Sitting of 8 September 2003

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

    Eurotighter
    Miss Anne McIntosh: If he will make a statement on the date of entry into service of the Eurofighter. [128418]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): As I announced in my written statement on 30 June, Eurofighter Typhoon achieved type acceptance on that day, triggering the process of bringing the aircraft into service with the Royal Air Force. That process is going well. Test flying is now under way to establish the safety parameters for RAF pilot training, and we hope to start operational evaluation activities next month.
    Miss McIntosh: I thank the Defence Secretary for that answer. He is aware of the tremendous contribution of those based at RAF Leeming and RAF Linton, and in Dishforth air brigade and Alanbrooke barracks in the
    2
    conflict in Iraq. Will he assure the House that the commitment to purchase 232 Typhoon aircraft will be carried out in full and will be delivered on time? When does he expect those aircraft to enter into service at RAF Leeming?
    Mr. Hoon: I join the hon. Lady in paying tribute to all members of the armed forces based in her constituency who have served in Iraq, and all those who have supported those who have served in Iraq. I give her the assurance that there will be no changes in the Government's plans for procuring Eurofighter Typhoon. We anticipate changes to the way in which those aircraft are configured, but those matters will be set out more clearly in the forthcoming White Paper.
    Mr. David Borrow: My right hon. Friend will be aware that many of my constituents work on the Eurofighter in Lancashire. I am sure that he would wish to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the workmanship of the employees of BAE Systems for their work on the Eurofighter Typhoon and on the Hawk jet advanced trainer. May I thank him for the recent order for trainers for our armed forces, as a result of which there has been an order from the Indian Government for those planes? The fact that those orders have been given shows the skill and integrity of our work force.
    Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am tempted to say that he has left me little to add to his comments. Lately, I have been in regular negotiations with BAE Systems, and one of the strongest arguments put forward by the company is the quality, consistency and reliability of its work force.
    Mr. David Heath: What consideration has been given to the marinisation of the Eurofighter to enable it to fly off the two new aircraft

    3
    carriers? If the specification of the aircraft carriers is to be reduced, will the Eurofighter still be an appropriate plane to fly off them?
    Mr. Hoon: That was the subject of a significant discussion that took place when options for those aircraft carriers were being considered. Those issues were resolved largely by our decision to purchase the joint strike fighter. If the hon. Gentleman considers carefully the way in which an aircraft could be made suitable for flying off a carrier, he will realise that it is not merely a question of adding a few nuts and bolts here and there to convert it. It becomes a completely new aircraft, and that was not possible.
    Shona McIsaac: Hawk aircraft are essential to train pilots for the Eurofighter. The recent Government announcement was welcomed by my constituents who work at BAE Systems in Brough. What action does my right hon. Friend intend to take further to promote Hawk aircraft internationally to secure those jobs at Brough for the long term?
    Mr. Hoon: Well over 2,000 jobs have been sustained at Brough as a result of the decision to which my hon. Friend referred. She is right to pay tribute to the quality of the work force at Brough. We are already seeing the benefit of the decision on the purchase of Hawk 128 with the welcome news of the Indian Government's order for Hawk as their advanced jet trainer. I anticipate that that will be the first of many further orders for Hawk.
    Mr. Michael Jack: In echoing the remarks of the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow), and given the Secretary of State's reply to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), may I ask him when he expects the decision to be made on the signing for tranche 2? People are busy on tranche 1, but they want to know that there will be continuity for the Eurofighter, and a response on tranche 2 would be appreciated.
    Mr. Hoon: That decision is on track, and I shall inform the House as soon as it has been taken.

    Iraq
    Mr. Andrew Mackay: If he will make a statement on troop levels in Iraq. [128419]
    Mr. Clive Soley: If he will make a statement on the peacekeeping role of UK troops in Iraq. [128423]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): As this is the first opportunity for the House to consider the situation in Iraq since mid-July, I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will understand if I give a detailed response.
    Security in Iraq remains a significant priority for the coalition provisional authority. Coalition forces have continued to sustain losses and injuries, including the deaths of a further seven United Kingdom servicemen. In addition, we have seen a disturbing increase in terrorism directed against civilian targets, in particular
    4
    the despicable attacks on the Jordanian embassy and the UN headquarters, the bomb in An Najaf on 29 August and the most recent killing, of a British mine disposal expert.
    The House will want to extend its condolences to the families and friends of those, military and civilian, who have died trying to provide a better future for the people of Iraq.
    Long-term security is the key to building a politically stable and economically secure Iraq. The coalition has already trained the Iraqi police force, now 37,000 strong, the 14,000 members of the facilities protection service and the 2,500-strong Iraqi border police. Efforts are also under way to accelerate the recruitment and training of 18 battalions of the Iraqi civil defence corps. Those important new Iraqi security structures are crucial for the country's future stability, and we aim to increase substantially the numbers of all of those over the coming months in order to free coalition troops for more dynamic security-related operations.
    In addition, British forces continue to make a crucial contribution to maintaining security and peace in Iraq. We currently retain more than 10.000 UK servicemen and women in the country, taking part in a wide range of operations from the borders of Iraq to the southern interior. Those include both traditional military security-related tasks and supporting the civilian-led reconstruction process.
    Following a formal review, the UK divisional commander in theatre has requested that we bolster the capabilities available to him. There is an immediate requirement for two battalions and some additional specialist personnel. As I made clear in my written statement to the House today, those additional troops, the majority of whom will be contributed by 2nd Battalion the Light Infantry and 1st Battalion the Royal Green Jackets, will be deploying for two specific reasons. First, they will allow commanders in theatre to increase their proactive efforts to improve wider security across the area of operations. Secondly, they will allow them to respond appropriately to the increasing demands resulting from the accelerated reconstruction programme being undertaken by the Department for International Development and the coalition provisional authority.
    That essential programme will deliver—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister is making a statement.
    Mr. Mackay: May I put it to the Secretary of State that his overlong answer is a good illustration as to why there should have been an oral statement? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It is a disgrace. In my 20 years in the House, I have never known a Secretary of State for Defence not give an oral statement to the House when so many troops have been deployed. Is not the simple truth that post-conflict Iraq is a shambles because there was no proper planning, which means that although we won the war we are in danger of losing the peace, due to the incompetence of the Secretary of State and his colleagues?
    Mr. Hoon: I do not accept that for a moment, and I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman takes that view.

