

  Ms Beatrice Leigh—GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals

  Mr. John Loughhead—Alstom plc

  Professor Sir Keith O'Nions—Chief Scientific Adviser, Ministry of Defence

  Dr. Andrew Rickman—Booker Technology plc

  Dr. Martyn Thomas—MTAL (Consultant)

  ESRC

  Frances Cairncross—Chair

  Professor Ian Diamond—Chief Executive

  Professor Alan Alexander—Chair, Scottish Water

  Professor Patricia Broadfoot—Graduate School of Education, University of Bristol

  Professor Andrew Chesher—Department of Economics, University College of London

  Ms Helen Dent—Chief Executive, Family Welfare Association

  Professor Fiona Devine—Department of Sociology, University of Manchester

  Professor Hadyn Ellis—Deputy Vice-Chancellor, University of Cardiff

  Mr. Paul Johnson—Chief Economist, Department for Education and Skills

  Mr. Adair Turner—Vice Chairman, Merrill Lynch (Europe)

  Professor Robin Wensley—Warwick Business School, Warwick University

  Professor Steve Wilks—Department of Politics, University of Exeter

  Professor Sir Alan Wilson—Vice Chancellor, University of Leeds

  Mr. Andrew Winckler—Partner and Chairman, Financial Services Regulatory Practice, Ernst and Young

  MRC

  Sir Anthony Cleaver—Council Chair

  Professor Colin Blakemore—Chief Executive

  Dr. David Armstrong—Department of General Practice, Kings College London

  Dr. Mac Armstrong—Chief Medical Officer, Scottish Executive Health Dept.

  Sir William Castell—Chief Executive, Amersham plc

  Professor Kay Davies—Head of Department of Human Anatomy and Genetics, University of Oxford

  Professor Richard Denton—Professor of Biochemistry, University of Bristol

  Dr. Peter Fellner—Chief Executive Officer, Celltech Group plc

  Mr. Derek Flint—Retired (ex Financial Services Industry)

  Dr. Ruth Hall—Chief Medical Officer, Welsh Assembly

  Professor Ian McLennan—Director of MR.C Centre for Immune Regulation University of Birmingham

  Professor Alan North—Professor of Molecular Physiology at the University of Sheffield

  Professor Sir John Pattison—Director of Research, Analysis and Information, Department of Health

  Professor Genevra Richardson—Professor of Public Law. Queen Mary College, University of London

  Professor Nancy Rothwell—MR.C Research Professor, University of Manchester

  Professor John Savill—Professor of Medicine, University of Edinburgh

  450W
  NERC

  Mr. Rob Margetts—Chairman

  Professor John Lawton—Chief Executive

  Professor Malcolm Anderson—Professor of Physical Geography, and Assistant Director, Institute for Advanced Studies, University of Bristol

  Mr. Chris Andrews—Former Chairman and Managing Director of Rhodia Ltd.

  Professor John Beddington—Department of Environmental Science and Technology, Imperial College

  Professor Valerie Brown—Research Professor in Agro-Ecology, and Director of the Centre for Agri-Environmental Research, University of Reading

  Professor Howard Dalton—Chief Scientific Adviser (CSA), Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)

  Professor Trevor Davies—School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia

  Professor Michael Depledge—Head of Science for the Environment Agency

  Professor Anne Glover—Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of Aberdeen

  Dr. Colin Hicks—Director General of the British National Space Centre, and Director-Space in the Department of Trade and Industry

  Mr. Edwin Jenner—Formerly of AstraZeneca plc

  Mrs. Karen Morgan—Deputy Chairman of WaterAid, Chairman of the University of the West of England, and a Director of Wessex Water

  Mrs. Sara Parkin—Programme Director at Forum for the Future

  Professor Judith Petts—Head of School, School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Birmingham

  Professor David Roberts—Distinguished Adviser at BP Exploration

  Professor David Read—Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield

  PPARC

  Mr. Peter Warry—Chair

  Professor Ian Halliday—Chief Executive

  Professor George Efstathiou—University of Cambridge

  Professor Brian Foster—University of Bristol

  Dr. George Gray—retired

  Mr. David Hendon—Department of Trade and Industry

  Professor John Inkson—University of Exeter

  Professor Dewi Lewis—Amersham plc

  Professor Keith Mason—Mullard Space Science Laboratory

  Professor Chris Sachrajda—University of Southampton

  Professor Anneila Sargent—California Institute of Technology

  Mrs. Judith Scott—British Computer Society

  Mr. David Steeds

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the financial and commercial links with industry of each member of the Science Research Council. [132523]

  Ms Hewitt
  Details of Research Council members' financial and commercial links with industry are available from each Council's Register of Members' Interests available from their website: Biotechnology and Biological Science Research Council, www.bbsrc.ac.uk; Council of
  451W
  the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils, www.cclrc.ac.uk; Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, www.epsrc.ac.uk; Economic and Social Research Council, www.esrc.ac.uk, Natural Environment Research Council, www.nerc.ac.uk; Medical Research Council, www.mrc.ac.uk; Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council, www.pparc.ac.uk. For the convenience of Members I am placing paper copies in the Libraries of the House. A full list of Research Council members was given in my answer to my right hon. Friends Question No. 132495.

  SMEs
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information her Department has collected regarding the number of small-and medium-sized enterprises that have gone out of business in the past 12 months owing to the high cost of employer's liability compulsory insurance. [132859]

  Nigel Griffiths
  In my discussions with the British Chambers of Commerce, Federation of Small Business, Institute of Directors, CBI SME Council and the Forum of Private Business in the past 12 months, during which time this subject has been raised, they have provided no figures and no specific cases of businesses citing these cases as the sole reason for ceasing to trade. Nor has the DTI been able to source such information elsewhere.

  I have been working with these organisations and the insurers to address issues arising from employer's liability insurance.

  South Africa
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many officials from her Department assisted in the negotiations with the National Industrial Participation and the Defence Industrial Participation programmes with South Africa; what their role was in these negotiations; and what posts they held in her Department at the time of the negotiations. [132378]

  Ms Hewitt
  None.

  WTO Conference
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her oral statement of 17 September 2003,Official Report, columns 861–67, on the WTO Ministerial Conference, what assessment she has made of the role of NGOs in the collapse of the World Trade Organisations talks. [131957]

  Ms Hewitt
  The NGO community played an important role in the run-up to Cancun and at the WTO Ministerial-Conference. As I said in my statement to the House on 17 September, I warmly welcomed the UK Trade Network participation at Cancun.

  The Government will continue to work with NGOs, and developing country members of the WTO, to ensure that this is a true 'development' round and that trade rules are improved to benefit the world's poorest people.
  452W
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she will reply in full to the letter from the hon. Member for Totnes dated 24 July 2003 concerning the World Trade Organisation negotiations in Cancun. [132591]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  A reply was sent out on 15 October 2003.

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

  Special Advisers
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister for Women what proportion of special advisers working in Government Departments are women. [131478]

  Mr. Alexander
  I have been asked to reply.

  At 14 October, there are 77 special advisers in post of which 23 are women.

HEALTH

  Water Fluoridation
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what proportion of the public must be in agreement before water may be fluoridated in their area; [132113]

  (2) how the Government plans to assess local opinion on the fluoridation of water supplies; [132115]

  (3) to what extent local public opinion will be binding on the Strategic Health Authority in relation to water fluoridation. [132118]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  It is Government policy that no area will be required to fluoridate its water supply unless the local population is in favour. Detailed provision on the local consultations required and the assessment of public opinion will be the subject of regulations to be made under Clause 61 of The Water Bill, currently in Committee before this House.

  Accident and Emergency Services
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients admitted to Accident and Emergency in Hull and the East Riding in(a) 2002 and (b) 2003 waited for more than 12 hours before being treated or transferred to a ward. [132394]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The NHS Plan set a target for accident and emergency (A&E) to reduce the maximum wait in A&E from arrival to admission, transfer or discharge to four hours by 2004.

  In line with this target from 2001, the Department has collected data on total time spent in A&E from arrival to admission, transfer or discharge. The available figures for Hull and East Yorkshire National Health Service Trusts are shown in table 1.
  453W

  Table 1. Total time spent in A&E Departments, Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  Year

  Quarter

  Total attendances at major A&E

  Percentage of patients who spent less than 4 hours in A&E

  Number of patients spending more than 4 hours in A&E

  2003–04

  1

  26,147

  91.4

  2,237

  2002–03

  4

  23,919

  84.6

  3,695

  2002–03

  3

  23,082

  74

  6,000

  2002–03

  2

  24,313

  64

  8,827

  The Department collects data on waiting times in A&E post decision to admit patients to a hospital ward. The figures for Hull and East Yorkshire NHS Trusts for the two years ended March 2002 and March 2003 are shown in table 2.

  Table 2. Admissions through major A&E Departments, Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  Year

  Quarter

  Number of patients admitted through major A&E

  Patients not placed in bed in a ward within 4 hours of a decision to admit

  Percentage

  2003–04

  1

  6,249

  205

  3.3

  2002–03

  4

  6,411

  349

  5.4

  2002–03

  3

  6,051

  252

  4.2

  2002–03

  2

  6,068

  249

  4.1

  2002–03

  1

  6,243

  260

  4.2

  2001–02

  4

  5,812

  288

  5.0

  2001–02

  3

  3,976

  119

  3.0

  2001–02

  2

  4.745

  40

  0.8

  Source:

  Hospital Activity Statistics, Department of Health

  Breast Cancer
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what measures other than advising women of lifestyle changes his Department is taking to prevent breast cancer; [131315]

  (2) what discussions he has had with other Departments on possible (a) environmental and (b) other causes of breast cancer. [131316]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  It is not clear exactly what causes breast cancer, but it is thought that there are many risk factors, some already well established and some still being investigated. The main risk factors are being female and increasing age. The majority of other risk factors are linked to lifestyle. Key prevention measures include improving dietary intake, including increasing fruit and vegetable consumption, increasing physical activity and staying at a healthy weight.

  About five per cent. of all breast cancer cases (fewer than 2,000 per year) may be caused by breast cancer genes. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence is developing a clinical guideline on the classification and care of women at risk of familial breast cancer in primary, secondary care and tertiary care. The guideline is expected to be published in February 2004.

  The Government's White Paper, "Our Inheritance, Our Future—Realising the Potential of Genetics in the NHS", was published in June 2003. The Department has collaborated with Macmillan Cancer Relief to develop a model approach to genetic cancer services for people at risk of, or concerned about, familial cancer. The model is patient-centred, describing a continuum of advice and
  454W
  care involving primary care, local cancer services and specialised genetic and cancer services. A tendering exercise has begun to pilot all or certain aspects of the model. It is envisaged that there will be six evaluated pilot sites in England to inform the future development of cancer genetic services, as envisaged in the National Health Service Cancer Plan. Bids for pilot project funding must be submitted by 31 October 2003.

  Women should be breast aware at all times. The Government promote the overriding importance of teaching women to be breast aware, knowing that 90 per cent. of breast cancers will be found by women themselves. The breast awareness five point code is as follows:

  know what is normal for you;

  look and feel;

  know what changes to look for;

  report any changes without delay; and

  attend for breast screening if aged 50 or over.

  The Department, together with Cancer Research UK, produces a leaflet entitled "Be Breast Aware". The leaflet is widely available from general practitioner's surgeries and breast screening units. 1.5 million copies were printed in 2002–03.

  Officials from the Department have had discussions with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs regarding possible links between environmental chemicals, in particular, organochlorine pesticides, and breast cancer.

  In 1999, the independent Committee on Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food Consumer Products and the Environment (COC) considered this issue and concluded that lindane and other organochlorine pesticides were not a significant risk factor in breast cancer. The remit of the COC is to advise Government Departments on all aspects of the carcinogenicity of chemicals. The COC is currently reviewing new data on this issue.

  The COC has also considered the possible association between alcoholic beverages and breast cancer. A statement was issued in 1995, indicating that there was not enough evidence to conclude that the ingestion of alcoholic beverages was a cause of breast cancer. The COC is reviewing new data on this issue with a view to updating its statement next year.

  There have been allegations of an association between environmental radiation and breast cancer and these are being considered by the independent Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment. The remit of this Committee is to advise Government Departments on the health effects of environmental exposure to radiation.

  Call Centres
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether his Department plans to outsource call centre work to premises outside the United Kingdom. [132112]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Department has no plans to outsource call centre work for which it is responsible to premises outside the United Kingdom.
  455W

  Cancelled Operations
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many operations in Hull and the East Riding in(a) 2002 and (b) 2003 were cancelled for non-clinical reasons; and what proportion of admissions these figures represent in each case. [132398]

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

  RWA Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  Number of last minute cancellations for non clinical reasons in the quarter

  Number of elective admissions

  Cancellations as a percentage of elective admissions

  2002

  2001–02

  Q4

  301

  13,893

  2.2

  2002–03

  Q1

  189

  14,329

  1.3

  Q2

  202

  15,771

  1.3

  Q3

  237

  14,966

  1.6

  2003

  Q4

  249

  15,515

  1.6

  2003–04

  Q1

  199

  15,146

  1.3

  Source:

  Hospital Activity Team, QMCO

  Criminal Records
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact on voluntary organisations concerned with the delivery of personal care to elderly and vulnerable people of the cost of Criminal Records Bureau checks. [130701]

  Paul Goggins
  I have been asked to reply.

  A Regulatory Impact Assessment which assesses the impact on different sectors of the recent fee increase was placed in the Library on 5 June.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he had with the National Care Standards Commission (NCSC) on the Care Home Regulations in place since 1 April 2002, with particular reference to Criminal Records Bureau checks on staff to be employed in the care home sector; what directions have been given to the NCSC; and what representations have been received by his Department. [131621]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Ministers and officials meet regularly with the National Care Standards Commission (NCSC) to discuss a wide range of matters, including the regulation of care homes and Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) checks. I last met with representatives of care homes organisations on 24 September 2003. In the last few months I have received 125 letters from right hon. and hon. Members and five letters from members of the public on CRB checks for the care home sector. I have given no directions to the NCSC on this matter.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what factors underlay the decision to bring into effect the Care Home Regulation, from 1 October, that stipulates that all new staff should have a Criminal Records Bureau check completed before starting work; what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the interim guidance on this matter from the National Care Standards Commission; what assessment he has made of the effect of enforcing the regulation on the long-term care sector; and if he will make a statement. [132444]
  456W
  Dr. Ladyman
  Since 1 April 2002, all new staff in care homes have been required to obtain a satisfactory Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) check as part of their pre-employment checks. The impact of this requirement was assessed as part of a Regulatory Impact Assessment.

  However, in the light of the initial difficulties experienced by the CRB in dealing with the level of demand for checks, in June 2003 the National Care Standards Commission (NCSC) issued interim guidance on how to deal with recruitment of care home staff, while steps were taken to improve the CRB's performance. The intention of the guidance was to enable care homes to recruit staff while ensuring residents were protected.

  Following significant improvements made at the CRB, the NCSC rightly decided to look again at its guidance. Where CRB clearances are not in place, the NCSC will continue to apply its discretion on the use of its enforcement powers on a case by case basis, where this is appropriate.

  The Department has not made an assessment of the effectiveness of the NCSCs interim guidance. However, we are aware that provider organisations welcomed the guidance and their recent concerns were not with its operation, but its withdrawal.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many(a) residential care home and (b) nursing home places have been lost in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available in Gloucestershire; [133294]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the provision of (a) nursing home and (b) residential home care in Gloucestershire. [133295]

  Dr. Ladyman
  In the period 1993–2001, there was an overall increase in the number of places in residential and nursing care homes in Gloucestershire. In 1993 there were 2,854 residential care and 3,228 nursing care home places totalling 6,082. This is compared to 4,241 residential care and 2,966 nursing care places totalling 7,207 in 2001.

  Source:

  Department of Health stats.

  Figures for later years have been collected by the National Care Standards Commission.

  Child Health Statistics
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children in each year since 1997 have been diagnosed with(a) eczema, (b) asthma, (c) AIDS and (d) glaucoma. [132210]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Information on eczema, asthma and glaucoma is not collected centrally in the form requested

  Hospital episode statistics collect data on admissions. Table 1 shows hospital admissions—this does not represent numbers of children diagnosed with these conditions, as a child may have more than one admission within the year, or may not be admitted at all.
  457W

  Table 1—Primary diagnoses (ICD10 various codes) eczema, asthma, glaucoma. Count of finished in-year admission episodes Age on admission 0–17 years. NHS hospitals England—1997–98 to 2001–02

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Eczema

  3,655

  3,840

  3,853

  4,184

  3,792

  Asthma

  32.430

  29,384

  26,317

  23,910

  25,324

  Glaucoma

  942

  1,092

  1,116

  1,208

  1,227

  Notes:

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

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

  3. Grossing—figures have not been adjusted for shortfalls in data (ie the data are ungrossed).

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health.

  Information is collected centrally by the Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre on the numbers of children diagnosed with HIV/AIDS in England. Data from 1997 is shown in table 2.

  Table 2—Year of HIV/AIDS diagnosis aged 14 or younger at diagnosis

  Number

  1997

  77

  1998

  95

  1999

  80

  2000

  101

  2001

  78

  2002

  102

  Note:

  Numbers will rise as late reports are received.

  Source:

  Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre, data to the end of June 2003.

  Dental Access Centres
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were treated in the last year in each dental access centre. [132295]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The table shows the number of patients treated in each dental access centre during 2002–03.

  Wave

  Dental Access Centre

  Number of patients treated

  1

  Cornwall

  21,708

  Shropshire

  9,112

  2

  Bromley

  792

  Manchester (Kath Locke)

  1,481

  Gloucestershire

  9,916

  Wiltshire

  7,220

  Wolverhampton

  4,544

  Worcestershire

  10,442

  3

  Peterborough

  3,763

  Hereford

  11,405

  West Norfolk and Wisbech

  6,113

  North Staffordshire

  12,725

  Oxfordshire

  9,478

  South Staffordshire

  10,518

  Hull and East Riding

  9,519

  Lincolin

  3,394

  Avon

  7,256

  458W

  Wave

  Dental Access Centre

  Number of patients treated

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  2,156

  Easy Access

  5,892

  Egremont

  1,562

  Somerset

  4,828

  Surrey

  10,927

  Walsall

  3,671

  Warrington

  11,149

  North and East Devon

  9,585

  Warwickshire

  2,107

  Macclesfield

  5,016

  Plymouth

  11,323

  Morecambe Bay

  3,657

  North Mersey DAC

  3,639

  Brighton

  1,213

  Milton Keynes

  4,938

  Leicester

  1,896

  Solihull

  3,710

  Victoria Mill

  54

  Newcastle

  859

  Slough

  5,641

  Barnet Enfield and Haringey1

  65

  Bury and Rochdale1

  3,624

  Bury and St. Edmunds and W S

  2,613

  Scarborough

  3,431

  Nottingham

  2,237

  Northampton

  1,832

  North Norfolk

  1,425

  Total

  248,436

  1 Access Centre opened within the 2002–03 financial year.

  Diagnostic and Treatment Centres
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which Government agencies are involved in schemes to offer patients choice in their NHS treatment. [129611]

  Mr. Hutton
  Nine choice pilot schemes are in operation. Local schemes covering a wide range of specialties are operating in Berkshire, Dorset and Somerset, Greater Manchester, London, Trent, Surrey and Sussex and West Yorkshire. In addition, we have a national coronary heart disease choice pilot and an ophthalmology choice pilot operating across the south of England. Strategic health authorities, primary care trusts and national health service trusts are involved in the planning and delivery of choice pilots. NHS Direct has also provided support to three pilot schemes that are operating with call centre based patient care advisers.

  NHS Direct
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what call statistics have been collated for the East Riding NHS Direct call centre in Willerby for the last 12 months. [132412]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  In the last twelve months (October 2002—September 2003), NHS Direct Tees, East and North Yorkshire handled 257,347 calls. For the corresponding time period in the previous twelve months (October 2001—September 2002), NHS Direct Tees, East and North Yorkshire handled 229,961 calls. This represents an 11 per cent. increase in call volumes.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what role NHS Direct is expected to have in Government schemes to offer patient choice. [129596]
  459W
  Mr. Hutton
  NHS Direct is currently involved in three pilot schemes to offer choice of hospital to national health service patients. NHS Direct's existing infrastructure and expertise is being used to support call centre based patient care advisers. Strategic health authorities are currently planning for the national roll-out of choice of hospital and booking. This will include their plans for the role and provision of telephone services to support booking and choice.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what schemes to offer patients choice in their NHS treatment will be operating in conjunction with NHS Direct. [129598]

  Mr. Hutton
  A number of pilot schemes are currently offering patients choice over the hospital in which they receive their treatment. NHS Direct is involved in pilots in London, Greater Manchester and Surrey and Sussex, using its existing infrastructure and expertise to support call centre based patient care advisers. The experience and learning of the choice pilots will support the national roll-out of patient choice.

  Efexor
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children under the age of 18 years have been prescribed the anti-depressant Efexor in each of the past five years. [132314]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Information is not available in the form requested. The table shows the estimated number of prescription items of venlafaxine (Efexor being a branded form) dispensed in the community in England for children between 1999 and 2002. Children are defined as 0 to 15-year-olds and those aged 16 to 18 in full-time education.

  On 19 September an expert group of the Committee on Safety of Medicines advised that venlafaxine should not be used in children and adolescents under the age of 18 years for the treatment of depressive illness. Advice was also issued on stopping treatment with venlafaxine.

  Estimated number of prescription items of all venlafaxine dispensed in the community in England for children between 1999 and 2002

  Number

  1999

  5,000

  2000

  6,000

  2001

  9,000

  2002

  13,000

  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many reports the Medicines Control Agency has received of suicides attributed to Efexor in each of the last five years; and how many yellow card reports the Medicines Control Agency has received about Efexor in each of the last five years. [132315]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The number of adverse drug reactions received by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) under the yellow card scheme in respect of venlafaxine (Efexor) over the last five years is shown in the table, together with the number of reports of completed suicide.
  460W

  Number of UK reports for venlafaxine (Efexor)

  Number of reports of completed suicide for venlafaxine (Efexor)

  1998

  589

  2

  1999

  444

  3

  2000

  349

  3

  2001

  303

  I

  2002

  316

  1

  The number of reports received via the yellow card scheme does not directly equate to the number of people who suffer adverse reactions to drugs for a number of reasons, including an unknown level of under-reporting. It is important to note that the reporting of a reaction does not necessarily mean it was caused by the drug and may relate to other factors, such as the patients underlying illness or other medicines taken concurrently.

  As with all medicines, the MHRA and the Committee on Safety of Medicines are keeping the safety of venlafaxine under continuous review. The summary of product characteristics for venlafaxine advises prescribers about the risk of suicide that is inherent in patients with depressive illness.

  Energy Use Targets
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the voluntary targets for energy use in NHS capital schemes have been made mandatory; what progress his Department has made in revising the NHS carbon dioxide standard of heat insultation; if it is his intention to bring the revised NHS carbon dioxide standard into line with the current British Standard for heat insulation (BS 5422, as revised in 2001); and whether any further upward revision of BS 5422 resulting from this review will be followed without delay by an equivalent upward revision of NHS carbon dioxide. [132333]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer the hon. Member to the response I gave on Monday 6 October 2003,Official Report, column 1289W.

  In that reply, MES CO2 is purely a reference number for the NHS Estates model engineering specification on thermal insulation and does not relate to carbon dioxide.

  Epsom and St. Helier Hospitals
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the number of people admitted to Epsom and St. Helier hospitals via the accident and emergency departments in each of the past 24 months. [131636

  Mr. Hutton
  The table shows the total number of admissions to Epsom and St. Helier National Health Service Trust via its accident and emergency (A&E) department, in the latest 24 months for which figures are available.
  461W

  RVR Epsom and St. Helier NHS Trust—In-year admissions via Accident and Emergency Department by month of admission NHS hospitals 2000–01 and 2001–02

  Month of admission

  In-month admissions

  2000

  April

  1,390

  May

  1,274

  June

  1,300

  July

  1,343

  August

  1,266

  September

  1,170

  October

  1,326

  November

  1,354

  December

  1,352

  2001

  January

  1,417

  February

  1,228

  March

  1,140

  April

  1,419

  May

  1,469

  June

  1,441

  July

  1,446

  August

  1,355

  September

  1,372

  October

  1,446

  November

  1,499

  December

  1,502

  2002

  January

  1,523

  February

  1,311

  March

  1,081

  Notes:

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

  2. Grossing—figures have not (yet) been adjusted for shortfalls in data (i.e. the data are ungrossed).

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health.

  The table implies an increasing trend in admissions via A&E for this trust.

  Eye Tests
  Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many free sight tests were given to(a) pensioners and (b) other people in (i) Kirklees and (ii) England in each year since 1997. [132141]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The table shows the number of national health service sight tests paid for in Calderdale and Kirklees Health Authority (HA) for 1997–98 to 2002–03. Figures for the number of sight tests by constituency or age are not collected centrally. The table shows the number of sight tests where "patient aged 60 and over" was given as the eligibility category and all other sight tests.

  Eligibility to NHS sight tests was extended to those aged 60 and over from 1 April 1999. There was an increase of 2.4 million sight tests between 1998–99 and 1999–2000 in England. It is fair to assume that the vast majority of this increase was due to newly eligible people aged 60 or over obtaining NHS sight tests.

  However, some patients aged 60 and over will be eligible for sight tests for other reasons as well (for example, on income grounds). The classification for such patients will depend on the patient and the
  462W
  practitioner. The increase in the number of sight tests for those over 60 may therefore reflect an increasing awareness of the eligibility of over 60s.

  General Ophthalmic Services: Number of sight test paid in Calderdale and Kirklees HA and England for the year's 1997–98 to 2002–03

  Thousand

  Eligibility categories

  Patients aged 60 and over

  Other categories

  Total number of sight tests

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  1997–98

  —

  —

  88.1

  1998–99

  —

  —

  87.9

  1999–2000

  41.0

  73.0

  113.9

  2000–01

  46.0

  68.5

  114.4

  2001–02

  44.1

  72.7

  116.8

  2002–03

  49.1

  68.5

  117.6

  England

  1997–98

  —

  —

  6,991.3

  1998–99

  —

  —

  6,992.3

  1999–2000

  3,301.4

  6,098.0

  9,399.4

  2000–01

  3,753.3

  5,813.8

  9,567.1

  2001–02

  4,013.0

  5,794.4

  9,807.4

  2002–03

  4,135.7

  5,526.3

  9,662.1

  Note:

  Data on eligibility is derived from a 2 per cent. sample.

  Food Products (Health Claims)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer to question ref. 130174, on health claims about food products, what estimate he has made of the cost to a manufacturer of making such an application. [132418]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  No such estimate has yet been made. The Food Standards Agency is currently consulting on the proposed regulation on nutrition and health claims, and preparing an assessment of the potential impact, including application costs, on industry. The consultation package specifically requests information from manufacturers to inform that assessment.

  Good Friday Agreement
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures have been taken in the last 12 months to promote co-operation in health matters through the east-west dimension of the Good Friday Agreement. [131947]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.

  Strand Three of the Belfast or Good Friday Agreement identified health as one of the possible issues for discussion within the British-Irish Council. Work focusing on telemedicine and e-health is being taken forward by the Isle of Man. A working group has met seven times since February 2001 and members have visited a number of telemedicine applications either being piloted or in everyday use. This work has been particularly useful to those administrations with the challenge of delivering health and social care in rural and remote communities.
  463W

  GPs/Dentists
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many practising NHS(a) dentists and (b) general practitioners there were in Southend West in (i) 1997 and (ii) 2002. [130956]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Figures for general dental services (GDS) dentists by primary care trust (PCT) were not collected prior to 2002. The number of GDS dentists in Southend on Sea PCT at 31 December 2002 was 54. This figure includes principals, assistants and vocational dental practitioners. Figures for hospital and community health services dental staff are shown in the table.

  Hospital and community health services dental staff

  As at 30 September

  1997

  2002

  Southend Community Care NHS trust

  RDK

  8

  1—

  Southend Healthcare NHS trust

  RAJ

  11

  11

  1 Not available.

  Source:

  Department of Health Medical and Dental Workforce Census

  Information on numbers of general practitioners by PCT have been collected centrally since 1999. Figures for 1999 and 2002 are shown in table 2.

  Table 2: General Medical Practitioners for Southend on Sea PCT

  Numbers (headcount)

  Southend on Sea PCG 4KH89

  Southend on Sea PCT 5AK

  1999

  All Practitioners1

  85

  3—

  of which:

  Unrestricted Principals and Equivalents (UPEs)2

  84

  3—

  March 2002

  All Practitioners

  3—

  85

  of which:

  Unrestricted Principals and Equivalents (UPEs)

  3—

  85

  1 All Practitioners include UPEs, Restricted Principals, Assistants, GP Registrars, Salaried Doctors (para 52 SFA), PMS Other, GP Retainers and Flexible Career Scheme Gps

  2 UPEs include GMS Unrestricted Principals, PMS Contracted GPs and PMS Salaried Gps.

  3 Not available.

  Note

  Data as at 1 October 1999, 31 March 2002

  Source:

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics

  Health Services (Battersea)
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the impact on the Battersea constituency of his Department's health policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [123709]

  Mr. Hutton
  Detailed information on the impact of departmental policies nationally is set out in the Department of Health annual reports. A copy of the most recent report "Department of Health—Government Expenditure Plans 2003/2004" is available in the Library and on the Department's website.

  The impact of policies is not examined by constituency and statistics collected centrally by the Department are not collected on a constituency basis.
  464W
  My hon. Friend's constituency falls within the geographical area covered by Wandsworth Primary Care Trust (PCT), St. George's Healthcare National Health Service Trust and the former Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth Health Authority (HA).

  Allocations to Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth HA

  Allocation

  Cash increase

  Real terms increase

  Period

  £000

  £000

  Percentage

  £000

  Percentage

  1997–98

  309,318

  10,104

  3.38

  4,039

  1.35

  1998–99

  322,343

  12,806

  4.14

  4,179

  1.35

  1999–2000'

  422,995

  25,270

  6.35

  14,953

  3.76

  2000–01

  455,914

  35,177

  8.36

  24,058

  5.72

  2001–02

  498,646

  42,445

  9.30

  30,283

  6.64

  2002–03

  563,125

  49,830

  9.80

  36,215

  7.12

  1 Figures for 1997–98 and 1998–99 are not comparable to the later figures, as these are for Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS) only.

  Note:

  From 1999–2000 allocations have included HCHS, QMS cash limited and prescribing components (2002–03 saw the addition of HIV/Aids and QMS non cash limited components).

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth HA and the NHS trusts within it have also received additional funding for certain policies. This includes:
  £6.6 million for accident and emergency modernisation in 2000–01.
  Nationally, in 2000–01 recurrent investment of £50 million was available for the improvement of cancer services. For 2001–02, an additional £255 million is available nationally for cancer care. Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth HA has received £300,000 for the investment of cancer equipment. This has already been delivered and is now in use.
  £4.5 million, £453,000 and £406,000 to reduce waiting lists and times in 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01 respectively.
  £2.25 million to expand critical care services in 2000–01.
  £3.3 million and £2.9 million to deal with winter pressures in 1998–99 and 2000–01.
  £228,000 for heart disease services in 2000–01.
  £35,000 invested into dentistry in 2000–01.

  I am informed by South West London Strategic Health Authority that in 2002–03, the Wandsworth PCT's overall allocation included the following earmarked funding for certain policies (there has been no earmarked funding in 2003–04):

  £470,000 for mental health.

  £376,000 for coronary heart disease

  £477,000 for cancer.

  £348,000 for information management and technology.

  £523,000 for primary care.

  £2.7 million for capacity.

  One of the public's principal concerns about the NHS has been waiting times. Waiting list information for St. George's is shown in the table.

  Patients waiting for elective admission:St. George's Healthcare NHS Trust

  Month end

  Total waiting list

  Patients waiting over nine months

  Patients waiting over 12 months

  March 1997

  7,185

  777

  311

  May 2003

  6,623

  329

  0

  Source:

  Department of Health form KH07.
  465W

  Waiting times for first consultant out patient appointment: St. George's Healthcare NHS Trust

  GP written referral

  >Patients seen

  Patients still waiting

  Quarter

  Total

  Percentage seen within 13 weeks

  More than 13 weeks

  More than 26 weeks

  Q4 1996–97

  15.508

  89

  931

  602

  Q4 2002–03

  12,599

  72

  757

  5

  Source:

  Department of Health form QM08

  Information regarding staffing within Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth has been placed in the Library.

  Hospitals (Leicestershire)
  Mr. Dorrell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were treated in Leicestershire hospitals in each year since 1997–98. [127271]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The tables show the number of out-patients and in-patients treated in Leicestershire hospitals since 1997–98.

  Out-patient Activity

  Name

  First attendances seen

  Subsequent attendances seen

  2002–03

  Charnwood and North West Leicestershire PCT

  15,172

  25,020

  Leicester City West PCT

  580

  4,000

  In-patient Activity

  Name

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Leicester General Hospital

  45,618

  48,967

  50,993

  Leicester Royal Infirmary

  103,127

  111,319

  113,818

  Glenfield Hospital

  22,101

  25,723

  27,469

  Leicestershire Mental Health Service

  2,253

  4,207

  Fosse Health; Leicestershire Community

  9,482

  9,392

  Leicestershire and Rutland Health Care

  14,427

  7,810

  9,607

  University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust

  180,940

  198,878

  Total (Leicestershire HA)

  182,581

  199,608

  206.707

  188,750

  208,485

  Notes:

  Admissions Grossing:

  Figures have not been adjusted for shortfalls in data (i.e. the data are ungrossed)

  Trust Mergers:

  On 1 April 1999, Leicestershire and Rutland Healthcare NHS Trust was formed from a merger of Fosse Health NHS Trust (which provided community health services) and Leicestershire Mental Health Services NHS Trust.

  On 1 April 2000, University Hospitals of Leicester was formed through a merger of the three acute hospital trusts in Leicestershire—those trusts were Leicester Royal Infirmary NHS Trust, Leicester General Hospital NHS Trust, and Glenfield Hospital NHS Trust.

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to ensure that people with learning disabilities are not deprived of housing benefit as a result of their accommodation being registered under the Care Standards Act 2000. [133167]

  Dr. Ladyman
  This is a matter for the Department of Work and Pensions.
  466W

  Out-patient Activity

  Name

  First attendances seen

  Subsequent attendances seen

  Hinckley and Bosworth PCT

  9,296

  59.170

  South Leicestershire PCT

  354

  480

  University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust

  175,758

  456,121

  Total

  201,160

  544,791

  2001–02

  Hinckley & Bosworth PCT

  7,828

  47,018

  University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust

  187,426

  462,721

  Total

  195,254

  509,739

  2000–01

  Leicestershire and Rutland Healthcare NHS Trust

  38,399

  95,687

  University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust

  161,329

  416,068

  Total

  199,728

  511,755

  1999–2000

  Leicester General Hospital

  27,757

  85,546

  Leicester Royal Infirmary

  101,379

  227,477

  Leicestershire and Rutland Healthcare NHS Trust

  36,611

  94,044

  Glenfield Hospital

  26,480

  85,010

  Total

  192,227

  492,077

  1998–99

  Fosse Health; Leicestershire Community

  35.413

  58,022

  Leicester General Hospital

  26,591

  83,077

  Leicester Royal Infirmary

  96,116

  234,485

  Leicestershire Mental Health Service

  6,728

  43,765

  Glenfield Hospital

  30,204

  75,862

  Total

  195,052

  495,211

  1997–98

  Leicester General Hospital

  26,598

  80,148

  Leicester Royal Infirmary

  92,317

  239,958

  Leicestershire Mental Health Service

  5,669

  42,512

  Glen field Hospital

  28098

  74,596

  Total

  152,682

  437,214

  Hypertension
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress the Government are making towards their target on hypertension. [130110]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  High blood pressure is addressed through the national service framework (NSF) for coronary heart disease, which identifies the importance of prevention, detection and effective treatment of high blood pressure.
  467W
  National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines for the management of hypertension in primary care to be published in February 2004, and the new general medical services contract, will further support national health service action to tackle high blood pressure.

  It is also essential that individuals across the population be made aware of the risks associated with high blood pressure and the importance of regular testing. The Department has contributed to the funding of the Blood Pressure Association's national blood pressure testing week in September 2002 and again this year. This voluntary screening event offers people the chance to visit temporary blood pressure testing stations in order to check their own blood pressure numbers and find out more about high blood pressure.

  The Department, working jointly with the Food Standards Agency, has called on industry to take a lead in reducing salt in processed foods and together will lead a salt stakeholders meeting to highlight the role of all sectors including industry health and consumer bodies.

  Wider initiatives, such as five-a-day, to increase fruit and vegetable consumption and the recently formed, cross-government activity co-ordination team to increase mass participation in physical activity and sport, also have the potential to reduce the risk of high blood pressure in individuals.

  Influenza Vaccinations
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will fund a scheme to offer influenza vaccinations to employees of large organisations on their work premises; and if he will make a statement. [132461]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department's policy for recommending influenza vaccination is to protect those most at risk from serious illness should they catch influenza.

  If employees of companies are in the recommended risk group to be vaccinated they can receive their flu vaccination from their general practitioner free of charge. Otherwise it is a decision for individual companies as to whether or not they offer their employees influenza vaccination under an occupational health scheme.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to extend the provision of free influenza vaccinations to citizens under 65; what assessment he has made of the cost of extending provision; and if he will make a statement. [132462]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Departmental policy is determined following recommendations from the Joint Committee on Vaccinations and Immunisation (JCVI). This is an independent group of experts, which reviews all current research on the subject of immunisation and its recommendation is based on reducing morbidity and mortality among the population.
  468W
  Based upon current scientific research, the JCVI recommends that people aged 65 years and over and those aged under 65 years of age in certain clinical risk groups benefit most from being immunised against influenza.

  This advice is kept under regular review.

  IVF Treatment
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the draft NICE guidance on IVF treatment. [132350]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department commissioned the National Institute for Clinical Excellence in July 2001 to produce a clinical guideline for National Health Service fertility services. The guideline will cover primary, secondary, and tertiary care, including in vitro fertilisation treatment.

  A draft guideline was issued to a stakeholder group for consultation on 2 June 2003. A second draft was published for public consultation on 26 August.

  Publication of the final document is expected in February 2004.

  Licensing of Medicines
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency powers to require pharmaceutical companies to provide all available data and reports on products submitted for licensing. [132316]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), already has the necessary powers to require pharmaceutical companies to provide all available data and reports when submitting an application for product licensing.

  The Medicines for Human Use (Marketing Authorisation Etc.) Regulations 1994 require companies to make applications in accordance with the relevant European Community legislation, including Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use. All information which is relevant to the evaluation of the medicinal product concerned must be included in the application, whether favourable or unfavourable to the product.

  NHS Compensation Payments
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much compensation was paid to patients and relatives by the NHS in each year since 1990. [132739]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  This information is not held centrally.

  NHS Dental Registration (Children)
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children in Hull and East Riding were registered with an NHS dentist on(a) 1 September 2002 and (b) 1 September 2003. [132392]
  469W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The table shows the number of children registered with a general dental services (GDS) dentist in the Hull and East Riding area for 31 August 2002 and 2003.

  Number of children registered with a GDS dentist in the Hull and East Riding Area, at 31 August 2003

  20021

  2003

  Hull and East Riding HA1

  79.056

  —

  East Yorkshire PCT

  —

  21,564

  Yorkshire Wolds and Coast PCT

  —

  14,270

  Eastern Hull PCT

  —

  14,712

  West Hull PCT

  —

  24,668

  1 In October 2002, responsibilities for dentistry were moved from health authorities (HAs) to primary care trusts (PCTs).

  Note:

  Registrations lapse if patients do not return to their dentist within 15 months. The registration figures for children therefore exclude those who have not been to their GDS dentist within the past 15 months. The figures also exclude children who receive dental treatment from other national health service dental services, including dental access centres.

  NHS Dentists
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of children were registered with an NHS dentist in each primary care trust in the last year for which figures are available. [131030]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  At 30 June 2003, 6.7 million children were registered with a general dental service (GDS) dentist in England, 60.4 per cent. of the population of children. Information on the percentage of the population and of children registered with a dentist in each strategic health authority area and primary care trust (PCT) area by region at 30 June 2003 has been placed in the Library.

  Primary care trusts have little influence over the provision of general dental services in their area under the current statutory arrangements. Proposals in the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill will give PCTs a duty to secure the provision of primary dental services. The proposed changes will help underpin a modernised high-quality primary dental service provided through contracts between PCTs and dental practices properly integrated with the rest of the national health service. With these new responsibilities will go the £1.2 billion financial resources currently held centrally.

  Registrations lapse if patients do not return to their dentist within 15 months, and so the registration figure, exclude patients who have not been to their GDS dentis within the past 15 months. The figures also exclude patients who receive dental treatment from other NH! dental services including dental access centres.

  Otitis Media
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State fo Health what proportion of children diagnosed with otitis media have parents who smoke. [132211]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  This information is not held centrally.

  Paediatric Continence Services
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether his Department has completed an audit of whether the guidance "Good Practice in Continence Services" has improved paediatric continence services; [132876]

  (2) what assessment his Department has made of how the children's national service framework will improve services for children with continence problems; [132885]

  (3) what assessment his Department has made of how many children in England suffer from (a) nocturnal enuresis, (b) daytime wetting and (c) constipation and soiling. [132887]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Good Practice in Continence Services was issued by the Department in April 2000 and provides guidance to primary care trusts (PCTs) on continence services. This includes that PCTs should have specialist continence services in place, which provide patients with an individual assessment of their needs. Provision of these services in England is a matter for PCTs, which are responsible for determining the level of services required to meet the needs of their local populations.

  The children's national service framework (NSF) will set out standards covering a broad range of services, including the management of common childhood conditions. Whilst few specific conditions will be covered, the standards are likely to cover what support should be available to children and their parents in managing a wide range of conditions and problems, including enuresis and soiling. The NSF will emphasise the promotion of evidence-based clinical guidelines and a number of examples of good practice in a range of different areas.

  Information on the prevalence of these common conditions in childhood is not collected centrally.

  Private Operations
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people classed as self pay undertook operations in the private sector in each year since 1997, broken down by type of operation. [122791]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department of Health does not collect information on the number of patients having operations carried out in the private sector, nor on the source of funding for those operations.

  Rheumatoid Arthritis
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his response to the Adjournment Debate or rheumatoid arthritis of 17 July 2003,Official Report, columns 537–42, what the evidential basis was for his statement that postcode prescribing of anti-TNF therapy is now rare. [131899]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Implementation of the National Institute of Clinical Excellence drug appraisals in the national health service has had an impact in reducing
  471W
  postcode prescribing. More patients are now able to get the drugs they need. The Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Alliance report appears to support this, as almost two-thirds of the rheumatologists surveyed reported no problems. Anti-TNF drugs should help approximately 15,000 people. The manufacturers of these drugs estimate that around 9,000 patients are already benefiting.

  Sexual Health
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans his Department has to introduce a national service framework for sexual health. [132779]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government have no plans to introduce a national service framework for sexual health. The Government have already published the national strategy for sexual health and HIV in 2001 and has outlined progress and plans in the response to the Health Select Committee's report on sexual health, published in September 2003.

  This recognises the value of developing and spreading good practice and identifying recommended standards for sexual health and HIV. Recommended standards for HIV treatment and care were published on 6 October this year and similar work is under way for sexually transmitted infections, reproductive health and psychosexual services.

  Smoking
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps his Department is taking to encourage other Government Departments and agencies to become smoke-free; [130062]

  (2) what plans the Government have to bring in legislation to control smoking in the workplace; [130063]

  (3) what guidance the Government give to employers regarding smoking in the workplace; [130064]

  (4) what plans he has to introduce a code of practice on smoking in the workplace in (a) England and (b) Wales; [130065]

  (5) whether he plans to ban smoking on government premises. [130066]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The White Paper, "Smoking Kills", states that smoke-free places are the ideal. We will continue to encourage employers and the managers of public places to introduce smoke-free policies.

  An employer already has a duty, under Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, to
  "ensure so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees",
  and the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 require that
  "rest rooms and rest areas shall include suitable arrangements to protect non-smokers from discomfort caused by tobacco smoke".
  472W
  Guidance and advice on protecting people from second-hand smoke and on introducing smoke-free policies is available from the Health and Safety Executive and the Department in the form of leaflets and website material.

  Psychologists (South Essex)
  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many psychologists were employed by South Essex Mental Health and Community Care NHS Trust on September. [132629]

  Dr. Ladyman
  South Essex Mental Health and Community Care National Health Service Trust was replaced by South Essex Partnership NHS Trust in April 2002. The number of psychologists employed by South Essex Partnership NHS Trust in September 2003 has not been published. Figures for September 2002 are shown in the table.

  NHS hospital and community health services: Qualified clinical psychologists employed by the South Essex Partnership NHS Trust1 as at 30 September 2002

  Headcount

  RWN

  South Essex Partnership NHS Trust

  31

  1 The services provided by South Essex Mental Health and Community Care NHS Trust, as at 30 September 2002, were provided by South Essex Partnership NHS Trust.

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-medical Workforce Census.

  Stroke Services
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what action his Department is taking to accelerate the spread of information on functional electrical stimulation techniques for the rehabilitation of stroke sufferers; [132586]

  (2) what steps his Department is taking to raise awareness of functional electrical stimulation techniques for the rehabilitation of stroke sufferers; [132587]

  (3) how many NHS trusts provide functional electrical stimulation as a treatment for stroke sufferers. [132588]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Functional electrical stimulation (FES) is available only in specialist centres where there is an interest in the procedure. It requires physiotherapists who have specialist training in the technique supported by specialist medical physicists. The forthcoming National Clinical Guidelines for Stroke from the Royal College of Physicians states that FES should not be used on a routine basis and that it should only be considered for a very select group of stroke patients as determined by local protocols. We do not know how many national health service trusts provide FES as a treatment for stroke.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many stroke physicians there were in(a) 1998 to 1999 and (b) 2002 to 2003. [130115]
  473W
  Mr. Hutton
  The Department does not collect data on stroke physicians; a number of specialties are linked with the treatment of patients with strokes. The main specialties are geriatric medicine, neurology and rehabilitation medicine but it is not possible to say how many of the physicians within these specialties specialise in the treatment of strokes.
  474W
  The table shows the number of hospital medical staff in geriatric medicine, neurology and rehabilitation medicine from 1998 to 2003.

  Between September 1997 and June 2003, total consultant numbers in geriatric medicine, neurology and rehabilitation medicine increased by 380 (37 per cent.).

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Extradition Bill (Draft Code of Practice)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Caroline Flint)
  I am today drawing the House's attention to the publication of the responses received by the Home Office to its consultation on a draft extradition code of practice.

  The draft code of practice, which sets out the application and operation of police powers under Part 4 of the Extradition Bill, was published on 9 June 2003 and comments on the draft were invited by 8 September 2003.

  Twenty nine responses were received in total. Twenty six authors have given permission for their responses to be made public and these are now available in the Libraries of both Houses and can also be viewed on the Home Office website at www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crimpol/oic/extradition/bill/documents.html.

  The Government will be publishing their response to the representations in due course.

  Criminal Records Bureau (Basic Disclosures)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Paul Goggins)
  On 9 April the Home Office issued a consultation paper seeking views on the Independent Review Team's recommendation,Official Report 27 February 2003, col. 33–36WS, that applications for basic disclosures should be routed through registered bodies. The consultation period closed on 30 June; 352 responses were received. I have today placed in the Library an analysis of those responses. We will consider carefully the views expressed in response to the consultation before deciding how best to proceed with the introduction of the basics service.

CABINET OFFICE

  Efficiency Review
  The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Douglas Alexander)
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor for the Exchequer announced an efficiency review of the public sector in his spring Budget speech. (House of Commons,Official Report, 9 April 2003, cols. 271–288). The review is being conducted by a joint team from the Cabinet Office and Her Majesty?s Treasury.

  I have today placed in the Libraries of the House copies of the consultation document "Efficiency Review—Releasing Resources to the Frontline". The consultation seeks the views of a wide range of public
  26WS
  sector employees and other interested parties to inform the review, with initial views requested by the 21 November 2003. A more detailed consultation will be undertaken when specific proposals have been developed.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Guaranteed Minimum Pension
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith)
  In our document "Action on Occupational Pensions" (Cm 5835), published on 11 June, the Government stated their intention to make it easier for employers to provide pensions by simplifying key areas of legislation while at the same time offering appropriate protection to scheme members. In particular, we proposed to explore options for a workable and affordable solution to the problems created by the complexity of the Guaranteed Minimum Pension (GMP) element of contracted-out schemes. I am now able to announce the results of this work.

  We intend to introduce measures that will permit contracted-out defined benefit schemes to convert GMPs into scheme benefits. Where a scheme converts its liabilities in this way, it will no longer be required to offer a scale of benefits incorporating the complex GMP rules for the period 1978 to 1997 and will be free to design a benefit structure that best reflects the needs of its members. If schemes take up this option they will have to convert on the basis of actuarial equivalence: the trustees will be required to offer scheme benefits of equal accrued value in exchange for the benefits given up, including the GMP.

  As a result of this and other measures announced previously, pension schemes will be able to achieve significant simplification in their administration. On top of the other proposals for simplifying contracting out in "Action on Occupational Pensions", we estimate that these measures should result in administrative savings for pension schemes of up to £16 million a year.

  Because of the process of actuarial conversion, any resulting changes will not affect the value of individual accrued rights. Members' interests will also be protected by other measures already outlined in our Green Paper "Working and Saving for Retirement" and "Action on Occupational Pensions".

  For example, the new Pensions Regulator will be able to issue a code of practice aimed at protecting the interests of members of schemes wishing to take advantage of the GMP conversion measure. Also, the Pensions Advisory Service and the Pensions Ombudsman will be able to consider any complaints that members have as a result of any change.

  Nothing in these proposals forces schemes to change and we appreciate that many of them may not wish to do so. We are simply offering schemes the option to design their benefits more flexibly across the piece in this way, while protecting the value of members' accrued rights. This means we are striking the right balance between making it easier (and more cost effective) for employers to run schemes and safeguarding members' rights.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Fine Enforcement
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs? (Mr. Christopher Leslie)
  Securing a sustained improvement in file enforcement and increasing confidence in the Criminal Justice System are key Government priorities. That is why back in June this year we announced a seven-point plan to secure the level of enforcement improvement required.

  The Department for Constitutional Affairs is taking forward a wide-ranging programme of change to deliver the seven-point plan. As part of this we have undertaken a review of the existing fine enforcement payment rate target to test whether it provides the right focus for those involved in enforcement activity and are now making changes.

  As well as criminal fines properly due, the existing target includes, among other things, civil payments and judicially remitted fines. I have now reviewed it so that the target is to collect a set proportion of fines which are properly due. This will provide a clearer focus for Magistrates' Courts Committees and enable relative performance to be more easily assessed.

  The effect of the revised form of measurement is to change the existing target of 68 per cent. to a value of 75 per cent. Performance data under the "new" measure will first be available from January 2004 and information under both the "old" and the new measure will be available for at least the remainder of 2003–04. Performance in areas no longer captured by the payment rate target will be monitored and managed separately.

  Implementation of the overall fine enforcement programme will in time enable targets to be set at higher levels.

TREASURY

  Stamp Duty Land Tax
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly)
  I am pleased to announce the next steps in the process of modernising stamp duty on land transactions. These include:A significant change to the proposed charge on the rental element when a new lease is granted ("lease duty"), reducing tax bills by £1500 per lease on commercial transactions (£600 per lease on residential transactions), which will be of significant benefit to smaller businesses
  A new relief for businesses raising finance through the sale and leaseback of their land and buildings and relief for "chain-breaking" and similar companies which help to ensure an active housing market
  Further consultation on how the new regime might apply to partnerships.

  The announcement follows extensive consultation on the process throughout the earlier part of this year.

  These proposals along with those announced in Budget 2003, will help to achieve the Government's aim of a modern, efficient, system of taxing land transactions which promotes fairness between taxpayers, reduces
  28WS
  distortions and prevents avoidance. I am also pleased that our proposals, which follow extensive and valuable consultation with interested parties, will be of particular help to small and medium-sized enterprises and business start-ups.

  The Inland Revenue is today publishing a news release, supplemented by a technical note, giving details of the proposed changes. I will be laying regulations to give effect to the changes before the House shortly. The Inland Revenue is also publishing for consultation draft clauses on the Stamp Duty Land tax treatment of partnership transactions.

  The Government's proposals on lease duty follow extensive consultation over the last 18 months. I am extremely grateful to all who participated in the consultation process. A good deal of valuable information and data was provided by participants and some important work was done in partnership. Throughout the consultation process the Government has been particularly keen to have regard to the effect of any new structure on small and medium-sized enterprises and business start-ups.

  Having considered all the contributions made I now propose to modify the structure contained in the Finance Act 2003, by way of regulations under section 112 of that Act, as follows:
  The Finance Act charges Stamp Duty Land Tax on the "Net Present Value" ("NPV") of rent payable under a lease. NPV sums the discounted values of the rents. This discount recognises that future rent payments will be of less value. The Government believe that NPV represents a fair way of assessing the amount on which Stamp Duty Land Tax should be charged and proposes to retain it.
  The Finance Act sets a threshold of £150,000 for commercial leases, and £60,000 for residential leases. If the NPV does not exceed the threshold no Stamp Duty Land Tax is charged on the rental element. These thresholds mean that 60 per cent. of commercial leases and 90 per cent. of residential leases will pay no Stamp Duty Land Tax on the rental element. The Government believe these thresholds are fair and intend to retain them
  The Finance Act provides that once the threshold is exceeded Stamp Duty Land Tax is charged at 1 per cent. of the full amount of the NPV. The Government propose to modify this so that Stamp Duty Land Tax is charged at 1 per cent. of the excess over the threshold. This means that on any commercial lease chargeable to Stamp Duty Land Tax the tax payable will be £1,500 less than under the Finance Act provisions.

  EXAMPLE
  A lease for 18 years at an annual rent of £15,000 will have an NPV of £197,845. Under the Finance Act provisions Stamp Duty Land Tax of £1,978 would be payable. Under the Government's proposals only £478 will be payable.

  I also propose to clarify the Stamp Duty Land Tax treatment of leases with uncertain rents, so as to avoid an undue compliance burden on tenants, and to provide that rent increases more than five years after the start of a lease are ignored.

  I also propose (by way of regulations made under section 109 of the Finance Act 2003) to widen the reliefs in sections 58 and 59 of that Act to include companies who help to ensure an active housing market, by "chain-breaking" (buying property when a prospective sale falls through) and by buying houses from the personal representatives of people who have died. I also propose

  29WS
  to give relief for sale and lease-back transactions (where a company raises finance by selling a property for a capital sum and leasing it back at an annual rent).

  In his Budget statement my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that certain transactions involving partnerships would remain within the existing stamp duty regime until at least 2004 to give time for further consultation. These are: transactions between a partnership and an incoming partner, changes in partnership interests and transactions between a partnership and a departing partner.
  30WS
  The Inland Revenue is today publishing draft clauses which bring these transactions, so far as they involve dealings in land, within the scope of Stamp Duty Land Tax. As with the Government's other proposals the aim is to give fairness between taxpayers, reduce distortions and prevent avoidance.

  My officials will be meeting interested parties to discuss these proposals but would welcome comments from others. The Government's intention is that the clauses will be included in the Finance Bill 2004 and will take effect from the date of royal assent to that Bill 2004.

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

The Lord Bishop of Liverpool
James Stuart, Lord Bishop of Liverpool—Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of Oxford and the Lord Bishop of Sheffield.

Public Finances
2.40 p.m.
Lord Northbrook Lord Northbrook asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they expect a deterioration in the public finances compared to Budget estimates.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Mclntosh of Haringey): My Lords, on the basis of cautious assumptions audited by the independent National Audit Office, the public finances are sound and the Government are on track to meet their firm fiscal rules over the economic cycle. An interim forecast update for the public finances will be published as usual in the Pre-Budget Report.
Lord Northbrook: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his usual informative reply. As Treasury forecasts are about 15 per cent below independent forecasts for 2003–04 and no less than 30 per cent below forecasts for 2004–05, does he believe that Treasury forecasts are hopelessly optimistic? Does he agree with the Institute for Fiscal Studies that at some stage in the near future taxes will have to be increased by about £11 billion to return to the previous caution about the Chancellor meeting the golden rule?
Lord Mclntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I apologise if my answer was informative. It was certainly not intended to say anything other than is in the public domain already. I shall respond to the speculations of the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, when we debate the Pre-Budget Report.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, perhaps the Minister would accept a plain English version of what is happening in public finances. Is it true that every day this year the Government have spent twice as much money as has come in by way of tax receipts? Is that the reason why the Chancellor has quadrupled his borrowing forecast from £30 billion to £120 billion and why he is now on his borrowing limit? Is that also the
1262
reason why the Treasury is now planning new taxes on car owners and home owners to fill the black hole that has been created in the public finances?
Lord Mclntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as ever the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, is eternally ingenious in finding new statistical ways to express the same speculation, but it is still speculation. He knows as well as I do that the accusations about new taxes on home ownership and on car ownership have only this morning been authoritatively denied by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. In due course, he will have a response to the rest of his speculation when we have the Pre-Budget Report.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, while recognising that the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, will believe almost anything, could my noble friend comment on the fact that the Office for National Statistics has beer revising its forecasts on actual facts and economic growth? Can we believe anything that the Office for National Statistics tells us?
Lord Mclntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the changes in the estimates of GDP growth from the Office for National Statistics result from the adoption, only this year I am sorry to say, of an instruction from the European Commission about chain-linking, which was issued in September 1998. Other European countries have already adopted that chain-linking method, which is better because it takes a longer measurement period for the estimation of GDP growth. In every other way, and indeed in this way, the Office for National Statistics has a very high reputation among international statistical organisations for the accuracy of its figures.
Lord Newby: My Lords, I know the Minister hates speculating on these matters, so perhaps I can ask him a factual question. How much larger would the budget deficit need to become beyond the estimate set out in this year's Budget before the Government break their own golden rule?
Lord Mclntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, is as well informed about the golden rule as I am. He knows that in order to maintain the golden rule we would have to borrow only to invest over the period of the cycle, and, in order to adhere to the sustainable investment rule, we would have to keep our debt below 40 per cent. I repeat what I said in my first Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, we are in no danger of breaking either of our fiscal rules.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, in answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, the Minister said that the international reputation of the Office for National Statistics is very high. That may be true, but certainly its national reputation is not. Of the growth forecasts for the past 12 months, is it not true that 11 of them had to be revised?

1263
If, as the Minister said, the directive from the European Union was in 1998, and it has only now been chain-linked, what will happen with the introduction of HICP? Will we have a similar problem where the statistics cannot believed?
Lord Mclntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords, the Chancellor has made very clear the extent to which the harmonised index of consumer prices will be implemented. It will of course be implemented for the purpose of the rules on which the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee conducts its business, but it will not have an effect on any of the other things on which there has been speculation; notably pensions payments.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, as my noble friend cannot be tempted to speculate about the future, can I invite him to look back over the recent past and to tell us a little about the background against which the Budget estimates will be produced—record periods of low inflation, record periods of low interest rates and an economy that has managed to miss the general decline in productivity that has taken place in many other European economies?
Lord Mclntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in the well-worn phrase, my noble friend is absolutely right. I have had the opportunity to stand at this Dispatch Box for nearly six and a half years listening to accusations about the economy and to forecasts of disaster for the economy—notably from the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Front Benches—all of which have proved to be unfounded.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, does the noble Lord acknowledge that this Government came into office upon the foundation of the extremely well managed economic policy of their predecessors? The noble Lord has been very anxious to describe everyone else's comments as speculative and he rests huge confidence on those of the Treasury. Would he bear in mind that the Treasury's forecasts sometimes turn out to be even more speculative than other people's?
Lord Mclntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I can partly agree with that. Certainly, it is true that the economy of this country has performed well in comparison with other G7 states, not just for six and a half years, but for approximately 10 years. Credit for that must be given to more than one administration. I do not accept the rest of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, said even from his great experience. In fact Treasury forecasts—which were particularly unreliable in the last years of the Conservative government, even when they were doing rather well—have proved to be exceptionally reliable and have outshone those of independent assessors.

Bullying at Work
2.49 p.m.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made on strategies to eradicate bullying at work.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, the Government believe that employees should be able to work without fear of being bullied or harassed by employers, fellow employees or anyone else. The Government very much welcome and support awareness raising initiatives in this area, such as the Ban Bullying Day that took place last Thursday, organised by Amicus and supported by the Andrea Adams Trust, a charity chaired by my noble friend Lady Gibson of Market Rasen, which is doing vitally important work in this area. We note that the Post Office, Rolls-Royce and many other large organisations took part in the day.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, I thank noble friend for that reply. Is he aware that since we debated the Dignity at Work Bill in your Lordships' House in November 2001, increasing numbers of employers and employees have been working together to ensure that bullying is eradicated from their workplaces?
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, my noble friend is right. A number of important initiatives are now under way to stop bullying at work. The Department of Trade and Industry is considering a proposal under the Partnership At Work Fund for a nationwide survey of bullying at work. The Health and Safety Executive is developing stress management standards, one of which will relate to bullying. The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service is active, but ultimately the Government can make only a contribution in the fight against bullying. That is why we so much welcome working with unions, companies and others to achieve the goal of reducing the enormous problem of workplace bullying.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, is the Minister aware that no fewer than 20,000 phone calls complaining about bullying are made each year to Childline? Does the Government's strategy include research on the extent to which children who are bullies at school continue their unacceptable behaviour into the workforce? If, as we would expect, the resulting numbers are significant, what further action do the Government intend to take within the school system to eradicate bullying there? Would that not be an effective way to nip workplace bullying in the bud?
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, the noble Baroness is absolutely correct to say that bullying in schools is as widespread as bullying at work. In both areas, it is a huge problem that we must aggressively

1265
attack—if that is not interpreted as bullying language. We are doing much in schools. Every school must have a written policy on tackling bullying. Ofsted inspectors are giving priority to talking to children about bullying when they inspect schools. Heads and governors will be encouraged to adopt an anti-bullying charter to help them review what they are doing.
The noble Baroness asked an interesting question about the crossover from bullying in schools to bullying in the workplace. I do not know whether there are any figures. If there are, I shall certainly send them to her, but common sense would say that if one bullies at school and gets away with it, the chances are that one will take those anti-social habits into the workplace. So my guess would be that there would be a high correlation between children who bully at school and those who bully at work—and perhaps even between children who are bullied at school and those who are bullied in the workplace.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, given that we would all entirely accept the need to protect children, does the Minister not feel that there is a marginal difference between the protection of children, and our obligation to do so, and the protection of adults in the workplace? Even if it is possible—which I doubt—does he really think it desirable that Ministers and the Government should take on the responsibility of controlling workplace relationships?
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, the first point is that children are vulnerable and therefore must have the maximum protection. We would all agree with that. My view, and that of the Government, is that, as I said, the Government can make only a contribution: this is not a problem that we can solve on our own. But we must do everything that we can to encourage the absolute defeat of bullying in the workplace. As I said, the Government will work with any initiative or organisation to help us to achieve that.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the case in which a man and a woman brought the same complaint against someone who was bullying them? They were forced to do so under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. The man lost and the woman won. Does he agree that we need more specific legislation rather than using other legislation to deal with the issue?
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, it is difficult for me to comment on individual cases. I noticed that in last Friday's newspapers, two cases of bullying at work were reported in two different newspapers. At present, the Government's view is that legislation will not work to defeat bullying in the workplace—probably, almost certainly, for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. It is
1266
such a complex issue; it needs delicate handling; we feel that the law would be a blunt instrument to solve the problem.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that shop workers suffer abuse and violence in their place of work from the shopping public? That is a form of bullying; how is it treated?
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: Yes, my Lords, that is a form of bullying. Last week, I visited a hospital and was appalled to see reception staff wearing bullet-proof jackets. The whole question of violence and bullying in the public and private sectors is something to which we must give constant attention.