    5
    Given that Defence questions are taking place today, that the Foreign Secretary is making a statement on the situation in Iraq immediately afterwards, and that there is a defence debate tomorrow and a further one on Thursday, there is ample opportunity for Members of the House to debate the situation in Iraq.
    Mr. Soley: My right hon. Friend will recall that the British armed forces have a remarkably successful track record not only in peacekeeping but in training the armed forces of other countries. Has not it been clear for some considerable time that the most urgent task is to train an Iraqi army to take over security in that country? Will he make sure that any additional troops that we deploy are used for that purpose because that is the key to this difficult area of policy?
    Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend is right to emphasise the importance not only of preserving security by using coalition forces but of using them so well to train a range of security forces in Iraq. He is right also to emphasise the need to train an Iraqi army, but in addition, as I indicated to the House a few moments ago, it is important to have an effective, growing police force, with static patrolling, as well as the various border police who are being trained. We want to see, as soon as possible, the transfer of security responsibilities to Iraqis, so that they can take responsibility for their own affairs. That is a matter of urgency for the Government.
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I join the Secretary of State in paying tribute to our armed forces in Iraq and elsewhere. In particular, I pay tribute to those who have given their lives since the House last met to discuss these matters.
    I fully concur with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay). In the absence of a full oral statement to the House of Commons, it is we, the Opposition, who have tabled a motion to discuss these matters tomorrow, in Opposition time. We had to do so because Thursday's debate is entitled "Defence in the UK", which will not give us the opportunity to discuss matters in Iraq.
    This reinforcement underlines the fact that the Government's policy in Iraq is a shambles. Moreover, today's written statement says that the Secretary of State may yet send further reinforcements. He still does not have a plan that is fully formed. We were reassured before the conflict that plans were already in place for the reconstruction of Iraq. Can he tell the House why that has gone wrong, or does he not recall attending any meetings about the reconstruction of Iraq?
    Mr. Hoon: The plan is the plan set out clearly by the Major-General who has responsibility on the ground. He has carefully reviewed the military situation and judges it necessary to have more troops given the present situation.
    It is important also that we make urgent progress on improving infrastructure in southern Iraq, especially the availability of electricity, fuel and water. Those basic, essential commodities of life have been threatened not by resistance to our presence in Iraq but largely by criminal elements in that country. We want to see significant and sustained improvement in that
    6
    infrastructure. It will therefore require protecting if it is to have an impact. I should have thought that all right hon. and hon. Members would support such an approach.
    Mr. Jenkin: I certainly agree that further troops are required to be deployed, but the reason for that is the Government's failure to implement the reconstruction programme to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. It is not good enough for him to hide behind his military advice. Does he know what the military objectives of UK forces are? What are the benchmarks for their success? What are the target dates for the achievement of those benchmarks, or is this part of a Foreign Office-led initiative that was leaked last week? For once, will the right hon. Gentleman take responsibility for what is going on in his Department, or is he still playing the part of the "Not me, guy" Secretary of State?
    Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman has just asked the same question again. Tempted though I am to repeat the answer, I shall not do so. It is important that all Secretaries of State take military advice, not substitute their own judgments in the way in which the hon. Gentleman appears tempted to do. Secondly, it is important to ensure that that is part of a co-ordinated plan—that is co-ordinated not only with Government Departments in this country but with our ally, the United States. I would be interested to know whether the hon. Gentleman's criticisms of the situation in Iraq extend to the United States.
    David Winnick: Is it not important for agreement to be reached in the Security Council for troops to come from many other countries, including Muslim ones? Should not such an agreement, if it be reached, mean that the countries sending troops will have a political say in the future of Iraq? Surely we want to get rid of the notion that only Britain and the United States are deciding the future of that country.
    Mr. Hoon: I agree with my hon. Friend to the extent that the United Kingdom, together with the United States, has led the effort to promote a new Security Council resolution on Iraq. I anticipate that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will be dealing with that in more detail in a moment. I would not want my hon. Friend or the House to leave with the idea that only British and American forces are deployed in Iraq. The forces of some 25 countries are in Iraq already, and the forces of about seven of those countries are playing a full part in the United Kingdom's area of responsibility in the south.
    Mr. Paul Keetch: I begin by adding our support to the new forces for Iraq announced by the Secretary of State, and we join in the condolences for those recently killed. Whatever reservations we had about the conflict, if our commanders on the ground require additional forces, they should be sent.
    Will the Secretary of State confirm that the additional troops being sent into theatre today will receive the desert equipment and transport that they require so that they will not have to rely on locally hired vehicles? Does he anticipate any future call-up of reservists in the near

    7
    future for help in Iraq? We welcome the emphasis that is placed on training local Iraqi forces, but on reflection was the coalition wrong to disband the Iraqi army?
    Mr. Hoon: As for transport, I anticipate that not only will there be extra forces but there will be appropriate extra equipment as requested by the theatre commander. We have recently made an announcement about the call-up of reservists. I anticipate that, consistent with the usual practice, we have sent out more notices than the number of reservists that we will require, given the numbers of those who will be exempt on appropriate grounds. It is important that we develop a properly trained and modern Iraqi army to deal with the present situation, and not an army that clings to the past and to the regime of Saddam Hussein.
    Mr. Robin Cook: Does my right hon. Friend accept that no reasonable Member could object to the reinforcements necessary for the security of our troops in that sector? However, does he also accept that those of us who had doubts about whether it was wise to go into Iraq in the first place have not had those doubts removed by today's announcement? Was my right hon. Friend aware of the reservations of his defence intelligence staff about the September dossier—for instance that the 45-minute claim was based on nebulous intelligence? If he was, how was it that the House and the Cabinet were presented with a dossier that did not reflect the reservations of his own intelligence experts?
    Mr. Hoon: As for reinforcements, I accept that for people like my right hon. Friend who had reservations about the deployment at the time, it may well be that such reinforcements are not persuasive. All I would say is that given the situation on the ground now and the importance of resolving it, I hope that he and those who had doubts will join me in hoping that those reinforcements will be the first step to rebuilding Iraq as a peaceful, successful and prosperous member of the international community. As for the question of intelligence, he knows from his previous responsibilities that intelligence questions of that kind are resolved, as they are required to be resolved, through the Joint Intelligence Committee machinery—something set up as long ago as the late 1950s. If hon. Members look carefully at the situation that arose after Suez, they will see that those intelligence matters were resolved by the JIC, not by departmental discussion.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: The Secretary of State will be aware that I, too, share doubts about the grounds on which we went into Iraq. It was almost inevitable that doubts about legitimacy would make the peace much more difficult. While I welcome the arrival of more troops and hope for their safety, does the Secretary of State not understand that until we get political legitimacy in Iraq right, our troops will be vulnerable? Will he try to reassure the House that measures are being taken to bring in Pakistani, Indian, Egyptian and Turkish troops, which will depend on a political resolution in the United Nations?
    Mr. Hoon: There are two aspects to political legitimacy. There is the aspect to which the hon.
    8
    Gentleman referred—the importance, as I have said already, of a new Security Council resolution involving a still wider coalition of international forces. I have no argument with that, but, equally, political legitimacy depends on ensuring security in Iraq is sufficient to allow Iraqis themselves to engage in the process of government. Significant progress has been made on that, but we want more, and we want the Government of Iraq to be handed over to the Iraqi people. We want that to happen as quickly as possible. That, too, is an aspect of political legitimacy.
    Donald Anderson: To avoid a further slide into instability, clearly these immediate reinforcements are necessary. Surely, however, we also need to look beyond the existing coalition partners and the seven key countries that have provided troops thus far. What is my right hon. Friend's estimate of the time that it will take from the making of a decision to bring in other countries—India, Pakistan, Morocco and Turkey—so that they can make a full contribution to Iraq's stability?
    Mr. Hoon: My right hon. Friend is right to sound a note of caution—there is always a delay between a political agreement and the consequential deployment of forces. However, I am confident, given the progress that we have made so far in preliminary discussions in the United Nations, that a further resolution will be forthcoming. It will then be the task, not least of the United Kingdom, to persuade a number of other countries to deploy their own forces in support of that resolution.
    Sir Archy Kirkwood: Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that there is a continuing concern about heat-related illness in theatre? Is he satisfied that our serving forces are adequately protected, and how long will it be before 100 per cent. of our serving soldiers have some access to air conditioning?
    Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that issue. I know that other right hon. and hon. Members are similarly concerned. The deployment takes place on the basis of the best possible medical advice and determined efforts are made to ensure that that medical advice reaches every last serviceman and woman, and appropriate steps are taken. Where there is a concern that a soldier is suffering from the effects of heat, that person is withdrawn from theatre, if that is judged necessary.

    Cyprus
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: If he will make a statement on the threat from terrorism to UK forces in Cyprus. [128427]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin): All threats to United Kingdom forces in Cyprus are carefully monitored and contingency plans are in place to handle a range of eventualities, including the possibility of terrorist attack.
    Mr. Hawkins: As the Minister is well aware, I have many constituents serving in the Royal Logistic Corps and other regiments stationed on the sovereign bases on Cyprus or working as troops under UN command. Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that there are many of us in all parts of the House who take an interest in Cyprus and who are concerned at the potential risks to our forces there? Is he prepared to meet those of us who take an interest in Cyprus to discuss those concerns? Will he confirm that the Government intend to keep in regular touch with President Tassos Papadopoulos and the Government of the Republic of Cyprus on any terrorist threats to the sovereign bases or to the Republic of Cyprus?
    Mr. Caplin: I know of the hon. Gentleman's interest in the matter, and the interest taken by the entire House. There are many parliamentary groups that represent the interests of Cyprus. Clearly, the important thing for us is protection of our armed forces, and I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that that is one of our highest priorities in Cyprus. I will be happy to meet him and other colleagues, as I am sure would others in the Ministry.
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: Cyprus is one of the countries that last year's Iraq dossier clearly implied could be attacked at 45 minutes' notice. How does that square with John Scarlett's evidence to the Hutton inquiry that the 45 minutes referred to battlefield mortars and small-calibre weaponry—clearly not weapons of mass destruction capable of reaching Cyprus? So to which weapons was the Prime Minister referring in his own preface when he stated that Iraq's military planning
    "allows for some of the WMD to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them"?
    Perhaps the Secretary of State's special adviser might be able to give us a more accurate answer.
    Mr. Caplin: We stand by our assessment in the dossier of 24 September. That element of the threat has been significantly reduced by the recent operations in Iraq.

    Balkans
    Mr. John Wilkinson: If he will make a statement on the security situation in the Balkans. [128428]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): The overall security situation in the Balkans remains stable.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Can the Minister then explain why the European Union has not yet taken over control of the peacekeeping elements of the Alliance in Bosnia? Why
    10
    has NATO maintained its command structure in that area? Does the Minister foresee a change in the current arrangements?
    Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman is aware that the autumn periodic mission review is being carried out by NATO and that will condition our thinking about the NATO posture in the months ahead. The close relationship between NATO and the EU looking towards the future structure in Bosnia will continue and we will work in harmony to achieve that end.
    David Taylor: Following the assassination of Zoran Djindjic on 12 March in Belgrade, a state of emergency was declared and more than a thousand people were detained by the Serbian police. There have been widespread allegations that torture is being used to extract information from those who have been arrested. Could the Minister tell the House what observations and knowledge he has of that?
    Mr. Ingram: I can give my hon. Friend an absolute assurance that where there is any breach of human rights in any of the areas where we have an interest and personnel on the ground, we would carry out the actions required to ensure full compliance with human rights. I point out to my hon. Friend that it is not just a matter of the United Kingdom's interest in the matter—it is the United Nations and all the other nations that are trying to make sure that the Balkans and Bosnia come into the comity of nations as part of the overall objectives that we are seeking by our presence on the ground there.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: How long has the badly overstretched British Army been in Kosovo, and how long does the Secretary of State expect it to remain there?
    Mr. Ingram: Until the job is done.