GM Crop Trials
2.56 p.m.
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs would be prepared to use her discretion to allow a trial of genetically modified crops to go ahead without publication of the exact location of the trial.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, decisions on proposed GM crop trials in England are made on a case-by-case basis. Accordingly, the level of detail at which we require trial site locations to be notified and published would depend on what was considered to be proportionate in terms of safety and the need for transparency in each case. To date, we have required such locations to be notified and published at a level no less specific than 1 square kilometre on an Ordnance Survey map.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, is not the Minister concerned that Bayer, for example, and now Monsanto, are withdrawing from field trials—Bayer, in particular, because it cannot guarantee that the trials will be completed? Would it not be sensible for those six-figure digits not to be placed on the web? It is right that they should be known, but to allow people to come to trash trials blocks those trials. Is he not fearful for the future development of crops in seed production?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I of course condemn anyone who uses that information to trash trials which, as has been shown in the case of farm-scale trials, yield valuable information for making future decisions. However, an issue of transparency is also involved, both locally and nationally. The body that makes recommendations to the Secretary of State on the matter, the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, advised that although the location was not needed for safety reasons it would be important for reasons of transparency. The Secretary of State

1267
accepted that recommendation. Regrettably, Bayer felt that it could not proceed as a result of that decision.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, does the Minister accept that it is important for farmers whose land surrounds crop trial areas—and, indeed, beekeepers, who may be keeping their bees within 2 or 3 kilometres; or, reputedly, up to 16 kilometres of a trial site—to have access to that information, so that they know what is happening to their livelihoods?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, without necessarily accepting the distances to which the noble Baroness refers, it is of course important that neighbouring farmers know what is being grown close to them, whatever the size of the trials. That is one reason why the committee and the Secretary of State felt that we needed to divulge that information.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, my noble friend rightly mentioned the need for transparency, but does he accept that farmers who participate in the trials or, for example, in the Krebs trials on bovine TB, are doing a great service by providing proper scientific data under which case-by-case decisions can be taken? In those circumstances, do they not deserve some protection—if not by hiding the trial sites, at least by adequate police protection against illegal action by people who only want to trash, not to achieve scientific results?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I accept that those conducting such trials are providing a service and deserve protection. It is important that the police and the courts take those duties seriously.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is it not apparent that the trashing is by people purporting to belong to non-governmental organisations such as Greenpeace? Further to the previous question, are they not using bullying tactics, and should they not be persuaded to be effective through argument and scientific proof rather than by ruining other people's crops?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it has been the Government's stance throughout that organisations objecting to the commercialisation of GM crops should allow the trials to proceed in order that we get information. It is ironic that, when some of the information that emerged appeared to go their way, organisations seized on the trials as important, whereas a few months ago they had been involved in trashing the crops or disparaging the trials.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, perhaps I may press the Minister further. If the original decision by ACRE was that the location of the trials should be known, is the Minister not concerned that we will export our ability to carry out the research needed to bring greater benefit to crops in the long term? At their trial, people
1268
accused of trashing were found not guilty. As a consequence, there is nothing to stop such people; they are not technically breaking the law. If that is so, should not ACRE reconsider the decision that it took all those years ago?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the decision was not taken all those years ago; the recommendation is quite recent. We have been consistent throughout. Given that there is such concern about GM crops, it is important that the Government act in a straightforward, consistent and transparent manner. It is also important that property is not damaged, and that the criminal justice system and the police take seriously any threat to it. The information from such trials—whether farm-scale trials or smaller scale seed trials—benefits future decisions on the commercialisation of such products.

Agricultural Land: Development Policy
3.2 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's
Government:
What changes there have been in their policy concerning alternative uses of prime agricultural land and whether new instructions have been given to government inspectors holding inquiries.
The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker): My Lords, in March 2001, the Government amended planning policy guidance note 7 on the countryside, making clear that it was for local planning authorities in the first instance to decide whether to utilise the best and most versatile agricultural land for development. That policy is retained in the recently issued consultation draft of the new planning policy statement 7 but is also subject to a separate review of best and most versatile agricultural land policy conducted by Defra.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am not entirely grateful for those rather weasel words. Is the noble Lord aware that underlying the Question is the real concern and unhappiness of the inhabitants of the Somerset village of East Coker at the prospect of being devoured by Yeovil? They are also concerned at the reported inclusion of a parcel of prime agricultural land not covered by the inquiry, but included after the inquiry was complete.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, with respect, I thought that I gave a perfectly reasonable and factual Answer to what was a reasonable Question, and I do not consider them weasel words at all. There is a planning policy guidance note; we have not changed the rules; it was published in March 2001; it is currently under review and consultation until 12th December; and another government department is looking at the issue of the best and most versatile land policy. I should have thought that that was straightforward.

1269
Further to the issue that has motivated the noble Lord, I could hide behind the weasel words of saying that I cannot comment on individual cases because an inspector has looked at the case and made a decision. Given that the case is currently with South Somerset District Council and may come to the Secretary of State at the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, I cannot comment on it.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I am glad that the Minister reinforced the fact that local planning authorities should make those decisions. I am sure that he will agree that they are best placed to make the fine-balanced, difficult decisions between building on flood plains to gain houses required as a result of fortunate employment following the growth of Westland, and the issue of prime agricultural land. How much prime agricultural land has been lost to development over the past decade?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I regret that I cannot answer the last question. The local inspectors who conduct inquiries are expected to follow national guidance, so there is consistency across the country. We are looking at sustainable development. In some cases, the inspectors may allow a slightly larger development than would otherwise have been the case to make it sustainable for the future.
On land use, it is interesting to note on page 43 of the Sustainable Communities Plan, which was published in February, an interesting map showing that, in England, national parks constitute 7 per cent of the land, areas of outstanding natural beauty 16 per cent, statutory green belts 13 per cent and urban areas 10 per cent. Even if the extra 1.1 million homes planned in the South East by 2016 are built, they will increase development there by only 1.7 per cent. One can see that a huge amount of agricultural land is available in this country. It adds up to 46 per cent of the land.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, with reference to the Sustainable Communities Plan and the number of homes expected to be built, particularly in the South East, can the Minister reassure us that normal planning protocols will be followed as regards those developments? Can he further assure us that, if a local authority were not minded to accept those developments, the planning process would be subject to appeal, and, if the local planning inspector decided that they should be refused, the Deputy Prime Minister would not override the decision?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, we made it abundantly clear when we published the plan for sustainable communities, particularly the four major growth areas in the wider South East—I say the wider South East as the Milton Keynes/South Midlands growth area goes as far as Corby—that normal procedures would be followed and we would not shortcut the system. We were not saying that the developments would be built.
There is the process through the regional planning guidance and of looking at the figures accepted on a regional basis in RPG9. All cases will be subject to the
1270
normal planning process. True, some delivery vehicles will be constructed—either urban regeneration companies or urban development corporations and other matters led by English Partnerships. But we do not intend to bypass the normal planning process, in which there is full consultation, discussion and scrutiny of the plans, many of which will take place in the early part of next year.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, the noble Lord has used the phrase "sustainable communities" several times. Can he assure us that the planning surveys include water supplies, particularly considering that this year has been the driest since 1972, and that drought is likely to be a rule rather than an exception in future?
Lord Rooker: Yes, my Lords. However, I cannot understand why we have not had hosepipe bans. I keep asking why, and I am told that we have had some wet winters. The noble Countess's point is valid. But the Select Committee in the other place did not do its homework properly when it looked into the Sustainable Communities Plan—I have said that outside and I shall say it here. The water companies and the Environment Agency were involved and consulted before the Sustainable Communities Plan was even published. We know that there are problems to be overcome. They are part of the process of managed growth; otherwise, we will have unmanaged growth. The purpose of the Sustainable Communities Plan is to get a grip on managing growth.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, have the Government given any recent advice to the inspectors and planning authorities about the development of wind farms? Those awful monstrosities seem to be springing up all over the United Kingdom countryside. In the long-term consideration of the landscape of this country, we should be much more careful in what we do.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, that is an energy matter, although I accept that there is also a planning aspect to the question that would be dealt with by part of another department. Those who do not want fossil fuel generation must accept non-fossil generation which causes no pollution to the atmosphere—which could be wind farms, waves or even nuclear energy. People cannot have it both ways. When people in this country put the light switch on in 20 or so years' time, they expect the lights to go on, but they will not if we make the wrong decision now, and our generation will rightly get the blame.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in south-west Scotland, where I have an interest in the hills and uplands, when farmers have applied to put up windmills, the main objection comes from the Ministry of Defence? Many farmers cannot understand why

1271
low-flying aircraft have trouble in negotiating windmills when the aircraft are fast and manoeuvrable and the windmills are stationary.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, that is true. I could reply that I do not answer for Scotland and do not intend to, but there is a problem with radar being near wind farms on the coast. I understand that certain areas near the coast have been designated as suitable for wind farms and agreed with the MoD. That was not the case in previous years and there may be some old planning applications and planning permissions still around. The matter has been dealt with, by and large, but it is true that we cannot use all the coastline because of interference with radar.

Business
Lord Grocott: My Lords, at a convenient time after 3.30 p.m., with the leave of the House, the Leader of the House will repeat a Statement on the European Council.

Privileges
3.12p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, for his service on this committee. The noble Lord has been a member of the Privileges Committee continuously since 1977, which makes him easily the longest-serving member of any Select Committee and is probably a record.
Moved, That the Lord Roper be appointed a member of the Select Committee in the place of the Lord Wigoder.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Steel of Aikwood whispered to me a moment or two ago that I should consider myself fortunate that after my name on the Order Paper there did not appear in brackets the word "deceased". I thank the noble Lord for his comments. My principal regret is that I leave the committee just as I was beginning to get the hang of what was going on.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill
3.13p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
1272
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Warner.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the
Chair.]
Clause 49 [Annual reviews]:
[Amendment No. 281A not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 282:
Page 17, leave out line 37.
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 341, 347 and 360. I make no apology for returning to the issue of star ratings. We see in Clause 49 that, in each financial year, CHAI will have to conduct a review of the provision of healthcare by and for each English NHS body and each cross-border strategic health authority and must award a performance rating to each such body.
There is, to my mind, a distinction to be made between performance indicators and star ratings. I have no objection to a hospital being measured against a range of performance indicators. That is often a useful exercise for management in driving up standards across the board. When the process gets corrupted, however, is in the translation of those indicators into crude star ratings. Under the system devised by the Government, star ratings determine a great deal. A three-star rating is currently a prerequisite for a hospital if it wants to apply for foundation status. More generally, it is the goal towards which the management of a hospital strives in order to win the prizes distributed by the Secretary of State under the banner of so-called earned autonomy. But there are wider dimensions as well. Whether a hospital gets three stars, two stars, one star or none can affect the whole range of its activities; chief among which is the ability to recruit and retain good staff. There is no doubt that star status directly affects morale, and it is inevitably the measure by which that hospital is perceived by its patients and the wider public.
Given that so much depends on it, the one thing that we should look for in a star rating system is for it to be a true and fair indicator of performance. Yet that notion was completely blown apart by the report of the Audit Commission earlier this year. The report showed that, in very many instances, a hospital's star status had almost no bearing at all on how good a hospital it was from the point of view of patient care. That is partly because of unreliable data collection; and partly because star ratings are much more to do with internal processes than with the things that most of us would associate with good care and treatment.
Managerial competence is hardly reflected in the figures at all. Indeed, in a revealing section of its report, the Audit Commission states:
"There is a statistically significant relationship between performance and managerial adequacy. The number of DH stars awarded is only weakly related to either".
That is the nub of my objection to the current system. One well-known example of zero star status is the Bath Royal United Hospitals NHS Trust, yet the respected health management consultants, Dr Foster, goes out of its way to praise that hospital as excellent in the treatment it delivers to patients.
Equally, a high star rating need not necessarily indicate good care. That is because the target indicators can often be selective. For example, waiting times for outpatient appointments relate only to the first appointment and not to subsequent ones, although there are twice as many follow-up appointments as first appointments. Similarly, with cancelled operations, only those operations cancelled on the day are counted in the figures, not operations cancelled on the few days preceding that.
The following shows how blunt an instrument a star rating is. One specialist acute trust was rated by the Audit Commission as very good on achieving NHS Plan targets and on most measures of financial and performance management. Another acute trust performed poorly on NHS Plan targets and was rated poor managerially, including significant financial management failings and no signs of imminent improvement. Yet both those hospitals achieved a two-star rating from the Department of Health. The Audit Commission found that, on average, three-star trusts were likely to achieve only 69 per cent of NHS Plan targets compared with 66 per cent in two-star trusts—3 per cent separating two-star and three-star ratings. That small difference hardly seems enough to warrant the very favourable treatment that three-star trusts receive and two-star trusts miss out on.
Star ratings ought to be abolished and I therefore do not think CHAI should be required to award them every year. They are profoundly misleading; and their knock-on effects, whether good or bad, are unwarranted. Exactly the same argument applies to CSCI and the star ratings of local authorities that it is required to award under Clause 77. For the same reasons, those ratings are also unrepresentative and misleading. If we must have targets, the language of performance of those targets should be devised by CHAI and CSCI themselves. It should be a linguistic rating, not a crude numerical one. The Minister will need to do an exceptional job in defending this element of the Bill if he is to start convincing me that these provisions have a value. I do not believe that he can do that. I beg to move.
The Chairman of Committees: If this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 282A.
Baroness Barker: I rise to support the noble Earl, Lord Howe, on Amendment No. 282 and to speak to Amendment No. 284.
Earlier this year, not long before the House rose for the recess, I spent several hours in the A&E department of a large hospital. It was perhaps one of the most informative experiences I have had and has informed me extremely well for our debates on this Bill. At seven o'clock in the morning, when the newspaper shop opened, 1 went to buy a copy of the
1274
Guardian, as one would, and saw that the A&E department that I was visiting had achieved a low star rating. I was profoundly glad that I did not have the job of telling the people in that department, in the middle of their twelve and a half hour shift, that they were not doing a good job. That is one of the reasons why my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones and I are happy to put our names to Amendment No. 284. The current star performance rating takes precious little cognisance of what patients, other users and clinicians actually feel. It is a management, target-driven process.
I live in an area where people can go to one of two hospitals, both of which offer some of the same services. Given my age group, I know people who will sing the praises of the gynaecology and maternity unit at one of the hospitals but not set foot in the other. Others hold an entirely different opinion. I am not sure how they have reached their conclusions although I am sure that they have good reasons. There is perhaps one main reason why these amendments should be accepted and it relates to the provision of specialist services. I have taken part in various debates in your Lordships' House on specialist services, particularly neurological services. Many neurological patients say that locating good services simply by means of word-of-mouth recommendation is one of the most difficult tasks that they face.
Hospital star ratings do not meaningfully reflect that information. Star ratings by themselves are a crude target. Like the noble Earl, I should like to see the back of them. If they are allowed to continue, they should be the product of consultation with those who really know how hospitals work or do not work and what is wrong with them. I am therefore very pleased to attach our names to Amendment No. 284.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I should like very briefly to support as warmly as I can the amendment which was moved in such reasonable terms by my noble friend. I have just one question to ask. Who will actually award the performance rating of each body on behalf of CHAI and what training will they have for dispensing what amounts to a very serious measure of power in this instance? We have to be very careful about giving the power provided in this clause to people who have not had very meticulous training. I hope that the noble Lord will at least take the matter seriously. If he does not, I hope that my noble friend will return to it on Report.
Lord Turnberg: I must admit to sharing some of the concerns behind Amendment No. 282. I share the concern about the reliability of the star system, which I, too, believe is rather a blunt instrument for assessing the abilities and facilities to deliver care for patients. I fear that the correlation between stars and what patients want may not be anywhere near exact. However, I think that there is a need for some form of performance rating. After all, what is CHAI about if it does not try to assess how care is provided in those hospitals? I should like to see not star ratings, but a performance rating that takes a much broader and

1275
much more sensitive look at how care is delivered. I am not sure that removing the phrase "award a performance rating" will change anything. I think that one can change the star system without removing that phrase.
Baroness Cumberlege: I should very much like to support what the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, has just said. I know that it is very difficult for the Government to reverse once they have gone down a particular line. In this instance, however, is there not a case for trying to get back into the National Health Service some real confidence in the present system? Perhaps we will have to change the words and reinvent the assessment. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, and my noble friend Lord Peyton rightly asked, who is going to do it? Nevertheless, the present system lacks such credibility. There is so much cynicism about it, not necessarily so much among members of the public who I do not think quite understand all the nuances, but certainly among members of staff who are being judged by the system and think it unfair.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: As I had ministerial responsibility for performance rating I am overwhelmed by the level of support that noble Lords have shown for both the concept and the practice. I hope that the Committee will excuse me if I rise to defend performance rating, but I do not recognise some of the complaints that noble Lords have made this afternoon.
There is a huge variation in performance between individual organisations within the National Health Service. For far too long, for years, those organisations were allowed to carry on as they were without any external pressure at all on how they were performing. I do not pretend, as I did not when we debated this matter on Thursday, that the current performance ratings are 100 per cent perfect. Of course I recognise that it is very difficult to create an accurate performance measurement which goes across the whole of the work in each individual NHS organisation. However, I think that the key targets and the range of benchmark figures that will inform those targets provide a pretty fair reflection of how well the organisation is doing.
I have been to NHS trusts that received a poor rating and to NHS trusts that received a three-star rating. I have been struck by the positive attitude that many people have taken towards the ratings. There was real pride in the organisations that achieved a three-star rating and a determination to do better in those that did not do so well. Surely that is the attitude that we want to engender in the health service, an attitude in which everyone is committed to improving overall performance.
I understand some of the concerns that have been expressed, but surely we should allow Sir Ian Kennedy and CHAI to take on board those concerns and to come up with new proposals. Sir Ian has already indicated that he wishes to make changes and we should welcome that. Please, however, let us not leave
1276
the concept that it is right to rate NHS organisations and to provide the public and staff with an indication of those that are doing well and those that are doing not so well. After nearly 50 years in which the public have had very little opportunity to assess their own local hospital, we now have such an opportunity. We should show our confidence that this is the right way to go forward in the future.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I am sure that we have all listened to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, with interest. He knows why the rating system was invented in this way and he knows how he considers it to be working. But the Audit Commission disagrees with him. It is fairly devastated about how it is working. My noble friend's Amendment No. 282A does not suggest that the rating system should be done away with; it suggests that there should be rating, but that it should be in a form to be determined by CHAI.
A difference of 3 per cent between a three-star and two-star rating, with all its implications, must be shocking to the people who work in the hospitals and shocking to the locality and to patients. It is very unnerving. It clearly is too blunt an instrument. The Government should accept that it needs sharpening up very much.
My mind turns to Which? magazine and how the Consumers' Association tackles assessing comparatively simple products, such as motor cars. It looks at endless categories. Within each category, a great many ratings are considered—even for a motor car—before reaching a conclusion. I bought a car that was top of the pops in its range and it goes beautifully. The Consumers' Association did rather well on that, but it was subdivided into a great number of elements.
If the CHAI is to operate the system successfully and, above all, fairly, in a way satisfying to the public and to patients, it must make it much more complicated and subdivided than it is at present. The Government should not turn the amendment down flat. Amendment No. 282A is an extremely good one. I hope that the Government will accept it, or something very like it.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Warner: The noble Baroness spoke about Which? reports. I am old enough to remember that when they were first produced, there was outrage from many providers of goods and services. I am not sure that that is a particularly good experience of which to remind people. Perhaps it is a remarkably similar position to now.
My noble friend Lord Hunt eloquently reminisced about his experiences in this area. I suspect that after I finish speaking, I shall join him in the dock as I make the case for not accepting the amendments. Let me be clear at the outset: we are unapologetic about targets, as such. We are not claiming that all the targets have been perfect. We are not claiming that the present system is perfect. But targets have helped to cut waiting lists for patients. They have increased the number of coronary heart disease operations from

1277
41,000 to 56,000 between 2000 and 2003. They have taken us to a point where 97 per cent of patients with breast cancer are treated within 31 days of diagnosis. They have reduced delayed discharge of patients from 7,000 to 4,000 between 2001 and 2003. That is just a sample of big improvements for patients.
I am not saying that that is just the result of targets, but targets and ratings concentrate people's minds. They change the focus in many areas where there have been considerable concerns about performance on the part of patients and, in many cases, on the part of many NHS staff. Performance ratings also help to hold people to account. It is worth bearing in mind that we have listened to some concerns about the number of targets. We know that they can cause concerns, not just to managers, but to clinical staff too. The Government have made great strides to address the concerns.
Through the priorities and planning framework for 2003 to 2006, we have set out in a single document a much more streamlined and focused set of targets—62 in total—for the whole of the NHS and social care for the next three years. Before Members of the Committee say that that is still over the top, let us put it in context. It is fewer than one target for every £1 billion of planned expenditure in health and social care over the next three years. I suggest that that is not out of proportion, given the huge sums of public money being developed for patients' concerns.
Performance ratings are only one of the criteria for applying for foundation trust status. We have not made them the be-all and end-all of the application for that status. They also provide an important means of informing the public about how their local NHS hospitals are performing. It is worth bearing in mind that under the present system, for example, the star ratings system published by the Commission for Health Improvement in July 2003 had 10 indicators with a clinical focus, which included outcome indicators such as death rates and emergency readmissions. It is of interest to the public to know how many emergency readmissions there are after discharge. That tells us something about performance in local areas.
It is no good just sweeping the system away as a totally irrelevant system in terms of telling local communities about the performance of their particular hospitals. We have always acknowledged that the system is not perfect, but it is improving and will continue to improve. We certainly have every confidence that, under the leadership of Sir Ian Kennedy, CHAI will make—it has committed itself to make—a proper analysis of the system so that it can propose changes which more adequately meet some of the concerns expressed by the noble Earl and other Members of the Committee.
We must bear in mind that we have come a long way quite quickly. Therefore, it is not surprising that some improvements can be made. However, we must not deny that the targets and performance rating system have brought real improvements for the users of the health service. Amendment No. 282, which would
1278
remove the obligation on CHAI to issue performance ratings after its annual reviews, is not appropriate. That would deny the public information about the performance of their local trust.
Amendment No. 282A allows CHAI the freedom to determine the form of performance ratings. Of course it is up to CHAI, as the independent commission, to determine expressly how the performance ratings will look and feel. That has always been our intention. We expect CHAI to do that. We know that it is thinking about changes that it would like to see, but that is covered already by existing wording. The amendment is unnecessary.
Amendment No. 341 would remove the obligation on CSCI to issue performance ratings after its annual review of local authorities. The star rating process has now been in place for some time, operated by the Social Services Inspectorate. To our knowledge, few local authorities have raised concerns about it. The majority of local authorities have seen the process as helpful in determining what they need to do to improve their services—whether three star councils or councils with lower ratings.
Performance ratings are an important means for CSCI to inform service users and the public at large about how local authorities are performing in the provision of social care. Another key consequence of removing the power for CSCI to award a star rating, as the SSI does now, is that it would not be possible to complete the annual comprehensive performance assessment process of all local authority services. That would make it difficult to judge which local authorities deserve freedoms to build on good or excellent performance.
I would not expect the Audit Commission to be thrilled about sweeping away star rating systems in relation to CSCI. Amendment No. 347 would prevent CSCI using the lowest level of rating as a measure of poor performance for advising the Secretary of State of the action to be taken to improve such services. That is an important means by which decisions can be taken to improve the quality of local services.
Amendment No. 360 would remove the power of the Welsh Assembly to award performance ratings as a result of an inspection. That would significantly weaken the framework for review and inspection of social services in Wales and would mean less robust arrangements in Wales than in England. That would be unacceptable to people in Wales.
So, as I have outlined, we think there are good grounds for keeping the present system in place while allowing, as the Bill provides, CHAI to make improvements following the process of thought and consultation that it will be undertaking.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am sorry to detain the Minister once again. I thought that I had asked him what kind of people are to make these assessments on behalf of CHAI and what form of training they will be given. Before we give people powers of this kind, I think that we ought to be satisfied that they will be properly equipped to use them. While I do not want to

1279
go into all the arguments, there is an increasing army of people in this country whose role is to check up on other people working in sharp-end jobs. Only a limited number of people in the health service are capable of making anyone better at what they do, and it is doubtful how many of those would be included in the ranks of CHAI; indeed, it would be a waste of their time if they were.
I return to the question I asked the Minister earlier. If he does not answer it, rather than simply responding in accordance with his official brief stating "reject", he ought at least to leave it open until the Report stage and offer to reflect on it. The summary advice headed "reject" mutilates argument and does not do anything to convince Members on this side of the Committee that the noble Lord is really taking seriously what is being said.
Lord Warner: I reject the noble Lord's last comment. On a number of occasions I have offered to take matters away and to consider amendments in regard to particular issues.
The noble Lord must have the arguments on his side. As regards the present arrangements, we have the Social Services Inspectorate, whose representatives are well trained. They have not been criticised on any lack of training or on how they carry out the inspections which will be used to form the basis of the future CSCI ratings. There will be transfers of staff there.
The Commission for Health Improvement undertakes the star rating system, based to a great extent on information provided by NHS trusts themselves. That work is undertaken by well trained and knowledgeable staff who will be transferring to CHAI. It will then be for Sir Ian Kennedy and his colleagues to decide, as an independent body—noble Lords have made great play of its independent status—what further training may be required. It is not for the Secretary of State to lay down the skills and competencies required by this independent body.
Baroness Barker: May I ask the Minister to give his response to Amendment No. 284?
Lord Warner: Amendment No. 284 seeks to specify those groups that CHAI must consult in determining criteria for determining the award of performance ratings. I certainly do not agree that we need to specify which groups, if any, CHAI, as an independent body, may wish to consult in developing its performance rating methodology. Clearly, CHAI will wish to engage patient representatives and those experts, clinical or otherwise, that it feels will be appropriate in developing such review criteria, but we do not think it would be proper for us to place in the Bill a duty on it to do so.
Again, I come back to the point that noble Lords cannot have it all ways. If an independent body is being set up and people are concerned about its independence, it is right and proper that that body
1280
should be given a degree of freedom of manoeuvre in how it consults. We must trust it to do that in a sensible way.
Earl Howe: This has been a useful debate and I hope that the Minister will want to reflect on the concerns expressed by my noble friends Lady Cumberlege, Lady Carnegy and Lord Peyton, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and, from the Minister's own Benches, by the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that there are variations in the performance of NHS bodies and that those variations do need to be identified, and I agree with the Minister in what he had to say in that regard. I have no difficulty with the concept of performance indicators; it is the star rating system which is too much of a blunt instrument. What I sought to suggest in Amendment No. 282A—to which I am not sure whether I said I was speaking, although I hope the Committee will realise that I was doing so— is that performance ratings should be formulated by CHAI itself in a more sophisticated way than is the case at the moment, and that perhaps a linguistic form of rating would achieve the kind of sensitivity described by the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that we want to motivate staff, but you simply will not do that if those members of staff have no confidence in the way that their star rating was arrived at. The trouble is that the targets on which star ratings depend are, in many cases, artificial. I mentioned targets for out-patient appointments and cancelled operations. Another is waiting times in A&E, because the performance is assessed on the basis of a snapshot in a particular week. In-patient waiting times targets take no account of clinical urgency and so are unrelated to what really matters. A huge management effort is put into chasing such targets and that effort could, I believe, be better used.
My noble friend Lady Carnegy said that star ratings could learn some lessons from car ratings, and I think she has a point. By no means do I want to sweep the whole system away, but it does need to be refined and I hope very much that Sir Ian Kennedy will be allowed complete freedom to devise systems in which everyone has confidence and which really do indicate the variations that exist in the health service. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 282A not moved.]
Lord Grocott: I beg to move that the House do now resume for the Statement.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
3.47 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos):
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"I should like to make a Statement about the European Council which the Prime Minister and I attended in Brussels on 16th and 17th October. I saw the Prime Minister earlier this afternoon and am pleased to be able to report that he is fine and has totally recovered.
"EU Heads of State and Government had their first substantive discussion of the draft constitutional treaty, focusing on the size of the Commission, the role of the Chair of the European Council, changes in the rotating presidency and the weighting of votes after enlargement. The Prime Minister set out the United Kingdom's position in the terms of our White Paper published on 9th September.
"The Council discussed the European economy and agreed a number of measures to encourage growth. I have placed a copy of the conclusions in the Library. These stress the EU's commitment to structural reform, flexibility of capital and labour markets, and innovation and investment in research and development.
"But between now and the Spring Council on European Reform work needs to begin to reform European competition policy, to make the new system of regulatory assessment work effectively, and to take forward the ideas of the recent report by a leading Belgian economist, Professor André Sapir, on how the EU budget can be focused on economic reform priorities. The reform agenda remains a high priority for the Government. We are working closely with the Irish Government who, as EU Presidency, will chair the economic summit in the spring.
"The European Council discussed defence at a Heads of State and Government dinner. The EU has mounted two ESDP military operations this year, both of them with UK contributions. In March, an EU-led military mission took over from NATO in the stabilisation role in Macedonia. And in June the EU deployed troops to the DRC to support UN activities there. Both operations followed the approach agreed by the Prime Minister and President Chirac in launching the European Security and Defence Policy initiative at St Malo in 1998, that the EU will act militarily only,
"where the Alliance as a whole is not engaged".
"In Macedonia, NATO has decided to terminate its mission and to support an EU successor force through the Berlin Plus arrangements. In the case of the DRC, the EU decided to deploy a force after consultation with NATO and once it was clear that NATO did not intend to engage militarily in the Congo.
1282
"It makes sense for EU nations to strengthen Europe's contribution to the alliance and to enable Europe to act in circumstances where NATO does not want to. What would not however make sense and is unacceptable to us would be for the EU unrealistically to aspire to provide a territorial defence commitment. That remains for NATO. Three years ago in Nice, the European Council recognised that, in approving the permanent arrangements for ESDP,
"NATO remains the basis of the collective defence of its members".
"The Government believe in a strong Europe and a strong NATO. Our leading role in European security and defence policy has been based on these twin commitments. They are widely shared across the enlarging European Union and the Atlantic alliance. They will be at the heart of the development of European security and defence policy in the Intergovernmental Conference and beyond.
"Let me now turn to Iraq. The European Council welcomed the unanimous adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 1511 on Iraq on 16th October. Its successful passage by 15 votes to nil reflects weeks of intensive negotiations and is also a testament to the tireless work of the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell.
"The resolution sets a deadline of 15th December by which the Iraqi interim governing council should provide a timeline and programme leading to an Iraqi constitution and democratic elections. We want to give control of Iraq back to its people as soon as possible and practicable. Iraqi Ministers are already heavily involved in much of the day-to-day business of the country.
"The resolution confirms the central role of the UN and encourages UN member states and international bodies to support the reconstruction of Iraq. The next step will be the Madrid donors' conference at the end of this week. There the UK will pledge a further £300 million assistance over two years. Together with money already committed this will bring the UK assistance for the three years from April 2003 to £550 million. This is on top of the contribution we are making through our commitment of British troops.
"The security situation, especially in the Baghdad area, is not satisfactory. But since Saddam Hussein's downfall the coalition has made huge efforts to rebuild the infrastructure of Iraq. Power generation is now exceeding pre-war averages. Last week, oil production reached 2 million barrels per day for the first time since military operations ceased. Nearly all schools and hospitals are open. Iraq has a new currency. Banks have reopened and businesses are coming to life. Security sector reform remains a key focus for the coalition. The challenge is to put Iraqis in charge. Iraq now has 40,000 police, and this number will rise to 70,000 within a year. The first battalions of the new Iraqi army have graduated. Training for additional Iraqi military continues and there is now an independent judiciary. The Prime Minister asked particularly that I emphasise his

1283
personal tribute to the UK servicemen and women, other UK personnel and other coalition partners who are working selflessly in difficult and dangerous circumstances for the good of the Iraqi people. Much still needs to be done. But much is being achieved.
"The European Council also discussed Iran and again urged the Iranian Government to co-operate fully with the International Atomic Energy Agency. Resolving the doubts surrounding Iran's nuclear programme is of grave concern to the EU and to the wider international community. Immediately after this Statement, I will be travelling to Tehran to join my French and German colleagues for talks on the issue at the invitation of the Iranian Government. We will be pressing on the Iranians the urgent need for compliance with all of the requirements of the resolution passed last month by the board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency. That means we shall be seeking full co-operation and transparency to enable the agency to resolve outstanding questions and pressing the Iranians on key issues raised by the resolution. These include the early signature, ratification and implementation of an additional protocol to Iran's existing safeguards agreement and the suspension of all enrichment and reprocessing activities.
"The European Council considered the worsening situation in the Middle East, condemning the intensification of suicide attacks and other violence, in particular the attack that killed three US citizens in the Gaza Strip on 15th October. The European Union called again on the Palestinian Authority to do all it could to fight against extremist violence. It also expressed particular concern over the route of the so-called "security fence". Apart from the humanitarian and economic hardship this is already bringing to many Palestinians, this project could make the two state solution impossible to implement.
"We shall work hard to achieve a successful outcome of the Intergovernmental Conference under the Italian presidency this year. We are very grateful to the leadership of the Italian Government in this negotiation.
"The draft constitutional treaty is designed to improve the way the European Union works after enlargement by reform, clarification and consolidation. The claims made by the Opposition and others that this treaty would undermine Britain's independence are absurd. These are, in truth, arguments not against the draft treaty but against British membership of the European Union. Their logic would be to take Britain out of the European Union altogether.
"The European constitutional treaty has got to be one based on independent sovereign nation states co-operating together, not some federal superstate—and so it will be. A constitutional treaty embodying these principles will contribute to a strong and successful European Union. That is essential for our economic prosperity, our security
1284
and for Europe's stability. We believe that this patriotic approach is in the interests of this country and I recommend this approach to the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.57 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. The House, of course, will be united in wishing the Prime Minister a rapid return to complete full health. I am very happy to hear that that is indeed the situation. I combine what I suspect are your Lordships' feelings with friendly advice, such as that offered with amazing prescience last week by my noble friend Lord Hurd in a newspaper article: that in future it probably will be wise for the Prime Minister to go a little slower in his activities, carrying, as he does, enormous burdens.
We applaud some aspects of the Council's conclusions, such as its robust views on addressing the unending Palestine tragedy; the combined approach to the Iranian nuclear programme, which the noble Baroness described; and the latest UN resolution on Iraq, which is welcome.
Despite the desperate security situation in some parts of Iraq—which our troops are handling with their customary skill and superb qualities and bravery—I agree that clearly there has been progress. However, not many of the advances—for example, the fact that oil production is now back to 2 million barrels per day; the currency reform; the new investment and so on—get reported. We welcome the progress that has been made and hope that the donors' conference in Madrid next weekend will be successful. We acknowledge that the £550 million already committed by the United Kingdom is a good start, as is the 1.5 billion US dollars now committed by Japan and a number of other commitments. It is a start and a move in the right direction.
However, we are far less impressed by the communiqué and the Statement, which contain endless paragraphs and presidential conclusions full of tired "Oldspeak" references to "relaunching Europe", "growth initiatives", government plans for somehow magically producing jobs, and even to that old chestnut "industrial policy". I thought we had seen the last of that kind of thing. The drafters of the communiqués and conclusions do not seem to realise what the public long ago grasped—that nowadays the most effective and innovative economic and social change comes not from more central government plans and initiatives but from outside central government. It comes from market competition and deregulation; in the social case, it comes from non-governmental organisations, from the private sector, from voluntary groups and even from the media.
It is a pity, too, that the summiteers did not pay more attention to the robust rubbishing given to all this kind of thinking by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr Gordon Brown. He said in last Thursday's Wall Street Journal,
"the policies of trade bloc Europe are not just out of date but counterproductive".

1285
He added that Europe,
"must conclusively rule out tax harmonisation"
and,
"resolve that tax competition is the basis on which Europe can compete".
I presume that can only mean that he would like to see lower taxes. Of course, he does not practise what he preaches in that respect, but that is a debate for another time. But at least he is speaking along the right lines.
We are, frankly, left mystified by the twists and turns of government policy on defence and security, although the noble Baroness sought, in the Statement, to explain the position. What exactly have we agreed to? Last week, the US Ambassador to NATO, Nicholas Burns, described the EU plans as,
"one of the greatest dangers to the trans-atlantic relationship".
The Americans—and my friends confirm this—tell me they believe they are being kept in the dark. We need some more illumination about what is happening. Are we falling in with the increasingly explicit French and German plans, just confirmed in the German Ministry document, for a European army with its own command structure, or are we not? The Prime Minister, of course, assured President Bush a few weeks back that there would be a joint command between EU forces and NATO. Is that still the policy or have we shifted? How does that fit in with Monsieur de Villepin's recent lecture to us about,
"expanding German and French ambitions"
to use his slightly chilling phrase.
Thirdly, we come to the constitution plans, which the noble Baroness mentioned. What do the Government say to the Italian Government's proposal to table a "take it or leave it" document on the constitution next month? Have we been consulted on this procedure, or will we just be caught by surprise again, as often seems to happen?
As for the nature of the draft constitution, how can Ministers say with a straight face that the constitution will not fundamentally change the European Union or our relations with the rest of the Union, when it places the new constitution above our own, when most of Europe's leaders describe it as an absolutely major constitutional change—amended or not—and when at least six other countries are having referendums on it? Is it any wonder that the Prime Minister's closest advisers are now said to be cautioning that the Government's dogmatic rejection of a referendum here is an untenable position?
Constitutions are supposed to be about checks and balances to prevent too much central power and the tyranny of the majority. Are we going to inject any of our national experience on these matters into the draft, which is at present devoid of all such considerations? If so, when are we going to speak up?
Finally, this country used to be seen in central and eastern Europe—I am referring to the enlargement development—as the champion of the smaller states. Did we, this past weekend, stick up for them and their deep worries about not having commissioners in
1286
Brussels, about a centralising presidency or about anti-Americanism in Paris and Berlin? Or did we just side with the big powers against the small? It would be nice to think that our country was on the side of democracy and a more equal kind of Europe—in fact, a better Europe. But in the presidency conclusions, and in today's Statement, there is no sign of that at all, and I wonder why.
4.4 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, we on these Benches also extend our best wishes to the Prime Minister after the unfortunate incident yesterday and hope that he will be fully recovered.
We welcome the Statement. I note that the conclusions had a good deal more on the Lisbon agenda and the growth initiative than is provided in the Statement. If I may make a marginal correction to the Statement, the recent report of the Sapir group was by not only leading Belgian economists but a multinational group of experts, including a British expert, Professor Helen Wallace, whom I know moderately well.
The growth initiative talks about trans-European networks and their funding. The Belgian, Luxembourg and French Governments were particularly concerned that these should be in the centre of Europe. Could the Government assure us that they are pushing hard for funding for transport initiatives to be in the peripheral areas where possible, particularly in the new states, and not across the Alps and between Brussels and Strasbourg, as has been suggested?
Can the Minister tell us a little more about what is planned on the research expenditure of a major element of European knowledge in the Lisbon agenda? May I ask, for future reference but not now, that, at some point in the near future, the Government will come to the House and tell us what is happening among higher education institutions in what is known as the Bologna process? I note that communiqués from Ministers of higher education, all part of the Lisbon agenda, have not, to my knowledge, yet been reported in any way to this House.
I am happy that the better regulation initiative is being extended from Britain to the European level, and I hope the Government are pushing that very thoroughly.
There is very little mention of the border management issues, as covered in the presidency conclusions. They make a reference to a border management agency, with maritime and air components. Do Her Majesty's Government intend to take part in that, particularly given that the presidency conclusions say that the outline of this border management agency is due to be agreed in principle before December's European Council?
Much of the Statement covers defence. We welcome the Government's insistence on a European pillar in NATO, but are puzzled by the extent to which Her Majesty's Government appear to have been giving incoherent messages to their different partners over the past few weeks.

1287
We were strongly in favour of the St Malo initiative of 1998, and I am glad to see that the Government are back on track. Some of us remember that 40 years ago or more, John F. Kennedy talked about a European pillar within NATO, and it seems to us that that is the direction in which we should be moving. There has always been deep American ambivalence about what that European pillar should be. Yet again, each time the Europeans move in that direction, Americans question whether we will be as loyal as we should be.
We are puzzled by the depth of the Government's opposition to the inclusion of a territorial defence commitment in the constitutional treaty. We lived fairly happily with the Western European Union treaty and its strong territorial defence commitment among European states for many years. It is inconceivable that there should be an attack on any member of the European Union without all members of the European Union, whether in NATO or not, being engaged. Perhaps we are being over-loyal and theologically purist about NATO in resisting that.
We welcome the emergence of EU forces in eastern Congo and Macedonia. I know that there have been some discussions about the use of peacekeeping forces in Moldova and whether the force in Bosnia will transfer from NATO to the EU.
Finally, there is a certain amount in the Statement on the constitutional treaty. We on these Benches welcome progress towards the constitutional treaty; we do not intend to discuss it in depth here, beyond hoping that the Standing Committee, which will be meeting at 5 o'clock, will attract a large attendance from your Lordships' House. We welcome the fact that the Foreign Secretary will be there. Discussions should be actively pursued over the next few weeks and months in that forum.
4.10 p.m.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, first I thank both noble Lords for their comments about the Prime Minister. He has now recovered. However, I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that it would be a very brave person indeed who advised my right honourable friend the Prime Minister to go a little slower. Perhaps I shall send him a copy of Hansard rather than raise the matter with him myself.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, asked specifically about tax. Our position remains as set out in the White Paper, which was published by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary in September. Paragraph 66, on page 32, makes it absolutely clear that,
"we will insist that unanimity remain for Treaty change; and in other key areas of vital national interest such as tax, social security … key areas of criminal procedural law",
and so on. Our position remains exactly as set out in the White Paper.

Both noble Lords asked me a number of questions in relation to defence. After the Brussels summit, our position on European defence is the same as it was before. I should like to quote the Prime Minister in Brussels on Friday, when he said:
1288
"We need of course strong European defence, but nothing whatever must put at risk our essential defence guarantees within NATO".
That remains the position.
In response to a question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, we have said that collective or territorial defence is for NATO, and that remains our strong position. We see European defence being on a basis fully compatible with the NATO agreement. In our view, European defence has no future as a competitor to NATO.
In relation to the constitutional questions, particularly the question of a referendum, let me repeat what has already been said in this House. Under our constitutional arrangements, Parliament makes the law. In certain circumstances, Parliament has decided that particular laws should come into operation only after a referendum has been held. In practice, they have been held only where there is a wholly new constitutional structure proposed, and not otherwise. Referendums have been held in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, so that the people there could decide whether they wanted a parliament or assembly. Only one UK-wide referendum has ever been held—in 1975, when the question was whether the UK should stay in or withdraw from the European Union. The Government are committed to holding a referendum on the euro. The position on referendums remains the same. A number of European countries have come to a different decision, but that is in line with their own constitutional arrangements.

The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, asked specific questions about funding for transport arrangements and research expenditure on higher education institutions. I hope that the noble Lord will allow me to write to him on those points. I shall put a copy of the letter in the Library of the House.
The answer that I have on Moldova does not answer the noble Lord's point. My brief states that the European Union reiterates its continued support for the OFC efforts for a comprehensive political settlement in Moldova, but it does not go to the heart of the points that the noble Lord raised. If I can find further information about that, I will be happy to write to the noble Lord. I should add that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary will unfortunately not be attending today's Standing Committee, as he will be on his way to Teheran, but he will try to attend all other sittings.
4.14 p.m.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, while I welcome the Statement that she has repeated, the Statement is vastly preferable to the presidency conclusions, which we have had more chance to read? Does she accept that many Members of this House, having read the presidency conclusions, will agree with the extremely critical comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Howell? In future, perhaps they should wait until after a Council meeting before writing presidency conclusions. Occasionally, instead

1289
of continuing to repeat the promises of the past, they should give an evaluation of how far they have gone in achieving some of those things.
I should like to ask a specific question arising from the presidency conclusions, under the heading "Iraq". Paragraph 63 refers to the conference to be held on 24th October in Madrid and how the European Union "will announce a pledge" of 200 million euros. Does my noble friend agree that that represents a somewhat obscure sense of priorities, when one contrasts that paltry figure with the 1 billion euros that is the annual subsidy in the European budget for tobacco manufacturing?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, my noble friend's proposal that we wait to write presidency conclusions until after the meeting is a somewhat novel one. It would have our officials and others in the international community somewhat concerned, but I shall pass it on.
With respect to the issue of Iraq and the 200 million euros that will be pledged by the EU later this week, individual European member states will also be pledging in relation to that. The decision was taken by the Commission on behalf of European Union countries.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for the Statement from another place that she has repeated. On the defence issues that she raised, will she confirm that the relationship between the European Union and NATO continues to be based on an agreement reached last December, known as the Berlin Plus agreement? Will she also confirm that nothing that has been said or proposed within the European Union involves going outside, cutting across or undermining that agreement? In those circumstances, some of the excitement leaked to the press by the representatives of the US Administration seems a little premature, to put it mildly, and is not likely to produce the best reaction from the European side.

Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, I entirely support the view that territorial defence should not be included in the treaty. This country has never given a territorial guarantee to anyone who is not a member of NATO. The arrangements under the Western European Union were limited to countries that were also members of NATO. To go outside that would be a big innovation, and one that I would not welcome. If one considers the implications of giving a territorial guarantee to Cyprus, for example, one immediately understands why it is not a wise course.
Will the noble Baroness confirm, on the size of the Commission, that the most important issue is the number of portfolios rather than the number of members of the Commission? If the number of members is to meet the concerns of smaller member states and is going to start on a rising trend again— which I, personally, would deplore—it is crucial that the Commission is not subdivided into little penny
1290
packages of portfolios so that members are quite unable to represent the views of the European Union when it is their responsibility to do so.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. Berlin Plus remains the agreement governing the EU/NATO strategic partnership and is at the core of the EU/NATO relationship.
I agree with the noble Lord, too, on territorial defence. I repeat that the Government's view is that collective or territorial defence is for NATO.
The issue of the size of the Commission is still under discussion as part of the process. 1 take the noble Lord's point about the number of portfolios. One issue for which we argued strongly in the context of the IGC was the placing of development in the Commission. Those discussions will continue.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, can the noble Baroness the Leader of the House help me? Why do the Government continue to say that the logic of those who say that the draft treaty would undermine our independence involves taking Britain out of the EU? Is that not entirely illogical because the new constitution cannot come into effect without the agreement of all? If we object, the constitution will not come into effect but the EU will continue, as will our membership. So it is absolute rubbish to talk about the logic being that we shall leave the EU if we object to the constitution or any part of it.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord. One of the reasons that these new constitutional arrangements are coming into effect is because the EU is expanding to some 25 members so there is a process of simplifying and pulling together the rules of the European Union to make it easier for 25 members to operate in a situation where currently only 15 operate. One of the reasons it is so important that that is done by unanimity is to ensure that those issues that are important for individual member states are kept outside these proposals so that they are contained within the treaty arrangements that already exist.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, will the noble Baroness robustly reject any implication that the convention produced a constitution which favoured large nations over small nations, and note that the Spanish Government, who have raised some objections, recently said that the Nice settlement was not cast in stone? Will she note also that a number of small member states, or states to be members after May, have, subsequent to the publication of the draft treaty, held referenda which massively supported adhesion to the European Union in the full knowledge of the terms of the draft treaty? Will she also accept that reduction in the size of the Commission is no more against the interests of small countries than it is against the interests of large countries? It enhances the

1291
efficiency and, indeed, the accountability of that executive body which in any event is supposed to be independent of national representation.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right that the convention process seeks to ensure that those countries that will join the Union next year as well as existing members of the Union are able collectively to discuss these issues. Part of its purpose is to ensure that small and large nations can make decisions on the future shape of the European Union. I entirely agree with the noble Lord that the effectiveness, efficiency and accountability of the Commission are very important indeed. That is one of the reasons that we feel strongly that this exercise of seeking to simplify and make more straightforward the various treaties of the Union is so important.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords—
Lord Campbell of Alloway:: My Lords—
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, we have plenty of time. I suggest that we hear the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and then other noble Lords.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, first, I remind the noble Baroness the Leader of the House that in 1975 the country voted to remain in a common market. The European Union did not come into being until after the Maastricht Treaty had been signed. That is an important point. Secondly, will the noble Baroness confirm whether under the defence arrangements there will be a European army which will support a European foreign policy? I hope that she can clear that up. Thirdly, can the noble Baroness say why the Government have now agreed to a number of items which they would not agree to, or said were not relevant, following the Treaty of Nice? I refer to the semi-permanent president of Europe, the European Charter of Fundamental Rights—which they assured us would not be contained within any treaty and which is now to be contained in the new treaty—a legal personality, which we were assured would not be agreed to, and a European Union foreign minister. The latter will obviously be a powerful post which will give membership not only of the Council but also of the Commission, making that position extremely powerful, and probably greater than that of any of the Prime Minister.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, on the question of the charter, we support a clear statement of the rights, freedoms and principles that EU institutions should respect. The noble Lord is quite right that we supported the European Charter of Fundamental Rights at Nice three years ago but we did so as a political declaration; it was not clear enough for legal use. We shall make a final decision on incorporation of the charter into the draft constitutional treaty only in the light of the overall picture at the IGC. Therefore, that decision has not been taken with respect to incorporation.
1292
With regard to defence, we consider that the discussions on ESDP were extremely valuable. We welcome the proposals to develop a capabilities agency to update the Petersberg tasks and to create a solidarity clause. With respect to all of the ESDP proposals, those matters are still under discussion. The noble Lord will be aware that, for example, the force that went into the DRC was a French-led force with other European countries contributing to that force. There was no European standing army as such.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, this side, I think. Thank you.
Does the noble Baroness agree that one of the priorities in considering this draft constitution is to deal with the ritual plunder of the financial resources of the EU, as it is, and to get to the root of these fraudulent practices which have been going on and on? If the noble Baroness agrees with me, was that discussed and, if so, what was said about it?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am not aware of that particular issue having been discussed over the weekend. However, the noble Lord will be aware that for many years there has been a reform agenda within the Commission not only looking at issues of financial probity but also seeking to improve the overall effectiveness and efficiency of the Commission.
Noble Lords: This side!
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, as regards counting sides, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, for whom I have great respect, is not now on our side. But be that as it may, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, referred to the referendum of 1975. It was the only referendum on Europe that we have had but it was not about the European Union. We should have had a referendum on the European Union that came into being after the signing of the Maastricht Treaty. Were not the party opposite in power at the time of the Maastricht Treaty? Therefore, is it not a bit much for them to get on their moral high horse and say that it is absolutely essential to have a referendum now?
Would it not be much better if noble Lords on all sides of the House were clear on the Government's main negotiating lines in the intergovernmental conference? I have not heard any of them being unpicked. However, we do not hear from all sides of the House that this country is united behind a great deal of the Government's negotiating position on the intergovernmental conference which we want to see succeed, not least because of the need to make provision for enlargement.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. The single European Act and Maastricht involved changes in the operation of the EU greater than any likely to flow from the IGC. We need to repeat that point, so that people understand the processes. He is right that we need to ensure that the realities of such changes are understood.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, when the Government say that claims by the Opposition and others that the treaty would undermine Britain's independence are absurd, surely it is that statement that is absurd. In the Giscard proposals, we are looking at a new and superior legal personality that means that national parliaments will be able to make laws in virtually every area of our national life only when Brussels cannot be bothered. That is what the exclusive and shared competence is saying, is it not?
The noble Baroness refuses yet again to give the British people a referendum on whatever constitution emerges from the IGC. I think that she said that under our constitution Parliament makes the law. Does she agree that the real position is that the British people have given Parliament—the House of Commons and this place—the power to make their laws and to take their decisions for them, except the power to give that power away?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord may wish to look historically at the situation regarding international and national law. It is an established principle of international law that a state may not plead its national law to escape its international law obligations, including its treaty obligations. The UK has given effect to the principle of the primacy of Community law through the European Communities Act 1972. That is not recent and not new.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, the Statement that the noble Baroness was kind enough to repeat to us stated that the Government would work hard to achieve a successful outcome of the inter-governmental conference under the Italian presidency this year. That reflects the wording in the presidency conclusions, where the Council,
"recalled its support for the approach and timetable put forward by the Presidency in line with the conclusions of the European Council meeting in Thessaloniki".
In light of the facts that there are probably less than 10 weeks to go, that the Italian presidency appears to be quite relaxed at the prospect of the treaty being signed some time in the new year—at least before April 2004, which is the absolute deadline—and that the Italian Government do not seem too concerned about the treaty being signed in Rome during their presidency, will the noble Baroness assure us that, in the IGC, Her Majesty's Government will be on the side of the angels and opt for getting it right rather than done early?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord is right that it is anticipated that we will conclude at the end of this year. However, I assure him that we want to get everything right. The IGC should complete its work and agree the constitutional treaty, to allow it to be signed by the member states of the enlarged Union as soon as possible after 1st May 2004 and in time for the June 2004 elections for the European Parliament.

Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill
4.34 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 49.
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 283:
Page 17, line 38, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to the other amendments in the group tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Howe. The amendments concern the setting of criteria for use in reviews or investigations by CHAI and CSCI.
Amendment No. 283 deals with Clause 49 and deletes subsection (2) on a probing basis. The amendment has two distinct purposes. The first is to challenge yet again the involvement of the Secretary of State for Health, this time in the approval of criteria devised by CHAI. Under Clause 45, the Secretary of State will be setting standards against which CHAI will have to evaluate NHS bodies and award a performance rating. My noble friend Lord Howe has already explained to the Committee our profound misgivings about that. But why does the Secretary of State also have to approve the criteria that CHAI will use? Can CHAI not be trusted to do anything without the Secretary of State? That is the substantive challenge of the amendment.
My second purpose is to probe the meaning of criteria and the arrangements for devising and publishing criteria. Will the Minister explain what criteria actually are? Are they any different from targets? In what way will the new arrangements make a difference to an NHS which has been overburdened by targets, as my noble friend has said? I am sceptical about words such as criteria. They are elastic and can have many meanings. My dictionary says that criterion means a,
"principle or standard by which something can be judged".
However, it is clear that criteria are not standards, because they are dealt with elsewhere in the Bill. So what are they? I hope that the Minister can explain.
Amendments Nos. 313, 314 and 315 are directed at Clause 59. Amendment No. 314 puts a small word— "not"—into Clause 59(4) so that the regulations may not require CHAI to get the approval of the Secretary of State or the Assembly for criteria that it will set under Clause 59. There is no good reason for the Secretary of State to consent to criteria under Clause 59, just as there was no good reason for him to approve them under Clause 49, as I have just said. Indeed, I challenge the Minister to give one good reason why the Secretary of State should have those powers.
Amendment No. 313 is a simple requirement for CHAI to consult on the content of any statement of criteria. It does not specify the consultees—it leaves that to CHAI—but it requires consultation. We think it important that the NHS move from the command-and-control era of the Government to one where consultation is the order of the day. Amendment No. 313 is therefore a symbol of that important change.
Amendment No. 315 requires the affirmative procedure to be used for any regulations under Clause 59. That clause gives significant power to the Secretary of State to tell CHAI what to do. If we allow that impaired independence to remain in the Bill, it is right and proper for Parliament to approve the regulations that are made.
I have directed my comments at CHAI. Amendments Nos. 342, 355 and 356 attack the same issues for CSCI, which is similarly subject to excessive Secretary of State involvement. I beg to move.
Baroness Barker: I shall briefly speak to the amendments in the group to which our names are attached. In doing so I wish to echo, but not to repeat at great length, the arguments put forward so ably by the noble Baroness.
We have argued throughout our consideration of the Bill that the functions of CHAI and CSCI are the output of a health and social care system that can achieve what it is supposed to do, in preventive, rehabilitative and acute terms, only if it is widely understood and supported by health and social care agencies in their broadest sense, and not only in the narrow sense. Therefore we also think that others than the Secretary of State should be taking part in the direction of that. I do not see why he or she should have the ultimate approval of these bodies, which will be so important in the provision of strategic information and data. I support the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, in her amendments.
Lord Warner: I shall try to help the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, by saying at the outset that we regard criteria as means of measuring standards. My comments will be in that context.
The two commissions themselves will be fully responsible for drawing up the inspection methodologies and criteria, as is right and proper for such independent organisations. However, we want to ensure that the criteria against which the NHS and local authorities are being assessed are consistent with the national standards set by the Secretary of State so that they are fair to the bodies that are being inspected and so that there is no confusion.
We have had several discussions about standards, and I have tried to explain on several occasions why we believe that it is for the Secretary of State to set national standards under Clause 49.I shall not repeat those arguments. Effectively, Amendment No. 283 would prevent the outcome that I have suggested we are trying to achieve; that is, to ensure that having done much work on the criteria, the Secretary of State can satisfy himself that the criteria are consistent with measuring the standards that rightly he will have produced. It is probably worth repeating that which has been said on several occasions. On both the issue of the Secretary of State producing national standards and producing draft criteria by CHAI and CSCI, there will be a consultation process in which draft criteria—
1296
draft standards—are put in the public arena for a process of widespread consultation with a whole variety of particular interests.
There will be no question of that being done in a hole in the corner manner. The proper order for that to be done is for the Secretary of State to make the standards clear, and it will be difficult for CHAI to produce criteria without knowing the national standards. CHAI will produce criteria for measuring them in that context of draft national standards. That is its primary responsibility. All that the Secretary of State will do is ensure that we do not have confusion by having criteria agreed with the best of intentions, but which are nevertheless not compatible with the measurement of the particular national standards that are agreed and settled by the Secretary of State.
If Amendment No. 311 were carried, it would not be possible to require CHAI to publish statements of the criteria it will use. That could lead to a lack of transparency in the way in which CHAI exercises its functions.
Amendment No. 314 seeks to remove the Secretary of State's power to make regulations requiring CHAI to obtain the consent of the Secretary of State to the criteria it has devised. For the reasons that I have described, we cannot expect the NHS effectively to serve two masters—a set of standards determined by the Secretary of State and a set of criteria which are not compatible with them, and which are agreed by CHAI. We do not expect there to be difficulties in agreeing those criteria, but it is important that we do not cause confusion. Given the importance that patients, the public and the NHS will attach to CHAI's verdicts, satisfying ourselves that CHAI's criteria will be consistent with national standards is important for managers, clinicians and the public.
I agree with the sentiment behind Amendment No. 313. I have said that I have no doubt that CHAI will want to use its expertise to make sure that the criteria it uses in its review and inspection of NHS bodies will be fair and reflective of the needs of patients, and the realities of the world within which healthcare providers operate. We are tabling our own Amendments Nos. 314A and 354A in relation to this clause and the equivalent CSCI clause, enabling regulations to provide for CHAI and CSCI to be obliged to consult specified persons. We think that by requiring CHAI to consult prescribed persons in relation to regulations issued by the Secretary of State or the Assembly, Amendments Nos. 314A and 354A are more complete and I hope that noble Lords will support them.
Amendment No. 315 would place a duty on the Secretary of State to consult such persons as he considers appropriate as well as CHAI before making regulations requiring CHAI to devise and publish statements of criteria to be used in the exercise of specified functions. I am sure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will be considering whether and to what extent it would be appropriate for him to consult persons other than CHAI before making any regulations under this clause. In my view,

1297
it is unnecessary to amend this clause in order to require him to consult, and that would be out of line with the wording of most of the other powers to make secondary legislation in Part 2.I hope that noble Lords will not press Amendments Nos. 312 and 313 in place of those that I have tabled.
Amendments Nos. 315 and 356 seek to ensure that no regulations may be made under Clauses 59 and 83 unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House. Clause 191(4) stipulates that:
"Any power to make … regulations under this Act is exercisable by statutory instrument".
Subsection (5) states that the regulations are,
"subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament".
That has been normal practice in relation to the regulation-making powers in other legislation covering the regulation of health and social care services. So we have continued as in the past. We are not sure that a further amendment along the lines proposed is necessary.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Regarding the question of whether the regulation should be by annulment or by affirmative resolution, the Minister said that previously the regulations involved negative resolution. Will there be much greater powers in the proposed regulations than existed before? The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee looked rather cursorily at that point, and took the point that the Minister made. However, if the new powers are much greater, there may be an argument for my noble friend's suggestion. What is the difference between the powers of the previous body— I cannot remember its name; was it called the CHI?— and those of CHAI?
Lord Warner: The point that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee was making was in other areas, where there has been a widening of scope, we should move from negative to positive. Regarding this matter, my understand of what the committee was saying was that the arguments that I have outlined were largely valid; that there was not such a significant difference in the scope of the powers that it would justify moving from negative to affirmative resolution. That was the only point that I was trying to make.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: From memory, I do not think that the committee—of which I am a member— looked at the difference between the powers. Would the Minister indicate whether the difference is significant? That was my point.
Lord Warner: My judgment is that they are not so significantly different that we would want to move from negative to positive. In other parts of the Bill that we shall discuss, we will acknowledge the force of the arguments put forward by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and make adjustments.
1298
This matter did not seem to us to be one where the range of powers that the commissions have are so significantly different that we should move from negative to positive in this regard.
Baroness Noakes: I thank the Minister for his reply and the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, for her support. My noble friend Lady Carnegy raised an important question on the extent to which the powers were different. Will the Minister reflect on his answer? I do not believe that this part of the Bill repeats powers that already exist. Perhaps we are in virgin territory. I hope that he will take the issue away and look at it again.
I thank the Minister for defining the criteria. At least we have an explanation of them on the record. I shall carefully consider it—it is helpful to have it laid out. However, there is a difference of opinion. The Minister says that the Secretary of State must set the standards and then ensure that CHAI sets the criteria in line with how the Secretary of State believes the standards should be interpreted. Really, the Secretary of State wants to set the whole lot. That is what lies behind the whole of the Bill. The Secretary of State does not trust even the bodies he is claiming are independent and have an important part in the future of the NHS, such as CHAI and CSCI. A complete lack of trust lies behind the way in which the Bill has been drafted.
We take a contrary view. We believe that these bodies should be independent and capable of being trusted to, for instance, turn standards into a means of measuring. We do not believe that the Secretary of State needs to be involved down to the final level. The proposal is indicative of the way in which the Secretary of State will not let these bodies go. There is a fundamental difference between the Government's view and the view of the Conservative Benches and that of the Liberal Democrat Benches as well.
We spoke about consultation. The Minister introduced his own Amendment No. 314A, which requires consultation with specified persons. Our Amendment No. 313 trusted CHAI and proposed that CHAI should consult on the basis of the individuals and groups it believed to be appropriate. Again, the Secretary of State is taking additional powers to tell CHAI exactly what to do. One might ultimately query how much freedom CHAI will have by the time the little regulations here and the little regulations there add up to tying CHAI and CSCI in knots.
We are not content with this part of the Bill. We will read carefully what the Minister has said, but on Report we will return to the involvement of the Secretary of State and the way in which it is manifested in different parts of the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 284 not moved.]
Clause 49 agreed to.
Clause 50 [Reviews: England and Wales]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 285:
Page 18, line 13, leave out "and" and insert "or"
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 285, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 286 and 287. This is a probing amendment. It probably looks fairly innocuous, but its purpose is to test whether the wording in subsection (l)(a) would cover the provision of healthcare by independently run diagnostic and treatment centres.
At present, the subsection reads:
"The CHAI has the function of conducting reviews of—
(a) the overall provision of health care by and for NHS bodies".
My amendment proposes that it should read,
"by or for NHS bodies".
We know that the new fast-track diagnostic and treatment centres will be run for the NHS, but many of them will not be run by the NHS. In fact, they will be run by a range of companies from Britain, Canada, South Africa and the United States.
Already some 20 such treatment centres within the NHS are either operational or are soon to come on stream. There is no problem about the centres coming under the scrutiny of CHAI as they are providing care both by and for NHS bodies. Clearly, the privately run clinics will be in a different category. I hope that the Minister can tell me that the amendment is unnecessary, but it is not at present clear to me that it is. I beg to move.
Lord Warner: I can give the noble Earl the assurance that all types of diagnostic and treatment centres are covered. I shall spare him the note I have on the logic of "by" and "for", but I am happy to write to him if he wants Parliamentary Counsel's advice on the matter.
Earl Howe: I am happy to accept the Minister's assurance on the matter and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 286 to 287 A not moved.]
Clause 50 agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 288:
After Clause 50, insert the following new clause—
"REVIEWS FOR THE REGULATOR

(1) If the regulator so requests, the CHAI must conduct a review of, or investigation into, the provision of any healthcare by or for an NHS foundation trust.