    Afghanistan
    Linda Gilroy: If he will make a statement on the security situation in Afghanistan. [128430]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): We and our allies in NATO, in the coalition and more widely, continue to work to help the Afghan people bring greater security to their country. The United Kingdom's contribution to that effort is significant. We are an important troop contributor to the international security assistance force in Kabul. We lead the provincial reconstruction team in Mazar-e-Sharif and we are active in support for security sector reform.
    Linda Gilroy: Given the tragic death of the two American soldiers in August, and given the attacks on non-governmental organisations such as Save the Children, may I press my right hon. Friend to say more about how the provincial reconstruction teams can be enabled to provide security throughout Afghanistan?
    Mr. Hoon: I share my hon. Friend's concern about the deaths of not just members of the armed forces but of

    11
    those working for NGOs—working hard to reconstruct Afghanistan. The whole point of the provincial reconstruction teams, however, is not just to provide a degree of military security but to bring together representatives of the Department for International Development and the Foreign Office so that they can unite in development work, and enable people in places such as Mazar-e-Sharif to feel reasonably confident that there is an international interest in development—and, crucially, that there is a central Government in Kabul who are responsible for the entire country.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Does the Secretary of State think it fair to say that the interim Government in Afghanistan have a reasonable amount of control over the metropolitan areas, but no influence or authority in the south-east? If that is so, does he accept that, while NATO has control at present—which I personally welcome—it is essential that the United States forces remain part of that NATO force?
    Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman's description of the situation in Afghanistan might have been accurate six months ago, when there was concern about the inability of the Government in Kabul to extend their authority elsewhere in the country. During those six months, however, the situation has improved steadily, and there are now clear signs that the Government in Kabul are extending their authority around the country. I accept that the south-east is experiencing some of the problems that are the most difficult to overcome—remnants of the Taliban remain in parts of the area—but there has been significant progress during those six months.
    Mrs. Ann Cryer: Does my right hon. Friend believe that the position of women in Afghanistan and their human rights are now better than they were before the confrontation with the country?
    Mr. Hoon: Their position is undoubtedly better than it was in the days of the Taliban. Schools have opened, women are being educated, and a much fairer, more tolerant society is developing. That is not to deny that there is still considerable progress to be made.
    Mr. Hugo Swire: What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the Pakistani and Afghan Governments' continuing concern about the number of al-Qaeda terrorists who are allegedly operating from Pakistan back into Afghanistan? Has he been asked to provide any extra special forces, and will he support the Americans in their endeavours to deal with this acute problem?
    Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight a particular area of difficulty. The border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan has been a source of difficulty not just since this particular conflict, but for hundreds of years. It provides a safe haven for terrorists who move from one country to the other to escape the security authorities on both sides of the border. What we need, and what we have been encouraging, is action by the two Governments working closely together, and working closely with coalition forces. We continue to try to bring that about.

    Strategic Defence Review
    Ms Dari Taylor: What measures are being taken to improve the ability of Britain's armed forces to be more rapidly deployable as set out in the strategic defence review. [128431]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The 1998 strategic defence review established the concept of the joint rapid reaction force to provide more capable, more deployable and better-supported joint forces. In order to ensure its deployability, we have greatly enhanced our strategic air and sealift capability through the leasing of four C-17 aircraft and the phased acquisition of 25 new C-130Js and 25 A400M aircraft, six ro-ro vessels and a number of new ships to support amphibious and sea-based operations. The landing platform helicopter, HMS Ocean, together with our two new carriers planned to be in service in 2012 and 2015 respectively, provide a valuable additional capability in support of rapid deployment operations. All that represents a significant enhancement of the current and future mobility of our armed forces, the value of which has been demonstrated time and again, most recently in Sierra Leone, in Afghanistan and obviously in Iraq.
    Ms Taylor: In thanking my right hon. Friend for that frankly excellent reply, may I ask him as he prepares the defence White Paper to ensure that the new structures for the armed forces, if there are to be such structures, and the equipment provided for them are the best available? We ask our armed forces to do an increasingly complex task and they deserve the best. In his considerations, will he look at language training for the armed forces, particularly the infantry? I think that that is more and more of a requirement. Finally, does he agree—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That makes two questions.
    Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend will recall that when I announced the £3.5 billion extra spending in the defence budget last year, I said that the additional resources for defence were a mandate for accelerating the modernisation and evolution of the armed forces. I am sure that that extends to language training as well. I have set out to the House on many occasions the need to adapt our armed forces to changes in the strategic environment and technology. In doing so, we need to apply the lessons of recent operations, focusing on what can be achieved—on the effects—and move away from a rather outdated approach that simply counts the number of platforms and units.
    Derek Conway: Is the Secretary of State content with the quality and availability of kit deployable at company and battalion infantry level in the theatres in which our troops are now working? Despite whatever difficulties he is experiencing at the moment, the jury on supplies and services to our front-line troops will be very harsh on him indeed if he continues to behave as he is and send men and women into active theatre without decent and serviceable equipment.
    Mr. Hoon: I simply do not accept that that has been done. While there is always a necessary trade-off

    13
    between efficiency and delivery, I assure the hon. Gentleman that no decisions are taken to allow our forces to go into dangerous situations without the appropriate equipment. What is important is that we reach our destination quickly. If we simply wait for every last piece of equipment to be available, the rapid deployability that I described will not be such a strong feature of our armed forces and so envied by other countries.
    Dr. Nick Palmer: In assessing the Secretary of State's observations, it would be helpful to know the background when we took office in 1997. How much force were we able to deploy rapidly in 1997? Did it differ significantly from zero?
    Mr. Hoon: It did differ from zero. I accept that the United Kingdom has always had the ability to deploy certain forces rapidly—that was a hallmark of those forces. What has changed since 1997 is that that has become commonplace for our forces and in all three services, as well as the support systems that they require. There has been a very significant step change in the ability of our armed forces to deploy rapidly.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: The Secretary of State says that it is outdated to count platforms, yet he must be aware that the First Sea Lord has expressed concern that the 32 frigates and destroyers that he currently has available may not be enough for the tasks in hand. Will the Secretary of State give the House an assurance today that he has no plans to cut further the numbers of frigates, destroyers or submarines? If he will not give that assurance, will he tell us by how many he intends to cut those classes of vessel? If he does not want to answer directly, will he undertake to brief the MOD press office to give the right answer to any journalist who comes up with the right numbers?
    Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman is obviously an assiduous reader of The Sunday Telegraph. Unfortunately, in reading The Sunday Telegraph he should not be seduced into thinking that he is reading the news. The interview in yesterday's newspaper, to which he refers, was conducted on 21 January this year and published on 7 March. The article has an invented headline and contains a purported quotation that is extracted from several different parts of that interview. It omits various quotations from the First Sea Lord, such as:
    "I think the Royal Navy is in a very good condition…I think…the Navy has an equipment programme in progress that is its biggest since I joined the Royal Navy 37 years ago."
    A whole series of selective extracts are used to create the quotation in The Sunday Telegraph.
    The reality is that we have set out clearly to the House the importance of ensuring the availability of equipment to do a particular job. If the hon. Gentleman wants simply to count platforms, he will no doubt include HMS Victory in that.
    Mr. Russell Brown: My right hon. Friend will be aware that during recent weeks we have heard several rumours emanating from Opposition Members to the effect that we are about to lose a number of our regiments. Quality regiments such as the King's Own
    14
    Scottish Borderers and the Cheshires have been put very much at the forefront of people's minds. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that they are nothing more than rumours, and can he scotch the whole notion of dispensing with some of our quality regiments? Does he agree that that does nothing to assist the morale and recruitment of those regiments?
    Mr. Hoon: I can confirm to my hon. Friend that those observations are no more than rumours. Speculation about the loss of infantry battalions is certainly damaging to those in the regiments that he mentioned, to their families and to their morale. I encourage people not to repeat such speculation.
    Angus Robertson: In that case, will the Secretary of State give a categorical assurance to the House that none of the historic regiments in the UK armed forces is set to be amalgamated or disbanded? If he is not prepared to give that assurance, how on earth can he argue that it would improve the deployability of the armed forces?
    Mr. Hoon: I find it rather surprising that the Scottish nationalists should take such an astonishing interest in defence given that, as I understand it, their policy remains to withdraw from NATO and from any kind of international defence organisation—in which case, there would be no regiments left to defend.

    Arctic Medal
    Mr. John Randall: If the Government will award a medal to British veterans of the Arctic conflict in the second world war. [128432]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin): Service on the convoys to northern Russia during the second world war was recognised by the award of the Atlantic star. The qualifying criteria, which were published at the time, were quite specific and included service in Arctic waters. I have no plans to revisit that decision.
    Mr. Randall: I am rather disappointed by that, and I ask the Minister to reconsider the matter, particularly in view of the welcome announcement of the decision to award a medal to Suez veterans. Perhaps Suez is more on his mind at the moment. Can the Minister give an assurance that veterans awaiting Suez medals will not have to wait several years, as has been reported?
    Mr. Caplin: I do not think that it is appropriate to draw a comparison between the two medals. The Suez medal is being awarded following consideration by the honours and decorations committee. Action is being taken to ensure that once final decisions are made on the Suez medal, those awards—[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) should reflect on what the Speaker often says to him: "Keep calm, keep calm." Medals will be made available as soon as possible. I hope that some will be available for Remembrance Sunday; certainly, all will be distributed within the next two years.
    Mr. Neil Turner: May I say how disappointed I am by my hon. Friend's response? The

    15
    climatic conditions imposed unique privations on those who served in the Arctic convoys. Moreover, they faced unique military situations in that they were attacked by forces above the sea, namely the Luftwaffe; on the sea, by German heavy units; and below the sea, by U-boats. The Royal Navy recognised that in the way in which it responded with heavy units of the home fleet, fighting destroyer escorts and escort carriers.
    None of those was part of the Atlantic forces. May I suggest that my hon. Friend reconsiders the matter and appreciates a unique position that should be honoured by a unique medal for the people who served in those convoys?
    Mr. Caplin: I say to my hon. Friend that I do not in any way undermine the role that those men played and their efforts in the second world war. At the time, the commander-in-chief requested a medal, but there was no conclusive evidence that the case was ever fully considered. The honours and decorations committee ultimately made the decision.