(2) Where the CHAI conducts a review under this section it must submit its report to the regulator who shall decide whether and how the report is published."

The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 288, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 291A and 294. These are simple amendments, but collectively they address an important point. As a general principle, I believe that CHAI ought to be free to decide what work is important for it to carry out within its own priorities. For that reason, I am inherently hostile to the provision in Clause 51 (4), which gives the Secretary of State power to insist that CHAI conducts a particular review of his choosing. The Secretary of State already has control over CHAI's purse strings.
He should not also be given the right to decide how CHAI should spend the limited money it has at its disposal.
If the Government insist that the Secretary of State should be allowed to do this, there is one area he should definitely keep his hands off; that is, foundation trusts. Requiring CHAI to carry out investigation into a foundation trust is for the regulator and not for the Secretary of State. The regulator is meant to be independent and there should not be a power for the Secretary of State to go in over the regulator's head.
By the same token, I suggest in my Amendment No. 288 that there ought to be an explicit power for the regulator to request CHAI to conduct a review or an investigation into a foundation trust and for CHAI to be obliged to do that when asked. The duty of the regulator and CHAI to co-operate does not seem to me sufficient to cater for situations where it may not suit CHAI to devote its resources at a particular time to carrying out an investigation not of its choosing, yet the regulator may perceive that the foundation trust is falling seriously short of performing its functions and want the matter looked at without delay.
At the back of my mind is the fear that with CHAI and the regulator working in parallel, we shall, if we are not careful, see an inefficient build-up of regulatory capacity. It is much better to have clarity on who does what. It should be CHAI's role to investigate and carry out reviews and the regulator's role to act on such reviews. There is a danger that the structures in the Bill will generate too much oversight and we should guard against that. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Warner: I appreciate the intention of Amendment No. 288, but I want to reassure the noble Earl that CHAI already has the function under Clauses 50 and 51. Using such powers, the commission is already empowered to conduct reviews and investigations of the provision of healthcare by and for all NHS bodies. In particular, under Clause 51(4), CHAI must conduct a review of the provision of any healthcare by or for an NHS foundation trust if the Secretary of State so requests. I know that the noble Earl takes objection to this, but subsection (2) of the new clause would place a duty on the regulator rather than on CHAI to decide whether and how any report made by CHAI in relation to foundation trusts was published.
Perhaps I may remind the noble Earl and the Committee that we are establishing CHAI as the health watchdog that the public can trust as the authoritative independent commentator on the quality of NHS healthcare. I find it strange that, having argued passionately to increase CHAI's independence, the amendment seeks to reduce it. We see no reason why the commission should be expected to submit its reports to anyone for either prior clearance or a decision on publication.
Amendments Nos. 291A and 292 would, if carried, remove the Secretary of State's specific power to require CHAI to undertake reviews and investigations

1301
in relation to the provision of healthcare by and for NHS bodies or to review arrangements by those bodies for the purpose of discharging their duty of quality under Clause 44.
Amendment No. 292 would replace the Secretary of State's power to require with a provision expressly empowering CHAI to carry out reviews in response to requests. Amendment No. 291A would simply remove the Secretary of State's power to require without putting anything in its place. We believe it is important that the Secretary of State, who still remains accountable to Parliament for the provision of healthcare in England, has the ability to require CHAI to inspect a specific NHS body or type of service so that issues of interest to the public or Parliament may receive appropriate scrutiny by the inspectorate.
We do not feel that being able to respond in that way impinges on CHAI's independence because, in most cases, CHAI itself will proactively initiate such work into problems that it identifies emerging from its other review work. CHAI may also choose to initiate a review or investigation as a result of information that it receives from patients, healthcare staff or the general public. That, quite rightly, will be for CHAI to determine.
We also do not feel that Amendment No. 292 would add anything useful to CHAI's general powers in the Bill. Nothing in the Bill prevents CHAI carrying out reviews in response to requests from others.
Amendment No. 294 would prevent the Secretary of State requesting that CHAI conduct a review of, or investigation into, the provision of any healthcare by or for an NHS foundation trust or reviews of the arrangements made by those trusts for the purpose of discharging their duties under Clause 44. That clause concerns the duty of quality placed on each NHS body to put and keep in place arrangements for the purpose of monitoring and improving the quality of healthcare that it provides. The duty of quality will therefore apply to foundation trusts, and it is proper for the Secretary of State—again, because of his parliamentary accountability—to be able to request CHAI to undertake such a review or investigation.
We do not believe that anything in the present Bill suggests that CHAI will in any way be dragooned by the Secretary of State into doing things that are inappropriate. However, we consider it important that, in discharging his parliamentary accountability, the Secretary of State can give directions where it is necessary to do so in relation to a particular NHS body.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The noble Lord used a somewhat circular argument. For the sake of clarity, is it the case that CHAI can conduct a review on its own initiative or be told to do so by the Secretary of State but that the regulator cannot do anything about either of those things? Is that correct or have I got it wrong? Is the regulator left out of the process?
Lord Warner: We have had this discussion many times. CHAI is responsible for inspecting all NHS
1302
bodies in terms of their ability to deliver satisfactory, quality healthcare and for assessing their performance. In effect, the regulator is giving a market authorisation for particular trusts to operate with the freedoms that go with an NHS foundation trust. It does not carry the same responsibility other than when there are so many concerns about performance as to call into doubt the legitimacy and validity of that market authorisation. It is not for the regulator to respond to every set of concerns that there may be about the broad range of healthcare provided by a particular trust.
Earl Howe: I am grateful to the Minister, although I am a little disappointed. I believe that the sidelining of the regulator in relation to his responsibilities for foundation trusts is regrettable. That is what the Bill appears to do. It should not be for the Secretary of State to go in over the regulator's head, as I mentioned previously.
As regards the power given in the Bill to the Secretary of State to instruct CHAI to initiate a review, I believe that it is a question of balance. Used sparingly, that power is perfectly reasonable; used regularly, it would not be reasonable. I am somewhat heartened by what the Minister had to say about how he envisaged the power being used and, indeed, the reason for it being in the Bill at all. But it remains to be seen whether his view of matters is borne out by events. I am still uneasy about these provisions but between now and Report I shall read carefully what he said. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 51 [Reviews and investigations: England]:
[Amendments Nos. 289 to 296 not moved.]
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 296A:
Page 19, line 26, leave out "An NHS body must, if regulations so provide," and insert "The Secretary of State may by regulations require an NHS body to"
The noble Lord said: Both government amendments—Amendments Nos. 296A and 297A— are simply clarificatory in nature and have been tabled on the advice of parliamentary counsel to ensure that the current practice of NHS bodies being required to publish action plans in response to reviews and investigations undertaken by the current Commission for Health Improvement continues.
NHS bodies are required to publish an action plan in response to a CHI report and to agree that plan with the relevant primary care trust or strategic health authority. The rationale here is clearly to ensure that the NHS takes action to improve and that the action plan is feasible and affordable. We believe that that approach should continue and so have also taken the opportunity to clarify that other areas in regulations relating to current CHI can be included in future regulations relating to new CHAI. Those include: time limits for preparing statements; copying statements to others; and matters that should be covered in statements. There is no need to make a similar

1303
amendment in relation to CSCI clauses since such arrangements are set out under the comprehensive performance agreement processes. I beg to move.
Baroness Noakes: I thank the Minister for his explanation of Amendments Nos. 296A and 297A. I have tabled Amendment No. 297 in this group. That amendment seeks to delete the mention of regulations from Clause 51(8). We can see no real reason for the regulations. The subsection reads perfectly well without it. It places a positive requirement on an NHS body to publish its action plan following a CHAI report. Again and again, we return to the issue of why the Secretary of State must become involved.
The issue of regulations and statements of action caused some confusion when it was discussed in another place. In fact, the Minister in another place— Mr Lammy—gave two different explanations for the regulation-making power. On 5th June, he said that the regulation-making power related to the rare case of a foundation trust not publishing its response. He said:
"We therefore seek the power to put it right, should it ever become necessary".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee E, 5/6/03; col. 623.]
However, five days later, he said that regulations enable some flexibility to provide more details of how and when a statement of action to be taken will be published and, to that extent, the regulations follow in the normal way. I am not sure that I understand the whole of that sentence, but I believe that the first half says that the regulations concern the issuing of the statement.
The Minister says that the regulations will be about much more than just issuing statements and certainly not just for recalcitrant NHS bodies. Why can that not be left to CHAI and to the NHS bodies themselves? If an NHS body gave no action plan or gave an inappropriate report, surely there are plenty of levers already within CHAI. The case is simply not made for the Secretary of State to get involved at all. The sense behind our amendment applies equally to the amendments moved by the Minister. I hope that he will explain why the Secretary of State must have this power.
Lord Warner: It is simple. I thought I had explained the point in relation to some of our amendments. We believe that to have such a regulation-making power is an important safeguard to ensure accountability of NHS bodies. Where inspections reveal that action needs to be taken, there has always been a concern that there should be a mechanism for ensuring that that action is taken and that there is accountability on the part of the inspected body to take action. We think it is important and it reinforces the work of CHAI to have this regulation-making power so that we can ensure that there is an action plan, that there are courses of action that are feasible and that CHAI reports are not ignored.
Baroness Noakes: I thank the Minister for that reply. Again we have come up against the gulf between
1304
these Benches and those opposite. We believe that CHAI should be set up as an independent body that can be trusted to do things. If CHAI needs more levers to ensure that NHS bodies take the appropriate action, we would be happy to consider such amendments, but we find it difficult to accept the sticky fingers of the Secretary of State being able to delve into the tiniest parts of CHAI's operations. I shall consider carefully what the Minister has said. Doubtless we shall pass his amendments in a moment but, as I said, the sense of Amendment No. 297 also applies to his amendments. I should put him on notice that on Report we are likely to return to the amendments on the revised sections.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 297 not moved.]
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 297A:
Page 19, line 28, at end insert—
"( ) Regulations under subsection (8) may make provision—

(a) as to the matters with which a statement under the regulations must deal;

(b) as to the time by which any such statement must be published;

(c)requiring an NHS body, before publishing any such statement, to obtain the consent of any person specified in the regulations;

(d)requiring the NHS body publishing any such statement to send a copy of it to any person so specified."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 51, as amended, agreed to.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 298:
After Clause 51, insert the following new clause—
"REPRESENTATION TO THE CHAI
A report under sections 50 and 51 which relates to, or identifies, a specific NHS body shall not be made by the CHAI unless a draft of the report has been shown to the NHS body and—

(a)it has confirmed that it does not disagree with the draft report,

(b) it has not responded within a reasonable period of receipt of the draft report, or

(c) it has submitted comments to the CHAI in respect of the draft report and the CHAI has considered those comments."

The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 298 I shall speak also to the other amendments in the group. The amendments concern several aspects of reporting on NHS bodies covered by the Bill. Amendment No. 298 inserts a new clause after Clause 51 and relates to the reports that CHAI issues under Clauses 50 or 51. Many of the reports will be generic and will not always identify individual NHS bodies, but they may. In particular, a report under Clause 51(2)(c) will, by definition, be about an individual body.
I am quite sure that CHAI will carry out its investigations and write its reports with the highest standards of professionalism. Our amendment should not be taken to imply any criticism of CHAI, but it is possible for facts to be wrong or to be misinterpreted. That is why, for example, when the NAO carries out

1305
a value for money investigation it must not publish its report until the factual accuracy of the report has been agreed with the department concerned.
Amendment No. 298 is designed to put a small amount of balance into the process. CHAI must show a draft report to the body and must not issue it unless one of three things occurs: the body agrees; the body does not respond within a reasonable time; or the body responds and CHAI has considered any comments submitted to it. That is all very simple and designed not to impede the process but to improve it.
Amendment No. 301 is even more important because it relates to Clause 52 and a report of failings. Those reports can bring down the wrath of the Secretary of State or the regulator, or both, on the body. It is absolutely vital that the NHS body has an opportunity to state its case. Amendment No. 348 is the equivalent of Amendment No. 301 for CSCI and its reports on local authorities.
Amendment No. 300 probes what is meant by "special measures". The term is used as a possible remedy for failings that are reported under Clause 52. But "special measures" are not defined anywhere in the Bill. They could involve almost anything, but what is a measure and what makes it special? I believe that there should be more certainty about what CHAI could recommend which is why Amendment No. 300 seeks the definition of special measures in the Bill.
I understand that the term "special measures" has a meaning in the local authority context. Even if it has a precise meaning there, it does not make it comprehensible in the NHS world. The Explanatory Notes at paragraph 141 talk about special measures being an extra CHAI inspection or, rather loosely,
"other practical assistance or organisational support".
Are we quite clear that special measures must be confined to those anodyne remedies or can cruel and unusual punishments lurk within the term? I would be grateful for the Minister's views. I beg to move.
Lord Warner: I am slightly puzzled by what the noble Baroness has said. I had believed that we were discussing special measures under Amendment No. 300, which is not in this group.
Baroness Noakes: I beg your pardon. I had expected Amendment No. 300 to be in this group. It is another amendment that has been in and out of groups over the past 48 hours. I shall speak to my amendment again when we come to the group, but more briefly.
Lord Warner: I thank the noble Baroness. I am all in favour of big groupings as the noble Baroness knows. The practical effect of this group of amendments will serve to require CHAI and CSCI to give NHS bodies and local authorities the chance to comment upon the contents of reports before they are published where they have found significant failings. It is right that CHAI and CSCI should discuss the findings generally with healthcare providers and with local authorities prior to the publication of the reports. Indeed that is standard good practice within the current Commission
1306
for Health Improvement and the Social Services Inspectorate, which we fully expect CHAI and CSCI to continue. That makes certain that the trusts and local authorities concerned are able to ensure that the inspectorates make an accurate assessment of the services that they provide. Early sight of the contents of those reports would enable the body concerned to make a start on its action planning, hence bringing about early improvements to the services that it provides.
However, the Committee has to balance that with the fact that we are establishing CHAI and CSCI as authoritative independent inspectorates providing patients and service users with clear assurances about the safety, quality and efficiency of the services that they receive. If the inspectorates did not have the freedom to take action quickly here, that could lead to delay in some cases and to protracted action. Healthcare providers or councils might be in denial— in my experience that has happened—about the quality of their services and it would be difficult to confront the issue. That would not be in the best interests of patients and service users. CHAI and CSCI must, in our view, reserve the right to disagree with the inspected body and to take immediate action where they have the evidence to do so. This group of amendments does not put the service user first and tends to leave providers in the driving seat, possibly to the disadvantage of the user.
I acknowledge that other inspectorates, such as the Chief Inspector of Prisons and Ofsted, give the bodies they inspect sight of reports in advance of publication to give them the chance to correct factual inaccuracies. However, as I understand the position, there is no statutory provision to require those inspectorates to give the bodies they inspect prior sight of their reports before publication. I agree that we should aim for consistency between inspectorates in this respect. I am minded to consider further the principle behind the amendment without necessarily accepting this particular wording.
Baroness Barker: Perhaps the noble Lord will give his views on Amendments Nos. 299 and 308, which are in the group. Amendment No. 299 requires CHAI to report on failing in relation to the provision of guidance issued by the Department of Health. For example, the ombudsman's report earlier this year criticised the department for its failure to give clear guidance on continuing healthcare criteria, which had a very direct effect on NHS and local authority performance in that area. I agree with the noble Lord that the CHAI studies on the strategic nature of health and social care will be highly important. Should they not also include an assessment of the Department of Health and, in particular, the Secretary of State's guidance? That would be a true measure of the independence of the bodies we are setting up. There is a need to have that on the face of the Bill. Perhaps the noble Lord will comment on the issue.
Lord Warner: We have already made it clear that there is nothing to stop CHAI giving advice to the

1307

Secretary of State on anything which it considers is relevant to its function. We have said repeatedly that we do not think that it is right to force CHAI, in effect, to act as a judge of government policy when that is set out in guidance to the NHS. If CHAI has concerns about this—in terms of it causing problems in healthcare delivery—it will be open to CHAI to put its views to the Secretary of State.
Amendment No. 308 would enable CHAI to undertake specific studies in relation to particular statutory provisions or any other direction or guidance issued to the NHS. Presumably the amendment's purpose, as the noble Baroness says, is to hold the Government to account for their health policies.
The amendment is not necessary because Clause 53 already provides powers for CHAI to give advice as it feels fit, either to or at the request of the Secretary of State or, indeed, the Welsh Assembly, on any matter connected with the provision of healthcare.
We do not believe that it is right to set up CHAI as a judge of government policy, and, in a sense, an arbitrator on government policy. Equally, however, the Bill provides for CHAI to give advice to the Secretary of State when it thinks that is appropriate.
Baroness Barker: Will CHAI's advice be publicly available? Will CHAI have a role in advising the Secretary of State on its guidance to local authorities and NHS bodies? Therefore, it will not be a commentary, as such, on government health policy; it will be about how that government health policy is being conveyed to the bodies being judged on their performance in carrying out and implementing that policy, which is a different matter.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: What I am about to say may help the Minister rather than elucidate what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker. Will CHAI be carrying out similar functions to CSCI in terms of the Royal Commission function, which means that it will be gathering information that will reflect on government policy once it is formalised and conceptualised? Presumably, all that information will go into the public arena—and directly into the public arena because there is a responsibility to report directly to Parliament. Will that not clarify this issue?
Lord Warner: The contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, is helpful. Essentially, this comes back to the primary purpose of CHAI and CSCI. Their primary purpose is to inspect the work and performance of health bodies and local authorities on their delivery of social care. Therefore, we are setting up these independent bodies. Their primary purpose is not to second-guess whether government policy is right or wrong. It is the Secretary of State's responsibility to answer to Parliament and to the public on that issue.
Where CHAI or CSCI perceives that a particular piece of advice may be causing specific problems in operational terms in the delivery of healthcare, it is perfectly open to CHAI under the terms of the Bill to
1308
give that advice to the Secretary of State. But it is not its primary purpose. It is worth bearing in mind that much of the guidance issued by the Secretary of State does not simply come out of the blue; it follows a consultative process within NHS interests and local government. So it does not come as a surprise to the health service or local government that they are getting this guidance. We are operating in that context.
Behind these amendments there is a suggestion that somehow these things come as a great surprise and are not thought through and that we need these independent watchdogs to review the Government's policy. That is not the purpose of these two inspectorates. We do not think that the amendment is necessary. We think that what is proposed would divert them from their primary purpose.
Of course the inspectorates will publish their annual reports. If they have given advice to the Secretary of State on a particular issue, no doubt that issue will be covered in their annual report.
Baroness Noakes: I thank the Minister for his response. I think I can paraphrase it to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker: the Secretary of State is above review; it is everyone else that has to be reviewed. I am sure that the matter will come up again at later stages of the Bill.
The Minister talked about CHAI needing to get reports out quickly. My amendment states that the body has to respond within a reasonable time. It was deliberately drafted to recognise that one size would not fit all and that it would be possible to have different timescales. But I think that the principle of involving the body, even if only for 48 hours, is extremely important.
I am grateful to the Minster for saying that he would take away the issue. I look forward to hearing his further deliberations. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 52 [Failings]:
[Amendment No. 299 not moved.]
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 300:
Page 20, line 2, at end insert—
"( ) For the purposes of this Part, "special measures" means one or more actions that are specified in regulations."
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak very briefly to Amendment No. 300, having spoken to it once already. I remind the Minister of my questions. What are measures and what are special measures? Is it possible for cruel and unusual punishments to be imposed on NHS bodies? I beg to move.
Lord Warner: I am sure that Sir Ian Kennedy and his colleagues would not look favourably on any suggestion that they should be recommending cruel and unusual punishments. They may recommend special measures that they feel, given CHAI's expertise and first-hand account of the situation, should be taken to rectify the failings it has identified. In doing

1309
so, CHAI must give a clear justification for its recommendations. It will then be for the Secretary of State to consider what further steps should be taken.
We do not think that it is right to prescribe the detail of this in legislation. CHAI will consist of people with expertise who will go to a specific body. It will find out what may or may not be wrong and my expectation is that it will tailor its recommendations to putting things right as speedily as possible in that particular set of circumstances. Those are the special measures that we are talking about.
Should CHAI wish to recommend measures which are not specified in regulations there would in my view be an unacceptable delay while the regulations had to be mended. That could be an effect of the amendment. It would be unworkable for both parties to have their hands tied in such a way, especially given the unpredictable nature of some of the things that may be discovered by an inspectorate when reviewing a body. That is best left to the judgment of CHAI; we are sure that in order to have credibility with the NHS, the special measures that it recommends will be fit for purpose given the circumstances that it has inspected.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Noakes: This is one of the rare occasions on which the government are prepared to trust CHAI's judgment, so I suppose that one should not be ungrateful for having identified one such small area. However, because this is such an important issue for the NHS bodies affected by the provision, it is right that the Bill should—whether directly or indirectly by regulation—specify what are the boundaries within which recommendations may be made for special measures.
That is such a vague term. It has no recognised meaning in the NHS and there are no principles by which to decide what it can and cannot do. For the sake of clarity for the NHS, it is important to ask the Government to set out what sort of things CHAI or CSCI could recommend. If, over time, those things became insufficient, that could be amended by further regulations, but clarity would again be important.
Although the Minister's response was good on the basis that he trusts CHAI, it was unhelpful because it did not provide important clarity to the NHS. We may want to return to the matter on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 301 not moved.]
Clause 52 agreed to.
Clause 53 [Functions relating to Secretary of State and Assembly]:
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 302:
Page 20, line 32, after "to" insert "make regular reports available to the public about and"
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 304 and 339. The amendments provide for CHAI and CSCI to make regular reports to the public. Amendment No. 302 relates to making public reports, alongside keeping the Secretary of
1310
State and the Assembly informed on healthcare provision by NHS bodies. Amendment No. 339 provides the equivalent for CSCI. Amendment No. 304 provides for public reports alongside keeping the regulator informed about foundation trusts.
When this was debated in another place, the Minister, Mr David Lammy, said that it was:
"obvious that the new CHAI will want to keep patients and the public informed of developments in the NHS and in independent health care provision".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee E; 5/6/03; col. 577]
With respect, there is nothing obvious about that. CHAI could well start out with good intentions: I have no good reason to doubt that; but who is to say that informing the public will remain a priority? There is no mention of it in the basic duties of CHAI or of CSCI. Those of us who have operated in and around the public sector for many years have acquired a degree of cynicism about the long-term commitment to public information.
That is why I believe that the Bill will be improved by the amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: How will CHAI inform the public; in what way?
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: I would support the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, except that I believe that the provision is contained in Section 7 of the previous Act—certainly for CSCI's responsibility. However, the amendment also relates to my previous comment, which is that such public reports will overall be reflected in government policy, so the noble Baroness should take heart from that.
Lord Warner: I have some sympathy with the intent behind the amendments, but I must resist them none the less. Of course we are all keen to improve public information about performance of public services, and the Government are doing so. If I may say so, that is why we favour performance ratings, but there seem to be different views about that.
The Bill already contains provisions designed to ensure that the commissions' expertise and understanding of services are made available to the public. That may help the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. Clauses 51 and 57 for CHAI and Clauses 78 and 80 for CSCI provide that following an inspection, the commissions must publish reports of their findings. Most fundamentally, the "Reports and Information" clauses for CHAI and CSCI—Clauses 63 and 85 respectively—place a duty on them to send out copies of reports to those who request them. The commissions are also required to produce an annual report to Parliament that, will also be available to the public.
So there are substantial provisions in the Bill to ensure that those reports are in the public arena. To place a wide-ranging general duty on the commissions to keep the public informed about services, as the amendments are framed, could give rise to important

1311
practical problems. Given the wide-ranging demands that could be placed on the commissions, such a duty could place a serious burden on them.
However, I am willing to think further about the issue before Report to see whether there is anything practical that we can do to help.
Baroness Noakes: I am grateful to the Minister for his response—in particular, for his agreement to take the matter away to reconsider it. There is a difference between the information provisions that he mentioned, which are scattered throughout the Bill, and those referred to in the amendments. It is that information that we are trying to ensure will be in the public domain and will not be subject to a decision, which might in future not be open and transparent, about whether to keep the public informed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments No. 302ZA and 302A not moved.]
Clause 53 agreed to.
Clause 54 [Functions relating to regulator]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): Before calling Amendment No. 303, I must tell the Committee that if it were agreed to, I should be unable to call Amendment No. 304 because of pre-emption.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 303:
Page 21, line 6, leave out "is to keep the regulator" and insert "and the regulator are to keep each other"
The noble Earl said: Clause 54 deals with the functions of CHAI relating to the regulator. In subsection (1), CHAI is required to keep the regulator informed about the provision of healthcare by and for NHS foundation trusts. The process should work both ways. Obviously, the regulator is to a large degree dependent on CHAI to inform him of any concerns about the quality or availability of services provided by foundation trusts. Equally, CHAI ought to be able to rely on the regulator to inform it of any matters that may help it to perform its functions better.
I am here thinking especially of any notable example of good practice in a foundation trust—bearing in mind that in Clause 47(1) the general function of CHAI, before all others, is that of encouraging improvement in the provision of NHS healthcare. But it is also possible to imagine the regulator being made aware of an area that merits possible investigation by CHAI—not only in the foundation trust concerned but in the NHS more widely. An example might be a deterioration in the delivery of cancer services by a foundation trust within a cancer network or plans by a foundation trust to reconfigure one of its services in a way that may have a knock-on effect on other NHS bodies. In those and other such circumstances, the regulator should have a duty to communicate any concerns to CHAI. That ought to be a specific duty. I beg to move.
Lord Warner: The regulator and CHAI will be under a duty to co-operate with each other under Clause 54(3). That duty will ensure that the regulator keeps CHAI informed of any other information relevant to the exercise of CHAI's functions. However, the regulator does not have a function of reviewing healthcare provision of NHS foundation trusts. It is not therefore sensible to require him to keep CHAI informed about such provision. The distinction that we make is not to place a duty on the regulator, as the noble Earl proposes, but to use the duty to co-operate in Clause 54(3) to ensure that the regulator makes available to CHAI information relevant to the exercise of its functions.
Earl Howe: I am surprised by that answer. I realise that there is a clear distinction between the role of CHAI and that of the regulator. The regulator is not expected, in the normal course of his duties, to carry out inspections and to supplant CHAI. But I would have thought that he should have a duty to inform CHAI if any matters of concern came to his attention. The duty to co-operate in Clause 54 does not seem explicit enough. If it were, one would have to ask why subsection (1) of Clause 54 was necessary in the other direction. The Government clearly thought it important to give CHAI a specific duty to keep the regulator informed—in other words, it is not enough to rely on the duty to co-operate. We shall have to reflect on the matter. I am not convinced by the Minister's reply, but, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 304 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 304A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 54 agreed to. Clause 55 [Reviews of data]:
On Question, Whether Clause 55 shall stand part of the Bill?
Earl Howe: I ask the Minister to comment on this clause, because the Explanatory Notes are not very illuminating. Subsection (1) states:
"'The CHAI may review—
(a) the quality of data obtained by others in relation to the provision of health care".
I am not clear who the "others" are in that context. It is potentially a very wide provision that would appear to allow CHAI to review data sources outside the public sector. If that is a correct interpretation, will the Minister gave an example of what kind of data sources could be reviewed in that way, and why?
Lord Warner: I shall try to help. I appreciate the noble Earl's reasons for raising the issue. Clause 55 will enable CHAI to evaluate studies and research carried out by other bodies. Such bodies might include the Royal Colleges, independent commentators, academic institutions or other organisations concerned with public policy or services.

1313
It is very important that patients and the public have a clear picture of what is happening in the NHS. As we all know too well, it is understandably the subject of much analysis and commentary, sometimes conflicting and sometimes misleading. But patients and the public deserve to have the facts about the NHS as it is. We therefore wish to ensure that there is a safeguard that, in fulfilling its role as the pre-eminent independent organisation to which patients and the public look for information about the quality of NHS care, CHAI can evaluate and, where appropriate, comment on the quality of studies carried out by other bodies, including the methods used in carrying out those studies. That may be to confirm that the studies have a solid basis in evidence and reach valid conclusions.
The National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Act placed a similar function on the Commission for Health Improvement to conduct reviews and issue reports on the quality of data obtained by others relating to the management, provision, quality, access and availability of healthcare for which NHS bodies or service providers are responsible, the validity of conclusions drawn from such data and the methods used in their collection and analysis. This clause gives a similar role to the new CHAI.
Subsection (2) makes clear that CHAI must publish a report. That will enable the public to make informed judgments about the quality of information available and healthcare provision. It will help to provide transparency in CHAI's work.
By contrast, CSCI, under Clause 76, will look at research into social care and determine whether it can improve the quality of social care services. It will look, in particular, at the conclusions of such research and whether they are valid. That is different from the role of the Social Care Institute for Excellence, which gathers and publicises knowledge about how to improve social care services. I have given information on CSCI in the hope that it will be helpful, although the noble Earl did not raise it. I have tried to explain the thinking behind Clause 55.
5.45 p.m.
Earl Howe: That is helpful. I am grateful to the Minister. How is CHAI supposed to get behind data provided by the Royal Colleges or academic institutions to review them? It has no power in the Bill to require a body in the independent sector to co-operate with it or to supply further and better particulars. Merely to review the data as they stand might lead to CHAI producing what none of us wants—a half-baked analysis. I am unsure, given the lack of powers in the clause, whether it will be enough for the purposes that the Government clearly have in mind. Can the Minister shed more light on that?
Lord Warner: CHAI would not fulfil its primary duties if it sat around waiting for reports that it might wish to have a go at, or if it tried to investigate too many. I am sure that we can all remember circumstances where there is controversy and differences of view on an issue. Where possible, CHAI
1314
might wish to look into those differences of view and to do its best—possibly using its own data, for example—to clarify the situation in the public interest. CHAI could not force people to give it access to their methodology and data. On the other hand, if it raised concerns about the validity of particular views expressed, those espousing those views would wish to put their methodologies in the public arena and make them available for CHAI to examine. That is all that we are trying to do.
Earl Howe: Once again, I am grateful to the Minister. We would all have that hope in those circumstances. There is a risk that CHAI will not be able to get sufficiently behind the methodology to make a balanced and well informed judgment. One must hope that there will be an inclination to co-operate, if not a specific duty.
Clause 55 agreed to.
Clause 56 [Co-ordination of reviews]:
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 305:
Page 21, line 20, leave out "may" and insert "must"
The noble Baroness said: The effect of this amendment on Clause 56 would be that CHAI "must", rather than "may", co-ordinate reviews of health bodies. It is, in part, a debate along the may/shall lines that our Committees often enjoy.
We support the basic thrust behind Clause 56. For far too long there has been at best patchy co-ordination of reviews of bodies in the NHS. There are many stories of the revolving door syndrome when as soon as one reviewer departs the next arrives. I was recently told that 39 different bodies, including the Royal Colleges, have the right to review an NHS trust. This is hugely wasteful and demoralising for the staff who just want to get on and deliver patient care. It is right to put someone in charge of this and someone must, not may, do that co-ordination.
There is a question, however, about whether CHAI should be doing that. Given the huge tasks that CHAI already has to deliver, we might be overloading it. How much of CHAI's time is estimated to be absorbed in this task? Organising 39 reviewing bodies over hundreds of NHS bodies is not a part-time activity. Will CHAI be resourced to do this? We want CHAI to make a positive impact on the ground and it will not be able to do that unless it is properly resourced and well set up to do the task. What levers will CHAI have to ensure compliance with its co-ordination function? It is all very well to say that CHAI may or must co-ordinate, but it takes two—or possibly 39—to tango. What happens if the other bodies refuse to join in? I beg to move.
Lord Warner: Amendment No. 305 would place an explicit duty on CHAI to promote the effective co-ordination of reviews and assessments carried out by other public bodies or other persons in relation to healthcare provided by English NHS trusts and cross-border special health authorities. It is important that we understand that the use of the word "may" is normal parliamentary language when a general

1315
function—which is what this is—is being specified rather than a particular duty. That is why the word "may" has been used rather than "must". I am confident that CHAI, the primus inter pares of healthcare inspectors, will want to ensure that it facilitates the sharing of best practice between other bodies that have an interest in the provision of healthcare. Given Professor Sir Ian Kennedy's previous comments on the fragmentation of NHS inspection, I am confident that the commission will want to seize the initiative on relieving the burdens of inspection on frontline NHS staff.
I cannot estimate the time that this function will cause CHAI to invest in terms of resources, but I assure the Committee that we are not setting up CHAI to be inadequately resourced. We want it to have the appropriate resources to enable it to fulfil its functions. That is our approach. I also remind members of the Committee that Sir Ian's document Vision for CHAI clearly indicates the commission's willingness to work in real partnership with others, especially in the area of common data collection. I am not convinced that we need to include the explicit duty proposed in the Bill, but I am willing to look again at the issue raised in the amendment, which I agree with the noble Baroness is an important one, and return to the matter on Report if we think that we can make drafting improvements.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Many people will regard that as good news. Will the Minister clarify what is meant by general functions? He said that this was a general function of CHAI rather than a specific duty. When he discusses that matter with his officials perhaps he could clarify what that means, because it is a slightly woolly statement. Is it really an optional rather than a general function? The description is one of so many that he has given that I cannot expect him to be anything but annoyed at my niggle, but I thought that it was rather a woolly answer to say that it was a general function rather than a specific duty.
Lord Warner: I will write to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: There is no need to write. I do not want to use the Minister's time, but he may bring the matter into discussion with his officials.
Baroness Noakes: Will the Minister answer my question about what levers CHAI would have to ensure co-ordination? It is an important point.
Lord Warner: In an earlier amendment, I think that the noble Baroness used the phrase "cruel and unusual punishments". They will not be a feature of CHAI's style and approach. Special measures will not be its approach. It will use its leading position in this area, its vision, its authority and ability to persuade people and keep reminding them of the impact of inspection on people on the front line and managers in the NHS to ensure that there is not a steady traffic of inspectors of one type or another going to the same authorities week after week. That will be the approach. I am sure that
1316
Sir Ian and his team will want to use friendly persuasion as far as possible, but will make it clear when there are serious concerns that need to be addressed by other inspectorates.
Baroness Noakes: I thank the Minister for that reply. It was a pity that he was not able to respond to the question asked by my noble friend Lady Carnegy. It was a reasonable question to be able to elucidate that distinction during the course of our Committee, because he mentioned it in his own response. My noble friend did not ask for a reply, but it might nevertheless be useful for other members of the Committee who, like my noble friend, also cannot immediately see with clarity how the measure will work in practice.
If Sir Ian Kennedy reads the Hansard of our proceedings, I am sure that he will be grateful to see as near as one can get to a statement of commitment to resource by the Government. That is certainly welcome, because it is important that CHAI is resourced properly to perform the tasks laid on it. This is an important task. Given that it has no levers, whether CHAI can have an impact is also linked to resource. If CHAI is properly resourced and can play its leading part much will follow naturally. If it will always have to make hard decisions about what can and cannot be done fully within its resource envelope, it may not be able to maintain its pre-eminent position; it may not be able to co-ordinate effectively. Perhaps those are matters for debate at another time.
I was grateful that the Minister said that he would look again at the thrust behind the amendment. We think that the issue is important and I look forward to rejoining the debate on an amendment moved by one or another of us on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 306 not moved.]
Clause 56 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 307 not moved.]
Clause 57 [Studies as to economy, efficiency etc]:
[Amendments Nos. 307A and 308 not moved.]
Clause 57 agreed to.
Clause 58 [Additional functions]:
Baroness Barker Baroness Barker moved Amendment No. 309.
Page 22, line 9, after "efficiency" insert ", equity"
The noble Baroness said: This is a rather simple amendment to probe or highlight one of the more interesting questions that we have worked around in different ways throughout our Committee proceedings—the absence of the word equity in the long list of things that CHAI and CSCI are meant to investigate and review. The Bill talks about improvement of economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the exercise of NHS bodies but nowhere does it mention equity, fairness, or access to health care for different groups of the population. I reiterate my earlier comments that many of us have concerns about the extent to which minority populations or people with particular conditions will fare in this brave new

1317
world of acute hospital provision. It seems strange that that principle is not on the face of a Bill that sets out in such a heavy-handed way the extent to which these bodies will work and that establishes—as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said—the very strong hand of the Secretary of State. That is why we seek to insert the provision.
We think that equity is one of the important founding principles of the NHS. We also think that it is an important enduring principle, no matter how the NHS is managed. We think that it should be inserted into the Bill.
6 p.m.
Lord Chan: I support Amendment No. 9. When CHI, the current body, was looking at its regular reviews, it emerged that enquiries had not been made in the summer of 2001 into the issue of equity for ethnic minority groups. I know that because I was asked in 2001 to advise CHI on the issue. I think that the point should be very clearly spelt out for any new body such as CHAI.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I, too, support the amendment. As president of the Spinal Injuries Association I know very well that severely disabled people going into hospital can have truly terrible difficulties particularly as regards help with their bodily functions. We are currently having a series of conferences with the Royal College of Nursing about evacuation of the bowels which all paraplegics and tetraplegics have to do. There is huge difficulty when they go into a general hospital.
Lord Warner: We are certainly not out of sympathy with the thinking behind Amendment No. 309. Clearly it would be possible to give CHAI a new function under Clause 58 that included considering the fairness or equity of healthcare provision. It is worth reminding noble Lords that we have made it clear in Clause 47 that CHAI is to be concerned with all factors relating to the quality of healthcare when it exercises any of its functions in the provision of healthcare under Clause 47(1) or Clauses 48 to 56.
It is our view that regulations under Clause 58 could require CHAI to be concerned with any of the factors listed in Clause 47(2) in connection with any new function. To do so could be considered to be part and parcel of conferring a new function, or else would be covered by the power to make incidental or supplementary provision in Clause 191. So there is already plenty of provision to do that in the Bill. However, we think that the precise provision required would depend on the details of the proposed new function. We think that that is a matter best left to regulations rather than set out on the face of the Bill, so that it can be made more specific to a particular function.
Baroness Barker: I thank the Minister for his reply although I did not find it particularly compelling. Given the principle of equity and its importance in the daily provision of services, it is very strange that it
1318
should be left to the outer darkness of regulation and to the rather obscure permissive powers in the Bill. I take great heart from the support of noble Lords. We are not talking about the provision of specialist services. We are talking about ensuring that individuals and groups who are disadvantaged in health and social care have access to services which everyone should have. We are not talking about special provision in any way at all.
The Minister's reply, like his earlier replies to earlier amendments from these Benches, is somewhat unsatisfactory. The amendment deals with a fundamental principle which is far too important to be left to vague permissive powers. It is disappointing that equity is not on the same level as economy, efficiency and all the rest of it. We may well return to the issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 310:
Page 22, line 18, at end insert—
"( ) Regulations made under this section shall not have effect unless they have been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament."
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 310 would add a new subsection to Clause 58 so that regulations under that clause are subject to the affirmative procedure. I shall speak also to Amendment No. 354 which is a similar amendment to Clause 82 relating to CSCI.
Clause 58 allows the Secretary of State to add functions to CHAI. Paragraph 150 of the Explanatory Notes states:
"It is envisaged that CHAI may need to be given additional functions".
If it is already envisaged that CHAI may need additional functions, why are they not included in the Bill? Will the Minister say what additional functions CHAI might need?
The Department of Health's view as set out in its memorandum to the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform is that the healthcare sector is constantly changing with new initiatives emerging which would necessitate the extension of the already very wide functions of CHAI. I find it very difficult to envisage an extension of CHAI's functions. If we look at its functions under Clauses 47 to 57, it is hard to come up with a more comprehensive set of functions. Will the Minister say what kind of initiative would fall outside those functions? I really do struggle with this.
I am aware that a similar provision was included in the legislation creating the old CHI. Will the Minister say whether that has ever been used or whether its use has ever even been contemplated?
I am not at all clear that additional functions beyond those already set out in the Bill could ever be needed. However, if they were, I believe that Parliament should be given a proper opportunity to debate any regulations under this section. That is what my amendments are about. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I wonder whether I may use this debate to raise an issue regarding potential

1319
additional functions for CHAI. In its report, Independent Regulators, which I have read, the Better Regulation Task Force points out:
"The Commission for Health Improvement does not have an appeals mechanism".
I question whether that is right given the importance of the reviews currently undertaken by CHI and in future by the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection.
The question which I should like my noble friend to consider between Committee and Report stage is whether it will be possible through Clause 58 to add an additional function to ensure that CHAI is subject to independent review. Noble Lords opposite have disagreed with me about the issue of performance ratings. I do not think there is any doubt but that a CHAI review can have very important consequences for the individual institutions inspected. For example, a combination of a "poor" or a "very poor" review by CHAI with perhaps a no-star rating is almost certain to lead to people losing their jobs within that organisation.
There is an issue of "felt fair" justice. When the results of work by CHAI potentially lead to such adverse consequences on an organisation, there ought to be a mechanism whereby the work of CHAI is subject to an appeal or review mechanism. In raising the issue, I declare that I am a member of the advisory board of CHAI, but I am in no sense speaking on behalf of CHAI in this matter. It is important to ensure that there is a "felt fair" mechanism. Would my noble friend be prepared to look at it between Committee and Report?
Lord Clement-Jones: I hesitate to intervene at a point where I have taken no part so far. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, raised a most interesting question as regards the Better Regulation Task Force itself. The Minister will know that next week I shall be taking the opportunity to ask a Starred Question about the Better Regulation Task Force report, which is an extremely good report. When Mr Arculus launched the report, the NHS was described as the greatest victim of regulatory excess.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, one of the report's recommendations is that all independent regulators should have an appeals' mechanism so that stakeholders can challenge decisions without recourse to judicial review. The regulator should, however, be able to dismiss time-wasting appeals. That seems a good balance. The Minister is as keen on balance as he is on flexibility. I am sure that that will strike a chord.
It may be that we shall need further consideration of the report produced by Mr Arculus and his colleagues between Committee and Report stages. Some fruitful mining may be made of it in terms of further amendments on Report. In the mean time, it would be useful if the Minister could indicate his view as to the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt.
Lord Warner: As the noble Lord will concede, it is extremely difficult to keep one's balance when
1320
showing flexibility, but I shall endeavour to do so. As I said in previous discussions, we shall examine carefully the Better Regulation Task Force report on a number of aspects relating to the Bill. I shall take note of the points raised by my noble friend Lord Hunt and Members of the Committee and we shall consider them further.
As regards the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, we have no plans to add functions at present. But the provision—I think that she quoted the case for this power—is important in relation to the future. Certainly, I do not fancy my chances at always forecasting the future accurately in this area. It seems a sensible provision. In answer to the noble Baroness's other question, we have used the powers in the 1999 Act to give new functions to the Commission for Health Improvement in relation to NHS bodies that were not listed in the 1999 Act. That indicates that, even in a quite short period of time, there may be a need to act in this area, particularly in a field such as healthcare where the situation changes quite quickly.
Turning to Amendments Nos. 310 and 354, perhaps I may remind Members of the Committee that the House of Lords' Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform considered the Bill in its 24th report. It did not think that it was a cause for concern that these regulations were made under the negative procedure. I want to put that on the record.
Amendment No. 354 seeks to ensure that regulations made under this clause are subject to approval by resolution of each House of Parliament; that is, the affirmative procedure. The Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform considered the Bill and, in its report, states:
"None of the powers conferred on the Secretary of State is subject to affirmative procedure. Except where NAW procedures apply, and except in a small number of cases (such as commencement orders) where there is no Parliamentary procedure, the negative resolution procedure applies throughout".
The report continues:
"The National Health Service's legislative structure has, since its inception, left a great deal to subordinate legislation subject to negative procedure … and directions. This basic framework has been maintained on successive reorganizations, including those effected by the various enactments of recent years. We do not consider, therefore, that the number of delegated powers in the bill is a cause for concern".
I just want to put that on the record in relation to these particular amendments.
Baroness Noakes: I thank the Minister for that reply. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Clement-Jones for raising the important issue of the appeals mechanism. We touched on that earlier in Committee deliberations. The report of the Better Regulation Task Force is clearly very important.
However, those matters were not the focus of the amendments that I moved earlier about whether there should be affirmative regulations for adding

1321
additional CHA1 functions. The Minister argued that he wants to keep this power to cope with changes over time. Perhaps we may agree to differ on whether there is enough legislation already to cover almost anything that any reasonable person could imagine occurring under the existing Bill. But if the department says it needs that power, the question arises as to what scrutiny should be applied.
I heard what the Minister said about the Delegated Powers Committee, whose report I have already read. I have the greatest respect for that committee, but it is incumbent upon Members of this Committee to consider whether, in individual cases, they are content to leave matters to the relatively light parliamentary scrutiny that negative procedure involves. This is an area where we should keep the extension of CHAI and the extension of CSCI under the firm control of Parliament: the affirmative procedure is good in this case. I should like to seek the opinion of the Committee.
6.16 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 310) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 99; Not-Contents, 111.

Division No 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Alderdice, L.

Jopling, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Kilclooney, L.

Astor of Hever, L.[Teller]

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Attlee, E.

Liverpool, E.

Barker, B.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Blackwell, L.

Lucas, L.

Blatch, B.

Luke, L.

Bledisloe, V

Lyell, L.

Bradshaw. L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Bridgeman, V.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L

Brougham and Vaux. L

L.

Burnham. L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Byford, B.

MacLaurin of Knebworth, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

McNally, L.

Chan, L.

Maddock, B.

Clement-Jones, L.

Mancroft, L.

Colwyn, L.

Mar, C.

Cumberlege, B.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Marlesford, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Methuen, L.

Elton, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Emerton, B.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Erroll, E.

Murton of lindisfarne, L.

Fearn, L.

Newby, L.

Ferrers, E.

Noakes, B.

Fookes, B.

Northbrook, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Northesk, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Hanham, B.

Onslow, E.

Henley, L.

Palmer, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Howe. E.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Plumb, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Rawlings, B.

Hunt of Wirral. L.

Razzall, L.

1322

Rees, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Roper, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Stern, B.

Russell, E.

Stewartby. L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Tordoff.L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Tugendhat, L.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Waddington, L.

Selsdon, L.

Wade of Chorlton. L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Wallace of Saltaire. L.

Sharpies, B.

Walmsley, B.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Alli, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld. L.

Amos, B. (Lord President)

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Andrews, B.

Howarth of Breckland. B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hoyle, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Hughes of Woodside. L.

Bach, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Berkeley, L.

Islwyn, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Bhatia, L,

Jay of Paddington, B.

Blackstone, B.

Jones, L.

Borrie, L.

Jordan, L.

Bragg, L.

King of West Bromwich. L.

Brennan, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Brett, L.

Layard, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Brookman, L.

Lipsey, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Lockwood, B.

Burlison, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract.L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Carter, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Chandos, V.

Mclntosh of Hudnall, B.

Clark of Windermere, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Crawley, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

David, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Mitchell, L.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Morgan, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde. B. Morris of Aberavon. L

Desai, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Dixon, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Donoughue, L.

Puttnam, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Radice, L.

Eatwell, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Elder, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Richard, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord Rooker, L.

Chancellor)

Sawyer, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Sheldon, L.

Filkin, L.

Simon, V.

Gavron, L.

Thornton, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Tomlinson, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Turnberg, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Goudie, B.

Warner, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Watson of Invergowrie. L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Whitaker, B.

Haskel, L.

Whitty.L.

Haskins, L.

Wilkins, B.

Hayman, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Business of the House
6.27 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: Before the Committee proceeds, I want to point out that 67 groups of amendments have been tabled. Your Lordships' House decided by a vote that, on the whole, we should tend to end our sittings at 10 o'clock. I concede that governments of every colour always get in a muddle towards the end of a Session, but 67 groups of amendments on an extremely important Bill means that, with only 10 minutes of discussion on each amendment, excluding Divisions and so forth, the debate will amount to 670 minutes. It is intolerable to be asked to go on talking and making intelligent decisions into the morning hours, when we shall all be groggy and tired.
I hope sincerely that we can be given an explanation by the Government business managers of how this has happened. It is completely at variance with the changed rules of the House. In the old days, there were occasionally all-night sittings, but this is not very satisfactory.
I shall be tempted to move that the House do adjourn at one o'clock tomorrow morning. I believe that normally one moves that the House do now adjourn, but I would not dream of doing that. It would be impertinent, wrong and unfair to Her Majesty's Government. However, I see no reason why we should not say that the House should adjourn at one o'clock. That hour is quite late enough for elderly gentlemen to talk about serious matters.
I want to hear from the Government what they intend to do because, as the Americans put it, I believe that there is an abuse of due process taking place in your Lordships' House.
6.30 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: Perhaps I may advise my noble friend that the House cannot "now" adjourn at one o'clock if it is not now one o'clock.
The Earl of Onslow: I was trying very hard not to say "do 'now' adjourn", only that the House should adjourn at one o'clock. Obviously the Government have a duty to get some of their business through.
Lord Grocott: I wish I had thought of that response first. I simply say to the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, that I am anxious to make quick progress on this important Bill. We are now on the fifth day in Committee. I know that there is good will on all sides to deal with the issues as expeditiously as we sensibly can. I suggest that we get on with it and see where we get to. As the noble Earl rightly said—he was generous enough to make the point—at this stage in the Session it is always difficult; we are always thinking about quarts and pint pots.
It is particularly important to complete the Committee stage because of the minimum intervals. The noble Earl knows that there will be more flexibility
1324
when we get to Report stage. I hope that noble Lords will bear that in mind and that we can get on with the business as rapidly as we can.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I know how the Back-Benchers feel but I wonder whether there has been any agreement between the Front Benches that we should not have another day for discussion of the Bill.
Lord Grocott: It was signalled on future business that we would go beyond 10 o'clock tonight. We have to do that some time in advance and, on that basis, you always hope that you will be able to conclude the Bill. Certainly that was the intention at the beginning of the five days. Admittedly there have been days when business has not progressed as quickly as one would have hoped.
I am sure that all noble Lords will agree that the House has a responsibility to complete its consideration and amendment of government legislation, as necessary, in an orderly way. I freely admit that sometimes we do not go at the pace I would wish and hope for, but, with good will, we are capable of completing this stage today. It may be that this will be the last time this Session that we have to press these late nights in quite the same way.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Is the noble Lord saying that this procedure has not been agreed by the usual channels?
Lord Grocott: The usual channels operate in agreement wherever it is humanly possible. It was always assumed that this would be long enough to deal with the Committee stage. No representations have been made. I do not want to go any further because it could endanger the normal confidentiality of the way in which the usual channels operate. The expectation certainly is that it would finish today.
We have spent four minutes discussing this issue. It makes my job very difficult if we constantly have these kinds of reviews during the course of progress of legislation.
Lord Elton: I do not in any way suggest that we should withhold good will, but I remind the Government Chief Whip that the Companion to the Standing Orders states:
"It is a firm convention that the House normally rises by"—
not "at" or "around" but "by"—
"about 10 p.m. on Mondays to Wednesdays".
It is quite a long time until prorogation next month. Therefore, to say that it is normal for this kind of pressure to exist at this time is not in accord with my memory. It may be that we have had too long a Recess or the business has not been arranged as it should have been, but I drag a little comfort from the noble Lord's remark that he hoped that it would not be necessary to do this again in this Session. I can assure him that he will be reminded of that if it is necessary.
Lord Grocott: It is a hope. That does not necessarily mean that it is an expectation. It is what I work for. I

1325
would not like the myth to get around that, of some 700 Peers, 699 want to get home by 10 o'clock and one does not—and that is the Government Chief Whip. Believe me, that is not the situation. I am probably more anxious to finish in sensible time than anyone else because, along with the other Chief Whips, I am here every day, whereas, quite naturally, Peers take more interest in some Bills than in others. That is the nature of the place.
We expect to finish within five days. That was discussed in the usual channels and I very much hope that it will be possible.
Baroness Blatch: Everyone understands the position in which the Government Chief Whip finds himself in trying to get business completed and the House up in time for State Opening on 26th November. However, without divulging anything that may have been said between the Front Benches and the usual channels, it is right to say that the discussions are as yet inconclusive and therefore the debate continues.
But the Government Chief Whip said that he hoped to finish today. In my book, "today" finishes at midnight tonight. The 24 hours started at midnight last night and finish at midnight tonight. Any reasonable person looking at today's groupings list would have seen amendments on two sides of A4 paper, and no one would have expected us to complete all of those amendments today.
I understand, and the Government Chief Whip understands, the anxiety felt, not by the usual channels—which are very close to the debate—but by our noble friends on the Back Benches. They seek an answer from the Government Chief Whip, not as to the time the House will rise but whether it is the intention that the House will rise only when the last amendment in the Marshalled List has been dealt with. The noble Lord has not made that clear.
Lord Grocott: Let me make it clear. It is my wish, desire and intention that we should complete the Committee stage of the Bill today, after five days. As I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, knows as well as anyone else, in parliamentary terms one of the many myths of our operation is that "today" is today. Monday continues into Tuesday if the House is still sitting, and we refer to it in that way.
The clock started late and we have probably spent 10 minutes now on this discussion. We could have dealt with another group of amendments in that time. It would help us all if we could proceed with the Bill. I must repeat that if the Bill does not finish its Committee stage today it will have quite serious ramifications for this or another piece of legislation reaching the statute book. That decision is out of my control.
The House appears to be asking me each day to finish by a set time—in other words, to use a guillotine on time—but not to have any agreement with the House as a whole as to the amount of business that can be completed in that time. I exclude the usual channels from that. From where I am sitting, that sounds very
1326
much like having your cake and eating it. I should spell out the dilemma to the House. If you have to finish at a certain time but you do not have the faintest idea of how much business can be concluded during that set period of time, it is an extraordinarily difficult position to be in. I am happy to be in that position, but not if I have to have this same conversation each day.
The Earl of Onslow: The phrase "cake and eating it" came from the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. But he said that we have spent 12 minutes on this issue, so let us not discuss it further because it is cutting into the time that we have allowed for discussion on the Bill. He then said to those noble Lords who said they thought the agreement was that everyone should shut up by 10 o'clock and go home—obviously allowing some leeway—that they cannot have their cake and eat it. There seem to be hordes of cakes and great numbers of scoffers around here.
That makes it very difficult if you have a genuine complaint. Only last week exactly the same problem arose. The noble Countess, Lady Mar, was tempted to make this complaint before.
If the Government had got their act together and produced Bills earlier, we would not be in this position. It is the Government's business managers' fault. In the 30 years that I have been in this House—I thoroughly enjoy saying that, it is a great, bang-on statement—I have never known this House to waste time or filibuster. It is not in its nature. We are basically reasonable.
Having made my complaint—and I hope I have made it stick—I will not do anything, but if this happens again next week or the week after, I sincerely hope that the rest of your Lordships will back me in complaining strongly about the Government's misuse of the procedures of this House, as laid down in Standing Orders.

Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill
Clause 58 agreed to
Clause 59
[Criteria):
[Amendments Nos. 311 and 312 not moved.]
Baroness Barker Baroness Barker moved Amendment No. 312A:
Page 22, line 26, at end insert—
"( ) If requested to do so by the Audit Commission in any particular case, the CHAI or CSCI may assist the Audit Commission in the exercise of its functions under section 33(1) of the Audit Commission Act 1998 (c. 18) (studies for improving economy etc in services)."
The noble Baroness said: Well, we begin again. I approach the rest of what is termed "today" with all the joy of a junior doctor starting a shift.
This probing amendment seeks to delve into an important area that we have not yet covered in our deliberations. The amendment probes the relationship of CHAI and CSCI—particularly CSCI—with the

1327
Audit Commission. When it takes over its functions, CSCI will inherit part of the function of the SSI but also elements of the Audit Commission's role.
I do not wish to rehearse the arguments that have already been made about the independence of these new bodies. One great benefit of both the Audit Commission and the National Audit Office has been the independent and thorough way in which they have looked at aspects of health and social care. The Audit Commission, in particular, has produced reports which have been among the most influential in enabling legislators to see the impact of legislation and have also pointed the way to future measures.
The amendment seeks to tease out which elements of the Audit Commission will be drawn on for CSCI, and what the future relationship between CSCI and the Audit Commission will be. I look forward to the Minister's reply. I beg to move.
Lord Warner: Amendment No. 312A is inappropriate in relation to CHAI because the Bill transfers the main responsibility for such studies in relation to English NHS bodies, other than special health authorities, to CHAI. The Audit Commission will no longer carry out value-for-money studies on those NHS bodies.
We agree that it is entirely appropriate for CHAI to be able to assist the Audit Commission in carrying out financial management studies and for CSCI to be able to assist the Audit Commission on studies relating to economy, efficiency and effectiveness on local authorities. However, we think it is already able to do so on the basis of the existing powers in the Bill and the Audit Commission Act 1998, and that this additional power is therefore unnecessary.
The Audit Commission will retain all its Section 33 functions in relation to Welsh NHS bodies. While we think it would be lawful for CHAI to assist the Audit Commission in carrying out those functions, it is the Assembly and not CHAI that will carry out reviews of particular Welsh NHS bodies. Therefore, any assistance to the Audit Commission with respect to studies in relation to Welsh NHS bodies is more likely to be sought from the Assembly than from CHAI.
It should also be noted that the Government have published a Bill in draft for consultation—the draft Public Audit (Wales) Bill. This proposes to transfer all the Audit Commission's functions in relation to Welsh NHS bodies to the Auditor-General for Wales. The draft Bill provides for co-operation with the Audit Commission, and it would be premature to legislate on this matter now.
That is the context. We have already discussed CSCI's relationship with regard to comprehensive performance assessments on local authorities and their relationship to CSCI.
Baroness Barker: I thank the Minister for his reply and shall study his words in Hansard. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1328
[Amendments Nos. 313 and 314 not moved.]
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 314A:
Page 22, line 38, at end insert—
"'( ) to consult any person specified in the regulations before publishing a statement under subsection (1) or (2);"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 315 not moved.]
Clause 59, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 60 [Provision of material]:
[Amendment No. 316 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 60 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 317 not moved.]
Clause 61 [Fees]:
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 317A:
Page 23, line 14, after "body" insert "or to health care provided by or for that body"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 318 and 319 not moved.]
Clause 61, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 62 [Fees: Wales]:
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 319A:
Page 24, line 6. after "body" insert "or to health care provided by or for that body"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 320 not moved.]
Clause 62, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 63 [Reports and information]:
[Amendment No. 321 not moved.]
Clause 63 agreed to.
Clause 64 agreed to.
Clause 65 [Right of entry: supplementary]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 322:
Page 25, line 27, at end insert—
"( ) The CHAI must ensure that any documents or items removed under subsection (1) are not retained for an unreasonable period of time and must give reasons in writing for their retention if so requested by—

(a) the person from whose premises the documents or items were removed, or

(b) any other person with an interest in the documents or items."