    Gulf
    Roger Casale: What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of logistic support to sustain British forces in the Gulf region. [128434]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): The Ministry of Defence is in the middle of a comprehensive analysis to identify lessons from operations in Iraq. That includes an assessment of the effectiveness of logistic support provided to our armed forces across the Gulf region. Our initial findings were published in early July in the MOD report, "Operations in Iraq 2003: First Reflections", copies of which are in the Library. We plan to publish a fuller report before Christmas.
    Roger Casale: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Through involvement in charitable work in Kosovo, I have seen at first hand the logistic support that is provided to British troops in other fields of conflict, and I therefore have every confidence that such support and equipment in the Gulf region and Iraq are remarkably successful, despite press reports to the contrary. However, what is the Ministry of Defence doing to learn lessons quickly from the difficulties and problems that have arisen? What further measures is my right hon. Friend taking to improve logistic support for our troops?
    Mr. Ingram: My hon. Friend makes a range of interesting points. He is right that our achievements in a short period—by everyone in the logistic supply chain, whether civilian or military—are remarkable. People excelled themselves and I pay tribute to them.
    In my earlier reply, I said that we intended to give a fuller response by Christmas. That should give my hon. Friend encouragement that we will provide an in-depth analysis of what happened, where the weaknesses, if they exist, lie and how we can remedy them.
    16
    For the air and land logistic support supply chain, we have put in place a comprehensive study, the "End to End" study, which covers £11.2 billion of expenditure and 105,000 personnel, roughly split 60:40 between military and civilian. It is an intensive study to ensure that everything that we do in the supply chain fulfils the top requirements of the front line. That must be our objective at all times. Iraq will condition our thinking, as previous conflicts have done.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: Does the Minister agree that the availability of logistics depends on that of money? Will he confirm that the enhanced troop enhancements in Iraq run at approximately £200 million a month, on top of the £1 billion already spent, according to the Ministry of Defence? Since the Chancellor's £3 billion war budget is likely to be spent before the end of the financial year, what other defence cuts might have to be made to fund it?
    Mr. Ingram: None, because all the money to which the hon. Gentleman referred comes from the reserve. We have made it clear time after time that we are determined to get the job done.
    Mr. John Smith: May I endorse my right hon. Friend's comments about the success of logistic support in Iraq? I refer particularly to the many examples of British logistic support for our United States allies, especially in southern Iraq, and the Royal Air Force's support for the US air force.
    Will my right hon. Friend also acknowledge the invaluable role of third-line reinforcements and the surge capacity within that during the Iraq conflict, and the inherent dangers of pushing it on to operational stations, where there will be no transparency of cost and it will be much more difficult to measure efficiency?
    Mr. Ingram: That is a very technical question. I acknowledge my hon. Friend's points, and that is why I referred to the "End to End" study. We must consider the four levels of support that are currently provided. Those lines of support were put in place to deal with a threat different from the one we face now; that was part of our forward-facing posture towards the cold war and the threat that was envisaged.
    We have to examine whether what we are doing now is appropriate, which is why I mentioned the size of the budget and the numbers of people involved at all levels. The matter will be subject to full consultation.
    I recognise my hon. Friend's constituency interest in the Defence Aviation Repair Agency establishment in St. Athan; this must be the first time that he has asked me a question without mentioning it. I have given him due recognition that I know where he is coming from and I pay tribute to him for all his efforts.

    Army (Manning)
    Mr. Julian Brazier: What the manning shortfall is in the (a) Regular Army and (b) Territorial Army. [128435]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin)): As at 1 July 2003, regular whole Army strength stood at 102,520, representing a shortfall of 4,220 personnel against the current requirement and Territorial Army strength stood at 37,650, representing a shortfall of 3,550. The Territorial Army strength figures include personnel mobilised in support of operations.
    Mr. Brazier: Will the Under-Secretary confirm that we are still five years away from the point at which the Government estimate that the Regular Army will come up to strength? It is not acceptable to shift the desperately heavy burden on the Regular Army still further on to the reserves, in some cases by threatening reservists with a second six-month compulsory call-out when some have done a voluntary six-month call-out before their first compulsory one. The whole House is proud of the territorials who have gone out to serve, including my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), but there is a limit to how much of the burden reservists can take. The fact is that we do not have enough troops for the jobs the Government are giving them.
    Mr. Caplin: I am certainly looking forward to the return of the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne). Recruitment and retention measures introduced by the Government for the Regular Army and the TA are starting to pay dividends, in that we have at last stopped the downward trend in recruitment to both the Army and the TA. That is why strength is now improving.
    Mr. Andrew Miller: Is it not the case, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) said, that recruitment and retention is made worse by some of the scare stories that are put around? Is it not about time that we had responsible comments from the Opposition, although I know that that is not the Under-Secretary's job? Will he join me in praising the work of the Cheshire regiment in attempting to retain and recruit new members for the regiment?
    Mr. Caplin: I should be happy to put on record my support for the work of the Cheshire regiment, which does an excellent job. I hope to be in the north-west next month and may well take the opportunity to visit it.
    Mr. Keith Simpson: The Under-Secretary is only too well aware that recruitment and retention into the Regular Army and the TA relies upon those involved having confidence in the MOD and the system in which they are working: in particular, those deployed in the Gulf and elsewhere, and their families, depend on a duty to care. Does the Minister believe that members of our armed forces and their families have been impressed by what has happened at the Hutton inquiry, in which the Secretary of State—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot have every question coming on to the Hutton inquiry. [Interruption.] I am telling the hon. Gentleman. I allowed the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) to speak on it; perhaps I was a bit slow on the uptake. I am not allowing the question. Does the Minister wish to try to answer?
    Mr. Caplin indicated dissent.

    Armed Forces (Logistic Support)
    David Wright: What recent steps he has taken to enhance the cost-effectiveness of the logistic support to the armed forces. [128436]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): The Defence Logistics Organisation is responsible for logistic support to the armed forces. A comprehensive programme of change is in train to improve both the effectiveness and the efficiency of the Defence Logistics Organisation. This change programme is being managed by the head of the Defence Logistics Organisation, the chief of defence logistics, as part of the wider defence change programme.
    David Wright: Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking the people of Telford for the tremendous work that they have done in defence logistics over the last 12 months to support our troops in theatres of conflict? Is he aware, however, that there is growing concern among the people carrying out such work about the review of future defence supply chain initiative processes? Will he reassure them that in-house bids will be taken seriously, and that private sector bids will not automatically be considered to be more competitive?
    Mr. Ingram: I was grateful to my hon. Friend for raising some of those issues at a recent meeting with me, at which I was able to give him certain assurances. I can now give the assurance publicly to the House that every effort will be put into achieving the best in-house solution by the Ministry of Defence. We will work closely with the unions to achieve that, because we want a proper level playing field.
    I have had the opportunity to meet many of those who are employed in the supply chain, at Telford and elsewhere, and been able to pass on to them my personal appreciation of all that they have done in the Gulf conflict and the conflicts that preceded it, as well as what they will undoubtedly do in what may follow on. They are an integral part of what we do, but, of course, industry and the private sector have partnership roles—individual roles—to play in meeting that supply chain demand. I can, however, give my hon. Friend the assurances that I gave him in that meeting, and I have also been able to give them to the staff concerned.