The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 322, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 335.
At the beginning of Clauses 65 and 71, which parallel each other, we see the familiar words "necessary" and "expedient". In the context of these clauses, which relate to the right of entry and inspection of premises by persons suitably authorised to do so, those words inevitably sound an alarm bell.
If you are someone whose premises are raided by CHAI or an equivalent official from the Welsh Assembly, what rights do you have? Not many, judging by the list of things that an inspector is entitled to do, as described in these clauses. That begs the question of what constitutes fair and reasonable

1329
behaviour by the person who decides, let us say, that it is necessary and expedient for him to remove from a set of premises the computer equipment, accounts and records that are housed there.
We are talking not just about NHS premises. As we all know, CHAI's remit, and that of the Assembly, covers independent businesses as well. I have no problem about putting the NHS and the private sector on to an equal regulatory footing, but at the same time there are other considerations. Those who manage private hospitals and clinics have businesses to run. These businesses cannot continue without the means at their disposal to do so. Records and accounts are an integral part of running a business day to day.
My proposal is not to deny the official inspector any of the rights granted to him but to balance those rights, albeit partially, with a corresponding right for the person whose documents or property are removed to ask for reasons if he considers that he has been deprived of their use for an unreasonable time. CHAI in turn would have to supply the reasons.
The amendment is not much, but it is something— perhaps enough to ensure that CHAI and officials in Wales remain conscious of the burdens that they place on business by exercising their rights to take charge of other people's property. There is only one way in which to ensure that, which is to add my amendment or one like it to the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Warner: Amendments Nos. 322 and 335 would place a duty on CHAI and the Assembly to justify the removal of documents and to return the said items within a reasonable period of time. I have sympathy for the amendment, but the powers under the clause are very similar to those provided to the National Care Standards Commission in Sections 31 and 32 of the Care Standards Act 2000.
I want to make it clear that we do not envisage that the provisions will entail removing vast quantities of documents from sites that CHAI inspects. We also believe that CHAI, should it feel a legitimate need to do so, will normally obtain any additional information that it may want to remove from the premises by agreement. However, the power to remove original material may be necessary where inspectors suspect tampering of data for fraudulent purposes, for example. It emerged in the Shipman inquiry that there had been a considerable tampering of records. In such situations, it is right that individuals acting on CHAI's behalf are able to remove such material for examination without first having to supply promptly a statement of reasons. So that care providers can continue their day to day operations, they will of course be free to take copies of documents that CHAI intends to remove. We envisage that CHAI will want to conduct its business with minimal interruption to service provision and so would expect it to return documents in their original condition as soon as practicably possible.
Given the sensitivities of the power, and should CHAI not return removed material within a reasonable period of time, the organisation involved
1330
would of course be entitled to seek judicial review or redress via the Parliamentary Ombudsman. The clause as drafted makes it clear that CHAI has the authority to have access to all relevant information. The amendment, if carried, would dilute the effectiveness of CHAI's review and investigative functions. In the light of those assurances, I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, will be willing to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Howe: It is not much of a dilution of CHAI's investigative function to say that someone whose property has been taken away should be able to ask CHAI why it has held on to it for an unconscionable length of time.
The Minister slightly over-eggs his case. He says that judicial review or redress by the ombudsman are remedies available to those affected. I simply point out, as I have before, that judicial review is a terribly heavy-handed and expensive procedure. It is also not necessarily very speedy. One could say the same of redress by the ombudsman.
The proposal I make in the amendment is fairly simple, and does not ask an awful lot. It certainly would not interfere with the rights granted to CHAI and CSCI under these clauses. I am disappointed that the Minister was not more receptive to my proposals, but I do not propose to press the matter now. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 65 agreed to.
Clause 66 [Power to require documents and information etc]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 323:
Page 26, line 8, leave out "(including personal records)"
The noble Earl said: In moving the amendment, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 324, 358ZB and 358ZC.
The amendments deal with some extremely serious concerns about patient confidentiality. I am experiencing a sense of déjà vu in raising the topic, as my worries are similar to those I raised four years ago in our debates on the health Bill, in relation to the Commission for Health Improvement. Several of us argued, successfully, that the proposed powers for CHAI to access patient data were excessive, and amendments were made that considerably softened the original proposals. I hope that something similar can be agreed on this occasion.
The Bill contains what are, by any standards, wide-ranging powers for new CHAI to access patient records wherever,
"CHAI considers it necessary or expedient".
Nowhere at all is the patient's right to confidentiality even alluded to, nor is any mention made of involving patients in decisions about the use of their personal data.
The GMC has those principles as a central plank of its guidance on confidentiality. Nominally, at least, the Department of Health has also subscribed to them in its draft code of practice. So why these unqualified

1331
provisions? We all understand about the work that CHAI will do. Some of its investigatory work will be retrospective in nature. Quality assessments involve similar procedures. In those circumstances, obtaining a patient's consent to accessing his records may be a cumbersome and sometimes even impossible task. Nevertheless, there is a very strong argument for insisting that CHAI should use anonymised or aggregated data whenever they will serve its purpose.
If one is trying to compile an assessment of clinical or financial performance, information about individual patients is seldom needed. Anonymised data are sufficient and will become much easier to generate over time, as more records are held electronically. In circumstances in which identifiable records are needed—and there will be some—the answer ought to be that the patient's consent should be obtained. That could be done by way of a suitably worded authority when the patient is being treated in the hospital, to be put by in case of need later. If that cannot be done, personal records should be accessed only for overriding public interest reasons.
The Health and Social Care Act 2001 established the Patient Information Advisory Group as a mechanism for considering circumstances where the public interest is not clear cut and it is not practical to anonymise data or seek patient consent. We would feel a lot easier if the powers of CHAI to access named data without consent were made subject to that legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: We on these Benches very much welcome a debate on the amendments. However, without recent developments, we would have had more sympathy with them. At one stage, it looked as if the GMC and new CHAI were lining up for a potential clash of the titans, although I do not know whether that is the right way in which to describe Sir Graham Catto and Sir Ian Kennedy—but it looked very much that way.
As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said, we have had many previous debates on this area—those on the Health and Social Care Bill being one instance, and the previous CHAI debate being another. We on these Benches have been quite consistent. We are not over-ideological about prohibiting use of non-anomymised personal records. The circumstances may differ in which those records can be used, but the essence of the question is, at the end of the day, what is right for patient welfare. Authorities, regulatory or otherwise, need good justification for such access and there need to be proper controls. We were instrumental in agreeing to the new Patient Information Advisory Group set out in Section 61 of the 2001 Act.
In this Bill, there is a difficult balance to maintain. The matter needs to be considered against the backdrop of the kind of powers held by other regulators, such as the Audit Commission, in similar circumstances. I believe that times have changed and that untrammelled right of access to non-anonymised personal records would be wrong in the circumstances that we are discussing. However, CHAI believes that when it is investigating cases such as abuse and serious
1332
service failures it needs that kind of access. On the other hand, the GMC has been vigilant in drawing up its code of confidentiality. Our view on these Benches might have been different if no agreement had been reached between the two bodies. However, it appears to have been reached—I believe that the Nursing and Midwifery Council and the consumers' council have been involved in this—in terms of agreeing that a code of practice should be drawn up which would specify the situations in which CHAI would have access to data relating to individual identifiable patients. The instances in which authorisation would be sought and granted would be specified.
The situation begs a number of questions. These Benches have been briefed by the GMC, as I believe have a number of other noble Lords. A number of issues have been raised. I understand that there is still water to flow under the bridge and clearly we are not there yet. However, it would be extremely useful if the Minister would indicate the kind of circumstances where access would be granted to individual identifiable patient records, and when access would be sought and the mechanisms for scrutinising, authorising and monitoring those requests. The matter is rather more important than simply waiting for a set of regulations to come down the track after the Bill has left this House.
I do not go so far as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in saying that the Patient Information Advisory Group should be involved, but I believe that there could well be a case for the code of practice to be enshrined in legislation, or for it to become a precondition in this regard. I hope that the Minister will address that matter in his response. This is a serious matter. It is an area where conflicting principles apply. We believe that the two bodies concerned are in the process of achieving a balance but that rather more specificity is required.
7 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: I also wish to address the amendment. I have great sympathy with my noble friend's concerns. I wish to comment briefly as I know that time is moving on. I made my maiden speech on patient records. One of the indicators of success of the change in childbirth policy which I pioneered was that pregnant women should hold their own notes. As I have three children and a very diligent GP, my health records are voluminous. When my GP retired, a new GP entered the practice and looked at my notes. He said, "I am very sorry, Julia, I cannot read a word of them". Therefore, my records are completely confidential—that gives me great heart—but I have to say that they are confidential and useless.
The clauses that we are discussing are very worrying. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, we had long debates on these issues during the passage of the Health and Social Care Bill. The Minister was certainly not a Minister at that time and perhaps did not take part in the debates on that Bill. During the passage of that Bill we had measured, sincere and very passionate debates at every stage. Some noble Lords, myself included, were very nervous that the proposals

1333
would assault the principle of patient confidentiality. Today we face the danger of another move to erode that principle. In no way do I want to insinuate that the motives of those concerned are sinister but I believe that there are serious dangers here which need to be addressed.
I do not want to go over all the arguments that we had previously as I am sure that there will be opportunities to do so later in the passage of this Bill. However, we know that effective medicine depends very much on trust—trust between doctor and patient, between nurse and patient, between healthcare worker and patient but, above all, the trust that the patient has in the NHS; the NHS as an organisation, its systems and its ethics.
Patients reveal the most intimate aspects of their lives, especially when they are at their most vulnerable. It is essential that health professionals have a great deal of knowledge about patients if appropriate care is to be provided but it is understood that that information is confidential and will not be bandied about or disclosed without the patient's consent. One has only to pick up a telephone and try to book something as innocuous as a holiday to be told often by the relevant commercial company, "I warn you that what you say may be disclosed for training purposes". Many such organisations are punctilious in that regard and yet here we are asking people to reveal the most intimate information to health professionals for it to be used by CHAI. CHAI is a body of huge integrity. We have great faith in its new chair and its commissioners but it is an independent body. We do not know what it will be like in time to come. Earlier the Minister described CHAI as the pre-eminent, independent NHS body. It is a very powerful body.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said that there has been much discussion on the matter which I very much appreciate. I am pleased that agreement has been reached but, as I understand it, it is proposed that the use of private patient records should be authorised by a small group of two or three CHAI commissioners. I do not think that is good enough. We ought not to allow CHAI. which wants this information, to be the judge and jury in its own cause. In ordinary law we do not accept that as a good principle. I do not accept what the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said; that is, that we should not use the organisation that was set up through pressure of your Lordships during the passage of the 2001 Bill. We were very careful to ensure that the Patient Information Advisory Group was well chaired. We chose an extremely eminent person to chair the group, Professor Joan Higgins. Other members of the group were Sir Denis Pereira Gray, who was an adviser to the department, and Sir Cyril Chantler—people of enormous integrity, eminence and common sense.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I bear the scars of the debates that we have had on this matter. Although the noble Baroness is right to testify to the work of the PIAG, is she aware of deep concern among many people involved in research in this country that the PIAG process has resulted in a very bureaucratic
1334
structure for getting approval? Is the noble Baroness concerned that we are not defining the public interest with the right balance? If this country becomes a difficult place in which to undertake research, we shall defeat the whole object of what we are trying to do.
Baroness Cumberlege: As I understand it, CHAI is interested not in research but in audit. When the Patient Information Advisory Group was set up a number of noble Lords took great interest in determining how it would work and were very impressed with the group's rigour. That ensured that the public interest and (he private personal interest were maintained. From time to time during the course of this Bill the Minister has been generous in agreeing to reconsider certain issues. The matter that we are discussing is of huge national importance. It needs further consideration. Will the Minister consider the points made tonight and revisit some of the very important debates that we had during the passage of the Health and Social Care Bill in 2001?
Lord Warner: Members of the Committee have made extremely important points on a major issue of public policy. I certainly do not want to give any impression that anything in the Bill is an assault on patient confidentiality, which was the term used. I would like to spend a little time reassuring the Committee that we believe that the information about individual patients is rarely needed in considering the general financial or clinical performance of organisations. Therefore, although it will be for CHAI to determine what information is relevant to its inspections, it is our clear expectation-Sir Ian Kennedy has confirmed it—that CHAI should use anonymised or aggregated data wherever that is a practical option and will serve the purpose.
CHAI will, of course, be subject to the Data Protection Act 1998, as is currently the case for the Commission for Health Improvement, the National Care Standards Commission and the Audit Commission. With regard to the duty to inform patients that their records may be subject to inspection, it is part of the fair processing requirements of the Data Protection Act that organisations must make reasonable efforts to inform individuals about how their information is to be used. Those are quite powerful protections for individual patients.
I shall deal with Amendments Nos. 358ZB and 358ZC. It would be a significant fetter on CSCI's independence if it needed to ask the Secretary of State's permission every time it wished to access confidential information. That would also add a delay in accessing any such information, so it would serve to prevent the inspectorate acting quickly to access personal information where that was necessary to protect vulnerable individuals.
We do not propose that CSCI should need to access personal data on a regular basis, and the inspectorate will do so only where it is necessary or expedient. In seeking to ensure the protection of vulnerable adults and children, CSCI may from time to time need to access original data, to ensure that they have not been

1335
altered or tampered with in any way. That is vital in relation to child protection work and the protection of vulnerable adults. From my experience of running a social services department, time can be critical in many such areas.
Members of the Committee are taking the opportunity to ask why the NHS, CHAI and CSCI cannot take steps to ensure that consent procedures are improved or to anonymise records more effectively. Evidence from CHI suggests that seeking consent causes delays and is unlikely to ensure anything like a return of 100 per cent. There are good reasons for that. Some people may consent, some may refuse and some may not reply. The process has to be managed by individual trusts and can cause significant delays on important issues.
Anonymising records is also a time-consuming and complex task requiring careful quality assurance to ensure anonymity. When undertaken on a large scale, it is subject to human error, and in some cases makes demands on hard-pressed clinicians' time. Some issues around anonymity and seeking consent have their own difficulties. I am not arguing the case for not trying to pursue those routes, but trying to set the record straight that they are not always easy solutions when some cases require a timely and speedy intervention.
I sympathise with the concerns of Members of the Committee, but a number of them have said that there have been discussions between the chairmen of CHAI and the GMC. It is worth drawing on some of the evidence of those discussions available to me about the circumstances—several Members of the Committee asked about them—in which the chairman of CHAI envisages the need for having access to data that relate to individual identifiable patients. One example is issues of child protection when there is a need to follow cases across the boundaries between health and social care services—we all know, from some very sad cases that have gone wrong, that some of the boundary issues are pretty critical—and which might involve concerns about parents.
Another area is investigations of serious failures of services, not least in respect of services for particularly vulnerable groups who might not be able to consent— for example, elderly people with severe mental illness, or people with learning disabilities. On audit of economy efficiency and effectiveness in relation to the management of waiting lists, we may need access to the records, as on implementation of NICE guidance. Those are examples from information given to me by the chairman of the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection. I have used them to try to answer some of the questions raised by Members of the Committee.
It is also worth bearing in mind that Clause 134 makes it clear that an employee of CHAI would be committing a criminal offence if he knowingly or recklessly disclosed patient-identifiable information given in confidence. We have made such a provision to support our emphasis on the importance of patient confidentiality, and as a means to reassure the public—and healthcare professionals—that CHAI, in its privileged role, will not abuse its position.
1336
We should let the work taking place between CHAI and the GMC unfold a little further. They are working towards a code of practice that will strike the right balance. We need to give them more time, and I am sure that they will come forward with a document that will meet many of the concerns expressed.
Several Members of the Committee have raised the subject of the Patient Information Advisory Group. Unlike my noble friend Lord Hunt, I do not bear the scars of the discussions on that; no doubt in a few years' time I shall be talking about scars in relation to this Bill. We are pretty confident—the chairman of CHAI will read Hansard on the subject—that CHAI will consult the Patient Information Advisory Group, among others, as a code of practice evolves from the work that CHAI is doing with the GMC. CHAI will be aware of the work done by noble Lords in this House on an earlier Bill. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, that I will carefully read the earlier debates to inform myself better before Report.
In those circumstances, I hope that the Committee is reassured that the Government take the issue very seriously. A difficult balance is to be struck, as said by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, but the right way to proceed is to let the work on the code of practice between CHAI and the GMC continue, rather than pursuing the route of an amendment to the legislation at this stage.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: The noble Lord has been very helpful in terms of giving some examples of circumstances in which personal information that has not been anonymised might be needed. I think that he gave four examples. He also talked further about the code of practice. However, what is the timing of that code? Even for those of us who recognise that a balance needs to be struck, that there are circumstances in which consent is not possible, and that the Patient Information Advisory Group is the right mechanism, a bit of expedition would not go amiss. It would enable us on Report to at least have something rather more concrete.
Lord Warner: I am very happy to take soundings from the two titans, as the noble Lord called them earlier. Given all the discussions that we have had about the independence of CHAI, I am sure that he would not want me to be terribly heavy-handed, or I should be accused of the Secretary of State interfering unnecessarily. I understand his concerns, will make inquiries, and will write to all Members of the Committee when I have some better information on the time scales involved.
Baroness Cumberlege: I thank the Minister for his reply. It was disappointing for me in that I had hoped that the noble Lord would go further. I accept, as do all noble Lords, that confidentiality is not an absolute. There will be circumstances, which the Minister has illustrated, where there is a strong public interest and disclosure is necessary. The matter that worries me is that we do not seem to have a good process for dealing

1337
with that situation. The Minister mentioned the code. I am not sure exactly how we have an influence on that code.
We have described the two titans. Where is the referee? How can we. noble Lords who are very concerned about this, influence that code? I am frightened that the matter will be decided between the organisations involved. We may have a different perspective. Indeed, we did last time. If the mechanism that I have suggested is not the right one, I hope that the Minister will come back with not just a code—that is too loose-but with something that we can be certain is independent and, yes, quick, fast and resolute. Simply to say that it will be inconvenient and irksome to have a delay is not good enough. We can surely devise a mechanism that fits the needs here, but is not as loose as a code over which we have no control.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Putting the matter another way, is the Minister convinced that he will be able to continue to certify that these clauses are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, when the so far unknown code is in existence? He has certified that these two clauses satisfy the convention. That is surprising, and depends on good legal advice. The code will presumably affect the way in which the clause operates. How will he be sure that he can certify the Bill once the code appears?
Lord Warner: We can do so because on good legal advice the Government have certified that the Bill as presently drafted conforms with the Human Rights Act. The code of practice that we are discussing will be, so to speak, belt and braces. We will go further than the legislation as presently drafted. That will certainly make the situation better. We believe that there are sufficient safeguards in the Bill, but we are also saying that we understand peoples' concerns and nervousness, and we are pleased that CHAI and the GMC are working on the code of practice. We are confident that the code will produce further safeguards to reassure people in this House.
Baroness Cumberlege: How are we going to see the code?
Lord Warner: We have had many discussions about heavy-handed government interference with independent inspectors. Under the current process, the General Medical Council, which is the self-regulation body for the medical profession, is discussing with the chairman and staff of the new body the arrangements for a code of practice. We need to let that process take place in a sensible manner without interference from government. That is not the objective that noble Lords have been saying that they want to happen in relation to CHAI. I promise to write to noble Lords about the time scale involved. I shall do that as quickly as I can—but we do need to let that process take place.
Earl Howe: I felt that the Minister's opening remarks did justice to the gravity of the issue. I was less happy with the way that he carried on in his reply. I
1338
thank my noble friend Lady Cumberlege for the robust stance that she has taken, with which I completely identify. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, because we do not always see eye to eye on these issues. He made some extremely helpful proposals. He is right. There are conflicting principles at work and there is a balance to be struck. But it must be a balance that is protected by a robust framework of safeguards.
Of course I was aware that the chairman of the two titans have been engaged in discussions in recent days. That is a welcome development. However, we need to see the fruits of those discussions. It is easy for the Minister to say that we are urging the Government to give CHAI the maximum independence, and suddenly we are asking to second-guess CHAI. We are dealing with an issue that is of a completely different order. It is indeed an issue of national importance and Parliament does have a legitimate role in the matter.
My noble friend Lady Cumberlege was right—there is in a doctor and patient relationship an inherent degree of the utmost trust. It is not reasonable that a patient should not know that his or her personal records are being disclosed or used for a CHAI investigation, other than in the most exceptional circumstances. It is also not fair on staff to ask them to breach the principles enshrined in the Data Protection Act without providing them with legal and ethical cover. Doctors and nurses are in a very privileged position.
I note the Minister's comments about it being a relatively rare occurrence for CSCI to want to gain access to personal data. In that event asking for consent to gain access should not be a problem. If such consent causes delay, we should say that that is just tough. The delay need not be more than an hour or two in most circumstances if the situation is urgent. I do not buy the argument that the Minister put forward in that context. Again I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Cumberlege for her comments on the matter.
The Minister seemed rather too ready—I do not wish to underline this too many times—to allow this type of information to be sprayed around on too liberal a basis. We have to resist that. If a protocol emerges from this process of discussion between the two chairmen, at the very least that there should be a role for independent persons, apart from CHAI. to adjudicate on the matter. It is not enough for the decision to be taken in-house. I believe that the matter is under discussion.
Lord Warner: I wonder if it would help the noble Earl and others here to say that, given the strength of feeling on this issue across all sides of the House, I undertake to consider it further. I would like to do that in consultation with the chairmen of CHAI and the GMC. I take the noble Earl's point, as will they, about having an independent review. I will look at the wording of the Bill and after those discussions 1 will continue to give noble Lords an update on the lime-scales that are involved over the code of practice. I shall return on Report with further thoughts, if we have them, on how to take the matter forward in a way

1339
that will be satisfactory to opinion across all sides of the House. I emphasise that I do not underestimate the strength of feeling on this issue, and it is a matter of important public policy that we have to get right.
Earl Howe: I greatly welcome the Minister's offer and his willingness to take away the concerns that have been aired today. I am grateful to him for responding so positively. There is little more we can do now to enlarge on these important issues. Clearly, we will need to return to them at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 324 not moved.]
Baroness Andrews: I beg to move that the House be now resumed. In moving the Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage should begin again not before 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Railways
7.30 p.m.
Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether the quality and effectiveness of the United Kingdom's railways are satisfactory.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss today the quality and effectiveness of our railways. First, I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group.
It is an opportune moment to talk about railways: the Government are in the middle of reviewing their 10-year plan for transport; the Comprehensive Spending Review is coming up next year; and last Friday the Rail Regulator made a significant statement about his interim review of Network Rail's track access charges. Perhaps now is an opportune moment to ask what the railways are for and what will be their role in the future; say, in 50 years' time. We are in good company, as the transport committee in another place is also considering the subject.
Will there be a role for railways in 50 years' time? It is reasonable to assume that our quality of life will continue to improve together with our desire for mobility, our acceptance of the need for respect for the environment, and the continuing decline in our manufacturing industries. That means that we will be importing more. Lloyd's List for 16th October showed that container demand has doubled in just eight years. Furthermore, the major shipping line, Maersk, expects imports by container at least to treble in the next 20 years. Will that trend continue and, if not, why not?
We expect mobility, but while wishing to have the benefits of it more and more, we prefer roads, airports and new railway lines to be located in somebody else's
1340
back yard. So now is the time for choice. Do we stick with the railways or do we change direction and base our future on roads and air, for example?
I believe that we should consider the following issues. All freight could go by road. In particular, will we be able to move all the goods from our ports by road when there is already severe land-side congestion? I believe that at Southampton there is a six-hour delay, with lorries queuing to get in and out of the port. Is it conceivable that no one will commute by train? What if all business and leisure travel was by air or car? How many more runways would we need and at what cost of air and noise pollution? What will the effect of road-user charging be on rail?
Apart from rail being safer than road, rail traffic can be controlled to give priority to those who need it most—for example, freight and public transport— unlike road, where whatever new roads are built, lorries often get little benefit as the roads fill up with cars. So I believe that the railways are here to stay, to grow in usefulness and efficiency. Closing parts of the network cannot be an option for any government looking long-term at the country's transport needs.
The key is to provide both the economic as well as the political environment for them to grow and prosper, as was originally set out in the 10-year plan. This is something that the industry and government must do urgently and continuously over a long period.
The rail industry must get its costs down. Thanks to the privatisation structure and the get-rich-quick attitude of Railtrack, the railways are now bogged down in bureaucracy; trains go slower with more delay; and, surprisingly to some, Railtrack spends even less on maintaining the network than BR did. Management of the industry has left much to be desired. How can we be in a situation of having hundreds of new trains sitting in the sidings south of the Thames to replace the Mark I rolling stock because no one realised that new trains needed more current? That is now being put right at a cost of £1 billion while the trains sit in the sidings and we clatter around on the old Mark Is. They are very nice but it is an incredible waste of money.
But with Network Rail, with the Railway Standards and Safety Board and the Railway Accident Investigation Branch, and with some hefty pressure from the Rail Regulator, there is evidence that things are beginning to improve. Network Rail is taking maintenance back in-house in many areas. That is indicative that not only will the costs fall but that it will take full responsibility for what happens. After recent events on the London Underground, I am sure that that is a good idea.
Moreover, two or three years ago, the cost estimate for increasing the gauge between Southampton and the West Midlands to take containers from a new port in Dibden Bay was £900 million. That has fallen to £40 million, which shows that realism is taking hold in the railways. There are ideas for micro-franchising in branch lines, with local companies maintaining the track at a fraction of the cost that Railtrack levied.
However, government also have their part to pay. They must discourage the safety hysteria that has gripped the industry. It started with privatisation as a reaction to private profit creating what was perceived to be a less-safe railway. Things have moved on since then, but most of the railways accept that freight is now under government control and finance. The idea still remains that the hysteria must somehow carry on.
If Ministers never want to see another railway accident, they had better put a man with a red flag in front of every train, close the system down or provide money for gold-plating -and even then there will be an accident, the same as there is on any transport system. Alternatively, they can become more realistic—as I hope they will. The Minister of Transport, Dr Kim Howells, did a great service to the cause of common sense when in August he said that accidents will happen on any transport system, while noting that an average of 10 people are killed on the roads every day. I urge the Minister to carry on with such comments and actively pursue policies of treating rail and road in the same manner. This includes the role of the Health and Safety Executive.
Rail accidents have rightly or wrongly attracted criminal proceedings. A piece in today's Financial Times states:
"Law still weak on companies that kill people".
There is a half-page spread, explaining how 10, 20 or 30 high-powered lawyers sit in a court room in Luton. Noble Lords can read it in the Library, if they want to. However, there no one is asking about the county council which removed a bridge over a railway line in Huntingdon 25 years ago without putting up a sign until a driver went over it one foggy night and was killed because a train ran into his car. Are they not just as culpable as companies? There must be one law for everyone.
I turn to the present. The Rail Regulator has published his draft final conclusions, which confirm that Network Rail must keep the network open and maintained to the current standards. That could save a great deal of money in certain areas, both in the management of contracts, undertaking work more efficiently and not undertaking work that is not necessary. It is clear that money must be saved by maintaining the mainlines more effectively, as the Rail Regulator has demonstrated, because closing secondary lines will have minimal effect on the finances as they receive little maintenance in any event, and it will have a major effect on the future network.
More money from the SRA and the Government will be needed than they appear to think necessary, but I urge them to be reasonable and to give Network Rail time. Let us recall that it has been in existence for only one year. I know from talking to many of the senior people that they did not have access to any of the information that Railtrack had about the quality of their network. If one looks at what they have done in a year, one can see how much change is likely to come in the next year or two.
I recently had the privilege of going on Network Rail's measurement train and I am hoping to arrange a visit for the All Party Group. It indicates which bit of the track needs maintenance and when. That saves an enormous amount of money.
Therefore, the key is for the regulator to keep up the pressure on Network Rail to deliver and reduce costs. But if the work is not done when it is required, there is a serious risk that the network will degrade and that structural failures will occur, leading to prolonged or permanent closures, as well as, obviously, a worse service.
In conclusion, I plead for time for the railways. I also plead for the Government to continue to reinforce their message of getting rid of red tape and unnecessary rules and threats and of treating road and rail as complementary transport systems with similar safety, regulatory and financial needs. Then they should certainly put pressure on the rail industry to deliver. At that point. I believe that industry can start to create a rail network of which our successors can be proud in 50 years' time.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, first, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, on obtaining this debate. I say to the Minister that Labour has now been in office for six years. While it cannot be blamed for privatisation, it can certainly be blamed for the huge and ineffectual growth in bureaucracy.
We are in danger of making some of the mistakes that Dr Beeching made. He believed that sufficient costs could be saved by cutting the secondary railway—when it was near to the centre that large sums were to be had. We are again in danger of subventing hugely expensive organisations, such as the Strategic Rail Authority, the rail regulator, the Health and Safety Executive, which, incidentally, I believe wants more money, and all their acolyte consultants, advisers and contractors, while the secondary railway is threatened. I suggest that each line of the secondary railway could be saved for the cost of a few weeks' consultancy.
We must also avoid using the old canard about decades of under-investment. The railway prior to privatisation was serviceable and the West Coast Main Line had no speed restrictions.
I want to ask the Minister what the Government are doing to take the axe to the leeches on the railway. For example, do we need an expanded railways directorate in the Department of Transport, as well as an ever-expanding Strategic Rail Authority? What would we suggest? We suggest a few long franchises, which would include track, signals and timetables. They would last for 20 years and depend only on improved performance. That would give scope for planning and investment. I venture to suggest that two-year extensions and five-year franchises do not do so. The time the Strategic Rail Authority takes to let a franchise is far too long and the costs to both the Strategic Rail Authority and the bidders are far too high, with most of the money going to our legal

1343
friends. We would abolish the regulator, and open access for passenger operators would be done away with. But we would have—I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is pleased about this—a single-point adjudicator to protect freight interests.
We need an efficient railway, such as the Swiss have—particularly as, inevitably, road congestion will get worse. At present, we are getting more bureaucrats, more advisers, more consultants, more contractors and more sub-contractors, and, I venture to suggest, a very ailing railway.
7.44 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lord Berkeley on securing this debate. I say to the usual channels that I wish we had more time to debate the railways properly. Perhaps that can be considered for the new Session.
The question that I want to address in the few minutes available is whether the railway is moving in the right direction. I believe that it is because the leaders of the industry—the SRA, Network Rail, the regulator, the TOCs and the freight companies—are now broadly pulling in the same direction.
Despite the huge problems created by a decade of under-investment and the catastrophic response of Railtrack to the Hatfield accident, so vividly described again by Tom Winsor last week, the railway is in far better shape than the media portray it to be.
The Times reminded us last month that:
'The total distance travelled by train rose by 2 per cent to the highest level since the Second World War. The number of train journeys reached 975 million last year, and is expected to exceed one billion this year".
The benefits of having a decent, popular and affordable railway go far beyond the people who use it. Because so many journeys and freight movements are in key corridors or are taken by people going to and from work or travelling from city to city, the absence of the railway would have a horrendous effect on road congestion and on the quality of life in our towns and cities.
I ask noble Lords to imagine what life would be like if 75 per cent of solid fuel were not carried on the rails, if the commuter railways in our big cities did not exist or even if 55 per cent of all journeys between Newcastle and Manchester were not made by train—an extraordinarily high statistic. To those who argue that we need a much smaller railway—a new Beeching to slash the size of the network—I say: look at the facts.
Despite the difficulties of recent years, rail passenger journeys are up by a third and rail freight by 50 per cent since 1995. How ironic it is that the route described by the Select Committee in another place as having the worst overcrowding turns out to be the North London Line—the entire closure of which was proposed by Beeching. The town of Mansfield lost its railway in the 1960s but is now on a 32-mile new route from Nottingham, on which demand is growing by 15 per cent a year. The Settle to Carlisle line, reprieved from closure by Michael Portillo, is now undergoing a £3.2
1344
million upgrade. Closures are not the answer. The solution to overcrowding is investment in new lines, new stations and new rolling stock.
As the demand for travel grows, only the railway can provide a socially and environmentally acceptable mode of transport. If we are serious about meeting our international commitments on greenhouse gas carbon dioxide emissions, road traffic growth and worsening congestion must be addressed. Therefore, I welcome reports that the Government are planning a switch to road-user charging. I hope we shall hear by the end of the year that they will adopt a demand-management approach to air travel, too, and resist the demands of the airline lobby on airport expansion.
At the same time, as my noble friend said, the railway deserves much greater credit for its safety record—certainly compared with the roads, on which a car driver is six times more likely to be killed on every passenger-kilometre travelled. More people are killed on the roads every day than on the railway in an average year. And the railway is becoming safer because, unlike in the case of road accidents, every time there is a serious incident on the railway, lessons are learnt and improvements made.
For the first time since privatisation, I believe that the railway is now in competent hands and deserves to be given the opportunity and the support to show what it can do.
7.48 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I hope to raise some issues around franchising and the national railway in Scotland.
When thinking about railway franchises, at least three features are worth highlighting. At present, the fundamental point is that they are generally too short. That has a significant effect on training, on maintenance and development and on re-equipping. My presumption is that, to make the most of a franchise, a substantial period of time is required; otherwise, a short period will produce no more than another couple of years of the same. And why not, when railway equipment generally lasts for 40 years?
To support my argument, I believe that we should consider the ScotRail franchise process. Initially, with 20 years on offer, there was interest from United Kingdom companies, as well as rail operators from Denmark, France, Holland and Germany. Consequent to the reduction of the franchise length to less than 10 years, only the three UK operators are still interested—that is, National Express, which is the incumbent, Arriva and First Group.
On these Benches we believe in rolling franchises. The franchise continues, provided that standards and expectations are met. I believe that that would be good for staff training, good for development of an entrepreneurial nature and good for new equipment.
Turning to Scotland and its railway network, it must be viewed as a national railway and not as a regional network, especially as the latter tends to be shorthand for a peripheral and unimportant system. That is not just a political point to keep up with the SNP, which

1345
does not trouble the Government in this House, but it reflects the fact that the franchise process is devolved. Scotland can choose to have a distinct national passenger railway by determining the level of subsidy that is to be invested in the system. It is inevitable that subsidy is needed in Scotland and the Scottish Parliament must decide, as a quality issue, how much. I look forward to the conclusion of the franchise award.
Now I want to complain about Network Rail and the Strategic Rail Authority, which are not devolved, and in particular about the downgrading of all Scottish main lines to major secondary route status and the subsequent withdrawal of investment. The East and West Coast Main Lines have not been downgraded, but the Scottish sections will not be very exciting.
So the future in Scotland seems to go like this: the new Scottish franchisee can develop the passenger railway service in Scotland provided it does not need improved tracks, signalling and stations. Is that really the United Kingdom Government's intention?
7.51 p.m.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for asking this most timely question and for his superb introduction. I am a frequent traveller on GNER, whose chief executive is a distant cousin of mine. Along with other noble Lords, I greatly welcome Jarvis's retirement, although I am amazed to see that the contract was worth only £180 million per annum.
When we last debated railways almost exactly two years ago, I started my speech by saying that the railway industry in this country was in a terrible muddle and mess, and it is sad to note that the situation has not greatly changed since then. Ask commuters what they think of our railways and the likelihood is they will say that if anything, matters have got worse. If we really want people off the roads (which I believe passionately that we do), we must have a reliable and safe railway network, and it is the Government's job to ensure that the industry is properly financed. I still believe that the industry is surrounded by far too much uncertainty; franchises ought to be renewed for a minimum of 10 years, particularly if one is to expect train operators to invest their money into the system. I believe that franchise re-bidding is extremely harmful to the industry, as it creates uncertainty for staff at all levels.
I cannot imagine that there are other European rail networks still running with 25 year old diesel locomotives, most of which under the present situation are expected to last another five years. On the GNER line, which has one of the better punctuality records of our railway operators, there is still a horrific backlog of maintenance required, particularly with the quality of the overhead wires. The slightest gust of wind seems often to bring the east coast line to a grinding halt, and I hope that there will be sufficient sums available to Network Rail to speed up the overhaul of the overhead wires.
1346
For some extraordinary reason, the passenger train companies have agreed that return tickets cannot be valid for more than a month and I do not understand the logic behind this. Prior to privatisation, tickets were valid for three months. Why cannot passenger train operating companies revert to that system?
Parking at some stations is a problem, particularly at Berwick-upon-Tweed. It has become impossible and only a month ago I got the last empty space. Had I not, I would have had to go further into the town, no doubt missed my train, and would have had to buy a brand new rail ticket. I believe that Her Majesty's Government must revisit station parking as a matter of urgency, as to get the infrastructure correct is a vital component to the success of our railway network.
And what is the lot of the hapless railway commuter? On a twice-daily basis they face appalling conditions: lack of cleanliness; chronic overcrowding: lack of any security and minimal staffing of stations. What a way to treat them! If such conditions were endured by livestock the country would be up in arms.
I believe that there is a great future for our railways. It needs the right level of commitment and a great deal of common sense from the Government. I urge them to take this chance to grasp the problems facing the industry. Being such a tiny country in geographic terms, we ought to be able to run the best railway system in the world, and I hope that the Government will give our railways their full backing.
7.55 p.m.
Lord Methuen: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for asking this Question about the quality and effectiveness of our railways. There was a time when our railways were the envy of the world. Now we lag behind our European counterparts without any significant high speed railway lines, although we have the beginnings with the opening of the first phase of the Channel Tunnel rail link last month.
Investment is there. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and myself visited the Virgin training centre in Crewe where we were allowed to play on their £2.5 million simulators. It was very stimulating to see the type of equipment and training that is now available to Virgin's drivers.
We have to understand what we want from our total transport system, let alone what we can afford. We have to take a broad view of both road and rail transport, comparing them on an equal basis for both passenger and freight movements. Even in the 1930s the railways were complaining about the unfair treatment vis-à-vis the road traffic industry. Our objective must surely be to provide a transport system that, where practical, gets people out of their cars and on to public transport. Congestion charging must play a part in that.
But we need railways that are affordable and adequately safe. The European train management system is the ultimate aim for the high speed and densely trafficked lines, but it is surely not cost effective even on the lesser branch lines. For those we

1347
need a lower cost but adequate standard of safety and local control and promulgation of their services, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. We are seeing signs of that happening in the North East where the North Yorkshire Moors railway might take over the maintenance of the Whitby to Middlesbrough railway.
However, our main problems lie in our conurbations and motorways. I quote from a yet to be published report which states that charging for using our roads in both those circumstances, although it may be unpopular, provides a very large new potential market for public transport users, which in turn may tip the investment balance substantially in favour of public transport of whatever type. In that scenario rail transport has to show that it offers value for money. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
7.58 p.m.
Lord Sawyer: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for introducing the debate. In the short time available to me I want to say something about people. Since the industry was privatised—some 20 private companies now run the majority of the industry—too much time has been spent concentrating on profit and not enough time spent concentrating on people, although the industry employs 40,000 to 50,000 people.
Paradoxically, if the companies spent more time on people—employees and customers—profits might be easier to earn. I believe that the approach of the industry to people is basically—although not universally—a continuation of the old British Rail culture that employees are expendable and customers are captive and that therefore we do not need to do anything exceptional in this area to be successful and to make profits. I strongly believe that that is wrong and that in fact the opposite is the truth. In my opinion the sector will succeed only if it makes employee and customer satisfaction its absolute and overriding priority.
Customer satisfaction will come only through employee satisfaction. There is little public evidence that the majority of the rail companies have a highly trained, strongly motivated and highly valued workforce. I think that that is fairly obvious through one's own experience as a customer.
Employees focused on customer service, who themselves felt highly valued and motivated by the business leaders and managers, would provide a service to customers of a standard that most of us rarely witness or experience. I say "rarely", because I have experienced good service. It is wrong to say that it is universally poor, particularly, for example, on GNER as a first-class ticket holder. But that standard of customer service is rare. It should not be rare. It should be the baseline for all customers, including standard-class customers on all lines and not just on some lines and only for first-class customers.
The UK standard for achieving business success through people is the UK Investors in People award. The majority of rail companies are not Investors in
1348
People qualified. I find that remarkable and would suggest that Mr Richard Barker might consider that all companies that operate or seek to operate a franchise should be holders of the Investors in People standards. After all, that standard now covers more than 40 per cent of British industry. There are no people measures in Mr Barker's strategic plan. The championing of the Investors in People standard would go some way towards rectifying that. As a director of Investors in People, I hope to be able to discuss this matter with Mr Barker, and can assure him that, if he were to travel down that path, many people would be pleased to offer a great deal of assistance.
I also suggest that the SRA should require all companies to conduct an employee and customer satisfaction service on an ongoing six-monthly basis and that the information should be made available to employees and customers. The information would be equal to, if not more important than, the quality and reliability information and the other performance indicators that are already used in this industry. This new kind of information about people that I look for will tell us additional and important information about employees, about how they are managed, how they are valued and what they think about their management. This should also be extended to customers.
By measuring these things and working for improvements with people and customers we shall see a real change in culture and an improved travelling experience.
8.2 p.m.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I am able to speak for four minutes because I had my name down, but I think it was omitted inadvertently from the list. The good news is that I think there is time in hand.
This debate is particularly well timed. The debate in the country on transport is now crystallising in a very exciting way. The key to this is the terms of competition for road/rail market share in the areas of maximum congestion; that is, the big conurbations and the intercity flows.
It is hard to remember a time, however, when such totally contradictory conclusions can be adduced from the same information. It is true that the input/output of railway performance has deteriorated for a host of reasons, some of them regulatory, some engineering in a broad sense and some management. Nothing I say is meant to detract from the performance to cost agenda facing the industry.
Given all that, we can now see a strategy for a new political economy of transport which starts with the fact that, in a nutshell, we cannot choke off both rail and road at the same time. If choking off some road growth is inescapable—which it is—we cannot also choke off rail growth. That would be stupid. We have to provide for rail growth in the key conurbations and medium distance; that is, leaving out of the equation, just for the moment, the distances where the airlines are part of the equation.

1349
So the picture presented is one of an urgent need to use market principles of marginal costs—I emphasis "marginal costs". Marginal costs determine behaviour. The marginal cost of road transport in congested areas must go up; the marginal cost of rail transport must go down, or at least not go up. Otherwise, there would be a contradiction. We must be logical about the matter.
Rail capacity must be there or choking off road would lead to an impossible political economy equation. One reason why the political economy of transport has not been working is that we have the obvious paradox that the majority of investment for public transport—mainly railways—is now intended to be private finance, but the majority of the investment for private transport—mainly roads—is actually public finance. That is what gives a typical Treasury official a headache, if not a nervous breakdown. What he or she sees is a demand for more cash to go down a black hole, whereas in fact the Treasury revenue on the road side has yet to come in and transform the marginal cost of journeys, so that the externalities of congestion and environmental impact produce a new equation where there is growth of demand for rail transport. In my opinion, it does not matter whether it is hypothecated finance, but the political economy, as I say, is that the market would produce that switch.
We know of the extreme difficulty of the politics of this, but I give one figure. A charge which produced a 5 per cent reduction in road traffic could increase by 50 per cent the demand for public transport. So this turns on its head the usual objection that the increase of public transport will not take up more than one year's traffic growth on the roads. That spectacularly misses the point.
We have to look at the timescales of this because it is a very challenging task to get A done before B, unless someone is going to say you cannot do B because you have not yet done A. It is a question of the charge versus the creation of the capacity on the public rail transport. We need to roll forward the 10-year plan. The fact is that the framework has materially improved the quality of the analysis. I hope that my noble friend will take on board the fact that the all-party parliamentary group on railways will shortly publish some quite outstanding analysis on this whole question by Professor Phil Goodwin of University College London, and we shall be commending his report to everyone with an interest in these matters when it is published in a couple of weeks' time.
8.7 p.m.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, as ever it has been an interesting and constructive debate with contributions from noble Lords with some years of experience in transport. In summing up from these Benches, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for initiating the debate. Perhaps I may say at the outset how refreshing it was to hear someone speak of transport planning in a 50-year time-scale in an age in
1350
which we are lucky if we can get the delivery agencies to look five years ahead, and in which junior transport Ministers change annually.
As we have heard from various noble Lords, there are serious problems in the industry. My noble friend Lord Bradshaw and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, both referred to fragmentation of decision-making in the industry, to which I shall return. My noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, talked about the problems brought about by short-term franchises.
However, declaring an interest as chair of the LGA transport executive, I shall concentrate my closing remarks on the local and regional dimension to rail services. It is vital that we remember that a significant proportion of the 3 million passengers carried by rail every day travel on our regional network. The effect in certain areas is significant. In Strathclyde, for example, 25 per cent of all commuters enter by train. I am told that the Wharfdale Line carries an amazing three-quarters of those entering Leeds to work. Without the Trans-Pennine Express, the nearby motorway network would become impossibly congested. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, gave other examples in which that is the case. It is certainly true that rail is playing an increasingly important role in access to airports; one has only to consider Manchester and Birmingham to understand how important it is and how good it can be when done properly.
The danger of an approach that considers rail purely from the point of view of input without considering wider outputs such as relief of congestion, economic regeneration and accessibility is that from that end of the telescope, local and regional services start to look unattractive. That means that they suffer from lack of investment, which further undermines the routes and sets in a general spiral of decline.
When decisions are being made far away from the places to which they relate, such issues receive far less attention than they merit. Rail links viewed centrally are a cost to be minimised; viewed regionally, they are a vital part of the economic and social life of an area.
I see no reason why rail should still be under centralised control. The UK is now the only country of any size in Europe that organises its rail services in that way. Most countries now have some sort of devolved funding mechanism that works across the whole country. As we have heard from my noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie, we have devolved spending, at least in Scotland. He made well the point that viewed from the SRA in London, Scotland is a regional network, but that viewed from the decision-makers in Edinburgh, it is a national one, which means that it receives the importance it deserves.
I was pleased to hear my noble friend Lord Methuen and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, talk about micro-franchising. There is no reason why we must have a "one size fits all" approach. We can innovate and experiment.

1351
The time for arguing about the merits of privatisation has long gone. As my noble friend Lord Bradshaw said, we are now beyond having to make the case for increased investment. As I am sure that the Minister will say in his reply, money is entering the system. The question is whether we have the structure in our railway to spend it effectively. We have a rail section within the Department of Transport and the SRA. Why do we need them both? A cynic could say that the SRA exists only to provide a safety cushion between Ministers and an angry public. Do we need the Strategic Rail Authority, Network Rail and a regulator?
Tens of thousands of people are making reliable and safe journeys every day on the railways and are served by dedicated staff. The problems are not with them, or even necessarily with the contractors; the problem is with the structure and the culture of blame, bureaucracy and buck-passing that has developed because of it. That is what we need urgently to address.
8.12 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, this debate is timely because it follows the House of Commons Transport Select Committee report on overcrowding and last week's announcement by Tom Winsor, the rail regulator.
The Government published a 10-year plan for transport. It is an odd plan. It is reviewed each year; targets are tinkered with and reduced or increased as the mood suits. It is not actually a 10-year plan at all; it is a work in progress—some might say a rough draft— because not a single major objective looks as though it will be met. Nor, indeed, are there any signs that any of the key indicators set out in the plan are moving in the right direction; most are moving in the wrong direction.
Privatisation of the railways was an improvement. I stand by that claim. British Rail had been underfunded by governments over many years. Consider the increase in passenger numbers; consider the huge investment made by the train operating companies in new rolling stock. Some train companies are now net contributors to the Treasury. None of that could have happened under the old British Rail. But let me say again, as I have said before: I accept that we did not get it all right. The interface between the train operating companies and Railtrack did not work well. Sadly, when that became apparent early in the Government's tenure, they chose to ignore the problem until it was too late.
We admit our mistakes, unlike this Government, which, rather than make improvements, chose to destroy and re-nationalise to suit their political motives. They did not heed the advice of the rail regulator. I quote Tom Winsor:
"Stephen Byers made matters worse by putting Railtrack into administration. At that point cost control went out of the window …I think that Mr Byers should not have acted as he did".
He also said:
1352
"Network Rail lacks basic railway skills and is still guilty of excessive caution in its handling of track repairs".
So trains run even later and are even less reliable, and the Government are now cheating by allowing train operating companies to add 30 to 40 minutes to many timetables to make it seem that trains now run on time.
Is the Minister proud of that? Is it an honest or effective way to run a railway? I look forward to his explanation. No doubt that interesting sleight of hand on timetables will allow the Minister to claim a huge improvement. Try telling that to the poor, long-suffering passengers.
Will the Government fund the £22.7 billion that the rail regulator claims is required? If so, how?
As has been mentioned, the train operators suffer from one problem that could be easily rectified: increasing the length of the franchises. How can they plan for the future?
Furthermore, how can the train operating companies invest in new electric-operated trains when it is clear that, by going electric, with new faster trains, there will not be enough power—electricity—available to run all the trains? What will the Government do about that? Who is responsible?
Are the Government and Network Rail committed to upgrading the whole West Coast Main Line? If so, what will be the timetable? Network Rail refers in its 2002 annual report and accounts to the,
"fundamental uncertainty of the West Coast Route".
The rail regulator's view is that, if Network Rail does not get its act together, he is willing to pull the plug on the project. But that is not the view of Richard Bowker, the Strategic Rail Authority chairman, who opposes any delay. What is the Government's view?
In the 2002 Department for Transport report the Government claimed that Network Rail would offer many advantages over Railtrack. Let me quote a few. On page 42 it refers to,
"an alignment of the operations and incentives with the wider public interest".
Can the Minister give us an example? It also claims that there will be,
"a reinvestment of surpluses earned on operations back into the rail industry".
When do they expect the first surplus to appear for reinvestment? Finally, it refers to,
"more efficient financing through a strong capital structure offering a lower cost of capital".
How much has been saved?
The department's 2003 report failed to address any of those issues. So the Minister has an opportunity to set the record straight today.
Also, why do we need the three overlapping competing regulators—the Strategic Rail Authority, the Office of Rail Regulation and Network Rail? We would support the Government, if they come forward with a sensible plan to rationalise those bodies.
8.16 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we have had a most interesting and constructive debate. It was ably introduced by my noble friend Lord Berkeley, whose great expertise in the field set the theme that infused all the contributions; namely, a commitment to the development of the rail service and to dealing with anxieties where it has failed to live up to expectations.
I note the noble Viscount's remarks at the end of his speech. For a party that continually tells us how much it will save on public expenditure, here is yet another plea for necessary expenditure. The party recognises that substantial sums are being mooted as essential for the development of the system and merely asks us how we intend to finance it. The noble Viscount will know that current demands possess an external quality. We will look at overall financing of the railways. But he will also recognise that the Government have already made a substantial commitment to railways investment.
I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, the noble Earl. Lord Mar and Kellie, and my noble friend Lord Lea all advocated development of the railway. They expressed concern that it did not meet every expectation. All their contributions were positive. I recognise, in particular, the important points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and my noble friend Lord Lea that we must look at the externalities with regard to the cost of rail. We should recognise that transport must be looked at in terms of costs and investment.
We recognise, as does the country, that under-investment in railways will merely result in increased journeys on an already overloaded roads network. We need to get the balance right. But, in response to pleas to reduce bureaucracy, I make the obvious point that we are not about to shake up the structures concerned with investment and development, monitoring and guarantees for railways. We have far more urgent issues to deal with. There are far more crucial decisions to take than the question of the bureaucracy of railways administration.
The noble Viscount was honest enough to say that this Government inherited a botched privatisation. They inherited, not only botched privatisation, but a network that had been starved of long-term investment. This Government are committed to that investment. We do not have time to involve ourselves in fanciful concepts. I notice that the Liberal Democrats are once again engaging in their general theme of devolution of everything that can be devolved. There are many things that ought not to be devolved. However, we do not have time to look at how we may devolve greater structures with regard to rail. The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, already has devolution. The Minister in Scotland is responsible for rail investment. It is the Liberal Democrat Minister who is responsible for rail investment. Therefore, he should address his remarks about increasing investment to that source. We are concerned about getting the railway system right.
1354
I accept the point that was made by several noble Lords that the existing structure of franchises seems to have rigidity, but there was an announcement today of a franchise for 15 years for Wales and the Borders. I take on board the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, that franchises could be longer, which would give greater flexibility. If we are to get investment it will be necessary in some areas to rethink the nature of franchises. However, that type of consideration can be taken only by a bureaucracy and structure that is secure about its objectives. That is why we will ignore remarks about another shake-up of the administration of the railway and concentrate on the realities of the system that we need to deliver.
One of those realities is safety, as my noble friend Lord Faulkner indicated. Who better than the President of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents to remind us of those issues? I ask him to bear in mind the point made by my noble friend Lord Berkeley in introducing the debate. He pressed it a little more strongly than I would when he used the phrase "hysteria" about safety. Certainly, we need to strike a balance about safety. We all know how much safer rail transport is compared with road transport. However, it is essential post-Hatfield that we have safe and secure systems in place. That is why certain aspects of franchises have been drawn up very tightly indeed and why people have been held to account, for which I am sure the House is grateful.
We are aware that a balance has to be struck, as my noble friend Lord Berkeley indicated. We must guarantee to the public that the railway is safe. At the same time, we must ensure that the necessary investment goes into a safer railway but also an effective and efficient railway. The Government are providing the long overdue sustained investment that passengers want in the network, spending some £73 million a week to improve the railways so that, by 2005, the Government will be spending double what was spent in 2001. That commitment to sustained investment is already bringing benefits. I challenge the Official Opposition to say whether they back that type of investment and whether their public expenditure plans, which incorporate 20 per cent cuts across the board, includes or excludes the railway as it does so many other areas of policy when they are challenged.
As a result of the investment, the Secretary of State launched the South West Trains new rolling stock which will bring greater quality and comfort to passengers on some of our busiest commuter lines. It also means, and I will reply directly to the noble Viscount, that we are investing in the West Coast Main Line. We do intend to ensure that it is delivered. It will mean an 80 per cent increase in capacity on trains that run on the West Coast Main Line. We are meeting necessary obligations. Rail passenger numbers are higher than at any point in the past 50 years. Passenger kilometres are higher now than in any year since 1947. Overall passenger rail use is up by a fifth since 1997. Freight traffic—a cause that is very dear to my noble friend Lord Berkeley who introduced the debate—is up by 24 per cent since 1997. Some 40 per cent of all rolling stock will be replaced over five years.

1355
The noble Viscount asked the Government perhaps to admit their mistakes. I will indicate on the margins that I am somewhat disturbed about the matter of rolling stock coming onstream without the power requirements for that rolling stock having been adequately and accurately foreseen. It is rapidly being put right, but I accept his challenge on that point. If we are producing new rolling stock that increases power demands, it is essential that those who propose to introduce it are very sure that there is access to power.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, who will be responsible for ensuring that that electric power comes onstream? Is it part of the rail network or part of something else?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, as I think the noble Viscount will recognise, such a significant matter is of strategic concern. We would not want this investment in new rolling stock across many parts of the system to be frustrated by an inadequacy of power. It is a serious matter that is being directly attended to.
Underpinning everything the Government have done is a commitment to delivering a safe, reliable railway for passengers, a commitment demonstrated by unprecedented levels of long-term investment. The noble Viscount derided our 10-year plan, but we intend to invest £33 billion over those 10 years. I challenge him to say when he gets the chance whether a Conservative government—were one ever to regain control of the railway, which we fervently hope does not happen—would match that investment.
Performance levels are gradually improving. As for punctuality, at the last count it had improved by about 80 per cent. However, the Government want to see more improvement in punctuality. There is no doubt at all that we will not be able to attract passengers to rail unless they can be guaranteed not only that their train will arrive on time but that it will deliver them to their destination on the basis of reasonable timekeeping. Hatfield was a disaster in that respect. It caused a tremendous slump in railway performance, which we are gradually re-establishing. However, it is true that we have some way to go in improving the situation.
A range of issues have been raised in this debate. None of us would pretend that everything is right with the railways at present—we are all too well aware of the challenges that face all those responsible for running the railway. We recognise that we need a strategic plan, which the Government have provided. We need investment in the railway. We need a recognition of where mistakes have been made in the past, a point which we made with regard to the franchises, for example.
1 hope that we have been able to establish that a great deal is being done, not least on the issue of quality. Unless we have quality in the service people will not use the railway. The businessman wants speed and punctuality; being late for meetings is not an option for him. Students are flexible on timing but
1356
have a limited budget and therefore require access to cheap rail fares. For freight customers, cost and reliability are critical if they are to remain competitive.
The railway needs to deliver for each of those customers. Like all other businesses, it has to recognise that its customers are very discerning. It therefore needs to provide quality, whether the quality of the environment in which it carries its passengers, in clean, comfortable trains, or the accuracy and timeliness of the information that it provides. I know that people are more frustrated by inaccurate information or, very often, the total dearth of information, when they are at a loss as to whether their train will arrive on time.
Against that background, it is clear that the Government have much to take pride in with regard to the development of the railways. Much has been achieved. There are no quick fixes and noble Lords have identified many issues today which need a number of years of substantial investment before we shall see the improvements that we need. However, the Government, with the rest of the industry, are dealing with a network which has suffered from many years of neglect and at last is obtaining the investment it requires. We recognise that still more needs to be done to ensure that rail lives up to its high expectations.
In conclusion, I approve of and applaud the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Sawyer. The issue, as regards the railways, also involves the confidence and competence of its staff. There is no doubt that there was a time when to be a railwayman was one of the proudest roles that men and women could play in working society. Regrettably, those days have gone. However, what is clear is that with investment in people and concern about the quality of staff, the railways can return again to a level of service which we look forward to producing and for which the necessary investment is beginning to be put in place.

Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill
8.31 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 66.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 324ZA:
Page 26, line 19, at end insert—
"'( ) the Office for Standards in Education;
( ) the Department for Education and Skills:
( ) children's trusts;
( ) local Safeguarding Children Boards."
The noble Earl said: If we accept that there may be occasions when CHAI will need to access personal data, it is unclear whether situations involving suspected harm to children—whether in a domestic context or elsewhere—strictly will be within CHAI's remit or its sole remit.
Could the Minister clarify this point? Now that policy making for child protection has been transferred to the DfES and the Minister for Children, who will be the lead body when investigations into

1357
child abuse allegations take place? Will it be CHAI, Ofsted or neither? If it is Ofsted or perhaps one of the new children's trusts, will that body have unfettered access to personal medical data relating to children? Will such data be freely available in the DfES?
We need to be extremely careful when making data of this kind available to anyone and everyone with a possible interest in accessing it. Members of the Committee will be aware that the recent government Green Paper put forward a number of recommendations, one of which is for a national database of children and families. We are all familiar with why such a recommendation should have emerged in the wake of the report produced by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, into the death of Victoria Climbié. Like so many of us, I have enormous respect for the noble Lord, Lord Laming, and the work that he did.
However, there are dangers as well as benefits in any widening of access to personal data. The first danger that springs to my mind is that of jumping to wrong conclusions. I shall not weary the Committee for too long on what, I have to admit, is an abiding concern of mine. On previous occasions in this Chamber, we have debated how impossible it is for someone who has been wrongfully accused of child abuse to have that designation removed from his or her medical records or from the records of the child. In practice, it is a permanent black mark against that person, even if an allegation has been comprehensively rebutted.
We all want to see child abusers identified and brought to account, but we do not want to see a mushrooming of false allegations which traumatise parents and children and waste valuable public resources. I should be grateful if the Minister could say a little now, or perhaps write to me, about the width of the circle of privileged access that the Government envisage as regards the sharing of children's personal data. If CHAI has automatic access, albeit according to worked-out protocols, who else will be entitled to share in the data? Will the protocols be the same for those people? The more people who potentially have access to confidential data, the more it can be misused or accessed by those who have no business doing so. I beg to move.
Lord Warner: The noble Earl knows from my responses in earlier debates to concerns he has rightly raised about wrongful accusations of child abuse that I have every sympathy with them. It is not something that either I personally or the Government would want to encourage. I understand his position.
In regard to Amendment No. 324ZA, we do not feel that placing Ofsted under a duty to provide information to CHAI in this manner is the best way forward. A duty of co-operation and joint working provisions is already included in the Bill. Further, given the increased remit provided for Ofsted in relation to children set out in our recent Green Paper, Every Child Matters, we think it proper that both bodies should develop appropriate protocols with regard to joint working and information sharing. I am
1358
sure that government departments will try to help CHAI with information if necessary, but making it a requirement in primary legislation is not appropriate.
I am sympathetic to the inclusion of the final two bodies listed in the amendment, but neither children's trusts nor local safeguarding children boards have statutory status at this stage. Furthermore, and in response to the inquiry of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, into the tragic death of Victoria Climbié, we are currently considering to what extent these bodies should be put on a statutory footing. Therefore it would be inappropriate to place these bodies on the face of the Bill until the issue of their status has been resolved. Certainly it would go against accepted drafting practice to refer in primary legislation to bodies which do not have statutory status.
CSCI will be the lead body in relation to child protection allegations. It will have the right, where necessary, to access personal data in order to protect the welfare of vulnerable children. The position of CSCI will be considered further in the context of the response to the Laming report. Until that is made more clear, I cannot take the debate much further, other than to reassure the noble Earl that we understand his concerns. However, the amendment does not mark the way forward at this point.
Earl Howe: I am grateful to the Minister for that response and I accept that it would not be appropriate to place on the face of the Bill a mention of bodies that do not yet exist. He will understand that this was intended as a probing amendment really to tease out who will take the lead on children's issues. If it is to be CSCI, there is still a question to be raised about whether the edges are in any sense blurred and whether that body will be able to gain access to all the types of premises that it will need to investigate for the purposes of its work in this area.
As regards Ofsted, if it is expected that CHAI should work in close co-operation with it, I am a little surprised that that is not set out on the face of the Bill. Where such co-operation is required, it is important that both sides contribute to the same degree and in the same measure to the work in hand. I should have thought that duties set out on the face of the Bill would not be out of place here. Nevertheless, if it is the considered view of the Government that that is not required, then I bow to their judgment.
Again, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I shall take the issue away and give it further thought. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 66 agreed to.
Clause 67 [Power to require explanation]:
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 324A:
Page 26, line 38, leave out "prescribed" and insert "specified by the CHAI"
The noble Lord said: The government amendments are technical in nature and were suggested by parliamentary counsel.
As I said to earlier, similar, amendments. Amendments Nos. 335A and 361 A, under Clauses 67, 73, 89 and 99 regulations may provide for CHAI, the Welsh Assembly or CSCI as appropriate to require prescribed persons to provide an explanation of any documents or information the inspectorates obtain in exercising their relevant powers, or of any matters which are the subject of the exercise of any functions of the inspectorates.
The Bill currently provides that those regulations may require explanations to be provided at times and places set out in the regulations. This is to ensure that it will be possible to require explanations to be provided in person, as opposed to in writing, which we consider will sometimes be appropriate, particularly where the inspectorates come across conflicting data in the course of exercising their functions. These amendments clarify matters in this regard. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: I shall speak briefly to my Amendments Nos. 325 and 359, which are grouped with the government amendments.
Can the Minister expand in a little more detail on the full intent and purport of the clause? Clause 67 creates a criminal offence if a prescribed person fails to provide a explanation to CHAI of any documents or other matters referred to in subsection (1) in circumstances as yet undefined. The Minister, however, outlined one set of circumstances, which I found helpful.
We gather that regulations will be laid in due course which will set out the full extent of the power and what exactly is involved. If the Minister can give an inkling of what we can expect to see in the regulations and what kinds of circumstances these provisions are meant to cover, I am sure the Committee will find it helpful. I have also tabled an equivalent amendment to Clause 89, which relates to Wales.
I suggest, I hope not unreasonably, that because we are being presented with not only an empty box but also a new criminal offence applicable to it, the regulations to be laid should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure to enable them to be guaranteed debating time in both Houses.
Lord Warner: I shall not go over the arguments again of why we think the regulations are suitable for the negative rather than affirmative resolution procedure. They were set out at an earlier stage of our discussion in relation to regulations of this kind.
We are moving the government amendments because there are circumstances under which CHAI, the Assembly or CSCI may require prescribed persons to provide an explanation of any documents or information the inspectorates obtain in exercising their powers. We are trying to ensure that these explanations may be provided not only in writing but in person. We will of course set out in more detail in the regulations those arrangements, but essentially this is about explanations being dealt with in writing or by a personal appearance.
1360
That is the purport of what will be covered in the regulations. I am not sure that I can go much further in trying to clarify what will be in the detailed regulations.
Earl Howe: The noble Lord has shed some light on the clause and I thank him for that. We look forward to seeing the regulations when they are published. No doubt these matters will by then have been thought through in even greater detail.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 325 not moved.]
Clause 67, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 68 [Reviews and investigations relating to Wales):
[Amendments Nos. 326 to 331 not moved.]
Clause 68 agreed to.
Clause 69 [Reporting to Secretary of State and regulator]:
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 332:
Page 27, line 37, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "CHAI"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 332, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 333.
Amendment No. 332 amends Clause 69(1), which requires the Assembly to report to the Secretary of State if it believes there are significant failings in an English NHS body. I have argued earlier in our proceedings that it is not sensible or desirable for the Assembly to concern itself with English bodies, but, if it is to do so, we believe that its reports should go to CHAI. The issue of significant failings is unlikely to be related only to the provision of care to Welsh patients. It should be left to CHAI to deliver to the Secretary of State a coherent picture, based on the Welsh perspective and CHAI's own findings.
It is possible that significant failings in an English hospital seen through the Cardiff end of the telescope are not nearly so important when contextualised for the whole of the hospital's activity. I am not suggesting that CHAI should ignore what the Assembly thinks, but the Secretary of State should receive advice on a consistent basis from the body which he has set up for that purpose.
Amendment No. 333 makes a similar provision in relation to foundation trusts. Clause 69(3) has the Assembly reporting to the regulator directly. Our amendment would have the Assembly reporting to CHAI, which can then report to the regulator under Clause 52 if, in the round, such a report is considered by CHAI to be desirable. I beg to move.
Baroness Andrews: I shall take my cue from the noble Baroness—I shall not have another debate on devolution and will keep my remarks brief.
We believe that the amendments are not necessary. To state the obvious, the Secretary of State is responsible for the overall provision of healthcare in England, while the Assembly, under Clause 68, is given the function of conducting the reviews of and

1361
investigations into the provision of healthcare by and for Welsh NHS bodies. As we debated last week, the new independent health inspectorate for Wales is being established to conduct reviews in the same way as CHAI does in England. Our argument is that if the Assembly identifies significant failings, it should report them to the Secretary of State or the regulator, in the case of foundation trusts. These are the people who can make things happen and make changes.
I agree with the noble Baroness that in pursuit of its responsibilities, the health inspectorate might indeed come across failings. It may find those failings in relation to Welsh patients in English hospitals. Let us assume, for example, that CHAI did not inspect a hospital recently or that it never inspected it. If HIW, as part of its programme, makes a decision to inspect that hospital, discussing its programme with CHAI, given its duty of co-operation, any difficulties it comes across will be germane not simply to Welsh patients but will have an impact on English patients as well. Therefore, we believe that this is an opportunity for something to be anticipated. It would be for the Secretary of State to determine what action should be taken to address those failings in accordance with the powers conferred on him by the National Health Service Act 1977, and likewise for the regulator, in relation to his powers under Clause 23.
I emphasise that Clause 141 provides for co-operation where it seems appropriate for the effective discharge of functions. In this context, the provision also extends towards the provision of information, including information on failings relating to English NHS trusts. Clause 126 also provides for CHAI to make and publish an annual report on both English and Welsh NHS bodies. In exercising that function, CHAI will need to have copies of all reports in relation to the functions undertaken by the Assembly, which may include information on failings relating to English NHS trusts.
I hope the noble Baroness will agree that these are reasonable arguments and withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Noakes: I thank the noble Baroness for her reply, but it has really rather strengthened my resolve on the issue. She said that CHAI would need to report both to the Secretary of State and to the Assembly on health matters. It can report to the Assembly on Welsh matters only if it has information about Welsh matters—but here we have a deliberate information flow that bypasses CHAI and goes somewhere else. There is a real asymmetry here.
We do not believe that the Welsh Assembly should have any role with regard to English hospitals—only CHAI should have a role. If the Assembly is going to do it, however, its findings will need to be filtered through CHAI, otherwise there will be an asymmetry.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I am sorry to intervene in the debate, but I have wide experience of the relationship between the NHS in Wales and the NHS in England. It is extremely important that there is wide consultation, particularly as it affects England. Up to 25 per cent of the patients in Powys go to English
1362
hospitals, in Hereford and Shrewsbury and one or two other places. That is a significant cross-border movement of patients, and it is important that they are monitored. The new hospital in Hereford has fewer beds than was formerly the case, which means that patients in Powys have achieved a second-class status in terms of waiting lists. Such matters are extremely important.
Baroness Noakes: I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. I have never denied that the cross-border flows were important. If the noble Lord had been able to join us on a previous Committee day—I am not sure which one—he would have heard an extensive debate, which the Minister may be rather disappointed that we are not having again today, about the impact of the cross-border flow. In fact, the Minister told us that she herself was a cross-border flow at one stage in her life.
The Secretary of State should get consistent advice on a hospital from one source, which should not be confused by advice coming from separate sources and, in particular, against different standards. The Assembly has decided that it will set its own standards; we do not know how they are going to be different from English standards, but they may be different. The Secretary of State has fundamental responsibility for the English hospitals, and there cannot be a lot of confusing advice about different standards and different patients, who will inevitably be at the margin of the English hospitals.
The Government have not got the measures right. In practice, on the ground, those measures will cause tremendous confusion. If the Assembly says that hospital X in England is somehow failing Welsh patients, what is the Secretary of State to do, other than to try to get an in-the-round assessment via CHAI? That is why the advice should go via CHAI in the first place.
I hope that the Government have another opportunity to rethink their Welsh interface issues before we get to Report stage, because they are really in a dreadful mess. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 333 not moved.]
Clause 69 agreed to.
Clause 70 v[Right of entry]:
[Amendment No. 334 not moved.]
Clause 70 agreed to.
Clause 71 [Right of entry: supplementary]:
[Amendment No. 335 not moved.]
Clause 71 agreed to.
Clause 72 agreed to.
Clause 73 [Power to require explanation]:
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 335A:
Page 30, line 16, leave out "prescribed" and insert "specified by the Assembly"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 73, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 336 not moved.]
Clause 74 [Introductory]:
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 337:
Page 30, line 32, leave out "and their value for money"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 337, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 338 and 375.
Amendment No. 337 is a technical probing amendment. It seeks to leave out the words,
"and their value for money"
from paragraph (d) of Clause 74(2), which sets out the matters with which CSCI should be concerned in particular.
I had always understood that in the public sector value for money was regarded as synonymous with economy, efficiency and effectiveness—the 3Es. Those are the words in statute that go with the value for money functions of the National Audit Office and the Audit Commission. I am not aware of any other source of wisdom on value for money. However, paragraph (b) of Clause 74(2) refers to the effectiveness of services; and paragraph (d) refers to economy and efficiency of their provision but then goes on to refer to value for money, which seems to me tautologous. Will the Minister say what is added to Clause 74(2) by the words "value for money" as the components of value for money have already been specified?
The other two amendments in the group standing in my name and that of the noble Earl, Lord Howe— Amendments Nos. 338 and 375—add to Clauses 74 and 102 the need to safeguard and promote the rights and welfare of elderly people. We have already debated this point in connection with CHAI and I have little to add to that debate. If it is necessary to separate out a vulnerable group such as children, I believe that the case for excluding elderly people is even more important for CSCI than for CHAI given the services that local authorities must provide. I say immediately to the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth of Breckland, that children's needs are undoubtedly important. However, the problem with mentioning children is that the exclusion of other groups may create confusion as regards their relative importance. That cannot be right. I beg to move.
Baroness Barker: I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 338A and 376 in this group. No doubt I shall achieve as much success as I have done on every other occasion when I have mentioned these two issues but none the less I shall carry on undaunted.
Along with the three Es and value for money that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, discussed it is important that we keep returning to the principle of equity and access to services. Until such time as that is on the face of the Bill I believe that there will be the potential for huge distortions in the provision of services.
Amendment No. 376 is concerned with the inclusion of vulnerable adults. One of social services' most important functions is the delivery of services to
1364
vulnerable adults. The definition of "vulnerable adults" is well set out in documents such as No Secrets. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, I was willing to accept the arguments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth of Breckland, about children being overlooked in hospital. However, I am afraid that I do not buy that argument in respect of social services where older people and vulnerable adults are in some cases numerically the largest recipients of services. But, interestingly, they will not always be so. For example, in a number of London boroughs the emphasis is being put very much on children's services because the number of older people is declining. The noble Baroness will not be surprised to hear me say that older people and vulnerable adults have very complex needs. They are equally deserving of being mentioned on the face of the Bill.
But having said that, the noble Lord, Lord Warner, would still be well advised to adopt our amendments that set out duties of equality.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: I must speak in this debate partly to put right any misunderstanding that I do not think that groups other than children need priority. I declare an interest as a member of the National Care Standards Commission. Children are in a minority as regards the services that they will receive through CSCI. We know from vast experience that if children do not have emphasis they lose out. These, too, are all vulnerable children. The adults being accommodated are not vulnerable adults. I do not believe that people who go into old people's homes, for example, are necessarily vulnerable. They may need accommodating, but many of them would speak out very strongly if they were described as vulnerable. Indeed, some of them have asked that that terminology should not be used. It is true of some groups with learning difficulties, who see themselves as needing accommodation, but not necessarily as in the vulnerable category.
Most children received into care—I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, will say more about them later—are usually vulnerable, so it is terribly important that they be kept in the Bill. That should not in any way detract from the services for other groups, which are actually in a majority with most funding spent on them.
9 p.m.
Lord Warner: I admire the stamina of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, but fortified by dinner I hope that I will also demonstrate stamina on some of the issues. I do not question the importance of the issues that Amendment No. 338A raises. I should point out, however, that the Local Government Act 2000 enables local authorities to do anything that promotes the economic, social or environmental well-being of their populations. However, we should be clear that CSCI is fundamentally an inspector of the quality of social care provision, rather than a regulator of quality of life as a whole. However, those services that it regulates will have a very important impact on an individual's

1365
life quality. I will not go all over the argument about equity, as we have set out our position. We do not believe that the amendment is justified.
We have already debated at some length the issues dealt with in Amendments Nos. 338, 375 and 376. I obviously sympathise with those concerned about the vulnerability of older people and certain other adults. The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, put the case for children extremely well. As I tried to say in an earlier debate, vulnerability in relation to adults is often very much related to the particular circumstances in which a particular adult may find himself. That is extraordinarily difficult to define appropriately in primary legislation, if I may say so without being patronising to many of those groups. That does not diminish the argument that some are vulnerable in certain circumstances, which we are not making. CHAI and CSCI will have regard to their needs, as has been made clear by those organisations already. We do not think it necessary to prescribe all that in the Bill. Indeed, it would be difficult in relation to some of the adult groups about which we have talked.
Amendment No. 337 seeks to remove CSCI's general duty to inspect the value for money of local authority social services departments. That duty has two dimensions. First, it reflects the requirement in the Local Government Act 1999 for local authorities to produce best-value performance plans in relation to their functions, including their social services functions. Currently, under Section 6 of the 1999 Act, it is the duty of every local authority to produce a best-value performance plan. Section 7 of the 1999 Act requires that an external auditor audits each best-value performance plan.
The Audit Commission is responsible for auditing the best-value performance plans that cover a majority of a local authority's services. However, the Audit Commission has done so in the past by drawing on the expertise of the inspectorate for the relevant service, currently the Social Services Inspectorate, which is concerned with those parts of the plans that deal with social services. It is envisaged that in future that role will be taken over by CSCI.
The second dimension of the duty is that it will enable CSCI to continue the joint review function currently taken by the Social Services Inspectorate in conjunction with the Audit Commission. Joint reviews have provided the public with important information about how local councils allocate resources to social services, and whether they deliver value for money. The staff responsible for joint reviews, from both the Audit Commission and the Social Services Inspectorate, will transfer to CSCI. It is thus important that CSCI's duty to look at the value for money of social services is retained to allow that work to continue. That is why it would be inappropriate to accept this amendment.
Baroness Noakes: May I have clarification from the noble Lord over the point that I put to him in connection with Clause 74(2)? Paragraph (b) talks about effectiveness and paragraph (d) talks about economy and efficiency and then goes on to talk about
1366
value for money. I was not trying to eliminate value for money from this matter, I was saying that one already had value for money by the time one reached value for money—because one has effectiveness and economy and efficiency. 1 asked the Minister what those additional words added. I was not trying to say that CSCI should not look at value for money. Far from it. What are the Minister's views on that?
Lord Warner: I shall not repeat all the reasons that I have just given, but the essential point is that the Audit Commission has to carry out best value performance plans—auditing—under the Local Government Act 1999, and it looked in the past to the Social Services Inspectorate, in the future CSCI, to produce the expertise in carrying out the audit of that plan. Therefore, we are putting beyond doubt on the face of the Bill the point that CSCI has responsibility in that area. The noble Baroness may not accept our arguments, but that is the reason for the wording in the Bill.
Baroness Noakes: I thank the Minister; but no, the noble Baroness does not accept that value for money has to be spelt out twice within a couple of lines of the legislation. I hope that the Minister or his officials will look at that issue again, because the answer cannot be to do with liaising with the Audit Commission or about best value performance plans. If the wording has any meaning it is something that has not been to date teased out. That is one aspect of my amendments. The other relates to children.
If we return to the wording of, for example, Clause 74. CSCI "shall be concerned in particular with":
"the need to safeguard and promote the rights and welfare of children".
It is not just a question of dealing with the children who are in care. A much broader function is specified for CSCI. I was trying to add "and elderly people", the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, was trying to add "and vulnerable people", into this much wider concept of simply looking after the very vulnerable, but also promoting and safeguarding their rights. It is a very broad sense here. That is why it is difficult to see why groups other than children have been ignored. We have been through this argument once already in Committee in connection with CHAI. We have the argument again over CSCI.
I feel that the matter has not been satisfactorily bottomed out, and we shall need to return to it again, because at the moment the functions of CHAI and CSCI are being distorted by their emphasis on one very important group, but only one group among the many who ought to have some focus. I shall not press the matter further today. I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 338 to 338A not moved.]
Clause 74 agreed to.
Clause 75 [Information and advice]:
[Amendment No. 339 not moved.]
Clause 75 agreed to.

1367
Clause 76 [Review of studies and research]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 340:
Page 31, line 17, at end insert—
"( ) The CSCI may conduct or commission such research as it deems necessary to ensure that the future development of care services is based on independent knowledge and expertise."
The noble Earl said: Clause 76 permits CSCI to conduct reviews of research undertaken by other people in relation to local authority social services. I have no quarrel with this power, but it is unclear to me why CSCI is not being given a power to conduct or commission research directly to enable it to carry out its work in a more informed way. As the clause reads, CSCI will have to sit back and wait hopefully for others to produce interesting information that is relevant to its remit. That does not seem logical or sensible. I hope that the Minister will look constructively on this suggestion. I beg to move.
Baroness Barker: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 350, which would enable CSCI to produce reports concerning the implementation of Clause 14 of the Care Standards Act relating to registration. This is a probing amendment questioning whether CSCI will have the power to examine the impact of government regulations on home care. The disappearance of care homes has been well documented in debates in your Lordships' House. The passage of legislation through Parliament can have a direct effect on the provision of services at local level. Therefore, we want to be able to see CSCI having a free hand to commission and produce reports on the matter.
Given the Minister's response to a similar amendment, no doubt the Government will not be enamoured by the proposal. Nevertheless, it is an important element in taking a strategic view of the whole of social care within the country—something which CSCI should be able to do and have the freedom to do.
Lord Turnberg: Having spent most of my life engaged in research, or encouraging it and the knowledge gained from it to underpin medical care, I am all for the idea that CSCI should base its ideas on research. Research is certainly needed in this area. However, I am not clear on whether CSCI will be in a good position to be able to do so.
I hope that this short debate will focus the attention of the Government on the need for research of which CSCI can take advantage and in which it can take an interest. I am not sure what the mechanism might be, but I do not believe that CSCI will be set up to undertake that role.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: I believe that CSCI will have some of the best sets of data in the world, not only in Europe, because it will have full data on all the establishments throughout the country year on year. From that it will be able to deduce information on the way we are inspecting, what that inspection shows, and
1368
how the service can be improved. That will not exist for some years, but it will form the basis of good research in the long term.
Lord Warner: I am grateful for the intervention of the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth. Given her background, she indicates that a great deal of material will in time come forward through CSCI. I am also grateful for the gentle question from my noble friend Lord Turnberg. It is unnecessary to allow CSCI to conduct or commission research to develop and inform its own inspection methodologies because CSCI is already able to do that under Schedule 7, paragraph 2. That provision enables CSCI to,
"do anything which appears to it to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of, or in connection with, the exercise of its functions".
It may be that the amendment is trying to take us down a road where CSCI's functions would be extended into the realm of best practice. If research were for that purpose, that would be inappropriate. The development of best practice is the proper role of the Social Care Institute for Excellence, as provided for in the Government's paper, Quality in Social Care: The National Institutional Framework, which was published in 2001. For those reasons, we believe that Amendment No. 340 is not appropriate.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, will be reassured by my consistency of approach in responding to Amendment No. 350, the practical effect of which would be to extend the functions and duplicate powers that CSCI already has. I suggest that it might also divert the inspectorate from its core task of monitoring the quality of both local authority social services and services regulated under the Care Standards Act 2000.
In my view, the amendment is unnecessary for a number of reasons. Under Clause 102, CSCI has a duty to keep the Secretary of State informed about the availability and quality of registered social care services and any other matter connected with the provision of such services under the Care Standards Act. If it was considered that the manner of regulation of the services was having an adverse effect on those services, it would report that to the Secretary of State.
As part of that duty, CSCI must report what it has found in the course of exercising its functions in the annual report to Parliament and the Secretary of State, which it is required to produce under Clause 127 of the Bill. I do not believe that the inspectorate—the noble Baroness may be unnecessarily pessimistic here— would ignore any evidence that its activity was having a detrimental effect on the quality, supply and cost of regulated services under the Care Standards Act. Indeed, CSCI would be in breach of its duty to keep the Secretary of State informed if it did not report such matters.
In view of that, it would be wrong to give CSCI a specific function of looking at the impact of regulation on regulated services. As I said, it is under a duty to do that in any event. Therefore, I do not believe that the amendment is appropriate.
9.15 p.m.
Earl Howe: I am grateful to the Minister for pointing out that Schedule 7 permits CSCI to carry out research. The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, is absolutely right: looking several years down the track, it will be in a prime position to do that kind of work. With that reassurance from the Minister, I believe there is little more that I need to say. However, because I very much respect the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, and his views, at some point I should be glad of a conversation with him about why he has doubts on this matter. But, for now. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 76 agreed to.
Clause 77 [Annual reviews]:
[Amendments Nos. 341 to 344 not moved.]
Clause 77 agreed to.
Clause 78 [Other reviews and investigations]:
[Amendments Nos. 345 and 346 not moved.]
Clause 78 agreed to.
Clause 79 [Failings]:
[Amendments Nos. 347 and 348 not moved.]
Clause 79 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 349 not moved.]
Clause 80 [Studies as to economy, efficiency etc]:
[Amendment No. 350 not moved.]
Clause 80 agreed to.
Clause 81 [Joint working with Audit Commission]:
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 351:
Page 34, line 10. leave out subsections (3) and (4).
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 351 would delete subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 81, which concern the interface between CSCI and the Audit Commission.
Clause 81 starts by being entirely sensible. Subsection (1) states that the Audit Commission and CSCI may exercise their functions jointly. Subsection (2) states that they must co-operate with one another. But the clause goes downhill from there with the appearance of the usual suspect—the Secretary of State.
Subsection (3) seems mild enough and says that the Secretary of State may give guidance to CSCI and the Audit Commission about which should undertake studies. But the sting is in the tail of subsection (4), which states that CSCI and the Audit Commission must take the guidance into account—that is, it is not guidance but a direction. If one compares Clause 81 with Clause 57 it is apparent that a quite different approach is taken to CHAI. There CHAI is put in the lead and it is left to CHAI to agree with the Audit Commission if it wants the Audit Commission to help.
Will the Minister explain why a different approach has been taken as to the allocation of functions between CHAI and the Audit Commission on the one hand and CSCI and the Audit Commission on the other? Will he further explain why the Secretary of
1370
State has to intervene at all? Why cannot the overlap of functions be left to the good sense of the Audit Commission and CSCI and their duty to co-operate? Does the Minister have any reason to believe that co-operation between the two will not work out in practice? If he does I am sure that noble Lords will be interested to hear about that. I hope that this is at least one area in which the Secretary of State can be persuaded to give up one of his routes of intervention. I beg to move.
Baroness Barker: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 352 and 353. They are probing amendments to tease out the relationship between CSCI, the Audit Commission and the Comptroller and Auditor-General. Amendment No. 352 deals with areas where there should be joint reviews or studies, the requirement to publish information and the fact that CSCI is to produce information to those bodies. Amendment No. 353 requires that the Comptroller and Auditor-General shall report to both Houses on those matters.
The amendments are trying to tease out some kind of coherence between the different regulatory bodies that will be brought together in the hope that we get streamlining rather than a profusion of reports and a duplication of work. It is quite clear that all those different bodies have a role to play in determining the value and effectiveness of social care services. It is not clear how all of them will work together in the perfect harmony that the Minister has assured us the Secretary of State will bring to these matters. I would be pleased to know what he thinks of that point.
Lord Warner: We have already gone over the ground covered by Amendment No. 351, that CSCI and the Audit Commission have a different relationship with local government from that which CHAI has with the NHS and healthcare. The Audit Commission's role in value for money studies is removed in relation to the NHS. In view of time constraints 1 shall not repeat all the arguments that I made on the previous amendment.
Under normal circumstances we would anticipate that CSCI and the Audit Commission will agree a programme of studies and determine the leadership for each individual project. However, it is possible that there may be circumstances when they are unable to reach such an agreement. Following that, it may be the case that CSCI and the Audit Commission will decide to engage in separate but ultimately very similar studies looking at the same aspects of local authority services. Such duplication would be an unnecessary waste of the resources of the two commissions and, perhaps more significantly, place an unnecessary burden on service providers. Thus in our view it is important that the Secretary of State has the power to prevent such duplication through intervening when there are disagreements between the two commissions. It would be a brave person who, looking into the future, would suggest that there will never be any disagreement between commissions, although it is unlikely.

1371
Issuing guidance as to how they should work together is important. That power to issue guidance is contained in Clause 81 (3) and (4) and it is that power that the proposed amendment seeks to remove. I am sorry that the noble Baroness thinks that the clause goes downhill after subsections (1) and (2). We think it retains equilibrium and we do not think that the amendment is appropriate.
We do not think that Amendment No. 352 is necessary because CSCI and the Audit Commission are each required to publish a report of any studies that they carry out under Sections 33 and 34 of the Audit Commission Act 1998, and Clause 80 of the Bill respectively. So it follows that they would have to publish a report—separately or jointly—of any studies which they carry out together in exercising these powers. The NAO already has a right of access to information held by CSCI should it need it for the purpose of auditing CSCI.
On Amendment No. 353, I do not believe that giving the NAO a specific power to report to Parliament on the work of CHAI and CSCI under Part 2 of the Bill is necessary or appropriate. The NAO can already report to Parliament in relation to CHAI because of the Comptroller and Auditor-General's powers under the National Audit Act 1983. The Comptroller and Auditor-General is the auditor of the NHS summarised accounts, which cover all NHS spending and for which there is no equivalent on the local authority side. In undertaking that audit, the Comptroller and Auditor-General will of course need to know of anything identified by CHAI in its work, in order to consider whether it should affect the response given in his audit. That is the principal reason why CHAI is required to provide copies of reports.
However, in addition, CHAI will be taking over responsibility for all national and local studies of NHS provision that are currently carried out by the Audit Commission. Thus, it will take on the responsibility to provide, at the Comptroller and Auditor-General's request, any material relevant to reviews or investigations it undertakes. That is made clear in Clause 60.
On local authority services, the Audit Commission will retain responsibility for value-for-money studies in relation to local authorities and will also retain the responsibility for providing information to the Comptroller and Auditor-General. CSCI will carry out value-for-money studies about local authorities under Clause 80 of the Bill and can be required to provide copies of reports produced under this section to the Comptroller and Auditor-General. Furthermore, the Comptroller and Auditor-General already has powers under the National Audit Act 1983 to report to Parliament.
I hope this explanation, which I cantered through, will reassure the noble Baroness that the amendment is unnecessary.
Baroness Noakes: I thank the Minister for that comprehensive reply. I shall concentrate on my own
1372
amendment which deals with the interface between CSCI and the Audit Commission. I also thank the noble Lord for his explanation of the difference between the treatment of CHAI and of CSCI in the interrelationship with the Audit Commission. We come back again to the Secretary of State not trusting the bodies, with which he is associated, and which were created to get on and do a good job. This is a recurring theme of the Bill. The body was set up so that the Audit Commission and CSCI can work jointly; it was set that they have to co-operate but then the Secretary of State has to come in and tell them how to do it.
We do not think this power is anything like necessary. To say that it demonstrates perhaps a lack of trust is putting the matter too lightly. It is a real unwillingness to let go of the levers of power and control. I can quite understand why the Secretary of State might want to have a lever over the Audit Commission because it can be jolly inconvenient at times. The Secretary of State and people in the health department have found that out, because it is fearless and independent.
We should think very carefully about whether or not we give the Secretary of State power in effect to call the Audit Commission off a particular area. This is getting into extremely difficult and dangerous territory and one that may well compromise considerably the independence of the Audit Commission to the detriment of accountability. I shall read Hansard and consider carefully what the Minister has said. I should say that this matter is far from closed. 1 beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 352 and 353 not moved]
Clause 81 agreed to.
Clause 82 agreed to.
Clause 83 [Criteria]:
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 354A:
Page 34, line 23, after "77)" insert—
"( ) to consult any person specified in the regulations before publishing any such statement:"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 355 and 356 not moved.]
Clause 83, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 357 not moved.]
Clause 84 [Fees]:
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 357A:
Page 34, line 29, after "authority" insert "or to an English local authority social service provided by. or pursuant to arrangements made by, that authority"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 358 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 84, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Clement-Jones: This is a useful opportunity for the Minister to assure us about the fees that may be charged by CSCI under the clause. The Social Services Inspectorate does not currently charge local

1373
authorities for the provision of inspection services, but the National Care Standards Commission does. The Bill provides charging powers for CSCI to cover the former SSI and NCSC functions. Needless to say, local authorities are concerned that CSCI will be charging them for standard social services inspections, which would be a change to former practice. What reassurances can the Minister give us?
Lord Warner: As the noble Lord said, the clause provides a power for CSCI to determine and levy fees on local authorities when carrying out any review or inspection of local authority social services. We believe that it is important that CSCI as a body is independent of the department. That is common ground across the Committee. Part of that is its ability to raise revenue through fees. The Secretary of State will have no involvement in the setting of those fees. That will allow for a clear and more direct relationship between the inspecting body and the local authority.
There have been concerns that an independent body will be able to levy high fees on local authorities, but I believe those concerns are unfounded. In the first instance, the commission will be required to consult appropriate persons before setting the scale of fees. We consider that such appropriate persons would include bodies such as the Local Government Association and the Association of Directors of Social Services, which would have a clear interest in the nature of any charge levied on local authorities, as well as the local authorities themselves. We also expect that such a consultation process would take place before the publication of any revised schedule of fees.
Subsection (6) also provides a power that would enable the Secretary of State to make regulations that would allow an independent person or panel to review the charge that CSCI has set, if it has set an unreasonable charge in individual cases.
We want CSCI to be able to demonstrate its independence and the value of its work by charging reasonable fees where appropriate. There are safeguards in the Bill and the provisions in the clause will enable a proper balance to be struck.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for that helpful response. It is not a cast iron situation, but subsection (6) gives some redress to a local authority faced with unreasonable fees. As the Minister says, we hope that from the outset the consultation process will ensure the right level of fees.
Clause 84, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 85 and 86 agreed to.

Clause 87 [Right of entry: supplementary]:
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland Baroness Howarth of Breckland moved Amendment
No. 358ZA:
Page 36, line 8, at end insert—
'"( ) interview in private, or solicit written or verbal expressions of opinion from, any child or group of children who consent to be interviewed or to express their views, as the case may be;"
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 358ZA. I wish to ensure that inspectors can freely seek children's views when inspecting welfare in services for children. That may affect vulnerable groups other than children, such as other adults in care.
The Children's Rights Director, Roger Morgan, to whom Parliament has given the specific job of continually ensuring that the commission properly listens to children in all that it does, has recently asked both children and inspectors what they consider to be key elements of effective inspection. Children said that inspectors must listen to children. I agree with them; I am sure that everyone does. Inspectors confirmed that listening to children is an efficient source of evidence for judging whether they are safe and properly looked after. I agree with that, too, having been involved in situations where children were not listened to. The Children's Rights Director will now be carrying that forward for us into the future integrated inspection framework envisaged in the Green Paper. I hope that the Children's Rights Director will continue regardless of any future commissioner discussions, although I recognise that the Minister might say that that is an argument for another time and another place.
I am concerned that there are two limitations in the Bill on how far inspectors can listen to children effectively. First, Clause 87 refers only to interviewing in private; yet other ways of asking children's views are needed on inspections, such as the use of surveys, group discussions, inviting children to consultation days and electronic means of seeking views. We need to be assured that inspectors can use all those ways, and more, and not be limited only to interviewing children in private. I do not read the very specific term "interview in private" as covering all those other ways of asking and listening to children.
The second limitation is that the Bill gives inspectors the power to interview, and therefore to seek views from, only children accommodated or cared for at premises to which inspectors have a legal right of entry. That is not good enough. Inspectors also need to be able to seek views, in reasonable and practicable ways, from, for example, foster children who live, or are cared for, in the homes of their foster carers, not in any premises to which inspectors have a right of entry.
As it stands, having a power only to seek views from children who live where there is a power of entry means that inspectors can only legally ask foster children for their views and experience of fostering in a fostering service that they are inspecting, and if they ask permission of someone else first. That alerts anyone about whom the children may want to talk. That cannot be right. Inspectors have their own power to seek the views of children when inspecting other services, such as children's homes, schools and colleges, subject only to the consent of the children themselves. They need the same power to talk to foster children.
As the Minister will understand, my probing amendments are intended to ensure that inspectors can always ask children for their views and experiences,

1375
when inspecting their safety and welfare, in more ways than private interviews, and regardless of whether the children live or are cared for at premises being inspected. That is needed to safeguard children.
I am not asking for powers that inspectors do not already have in relation to other children's services. Under the inspection of schools and colleges regulations, under the Children Act 1989, inspectors have already been given the power to ask children for their views in more ways than private interviews.
I am not asking for inspectors to have any right of entry to private houses, such as foster carers' homes. That would not be appropriate and would go beyond the powers that they already have in other settings. But, together with the Children's Rights Director, 1 have talked to groups of children from foster homes about their experiences, with great and vivid backgrounds. My amendment would give inspectors the power to seek children's views by those and other reasonable means. I would be pleased to hear the Minister's view. I beg to move.
Lord Warner: I appreciate the concerns that lie behind the amendment. We are aware that concerns have been expressed that the powers in the Bill are not sufficiently wide to enable CSCI to interview groups of children receiving local authority services or to elicit information from them, with consent, regardless of whether they are accommodated at premises to which there is statutory access. We consider that the concerns are misplaced.
Under Clause 87( 1 )(c), a person authorised by CSCI to enter and inspect premises is already able to interview in private any person accommodated or cared for at those premises who consents to be interviewed. We are advised that there is no reason why this power would not allow an employee of CSCI to interview any child or group of children in private already. The reference to conducting an interview in private was included in the Bill to make it clear that the commission could interview in private if it and the person being interviewed thought it appropriate. There is no reason why it must interview in private.
Solicitors advise us that verbal or written expressions of opinion can already be solicited from children who consent to be interviewed under the provisions of the Bill. CSCI has powers at Clause 88(1) that allow it to require any person to provide it with information that is necessary or expedient for the purposes of its functions under Chapter 5. That would enable any person authorised by CSCI to obtain the details from a local authority of any children from whom they believed it would be necessary or expedient to elicit information, for the purposes of assessing how well a local authority was carrying out its children's social services functions.
We are advised that there is no need for an explicit power in the Bill to enable CSCI to use this information to contact children to elicit their views about the services they are receiving. They can already do that to the extent that they consider it necessary to
1376
judge the quality of services. Obviously, what form the contact will take—a letter or telephone call, for example—will depend on CSCI's judgment of what is appropriate in individual cases.
Amendment No. 376A is also unnecessary. The Bill will already enable employees of CSCI to elicit views or information from children receiving inspected services without the permission of another party, such as a local authority. That is the case regardless of whether the child concerned is accommodated in a premises to which the inspectorate has a statutory right of access, such as a registered children's home, or whether they are accommodated in a private home under fostering arrangements.
The specific issue of whether the children's rights director would be able independently to contact children in foster care, including private fostering, and pre-adoption arrangements had been raised with the department by the NCSC. I can confirm that the provisions already in the Bill will allow the CRD to collect information about where such children are living and to contact them to seek their views, when he judges that this is necessary in individual cases to enable him to assess the quality of services provided. Since the Bill already allows for such things, the amendment is unnecessary.
I hope that that reassures the noble Baroness and that she will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: I am grateful to the Minister for putting those assurances on record, for reasons that he will appreciate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 87 agreed to.
Clause 88 [Power to require information etc]:
[Amendments Nos. 358ZB and 358ZC not moved.]
Clause 88 agreed to.
Clause 89 [Power to require explanation]:
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 358A:
Page 37. line 19, leave out "prescribed" and insert "specified by the CSCI"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 359 not moved.]
Clause 89, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 90 and 91 agreed to.
Clause 92 [Reviews and investigations]:
[Amendments Nos. 360 and 361 not moved.]
Clause 92 agreed to.
Clauses 93 to 98 agreed to.
Clause 99 [Power to require explanation]:
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 361 A:
Page 41. line 19, leave out "prescribed" and insert "specified by the Assembly"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 99, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 100 [Transfer of functions to CHAI and CSCI]:
Baroness Barker Baroness Barker moved Amendment No. 362:
Page 41, line 29, at end insert—
"( ) In the Care Standards Act 2000 (c. 14), after section 23(2) (national minimum standards) insert—
"( ) In reviewing standards the appropriate Minister must ensure that lower standards are not applied to Parts 2 and 3 services received predominately or exclusively by people at or above state pensionable age.""
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 362 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 363, 364,365, 367 and 368, which are grouped with it. These amendments deal with the transfer of functions to CHAI and CSCI. The latter two are designed to tease out exactly where responsibility for certain inspection functions will lie.
Amendment No. 362 deals with a subject close to the heart of many noble Lords, because we debated it at considerable length during the passage of the Care Standards Act—national minimum standards for residential and care homes. Earlier this year the Government rowed back from the exacting standards for building regulations which they set themselves in that Act. However, those standards applied only to services for adults and not to those for older people. Amendment No. 362 is designed to pose the following question. What happens when an adult who has been a recipient of care services in a residential setting reaches the age at which they are deemed to become an older person—usually considered to be pension age— as regards social care? Will they be moved? On their birthday will they be subjected to a lesser minimum standard? Will they be transferred by local authorities to different premises, and will CSCI report and investigate such matters?
Amendments Nos. 363 and 364 address the issue of non-NHS healthcare provided by an NHS or non-NHS body under the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Act 2002. These amendments are designed to ask the following question. Where healthcare services are provided principally to people in residential care settings and they are provided by private providers, will CHAI or CSCI have the duty to inspect? A number of residential and nursing homes rely on private services such as private dentistry. Which of the two bodies will have the duty to inspect and regulate those?
The remaining amendments, Amendments Nos. 365, 367 and 368, deal with excepted treatments.
It is well known that one of the biggest challenges facing healthcare is the management of long-term and chronic conditions. These amendments question which body will have regulatory responsibility to look after the interests of people who have long-term conditions, which are not acute conditions, but are continuing conditions.
The amendments were clearly tabled some time ago. They have an added importance because the last day on which the Committee met, the Minister made his somewhat jaw-dropping assertion that the NHS retained little responsibility for long-term
1378
rehabilitation. To be clear and fair to the Minister, he said that they were matters which are now largely carried out in the community as a function of social services. Therefore, it is apt and right that we should ask the questions posed in the amendments. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: I rise briefly to support Amendments Nos. 365, 367 and 368, to which I have added my name. It may be that the expression "long term conditions" is not quite appropriate in the context of this clause, but the point made by the noble Baroness is, nevertheless, extremely well made. The difficulty with alcohol addiction centres, for example, and clinics which look after patients with acquired brain injuries, is that they fall across the definitional divide, as between mainstream healthcare and mainstream social care.
Often the reason why a particular facility is inspected by the NCSC rather than the Commission for Health Improvement is an accident of history. What we need to bear in mind is the need for institutions to be inspected by those who have a proper understanding of the work being carried out in them. Brain injury units—I visited one recently—have much more in common with acute hospitals than with residential care homes. Substance abuse clinics, equally, have precious little to do with social care and a great deal to do with specialised and intensive treatment regimes. I suggest that both should be under the wing of new CHAI.
Regulation, when it happens, needs to be appropriate. Like the noble Baroness, I am worried that arbitrary and inconsistent decisions may be taken over the regulation of these centres, which may not make sense or be appropriate to the activities in question.
Moving on briefly to my Amendment No. 370, this amendment has a very simple purpose which is to incorporate the Government's stated intention to allow CHAI to regulate private dentistry. The Bill is an obvious opportunity to meet that commitment. Earlier this year the OFT published its report into the private dentistry market, which highlighted a number of key concerns. Chief of these were that consumers are not able to access information to enable them to make informed choices; consumer complaint procedures are inadequate; and some regulation of dentistry may be unnecessary.
On the consumer front, work clearly needs to be done by the Government and the GDC to address standards of care in dental surgeries, as well as consumer-related issues, such as clear pricing, itemised accounts, whether this or that treatment is private or on the NHS, and what kinds of treatment are available. It makes sense for new CHAI to take an active part in the discussions and to be the body responsible for monitoring the standards when they are in place.
As regards complaints, there must obviously be an accessible procedure available for patients. Once again, CHAI and the GDC need to be in close

1379
communication about how such a system is to work. I hope that the Minister will be receptive to the amendment. If he cannot accept it as it stands, I hope that he will at least wish to take the proposal away to look at it constructively.
Lord Colwyn: Perhaps I may be allowed a few seconds intervention. I have been sitting here since about three o'clock today. This is the first time that we have heard the words "dentists" or "dental services", and I am on my feet. I, too, welcome the amendment and support all that my noble friend said. It is important that CHAI—or having heard the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, perhaps it may be CSCI— should monitor availability, quality and access to dentistry and independent dental services. As the remit of the two bodies increases, I should like confirmation from the Minister that they will not include dealing with complaints and complaint handling.
As my noble friend Lord Howe has just mentioned, the OFT report has made quite a considerable impact on the dental profession. Indeed, as soon as the legislation is in place, the General Dental Council is planning to produce regulations to monitor the independent sector. Perhaps Clause 101 will negate the need for that, which would be wonderful so far as I am concerned because, year on year, an ever-increasing amount in respect of retention fee may not now be necessary. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
10 p.m.
Lord Warner: I feel a little like Marcus Trescothick on reaching his hundredth; I now take guard for the next hundred. In order to address the long wait mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, if the Committee will bear with me, I shall deal first with Amendment No. 370. We certainly support wholeheartedly the intentions behind this amendment. In June, in the Government's response to the OFT report, The Private Dentistry Market in the UK, we made a commitment to include private dentistry within CHAI's remit. The OFT concluded that the public needed better protection from a small minority of dentists who were providing poor-quality services and, often, being less than transparent about their charges for those services.
However, we are planning to introduce the necessary provisions by means of secondary legislation. Section 2(7) of the Care Standards Act 2000 contains a list of services within the remit of the National Care Standards Commission. Included in this list at Section 2(7)(b) are,
"dental services under general anaesthesia".
Accordingly, the National Care Standards Commission is already empowered to regulate dental practices providing general anaesthetics. As a result of this Bill, the commission's responsibilities in relation to private health and dental care will become CHAI's.
1380
Section 2(8)(c) provides for the definitions of the listed services at Section 2(7) to be modified by regulation. We propose to modify the definition at Section 2(7)(b) to read,

"dental services under local and general anaesthetic",
which, since local anaesthetics are an integral part of dental practice, will have the effect of bringing all private dental practices within the remit of CSCI and CHAI.
The advantage of this legislative route is that we are required to consult interested parties about changes in CHAI's remit. Shortly we will work up a draft together with greater detail on how the existing regulatory framework might be adapted to apply to wider dental practice and circulate it to the bodies concerned with dentistry and consumer interests. We would aim to have the regulations in place during 2004.
I hope that, in the light of those reassurances to the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Turning back to Amendment No. 362, it is of course desirable that lower standards should not be applied to services for older people. It is already the case that the national minimum standards must be applied to services under Part 2 of the Care Standards Act regardless of the age of the individual receiving those services. The consultation process prior to the introduction of services ensures that the standards we develop do not have a disproportionate effect on any set of service users.
The amendment also appears to assume that discrimination against older people takes place in the application of national minimum standards. This is not the case. Those standards are based on the type of establishment or agency in or from which an individual is receiving services, and not the predominant age of the person receiving those services.
Section 24(3) of the Care Standards Act provides that the national minimum standards must be consulted before they may be introduced. This allows for the views of service user groups to be taken on board and acts as an extra safeguard to ensure that national minimum standards do not unintentionally discriminate against any one set of users. We do not think, therefore, that this amendment is necessary.
I turn now to Amendments Nos. 363 to 368, which concern the division of responsibilities between CHAI and CSCI. We have been over this ground at length, although the Government do recognise that it is not always easy to distinguish between where the provision of healthcare ends and the provision of social care begins for the purposes of regulation. This matter was considered in depth when the White Paper, Modernising Social Services, was published in 1998. At the time, Ministers decided, on the basis of the subsequent consultation and in the best interests of service users, that all provision that did not provide acute services led by medical staff, but provided substantial levels of personal care would in future be

1381
regulated as care homes. This is the provision about which the Independent Healthcare Association, among others, has been concerned.
When developing the Bill, the Secretary of State decided that the future division of the National Care Standards Commission's responsibilities should be based on the current categories of establishments registered under the Care Standards Act to avoid confusion and disruption. This meant that services that would currently be registered as private and voluntary healthcare services would be transferred to CHAI. We believe that care homes providing nursing should remain registered by CSCI rather than giving regulatory responsibility to CHAI because of the very high levels of personal care provided in such services.
It is the Government's view that services providing long-term care and treatment for drug and alcohol abuse are not providing acute medical intervention, as do hospitals, for people with these conditions but are providing secondary care to aid recovery or to manage on-going secondary symptoms. These facilities may have substantial input by nurses and allied health professionals, but have limited input from doctors.
Nevertheless, these services are also providing substantial personal care for service users, including some of the most intimate forms of care, and, in common with other care homes providing nursing and personal care, we believe that these services should properly continue to be regulated by CSCI so that their welfare needs can be most appropriately met. CSCI will, of course, be able to seek assistance from CHAI where healthcare professional expertise is needed.
The amendments tabled have the intended effect of transferring the regulation not only of those services highlighted by some—for example, those supporting recovery from brain injury or recovery from drug or alcohol abuse—but of any long-term condition. So this would mean that elderly people with Alzheimer's who received any kind of nursing or other health service in their care home would be regulated by CHAI. The personal care and welfare needs of these service users, which most certainly are equal to or greater than any health need, and are probably their major need, would not be appropriately covered by the regulatory framework under the 2000 Act under these amendments. I was not saying earlier that rehabilitation was not an important part of healthcare; I was saying that in many of the cases we have discussed in regard to this issue personal care needs are the dominant factor.
Under Clause 118, the Bill provides for joint working between CSCI and CHAI. The intention here is that the commissions should be able to plan to work together to review the quality of joint services between the NHS and local authorities and share expertise where services regulated by either commission have substantial health or social care aspects. For the reasons I have given, we do not believe that the amendments are needed.
The effect of Amendment No. 369 would be to remove CHAI's duty to keep the Secretary of State informed about the general provision, availability and
1382
quality of independent healthcare provision. CHAI's general duty of keeping the public informed about the provision of independent healthcare is well established.
It is entirely proper that the Bill clearly states that CHAI, in addition to its other duties, has a more general duty to keep the Secretary of State informed about the general provision, availability and quality of independent healthcare provision. It is a significant role of CHAI, using all the information it will have to hand about the performance of independent healthcare providers, to advise the Secretary of State on issues about the availability and quality of care— care which, in many cases, is used also by NHS patients.
CHAI has a prominent: role to play in the continued evolution of independent healthcare provision. The amendment, if carried, would significantly hinder the fulfilment of this role.
Baroness Barker: I thank the Minister for that reply. It confirms my on-going belief that we have no agreement whatever about the boundaries between healthcare and social care. We have not had agreement in all the Bills on which I have worked, so it does not come as a surprise now.
I do not believe that the situation is anywhere near as cut and dried as the Minister makes out. It is entirely possible that identical units doing identical work in different buildings and different institutions with different designations could be subjected to completely different regulation.
The Minister mentioned Alzheimer's disease services. It is entirely possible that people could find themselves in something designated a care home, receiving exactly the same treatment as they would in a nursing home, but the two homes would be subject to completely different regulation.
I believe that as long as this inconsistency exists, there will be a risk of duplication and of inappropriate regulation by the wrong body. I therefore do not share the Minister's confidence that all will be cut and dried. I have no option but to withdraw the amendment at this stage, but the concerns remain and they are very strong. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 363 to 365 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 366 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 367 and 368 not moved.]
Clause 100 agreed to.
Clause 101 [General functions of CHAI]:
[Amendments Nos. 369 and 370 not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 371:
Page 42, line 15, at end insert—
"( ) The CHAI shall ensure that so far as it is practicable the standards and procedures applied to its responsibilities in relation to independent health services are the same as those applied to services provided by or for NHS bodies."
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 371, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 377.
It is decidedly welcome, as we have said on a number of occasions, that with the creation of CHAI and CSCI we shall now have a single regulator for the state and independent hospital sectors combined, and a single regulator for private and state-run care homes. But having a single regulator in each case is not, of course, enough. Both the private and state sectors have to be judged according to a uniform set of standards.
At the moment, independent sector hospitals work to minimum standards and published sets of regulations which, although having the merit of being transparent, are decidedly bureaucratic. NHS hospitals work to the principles of clinical governance, which are much less explicit. We are living in a time when partnership working between the two sectors is increasing. The concordat means that independent hospitals are treating more and more NHS patients. It is quite simply against those patients' interests for the standard of care that they are entitled to expect to differ according to which sort of hospital they are in. They need to know that there is a level playing field on which NHS and independent facilities are judged alike. Consultants also need to know that since, of course, many work in both sectors.
There ought to be a timetable for this. I am suggesting that the Government should publish such a timetable within a year of the Bill coming into force, with a goal of achieving convergence within five years from that point. That ought not to be seen as excessively ambitious.
It is not enough for this simply to be a vague aspiration. I should like to hear whether the Minister will take this concern on board. It would be most regrettable if CHAI were just to continue with a separate approach towards each sector. Perhaps one way of moving towards a convergence of standards would be for CHAI to address the regulation of the new diagnostic and treatment centres which are to be run by both NHS and independent providers. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: I shall speak to Amendment No. 377. We on these Benches welcome the creation of single regulators for both state and independent—or public and private—sectors. It never made any sense that independent hospitals and care homes should be regulated by different regulators from publicly run facilities, and we made no bones about that when the respective Bills were going through this House.
However, we need to go further, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has made clear. We are moving into the era of a mixed economy of providers of acute care in particular, but there still will not be consistency between public and private provision. While both sectors may have the same regulators, it appears that they will still continue to be judged by very different sets of standards. At a time when partnership working between the two sectors is increasing and when the
1384
independent or private hospitals are treating ever-more NHS patients, this cannot be justified. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, referred to diagnostic and treatment centres as one example; indeed, commissioning is increasingly taking place at large for elective surgery from the private sector and from the NHS.
Amendment No. 377 proposes a clear mechanism whereby the Government are required to publish a timetable to ensure that the private and public sectors are judged by the same standards. For the benefit of patients, there needs to be a common set of standards and a clear mechanism for achieving that.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: In speaking to the amendment, I remind noble Lords of my previous reference to the range of various interests that I have in the health service. In particular, I refer to my advisory role with Beechcroft Wansbroughs, which provides advice to both the NHS and private sector organisations.
I do not want to react unduly to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and go back over old ground about the original decision to treat regulation of the independent sector differently from management of the NHS. A lot of water has flowed under the bridge. In this Bill, it is right to bring the regulation of both the independent sector and the NHS under the same umbrella inspectorate. However, I am persuaded that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, are right about the need for a level playing field.
We are moving from a situation in which the NHS was seen as a service provider to one in which the NHS must be seen much more as a healthcare system. The role of government is to provide the money to ensure that national standards are set and that inspection takes place to make certain that standards are up to scratch. It follows that it matters less who provides those services. From the increase in the use of the independent sector by the NHS, and from the Government's own stated policy to encourage diversity of provision, it is clear that, in terms of the work of CHAI, there ought to be a level playing field between the NHS and the independent sector.
As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, intimated, at the moment CHAI inspects the NHS on clinical governance, whereas the NCSC inspected the independent healthcare sector against national minimum standards. As the new CHAI becomes established, I agree that it would be very good if the Minister could tell us at what stage CHAI will start to inspect both the independent sector and the NHS according to the same regime. Long-term, that must make sense. It is difficult to bring those two inspectorate regimes together in a short space of time, because that would have enormous consequences for the NHS and the independent sector. However, it would be very helpful to both sides to know when those standards will converge.
Lord Warner: The standards in the social care sector applied to the independent services and local authorities under the Care Standards Act 2000 are

1385
already consistent, so that the same quality standards apply to independent care home or children's home providers as apply to local authority providers. There is no substantial difference. The National Care Standards Commission regulates local authority providers and independent providers against the same criteria when determining whether standards are being met. That will remain the basis on which CSCI will take over the regulatory work to be transferred to it from the National Care Standards Commission under the Bill.
On the NHS and healthcare the issues are a little more complicated. We have already made a commitment to apply similar standards to both sets of providers over time. However, while it is likely that there will be a great deal of coherence between NHS standards and the current standards for independent healthcare, I remind noble Lords that the range of activities and services provided by the NHS is much greater than that supplied in the independent sector. Of course where the independent sector is providing a set of services under contract to a health authority, those will be consistent with standards applied to the NHS and will be inspected and regulated on that basis. The position is slightly different where the independent sector is not providing those services in effect directly to NHS patients as part of the NHS.
CHAI will ensure that independent care provision will continue to be provided at a level comparable to that achieved by similar organisations within the NHS. The role of CHAI is to provide an independent assessment against standards set by government for both the NHS and the independent sector. Such standards are not set in stone and we expect to review and revise them over time. CHAI, by the power in Clauses 53(2) and 101, which amends the Care Standards Act 2000, is empowered to advise the Secretary of State of any changes which it thinks should be made for the purpose of securing improvements in the quality of healthcare provided and in the relevant standards. This is an appropriate role for CHAI using all the information that it will have to hand about the performance of both NHS and independent healthcare providers. It will advise the Secretary of State where standards may need amendment or development.
It is not our intention that NHS care standards will totally subsume the national minimum standards for independent healthcare providers but we expect that over time a common set of standards covering both NHS and independent healthcare providers will be developed. CHAI has a proper role in this but we do not think that it is appropriate at this point to set a prescriptive timetable in the way in which the amendment suggests. We think that the work needs to be built up over time.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: I grow more confused by the Minister's reply. I do not know whether it is due to the hour but I certainly did not understand all the language in that response. Indeed, I was not entirely clear even about the thrust of it. Is it the intention to
1386
develop a common set of standards? The Minister may not accept the timetable or the setting of" a clear timetable, but is it the Minister's intention that CHAI should develop common standards as between the independent healthcare sector dealing with private sector patients—I accept that two different kinds of patient go through the independent healthcare sector—and the standards which are applicable to NHS patients?
Lord Warner: I was trying to be cautious. We accept the need for convergence; we do not accept the need for convergence within a prescriptive timetable. I was saying that as services are provided by the independent sector under contract to the NHS, they will be assessed under the standards that apply to the NHS. They will have to meet those NHS standards that are set by the Secretary of State.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I hope that my noble friend will give the matter further consideration before Report. Two issues arise from the matter. First, my understanding is that most independent hospitals provide some services to the NHS through contracts. If we are to take it that an independent hospital is providing services to those patients according to NHS standards, that would suggest that achieving convergence would not be a problem for many of those hospitals as they have already achieved convergence in relation to a proportion of their patients. Secondly, with the introduction of the choice policy and national tariffs, the issue of a level playing field surely relates as much to the independent sector as to the NHS. That is why it is important to give a date when convergence will be reached.
Lord Clement-Jones: I would like to make one further observation, at the risk of alienating the Committee at this time of night. From what the Minister has to say, theoretically over the next two or three years there could be two patients—one an NHS patient, another a private patient under an insurance policy or whatever—next to each other in the same ward or the same independent hospital with two different standards. That is a completely crazy situation, and not one envisaged by the merger or by the fact that the National Care Standards Commission is no longer dealing with acute healthcare, with everything going into CHAI.
Lord Warner: We are not denying that there is an issue. We are saying that we do not want to be prescriptive about the speed at which we can deal with the issue at the moment. I hear the concerns expressed by Members of the Committee, especially those from behind me, and I will take the matter away and consider whether we can do anything more to reassure them.
Earl Howe: The amendment is very simple and straightforward. It is not very ambitious in what it proposes. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for his support, and I agreed wholeheartedly

1387
with what he said. It should not matter to the patient where he is treated, only that the treatment that he receives is of the same high standard in any equivalent setting. Comparability, which I think was the word used by the Minister, does not carry the same connotations to me as uniformity and consistency.
My amendment proposes a time-scale that can be described as prescriptive but, if no time-scale is set, we could be sitting here in 10 years' time with nothing substantively having changed. If it is true that diagnostic and treatment centres and services provided under contract to the NHS will be judged under an equivalent set of standards, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, that suggests that achieving convergence will not be as difficult as the Minister makes out. This is really a matter of principle on which I would like to test the opinion of the Committee.
10.22 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 371) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 29; Not-Contents, 54.

Division No 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Liverpool, E.

Astor of Hever, L. [Teller]

Luke, L.

Atllee, E.

Mancroft, L.

Barker, B.

Montrose, D.

Blatch, B.

Noakes, B.

Bridgeman, V.

Northbrook, L.

Byford, B. .

Onslow, E. .

Caithness, E.

Peel, E.

Roper L

Clement-Jones, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Colwyn, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Cox.B.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Howe, E.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Wilcox, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Amos, B. (Lord President)

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Andrews, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Bach, L.

Gilbert, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Golding, B.

Berkeley, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Brennan, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Burlison, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Carter, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Chan, L.

Jones, L.

Chandos, V.

Jordan, L.

Crawley, B.

Listowel, E.

Davies of Coity, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Desai, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Dixon, L.

Mitchell, L.

Elder, L.

Morgan, L.

1388

Pendry, L.

Warner, L.

Plant of Highfield, L

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Sawyer, L.

Whitty, L.

Simon, V.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
10.32 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 372 to 374 not moved.]
Clause 101 agreed to.
Clause 102 [General Functions of CSCI]:
[Amendments Nos. 375 to 376A not moved.]
The Earl of Listowel The Earl of Listowel moved Amendment No. 376B:
Page 43, line 25, at end insert—
"( ) The CSCI shall have particular regard to support for residential care staff with responsibility for children."
The noble Earl said: The purpose of this probing amendment is to learn what priority support for residential child care staff tending children in care will have for the new inspectorate. I apologise for not drawing the amendment more narrowly to concentrate on children's homes, as had been my intention.
Despite recent welcome innovations, such as minimum standards, Quality Protects and Choice Protects, residential care staff in children's homes require special attention. They deal with our most challenging and needy children. For the most part, they remain unqualified in contrast to the high level of professional qualification required for such residential care staff across Europe. There has been delay in qualifying the workforce in National Vocational Qualification level three. We hope that 80 per cent of them will now be so qualified by 2005. NVQ level three is still well below that required on the continent, welcome though it is.
There has been a long, sad history of professional misconduct. The sector is small and shrinking further, so there is a danger of it being overlooked. Yet success in residential care provision is important to success in increasing placement stability and outcomes for children in care.
Staff require the support described in Chapter 8 of Choosing with Care—the report of the committee of inquiry into the selection, development and management of staff in children's homes, published in 1992. The committee was chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Warner—Norman Warner, as he was then. Staff in these homes need special support in working successfully as a team. In the recent National Children's Bureau report, Better than you think: staff morale, qualifications and retention in residential child care, effective teamwork was identified as a key attribute in improving outcomes for children in residential care.
In the conclusions of his report on safeguarding children living away from home, Sir William Utting made the important point that the best safeguard is an environment of overall excellence. In Germany, staff

1389
have a degree behind them before going into such work. In fact, they normally have postgraduate qualifications before doing so. Children in care in Germany can expect to gain a good clutch of Abitur— the equivalent of A-levels. Sadly, children in care in this country do not do nearly so well, but I shall not describe the details. I shall try to be as brief as possible.
The manager of a care home that I visited recently said, "I'm afraid that I would call two of my staff semi-literate. They are barely able to put down on paper information about what is happening with the children so that other staff can understand what is going on". Very good work is being done in some children's homes and there are some excellent special residential schools, but so much more needs to be done.
Tomorrow I shall attend a lunch cooked by care leaders. This is Care Leaders Week. Margaret Hodge, the Minister responsible for children, will address the meeting. I am looking forward to my sushi for lunch tomorrow. Significant numbers of care leaders do well but, sadly, when one looks at the criminal justice system, one sees that one-quarter of inmates have had some experience of being in care. I believe that we need to do far more in this area and that it requires the special attention of the inspectorate. We need to ensure that the inspectorate gives a high level of attention to, and supports, under-qualified staff working in these difficult conditions. I look forward to the Minister's response to the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Warner: It is a pleasure to respond to this amendment. It takes me back a long way to when one tried to drive up standards in residential childcare. I accept much of what the noble Earl said about continuing to have to work away in this area in order to secure improvements.
We fully accept the need to ensure that care staff working in residential homes are supported. Children's Homes: National minimum standards, published in March 2002, set out in some detail the support which must be provided to staff working in residential homes. Standards 17, 28 and 31 have particular regard to the support of residential care staff and respond to the relevant recommendations in the report, Choosing with Care, which I was privileged to chair.
However, the national minimum standards are just one set of standards that the Government have produced for the regulation of care services. Standard 28 is, indeed, important. It states:
"All staff, including domestic staff and the registered person of the home, are properly managed, supported and understand to whom they are accountable".
In addition, Standard 31 states:
"Staff receive training and development opportunities that equip them with the skills required to meet the needs of the children and the purpose of the home".
These are the standards against which the homes are inspected.
The role of CSCI, as is the current role of the National Care Standards Commission, is to inspect children's homes against those national minimum
1390
standards. It is in that context, and particularly in respect of inspecting against Standards 28 and 31, that CSCI has a role in regard to support for residential care staff. Given the inspection role, I do not believe that it would be appropriate to add a further general duty under Clause 102.
Under Clause 102 CSCI has the general duty of encouraging improvement in the quality of registered social care services provided in England. In doing so CSCI will clearly need to look at the education and training of those working in residential children's homes to ensure that they are fit to do the job. I know that that is a concern of the noble Earl. It will look beyond the minimum of education and training as required in the national minimum standards to ensure that improvement takes place. I noticed that at the social services conference last week Denise Platt, the shadow chair of CSCI, affirmed that. She spoke about the commission's focus on promoting positive improvements in service. I hope that the noble Earl will be reassured by that and that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Listowel: I thank the Minister for his helpful reply. I shall carefully read what he has said. It is good to have it on the record. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 102 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 377 not moved.]
Clauses 103 to 107 agreed to.
Clause 108 [Boarding schools and colleges]:
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 378:
Page 46, line 6, at end insert—
"( ) In exercise of its functions by virtue of this section, the CSCI shall—

(a) prepare a report on the discharge by the school or college
of relevant functions;

(b) without delay send a copy of the report to the school or
college; and

(c) make copies of the report available for inspection at its
offices by any person at any reasonable time:

and may take any other steps for publicising a report which it considered appropriate.
( ) Any person who asks the CSCI for a copy of the report shall be entitled to have one on payment of a reasonable fee determined by the CSCI; but nothing in this subsection prevents the CSCI from providing a copy free of charge when it considers it appropriate to do so."
The noble Lord said: One of the great pleasures of legislation is how one can find a clause in the least expected place. The latest version of Section 87 of the Children Act is to be found, not in the Act, but in Section 105 of the Care Standards Act 2000. When Clauses 108 and 109 of this Bill refer to it they refer to that section, as amended.
Taking the matter a stage further, when one looks at new subsection (9A), as introduced by Clause 109 of this Bill, one sees that it refers to Section 105(5). For the aficionados subsection (5), as introduced by Section 105 of the Care Standards Act 2000, specifies:
"Where accommodation is, or is to be, provided for a child by any school or college, a person authorised by the appropriate authority may, for the purpose of enabling that authority to discharge its duty under this section, enter at any time premises which are, or are to be, premises of the school or college".
So the plot thickens. When one looks at Clause 109, subsection (9A) appears to be a good subsection. It states:
"Where the Commission or the National Assembly for Wales exercises the power conferred by subsection (5), it must publish a report".
If one did not know what subsection (5) contained, that would be quite an interesting and rather useful subsection. However, subsection (5), which I have just read to the Committee, is so narrow. Providing a report simply about accommodation and entering premises to ascertain whether the authority is discharging its duty as regards that accommodation is a very narrow provision. Something along the lines of Amendment No. 378 would be far better. That would encompass the whole of Section 87, and under subsection (4) there are duties. The subsection reads:
"Where the Commission are of the opinion that there has been a failure to comply with subsection (1) in relation to a child provided with accommodation by a school or college",
the commission is obliged to notify the local education authority, the Secretary of State and so on. A report in those circumstances would be of far greater use.
Having engaged in something of a truffle hunt to find the real purpose of this section, one discovers at the end of the day the very limited nature of Clause 109 in this Bill. I hope that the Minister has understood me and has an answer to why that clause introduces such a limited reporting duty. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Andrews: I must confess that the amendment has taken a slightly different direction from the one I anticipated. I did not expect the noble Lord to be so assiduous in searching out truffles in that particular direction, so I shall have to write to the noble Lord about his point.
I did have some good news for the noble Lord but I am not sure how good the news is now. I presumed that he was seeking to ensure that the reports generated went to each school as a matter of course. They go as a matter of practice but not as a matter of law. In fact Clause 109 does all that Amendment No. 378 seeks to do, except in that specific, but actually very special, regard.
I was going to tell the noble Lord—and still will— that we are minded to look sympathetically at the amendment and to consider the specific point about requiring that the report goes back to the schools and residential homes in question. We will look favourably on that. It is standard practice, but it might be useful to have it in the Bill.
1392
On the noble Lord's second point about why the issue suddenly becomes so narrow when the current breadth of the clause leads one to think otherwise, I shall have to write to the noble Lord.
Lord Clement-Jones: I think that that is as good an answer as I can expect at this time of day. So I thank the Minister and look forward to further progress. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 108 agreed to.
Clauses 109 and 110 agreed to.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 379:
Before Clause 111, insert the following new clause—
"COMPLAINTS

(1) Complaints under this Act may be made by an individual or a body of persons, whether incorporated or not.

(2) A complaint may be submitted in respect of—

(a) the exercise by an NHS body of any of its functions;

(b) the provision by any person of health care for which the body is responsible;

(c) the provision of an NHS service by a health professional supplied under private contract; and

(d)the provision of services by the body or any other person in pursuance of arrangements made by the body under section 31 of the Health Act 1999 (c. 8) (arrangements between NHS bodies and local authorities) in relation to the exercise of the health-related functions of a local authority.

(3) A complaint may be initiated by—

(a) the person aggrieved;

(b) his personal representative;

(c) a member of his family;

(d) an independent advocate, or

(e) some body or individual suitable to represent him."