    Iraq
    Mr. George Osborne: When he last discussed the security situation in Iraq with the US Secretary of Defence. [128438]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): There are continuing close consultations between the Ministry of Defence and the US Department of Defence on the security situation in Iraq. I last spoke personally to Donald Rumsfeld on 29 July.
    Mr. Osborne: The US Defence Secretary has categorically ruled out placing US troops under United Nations command, whatever kind of UN resolution is

    19
    drawn up. Will the Secretary of State give a similar categorical assurance that UK troops will not serve under UN command?
    Mr. Hoon: In recent operations, such as those in Afghanistan and Sierra Leone, we have not chosen to place UK forces under UN command, and I do not anticipate any need for that to occur.
    Harry Cohen: Are we not sending more troops to Iraq only because the US has asked for that to happen? Does not more troops mean more targets and more cost? How long are they going to be there, and at what cost? Is not sending more troops the first step towards a Vietnam syndrome, in which we send more and more troops for less and less result?
    Mr. Hoon: I do not accept that. As I have already set out to the House, we are sending the extra troops for two specific reasons: first, to give the operational commander on the ground more flexibility in carrying out security responsibilities; and secondly, to ensure that urgent reconstruction tasks can be carried through in order to avoid the temptations posed to criminals in southern Iraq to steal the very equipment that we are providing to help the people of Iraq.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: As one who supported the decision on 18 March and who does not have regrets, may I just express my slight surprise that the Secretary of State has not spoken to Mr. Rumsfeld since 29 July?
    Mr. Hoon: I did have arrangements to meet the US Defence Secretary during August, but, unfortunately, I received an invitation that I felt it was probably best not to resist.
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Although the American position on the United Nations' power in Iraq has been somewhat finessed of late, it is still fairly clear that the United States believe that their forces should not come under UN control. The British position on our forces is not clear, however. We all hope that the new forces going in will help to solve the problem, but what if that does not happen? What if we get mired even further in? Where is the British bottom line?
    Mr. Hoon: I am obviously not going to speculate as to the long-term future. I am confident, however, from the military advice that I have received, that this present force will be sufficient to carry out the two tasks that I have just set out to the House. It is also important that
    20
    we gain support from other countries willing to deploy their forces, so that we can significantly increase the number of forces in Iraq for the purposes of reconstructing the country and ensuring that it is safe and secure for its people.

    Territorial Army
    Mr. Robert Syms: If he will make a statement on his plans for the future size of the Territorial Army. [128439]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin): I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have heard the figures that I gave to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier). The Territorial Army will continue to support its regular counterparts on operations, as envisaged by the strategic defence review and the SDR new chapter. We expect to increase the current requirement by around 700 posts, in support of the enhanced capability in home defence that we outlined in the new chapter.
    Mr. Syms: Will the Government now acknowledge that major cuts a few years ago in the TA, including the 2nd Battalion, the Devonshire and Dorset Regiment, were a mistake not only because they reduced our reserves but because of their impact on recruitment from the TA to the regular armed forces, which are suffering with shortage of manpower?
    Mr. Caplin: As I said previously to the House, there have been recruitment and retention problems in the Territorial Army for some years now but thankfully those problems are being put behind us and we are seeing an increase in the numbers joining the TA.
    Mr. Frank Roy: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that those TA members serving in Iraq have proved their professionalism time and again. However, is he aware that those same Territorial Army personnel are at risk of losing their full-time civilian jobs, because they have been told that when they return from Iraq they still have to carry out their six weekends' camp or a 14-day continuous camp? Surely that is wrong and will put an intolerable strain on the relationship between the TA member and their employer.
    Mr. Caplin: We are in constant discussion with employers to ensure that that type of thing does not happen. If my hon. Friend has a specific case, I would welcome him writing to me about it.