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 379, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 380 and 386. Amendment No. 379 adds more detail to Clause 111 on the complaints process in order to put the answers to key questions on the face of the Bill. Who is the complainant? What are the issues that can be complained of? What are the rights of advocacy? It does not attempt to outline a detailed procedure, which will remain a matter for regulation, but it puts in place the framework of a process that is independent from the Secretary of State. Currently, the process established in the Bill for handling complaints is entirely contingent on regulations.
On Amendment No. 380, the statutory difference between "may"—a discretionary duty—and "shall"— a mandatory duty—applies. I do not need to trouble noble Lords once again with distinctions between "may" and "shall". However, it seems unlikely that Ministers will not want to make regulations to introduce a comprehensive complaints procedure, but there is nothing technically in the Bill which actually introduces the duty to do so.
I turn to Amendment No. 386. While it is recognised as desirable that complaints are made within a prescribed period, this is not always possible and a degree of flexibility should be allowed in this regard.
The amendment would enable consideration of the many complaints that are currently in the system which have been pursued by complainants for years without satisfaction. It is important that these do not suddenly become null and void. New procedures should ensure speedy resolution and, in particular, an automatic transfer to independent review after a maximum of six months. They should not further penalise people who have already suffered a great deal. This should also apply to those who pursue a complaint through an inappropriate route and consequently come to use the NHS complaints procedure only after this has proved unsuccessful. I beg to move.
Baroness Andrews: Clause 111(1) is intended to set out in general terms what a complaint may be about. As the noble Lord said, Amendment No. 379 would broaden who may make a complaint under the regulations and what a complaint may be about.
The amendment would include too great a level of detail in the Bill. Clause 113(2)(a) already allows for the regulations to set out who may make a complaint; and Clause 113(2)(b) provides that regulations may make provision about the complaints which may or may not be made under the regulations.
I suspect that we shall discuss the regulations during our debates on the clauses. Let me reassure the Committee that we intend to consult widely on the content of the regulations. We therefore need to be able to respond to comments received and to change things, where people come up with sound reasons for doing so. It would restrict our ability to respond flexibly to the results of the consultation if specific provisions were required under the Bill. So the amendment would not add value to the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord will share my view.
On Amendment No. 380, I fear that the noble Lord has the power of clairvoyance. We do not believe that it is necessary to substitute "shall" for "may". In circumstances such as this, where the intention of the regulations is to implement policy, it is normal drafting practice to provide a power to make regulations rather than to impose a duty. So we find that amendment difficult to accept.
Although I understand what the noble Lord seeks to achieve by Amendment No. 386, again, it would be inappropriate to be so prescriptive about the detailed aspects of the regulations. It is important to retain some flexibility on the detail of what regulations will eventually provide, especially from the point of view of involving stakeholders in decisions about how the procedures that will affect them will work. As I said, we intend to consult widely on the regulations.
Moving to Amendment No. 395, there will clearly be occasions when it is appropriate for CHAI or CSCI to exercise the functions of their counterparts on their behalf: for example, where a complaint is about a package of services delivered by arrangement under Section 31 of the Health Act 1999. In such cases, regulations made under Clauses lll(l)(c) and 112(l)(c) may require each commission to exercise the
1394
functions of the other in considering a complaint about both health and social care. To that extent the amendment is inappropriate and unnecessary.
It is equally important that CHAI and CSCI should co-operate with each other where appropriate: for example, where one body may have expertise that the other lacks. That is something that we have tried to advance in reforming the complaints procedure; that is central to what we are trying to do. The Bill already provides adequately for that in Clause 118, which requires CHAI and CSCI to co-operate when necessary for the effective discharge of their respective functions, and in particular for CHAI and CSCI to delegate any of their functions to each other.
So, for all those reasons, although I am sorry to give the noble Lord a disappointing reply, I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for her reply, although I confess that I do find it disappointing. She seems to be arguing for flexibility on the Government's behalf but not much flexibility for the complainant. That does not have the right balance. She says that the Government will be consulting widely. I hope that they will bear in mind the need for complainants not to have an absolutely rigid time limit imposed on them. We may well want to take the matter further during the Bill's later stages.
As for Amendment No. 395, to which I did not speak, I entirely accept what the Minister said about Clause 118, which provides much assurance in that respect. However, Clause 111 is inadequate in its detail about the complaints system to be introduced; it gives few pointers in that respect. We may need to fill that out in future. In the mean time I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 111 [Complaints about health care]:
[Amendment No. 380 not moved.]
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 381:
Page 46, line 37, at end insert—
"( ) the provision of health care services by any other person or body."
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 381, I shall speak also to the seven other amendments in this group tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Howe. They relate to the complaints procedures in the Bill and follow on from the issues to which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has just spoken. We broadly welcome the new provisions, but they raise several issues. A number of the amendments that I shall discuss have been inspired by very helpful briefing provided by the citizens advice bureau, which has considerable expertise and experience in handling complaints.
Amendment No. 381 would add to the list of areas for complaint set out in Clause 111(1),
"the provision of health care services by any other person or body".
The scheme covers complaints about English NHS bodies or about healthcare arranged by an NHS body, for example. But it does not cover healthcare provided wholly in the independent sector.
The separation between the independent sector and the NHS is not as clear-cut as it once was. Many NHS patients are treated in independent hospitals under PCT contracts, which are designed to cut waiting lists. But, alongside that, the independent sector treats rapidly increasing numbers of people on a self-paid basis, where patients have been failed by the NHS.
As there are no complaints mechanisms for those treated privately in the independent sector, there are anomalies. In an independent sector hospital, patient A, who is funded by the PCT, has access to the complaints mechanisms under the Bill, while patient B in the next room, who is paying for himself, has no such access. In an NHS hospital, the patients in both the public ward and the private patient wing are covered. Under Amendment No. 381, all providers of healthcare would be covered, whatever the setting.
Amendment No. 382 would allow regulations under Clause 111 to deal with how correspondence relating to complaints is dealt with, including adherence to time limits for replying substantively to correspondence.
The Citizens Advice Bureau reported to us that NHS bodies say that they have resolved complaints within the current 20-day time-scale when all they have done is send a letter of response. The time-scales can be much greater when complainants write follow-up letters, perhaps seeking more information or challenging an initial response. I hope that the Minister will see the need for being able to handle that issue effectively in the regulations.
Amendments Nos. 387, 388 and 391 are probing amendments concerned with who and what can be excluded from the complaints scheme by regulations. They would amend or leave out paragraphs (b), (c) and (0 of Clause 113(2). There are concerns that certain kinds of care, such as continuing care, could be excluded from the complaints mechanisms. That would raise significant issues, which is why it is so important to understand for what the Secretary of State intends to use the regulation-making powers. If he has no clear idea at this stage, we may well suggest at a later stage, on other than a probing basis, that the powers in Clause 113 need to be curtailed.
Amendment No. 390 would add a new paragraph to allow regulations under Clause 113 to cover oral hearings. It is unclear from the Bill whether the Government envisage oral hearings at all, the circumstances in which they might take place, and, if they take place, the procedures to be followed. There is a fear that complaints will be seen as an impersonal bureaucratic process in which the complainant's voice is not heard.
Will the Minister say whether the Government envisage oral hearings, and, if so, in what circumstances? How will CHAI equip itself to handle the function of complaint-handling, which is so very
1396
different from its core functions of audit and inspection? In particular, will CHAI have regard to model rules issued by the Council of Tribunals?
The different aspects of the new complaints procedures are not mere detail. It is important that we understand whether the Government's regulations will result in procedures that meet legitimate aspirations.
Lastly, Amendments Nos. 384 and 385 deal with regulations under Clauses 111 and 112. The amendments require the affirmative procedure—one of our old friends returns to the Committee. The regulations are not only about the who, what and when of complaints. They also cover issues such as payments of compensation under Clause 113(3) and can also, under Clause 113(4), override the duty of confidentiality and dispense with consent to the use of personal data. That is why we propose the affirmative procedure in Amendments Nos. 384 and 385. It is vital that there is proper scrutiny of the provisions. I beg to move.
11 p.m.
Baroness Barker: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 383 and the others in this group standing in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. Amendment No. 383 raises the issue of oral hearings. As the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said, the amendments have been framed and informed by the work of the CAB and other organisations that have a great deal of experience of helping people through the Byzantine NHS complaints procedure. It is no exaggeration to say that when the Bill was in its formative stages, some feared that what would be wished on NHS patients and those undergoing social care was the worst of the NHS complaints procedures. I accept that a great deal of work has been done—in the ICAS pilot, for example, which ran for most of last year.
It has become evident to many people who work in this field that the facility to have an oral hearing is not only desirable in some cases—for the providers of services and patients—but essential. The people for whom it is most essential are those for whom English is not their first language, who find it easier to have an oral rather than written interview. That is why it is an important ability to have within the Bill.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said, the time scales must be realistic for the work to be done, but they must also be adhered to. There have been many examples when the NHS has obeyed the letter of the existing rules by simply sending out a missive within the deadline—the classic bureaucratic way of getting round the imposition of a date—but not actually resolving the matter. We believe that time scales should be realistic but should be adhered to.
We also believe that, when time scales have been badly missed and abused, there should be a penalty on the NHS body concerned. Therefore, we propose an upscaling system in which matters that are not dealt with within the right time go up to another level such as the strategic health authority.

1397
Finally, a great deal has been done over the past few years to ensure that information about one's right to complain is more available. A notice that one has the right to complain is something that one now regularly sees in NHS premises. However, details of how to go about complaining or resolving issues are often not advertised. That is of primary importance and is the force behind our amendments in this group.
Baroness Andrews: This is an important group of amendments which I shall try to put in context. They are concerned to ensure that the complaints procedures are accessible, timely and as exhaustive as possible; that nothing appropriate is excluded; and that everyone who uses health and social services is as well informed as possible and involved appropriately so that everyone gets the satisfactory outcome that they want. That is largely what Chapter 9 of the Bill sets out to do. In particular, Clause 113 sets out in very general terms the framework within which the complaints procedure will be constructed and which will be covered in more detail in accompanying regulations and in guidance.
I should outline some of the improvements that we are trying to make to the system. We are aiming to make the system more flexible; to improve local resolution of complaints; to make the resolution of complaints truly independent; to ensure that information about complaints and the causes of complaints are an integral part of the system; and to make the procedures for complaints about health and social services as compatible as possible so that from the complainant's point of view there is a seamless process with a single access point. That is very important. So we fully understand the intention of these amendments.
I shall take the amendments in numerical order. In moving Amendment No. 381, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, pointed to what she saw as discrepancies in the treatment of complaints regarding private and National Health Service care. Amendment No. 381 seeks to ensure that the complaints procedure is comprehensive and covers healthcare services provided by third parties. It will do that in any event. The NHS complaints procedure has always been about providing patients, or someone on their behalf, with the right to complain if they are not happy with the treatment. When a patient is treated through arrangements made by NHS bodies, even if their care is not provided by an NHS body, it is right that they should be able to have their complaints addressed under the NHS complaints procedure.
Subsection (l)(b) of Clause 111 already makes provision for that by covering healthcare by or for an English NHS body or cross-border SHA. That means that healthcare provided by third parties—that is, primary care practitioners and independent providers - will be covered by the complaints procedure. I should, however, add that this procedure is designed to deal with complaints about the NHS and NHS patients only. Private healthcare is covered in separate regulations which are associated with the National Care Standards Commission.
1398
I should advise the noble Baroness that this amendment would also have the unintentional effect of extending the Secretary of State's regulation-making power to, for example, Welsh NHS trusts and local health boards as the amendment as drafted is not geographically limited to England and is not in any way linked to Clause lll(l)(a), which limits the Secretary of State's regulation-making power to English NHS bodies and cross-border SHAs. To extend the Secretary of State's regulation-making power in this way would be inconsistent with the regulation-making power given to the Assembly under Clause 111 (2). So the amendment would put a small fly in the ointment in that respect.
Baroness Noakes: I thank the Minister for giving way. As there are various points to raise it might be easier if we dealt with them as we went along. Let us contrast the position of a private patient in an independent hospital who went there on a self-pay basis because the NHS waiting lists were too long with that of someone admitted for whatever reason to the private wing of an NHS hospital. The NHS patient would be dealt with by the NHS complaints system whereas the other would be dealt with by a completely different system that originates in the National Care Standards Commission. Does the Minister think that that is logical?
Baroness Andrews: It is certainly comprehensive. Both sets of patients have a right of complaint and a recourse. That is what we are aiming to achieve.
I turn to Amendment No. 382 and the issue of time limits. In reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, we want the reformed complaints procedure to include time scales for dealing with complaints. I take her point regarding the CAB, which has a lot of experience in this field. Of course, it is reasonable that we address time limits. I agree with the noble Baroness that there must be a balance between imposing a time-scale that makes it impossible for complaints to be resolved properly and making sure that things are not allowed to drift. Therefore, we intend to consult widely on that aspect of regulations. In particular, we shall talk to bodies, such as the CAB, about that. We have identified time-scales as a key area where we need to gather feedback.
The current wording of Clause 113(2)(e) is sufficient to provide for regulations to set out the detail with regard to time-scales. On those grounds, Amendment No. 382 does not add value to the Bill. Obviously, CHAI will be consulting widely, not least with the Council on Tribunals, on the advice and experience that people can bring to bear on the process.
I turn now to the form of the complaint. Amendment No. 383 seeks to ensure that regulations detailing the complaints procedure provide for a right to an oral hearing, where appropriate. Amendment No. 390 also seeks to ensure that the regulations specify the circumstances in which a complaint is subject to an oral hearing. Not only do we recognise that the amendments have been made with the best of intentions, but we envisage oral hearings.

1399
We recognise that the parties involved in a complaint must have the opportunity to put their case. We intend to provide in regulations for an oral hearing where it is the best option for making progress and where local resolution has not been achieved. Clause 113(2)(e) enables regulations to provide for that. While on the face of it the amendments have the best intentions of the parties involved at heart, there would be some perverse consequences because it would also reduce the complainant's control over what happens rather than empowering him to make the right choice.
I must stress that we are envisaging a much more involving process. Complainants, in the stages supported by the appropriate bodies, would choose the right and most appropriate route forward for them. We want them involved as far as possible to determine how they think the situation can best be resolved. We are trying to focus proactively on seeking to facilitate resolution at various stages rather than on an invariable progression where certain procedures kick in at certain stages. Rather than specifying rigidly when an oral hearing must take place, we want to set out options for resolution after the local stage. That will allow CHAI and CSCI more flexibility to decide with the complainant the best way forward.
It may be that an independent panel involving oral representation might be one way forward if that is what people want, but there may also be other options. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press the amendment.
Amendments Nos. 387, 388 and 391 seek to ensure that no one who has cause to complain is left out or is prevented from doing so. I agree that the language in the regulations needs some untangling. One of the main objectives behind the provisions that we are proposing for complaints is to make the procedures more rather than less accessible. For example, we intend that people who wish to make a complaint should be able to do so just once rather than being sent all over the place. The provisions in Clause 113(5) are designed to allow for that.
The amendments seek to remove the ability for regulations to set clear parameters for the complaints procedures in terms of the complaints which may not be made or which need not be considered under matters which are excluded from consideration. Each of those three subtly different points serves a different purpose.
Obviously, we have to set parameters, but we have no intention of limiting the proper investigation of complaints about the NHS or social care. What we intend in the clauses is to ensure that the procedures are used appropriately so that, for example, other routes resolving issues such as misconduct can operate effectively alongside the complaints procedure.
Perhaps I may go through the provisions very quickly. Subsection (2)(b) simply reflects the fact that we will need to be clear about what people can and cannot complain about using the procedures. For example, social services procedures should be for complaints about social care functions. Subsection
1400
(2)(c) is subtly different from (2)(b) in that it allows for regulations to provide for some complaints that have been made not to be considered, rather than excluding them from being made in the first place. This might cover circumstances where an alternative route might be more appropriate to achieve resolution. For example, if a complaint brings misconduct to light, the relevant disciplinary procedures may need to be brought into play. The paragraph does not give NHS bodies or local authorities a way out of investigating a complaint properly. However, to remove it would take away the necessary flexibility.
11.15p.m.
Baroness Noakes: I thank the Minister for giving way once again. She read out the provisions of paragraphs (b), (c) and (f), but what I sought to tease out was whether they would be used for excluding certain kinds of care. Can the Minister assure the Committee that those paragraphs will not be used by the Government for excluding the provision of long-term or other specific types of care? At face value, they appear capable of doing that.
Baroness Andrews: Everyone capable of being in receipt of an NHS service must be covered. I can give the noble Baroness the assurances that she seeks.
Paragraph (f) allows regulations to be made about matters which are excluded from consideration. For example, the NHS procedure has always been about patients having the right to complain if they are not happy with the treatment or service they have received. That is right, but other people either in or using NHS facilities, such as contractors, need to be excluded. Of course they can raise their concerns and have them addressed, but that is not the purpose behind the procedure provided for here. These are safeguards to deal with the exceptions.
Baroness Barker: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness at this late hour, but within the important and extremely detailed explanation of the clause that she is giving the Committee, can she confirm whether this would enable people to make complaints when they have been excluded from the provision of NHS care to which they feel that they should be entitled? I cite, for example, continuing NHS care.
Baroness Andrews: If someone has been excluded from NHS care, there would be a reason for that, along with a history and a background to the case. Presumably those would form the basis of the complaint. If I am wrong then I shall certainly write to the noble Baroness, but I see no reason why they should be excluded from making a complaint.
I turn to Amendment No. 389. We believe that this is too detailed a point to be covered by the Bill. Again this refers to time-scales, but it is only reasonable that the reformed complaints procedure should include time-scales. However, it is right that there should be measures in place to deal with complaints that are allowed to drift unnecessarily, and we want to stop that from happening. These would include referring

1401
complaints to the next stage of the procedure if they are not dealt with in a reasonable time. Again, we intend to address this in regulations and the wording of Clause 111(3) and (4) will allow for appropriate provision to be made. We feel, therefore, that the amendment is unnecessary.
However, I am sympathetic to the spirit of Amendment No. 393. It is essential for information to be freely available in order for the complaints procedures to be as accessible as we would all wish. I want to reassure noble Lords that we intend to make provision about this in regulations. Although I believe that we can achieve that without the addition of this specific provision, I am minded to take it away for further consideration with a view to coming back with an amendment on Report.
The general powers to make regulations about the handling of complaints contained in Clauses 111(1) and 112(1) are sufficient to allow regulations to make provision about making information for the complaints procedure available to the public, but as I have said, I sympathise with the purpose of the proposed amendment.
I turn now to the final set of amendments in the grouping, Amendments Nos. 384 and 385. These amendments would have the effect of requiring that regulations made under these clauses are dealt with under the affirmative resolution procedure. We do not believe that that is either desirable or necessary. We have set out a clear programme for reforming the way in which complaints are made under the complaints procedure and we have been open about the reasons for that reform. Indeed, the whole history of the process over the past two years was set out in the departmental paper, NHS complaints procedure reform: making things right, published in March this year. It also marks the way forward. So our intentions have been made clear and, similarly, how they are to be covered is set out in the Bill.
I emphasise that this is the first time that the detail of the complaints procedures will be subject to regulation. This improves the current provision and sets the procedures apart from the procedure of handling complaints under Sections 24D and 26 of the Children Act 1989 and the requirements for complaints procedures set out in regulations applying to providers of family healthcare services. These have been subject to a variety of directions and we are changing that. We intend that the regulations will cover who may complain and about what; what they can expect by way of a full and prompt response; and, if necessary, a review of the complaint by a body which will be completely independent of the organisation complained about. The regulations will also place responsibility with health and social care organisations for making effective responses and, as I have said, we are committed to involving all stakeholders.
The noble Baroness asked about data protection. These bodies will be subject to the Data Protection Act and people will be asked to consent to the disclosure of appropriate information when they make a complaint
1402
to CHAI and CSCI. There will be no question of that provision being overridden. Regulations will provide for information to be obtained from the NHS and local government, but that will have to be consistent with the provisions of the Data Protection Act.
The Government wrote a longer response when this issue was raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee which I shall be very happy to copy to the noble Baroness. So we have been open about the changes we intend to make.
Another problem which would be raised by the affirmative resolution procedure is that the amendments fail to take account of the devolution settlement. Under these clauses the Assembly will be given the power to make regulations detailing how health and social care complaints procedures will operate in Wales. It would therefore be inappropriate for the draft regulations to have to be approved by both Houses before the Assembly can make them.
I am sorry to have spoken at such length. These are difficult and complicated amendments which I hope the noble Baroness will not press.
Baroness Noakes: I thank the Minister for that extremely comprehensive response and for some good news. I am pleased that the Government will cover the issue of timescales, that they will consult widely, that oral hearings will be included and that the complainants will be involved in selecting the process. All of those provisions are good news. I thank the Minister for the assurance that issues such as long-term care will not be excluded—indeed, that all care offered or not offered by the NHS will be covered by these regulations.
That leaves only a couple of areas where the Minister's response was a little disappointing. The Minister said that the position of the independent sector is comprehensive, but that preserves artificial distinctions between the independent sector and the NHS which, as I tried to demonstrate in opening, are already blurred. We need to think about that issue further.
We shall also need to think further about the affirmative procedure, in particular because of the use of personal data. I completely take the Minister's point about the Assembly and devolution, which often slips one's mind. But there are some important issues in regard to the regulation-making powers, the use of personal data and compensation payments. The Minister rang a bell when she referred to the fact that this is the first time complaints regulations are being put together. Perhaps the first set of regulations should themselves be subject to the affirmative procedure because that is where so much will be set out. I should like to think further about personal data and I should be grateful for the letter that the Minister has offered to me. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 382 to 384 not moved.]
Clause 111 agreed to.

1403
Clause 112 [Complaints about social services]:
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 384A:
Page 47, line 38, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Lord said: We now come to the clause dealing with complaints about social services. Very simply, Clause 112 effectively repeals the existing complaints procedure for local authority social services set out in existing social services legislation and replaces it with a new process. Under subsection (2), CSCI is one of the bodies that can consider complaints.
Local authorities and their representative body have concerns about the inclusion of CSCI in that list. It is interesting to note that under subsection (4), there is no reference to CSCI as far as concerns Wales. It is only for English local authorities that CSCI is included. That is a significant omission. As the previous social services inspector did not have a role in considering complaints, there is a lack of understanding as to why CSCI, the SSI's successor, should assume that role. There may simply be a feeling of symmetry—as CHAI deals with health services, so CSCI should deal with social services. I do not believe that that should necessarily be the case, and look forward to what the Minister has to say. I beg to move.
Baroness Andrews: We were slightly surprised by this amendment because it runs counter to the very principles of what we are trying to achieve. We can usually count on the noble Lord to share our vision.
I hope I have made it clear so far that the overriding principle of what we are trying to achieve is to make the process easier and more accessible, and to increase the chance of achieving the right outcomes for people. CSCI is crucial to that. It will enable the review stage to be geared to the circumstances of each case. Making Things Right, which was published earlier this year, contains a solid argument about why CSCI is important for doing just that.
Nobody knows better than people like the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, that the key difficulty with the current procedures is that they make it difficult for complainants, health bodies and local authorities to deal with complaints that cut across health and social care services. We have only to reflect, as we do so often in this House, on the implications of the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Act.
The way in which the review stages are handled by health and social services, being different in their structure and in their process, makes it very difficult to deal collectively with complaints of that sort. That is why we are looking for a parallel process for single points of access and a very strong independent review mechanism at the top. That is the role of the two new commissions in the independent review stage. The provisions we have made that will allow them to co-operate and work on each other's behalf are crucial to improving that.
The feedback from the major consultation exercise on Making Things Right contained a very articulate demand for greater independence. Some complainants
1404
did not understand how, as is the case at present, a review panel convened by a local authority, which might include two councillors from the authority being complained about, can be truly independent. But that is not to criticise the review panels, which have worked extremely well. Independent panels may well continue to be part of the potential armoury for resolving complaints under the new proposals. We are trying to focus the local resolution in such a way as to separate the local investigation from the review mechanism so that, on the ground, people can do the job which they can do best because they are nearer the information and circumstances and will be able to address those issues. Local authorities may have concerns on the matter, but we want the review panel to support the process on the ground.
For the reasons that I have offered, we would be very reluctant for the amendment to be adopted, because it would lead to greater disparity between the way in which complaints are handled in health and social care, rather than bringing the process together. It would not bring the desired overview and independence that we want to see. I hope that the noble Lord will take the case put on those two grounds and withdraw the amendment.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for her reply. Far be it from me to obstruct the onward march of progress or arrest the grand designs that are clearly in the Minister's mind, as we march forward with health and social care in tandem, towards a bright and glorious future. There is something rather Stakhanovite about the whole concept.
I have not yet had an answer as to why Wales should be different. If the grand design that is so desirable in England is being achieved, why not in Wales?
Baroness Andrews: It is a dreadful oversight on my part—normally I answer the questions about Wales first. As far as I know, Wales is different because it has a tradition of lay members serving on independent panels. That is how Wales wants to continue, in the spirit of devolution, respecting the strength of local organisers and the independence of the lay members. That is obviously what we want for Wales.
Lord Clement-Jones: The Minister is almost making my argument for me—it is very interesting. She said that review panels were working extremely well, but here she says that the Welsh in their wisdom—and at this point I assume Welsh ancestry—are extremely sensible in staying with the things that they know work. That is why local authorities are keen on the review panels rather than on CSCI.
I do not want to take the matter further tonight, but clearly there are quite a number of questions to be answered between now and Report. I shall read the Minister's comments carefully. Far be it from me to stop the onward march of progress, as described by the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Andrews Baroness Andrews moved Amendments Nos. 384B and 384C:
Page 48, line 12, leave out from second "to" to "(and" in line 15 and insert "a Local Commissioner under Part 3 of the Local Government Act 1974 (c. 7) who is a member of the Commission for Local Administration in England for him to consider whether to investigate the complaint or matter under that Part"
Page 48, line 17, leave out from second "to" to end of line 19 and insert "a Local Commissioner under Part 3 of the Local Government Act 1974 (c. 7) who is a member of the Commission for Local Administration in Wales for him to consider whether to investigate the complaint or matter under that Part"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 385 not moved.]
Clause 112, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 113 [Complaints regulations: supplementary']:
[Amendments Nos. 386 to 393 not moved.]
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 394:
Page 48, line 39, at end insert—
"( ) The provision that may be made under subsection (2)(g) includes the provision for a report about a complaint to recommend the making of an ex gratia payment in respect of injuries sustained, loss of earnings or expenses incurred as a consequence of the incident or incidents complained about."
The noble Lord said: The amendment is similar to the one that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, would have moved. It will not have escaped the Minister's notice that we on these Benches have tabled a number of different amendments at different stages that are in the nature of probing amendments, to test how limited the provisions are.
The purport of this amendment is to enable compensation or ex gratia payments to be made to an upper value which would be determined by regulations in respect of lesser injuries caused as a result of avoidable mistakes. This would remove the need for people to take legal action on a smaller scale, the costs of which usually exceed any award made. I am sure the Minister is aware of some of the rather horrifying statistics about the cost of some smaller claims.
At present there is an inconsistent approach dependent largely on the personality of the complainant and/or the chief executive of the trust concerned regarding whether ex gratia payments will be considered. Some complainants are told that there is no possibility of this while others are successful in being offered a payment.
An expert group convened by the Scottish Executive recently recommended bringing ex gratia payments formally into the application of the NHS complaints procedure there. In England the Clinical Disputes Forum recommended that compensation should be available through the NHS complaints procedure. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in that respect. I beg to move.
Baroness Andrews: Amendment No. 394 seeks to make financial redress available through the complaints procedure. NHS bodies are already allowed to make ex gratia payments where legal
1406
liability would otherwise be conceded. NHS bodies will continue to have that flexibility under the reformed NHS complaints procedure.
The amendment as drafted would also apply to social care. There is already provision for payments to be made by local authorities where they consider that their actions amount to maladministration. The issue of compensation for acts of clinical negligence has traditionally been a matter for the courts unless the body concerned accepts liability and reaches a settlement out of court.
The CMO has carried out an extensive review of the options for reforming the way in which the NHS handles clinical negligence claims. The results of the review were published on 30th June in the report, Making Amends. Under the proposals an NHS redress scheme will be established to speed up the process and to offer care and compensation under certain circumstances without the necessity to go to court. This new redress scheme will be closely aligned to the new NHS complaints procedure. For example, it is proposed that making a claim for compensation would no longer be a disqualification from pursuing a complaint—something I am sure we would all welcome. Subject to the outcome of the consultation, we shall need to take account of that in determining how the complaints procedure operates so that it is aligned effectively with the NHS redress scheme. I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. The interface between clinical negligence cases and the complaints system is an important matter. I do not believe that we yet have a very clear picture established of exactly how that will operate. The noble Baroness says that there is an existing power to make ex gratia payments. When a body such as the Consumers' Association wants clarification on that, it demonstrates that there is a lack of communication or a lack of clarity regarding the powers. When the regulations are made, or when communications are made about the content of the regulations and what the complaints system consists of, it is important to tell potential complainants and the public that trusts have the relevant power. At the moment that is not clear. However, the clarification was useful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 394A:
Page 48, line 40, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: This is a straightforward amendment which is designed to discover the current intentions regarding the requirement of payment of a fee to the body hearing complaints under Clause 113.
We on these Benches are concerned that individuals bringing complaints may be required to pay a fee to the body that hears their complaint. Of course, vexatious or dishonest complaints may be a problem for some social services departments, but charging complainants is not necessarily the best way to deal

1407
with that. It would be important for the Minister to explain why the Government think that a charging power is required in the circumstances. I beg to move.
Baroness Andrews: There was inevitably a cost at the review stage of the existing complaints procedure, which was traditionally borne by the relevant authorities. We recognise that there will be a cost to the commissions in carrying out their functions of independently considering complaints. That is a logical outcome. Therefore, there will need to be a mechanism for covering the costs associated with the work.
I assure Members of the Committee that no scheme of charging will be implemented without a full analysis of the impact, and we would intend to consult on that. For example, we would want any scheme of charges to contribute to the aim of resolving complaints locally, and certainly not to hinder it. Over the coming months, the Department of Health and the shadow commissions will analyse the costs associated with review activity and drawing up proposals for a charging structure that fairly reflects the transfer of the function to the commissions. Those proposals will be subject to full consultation. I should also emphasise that there will be no intention of charging complainants at all. We are talking about charges that are, as it were, costs paid to the commission by the relevant authorities.
We do not want to pre-empt the analysis but will want to see some link between, for example, charging and workload, so that if bodies or authorities that have fewer cases need further action to achieve a resolution, they do not bear a disproportionate burden. We will be looking at the full range of options as to how the provisions can be made to work sensibly.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for that reply. She has made it pretty clear that her interpretation of Clause 113(3) is that the complainant will not be charged. The thrust of the amendment was very much to make sure that the complainant was not charged. Furthermore, she said that there would be analysis of the costs of current review mechanisms and full consultation about how any recovery of those costs from the players involved—presumably local authorities and so on—will be levied. That is a pretty satisfactory reply, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 395 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 396 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 113 agreed to.
Clause 114 [Further consideration of representations under the Children Act 1989]:
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendments Nos. 396A to 396E:
Page 50, line 3, leave out "the Commission for Local Administration" and insert "a Local Commissioner"
Page 50, line 4, leave out "it" and insert "him"
Page 50, line 33, leave out "the Commission for Local Administration" and insert "a Local Commissioner"
Page 50, line 34, leave out "it" and insert "him"
Page 50, line 38, at end insert—
"(5) In this section, "Local Commissioner in England" means a Local Commissioner under Part 3 of the Local Government Act 1974 (c. 7), who is a member of the Commission for Local Administration in England.""
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 114, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 115 to 118 agreed to.
11.45 p.m.
Clause 119 [Reviews and investigations]:
[Amendment No. 397 not moved.]
Clause 119 agreed to.
Clause 120 agreed to.
Clause 121 [Power to assist]:
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 398:
Page 54, line 2, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Baroness said: I shall be extremely brief with this probing amendment. Why would CHAI or CSCI want to assist other bodies rather than concentrate on their core functions? Subsection (1), which this amendment seeks to delete, gives them power to assist any other public body in the United Kingdom with the purposes of that body's functions— and they can charge fees for it. Surely CHAI and CSCI are not going to set up consultancy businesses. If they are going to help other people, whether or not for payment, will the Minister also explain why they are confined to helping United Kingdom public bodies? Are there no bodies outside the UK which, perhaps for a fee, might benefit from the advice of CHAI or CSCI? Why should bodies outside the public sector—for example, charities or voluntary bodies—be excluded from this beneficial interaction with CHAI or CSCI? I am puzzled by this clause, which is why we have tabled the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Warner: I hope that all will be revealed. The power in Clause 121 builds on a tradition of co-operation between inspectorates that is necessary to ensure effective and joined up working between agencies. A recent example of such co-operation would be the street crimes initiative, which saw the Social Services Inspectorate working closely with a number of other public bodies, including Home Office inspectorates and Ofsted. The drafting of the Bill enables CHAI and CSCI to assist other public bodies where they believe that it is appropriate for them to do so. This will be a decision for the inspectorates based on whether they believe there is any social or healthcare implication for them in the work that is being carried out by another public body.
CSCI will be involved in the Local Services Inspectorates Forum, which brings together a range of government inspectorates to consider common issues and discuss their work programmes relating to local government issues. This includes the Audit

1409
Commission, Ofsted, the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate and the Prisons Inspectorate. Clearly we expect CSCI and CHAI to be sensitive to the burden of inspection placed on organisations that are the subject of work that they will do with other public bodies. CHAI will be under a duty to work jointly with CSCI and other public bodies and where it considers that would promote further efficiency and cost effectiveness. CHAI's vision document clearly indicates the commission's willingness to work in real partnership with others, particularly in the area of common data collection. It would be a significant constraint on the powers of CHAI and CSCI if they were not able to assist and co-operate with other agencies in this way and would undermine effective joint working.
We have drawn the powers reasonably widely to enable that area of co-operation to operate effectively, due to the wide range of public bodies that may carry out work that has health and social care implications, and to which CHAI and CSCI will therefore need to be able to provide assistance. They are not going into the consultancy business, but we do want them to work on a basis of co-operation with others when they think that that is necessary in order to discharge their primary functions. I hope that explains to the noble Baroness why we have set out the terms of the Bill in this way.
Baroness Noakes: I thank the Minister for that helpful response. I shall read it carefully, but it appears to answer the points that I raised. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 121 agreed to.
Clause 122 agreed to.
Clause 123 [Arrangements with Ministers etc: CSCI]:
[Amendment No. 399 not moved.]
Clause 123 agreed to.
Clauses 124 and 125 agreed to.
Clause 126 [Reports: CHAI]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 400:
Page 56, line 5, at end insert—
"( ) an updated regulatory impact statement showing the effect, including the estimated financial effect, of the CHAI's activities on those bodies which it covers."
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 400, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 401. These amendments relate to regulatory burdens. I suggest that both CHAI and CSCI should be required to publish at the end of each financial year a full regulatory impact assessment of all their activities.
I hope that the Government will consider the amendment seriously. The proposal is good discipline and good practice. None of us can assume that CHAI or CSCI will reduce the regulatory burden of their inspections, or hope that they will follow good practice spontaneously. We need to see on a regular basis whether this occurs.
Employers and staff alike across the public and private sectors are becoming more aware and more resentful of unnecessary and intrusive red tape and
1410
bureaucracy. In the health service, the amount of time that clinicians and managers spend filling in forms and justifying themselves to others is time taken from the care of patients. If we can achieve a reduction in the burden of data gathering and compliance on front-line NHS staff, and on those who work in the social care sector, we should do so.
The regulatory impact assessment for the Bill as it relates to CHAI and CSCI speaks in optimistic terms about the advantages of creating two new inspectorates and the reduction in burdens that this will bring to front-line staff. It speaks of,
"less work for frontline staff following co-ordinated visits and requests for information".
It also speaks of,
"co-ordination of work where the inspectorates might be looking at the same provider, e.g. care trusts".
We need to ensure that these are not just pious hopes. There may indeed be a net reduction in the number of bodies—although if one counts the Welsh inspectorate, I am not sure that that is literally true. Despite what the Minister may say, there are possibilities for duplicated inspection work in border areas between England and Wales. If that happens, burdens will increase, not decrease.
Quite apart from that, the regulatory burden can equally be influenced by the manner and style in which inspectorates work. There needs to be a formal requirement to enable us to ensure that good intentions are translated into practice.
I have one question relating to the regulatory impact on independent health and social care providers. The regulatory impact assessment states:
"Independent health providers and registered social care providers are currently inspected by the NCSC against national minimum standards … to ensure national consistency of service provisions. This function is to be taken over by the new inspectorates … The inspection procedures may change when CHAI and CSCI become operational, but providers will not be subject to different standards as a result of the changes".
However, it also states:
"In future, providers may be subject to new service standards".
I did not understand what the reference to "new service standards" means and the implications it carries for regulatory burdens on the private sector. I beg to move.
Lord Warner: On the last point, national standards will be set out by the Secretary of State in relation to health care. We have already discussed the issue of convergence between the independent sector and the NHS. I believe that the wording is related to that, but I will check and write to the noble Earl.
Before the Bill's introduction, the department led an assessment of the likely regulatory impact of its provisions. It consulted widely, including with key stakeholders, the devolved administrations, the regulatory impact unit of the Cabinet Office and the small business service at the Department for Trade and Industry. A full regulatory impact assessment of the Bill in its entirety was published on 14th March this year and a copy is available in the Library. I shall not

1411
quote from it, other than to point out that, overall, the inspectorate's clauses in particular are considered to have a limited impact, if any, on businesses and the voluntary organisations. I know that the noble Earl has looked at the document.
Both organisations are being established with duties to discharge their functions economically, efficiently and effectively. It is therefore our belief and expectation, in line with the recent Office of Public Sector Review report on inspection and external review, that CHAI and CSCI will bring about a reduction in the burdens of inspection placed upon frontline staff, freeing up time that could be better spent caring for patients and other service users.
In CHAI's Vision statement, Professor Sir Ian Kennedy notes that organisations which provide healthcare are currently assessed by different inspectorates without proper co-ordination. CHAI therefore already proposes to develop techniques of assessment which reduce the need for it routinely to visit each and every organisation. Clearly, there is still some way for CHAI to go in developing such methodologies, but we are confident that progress will be made in that area.
The Better Regulation Task Force report recommends that regulators should make available for public scrutiny a regulatory impact assessment on all new major policies and/or initiatives. It does not recommend an annual regulatory impact assessment. However, I shall study the amendment further in the light of the task force report to be sure and shall consider whether anything more needs to be done. But, at present, we do not believe that the amendment is necessary.
Earl Howe: I am grateful to the Minister for agreeing to have a second look at this issue. I believe that it is important. Whenever we set up new regulatory mechanisms, it should be more or less a reflex action to examine how the regulatory impact of those bodies can be contained, however well intentioned the new system is to be. I look forward to hearing, perhaps at a later stage, what the Minister concludes. But, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 126 agreed to.
Clause 127 [Reports: CSCI]:
[Amendment No. 401 not moved.]
Clause 127 agreed to.
Clause 128 [Duty to have regard to government policy: CHAI]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 402:
Page 56, line 27, leave out "must" and insert "may"
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 402, I shall speak to the other amendments grouped with it. In this group, we return to the principal theme of our Committee proceedings on Part 2—namely, the independence of CHAI and CSCI. Clause 128 confers a power of direction over CHAI by the Secretary of State.
A clause of this kind, tucked in towards the tail end of Part 2 and headed "Relationship with government", speaks volumes for the intentions of Ministers. Here, we have an open acknowledgement that, like it or not, CHAI will be beholden to the Government, as and when Ministers so choose, in every aspect of its operations. Its functions as an adjudicator of the quality of care and of the economy and efficiency of the provision of healthcare, as a guardian of the rights of children, as a publisher of data and as an assessor of the performance rating of trusts may not be for CHAI to perform as it seems fit but, instead, may be subject to the Government's take.
I am extremely troubled that a provision such as this should be in the Bill. It is quite unnecessary. Government policy, referred to in subsection (1), can mean many things. It can mean something as benign as a drive to get rid of mixed-sex wards or, alternatively, something that is political, such as waiting-list targets, delayed-discharge penalties and A&E waiting times.
However, the obligation to have regard to government policy is a strict provision. I have no problem with CHAI having regard to government policy. No regulatory body such as this one can possibly operate in a cocoon. Government policy is a fact of life, and CHAI must live with it. But that is different from saying that CHAI should be subject to a power of direction. The only point of a power of direction is to influence someone's actions. What possible ways are there for the Secretary of State to influence the actions of CHAI which would not amount to direct interference in CHAI's mode of working or the results that it published?
The confidence that patients and the public need to have in what CHAI says and the way that it does its business is one of the most important considerations in this legislation. People very definitely do not want to see CHAI as just another arm of government, doing the Government's dirty work and implementing the Government's political agenda. But that is what will happen if the Secretary of State is allowed to direct what it does.
In my amendment I suggest that the Secretary of State should by all means have the power to bring matters of policy to the attention of CHAI, but that that should be as far as it goes as regards any direct political influence over its operational role. The same comments apply in equal measure to CSCI. I shall not take up the time of the Committee to repeat the argument. Knowing the Minister, he is bound to present the Committee with some rational-sounding justification for these provisions, but I doubt I am persuadable.
Perhaps I may move briefly to Amendments Nos. 407 and 408. In Clauses 130 and 131 we see once again the over-intrusion of the Secretary of State in the governance of CHAI and CSCI. It is conceivable and the Bill is right to allow for the possibility that CHAI or CSCI may fail to perform their functions in some major way. Were that unlikely eventuality to come about, there has to be a means to address it. The Government's answer here is to give the Secretary of

1413
State a power of direction over each body so that he can tell it what to do or even what not to do. A power of direction may be the obvious device to bring out the tool kit in those circumstances, but I am distinctly uncomfortable with it. We all know about powers of direction; the point is not so much that they are used, but that they are there at all. The existence of a completely unfettered power of the Secretary of State to say that CHAI or CSCI were failing in the discharge of their functions gives him a large degree of psychological influence over the way that each body operates.
We should note that the Secretary of State does not even have to be satisfied as to the failure of CHAI or CSCI. He has to consider only that they are failing, which is much weaker. If the Government set up a body that does not work, the proper course is one of two things: to return to Parliament to introduce something else or, as my amendments propose, to get Parliament to approve the direction. To leave the Bill as it is will effectively give the Secretary of State a Sword of Damocles that he can wield almost whenever he feels like it. For bodies that are operationally independent, or supposedly so, that is simply not appropriate. Those concerns go to the heart of our misgivings on Part 2 of the Bill. I beg to move.
Midnight
Lord Warner: I hope that I shall continue to sound rational at this time of night, as the noble Earl helpfully suggested. On Amendments Nos. 402 to 406, we have pointed out on a number of occasions that there are no general powers in the Bill to issue directions to either commission because we want to ensure that they are independent from government. A Minister will be able to intervene only in the specific circumstances of either body being judged to be failing in the discharge of any of its functions or under the power that we are discussing here which allows him to issue directions that require the commissions to have regard to matters of government policy. Such a power cannot be used to direct the commission on any specific matter that the Secretary of State chooses. It can be used only to issue a direction on a specific area of policy such as that CHAI and CSCI should not make a profit from any fees that they charge and that they must have regard to general government principles of good accounting in respect of such fees.
In the absence of a general direction-making power, it is essential that the Secretary of State has a power to ensure that proper democratic accountability is maintained. I do not believe that it is unreasonable that CHAI and CSCI should be expected to have regard to the broad health and social care policies of the elected government of the day when carrying out their functions. In contrast to the independent approach that we have taken for CHAI and CSCI, most other NDPBs, such as the Audit Commission, can be directed by Ministers about any matter, so they have been put in a special category. The duty to have regard to Government policy is the same duty as
1414
appears in the legislation that established Ofsted. I am sure that the Committee would not regard Ofsted as a body that lacks independence.
Amendment No. 406A seeks to remove the Secretary of State's power to vary or revoke any direction that he has given under this clause. I am sure that noble Lords are aware that this is a standard provision that is attached to any direction-making power. To remove such a provision would be extremely restrictive for the Secretary of State, but such a restriction would not be beneficial to CSCI. It could potentially lead to the inspectorate needing to have regard to an aspect: of government policy that was long out of date, and which no longer reflected the reality of the social care world that it was inspecting. Clearly, that would be wrong.
Amendments Nos. 407 and 408 would place a duty on the Secretary of State to consult Parliament before he issued a direction to either commission. The procedure proposed by the amendments for issuing a direction to Parliament would be time consuming and a bureaucratic and unnecessary waste of parliamentary time. In the extremely unlikely event that either commission failed to carry out its duties, or failed to carry them out properly, it would be important that corrective action could be taken quickly. Let us suppose that because of the pressures of work one of the commissions refused to undertake an investigation into a Climbié case or a Shipman case, would the public think it right that an investigation was held up while we discussed the matter in the House? We think that is not so and that the Secretary of State should have these powers of direction in these rather special circumstances. I suggest that the amendment is withdrawn.
Earl Howe: I should have thought that in the kind of case cited by the Minister—the Victoria Climbié situation—where the inspectorate declined to carry out an investigation there are already separate powers in the Bill which the Government could use. I am not at all certain that these powers of direction are necessary.
The Minister may seek to present these various powers as limited in scope. I do not read them in that way. They are widely drawn. While the Government may have only modest horizons about the use of these powers that might not necessarily apply to a future government who leaf through the Act, as it will be, and find that they have very considerable influence with which to play.
Nevertheless, I can see that the Government are not going to be moved on this issue, which I find a pity, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 403 and 404 not moved.]
Clause 128 agreed to.
Clause 129 [Duty to have regard to government policy: CSCI]:
[Amendments Nos. 405 to 406A not moved.]
Clause 129 agreed to.

1415
Clause 130 [Failure in discharge of functions: CHAI]:
[Amendment No. 407 not moved.]
Clause 130 agreed to.
Clause 131 [Failure in discharge of functions: CSCI]:
[Amendment No. 408 not moved.]
Clause 131 agreed to.
Clauses 132 to 143 agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Part 2: minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendments Nos. 408A and 408B:
Page 139, line 1, at end insert—
"Superannuation Act 1972 (c. 11)
4A In Schedule 1 to the Superannuation Act 1972 (kinds of employment in relation to which pension schemes may be made), at the appropriate places in the list of "Other Bodies" insert the following entries—
"The Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection.";
"The Commission for Social Care Inspection."
Page 144, line 21, at end insert— "25A In section 55(3)(e)—

(a) for "the Commission" substitute "the CSCI";

(b) for "section 31 or 46 of this Act" substitute "section 31 of this Act or section 86 or 96 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003".

On Question, amendments agreed to. Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 144 [Interpretation of Part 2]:
[Amendment No. 409 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 144 agreed to.
Clause 145 agreed to.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 409A:
Before Clause 146, insert the following new clause—
"REGULATIONS UNDER PART 3
regulations may be made under this Part unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament."
The noble Lord said: Listening to two days of debate on Part 2 gave me plenty of time to reflect that CHAI is rather inelegantly named because it is, of course, Turkish for the word "tea". We may consider that at the Bill's next stage. Be that as it may, we now turn to something entirely different.
Ever since 1948, insurance claims against motorists resulting in NHS treatment to the plaintiff have given rise to a proportion of the settlement money going to the National Health Service for treatment costs. The basis of that agreement has been changed twice: once in 1989; and again in 1999.
Part 3 of the Bill changes the basis again and extends the scheme for NHS charges from just motor insurance to include both employers' liability, personal liability and, I believe, product liability claims. The 1989 Act need not concern us—at least for
1416
the moment; although I note that my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral, whom I am delighted has joined us with his expertise, has an interest in it—but the 1999 Act, which the Bill replaces lock, stock and barrel, most certainly does.
When the latter Act was a Bill before your Lordships' House, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will perhaps remember asking at Second Reading whether the National Health Service might recoup its costs in cases where personal injury was paid. The then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, replied that the Bill,
"does not provide a mechanism to extend those rights"
—incidentally, those rights were the rights of the NHS to claim money from compensation payments for motor injuries. He continued, rather strangely:
"by stealth".—[Official Report, 2/2/99; col. 1459.]
Those were unfortunate words. In the modern political lexicon, "stealth" is always accompanied by the word "tax".
When a similar point was put to the noble Lord in Committee, the then Minister said:
"We have acknowledged the commission's suggestion"
—that is, the one contained in the Law Commission's 1996 paper that proposed that the NHS should recover its costs in all cases of actionable personal injury—
"and we are considering it"'.—[Official Report, 18/2/99; col. 762.]
Four years is a fairly long time for consideration.
My first question is therefore: why now, if not that the Chancellor is scraping every barrel that he can find to fund the NHS without increasing income tax or VAT? Why do we find it buried well into the Bill and, even worse, do we find not one but eight different statutory instruments, subject to annulment, to launch it? Eight negative instruments? If that is not stealth, I do not know what is.
It is true that Members of this House are rather better at picking up negative instruments than are Members of another place, but no one would claim that the system is perfect. I hope that it will be a little better when we have the statutory instrument policy committee that we have been promised next Session. Nonetheless, orders following close on the discussion of a Bill have a better chance of scrutiny.
Unfortunately, that will not happen in this case. The Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Work and Pensions have been sufficiently alarmed to launch an inquiry into the workings of employers' liability insurance and the premiums paid by employers, which, according to Zurich Insurance, the Association of British Insurers and the British Insurance Brokers Association, have increased on average by between 40 and 60 per cent since as recently as 2002. According to the regulatory impact assessment of the Bill, another 7 to 8 per cent will be added to employers' costs purely as a result of employers' liability.
That leads me to my next question: what figures does the Minister have for personal or product liability? In another place, the Minister of State said that the new scheme will not be brought into effect

1417
until after the investigation to which I referred has concluded. What is the prognosis? Are we to wait another four years before it sees the light of day?
In any event, that is why the amendment would make all the amendments proposed by this part of the Bill—not just those commented on adversely by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committtee, whose objections I see are acceded to by the Minister in Amendment No. 474A—subject to affirmative resolution. I beg to move.
12.15 a.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: I support the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, in his cogent introduction of the amendment. He mentioned that the Minister of State in the other place said that provisions on NHS costs recovery in the Health and Social Care Bill would not be implemented until the Government's work on employers' liability compulsory insurance was completed. That was in reply to my honourable friend Brian Cotter, the Liberal Democrat small business spokesman.
We feel strongly about the potential additional costs of compensation claims and the fact that at present, in the calculation of scale premiums for employers' liability, there is no ability or sensitivity to distinguish between different track records among the small business community. Much of the inquiry will be about how the insurance industry can get its act together in that respect. The noble Lord said that the Association of British Insurers reckons that the increases will be by as much as 8 per cent. That is a significant potential increase for small businesses.
In the circumstances, it seems peculiar that the Government are persevering with this part of the Bill, when it is contingent to such an extent on further work to be done by the DTI. An affirmative resolution must be required for the regulations provided for in the amendment.
Lord Warner: The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, is clearly revitalised by not having had to participate in Parts 1 and 2 of the Bill. I am sure that I look a little jaded by comparison.
This is not just a stealth tax. On the contrary, it removes from the general taxpayer the burden of meeting some of the costs of treating the victims of another person's negligence and places it on the wrongdoer. Why should a man or woman in the street have to pay for the medical treatment of people injured at work because their employer failed to take adequate steps to protect them? If the proposal constituted stealth tax, the Law Commission participated in it, as it emerged from a Law Commission review quite a long time ago.
In response to the noble Lord's questions about cost, the estimated losses are £75 million for employers' liability and £75 million for public liability. An estimate has not been made for product liability because the numbers are extremely low.
1418
A first-stage report, setting out the findings of the ELCI review, was published on 3rd June. A further report is to be issued in the autumn, so the review has not yet been completed. We are taking steps to include the arrangements in this legislation, but we have indicated that we will not implement it until the outcome of the final review is settled.
Much was made of the issue of affirmative resolution. Amendments Nos. 409A and 475 would make the regulation-making powers in Part 3 subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Amendment No. 477 would have the same effect for the commencement order for Part 3.
With only one or two exceptions, the regulation-making powers in Part 3 are not new. Rather, they mirror—sometimes word for word—powers that already exist in the Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Act 1999. All regulations made under the terms of that Act are subject to negative resolution procedures.
In most cases, the Government can see no valid reason why regulations made under the Bill—which will be largely concerned with the detailed and technical administration of the scheme—should be treated any differently. I said "in most cases", as there are two possible exceptions. The report on the Bill from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee recommended that the regulation-making powers in Clauses 146(12) and 149(2) should be subject to affirmative procedures.
On Clause 146(12), the Government accept the Committee's view that the powers granted there could be exercised, but the Government are less convinced about Clause 149(2). The Committee has suggested that because the scope of the expanded scheme is so much greater than that of the existing scheme, the powers to set the amounts payable should be subject to affirmative resolution.
In fact, the way in which payments will be established is intended to be no different at all from the way in which it is done now. There will be three simple tariffs. As now, there will be a single, one-off payment for outpatient treatment, however many appointments are needed, and a daily rate payment for inpatient treatment, irrespective of what that treatment actually entails. In addition, because the scheme will allow recovery of ambulance costs, we will also need to establish a new tariff, again a single one-off payment, to cover ambulance journeys. It is definitely not the intention that a wide range of different payments for different treatments or different types of personal injury will be developed. So the scope of these powers and the way that the Government intend to use them, is the same as the corresponding powers that already exist in the Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Act 1999.
Nevertheless, the Government want to be as constructive as possible in their response to the Committee's recommendations. As a result, I have tabled Amendment No. 474A which would make all regulations made under Clause 146(12) subject to affirmative resolution procedures. It would also make the first set of regulations made under Clause 149(2) subject to affirmative resolution procedures, but

1419
subsequent regulations subject to the negative procedures. That would give Parliament the opportunity to debate tariff-setting and so forth at the outset and reassure both this House and the other place that the scheme was being appropriately set up.
Amendments Nos. 474A and 474B also give effect to another of the Committee's recommendations by amending Clause 196, which gives the Secretary of State—or in relation to the "Welsh" parts of the Bill, the National Assembly for Wales—the power to make supplementary, incidental and consequential provisions, including provision modifying any Act or subordinate legislation, when such modification is necessary to the supplemental, incidental or consequential provision made. Subsection (c) of government Amendment No. 474A requires any order or regulations made under the Bill that will have the effect of amending or repealing part of any other Act to be subject to affirmative resolution procedures. In the light of those assurances, I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Skelmersdale: I wonder what the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has got that I have not got. It is quite clear from its report that it did not consider the vital fact that motor insurance is a compulsory insurance whereas the other two are, to a great extent, optional. That is why I have voiced my worries on what will be in the eight sets of regulations.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, spoke about the Government putting the cart before the horse. They have certainly done that. At this stage, we are being asked to buy a pig in a poke. By the end of our discussions, I hope to discover just how much of a pig it is. For now, there is no point in pursuing the matter and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 146 [Liability to pay NHS charges]:
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 410:
Page 64, line 18, after "person" insert "otherwise than during or as a consequence of NHS treatment"
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I speak to Amendments Nos. 411 and 413. Amendments Nos. 410 and 411 in the name of the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Barker, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, are variations of the same theme. Over the past few days, the Committee has been awash with health professionals, whether clinicians or managers, both paid and unpaid. Every one of them knows that clinical mistakes, even disasters, occur from time to time in the diagnosis and treatment of accidents and the diseases associated with them. In those hopefully rare cases, NHS employees are actionable in law and doctors' liability insurance premiums have risen alarmingly in recent years as we have become a much more litigious society. As drafted, the Bill would make the treatment of a patient in one hospital, say a special hospital, for medical mistakes made in another one, liable to NHS charges.
The only good that that would do would be to push money from one hospital to another. It is a nonsense that the NHS should pay money to itself.
Amendment No. 413 is slightly different but also refers to those bodies outside the NHS who should not be liable to pay. I refer noble Lords to the comments made earlier about the costs of insurance premiums and their increase as a result of the implementation of Part 3. That these extra costs should be borne by not-for-profit organisations, charitable organisations or private sports clubs must surely be wrong in principle. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 411. Subject to the considerations raised in our debate on the previous group of amendments, we generally support the principle of recovering NHS hospital costs incurred treating patients who receive personal injury compensation for an accident. However, extending the scheme to clinical negligence cases could well be counter-productive and liable to set community doctor, primary care doctor and hospital doctor against each other. Under the proposals, a GP working in the NHS who is sued by a patient for a delay in diagnosing a condition that was subsequently picked up by A&E and treated in hospital could be liable to pay tens of thousands of pounds to the hospital. That cannot be the intention of these provisions. The proposals contradict the Kennedy report recommendations on open reporting and are very likely to damage doctor morale. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Lord Warner: I would suggest that the NHS is subject to the same health and safety obligations as any other organisation and it cannot be right that it should not be subject to the same penalties if it fails in those obligations. Similarly, the NHS owes a duty of care to the patients, and can and should be brought to task when it fails in that duty of care through negligence. Why should one hospital have to bear the cost of another's failings? The principle is exactly the same for the NHS as for any other compensator. We do not believe that it is inappropriate for one NHS body to have to bear the proper costs of its wrongdoings, even where that means paying NHS charges to another NHS body.
As for general practitioners and other primary care providers, the principle applies just as much. If they have failed to the extent that a patient or anyone else to whom they owe a liability has had to have hospital treatment to put matters right, then how can it be wrong for them, or their insurers, to have to bear the proper cost of their negligence? We recognise, however, that it would be bureaucratic stupidity for a hospital to have to pay NHS charges to itself where it is both compensator and the hospital providing treatment, which is why Schedule 10 explicitly excludes from the scheme compensation payments made in those circumstances.
Turning to private treatment, I find the idea that private practitioners should not have to contribute to the costs to the NHS of putting right their mistakes

1421
even more difficult to understand. I am sure that we have all heard stories of treatment at a private hospital that has gone wrong, with the unfortunate patient having to be rushed to the nearest NHS hospital to have the problem put right. Where a successful compensation claim is made in such cases against the private practitioner, surely it must be right that the practitioner, or rather their professional indemnity organisation, should also pay towards the costs incurred by the NHS.
Moving on to Amendment No. 413, I can readily understand the reasoning behind this amendment. Nevertheless, the fact remains that these organisations are responsible for the health and well-being of those who work for them and make use of their facilities. The principle behind the expansion of the NHS costs recovery scheme is to make those who cause injury to others through their own negligence bear the full range of costs of that negligence. That applies equally to the organisations identified in the amendment as to any commercial or other organisation.
Some of those organisations are pretty substantial organisations employing very large numbers of people. In some cases, they have responsibilities also for volunteers who spend time on fundraising activities. I find it difficult to understand how when these bodies have the same obligations as any other organisation they should not also be subject to the same penalties for failing to meet those obligations, which is all that this particular scheme does. There would also be practical difficulties. The Compensation Recovery Unit currently administers the existing road traffic recovery system and the benefits recovery scheme. We envisage that it would also operate the new expanded cost recovery system, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State and Scottish Ministers as it does now.
The amendment would require the unit to identify the body or organisation on whose behalf the compensation payment was being made by the insurer. At present, that is not information which the Compensation Recovery Unit automatically seeks. It would be a significant additional administrative burden for it to have to do so.
12.30 a.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: I elicited more from this group of amendments than I could possibly have expected. Perhaps the Minister will answer me a simple question. What happens now if an ambulance runs over someone and he or she is treated in an NHS hospital?
Lord Warner: The principles that I have enunciated are exactly the same. It depends whether the compensation payment is made in respect of that action. It depends whether it is a separate organisation from the organisation that is treating the injured person.
Lord Skelmersdale: The trouble with attempting to précis is that rather more is read into my words than I intended. Clearly, I meant a situation in which the ambulance service subsequently has to pay—through
1422
its insurers—the person that it ran over and that person was treated in an NHS hospital. However, this is not the time of night to get into an argument, although I could pursue this issue quite a long way. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hunt of Wirralmoved Amendment No. 410A:
Page 64, line 18, after "person" insert "as the result of an accident"
The noble Lord said: It is probably unnecessary for me to repeat my interest, but I shall place on record that I am senior partner of Beachcroft Wansbroughs, a law firm which deals with a great deal of the work that we are now discussing. I hope that I might be able to assist the Minister to improve some of the provisions. It is in that context that I move Amendment No. 410A, which, together with Amendment No. 417A, would insert the words,
"as the result of an accident".
Presently, Clause 146(l)(a), states that,
"a person makes a compensation payment to or in respect of any other person … in consequence of any injury, whether physical or psychological, suffered by the injured person".
The words that I seek to insert—
"as the result of an accident"—
would follow.
The addition of those words is to clarify the intention of the Bill so far as the exclusion of disease claims is concerned. The wording reflects that which has already been adopted and approved by the Civil Procedure Rule Committee in the pre-action protocol relating to occupational diseases. I must tell the Minister that lawyers and insurers alike are concerned at the use of the word "injury" without the qualification which I seek to add. On its own, the word "injury" is not sufficiently clear.
I know that that was the language used in previous legislation. But the legislation concentrated on road traffic accidents where the only likely cause of injury was an accident. As has been discussed in immediate past debates, the Government are now proposing to extend the recoupment provisions to employers' liability and other actions, which makes the risk of misinterpretation much greater. I know that insurers welcome the intention of the Government to exclude occupational disease claims, but I hope that the wording could be clarified so as to remove any uncertainty.
I made the Minister aware of the comments 1 was going to make in moving these two amendments, and he has kindly written some brief words in response. The problem, however, is that the note which I have just received, and which other noble Lords may not have seen, raises more questions than it answers.. In his letter the Minister said:
"Amendments 410A and 417A would seek to limit the scheme to injuries arising from accidents. A dictionary definition of 'accident' is: 'an event without apparent cause or which is unforeseen'".

1423
Unfortunately, some injuries can be foreseen or even intended and we do not want them to be excluded from the scheme.
I suppose that any normal person who wanted to know what a word means would rush to the Oxford English Dictionary, but they forget that such is the legal system in this wonderful country of ours—I do not want to be quixotically chivalrous—that it is founded on the basis of ratio decidendi and stare decisis, which means it does not matter what is set out in the Oxford English Dictionary and that all that matters is what the judiciary has interpreted the words to mean over many years.
I have to tell the Minister that to resort to the dictionary to find out the meaning of "accident" is to ignore, I have calculated, 38 cases in the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords which have concentrated on defining the word "accident". Indeed, there is a whole range of cases which seek to interpret the word in a different way from the words "an accident". While I do not want to labour the point, I hope that the Minister will accept from me that, although the dictionary definition appears to be a rational interpretation, it is certainly not the one set out in the House of Lords case of Fenton v Thorley & Co Ltd in 1903 and Warner v Couchman in 1912. Indeed Halsbury 's Laws of England states that what is defined by this word is not entirely clear.
Turning to "illness" or "injury", personal injury includes any disease, any harm to a person's physical or mental condition, as well as pregnancy. So far as concerns food legislation, injury includes any impairment, whether permanent or temporary.
What I seek the Minister to acknowledge is that we might think about this a little more deeply than the rather brief dismissal in his letter of the points I sought to make, although I am sure that he did so with the best of intentions. Perhaps I may press him at least to reflect on what I have said and, rather than resort to the Oxford English Dictionary, we might resort to a little considered legal opinion before we set in stone the final wording in Clause 146. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: I said that my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral was an expert in this area and he has most certainly just proved that. However, it occurs to me that the words,
"as the result of an accident",
he seeks to insert seem eminently sensible. I hope that the Minister will agree.
Lord Warner: It is with some trepidation that I rise to respond to the amendment, in particular at this time of night. I am sorry I went anywhere near the Oxford English Dictionary and I promise to do better in future.
The definition of "accident" may not cover all the incidents which give rise to injuries. The amendments could have the effect of limiting the types of injury which would attract NHS cost recovery. This could limit the effectiveness of the scheme. The health and safety inspectors might draw attention to
1424
shortcomings in particular health and safety issues and no action would be taken. So there was a foreseeable set of circumstances which led to an injury which was not totally unforeseen.
I understand the case law referred to by the noble Lord, but the issues are not quite as straightforward as he suggests. However, I have what I hope he will take as a constructive suggestion, not only on this amendment but on a number of his other amendments. These are very detailed and complex issues in some cases—as the noble Lord said, there is case law on some of them which needs to be explored—and I wonder whether he will accept an invitation to a meeting. I can certainly bring along my lawyers, complete with their reference documents, and departmental officials, and perhaps we can thrash out some of the detailed issues outside the Committee, well before Report stage. I would then write to him confirming the outcome and he would perhaps achieve more satisfaction in that way. The offer is made in a constructive spirit.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: I was not saying the issue was straightforward; I was saying the opposite. I readily accept the Minister's generous offer. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 411 not moved.]
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 412:
Page 65, line 4, at end insert "or an ex gratia payment"
The noble Lord said: The Minister has referred to cases where compensation is not paid on the basis of liability. None the less, although it is fairly rare, ex gratia payments are made on occasion where liability is not accepted. Why have the Government excluded them from the scheme—or is the word "voluntarily" on line 7 of the page supposed to include ex gratia payments? I beg to move.
Lord Warner: The Government agree entirely that ex gratia payments should not attract NHS costs where there is no liability or alleged liability for the injury caused, but there is no need for this to be specified on the face of the Bill as the amendment would do.
Clause 146(3) defines a compensation payment as one made by someone who is, or is alleged to be, liable for the injury caused. Dare I say it again? I have checked the definition of "ex gratia" in the dictionary. It states:
"given as a favour or gratuitously where no legal obligation exists".
If a person who is not liable or alleged to be liable for the injury makes a payment gratuitously, that payment cannot meet the definition of a compensation payment and therefore cannot attract NHS charges under the scheme. That is the explanation.
Lord Skelmersdale: It seems I have produced a gratuitous amendment. I am grateful for the Minister's

1425
explanation that it is not necessary to make express provision for ex gratia payments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 413 not moved.]
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 414:
Page 65, line 12, leave out subsection (6).
The noble Lord said: This is unashamedly a probing amendment. Subsection (6) of the clause qualifies subsection (5) in a rather confusing manner—a matter to which my noble friend Lord Hunt has just referred. Subsection (5) states, in effect, that diseases— asbestosis was cited in another place—do not count. That is absolutely crystal clear.
However, subsection (6) goes on to say, "Hang on a minute. Diseases do count in particular circumstances". If an injury for which compensation is due results subsequently in a disease, it does count. An example might be a head injury where the physical damage is repaired but the patient goes on to get meningitis, which can continue for years and years. That would count as continuing treatment for the head injury and would be subject to continuing NHS charges up to the cap, which, we are told, is likely to be £33,000. We await one of these dreaded orders to tell us how much it will actually be under the new scheme.
Surely to goodness it is not beyond the wit of the draftsmen to ally these two subsections to make the Bill easier to read for the likes of my noble friend and his colleagues in and on the fringes of the industry. At the very least, the Minister should consider Amendment No. 415, which would move up the words "attributable to the injury", prùcised—always a good thing in legislation, pace my noble friend Lord Renton—from further down the page. I beg to move.
12.45 a.m.
Lord Warner: As the noble Lord said, subsections (5) and (6) were inserted into the Bill by the Government in another place in response to concerns expressed by the Opposition as the need to make it explicit on the face of the Bill that compensation payments in respect of diseases, particularly industrial diseases, should not be included in the NHS costs recovery scheme.
These two subsections make it clear that what you might call freestanding diseases are not included in the scheme, but that diseases directly attributable to an injury are. So, for example, a compensation payment made in respect of an industrial disease such as asbestosis would not attract NHS charges under this scheme. However, a compensation payment made to someone who suffers tetanus as a result of a badly broken leg would attract charges, not just for the treatment of the broken leg but also for the treatment of the tetanus. That is the distinction that we are making here.
This seemed a fair and responsible distinction to make. The disease would not have occurred if the injury had not happened, so it is reasonable that the compensator should be held responsible for the cost of treating it.
1426
Amendment No. 414 would, in effect, remove this distinction so that no disease, not even those directly resulting from an injury, could be included within the scope of the scheme. This seems manifestly unfair and defeats the underpinning principle of the scheme.
I was not entirely clear what Amendment No. 415 was intended to achieve. Subsection (6) is already worded so as to make it clear that only disease consequent upon an injury is included, so it does not need to be specifically reiterated, as set out in the amendment. It seems to me that these amendments are entirely unnecessary.
Lord Skelmersdale: I cannot have explained myself very well, can I? I am suggesting that the Minister should go back to the draftsmen and reconsider subsections (5) and (6) because I should have thought they could be encapsulated into a single subsection. That was the sole and total purpose of my amendment. They clearly were not meant to be included in the Bill. I am sure that, on reflection, the noble Lord will appreciate it.
Again, there is no point in having an argument at this time of night. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 415 not moved.]
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 416:
Page 65, line 19, after second "treatment" insert "carried out within 12 months of the injury for which compensation has been paid"
The noble Lord said: Treatment of injuries, perhaps multiple fractures, or certainly a broken back, can go on for years, sometimes for the rest of a patient's life. Under this clause, as the Minister has so far explained it to us, treatment charges would continue, subject only to the cap.
Let us consider an insured horse rider who has a bad fall, suffers a broken back and becomes a paraplegic. After a period, he or she will go home and, almost invariably, suffer pressure sores, for example. I wonder if the noble Lord has ever seen a bad pressure sore, where the flesh is so eaten away that it has to be cut out, sometimes right down to the bone, over significantly wide areas of the body. Treatment for these would indeed be consequent on injury. It really is not right that an insurance company should be liable for a person's lifetime. Therefore, we have put down this amendment to restrict to 12 months the length of time for which payment is due. I beg to move.
Lord Warner: I do not feel strong enough to trade gruesome experiences at this time of night with the noble Lord.
Clause 149(5)(a) allows for the regulations setting the amounts to be paid under the scheme to include setting a maximum sum payable. That reflects existing powers in the Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Act 1999. The Government have used those powers to set a cap on costs under the road traffic scheme, currently

1427
standing at £33,000. That represents roughly 60 days' in-patient treatment using the current daily tariff for such payments under the scheme.
The Government intend to make the same arrangements under the expanded scheme, so that compensators will always know the maximum amount they might have to pay in any particular case. In the vast majority of cases, the liability will be much lower than the cap, because the injured person will not be in hospital for very long, or indeed may not be hospitalised at all.
Noble Lords will appreciate from this that the amendment would, in the more serious cases requiring long-term hospitalisation, make liability much greater not only than is currently the case but also than is currently the Government's intention. That may not be the noble Lord's intention, but it would be the effect of the amendment. We are trying to give certainty to compensators under the scheme.
Lord Skelmersdale: Certainty is all very well, and I appreciate that the Minister is trying. However, the 12 months suggested by the amendment is a very certain period. Saying that the amount due is up to £33,000 is very elastic and does not produce certainty at all. I cannot accept that argument. I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.
12.52 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 416) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 13; Not-Contents, 42.

Division No 3

CONTENTS

Attlee, E.

Howe, E.

Barker, B.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Blatch, B.

Noakes, B.[Teller]

Onslow, E.

Clement-Jones, L.

Roper, L.

Colwyn, L.

Skelmersdale, L. [Teller]

Cox, B.

Strathclyde, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Amos, B. (Lord President)

Gilbert, L.

Andrews, B.

Golding, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Bach, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Brett, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Hoyle, L.

Burlison, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Carter, L.

Jones, L.

Chandos, V.

Jordan, L.

Crawley, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Mitchell, L.

Desai, L.

Pendry, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

1428

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Warner, L.

Sawyer, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Simon, V.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
1.2 a.m.
Lord Strathclyde: It is now just after one o'clock in the morning. The noble Lord the Government Chief Whip is still in the Committee. Does he realise that we have completed a page and a bit of amendments on the groupings list so far today, and that there is at least three-quarters of a page still to do?
We have an agreement in the House to try to aim for a 10 o'clock cut-off, which has been very difficult to achieve in recent weeks. We all understand why that is. However, it is now likely that we may have to run for another three or four hours. Might the noble Lord consider that we should continue for another hour this evening—that would bring us to four hours beyond the 10 o'clock cut-off—and then complete this Business on Thursday morning? That should give us enough time. It is a reasonable and sensible offer, and fits in entirely with the view taken by many Peers that doing Business at this hour of the morning is not only unreasonable, but not very effective.
Lord Grocott: I suggest that we see how the Committee proceeds. Believe me, I infinitely prefer to do our Business at a different time of day. I do not think it sensible to try to negotiate across the Dispatch Box. As I am here until I switch the lights off and put the cat out, I would be more than happy to have such discussions but, as the noble Lord knows, it is not sensible to try to have them on the Floor of the House.
The Earl of Onslow: Actually, I cannot see why that is not sensible. My noble friend has put forward a perfectly decent suggestion. If there is a bad reason for saying no, say no. Why cannot we all be let into the secret? It is a great myth that we cannot negotiate on the Floor of the House. What is Parliament for except negotiating across its Floors? I spoke earlier about exactly that point. I understand the difficulty that the noble Lord is in, because he and I had a civilised conversation outside where I think he understood me, and I him. The fault is in agreeing to stop at 10 o'clock. It would have been much wiser not to, and then we would have all accepted that occasionally these events are inevitable. They become unacceptable when the rules are that we only play cricket on a cricket pitch, and then suddenly because it is inconvenient to play cricket we have to play football—even though we have reached agreement. If we know that we can play cricket or football that is much fairer.
When one says that we will not go beyond 10 o'clock, half past 10, or 11 o'clock, that is fair enough. But then to go on very late is unreasonable— that has happened not only today but last week as

1429
well. I cannot see why the matter cannot be agreed across the Floor of the House. There is no great secret. We are not delving into great affairs of state. There just seems to be a sensible proposal put forward by a sensible man to a sensible man on the other side of the House.
Lord Roper: I believe that the Government Chief Whip has suggested that it would be useful to have further discussions outside the Chamber, and I hope that that suggestion, which seemed a good response to the Leader of the Opposition, is accepted.
[Amendment No. 417A not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 146 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Skelmersdale: I apologise to the Committee for not having tabled the request. Before we leave Clause 146, the notes on clauses assume that the new scheme will be operated by the Compensation Recovery Unit of the Benefits Agency as heretofore. Before the Health Act 1999 came into force a number of companies were contracted to the NHS to recover from insurance companies the cost of treating road accident victims under the provisions of existing legislation. Those organisations, of which by far the largest was the National Road Traffic Accident Claims Centre—NATRAC—were put summarily out of business without compensation when the 1999 Act came into force. They were obliged to pass to the CRU all their work in progress, again without payment.
Regarding this Bill, has a formal comparative analysis been made of the costs and benefits of a private versus public sector solution? The history of the CRU in that field is not a happy one, although I understand that the teething problems that they experienced initially have now been resolved. For example, I accept that the CRU has introduced a new computer programme to connect to all NHS trusts. But that does not make any difference to my question. Also, have the Government estimated the costs of collection compared to the estimated revenues of the NHS? We know from the notes on clauses and the regulatory impact assessment that about £150 million will be raised for the NHS. That is about half as much again as has been raised now.
Above all, why has the CRU not been benchmarked against private sector bids for cost effectiveness? What is the cost assumed to be for the CRU? Why have we not been informed in the various pieces of paper accompanying the Bill? I understand that the cost now to the CRU is £1.9 million to recover £100 million under the existing road traffic scheme. I ask again: what are the anticipated costs under the new scheme to recover an estimated £150 million?
Lord Warner: I do not have the detailed figures in my head at this time of night and I shall write to the noble Lord. However, I would ask him to accept that the CRU is an established organisation, so the relative costs of expanding it to cover the new scheme
1430
are fairly modest compared with the amounts of money that will be generated. I am happy to write to the noble Lord with more chapter and verse to try to reassure him on that matter.
Earl Howe: Was a benchmarking exercise done as regards private versus public sector solutions, or was an executive decision taken to run along with the present system?
Lord Warner: We have an established organisation where the overheads are effectively covered. However, I am not sure that I have in my head the exact answer to the noble Earl's point and 1 will cover it in the letter I promised to write to his noble friend.
Clause 146 agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Recovery of NHS charges: exempted payments]:
Lord Hunt of Wirral Lord Hunt of Wirral moved Amendment No. 417B:
Page 146, line 19, at end insert—
"Any payment made direct to a provider of treatment, whether that provider is a health service hospital or other organisation or individual providing treatment."
The noble Lord said: The grouping of Amendments Nos. 417B, 430D and 477ZA would under normal circumstances, were it not almost quarter past one in the morning, have given rise to a wide-ranging debate on rehabilitation. I know that many noble Lords wanted to participate in the debate, but sadly, because of the hour, they will not be able to do so.
Why is rehabilitation so important? It is because there is a genuine wish to try to overcome the serious problems caused to the economy by the rising bill having to be paid by industry for sickness and absence from work. Wearing my hat as president of the All-Party Group on Occupational Health and Safety, I can state that we recently had a report from the Trades Union Congress estimating that the cost of sickness and accidents at work was rising above £17,000 million a year. This is why rehabilitation is such a key issue.
It is also a key issue for the Government. Indeed, several departments have clearly said that rehabilitation is a priority. The Department for Work and Pensions stressed that in considering the future of employers' liability insurance. The Department of Health, in that outstandingly good report from the Chief Medical Officer, Making Amends, has already stressed the need for a wide-ranging policy on rehabilitation. The Treasury has several times indicated that we cannot go on in the way that we are with the rising cost. The Department of Trade and Industry has on a number of occasions demonstrated the need for a greater emphasis on rehabilitation. I know that in this debate many noble Lords would have wanted to stress the fact that at last there are a number of opportunities to do something fundamental about tackling rehabilitation.
Before I come to Amendment No. 477ZA, which seeks to implement one of the proposals that I know the Government are presently considering, perhaps I

1431
may deal with the detail of Amendment No. 417B. This amendment would insert into Schedule 10—that is, the list of exempt payments which a compensator can make without having to repay NHS treatment charges—a new item to cover treatment costs paid by the insurer direct. Particularly in the employers' liability field, where, of course, these provisions will take effect for the first time, there are schemes where employers or insurers themselves provide treatment services for anyone who is off work for a certain period of time, whether or not involved in a compensation claim. Therefore, it is clearly right that the Government should seek to encourage employers and their insurers to act in this positive way. Equally, it is right that new legislation should not discourage such measures.
I know from my own experience that under such schemes it is possible that an employer or an insurer will make a payment for treatment well before liability for the accident or the incident has been resolved. Surely it is in everyone's interests that that treatment should be provided so that the employee can get back to work as soon as practicable, where appropriate.
There are some wider issues here, too, which I have shared with the Minister. Those who run our specialist units for severe injuries—that is, spinal and head injuries—tell me that accident victims spend too long in those units, when better provision of treatment and other facilities could get them back into the community rather sooner. That has a knock-on effect on the ability of those units to treat other victims of such injuries. That, in turn, means that the victims find themselves being treated on non-specialist wards and not receiving the same level of care as they could in a specialised unit. With the best will in the world, that will lead to the worst possible outcome for those individuals.
Therefore, I would like to think that payments for rehabilitation treatment could join the list of exempt payments. In practice, the number of cases where such payments are made and where there is then no further compensation is not high. The other important factor is that, under the current version of the Bill, any payment for treatment would trigger liability for NHS charges. That might well cause some companies to pause before making payments for rehabilitation.
The Minister very kindly shared with me his general support for Amendment No. 417B by saying that it is entirely in line with the points made by the Department for Work and Pensions in its review of employers' liability compulsory insurance. But he added:
"In the sorts of cases we are talking about, it is more than likely that the injured person will have received NHS hospital treatment before they get to the stage of needing physiotherapy or other rehabilitation services".
He continued:
"We would not want to encourage compensators to try to persuade the injured to accept payment of treatment costs instead of a personal compensation payment to which they are fully entitled".
Perhaps I may respectfully say to the Minister that there is no wish on my part, or on the part of any of those to whom I have referred, to persuade the insured to accept some payment on treatment instead of compensation. That is not on the agenda. We are talking about payments made at an early stage to obtain the vital treatment necessary to get people back to work. We want to encourage those payments, even though liability issues have still to be sorted out and may well result in there being no liability at all and therefore no compensation. So it is very different from the description that the Minister has put in his letter to me. I want to see us encouraging insurers to pay for rehabilitation even though liability is not yet determined.
Amendment No. 430D would insert at the end of the provision requiring the Secretary of State to repay money recouped by the relevant NHS trust the words,
"as the result of accidents to which section 146 applies".
The intention of those words is to ensure that money received by the NHS trust as a consequence of these provisions is used for the supply of services to accident victims as a whole.
Previously I referred to rehabilitation. Surely it is one of the key drivers behind much of government policy that rehabilitation services should be improved and made more available. I would like to see—the Minister has explained to me that it is impossible to ring-fence the money—a greater vision on the part of those formulating policy as to how best to proceed. I shall not press the Minister for a detailed response tonight as it is far too late. I would not want to press him in that direction.
However, Amendment No. 477ZA seeks to repeal Section 2(4) of the Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act 1948. That section provides that when a court is assessing a case for personal injury damages, no account at all should be made of the availability of treatment and care under the NHS. As a consequence of that section, many seriously injured accident victims are able to claim for the cost of professional care provided outside the NHS when the NHS still has an obligation to provide the necessary treatment. Many of those claimants will purchase such professional care so the money goes where it is intended—I am sure that is the overwhelming majority of cases—but research has shown that damages paid for nursing care are frequently not used for that purpose. Therefore, society is providing double compensation as it has to fund both the necessary insurance premiums and the cost of the National Health Service.
Earlier I referred to the Chief Medical Officer's report, Making Amends. That recommended the repeal of Section 2(4) in clinical negligence cases. I was most interested to read the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor's response to a question from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, on 8th September 2003, HL4239, when the Lord Chancellor said:
"The report of the Chief Medical Officer, Making Amends, recommended that Section 2(4) of the Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act 1948 should be amended so that the costs of future care in any award for clinical negligence made against the National Health Service should no longer reflect the cost of private treatment".
That recommendation is currently the subject of consultation. However, the answer continues, most importantly:
"The Government intends to consider the implications of the recommendation for personal injury claims generally".— [Official Report, 8/9/03; col. WA 2.]
That opens an opportunity that I hope the Government will take. I have deliberately inserted this proposed amendment in the repeals consequent upon the provisions setting up foundation hospitals. It is hoped that those hospitals will have greater financial and management freedom and, therefore, will be able to look at a range of schemes that could involve the private sector. There must be scope for finding ways to fund better and more effective rehabilitation facilities, certainly in those hospitals, in a way that would involve case managers—I declare an interest as chairman of the Case Management Society of the UK—who would ensure that those suffering injury are provided with the necessary support to bring about an early return to work where appropriate.
So, what I am really saying to the Minister—and I am not pressing him now—is that there is a real opportunity for some joined-up thinking on the part of the Government, rather than to perpetuate this system of seeking to recover comparatively small payments through this very intricate system that often, in many cases, costs just as much to collect as the actual money which is recovered. Surely, we could find a better way to have a really viable private finance initiative, which could join together with private sector finance and the National Health Service itself, in seeking to create far better rehabilitation services within NHS hospitals, so that people, however an injury may have been caused, will be able to get back to work at a much earlier stage. I beg to move.
Lord Warner: I listened with interest to the noble Lord's comments on rehabilitation. Certainly, there is no intention on the part of the Government to do other than to give people access to rehabilitation when they need it and to help them get back to work and health as quickly as possible. I want to put on record one simple sentence just to make matters clear. We do not think it right to allow the compensator to be able to avoid liability for the NHS charges incurred by virtue of agreeing to pay for an injured person's rehabilitation. That is a central point of the Bill.
In the middle of the voting arrangements on the amendment on which there was a vote, I offered to meet the noble Lord and officials and to go through all his amendments, including this one, in as constructive a way as possible, and then to confirm to him after a thorough and detailed discussion before Report where we can and cannot meet his particular
1434
concerns. That offer is extended to all his amendments. I hope that that will help the noble Lord and the Committee to make progress today. In that spirit, I shall not go through the detail— particularly as he did not press me—on his particular amendment. But we are happy to have a full discussion outside the Committee.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord has made what
sounds like a very generous offer. But the Official Report of the debates in this House are not for an "in club"—that is, the Members of this place: they are informative documents for doctors, nurses, all those involved in the health service and other interested bodies, including those who have taken a very serious interest in the Bill. It seems to me that the Government's response to amendments should be part of the Official Report and not simply a system of bypassing the need to debate these amendments in the Chamber. That is why amendments are tabled. There are people who are very interested in the Government's responses. I do not think that it should be left as a way of curtailing discussions today.
Lord Warner: I was trying to make the offer in a way that was helpful to the noble Lord and to Members of the Committee. If the noble Baroness and other Members would like me to go through the seven or eight pages of response, I am happy to. It will of course slow down other noble Lords who wish to discuss other amendments. I was trying to proceed in a way which meets the Committee's needs.
There will be every opportunity—the noble Baronesses are shaking their heads. If they could just listen to what I have to say. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, would not mind this: we would send a copy of the outcome of those discussions to all Members of the Committee. Please may I be allowed to continue? I listened patiently to the noble Baroness when she was speaking. She might do me the same courtesy.
I would actually send that letter to all Members of the Committee who have participated in the discussion. If the noble Lord and other Members were not content with that outcome, there would be nothing to stop them raising matters on Report on particular amendments so that we could discuss them further. However, if it is the wish of the Committee that I work my way through the seven pages, I am happy to do so.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: I am in a slightly difficult position, because I very much agree with my noble friend, but perhaps there is a way through. The Minister has made me a generous offer, which I accept quickly, before he withdraws it. However, perhaps I may do so in this context. Much of what I said about rehabilitation extends right across many provisions in the Bill: seeking to improve facilities in the National Health Service. There will therefore be many noble Lords who will want to participate in further debate on the matter.

1435
Perhaps the easiest way through is for me to proceed as the Minister suggested and return to a fuller debate on Report. That may meet my noble friend's point that so many interests are directly affected here. I remind the Minister that it does not affect only the Department of Health: key discussions are underway in the Department for Work and Pensions and the other departments I mentioned on the issue of rehabilitation.
This is not a party political issue. To give an example—perhaps the best one of all—everyone wants someone who has suffered a whiplash injury either at work or in a motor car not just to be sent home to await a GP's appointment and then, possibly, later physiotherapy; but to receive immediate treatment of the highest possible quality at the NHS hospital, so that he can get back to work and be on the road to recovery as quickly as possible.
That example involves a simple, minor accident. So much more important is it that someone who has suffered a serious spinal injury should not have to stay in a hospital bed receiving only one area of specialised treatment but should have a case manager allocated to him, who would make it his business to ensure that that seriously injured individual received the range of specialist advice and treatment that he needed, all combined at an early stage to produce a far better environment in which to return to normal health as quickly as possible.
I hope that in that way I have met the point made by my noble friend and at the same time retained the offer, which I accept, from the Minister. Perhaps we can return to the subject on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 10 agreed to.
1.30 a.m.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 418:
Before Clause 147, insert the following new clause—
"INSURANCE
Where compensation has been paid through an insurance policy, subject to paragraph 4 of Schedule 10, the insurer will not be liable for payment of NHS costs providing that he has provided the Compensation Recovery Unit with the name and address of the insured."
The noble Lord said: The amendment would meet what might loosely be called the "culprit pays" principle, although if the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, were setting the exams, it would probably be the "tortfeasor pays" principle, which seems to be the Government's implicit driving principle of this part of the Bill allowing for recovery of NHS charges. If the amendment were adopted, the party responsible for causing the harm would have to meet the full economic costs of their failings, rather than them being borne by the many policy-holders and so adding to the inflation of premiums, as under the current proposal.
The Minister's reply set out in his letter was very interesting. However, it is inaccurate to say that the proposal implies that people should be expected to pay potentially thousands of pounds on top of their insurance premiums as a result of an incident for which they considered themselves appropriately insured. It is designed to meet the situation where the insured has received a pay-out from an insurer. I beg to move.
Lord Warner Lord Warner Clause 146(2) is very specific:
"The person making the compensation payment is liable to pay the relevant NHS charges".
There is no provision in the Bill to transfer that liability to the person on whose behalf the compensation payment is made. But if costs cannot be recovered from the insurer who makes the compensation payment, they cannot be recovered from anyone. The amendment would be at odds with the Government's policy in that regard.
Our intention is made explicit in Clause 160, which specifies that where a qualifying compensation payment is made and an insurance policy covers a person's liability in respect of the injury, the policy must be treated as also covering any liability to pay NHS costs. The amendment is not appropriate, given the structure of the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord will reconsider his position.
Lord Clement-Jones: The Minister's answer seems eminently and quite consistently circular, but I am not surprised by it. I will not get any further on this wheel; otherwise, at this time of night, I will feel like a hamster. Nevertheless, I shall consider the Minister's reply and respond appropriately at a further stage in the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 147 [Applications for certificates of NHS charges]:
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 419:
Page 66, line 17, leave out "may" and insert "must"
The noble Lord said: There has been a lot of chat on the subject of a letter, especially since my noble friend Lord Hunt became involved in our discussion. It would have helped me and, I am sure, other Members of the Committee, to have received such a letter. After all, my name was attached to many of the amendments. I find it strange that I was not sent such a letter.
Lord Warner: The points that I made to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, were inserted in the letter that I believe I sent to Front-Bench spokesmen and others

1437
who have spoken in these debates. If the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, did not receive the letter, I can only apologise.
Baroness Noakes: It might help the noble Lord to know that I did not receive a letter either. I do not know what distribution system his office thinks he operates, but he did not achieve his intended effect.
Lord Warner: We tried to put the letters in Members' pigeonholes. Unless something went seriously wrong, we failed.
Lord Skelmersdale: As my noble friend Lady Blatch said, this is not a useful way of progressing a debate on a very technical subject, although 1 understand readily that that was the Minister's intention. For my part, 1 hope that he will not produce that procedure again.
Amendment No. 419 is rather odd. Instead of our usual "may/shall" discussions, which arise in virtually every Bill that we consider, this is a "may/must" amendment. This is a Government that love dicta. I do not particularly approve, but this is a case where what ought to have happened is vague in the extreme. Lines 16 and 17 of the clause state:
"Before a person makes a compensation payment in consequence of any injury suffered by an injured person, he may apply for a certificate to the Secretary of State".
The repayment scheme simply will not work unless the Secretary of State in either jurisdiction is informed. If he is not, how will he know whether a personal injury claim is successful and compensation will be paid out? It therefore follows that the insurance company must apply for the certificate from the Secretary of State—substitute compensation recovery unit for Secretary of State. Incidentally, the Minister need not be too shy about this because the word "must" is already used in this clause in subsection (7) line 42. It states that,
"a person who has made a compensation payment in consequence of an injury suffered by an injured person must apply for a certificate to the Secretary of State",
if the original one is lost or is no longer in force or for various other reasons. Under those circumstances, a replacement certificate must be applied for but originally it was not. I simply do not understand why. I beg to move.
Lord Warner: Referring to our earlier discussion, I wish to put on the record that I am reliably informed that at 11.30 this morning we placed in the pigeon-holes of all the Front Bench spokesmen a copy of the letter that was discussed. Clearly, something went wrong.
Amendment No. 419 would place a legal requirement on potential compensators to apply for a certificate of NHS charges before any compensation payment has actually been made. Although it may seem logical to encourage compensators to apply for certificates as early as possible in the claim process, it is important to remember that the recovery of NHS charges is secondary to, and dependent on, a
1438
successful claim being made. In other words, it is only once a compensation payment has been made that NHS charges can be recovered. It is by no means the case that every personal injury claim made is successful. Some are so manifestly unfounded that it is clear from the outset that they will fail. It seems inappropriately bureaucratic—indeed, a little draconian—to require the person against whom the claim is made to apply for a certificate of NHS charges before it is clear that they will be liable to pay such charges.
That is why subsection (1) of Clause 147 is worded as it is. It allows for compensators to apply for a certificate before the claim is settled if they choose to do so, but does not require them to do so. Of course, it is quite a different matter once a compensation payment has been made. Then the recovery scheme definitely comes into play, and compensators have an obligation to pay any NHS charges identified. It is for that reason that subsections (7) and (8) of Clause 147 place a legal obligation on compensators to apply for a certificate if they have not already done so at the time the claim is settled, or if a previously issued certificate has expired. It places the onus on the compensator to apply for a certificate to the Compensation Recovery Unit (CRU), the body that administers the existing road traffic scheme and that we expect to do the same for the extended scheme.
To remove that obligation, as Amendment No. 420 would do, would create a loophole that would undermine the entire costs recovery scheme. Compensators would quickly realise that it would be impossible for CRU to find out about many claims if they are not told about them—the applications for a certificate are often the first indication that the CRU has that a claim attracting NHS charges has been made. Given that one of the key principles of the scheme is to make the compensator pay the full costs of their negligence, I cannot see how it is unreasonable to require the compensator to inform CRU of the claim. It is common practice in relation to a huge variety of public and indeed private responsibilities. For example, car owners are required to inform the DVLA when they buy or sell their vehicle; it is not for the DVLA to find out about it. The principle is no different for the NHS costs recovery scheme.
Taken together these amendments would move the element of coercion for compensators from the point at which their liability to pay NHS charges is definite to a point at which it may still come to nothing, That does not seem a fair or equitable way to proceed.
1.45 a.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: The noble Lord seems to have made my case for me when he talks about the onus on the compensator. The compensator therefore must apply for a certificate. It seems that the case is totally proven.
Over and above that, the "must" in subsection (8) appears to be an almost straight copy of Section 2(8) of the Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Act. This

1439
procedure has been used in respect of that Act. I make the point again that that covered compulsory insurance; this Bill extends to non-compulsory insurance. What happens in cases of uninsured compensation which could be very much greater under this Bill than under anything we have seen heretofore, certainly than under the RTA procedures where insurance is compulsory by law? That provokes me to ask a question that I should have asked perhaps right at the beginning—whether the new scheme will apply to uninsured individuals or not?
Lord Warner: The scheme makes clear that there has to be a compensation payment by a compensator before there can be any recovery of NHS charges. If a person has no capacity to seek an insurance payment then it would be jolly difficult for the compensator to be made responsible for those NHS charges.
Lord Skelmersdale: One could argue that the individual in question is a self-compensator, for want of a better expression. However, I do not think that I want to pursue that any more. The noble Lord has given me a comprehensive but not totally readily explicable explanation. I shall have to read very carefully what he said before deciding how to proceed. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 420 not moved.]
Clause 147 agreed to.
Clause 148 [Section 147: supplementary]:
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 421:
Page 67, line 26, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: I tabled this amendment again rather than have a clause stand part debate. I would assume that subsection (2) covers cases where a certificate is applied for in England when it should have been applied for in Scotland and vice versa. It seems to me that that is bureaucracy gone mad, resulting in a totally unnecessary paper chase. Who issues the certificate is neither here nor there; what matters is where the money goes. What about a case where an English or Welsh visitor goes to a Scottish National Trust property in the Borders and has an accident, claims against the insurance policy, is accepted and is treated in, say, a Durham hospital? The insurance company applies to the Scottish Minister for a certificate. The money goes to the Scottish Ministers. They will have to establish from the Durham hospital and perhaps the Scottish ambulance how much the cost was, particularly whether it was below the ceiling, and then remit it to the hospital and ambulance authority concerned. What a paper chase.
Why cannot a certificate be issued by either the Secretary of State—that is, the Compensation Recovery Unit in England—or the Scottish authorities? Those would receive the money and dole
1440
it out to the appropriate health function in either jurisdiction as is specified in Clause 158. An awful fuss seems to be made in the Bill as to who issues the certificate rather than what really matters, which is who gets the money and where does it end up. I beg to move.
Lord Warner: Subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 147 work in tandem to deal with a very specific situation; that is, where an application for a certificate has been made under one of the recovery schemes, but it appears that any payment may be due under another scheme. For example, where an application is made to the England and Wales scheme, but treatment was received in a Scottish hospital or vice versa. Subsection (2) allows, indeed requires, the application to be referred to the appropriate scheme and to be treated as though it had been made originally to that scheme. This reflects the arrangements in the current road traffic scheme, which operate without any difficulty.
Although the provisions in the Bill set up two separate schemes—one for England and Wales and another for Scotland—in order to meet the requirements of devolution, in practice, the Government intend that the two schemes be administered by the Compensation Recovery Unit (CRU), which currently operates the road traffic schemes on behalf of the Secretary of State and the Scottish Ministers.
Omitting subsection (2) would create a bureaucratic stupidity that would cause unnecessary inconvenience for compensators and administrative difficulties for the Compensation Recovery Unit. Instead of, as now, officers working on Scottish cases being able to transfer information about an application to colleagues dealing with English and Welsh cases as considered appropriate, they will have to inform the compensator that they appear to have applied to the wrong scheme and to ask them to apply directly to the right one.
Not only will there be a delay in issuing the certificate, but both the compensator and the CRU will be involved in unnecessary paperwork, all because the staff at the CRU are unable to talk to each other about claims under the different schemes. It is to avoid that kind of bureaucratic nonsense that subsection (2) does not allow information to be passed from one scheme to the other, but actually makes it a requirement to do so.
Lord Skelmersdale: I do not know who advised the Minister to produce that answer, but clearly whoever it was has not read behind the amendment but has taken my leaving out subsection (2) as gospel and my ultimate intention, which, as I explained in my opening remarks, it was not. However, I do not think that we shall get any further tonight. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 148 agreed to.

1441
Clause 149 [Information contained in certificates]:
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 422:
Page 68, line 17, at end insert—
"( ) A certificate must specify the rights of the person to whom it is issued to have the certificate reviewed under section 152 or to appeal under sections 153 to 155."
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 422, which states,
"Page 68, line 17, at end insert—"
might be better encompassed, I must confess, in subsection (5). Be that as it may, I trust that I can have a commitment that a standard part of the certificate will tell the recipient of his rights, especially of appeal, and obligations in respect of NHS charges. That is important at the beginning of the scheme anyway for insurance companies that have never offered motor insurance and, permanently, where individuals—as I think we have just established—in rare cases are sent the certificates. I beg to move.
Lord Warner: It is already the case that this information is included on every certificate issued in respect of the existing road traffic scheme. I can also offer the noble Lord the same assurances that it is fully intended that the new certificate for the extended scheme will also include information on review and appeal procedures. Indeed, the early design work on the certificate already does so.
Lord Skelmersdale: For the first time in my discussions on this part of the Bill, I accept the words that the Minister uttered with glee, happiness and appropriate respect, for which I thank him. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 423 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Hunt of Wirral Lord Hunt of Wirral moved Amendment No. 423A:
Page 68, line 31, leave out from "which" to end of line 32 and insert "the parties to an action either commenced or contemplated before a court in England and Wales or Northern Ireland have reached an agreement in writing"
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 423A is intended, along with a similar amendment to Clause 152, to enable the procedures set up to be followed without the necessity of a court order. The point I seek to make most strongly in reference to the amendment is that the vast majority of claims settle without the need for court proceedings, and the current proposal to limit adjustment to those cases where the court has made an order risks either the growth of litigation for a satellite purpose or fails to achieve the desired objective of adjustment.
As the Minister pointed out to me in his letter, to which I shall refer shortly, the present wording in the Bill does not require a formal decision of the court, but it does require a consent order. When I made the Minister aware of my concerns by sending him a copy of my speaking notes—no doubt we shall discuss this
1442
in more detail, but I felt that I had to put on the record the arguments on either side; it may be that there is insufficient time to go over this matter again on Report—he responded by stating that:
"I understand the argument that by requiring formal endorsement of the agreement through a court process we may encourage compensators to take a case to court that they might otherwise settle informally. But in actual fact, a compensator would not need to go through a full court hearing to get an agreed order which would meet the requirements of clause 149(3)(d), and could be used for the purposes of calculating NHS costs".
The main point I wish to make to the Minister is that we have moved on in civil litigation as a result of the reforms introduced by successive Lord Chancellors. There has been a wish to see matters of this nature settled without the need for court proceedings. Indeed, we now have wide-ranging pre-action protocols which are designed to ensure that matters can be resolved without the expense of court proceedings at any stage.
There is also an element of encouragement on the part of the Government towards what is known as ADR, alternative dispute resolution. I hope, therefore, that the Minister would accept that by requiring there to be court proceedings, the department in which he is a Minister is moving in precisely the opposite direction from that of the Department for Constitutional Affairs and the reforms of successive Lord Chancellors. Surely there must be a way to reach an agreement—and I am not talking about something on the back of an envelope—of the kind that is reached in the overwhelming majority of cases so that the expense of involving the court is not required at any stage.
My final question to the Minister is that, in the alternative dispute resolution procedure, a mediator is often involved. That mediator sets out the agreement which has been reached between the parties and the whole purpose of the alternative dispute procedure is to avoid court proceedings. Is the Minister really suggesting that all that should be swept aside and, in order for this provision to operate, there has to be a consent order? You cannot have a consent order without proceedings having been commenced, and therefore after the alternative dispute resolution procedure had been followed, we would then have to go through the very procedure that ADR is designed to avoid; namely, court proceedings. I beg to move.
2 a.m.2
Lord Warner: This is a complex issue and the Government thought long and hard about the best way to deal with it. The Department of Health certainly does not intend unnecessarily to push cases through the civil courts. We decided eventually that only where the decision on the extent of contributory negligence had been formally considered through one of the processes identified in the Bill should it be possible to reduce the amount of NHS costs payable.
The important point is to ensure that all the relevant issues have been properly considered in an appropriate forum, or where contributory negligence

1443
is specified in an agreed judgment or order, so that the rights and responsibilities of both sides are protected. Often the kind of agreement suggested by the noble Lord can be, with great respect, little more than a back-of-the-envelope agreement which we could not be sure had fully taken into account all the issues.
I understand the argument that by requiring formal endorsement of the agreement through a court process we may encourage compensators to take a case to court that they might otherwise settle more informally and more quickly. However, it is not an argument which the Government fully accept.
For a start, the compensator does not need to go through a full court hearing to get an agreed order which would meet the requirements of Clause 149(3)(d) and could be used for the purposes of calculating NHS costs. That is certainly the legal advice I have received. Furthermore, in many cases it will not be worthwhile for a compensator to push a case to court solely in order to get a contributory negligence ruling for the purposes of NHS costs recovery. Even if the costs due have reached the cap, the costs attached to running the case may well exceed what might be saved in NHS costs recovery. So there are some constraints there.
I include this issue in the areas that I am very happy to discuss in detail with the noble Lord. In view of earlier comments, however, I thought that I should put the Government's current position on the record. I shall be happy to discuss the matter in more detail with the noble Lord when we meet.
Lord Skelmersdale: Before my noble friend decides what to do with the amendment, I recall that the issue of contributory negligence was the cause of a long battle on the 1989 Bill. The then government were planning on, and succeeded in, dropping it from the 1948 compromise in the previous Parliament, and no mention that I can find was made in the Bill which became the 1999 Act. Why have we suddenly got it now?
Lord Warner: I was otherwise engaged when that earlier legislation was going through and so I will have to look back at the arguments. I have set out the Government's position. If I can do anything more to clarify matters for the noble Lord, I shall write to him.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: In reply to my noble friend, I have always felt that it was an anomaly in the recoupment of NHS charges and benefits to require insurers to pay the full sum irrespective of any deduction for contributory negligence. That is where the Minister and I are in agreement. I greatly regret that I have to disagree with my noble friend.
The Minister used the phrase "back of the envelope" even though I had cautioned him against doing so. But the overwhelming majority of claims are now settled by agreement without the need for court proceedings. The whole purpose of the civil justice reforms and the pre-action protocols was to
1444
introduce a system whereby the expense of the nation was spared; where you did not have to commence proceedings but could reach agreement.
The present Lord Chief Justice, previously the Master of the Rolls, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, did the nation a great service when he removed from the courts the burden of having to commence court proceedings by setting down the procedures in pre-action protocols. This is not a back-of-the-envelope solution; it ensures that the nation does not have to bear the costs of court proceedings in a whole range of cases.
ADR—alternative dispute resolution—is certainly no back-of-the-envelope system. The mediator reaches a solution which often involves give and take—otherwise you would not need a mediator. In cases where people blame each other or there is a whole sequence of events which point the finger at the injured person as having been at least partially to blame for what occurred, the mediator comes in and reaches some kind of agreement.
The whole purpose of ADR is to be alternative— it is alternative dispute resolution. Alternative to what? To the court. But the Minister is trying to tell us that that is all "back of the envelope" stuff. Even though it is a tried and tested procedure, encouraged by the Department for Constitutional Affairs, it is to be regarded as inferior, although the whole panoply of civil justice reforms has been to demonstrate to those who are claiming compensation that it is not necessary to go through the court proceedings. You can reach an agreement which is cost-effective and good value for money for everyone concerned without having to commence court proceedings.
Again, the Minister has enticed me and tempted me into having further discussions. How could I refuse such an offer? I hope I have been able to persuade him, however, that there is surely a solution whereby non-back of the envelope settlements could be included in some way. That is not to try to introduce some inferior procedure but to recognise that the whole drift of civil justice reforms has been in the direction of enabling parties to reach settlement without taking up the time of the court. But in view of what the Minister has said, I welcome the opportunity of some further discussions and, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hunt of Wirral Lord Hunt of Wirral moved Amendment No. 423B:
Page 70. line 5, at end insert—
"( ) Regulations may provide that where—

(a) a person has made one or more payments to the Secretary of State under section 146, and

(b) in consequence of a review or appeal, it appears that the amount paid is more than the amount that ought to have been paid,

the difference must be repaid by such person or persons as may be described."
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to insert a provision that appeared in the 1999 Act but is less clear in this Bill. Where a certificate is reviewed

1445
or appealed, it is entirely possible that the amount shown on the certificate as due will be reduced. An appeal is almost certain to take place after a compensator has paid the treatment charges owing, and it is possible that a review may also take place after payment. The 1999 Act contained power to make regulations requiring the refund of any overpayment. That provision is absent from the Bill.
The Minister has kindly written to me saying that he recognises that Amendment No. 423B would make explicit on the face of the Bill that if it is established that a compensator has paid more than they were liable for, there is an obligation on whoever has received that payment to refund the excess. He concedes that that is only right and proper. Clause 149(5)(f) ensures that processes can be set up to protect compensators in this respect.
As with the existing road traffic scheme, it is intended that arrangements for dealing with overpayments by compensators will be set out in regulations.
The Minister pointed out that Clause 158(2) prohibits both the Secretary of State and the Scottish Ministers from issuing to NHS bodies any moneys which have been identified as being repayable to the compensator. The regulations, he assures me, will deal with both those cases and cases in which the money has already been forwarded to the relevant NHS trust before the overpayment is identified. That is why the Minister sees no need to make the obligation any more explicit on the face of the Bill.
That is very helpful and I am grateful to the Minister for confirming that the regulations will deal with this point. When does he intend that the draft regulations will be available so that we can scrutinise them? In particular, as they will deal with a requirement—the non-appearance of which has troubled me—it would be helpful if I could see at least the draft of how it is proposed to deal with that in the regulations. But I am very grateful to the Minister for having given me the response he has already given. In that context, I beg to move.
Lord Warner: The noble Lord has done a good job at accurately setting out my case for why we do not believe it necessary to add Amendment No. 423B to the Bill. I shall not go over the ground again, other than to accept that he has put our position accurately and assure him that we will produce the draft regulations as soon as we can after Royal Assent. We shall not be introducing the scheme until after the outcome of the review has been made known.
The noble Lord did not speak to Amendment No. 430A, which allows NHS costs to be recovered only on final payment of compensation. That would prevent any interim payments of compensation, triggering the payment of NHS costs. The existing road traffic recovery scheme allows recovery of NHS costs
1446
following interim payments. The arrangement works well. We propose to make the same arrangements in relation to the extended scheme.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: I am very grateful to the Minister. I did not deal with Amendment No. 430A because he has already indicated that overpayments will be repaid in individual cases. I am happy with that, but it would be of great assistance if those parts of the regulations that are in draft at present could be shared with those of us who are concerned about the matter so that we can check that the point is properly covered. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hunt of Wirral Lord Hunt of Wirral moved Amendment No. 423C:
Page 70, line 16, at end insert—
"( ) Before making any regulations under subsection (2), the Secretary of State shall consult with such persons as he thinks appropriate."
The noble Lord said: The amendment would insert a duty for the Secretary of State to consult before making regulations. Regulations under subsection (2) cover a number of different aspects. By virtue of subsection (5), the regulations may, in particular, provide for a cap on the amount or aggregate amount to be repaid for set amounts for different circumstances. The regulations under the 1999 Act provided for both a cap and a daily rate for out-patient and in-patient treatment. Those provisions worked well, and I would welcome an assurance that such provision is likely to continue.
The then Secretary of State gave a commitment to Parliament that, before the overall cap was raised, he would consult with such persons as he thought appropriate, including in particular the insurance industry, which has to meet the bulk of the claims.
The Minister wrote to me about the amendment, using a wonderful phrase. He said:
"It goes without saying that the regulations setting out the operational framework for the extended scheme will not, indeed could not, be developed without proper consultation".
I am afraid that "without saying" is an inappropriate phrase. I refer the Government to the very fast action of the Minister's predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. It is good to see him in his place, where he has been sitting virtually throughout the proceedings of the Bill.
When the Government introduced the Road Traffic (NHS Charges) (Amendment) Regulations, I pointed out to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, that there had been no consultation at all. As soon as the noble Lord heard that, he immediately revoked the regulations. I warmly applauded the way in which he did that. As soon as he became aware that there had been a commitment to consult, and, indeed, that the consultation had through some oversight not occurred—which I do not think was anything to do with the then Minister—he revoked the regulations because of the failure to consult. I refer the Minister to parliamentary Answer PQ5042/2001–02 given on 6th February 2002 when those regulations were revoked because of the failure to consult.
When the Minister now says that it goes without saying that these regulations could never be introduced without consultation, will he forgive me if I have a little doubt that somewhere in the great processes of his department there might be a mistake made and a failure to consult repeated? I hope that in these circumstances he will understand why I am pressing my Amendment No. 423C regarding a duty to consult.
I suppose in a way we are just learning from past experience. I do not ascribe any blame to anyone for what happened. Indeed, I pay tribute to the integrity of the Minister's predecessor in moving so swiftly to put things right. If there is not a duty to consult, consultation is somehow bypassed or omitted. I hope the Minister will recognise that the amendment I put forward could not be worded better from his point of view. It states:
"Before making any regulations … the Secretary of State shall consult with such persons as he thinks appropriate".
What could be nicer than for a person on the Opposition Benches to give the Minister the final choice in the matter? It is probably because I have confidence that he, in the tradition of his department, would consult with the most appropriate people. In order to tempt him to accept the amendment—which I hope that he might do even at 2.17 in the morning— I have worded it so widely that I do not think even a reluctant Minister could fail to appreciate that I am giving him an olive branch which I hope he will now accept. I beg to move.
2.15 a.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: Of all the words I might use to describe the Minister, "erroneous" most certainly is not one of them. My noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral has my full support on the matter. If the Minister insists on negative regulations—we shall see if he gets away with that—consultation before, for example, resetting the cap or the daily inpatient or outpatient rates, is absolutely essential. As my noble friend pointed out, this is a lacuna in the current legislation that we are considering which did not appear in the 1999 Act.
Lord Warner: Even though our intention is to make the scheme work in the same way as the existing road traffic scheme, we still need to ensure that those who will be affected by the scheme, and those who will operate it, have a proper say in how it is set up. I am grateful for the generous remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, about the Secretary of State and my department. I am not sure that Members of his Front Bench were always quite as trusting of the Secretary of State as he was.
Furthermore, as was already debated in our consideration of Amendment No. 474A, your Lordships' House together with the other place will have an opportunity to discuss the first set of regulations made under Clause 149(2). I am afraid that I am not convinced that that needs to be specified in the Bill. I also point out
1448
to the noble Lord that, as drafted, the amendment would create an anomaly in that the Secretary of State would be required to consult, but Scottish Ministers would not. For those reasons, the Government are not inclined to support the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: Against the background that I am now very willing to bring forward a further amendment on Report to place a similar obligation on Scottish Ministers, I beseech the Minister to rethink the matter. If I am disposed to meet his final point— to make sure that there is no anomaly and that the duty applies to both the Secretary of State and the Scottish Minister—I hope that he might agree that the Bill ought to contain a duty to consult, particularly bearing in mind the previous occasion.
The matter is of great importance, and it would be too late for consultation to take place once the regulations were laid. It is all well and good to say that there will be an affirmative resolution procedure, but the regulations are either accepted or not. They cannot be amended. The whole purpose of consultation is to check carefully through the detail of the regulations before they are laid. The Minister does not appear to be rising to his feet to say that he is now persuaded—
Lord Warner: I tried to make it clear that the first set of regulations would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedures, so there would be an opportunity for people to debate the matter in both Houses of Parliament. However, in view of the concerns, the lateness of the hour and the charm with which the noble Lord makes his point, I shall be happy to take the matter away, discuss it with him and report our further consideration on Report.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: The Minister places me in a very difficult position. I had just girded myself up to test the opinion of the Committee, even at this late hour. I find that very difficult, so I really must accept his olive branch. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 149 agreed to.
Clause 150 [Payment of NHS charges]:
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 424:
Page 70, line 24, leave out "14" and insert "30"
The noble Lord said: Yet again, the Bill relies on procedures under the 1999 Act where settlement of the payment must be made within 14 days. In answer to a similar amendment in another place, it was stated that 90 per cent of motor charge certificates are applied for in advance of settlement, and that 14 days has posed no problem. Bully for that. The amendment does not cover them, but refers only to certificates issued after the settlement date. Those would apply principally to certificates sent to individuals who may—let us hope— see only one in their whole lifetime.
Some insurance companies have long been used to dealing with the bureaucracy of the NHS, but new insurance companies will now be brought into the fold

1449
that will not be. It is only right that a little more time is allowed, and that 14 days should be extended to 30. I beg to move.
Lord Warner: Where the certificate of charges has been issued in advance of the personal injury claim being settled and the compensation claim paid, compensators may have had weeks or even months of notice of how much they will need to pay in NHS charges. Giving them 14 days to do so does not seem unreasonable. Similarly, if someone applies for a certificate after making the compensation payment, they will know that they are likely to have to pay charges and can make the necessary preparations to do so. There is no evidence from the existing road traffic scheme that those time scales are unreasonable or unmanageable. We are not persuaded to extend this date for the reasons that I have given.
Lord Skelmersdale: Oh dear. I have already said that the amendment has nothing to do with certificates that are applied for in advance of settlement. In those circumstances I accepted originally that 14 days posed no problem. However, as I pointed out, the amendment is intended to cover those cases where the certificate is applied for after the settlement payment is made. The Minister is being unreasonable. The Committee will remember that in a Parliamentary Question on Tuesday last week we were reminded that companies are allowed to claim interest on payment of debt after 30, not 14, days. In those circumstances, unless the Minister comes back to me, I think that I ought to ask him to think again.
Lord Warner: I have nothing to add to my previous remarks.
Lord Skelmersdale: In that case I must test the opinion of the Committee as to whether 14 or 30 days is most appropriate.
2.26 a.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 424) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 11; Not-Contents, 41.

Division No.4

CONTENTS

Attlee, E. [Teller]

Howe, E.

Barker, B.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Noakes, B.

Blatch, B.

Roper, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Skelmersdale, L. [Teller]

Colwyn, L.

Strathclyde, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Amos, B. (Lord President)

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Andrews, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hoyle, L.

Bach, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Brett, L.

Jones, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Jordan, L.

Burlison, L.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Carter, L.

Mitchell, L.

Chandos, V.

Pendry, L.

Crawley, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Randall of St.Budeaux, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.[Teller]

Sawyer L

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Simon, V.

Desai. L.

Warner, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Whitty, L.

Golding, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
2.36 a.m.
[Amendments Nos. 425 to 430 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 430A not moved.]
Clause 150 agreed to.
Clause 151 agreed to.
Clause 152 [Review of certificates]:
[Amendment No. 430B not moved.]
Lord Hunt of Wirral Lord Hunt of Wirral moved Amendment No. 430C:
Page 73, line 11, at end insert—
"( ) But the Secretary of State may not vary a certificate so as to increase the total amount specified unless it appears to him that that variation is required as a result of his having been supplied with incorrect or insufficient information by the applicant for the certificate."
The noble Lord said: This amendment brings into the Bill a provision contained in the 1999 Act. However, I cannot see it being preserved in the current Bill and the Minister has now confirmed that to me.
The Secretary of State has the power to review certificates in certain specified circumstances. Naturally, an aggrieved party who asks the Secretary of State for a review is likely to ask for a review downwards. The 1999 Act provided that the Secretary of State could vary a valid certificate upwards only in very limited circumstances— essentially where the Secretary of State had been misled by the parties on the requisite details.
I believe that that was an entirely appropriate provision in the 1999 Act. Essentially it meant that responsibility for errors in certificates rested with the Secretary of State unless the error was caused by one of the parties. I really could not see why that provision had been omitted. That is why Amendment No. 430C would insert in Clause 152 on page 73, line 11, a new subsection (4)(d) in the following terms:
"But the Secretary of State may not vary a certificate so as to increase the total amount specified unless it appears to him that that variation is required as a result of his having been supplied with incorrect or insufficient information by the applicant for the certificate".
As I indicated, the Minister has already responded to me by confirming that the wording that I want to insert into the Bill is the provision currently contained in Section 6(3) of the Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Act 1999. As I have just outlined, the effect would be that underpayments by compensators could be put right only where they were the result of incorrect or inadequate information having been supplied to the administrators of the scheme. Underpayments resulting from clerical or administrative errors could not be put right unless the compensator chose to do so.
That is the Minister's response. In his letter to me he points out that the amounts lost under the current scheme due to errors are very small. But while it may not be much in the overall scheme of things, the
1452
Minister has pointed out that it can sometimes be far more significant for an individual trust that could potentially lose a five-figure sum. He concludes:
"It is for that reason that the Government decided not to perpetuate the situation that pertains in the road traffic scheme in this respect".
I respond by saying that if there are errors and omissions that are not due to the parties that have provided the requisite details, but are due to some error within the Minister's own responsibility, I believe that the Minister should be constrained in the way that I have suggested in the amendment.
If one cannot rely on a certificate from the Department for Work and Pensions, that undermines the whole system. Without my amendment, the Bill would state that the Secretary of State could just issue a certificate at any time. That will create uncertainty. Surely, the Minister could rethink this point and recognise that if there are clerical or administrative errors wholly due to his own department—the Department for Work and Pensions—they should not be laid at the door of the parties and prevent them in the way that I have described. I hope that he will reconsider this matter and accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Warner: I do not believe that we could accept the amendment as drafted even if we wanted to because it does not mention Scottish Ministers. It would mean that underpayments in England and Wales due to clerical error could not be recovered, but that similar payments in the Scottish scheme could. Having said that, I understand the arguments that the noble Lord makes. I am happy to agree to re-examine the issue. I make no commitment but the noble Lord and I shall cover this in discussions with colleagues and we shall see whether we can move forward on that issue.
Lord Skelmersdale: We have had six days of debate on this. How long does the Minister anticipate that the discussions will last?
Lord Warner: I have said that 1 would meet the noble Lord to discuss with him a variety of his amendments, particularly those on which he has some detailed concerns. I am simply sweeping up this matter into those discussions. At the same time I am saying to the House that we shall re-examine the issue and return to the matter on Report.
Baroness Blatch: The Minister is being very generous in his offer of meetings. I know that my noble friend Lord Hunt will welcome and appreciate that. I need to remind the noble Lord that only two days have been allocated for Report stage. With the number of matters that are now subject to meetings,

1453
and which will give rise to more debates on Report, I hope that there will be a more generous allocation of time for discussion on Report.
Lord Warner: That is a matter for the usual channels. I would not rule out the fact that what we have to say may be so persuasive that there may be no problems when we come to Report.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: I do not know quite what to say. I have had so many generous offers. The only offer that the Minister has not yet made to me is office space within his department. He is now offering it. I am reminded of the words of Viola in Twelfth Night when she said,
"Make me a willow cabin at your gate".
I shall not pursue this matter at a quarter to three in the morning. Once again I say that I am grateful to the Minister. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 152 agreed to.
2.45 a.m.
Clauses 153 to 157 agreed to.
Clause 158 [Payment of NHS charges to hospitals or ambulance trusts]:
[Amendment No. 430D not moved.]
Clause 158 agreed to.
Clause 159 agreed to.
Clause 160 [Liability of insurers]:
On Question, Whether Clause 160 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Hunt of Wirral: Clause 60, which deals with the liability of insurers, is a new provision and, as far as 1 can tell, it did not feature in the 1999 legislation. I am not certain what prompted the Government to seek to include this provision for the first time for four years. It may be—I speculated to the Minister— that the Government were concerned about limits of indemnity on certain types of insurance policy, which of course would not be a feature in road accident cases.
If that were the Government's concern, I mentioned to the Minister that I would welcome confirmation that regulations to be made under this clause would not cause insurers to have to pay out in excess of the limits under their policies. I appreciate that this might mean a deduction from the damages that a claimant might otherwise receive, but 1 sense that insurers were understandably anxious that they should not be exposed to greater liability than policy limits provide.
1454
In response, the Minister stated in a letter to me:
"Where a liability to pay compensation is coveted by insurance, it is our [the Government's] view that the corresponding liability to pay NHS charges should also be covered by the insurance policy. Clause 160 supplements clause 146(2) which makes it clear that liability to pay NHS costs falls upon 'the person making the compensation payment". There is no provision to transfer that liability to a third party".
The noble Lord explained that,
"Clause 160 ensures that this liability to pay NHS costs is made absolutely explicit".
The Minister went on to explain that the,
"requirement was not necessary under the road traffic scheme which was concerned only with cases covered by compulsory motor insurance or its equivalent".
He felt that Clause 160,
"reflects the fact that all kinds of personal injury will now be included in the scheme regardless of the insurance position, and that they may be covered by different types of insurance".
The Minister, however, stressed that,
"the clause also enables regulations to be made to limit an insurer's liability in some circumstances. This might include ... enabling a reduction in the NHS costs payable in cases where an insurer has only covered a proportion of the total compensation clue as a result of a cap on the amount payable under the insurance policy".
I am very grateful to the Minister for his explanation, which goes some way to satisfying me. I am very grateful to him for giving me the opportunity of his reply in advance of this debate. I hope that I have set out his position as clearly as I can in my speech on Clause 160 stand part. Of course I should like to see more detail, and I recognise that he has already explained that his offer for further discussions includes this aspect. I readily accept that and am very pleased that he should have made that offer.
Lord Skelmersdale: If my noble friend Lord Hunt's explanation of the Minister's view is correct, does that mean that individuals are encouraged to insure up to the £33,000 cap? If so, the cost to individuals will rise exponentially.
Lord Warner: The outline of the Government's position given by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, was completely accurate and I have nothing to add to it. I cannot prejudge the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. I should like to think a little more about it and will come back to him.
Clause 160 agreed to.
Clauses 161 to 165 agreed to.
Clause 166 [Provision of primary dental services]:
Lord Colwyn Lord Colwyn moved Amendment No. 430E:
Page 81, line 21, at end insert—
"( ) Each Primary Care Trust and Local Health Board will publish a statement of what constitutes a reasonable level of service in its area."
The noble Lord said: We now come to Part 4, which covers provision of primary dental services. At this time of night, the Committee will be delighted to hear that 1 do not intend to see any patients tomorrow morning.
My amendment is intended to discover what the Government intend shall be a reasonable level of service when provided locally by primary care trusts. Most of the profession—the British Dental Association and the General Dental Practitioners Association—welcome the proposals in Agenda for Change that move towards local commissioning of dental services by primary care trusts. For many years—certainly since Sir Kenneth Bloomfield's report in the early 1990s—dentists have wanted to get off the treadmill of fee per item of service.
I have received a letter from the Minister, for which I thank him. He says that he agrees with the intention behind Amendments Nos. 430E and 434A. He also points out the Secretary of State's general duty under Section 3 of the National Health Service Act 1977, which states that he must provide dental services,
"throughout England and Wales to such extent as he considers necessary to meet all reasonable requirements".
But what is reasonable? Reasonable may mean different things in different parts of the country. During Committee in the other place, it was noted during discussion of an equivalent amendment that the reference to local need was proposed because dental health varies considerably around the country and there was a perception that that was not recognised in the wording. It was intended as a reference to local needs, as opposed to local residents' needs, as commuter populations were also regarded as local.
The principle of local commissioning must be supported, but it is important that assurances be given about what constitutes reasonable levels of service. The PCTs must make clear what services will be available. Perhaps "reasonable" means the essential services that the public currently receive from the NHS dentistry. Will the Minister confirm that stakeholders, local dentists and the public will be consulted on that definition; and that, having defined "reasonable", the PCTs will ensure that they are accessible? I beg to move.
Baroness Barker: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 431 to 436. Never in my life has dentistry seemed a more pleasing prospect. I simply want to add a few more strings to the bow of the argument advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn. We are trying to tease out what is determined to be an acceptable level of dentistry provision.
Amendment No. 431 is a probing amendment to enable us to ask the Minister exactly what will be the requirement placed on primary care trusts to determine and provide NHS dentistry. Amendments Nos. 433 and 434 set out our strongly held view that dental services ought to be based on need and, thereafter, on funding. Amendment No. 435 is important in that it draws into the definition of primary dental care such work as orthodontics and oral surgery, which are provided increasingly at local level.
1456
Perhaps one of the most important provisions is the requirement to publish details of dental provision and complaints procedures. Members of the Committee will recall that, a few months ago, details of a new NHS dentist were kept hidden for fear that his surgery would be besieged, such is the scarcity of NHS dentistry in an increasing number of areas. NHS dentistry is becoming the profession that dare not speak its name, such is the demand in some areas. I am being flippant, as it is five to three in the morning, but it is a very serious issue, as many Members of the Committee, most specifically the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, have highlighted.
Earl Howe: Amendment No. 430A, which stands in my name, differs only slightly from the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Colwyn. I cannot add much to what he said, except to ask, on the assumption that the Minister agrees that a definition of "reasonable" is to be sought, who would be consulted and what benchmarks are there for making a judgment on it? It is a will-o'-the-wisp concept, but somehow we must get closer to it.
The dentistry objectives proclaimed by the Government are worthy in themselves, but they cannot be fulfilled without having sufficient dentists to perform the work. That is why I have tabled Amendment No. 432. Positive action is needed to ensure that enough dentists, dental nurses, dental hygienists and dental therapists are trained and in post to cater for the increasing levels of patient demand. That requires workforce planning.
I do not know whether the Minister is in a position to update the Committee on the department's workforce planning review, but she will know that that is seen as a key step towards addressing the concerns expressed by the modernisation board about capacity in the dental profession. As noble Lords have pointed out in recent debates on the subject, the British Dental Association has estimated that as many as 25 per cent more dental students are needed if we are to close the gap between supply and demand.
3 a.m.
Baroness Andrews: I feel that we have reached the sunlit uplands, occupied entirely by dentists. It is a great pleasure to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, who has been such a faithful companion on this long journey over the past 12 hours.
The Government are committed to rebuilding and restoring NHS dentistry to improve the oral health of the nation. As the noble Lord pointed out, it has been a long time coming over the past decade, since the Bloomfield report, when so many in the profession have sought change and welcome the changes that we have introduced now. I know that the dentists in the House of Lords have lent their voice in support of that. The proposals represent the most radical reform of NHS dentistry since 1948. That is why we welcome the emphasis in the

1457
amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, and others on the promotion of primary dental services and better oral health.
I do not want to rehearse the history. Let it suffice to say that the Government, the NHS and the BDA have worked hard to develop the proposals published in Options for Change in August 2002. The key recommendations were for an integrated, high quality primary dental service that was locally commissioned and responsive to the needs and wishes of patients. That is the way to address inequalities in health.
The most significant change, which addresses many of the issues raised, is that the existing duty in Section 35 of the 1977 Act so far has merely required a PCT to make arrangements for dental practitioners to provide dental services, where a dentist has agreed to undertake dental treatment.
Under Clause 166, PCTs will be given a new duty to provide or secure the provision of primary care dental services either through contracts with individual practices or by providing services themselves. That evidently significantly strengthens the PCT's role in local service provision. It is also entirely consistent with our intention to shift the balance of power to front-line staff. It will make a big difference to patients not least because we will be requiring dental health colleagues to assess local oral health needs in order to tackle long-standing oral health inequalities.
As noble Lords have said, for the first time since the foundation of the NHS, by breaking the link between fees based on items per service, primary care dentists will be given an opportunity to focus on prevention and health promotion as well as treatment. New contracts for dentists based not on items per service but on the full range and level of services available to patients will provide additional stability for practice incomes and a greater guarantee for patients and for the PCT. As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said in his amendment, they will provide greater opportunities to engage the whole dental team and allow them to spend more time with patients.
For the first time, we will have a predictable level of service locally. We have been talking about concepts of reasonableness. That is very much a part of reasonableness that we have never had in the past. It will enable the PCT to provide up-to-date and accurate information for the public about the services for which it is responsible. For those reasons, because we believe that the whole thrust of what we are trying to achieve will promote dental public health in a way that meets the needs of our time—in fact it is long overdue—we do not feel that Amendment No. 432 is necessary, although we are sympathetic.
Amendment No. 431 would extend the PCT duty in relation to the provision of primary dental services by removing the qualification of reasonableness. Questions have been asked about what it means to

1458
be reasonable. As my noble friend's letter to noble Lords explained and as was debated in the other place, the words,
"to the extent that it considers necessary to meet all reasonable requirements",
have been carefully chosen because they mirror the current Secretary of State general duty under Section 2 of the 1977 Act to,
"provide throughout England and Wales, to such extent as he considers necessary to meet all reasonable requirements".
However, I stress that the wording was amended in the other place in response to requests to bring the PCT duty unambiguously into line with that of the Secretary of State.
The most important test of reasonableness is to ensure that there is no postcode lottery. The PCT discretion will indeed be subject to national bench-marking—the noble Earl, Lord Howe, raised that issue—but with operational responsibility that will recognise variations in relation to local geography such as those between rural and urban areas for example. Time and distance standards will be used to measure compliance with the Prime Minister's pledge made some time ago about everybody being able to reach an NHS dentist. The distance travelled to reach a dentist practice, or time to wait for an urgent or routine dental appointment could be measured, because we are in the process of developing our criteria in this new scheme of things. We will be looking at ways of measuring and testing the concept of reasonableness.
I agree with Amendments Nos. 430E and 434A that publication of local bench-marking is desirable and I propose that it should be published. I agree that any local access targets should be agreed by the PCT during the public part of its board meeting. In that way, PCT decisions can be subject to public scrutiny. Indeed, Section 11 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001 places a duty on local health bodies to hold a public consultation on the proposed configuration. Users of those services need information to make a judgment about one of those services to meet the needs and wishes of people in the area. The performance of PCTs in relation to their new duty under Section 16CA will be a matter for performance management by the strategic health authority. I think that that meets the needs of transparency and openness.
Amendment No. 431 attempts to remove the reference to reasonableness. I do not accept that the PCT's duty under Section 16CA should be any different from that of the Secretary of State's duty under Section 3 or a PCT's duty under Section 16CC in relation to primary medical services. We therefore find it difficult to accept Amendment No. 431.
Amendment No. 433 raises the important issue of funding for the service. I should like to give the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, some reassurance on that. We acknowledge that the existing funding arrangements have been unsatisfactory. They reflect not the NHS's need to secure the needs of patients but the varying willingness of dentists to treat

1459
patients. From now on PCTs will have a duty to secure the provision of primary dental services either through contracts with individual practices or by providing services themselves. With these new responsibilities will go the £1.2 billion (net of patient charges) of financial resources that are currently held centrally.
I make the important point that once the reformed system is in place it will be possible over time to adjust NHS allocations to take into account the health inequalities that persist under the old system. 1 can give the Committee the important guarantee that current spend will be protected. We are taking some short-term measures until the implementation of the Bill enables the NHS to address historical anomalies, with additional funds being deployed to support PCTs as they get to grips with the new agenda. I think that some of that funding was mentioned in the letter that we sent to noble Lords.
However, in the longer term allocations have to take into account oral health needs as well as other health needs in general allocations. This is a "once and for all" opportunity to do that. For some areas, that might mean relatively more funding for dentistry in future as PCTs begin to address the long-term oral health inequalities that some of them face. I think that the audit report showed very graphically the tremendous regional variation in the number of dental caries in children under five and young people. We must tackle that issue. So as my noble friend made clear in the letter to noble Lords, we will set a floor on the spending on primary dental services below which the PCT may not fall. By doing so, the financial resources allocated for dental services will be used for the purpose for which they were allocated.
An important feature of direct allocation of resources to the PCT is that should a provider reduce commitment to NHS services under the new scheme, the PCT will retain those funds to commission from an alternative provider. With those important reassurances, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press Amendment No. 433.
Amendment No. 434 suggests that PCTs should provide services in accordance with identified local need. However, it is implicit in the duty that PCTs will have regard to local needs. A most important feature of NHS dental services is that the public can use the service where most convenient, and for adults that may be where they work rather than where they live. The example of those who commute into London was given in another place. That is what we mean by catchment area rather than a residence area. It means that the dental services provided must reflect the needs of users of •the service, not just its resident population. That is one of the great benefits of the service at the moment. So on those grounds I would suggest that Amendment No. 434 is unnecessary.
1460
Amendment No. 435 requires PCTs to ensure that services which are currently provided are secured. The current treatment functions of the Community Dental Service will continue under PCT-provided primary dental services, PCTDS. Such services will include the provision of treatment to patients who might not otherwise seek treatment—for example, patients with special needs and patients with phobias as well as treatment on referral. Then we have the specialist elements such as orthodontics and minor oral surgery where CDS staff have developed skills. Over the years, the CDS has developed considerable expertise that we do not want to lose. However, integrating those treatment functions of the CDS under the new name "primary dental services" in the Bill will strengthen those functions rather than rely on guidance to PCTs which is the current basis. That, plus changing the way in which dentists are paid and moving away from item of service, will enable dentists providing services under a CDS contract to spend more time with their patients.
New powers under Section 16CA(2) will enable PCTs to commission specialist dental services, such as orthodontics, from experienced high street dentists, who are very accessible. That will ensure that the developing dental specialties are given the right opportunities to contribute to patient care because they will be able to pick up from appropriate referrals. Therefore, Amendment No. 435 is met by our intentions.
I have much sympathy for Amendment No. 436. A recurrent theme running through the Audit Commission report, the Office of Fair Trading report into private dentistry and Options for Change is that information about what services are available and how the public might access them is generally very poor and difficult to understand. We are committed to improving the patient experience of the NHS and to promoting patient choice by providing accurate and easily understood information about the services available and what patients might reasonably expect from them. That is why we have included the specific provision in subsection (3) of the proposed PCT duties in relation to primary dental services.
We have concluded that that is best dealt with through regulations. Requirements are bound to change over time as providers' abilities to provide information improve. Statistical information will change, as will ways of dealing with it through ICT and so forth. The regulations will contain a level of detail that justifies a regulation-making power. Subsection (3) makes provision for information about the primary dental services for which the PCT is responsible, and so, by definition, the NHS dental provision in its area.
The task of compiling information regarding non-NHS treatment for which the PCT has no statutory duty seems unreasonable to impose on PCTs. Our policy is that, in the first instance, complaints should be resolved through practice-based procedures. Information about complaints is better dealt with under GDS and PDS contract provision rather than

1461
here. I can see no benefit in including examples where these are unnecessary. I therefore reject Amendment No. 436.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, raised issues about workforce planning review and the increased need for dentists, in general. He is absolutely right. The workforce planning review is continuing its work. However, there are very positive signs—for example, the number of dental therapists has increased significantly. On looking at the capacity for this new service to meet the new needs of the dental service, two points can be made. First, it will encourage bigger practices and a better distribution of professional services with the development of ancillary professions and so on, which is very much to be welcomed.
Secondly, the fact that we are moving away from item of service will mean that the dental environment will become more positive and more preventive, which we hope will encourage young people to go into dentistry as a career because the work will be more satisfactory. In terms of capacity, there are some very positive points to make about workforce planning in the whole environment. With those assurances, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Colwyn: Obviously, that is a helpful, long and explicit answer, for which I am grateful to the Minister. There is possibly no reason why the reasonable and local need amendments could not exist together. However, if there is a national bench-marking system in place, it might be redundant. The issue is whether the bench-marking system would be treatment-based—specifying the types of treatments that must be purchased—or whether it would be outcome-based, which is specifying the general level of dental health that must be achieved in each PCT area. The latter type of bench-mark might mean that any reference to local need is redundant. Once again, I thank the Minister for that long answer. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 431 to 436 not moved.]
Clause 166 agreed to.
Clause 167 [Dental public health]:
3.15 a.m.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 437:
Page 82, line 5, at end insert "provided that these functions include school screening as well as oral health promotion and local oral health surveys to help plan services"
The noble Earl said: We see in Clause 167 that PCTs are to be given new statutory functions in relation to dental public health, including oral health promotion, surveys and school screening. At least, that is my assumption. It is good news, but the British Dental Association feels strongly that the Bill needs to spell out those functions or, at the least, the Government need to make clear how they are to be delivered.
The existing duty for dental treatment and dental education in schools will cease to have effect under subsection (2), so it is important that there should be clear policy guidelines on dental public health issues, not least setting out how oral health inequalities are to be identified and tackled, and how a more preventive approach to dentistry is to be encouraged. Amendments Nos. 437 and 438 cover that point.
Moving on to Amendment No. 440, bearing in mind that these will be brand new PCT functions and that there is very little detail on the face of the Bill with as yet no published guidance, I believe that it is not unreasonable to propose, as I do in my amendment, that the regulations governing Clause 170 should be introduced via the affirmative procedure. The Minister will know that, notwithstanding the support of the BDA, which I acknowledge, there is intense unease, bordering on scepticism, about the ability of PCTs to deliver fully-fledged dental services for their patient populations. That is not only because PCTs know next to nothing about dentistry, but also because the money being devolved to them is likely to prove woefully insufficient for anything more than emergency cover. That money will not even be ring-fenced.
Many dentists fear that these changes have put paid to any hoped-for renaissance of a proper national dental health system. We could see a repeat of what has happened in education. Over time, practices will be starved of funds by PCTs, which will blame central government for not paying them enough. Central government will claim that they have paid the money and no one will quite know where it has gone.
However, accepting that PCTs are to be given the job of commissioning dental care in their local areas, what mechanisms will be in place to ensure that, locality by locality, dentistry is not squeezed out by other priorities? How will the Government see to it that dentistry across the country as a whole is receiving an appropriate share of the health budget?
The mystery to me is how the Government think that the new payment scheme for dentistry is going to improve access to dental healthcare or ensure that more people benefit from regular dental check-ups than is currently the case. There do not seem to be any incentives in the system to encourage dentists to increase their productivity. I believe that all these concerns merit a full debate when the new regulations are laid. It would be helpful if the Minister could say when she expects that to take place. I hope that she will look constructively on my amendment for the reasons that I have given. I beg to move.
Baroness Andrews: Perhaps I may begin by addressing the questions put to me by the noble Earl, particularly with regard to how we expect the payment scheme to encourage access to dental services. I shall cite one of the ways in which we expect this to happen. At the moment we have one contract for all dentists with payments geared essentially to the number of treatments. That increases activity; higher fees are paid for the greatest

1463
activity and so forth, while there is no incentive to take on preventive work or to offer different kinds of treatment. For example, within that framework is a provision for six-month check-ups for people who do not need check-ups every six months, along with a whole range of routine work which essentially fills a dentist's diary and generates the income.
One of the reasons for introducing individual contracts that are more flexible and geared to the real health conditions and needs of people is that dentists will be able to decide on the clinical pathway for people who require dental support and therefore will not have to see every patient once every six months; rather they will be able to tailor appointments according to an individual's health needs. This will create more freedom for additional patients to be taken on, for example, and for dentists generally to offer a different kind of service and to expand their practices in different ways. That is one suggested answer to the question.
We do not have a precise date for publication of the regulations but it is full speed ahead. I can assure the Committee that there is tremendous enthusiasm in the Department of Health for developing and achieving these provisions now that we have come so far.
The amendments raise very important issues and make the same provision in relation to both England and Wales. They attempt to ensure that the dental public health functions which are currently undertaken by the community dental services in both countries are included in the regulations setting out the new dental public health duties of PCTs and local health boards.
The Community Dental Service is currently provided by primary care trusts and some NHS trusts to ensure that people who might not otherwise seek or receive NHS dental care—such as patients with special needs—can receive it. The CDS also has dental health functions in relation to oral health promotions, school screening and dental health surveys. These functions are set out in the guidance HSG(97)4. The major change we are making is for dental public health functions to become the functions of PCTs and included in regulations because they are obviously an important part of the contribution made to dental public health locally.
So the changes we propose are designed to strengthen the work of the current CDS. First, Clause 167 seeks to insert a new Section 16CB into the 1977 Act. Subsection (1) provides for regulations to confer those dental public health functions directly on PCTs. It is indeed intended that the functions will include oral health promotion, school screening and surveys to plan and manage dental health services locally.
Secondly, the primary dental services provided by the PCTs under new Section 16CA(2) will be equivalent to the treatment function of the CDS. That is in line with the recommendations in Options for Change. PCTs may act jointly in discharging this
1464
function and they can involve other agencies, such as dental practices, in addition to primary dental services.
The Government set out their intention to review the school dental screening programme in the "Improving Oral Health" chapter of Modernising NHS Dentistry. We said in the letter that we sent to all noble Lords that the child health subgroup of the National Screening Committee is awaiting the outcome of the research into child dental health screening and the regulations made under subsection (1) will reflect its advice, when published. I would expect to see other functions added as well.
As regards Amendment No. 437, it would not be wise to have unnecessary detail, which may ultimately prove to be inappropriate or inflexible, imposed by amendment on the Bill. This could hinder the movement of services between these population-based dental public health functions and the patient-based preventive services under the GDS contracts.
We regard all these dental public health functions as extremely important objectives for the reasons I have given. I know that the noble Earl will be disappointed, but we consider that the affirmative resolution procedure is too heavy for this regulation-making power. For the sake of consistency, we should also reflect on the fact that regulations made under the provisions in Part 4 will be subject to the negative resolution procedure in keeping with the existing equivalent powers—for example, The NHS (Functions of Health Authorities)(General Dental Services Incentive Schemes) Regulations and so on.
Amendment No. 440 seeks to bring the regulation-making power in relation to dental public health functions conferred on PCTs and LHBs within the affirmative resolution procedure. But, as with the previous amendment, that does not give us the flexibility that we need. Amendment No. 438 relates to LHBs in Wales.
We are serious about these functions. I hope the noble Earl will understand my explanation of why we find it difficult to accept his amendments and that he will feel able to withdraw them.
Earl Howe: As ever, the Minister has been most illuminating, and I am grateful for the trouble she has taken to respond in such detail to my amendments. I am, of course, a little disappointed that she was not able to look more favourably on them, but she has explained some of the darker corners of these provisions very helpfully.
My reason for seeking a slightly more robust parliamentary procedure on the face of the Bill is, as I have said, because we are looking at an empty box at the moment—there is no published guidance. In those circumstances, I think there is justification for Parliament to be guaranteed debating time on the regulations.
Nevertheless, I take note of what the Minister said and will reflect further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

1465
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 438 not moved.]
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 439:
Page 82, line 7, at end insert—
"( ) A general dental services contract must require the contractor or contractors to provide for this or their patients—

(a) information about treatment charges;

(b) access to dental records;

(c) alternative local provision and the complaints procedure; and

(d)other such information as may be determined."

The noble Lord said: The Minister will notice that once again, we are so enthusiastic about Amendment No. 439 that we have put it down twice. We obviously expect the Minister's response to be twice as long as she would normally feel obliged to give.
We strongly support the OFT's recommendation that dentists should provide consumers with clear information on indicative prices for common treatments, detailed treatment plans—together with information on any other options and estimates of the likely costs—access to dental records and complaints procedures. This kind of information is fundamental to the delivery of a patient-centred service and to any notion of patient choice.
Existing guidance to dentists from the General Dental Council—the GDC—already covers much of this, yet it is clearly not being observed by the majority of dental practices. It is therefore crucial that appropriate mechanisms are put into place to strengthen the requirements in this area and ensure compliance.
Additionally, we on these Benches strongly support the idea that dentists must also inform consumers about the availability and likely cost of NHS care and how to find an alternative dentist offering NHS treatment if they cease to offer this.
Consumers tend not to look for a different dentist, even if their usual dentist stops providing NHS care. This was confirmed by research by the Consumers' Association earlier this year; it found that 48 per cent of Scottish consumers currently registered with a private dentist had stayed with the same dentist when they switched to providing private-only care. Without even this most basic information, consumers are likely to be a captive audience and unable to exercise an informed choice. Stipulating this key information provision as part of the contract should go some considerable way to addressing this, backed up by enforcement from the PCTs and CHAI. I beg to move.
Lord Colwyn: I support the amendment. Information about local dental services is absolutely fundamental. It is quite true that most people do not really know where to get the information about their local service. This amendment is very important for that reason.
Baroness Andrews: I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, but I think my
1466
speaking notes on this amendment are about half as long. We are at one on this and we welcome the support of noble Lords to the commitment to improve the information available to patients. All the evidence—and this is well documented—suggests that the current system is not good enough by any standard.
Of course patients need to be able to make informed choices in all the instances that the noble Lord detailed. Our experience over five years of piloting personal dental services is that that is best done through national requirements and national criteria. We propose to take the necessary provisions in proposed Section 280(2) under Clause 168 rather than proposed Section 28 L and Clause 167 where these amendments replace them. We are also committed to the field sites that are being set up by the Modernisation Agency. The 15 or so field sites are pioneering new ways of doing everything from remuneration to information. A number of them are concerned with testing ideas to improve the patient experience.
Fully tested information from the sites will become available over the next two years. We want to incorporate those into the GDS contract as they evolve in the transition period and beyond. That is best done through a national contractor requirement, and we believe that the provisions set out in new Section 28 are already sufficient. For example, new Section 280(2)(f) already provides for,
"rights of entry and inspection (including clinical records and other documents)".
I hope that we can meet the information needs and requirements that the noble Lord set out, and that it will be successful.
3.30 a.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for her reply. If it were a different time in the morning, I might get excited about pioneering field sites, but I cannot quite raise enough enthusiasm. I am sure that tomorrow morning I shall feel a whole lot different about the nature of those field sites.
I believe that I heard the Minister say that the regulations published under Clause 166 would essentially contain the same elements as set out in the amendment. If that is the case, I would be only too pleased with that. However, it must be made quite clear that there are certain key elements, whether the provisions are in the primary legislation or the regulations. Those are the elements that the OFT has specified, and the ones that I set out in my introduction to the amendment, which should be included if there is going to be "improving patient experience", as the Minister called it. If that is to happen, those elements must be contained within it. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Colwyn Lord Colwyn moved Amendment No. 439A:
Page 82, line 7, at end insert—
"( ) A Primary Care Trust will include a qualified dentist on any professional executive committee or equivalent committee, and secure consultant level dental public health advice, to secure the discharge of its functions in relation to dental public health.
( ) A Local Health Board will include a qualified dentist on any professional executive committee or equivalent committee, and secure consultant level dental public health advice, to secure the discharge of its functions in relation to dental public health."
The noble Lord said: The amendment would ensure that there are dentally qualified staff at PCT and LHB level to properly commission, manage and co-ordinate local dental service delivery.
While dentists and the British Dental Association are keen to work closely with PCTs and LHBs to ensure that the new commissioners understand issues of dental and oral health, that is no substitute for the presence of appropriately qualified staff within the PCTs and LHBs themselves. The transfer of responsibility for dental commissioning in PCTs does offer some exciting opportunities for co-ordinated and consistent delivery of dental services tailored to specific local needs.
In order that these opportunities are not squandered, there is a need for proper understanding of the complex issues involved. Dental public health is a wide area and its scope includes more than just screening, for example. It covers both the full range of dental public health activities and the links between dentistry and issues such as diet, nutrition, and tackling health inequalities. It is important that professionals who understand those issues and links are involved in the commissioning of services.
Ideally I should like assurances that there will be a dentist on the professional executive committees of all PCTs and LHBs. The BDA would also like there to be a dentally qualified dental public health adviser, who fully understands the issues of dental and oral health, available at consultant level to the PCT or LHB. The terms of this amendment are worded more generally, however, to take into account any changes or variations in terminology that may arise. Again, the Minister kindly referred to the matter in his letter to me, and I feel that he will be sympathetic. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I have a great deal of sympathy with the noble Lord's comments. The problem with the amendment is that it sets a precedent. If the measure applies to dentists, why should it not apply to nurses? If it applies to nurses, why should it not apply to pharmacists? If it applies to pharmacists, why should it not apply to members of the allied health professions? If you go down that route, the primary care trust ends up with very little discretion about appointments to its board and the professional executive committee.
Given that all Members of the Committee have expressed themselves utter devotees of devolution, we should leave PCTs with enough room to manoeuvre. That said, I hope that my noble friend will be able
1468
to answer the substantive point that the noble Lord raised. If we are really to make a success of the new contract, and if we are to get dentistry back in alliance with the NHS, it is essential that there is dentistry leadership at the PCT level, whether it is a public health dentist or a dental officer who has been appointed. Perhaps between now and Report my noble friend will give further consideration to ways in which we can strengthen the dental profession working alongside primary care trusts. Over many years there has been a disengagement not just between the health service and dentists but also in the vast reduction in the capacity of the NHS to engage with local dental committees.
These clauses are great news for patients who wish to receive NHS dental services. The contract and the discussions with the BDA offer great promise for the future but it is essential that primary care trusts have the ammunition and the expertise to take forward these programmes effectively.
Baroness Andrews: I am grateful to both noble Lords who have spoken. We all recognise the commitment of the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, to his profession over the years. I have every sympathy with the intention behind Amendment No. 439A. I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, that the points he raises, both on dental public health advice and on dental membership of PCT executive committees are already covered by the PCT Executive Committee (Membership) Directions 2003.
Article 2(2) requires the executive committee to include at least one public health member. The directions further make clear that a public health member means a member of an executive committee who has qualifications and experience as a specialist in public health or who is a consultant in public health medicine or a consultant in dental public health.
Article 2(5) of the directions states that the professional members shall include medical practitioners, nurses and such professional members as, in the opinion of the trust, reflect the functions carried out by the trust. I am advised that the Local Health Board Constitution Regulations already make similar provision. Regulation 3 specifies the membership of a local health board, which includes a dental practitioner member. It also makes provision for the co-option from time to time of such other members as appears necessary or expedient for the performance by the board of its functions.
Shifting the balance of power in the NHS to the front line means leaving much decision-making to the PCTs, which themselves understand the requirements of the service at the local level. I would not want to be seen as micromanaging the NHS by putting such requirements on the face of the Bill. Directing PCTs about their governance arrangements is perfectly adequate.
My noble friend is absolutely right. There is an opportunity here for the first time for dental practitioners to work much more closely with the

1469
PCTs that will commission and direct work, plug the gaps in the service and work in partnership to develop the contract. I hesitate to mention field sites again, but they represent a way of testing new partnerships with PCTs, for example. That will be a way of developing shared values and understanding of the profession and the role it plays in general public health as well as in dental public health. I hope that with those assurances the noble Lord will be satisfied and will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Colwyn: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply and for the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. Over many years dentists have always felt left out of these matters. The reply was encouraging. I shall read what the noble Baroness said and reserve the possibility of returning to the matter at the next stage. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 440 not moved.]
Clause 167 agreed to.
Clause 168 [General dental services contracts]:
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 441:
Page 82, line 40, after "contract," insert—
"( ) the requirement for the contractor to collect charges for dental services under section 79 of the 1977 Act, to pay them to the Primary Care Trust or Local Health Board and to comply with financial control requirements regarding charges for dental services as specified by the Primary Care Trust or Local Health Board."
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 442. Both amendments are probing on the financial aspects of the new dental contract.
Amendment No. 441 amends Clause 168, which inserts new Section 28K into the 1977 NHS Act. It adds another area that general dental services contracts could cover; namely, the requirement for the dental contractor to collect dental charges, pay them to the PCT and comply with financial control requirements.
In moving from a system under which the dental practitioner is responsible for collecting and keeping dental charges, to the new system where risk related to that dental charging income is borne by the PCT, there are likely to be difficulties. The old system had many incentive effects that were not attractive but at least it placed the incentive for collecting charges fairly and squarely on the dental practitioner. If he did not collect, he would be out of pocket.
We are now moving to a new system where the dental practitioner will collect dental charges on behalf of the PCT and account to it for them. That raises a number of issues that I hope that the Minister will address. How will PCTs incentivise dental practitioners to charge for and collect all the income that should be collected? How will the PCT ensure that there is no fraud or error? Will the PCT have audit rights in relation to the dental practitioner's books and records? Will PCTs be able to lay down minimum standards of record-keeping?
In addition, what costs are likely to fall on dentists for complying with any new requirements? The regulatory impact assessment makes it clear that most dentists are small businessmen. How will the Government ensure that any regulatory burden associated with the new scheme is minimised?
Amendment No. 442 deletes new Section 28N of the 1977 NHS Act, which will be inserted by Clause 168. New Section 28N allows the Secretary of State to have pretty complete control over payments made under general dental services contracts. Our amendment knocks that out of the Bill on a probing basis.
We had understood that the thrust of the new arrangements for dental services was to give new responsibilities to PCTs to provide primary dental services in their areas. That is much wider than their existing responsibilities. However, we do not understand how that can work in practice if the PCTs are hamstrung by remuneration terms laid down by the Secretary of State.
I assume that the moneys used by PCTs to pay for dental contracts are part of the much-vaunted 75 per cent of NHS money now being delegated to PCTs. What freedoms will the PCTs have in practice to use their financial resources to achieve better primary dental care services? For example, can they pay additional amounts if market forces locally require higher payments in order to achieve desired access levels? What freedoms, if any, will they have to use finance as a bargaining counter in setting satisfactory contracts? I beg to move.
Lord Colwyn: Very briefly, I want to say how incredibly complex the issue is. It has been a concern for dentists for many years. I remind the Committee that, at present, on people who are not exempt, GDPs collect 80 per cent of the full cost of the treatment. Bad debts exist; it is a problem. So far as I am aware, the new charging system for primary dental care is under discussion by Harry Cayton, the patients' tsar. I suspect that the Minister may not be able to answer on all the points raised, but the subject is no doubt evolving. Will the system be centralised, with overall central control, or will it purely be based in the PCTs?
3.45 a.m.
Baroness Andrews: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I cannot answer all those questions. I can answer some of them to some extent, but many of them will be answered by testing out systems of remuneration in the field sites themselves. Apart from anything else different ways of paying dentists are being looked at. I shall come to that.
I shall help by dealing with the amendment and setting out briefly how we intend to manage the transition from the current general dental services to local contracting and a GDS contract. Work is under way in the field sites to test new commissioning and remuneration models, among other innovations. The first field site draft contract templates will be

1471
available in January 2004. Learning from those sites will be ongoing beyond April 2005 for their lifespan. Additionally, some of the field sites are working with the PCTs and the strategic health authorities to develop monitoring and performance management systems to support the commissioning model. It was important—and this ran through Agenda for Change and the whole dialogue with the profession—that matters had to be tested first and there had to be robust mechanisms for learning from those tests.
Drawing on that programme and the personal dental services pilots, to ensure a smooth transition, the Department of Health has been working closely with the British Dental Association to develop a simple and robust base contract that all PCTs and practices will be able to put in place from April 2005. Under those arrangements, from April 2005, unless any local variations are agreed, the Dental Practice Board and its successor the special health authority will continue to pay dental practices contracting with the PCT broadly the same level of income for broadly comparable levels of activity—increased by any nationally agreed uplift following the DDRB's recommendations.
In answer to one of the specific questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, the collection of charges will be a contractual requirement, and the special health authority which will replace the DPB will verify the correct collection of charges and will report to the PCT. So there will be an audit mechanism in that form.
Amendment No. 441 seeks to make collection of patient charges and payment of them to the PCT a contractual matter under a GDS contract. Under the current arrangements, dentists collect patient charges from those patients liable to pay them and the NHS makes payments to dentists by way of remuneration, net of the charges collected. It is intended to continue this procedure under the new charging regime introduced under regulations made under a new Section 79 of the 1977 Act, which is inserted by Clause 179 of the Bill.
Subsection (3) of new Section 79 enables regulations to provide that sums which would otherwise be payable by a PCT, local health board or special health authority to providers be reduced by the amount of the charges authorised by the regulations. Harry Cayton, the director for patient experience and public involvement, is leading a review of patient charges for NHS dentistry. He will report next March. Part of that review will look at the ways of collecting patient charges. The current system works well and, from the NHS perspective, is simple to administer and has minimal bureaucracy. However, Agenda for Change reported that the profession would prefer to separate the direct link between patients' visits to the dentist and charge collection. The Government are sympathetic to that view, because we consider that collecting PCT charges and then remitting them to the PCT would be unnecessarily bureaucratic.
1472
While the technology is available to collect payments through smart cards, by mobile phone and so on, we will be interested in any of those ideas that may be put forward by Harry Cayton's review group on alternative ways to pay charges. We consider that dentists collecting charges and remitting them to the PCT will be unnecessarily bureaucratic and until the technology is available we intend that dentists and dental practices be paid for the provision of primary dental services net of the patients' charges collected. Therefore Amendment No. 441 does not find favour.
As regards the technical questions which the noble Baroness asked on Amendment No. 442, I shall have to write to her. However, perhaps I may explain that Section 28N(1) allows the Secretary of State or the Assembly to give directions regarding payments to be made under the new GDS contracts. Where directions are made, a GDS contract must require that payments are made under the contract in accordance with the directions.
New Section 28N replaces the existing system of remuneration for dentists providing general dental services under Section 35 of the 1977 Act. The rules setting out the remuneration are currently contained in the statement of dental remuneration. The SDR is a determination made by the Secretary of State or the Assembly under Regulation 19 of the National Health Service (General Dental Services) Regulations 1992.
Under Section 28N, payments in respect of any particular matter under the contract can be set on a national basis. Directions may relate to payments to be made by a PCT to a GDS provider or by a GDS provider to a PCT. Where there are no applicable directions, the parties to the GDS contract are free to determine the remuneration to be paid under the contract.
Subsection (3) sets out how the power to make directions may be exercised. It will enable directions to provide for payments to be determined by reference to the meeting of particular standards, for example. Directions may also be made in respect of individual practitioners and so would enable, for example, payments to be made in respect of a dental practitioner's maternity. That is why we need national scope for that.
Subsection (4) of new Section 28N recreates the existing requirements in Section 43B of the 1977 Act for the Secretary of State or the Assembly to consult representative bodies on remuneration matters. Under the new multi-professional GDS contract, this extends consultation rights to other groups whose members can become GDS providers—for example, representatives of other groups of dental healthcare professionals whose remuneration might also be affected.
Subsection (5) provides for directions to be made by regulations or by an instrument in writing and for directions made by an instrument in writing to be revoked or varied. Subsection (6) sets out some examples of what payments under this section include; namely, fees, allowances, reimbursements, loans and repayments.

1473
Representatives of the dental profession, in the interests of fairness to their members, are keen to preserve the ability to continue setting some payments under GDS contracts on a national basis. The payments which give the most concern are those in respect of a particular individual at the practice; for example, payments in respect of maternity. It is thought by the profession to be in the interests of fairness if such payments are determined nationally.
I realise that that was a detailed and complex explanation. However, I hope that the noble Baroness will accept it and withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Noakes: I thank the Minister for taking the trouble to attempt to give me a comprehensive reply. I cannot pretend that it is wholly satisfactory. I asked, for example, about the incentive mechanisms that would exist to ensure that dentists collected the correct money for PCTs. That is still on the table. I asked about the freedoms of PCTs and I did not get an answer.
Much of what the Minister said took me back to our first couple of Committee days when we debated foundation hospitals. The ongoing theme was that the Government were making it up as they went along. I feel that that is the case with these dental arrangements because so many of the details are not worked out. It is almost not the time to consider the Bill.
Nevertheless, I thank the Minister for attempting to answer the questions. I shall of course read what she said before deciding what to do at the next stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 441A not moved.]
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 441B:
Page 83, line 23, leave out "or section 17C employee" and insert "employee, section 17C employee or Article 15B employee"
The noble Lord said: This group of amendments makes a number of minor, technical changes. Many of the amendments cover personal medical services and personal dental services in Northern Ireland. References to "Article 15B employee" and "Article 15B arrangements" are inserted into Clauses 168, 171, 173, and so on. This is a UK-wide contract and the amendment seeks to treat Northern Ireland primary medical services and primary dental services employees in exactly the same way as Scottish and English employees in equivalent schemes.
Amendment No. 459E makes clear that any regulations made under Section 28E may include provision for the resolution of disputes as to the terms of any proposed Section 28C arrangement. This allows for equivalent provision to be made in primary medical services as applies in general medical services.
Amendment No. 461A amends the power in new Section 28W to make regulations in respect of payments to be made to a person suspended from the list. As written, the power is restricted to payments made by a PCT or local health boards. However, in
1474
certain circumstances, it will be necessary for other bodies to be able to make such payments—for example, in respect of GP registrars, where payments would be made by the strategic health authority.
Amendments Nos. 464ZG and 477ZC make changes to allow the National Assembly for Wales to make regulations giving community health councils the power to enter and inspect the premises of persons providing services under Part 1 of the 1977 Act in England. That is equivalent to the provisions for the Secretary of State in respect of patients forums. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendments Nos. 441C and 441D:
Page 83, line 26, leave out from "individual" to end of line 31 and insert "falling within section 28D(l)(bc) above"
Page 83, line 44, leave out "and section 17C employee" and insert ", "section 17C employee" and "Article 15B employee""
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 442 not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 443:
Page 85, leave out lines 15 to 17.
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 443, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 455. Subsection (3) of the new Section 280 contains what appears to be a draconian provision. It allows for regulations to enable a PCT or LHB to impose a variation of the terms of a GDS contract. There is a similar provision in new Section 28U relating to the GMS contract.
If a dentist or a doctor has entered into a contract, it seems to me that he is entitled to regard that contract as binding on the commissioning body. We all understand that no contract can be set in concrete for all time and that it must be adapted to meet changing needs. However, I should be grateful if the Minister could explain what might justify a provision permitting one party to the GDS or GMS contract, but not the other, to override it. If changes are made to the contract, those should surely be by agreement. I beg to move.
Lord Warner: These amendments would remove a PCT's powers to vary GDS and GMS contracts respectively. For primary dental services, it is essential that PCTs have the power to vary GDS contracts in their area. The main need for the power is to ensure that any future changes to the contract regulations can be taken through into the contract. An example might be learning from field sites about patient information requirements. We might also propose a variation where it is necessary to meet a European Court of Human Rights obligation or where the failure of a PCT and contractor to reach an agreement would prevent the PCT fulfilling its statutory duty. That might be the case where the PCT was under a duty to provide certain information in the hands of the contractor.

1475
For primary medical services, it is also essential that PCTs have a power to vary GMS contracts in their area. The same arguments as I outlined apply. The new GMS contracts will reflect the national agreement that has recently been reached between the BMA and the NHS Confederation. Experience teaches us that future discussions will be needed to update the national contract in the light of changing circumstances. Without that power, we have no effective means of ensuring consistent implementation of new national arrangements.
Within the context of the national rules, GPs will have greater local flexibility around what services they provide and they will also have the choice of leaving the national GMS contract and entering into local primary medical service contracts. It is also recognised in the agreement document that negotiations may not always reach agreement. It is noted in the new agreed GMS contract document that failure to reach agreement would not prevent the Secretary of State or health ministers discharging their statutory obligations or exercising their statutory powers. The amendments would prevent the Secretary of State fulfilling those statutory duties. Therefore, I suggest that these amendments are not pursued.
4 a.m.
Earl Howe: I thank the Minister. That is a helpful reply. It casts some light on the subsection. The question posed by my amendment is: when is a contract not a contract? When is a practitioner entitled to regard his contract as one on which he can rely? The key word in the subsection is "impose". I still think from the examples given by the Minister, apart perhaps from the example of the judgment of the European Court, that in most instances there will be alterations of contract by agreement. I take his point. I am grateful to him for what he has said and no doubt the regulations, as and when they emerge, will specify in greater detail the circumstances that will allow contracts to be varied in the way in which the clause presupposes. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 168 agreed to.
Clause 169 [General dental services: transitional]:
Lord Colwyn Lord Colwyn moved Amendment No. 443A:
Page 86, line 26, at end insert—
"( ) A contractor or an employee of a contractor will be entitled to existing pension arrangements that were available to her or him at the time of enactment."
The noble Lord said: The amendment safeguards the existing pension arrangements of practice owners, associates and employees during transition to the new contracting arrangements. The dentists making the transition from the old to the new GDS arrangements may feel vulnerable and the issue of pensions is understandably important. I would like clear and unequivocal confirmation that pensions will be protected. A particularly vulnerable group is that of
1476
associates who face the potential change to their employment status as a result of the Bill as they may move from being self-employed practitioners to employed officer status.
While the details of associate employment status are still being worked through, there is a danger that some options on the table could significantly financially disadvantage those individuals. Others at risk are contractors who make a decision to vary their mixture of clients—for example, from mostly NHS to mostly private—at a point that coincides with the introduction of the new funding arrangements. The crude pension contributions of such contractors need to be protected, regardless of their new number of NHS patients. The Government need to send a strong signal that dentists' existing pension arrangements will be protected.
I had a very helpful letter from the Minister in which he said that the changes to pension arrangements as a result of local commissioning will not be to the detriment of any dentist currently working in the NHS. The way that he said that makes me think that they are planning to make changes to the pensions and I would like confirmation that they are considering the different demographic groups in dentistry: assistants, associates, those just starting out in the profession, those who have been in it for some while and those who are semi-retired. It is important that that differential element is carefully considered. I beg to move.
Baroness Andrews: Many dentists will have made a significant contribution to NHS dentistry and a considerable personal investment in their practices. We must ensure that they are able to continue to do so. Perhaps I could explain the context. Clause 169 sets out the framework for a transitional scheme which must be established by order to ensure that those dentists who are providing general dental services under the existing statutory arrangements are entitled to continue to provide primary dental services under the new GDS contracts.
It further enables those dentists who run practices limited to specialist treatments, for example orthodontics, where it would be inappropriate to provide the full range of dental treatments required by a GDS contract, to be entitled to continue to provide those services under a PDS agreement.
It may not have been possible for all dental practices to reach agreement on all the terms of a GDS contract by the time the new regime comes into being. So, as I have said previously, subsection (3) provides for there to be a "default or base contract", which is more closely related to the service previously provided under the GDS.
It would be unfair to expect dentists to accept contractual arrangements which are significantly less favourable than those on which previous GDS had been provided. Provision will be made to offer protection of legitimate practice earnings. That may be achieved under nationally determined GDS

1477
contract payments under Section 28N or by an order made under Clause 169 or achieved by using both powers.
Amendment No. 443A specifically raises the important issue of the entitlement of dentists working under GDS contracts, and for that matter under PDS contracts, to membership of the NHS pension scheme. Membership of the NHS pension scheme is increasingly seen as a major benefit of being part of the NHS family and can be impacted when dentists or doctors migrate between salaried posts in hospitals and independent contractor posts in general practice. We have recognised that. We have made an amendment to the NHS pension scheme regulations that will ensure that the scheme operates more flexibly in the future when dentists or doctors move between salaried and independent contractor status. The amendment will apply to the benefits of all dentists and doctors in post on or after 1st April 2003.
The letter sent by my noble friend has already been quoted. It states that changes to pension arrangements as a result of local commissioning will not be to the detriment of any dentist currently working in the NHS. The noble Lord asked me about the range of dentists, associates and so on. Clause 169 deals with transitional provisions. Subsection (1) ensures that a new contract must be offered to all principal dentists. That includes associates. I hope that reassures the noble Lord.
I can also give the noble Lord an important commitment in response to Amendment No. 443A. Changes to pension arrangements as a result of local commissioning will not be to the detriment of any dentist currently working in the NHS. I hope that with those reassurances the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Colwyn: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. I am not an expert on pensions. I shall examine with the British Dental Association what the noble Baroness has said and possibly return to the matter. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 169 agreed to.
Clause 170 [Provision of primary medical services]:
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 444:
Page 86, leave out lines 39 to 41.
The noble Lord said: Clause 170 deals with the provision of primary medical services. Amendment No. 444 is designed to alter the situation currently contained in Clause 170. There are three kinds of primary medical services: essential, additional and enhanced. GPs have preferred provider status for essential and additional services but not for enhanced services. Enhanced services are, for example, some minor surgery, perhaps minor injury services, services for violent patients, flu immunisation, child immunisation, sexual health services and of course services such as out-of-hours services.
The clause makes radical changes to current arrangements. Under current arrangements GPs provide most of these services. Under the new arrangements contained in Clause 170, those services would now be able to be purchased by the PCO. In England that means the primary care trust itself. Indeed, it may be able to purchase services, such as out-of-hours services, from commercial deputising services. That may include non-NHS provision of services such as physiotherapy.
There has been some attempt to explain the new arrangements by both the Government and negotiators, such as the BMA, but it is not entirely clear why these arrangements should have been put into place and why it is necessary for these services to be provided in the way that they are. I notice that the Minister states in the letter that some of us have received that it is an essential part of the new system of primary care that has been negotiated with the General Practitioners Committee and the NHS Confederation. I should be interested to hear from the Minister why that should be so. Why is it so essential? Why have enhanced services been split off in that way from the other services to be provided? What benefits will that provide to patients in those primary care trusts? I beg to move.
Lord Warner: New Section 16CC is a fundamental part of the new system of primary care that has been negotiated by the General Practitioners Committee and the NHS Confederation. It allows PCTs to contract with a range of providers to secure primary services for people in their area. The majority of contracts for primary medical services will be between PCTs and GP practices—through either a GMS contract or a Section 28C contract.
However, it is essential that we give PCTs as much flexibility as possible to ensure that patients can access the full range of services. That is especially true where practices opt out of providing out-of-hours care or other additional services. PCTs will be under a duty to ensure that services are maintained for the patients affected. PCTs will be able to provide services themselves or, where appropriate, commission services from a range of other providers. For example, in the case of out-of-hours services, that would include NHS Direct, GP co-operatives, practice partnerships, paramedics, other GP practices or deputising services, including organisations such as Primecare.
The amendment would remove that flexibility. Let us consider an area where, at present, GPs delegate out-of-hours services to a commercial deputising service. Under the new contract, some GPs may well opt out of having primary responsibility. Suppose that the PCT wanted to recommission the service directly from the current commercial provider. Without that power, it could not do so.
We are also committed to expanding capacity in primary care. In some areas in which there has been a shortage of doctors for many years, the private sector may well be the best route to provide additional capacity to deliver NHS care. However,

1479
we remain committed to the contract agreement with the profession that makes clear that existing primary and general medical service practices will have preferred provider status for the new essential services. Again, the amendment would rule that out.
I hope that I have clarified matters for the noble Lord and that he will feel able not to pursue his amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for his reply, although he has not clarified the matter to any great extent. Many ordinary patients will be baffled by his statement that many GPs will opt out of primary responsibility. That is a crucial aspect of the clause. It sits oddly with the Minister's statement that he is committed to expanding capacity. That seems strange, yet he relies on the fact that there is a contractual agreement over which we have no power. In those circumstances, I want to test the opinion of the Committee.
4.14 a.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 444) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 8; Not-Contents, 39.

Division No.5

CONTENTS

Barker, B.[Teller]

Howe, E.

Blatch, B.

Noakes, B.

Clement-Jones, L. [Teller]

Roper, L.

Colwyn, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Amos, B. (Lord President)

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Andrews, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hoyle, L.

Bach, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Jones, L.

Brett, L.

Jordan, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Burlison, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Campbell-Savour, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Carter, L.

Chandos, V.

Pendry, L.

Crawley, B.

Plant of Highfield L.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Sawyer, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde. B.

Simon, V.

Desai, L.

Warner, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Whitty, L.

Golding, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.23 a.m.
Lord Roper: We have now spent more time since 10 p.m. considering this Bill in Committee than we did in the whole of the time after Starred Questions until 10 p.m. Will the Government Chief Whip accept that
1480
there is now a need for further consultations about progress on the Bill? Otherwise, it will be difficult to maintain the co-operation between the usual channels. That co-operation has taken this Bill a long way forward tonight, but further progress may become increasingly difficult.
Lord Grocott: I suggest that we have a discussion in the normal way. Meanwhile, we should proceed with the next amendment.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 445:
Page 87, line 9, at end insert—
"( ) Regulations under subsection (5) may not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament."
The noble Lord said: As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has failed to get satisfaction on what exactly the Government intend on Clauses 170 and 171, it falls to me to have another crack. Subsection (5) of Clause 170 provides a regulatory power to clarify what should or should not be considered as primary medical services for which PCTs and LHBs have the duty to secure provision. For example, it could be used if necessary to maintain a consistent national level of primary medical services that must be provided across all PCTs. Only a few minutes ago, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, the Minister said that it is essential that we allow as much flexibility as possible. I do not see how those two statements fit together.
Moving on to Clause 171, on general medical services contracts, we find that subsection (1) inserts six new sections into the 1977 Act providing for the new GMS contracts that replace the current arrangements under Part II of that Act. The point that concerns me is the first provision, new Section 28Q, which gives power for PCTs and LHBs to enter into GMS contracts. A GMS contract is a contract for primary medical services, but it may also include services—this is the point I think made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones—that are not primary medical services, for example, in heart services that are on the boundaries of primary and secondary care, such as certain more specialised services in areas such as drug and alcohol misuse, sexual health or depression and so on.
Therefore, I am, as I said, somewhat confused. Is the Minister thinking of professions supplementary to medicine as well or, in part, instead? Will we know before the regulations come to be laid, which is the point of Amendments Nos. 445 and 447? If we are not to know in good time, then I propose that we make the regulations affirmative. I beg to move.
Lord Warner: In general terms, we believe that custom and practice will be sufficient to determine the scope of primary medical services. We do not believe that it is wise or helpful for service development to develop a fixed legal definition that could ossify service

1481
provision and militate against achieving better integration between primary and acute sectors.
Primary care is a developing field. In recent years we have seen the development of walk-in centres, diagnostic and treatment centres and an increase in the number of GPs with special interests. Medical knowledge is increasing and there is a shift of care from hospitals to the community. It would be impossible to keep an up-to-date definition of primary medical services. So we envisage that the power will be used, for example, only where it is felt necessary to ensure that a particular service is considered within the scope of primary medical services in the event of doubt.
The Lords Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform has considered the powers carefully. It did not consider it appropriate that they should be made subject to affirmative procedure. The powers are in keeping with existing equivalent powers and the level of scrutiny is appropriate. I see no reason to disagree with its judgment on this issue. We do not support these amendments.
Lord Skelmersdale: Well, my Lords, surprise, surprise. The Minister again has not really answered my point, which was whether we will know exactly what is intended in sufficient time so that we can consider it. If not, that is a very good reason for affirmative regulations rather than negative regulations. I shall read what the Minister said to me in conjunction with what he said to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. It is to be hoped that I shall make sense of it and that I shall not have to return to this matter on Report. At the moment, I very much doubt it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 170 agreed to.
4.30 a.m.
Clause 171 [General medical services contracts]:
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 446:
Page 87, line 37, at end insert—
"( ) Regulations under subsection (1) shall reflect the principle of patient choice."
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 446, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 451, 452 and 453 in this group, which are about the impact of the patient's perspective on GMS contracts. Amendment No. 446 adds a new subsection to Section 28R of the NHS Act 1977, as inserted by Clause 171 of the Bill. The new subsection states that regulations under Section 28R—about the services to be provided under general medical services contracts—must reflect the principle of patient choice.
As Members of the Committee will know, patient choice has been the cornerstone of our policies for the NHS for many years. We have been pleased to see the gradual conversion to choice within the Government. We were particularly pleased that the Explanatory Notes at paragraph 358 state that patient choice should be reflected in the GMS contract.
The amendment goes further than paragraph (d) subsection (2) of Section 28U because that refers to the rights of patients to choose from whom they are to receive services. That is welcome, but patient choice is about more than just "from whom", it is also about "when", "what" and "how".
While we welcome the acknowledgement in paragraph 358 of the Explanatory Notes that patient choice is important, we do not understand why that choice is confined to the management of patients who recover from illnesses. Paragraph 358 draws a distinction between those patients and patients who are terminally or chronically ill. Apparently, patient choice is not relevant to those patients. That distinction does not appear to be made by the limited paragraph (d) of Section 28U(2), to which I referred a moment ago. Will the Minister confirm that patient choice will be available to the terminally ill or to those suffering from a chronic disease?
Amendments Nos. 451, 452 and 453 are about the important issue of doctors' rights to accept or reject patients. They all amend subsection (3) of Section 28U of the 1977 Act, inserted by Clause 171. Amendment No. 451 has the effect that regulations under Section 28U must deal with the issues of doctors accepting or rejecting patients. The amendment has the effect that the regulations must not only deal with the circumstances, but also deal with the manner in which doctors may act. Amendment No. 452 states that the regulations must cover when a doctor may terminate his responsibility for a patient, but also when he may not.
We fully recognise that there will be circumstances when a doctor must have the right to remove a patient from a list. Violence is the most obvious example, even though here there are difficult issues—for example, in relation to the family of a violent patient. There is much evidence that there are significant concerns about how removal from a list operates in practice. The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux says that it regularly receives reports that clients have been struck off lists without a reason being given. It says that these are often patients with serious long-term medical conditions.
I have recently received a worrying letter from a patient with motor neurone disease, with a wife with her own health problems, because they were both removed summarily from the list of their GP and no other local GPs will accept them. The message is that difficult and long-term conditions are not what GPs want on their lists.
I am aware that there is guidance from the Royal College of General Practitioners that a person's condition should not justify removal and that patients should be given a reason. But the complaints go on. So much hope is pinned on the regulations under the Bill. I understand that it is intended that transparent processes will be involved. Will the Minister say what those will be?
I hope that the Minister will also say something about the regulations under this section? When will they be available in draft? The National Association of

1483
Citizens Advice Bureaux is particularly concerned that new regulations will be drawn up without reference to the groups representing patient interests. Will the Minister say what consultation arrangements will be made? I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 450 and 454. The tenor of both amendments is very similar and straightforward: they seek to improve the provisions of the Bill in dealing with disputes over matters such as a GP declining to take on a person as a patient or terminating responsibility for him. I have attempted to ensure that there would be a proper system for the adjudication of such disputes. Amendment No. 454 is rather fuller than Amendment No. 450, but essentially it seeks the same end. There should be an appeal and adjudication procedure so that it would not be possible simply for a patient to be struck off a GP's list; rather, there would be a proper process to go through.
We have seen enough cases involving rather arbitrary decisions about patients on GP lists to know that it is vital to put in place this kind of system. I look forward to the Minister's assurance that some kind of procedure is to be introduced.
Lord Warner: These amendments deal with some extremely important issues around patient registration and choice. Amendment No. 446 would ensure that regulations prescribing essential services would include a reference to the principle of patient choice. On a technicality, I am not entirely sure what the noble Baroness intended by inserting the amendment into new Section 28R rather than Section 28U. On a second technicality, I am not sure that it makes sense to single out choice as the sole condition on the face of the Bill. In delivering services a range of other factors are extremely important, such as the quality of clinical care provided, clinical governance and so forth.
However, on the issue of principle raised by the amendment, I can confirm that the Government are fully in support of delivering better choice in primary care. That is precisely why we are engaged in a major consultation exercise, focusing on offering choice to patients and users of health and social care services, including decisions about "where" and "when" care is received, as well as "what" and "how" someone wishes to be treated and manage their condition. Task groups were formed to look at eight specific areas or themes, one of which is primary care, being chaired by Delyth Morgan.
I can assure the noble Baroness that patient choice will be equally available to all types of patient. That is also why the new contract supports better choice in a number of ways that, given the hour, I shall not elaborate on.
Amendment No. 452 would require regulations to specify the manner in which patients are accepted on to, refused acceptance on to, or removed from a list. We intend that the regulations will make clear a responsibility not to discriminate against patients in the process of registering or deregistering them. And
1484
they will require that a reason is given in writing as to why patients are removed by practices from the practice list. Introducing a requirement that sets out the manner in which these processes work is at this stage overly bureaucratic and prescriptive.
Amendment No. 453 would introduce a requirement for practices to keep patients on their lists. The relationship between the patient and the practice is close and personal. If that relationship breaks down on either side, in our experience the breakdown is usually irreconcilable. We do not believe it is wise to introduce a requirement that practices may not deregister patients, nor is it a balanced one given that patients can choose to register elsewhere. The critical issue is whether, in doing so, they are acting reasonably, and this will be addressed by the requirement to set out reasons for deregistration, and not to discriminate on a range of grounds such as race or age.
These arguments apply equally in relation to Amendment No. 450 and the second part of Amendment No. 454, while an appeals process would add further bureaucracy. If patients are unhappy with the way they have been treated, be that in relation to non-acceptance or removal, they should raise their concerns with the primary care trust. This is the case now and should continue to be the case in the future.
It is important to note that when patients are removed from lists they are still entitled to register with a practice, even in the rare case of all practice lists being closed. It will be a requirement for PCTs to ensure that this happens and they have the power to do so, either by provision of services by the PCT or by allocating patients subject to the new process which involves a patient representative.
Amendment No. 451 proposes changing "may" to "must". The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee did not make a recommendation on this issue but brought it to the attention of the House and, indeed, to my attention. The Government are committed to making these regulations as part of the implementation of the new GMS contract. I will be bringing forward a government amendment on this section on Report and, as part of that, will be including the change proposed in Amendment No. 451.
Finally, on the first part of Amendment No. 454, which would require regulations to be made to give reasons for patients being refused inclusion on a list, I am sympathetic. This must be right in principle. It is inconsistent to have a requirement to give reasons at the end of the process for deregistration but not at the beginning for refusing to register someone in the event that the practice list is open. Clearly if the practice list is closed due to capacity constraints, that is the reason.
The most appropriate route for progressing this would be the contract regulations rather than the face

1485
of the Bill. The department is in discussions with the BMA about the policy underlying those regulations and I can confirm that I will be in a position to set out the outcome of those discussions on Report. The noble Lord may wish to withdraw the amendment in the light of this assurance.
Lord Clement-Jones: I shall digest what the Minister said about the appeal procedure. I am heartened by what he said about giving reasons and the discussions taking place with the BMA. I seek his assurance that organisations representing patients' interests will also be consulted in that process. As I understand it, there has been no discussion with them to date in this area and it would be valuable.
Lord Warner: I take the noble Lord's point.
Baroness Noakes: I asked about consultation on the provisions in the regulations for changing doctors. I said that the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux is particularly keen that patients' groups should be involved in drawing up the regulations. Can the Minister say something about that?
Lord Warner: There will be consultation on the regulations.
Baroness Noakes: I am grateful to the Minister for that. As 1 said, it is regarded as important by patients' groups. 1 thank the Minister for the assurances he gave. I look forward to the amendment he will bring forward on Report and I shall read carefully what he has said. I believe he has answered many, if not all, of my points but, in view of the time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 447 not moved.]
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendments Nos. 447A to 447C:
Page 88. line 15, leave out "or a section 17C employee" and insert ", section 17C employee or Article 15B employee"
Page 88, line 18, leave out from "individual" to end of line 23 and insert "falling within section 28D(l)(bc) above"
Page 88, line 36, leave out "and "section 17C employee"" and insert ", "section 17C employee" and "Article 15B employee""
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 448:
Page 88, line 44, leave out from beginning to end of line 14 on page 89.
The noble Earl said: Proposed new Section 28T sets out the provisions governing payments under the GMS contract. I have tabled this probing amendment to find out what is meant by subsection (3)(a), (b) and (d) in particular. Paragraph (a) appears to cover targets and paragraph (b) schemes and scales of payment that are unspecified. It would be helpful to hear what these may comprise.
A great deal of money for the GMS contract is targeted towards quality and outcomes. How are the targets to be set, what will they be and who will police them? The Minister will by now realise that I am suspicious of targets because, unless they are clinically based, they are likely to lead to skewed priorities which may not necessarily be in the interests of patients. I make an exception for public health targets such as vaccinations, but if the targets are not public health-related, my suspicions return.
Paragraph (d) covers conditions. The only example of such a condition given in the Explanatory Notes is payments for seniority, which seems a very odd basis on which to make payments as it has nothing to do with either competence or quality of outcomes. It would be helpful if the Minister could explain the implications and meaning of these proposals in a little more detail. I beg to move.
Baroness Barker: I shall speak briefly to Amendment No. 449, which echoes the words of the noble Earl, Lord Howe. We, too, feel great disquiet that a target system is based on treatments or proportions of treatments that are delivered rather than health outcomes. We think that could cause quite severe difficulties not only for medical practice but for the nature of the doctor-client relationship.
The BMA is concerned that if exceptional reporting systems are not in place for all target payments, there could be a skew. As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said, the GMS contract contains several pages detailing the making and achievement of payments. There is a very complex points system under which GP practices are to be rewarded, precisely to improve the numbers of treatments given. We do not see that that can be justified by itself in clinical outcomes. If a patient chooses not to have vaccinations or immunisations, what does that do to the GP practice in question?
Lord Warner: Perhaps I could deal first with Amendment No. 448. The power in proposed Section 28T is needed to implement the national agreement that was reached between the NHS Confederation and the GPC. Subsection (3) sets out how the power to make directions may be exercised. It makes it clear that payments may be determined by reference, for example, to the meeting of standards. In this way, it provides for the quality and outcomes framework. This framework represents, for the first time, that the NHS will significantly reward general practices for the quality of care delivered to patients. It recognises and rewards their clinical professionalism, not just the number of patients on their list.
It is not a series of targets for GPs. The contract does not include a required level of achievement. The framework is voluntary—it is based on best academic evidence. It was proposed by the BMA, which negotiated and agreed it with NHS employers.

1487
Subsection (3) also allows for directions to be made that take effect from a date earlier than the direction where this would overall be favourable to the contractor. This may be used, for example, where negotiations to review payments conclude that new or revised payments should be backdated to the beginning of a year. This has been essential in the past and the power will doubtless be used again. Sometimes these payments are about new services that will deliver benefits to patients, such as vaccinations. I do not think that patients or the profession would wish to see that power amended.
On Amendment No. 449, I have to say that the United Kingdom has one of the most successful vaccine programmes in the world, with high levels of uptake. This has been achieved by the hard work of GPs and enforced by a system of targeted financial incentives. This is for the good of the public's health.
The target payments scheme incentivised levels of uptake; it protects children not only individually but collectively in the wider community, especially those for whom immunisation is contra-indicated. Removing the target payments would have an unpredictable effect on vaccine uptake levels, but it is more likely to be adverse than advantageous to the public health. It could well perpetuate coverage that is insufficient for the protection of the wider community.
The new contract makes it clear that we will be discussing with the BMA how we can use the target payments more effectively in a way that meets general practitioners' concerns and encourages even higher uptake levels, protecting children from potentially life-threatening diseases. It is also worth noting that the BMA negotiated and agreed the directed enhanced service specification for childhood vaccinations in the contract. That includes the existing target payments. Aside from a potentially adverse effect on public health, the amendment would cut across part of the deal that GPs voted on and undermine our ability to deliver the contract agreement.
Earl Howe: I am grateful to the Minister for his full reply. He once again shed light on the clause, as I hoped that he would. I shall study his remarks and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 449 not moved.]
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 449A:
Page 89, line 30, at end insert—
"28TA GMS CONTRACTS: PRESCRIPTION OF DRUGS ETC

(1) A general medical services contract must contain provision
requiring the contractor or contractors to comply with any
directions given by the appropriate authority for the purposes of
this section as to the drugs, medicines or other substances which
may or may not be ordered for patients in the provision of medical
services under the contract.

(2) A direction under this section must, subject to subsection
(3), be given by regulations.

1488

(3) A direction under this section may be given by an
instrument in writing where it gives effect to a request made in
writing to the authority making the direction by a person who is
a holder of a Community marketing authorization or United
Kingdom marketing authorisation in respect of the drug, medicine
or other substance to which the request relates.

(4) A direction under this section given by an instrument in
writing may be varied or revoked by a further direction under this
section (whether given by an instrument in writing or by
regulations).

(5) In this section—

"appropriate authority" has the same meaning as in section 28T above;

"Community marketing authorization" and "United Kingdom marketing authorisation" have the meanings given by regulation 1 of the Medicines for Human Use (Marketing Authorisations Etc.) Regulations 1994 (S.I. 1994/3144)."

The noble Lord said: Government Amendments Nos. 449A, 457B and 464ZF are made in response to the Delegated Powers Committee report. They make it clear that directions in respect of the drugs, medicines, and other substances that may or may not be ordered for patients will be made by regulations, except where there is a request from a holder of an EU or UK marketing authorisation and the directions give effect to that request. In that case, directions may be given in an instrument in writing.
Any decision to restrict the availability of the medicines on GP prescription is taken only following a period of public consultation. We consult the manufacturer. Additionally, we consult professional representatives, patient representatives and other organisations with an interest to take into account as wide a range of views as possible. We do not intend to alter the arrangements. The consultation document would explain the rationale behind each proposal, including the available evidence on clinical and cost-effectiveness, if appropriate.
The relevant EU legislation is the so-called transparency directive, which obliges the Secretary of State to give a statement of the reasons for introducing a restriction based on objective and verifiable criteria. In addition, if there are expert opinions on which the decision is based they should be sent along with the decision. Those procedures safeguard the interests of patients and manufacturers.
I trust that these amendments and clarifications satisfy the concerns that have been expressed. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: In view of the hour, I do not propose to speak at length on Amendment No. 457A, which was tabled in my name. Suffice it to say that there are very good arguments against the selected list today, versus the time when the selected list was introduced under the 1977 Act. I intend to return to those arguments at a later stage.
Earl Howe: I thank the Minister for responding positively to the recommendations made by the Delegated Powers Committee on the issue of non-prescribable drugs and the regulatory procedure that

1489
should govern them. Amendment No. 459 was designed to flag up the issue, and I have no objection to what the Government are now proposing.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 450 to 455 not moved.]
Lord Grocott: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at six minutes before five o'clock.

  Prime Minister: Working Days
  Prime Minister: Working Days
  Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan Draft
  Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan Draft
  Northern Ireland: Planning Appeals
  Northern Ireland: Planning Appeals
  Government Bills: Hours Spent in Committee
  Government Bills: Hours Spent in Committee
  Prisoners: Voting Rights
  Prisoners: Voting Rights
  Violent Crime: Convenience Stores
  Violent Crime: Convenience Stores
  Anti-social Behaviour
  Anti-social Behaviour
  Mr Hadi Soleimanpour
  Mr Hadi Soleimanpour
  Police: Sexually Discriminatory Behaviour
  Police: Sexually Discriminatory Behaviour
  Firearms: National Register
  Firearms: National Register
  Interfaith Consultations
  Interfaith Consultations
  Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001: Retention of Communications Data
  Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001: Retention of Communications Data
  Asylum Applications: Delays
  Asylum Applications: Delays
  Basic Disclosures
  Basic Disclosures
  Extradition: Draft Code of Practice
  Extradition: Draft Code of Practice
  Millennium Dome
  Millennium Dome
  Court Service: Staffing
  Court Service: Staffing
  Fines: Enforcement
  Fines: Enforcement
  International Development: Financing
  International Development: Financing
  World Heritage Sites
  World Heritage Sites
  State Pension: Cost of Uprating
  State Pension: Cost of Uprating
  Bovine Tuberculosis
  Bovine Tuberculosis
  Biofuels
  Biofuels
  HW Points Machines
  HW Points Machines
  Public Sector: Efficiency Review
  Public Sector: Efficiency Review