Children's Green Paper
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Charles Clarke): With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to present to the House the children's Green Paper, "Every Child Matters". It is published alongside a detailed response to the Victoria Climbié inquiry report and a report by the social exclusion unit into the educational achievement of children in care.
I want to begin by thanking my colleague the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the Minister for Children and officials across Whitehall for the excellent work that they have done in preparing the Green Paper. The Chief Secretary's personal commitment to the central importance of inter-departmental partnership working was crucial to achieving these proposals.
The Green Paper sets out reforms covering children and young people from birth to 19 living in England. Our goals are both to protect children and young people and to ensure that each child has the opportunity to fulfil their potential. The death of Victoria Climbié exposed shameful failings in our ability to protect our most vulnerable children. On 12 occasions over 10 months, chances to save Victoria's life were not taken. Failings occurred across all services at all levels. While no society can entirely eliminate the risk of children being damaged or exploited, our society has a duty to give priority to the protection of children and to tackle the tragic and avoidable failures that occurred in Victoria Climbié's case as well as in other cases.
From past inquires into the deaths of Maria Colwell and Jasmine Beckford to recent cases such as Lauren Wright and Ainlee Walker, the list of problems is familiar: unwillingness of some of the most senior people in agencies to accept their own accountability; poor coordination across agencies; insufficient sharing of information; front-line workers who are often overloaded and under-supervised. But these issues do not just afflict the 80 children on average who die each year from abuse. Weak accountability, poor integration and work force pressures are all critical barriers to improving the lives of all our children. Too many children fall through the net only to reach a crisis that could have been avoided. Too many children are passed around the system only to end up in care, in prison, or worse.
Lord Laming in his admirable report makes it clear that nothing less than fundamental reform will address those issues. No single change alone is enough. National standards, inspection, information sharing, training, national and local structures, all need to change if we are to achieve real changes in culture and practice. Radical reform is needed to organise our services around the needs and priorities of children. I believe that the proposals that I am publishing today meet the reform challenges identified by Lord Laming. Our task is properly to put them into effect.
The central theme of the Green Paper is that every service, every professional, every community and every family must take responsibility for the protection of children. Child protection must not be ghettoised and seen to be the responsibility of only one profession—social work. It must be the responsibility of everyone, and so must be at the heart of all public services.
22
Equally, it is vital that every organisation has a positive vision of young people and high expectations for all of them, whoever they are, and wherever they live. Every Department is already trying to tackle the reasons why children are held back, whether through poverty, poor schooling, violence in communities, lack of activities for young people, or lack of access to health care, and I can confirm that we will continue this drive, rightly shifting the emphasis to prevention.
The Green Paper sets out comprehensive reforms to ensure that this approach is carried through. I believe that they extend the principles of our sure start programme, which have been widely welcomed, to all areas of child care in this country.
There are four main areas of reform, the first of which is supporting families and carers. We all know the critical influence that parents have on children, yet in the past we paid insufficient attention to the crucial role of families in improving children's lives. By bringing children's policy and family policy together within my Department, we will start to see how we can support families more effectively.
The Green Paper involves consultation on a long-term vision to support families through universal services providing information, advice and support, and through more targeted services. As a first step, we have created a parenting fund to build capacity in the voluntary and community sector, and we will introduce proposals to roll out nationally the current level of home visiting support provided by home start.
The second main area of reform is early intervention. For the majority of children, the combination of support from their families and schools is enough to enable them to thrive, but for a significant minority more help is needed. The potential of hundreds of thousands of young people is wasted, because help too often comes too little, too late. A child may be known to several services, but nobody shares the warning signs, so the necessary action is not taken. Children can be passed from agency to agency. They may be assessed again and again. They may be known to lots of professionals, but all are based in different places, working to different bosses and budgets, and—most damaging of all—with no one in overall charge.
We need to build a system that ensures that children receive help at the first onset of problems. Early intervention requires new forms of integration on the ground: information sharing systems; a common assessment framework; a lead professional coordinating packages of support; and professionals working together in multidisciplinary teams, based in and around the places where children and families spend their time—schools, children's centres and doctors' surgeries.
The Green Paper includes proposals to develop better early intervention on all those fronts, including legislating to ensure that professionals share information more effectively. We will always have to strike a balance between individuals' right to privacy and the need to share information to protect children, but I believe that the balance needs to be shifted towards sharing information better so that problems can be identified more rapidly and more effectively.
The third area of reform in the Green Paper is accountability and integration. Integration in practice means integrating our institutions, structures and

23
professions. That is the real focus of the Green Paper, tackling the underlying barriers to improving our services. Lasting change requires new institutional arrangements, not new initiatives.
Let me set out the key changes aimed at delivering clear accountability and integration in serving the needs of children. First, we will legislate to create the post of a director of children's services, accountable for local authority education and children's social services. As Lord Laming made clear, we must have a clearly named person in overall charge of children's well-being and protection in every part of the country. Secondly, to ensure clear accountability politically, we will create a lead council member for children.
Thirdly, in the medium and long term, our aim is to integrate key services for children and young people under the director of children's services, as part of children's trusts, bringing together the local education authority, children's social services, health services, and potentially others, including Connexions and youth offending teams, in a single organisational structure.
Of course, as Members of Parliament for our own constituencies, we all know the very real difficulties in joining up across boundaries. Our approach is to seek to break down boundaries altogether, and to organise services around children, at the core of our overall services.
Fourthly, there will always be some organisations outside the new children's trust, such as the police. We will therefore require the creation of local safeguarding children boards, to bring together all agencies to improve child protection. As part of this approach, we will also legislate to place a duty on all services to safeguard children. We must ensure that our children's safety is a priority across all services.
Fifthly, we will support local changes through national change, including the development of an integrated inspection framework, led by Ofsted, to ensure that all services are judged on how they work together.
Finally, where national standards are not met and our inspection system indicates failure, we must be tough on delivering changes. We will therefore create within my Department a strong focus on sharing effective practice and intervening in areas that are falling below national standards. In addition, I can announce that the Government will legislate at the earliest opportunity to create a children's commissioner to act as an independent champion for children. The commissioner will develop effective ways to draw on children's views, locally and nationally, and make sure that they are properly fed into policy making.
The final area of the Green Paper is work force reform. The reforms set out in it have two aims, the first of which is to tackle the recruitment and retention problems that are particularly acute in social work by making working with children an attractive, high-status career. Secondly, to improve the skills and teamworking of the work force, we need to ensure that our professionals work together with shared goals, shared values, shared language and shared priorities. We intend to introduce a package of changes to develop this: new career pathways to enable staff to acquire new specialist
24
skills, to enable sideways career moves, or to enable remaining in front-line services; a leadership programme to support the first generation of children's directors and their senior staff; a common core of training for those who work with children; reduced bureaucracy and work load pressures; and more flexible and attractive training routes into working with children, including expanding work-based training routes for graduates. To deliver this, we will work with employers and staff to create a sector skills council for children and young people.
I believe that the reform programme that we are delivering will mark a turning point in child protection. The legislation and institutional change that we are proposing will genuinely put children first. Reform will take time and will require commitment across government. Perhaps most critically and most difficult, it will require a process of cultural change, to build a society in which protection is embedded in all communities, professionals and services, locally and nationally. Our aim is to build a society in which truly every child matters, and in that spirit I commend these proposals to the House.
Mr. Damian Green: I am, as always, grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement and of the Green Paper, which results from one of the most horrible cases of the torture and murder of a child that any of us can remember. The Victoria Climbié case—following other terrible cases such as those of Lauren Wright, John Smith and Ainlee Walker—showed the need, as the Secretary of State said, for radical improvement in our ability to protect our most vulnerable children. We should all be grateful to Lord Laming for his very thorough report on the Climbié case.
All those cases teach that that level of horrendous cruelty is, thankfully, unusual, but, appallingly, not very unusual. That is why the delay in the Green Paper's publication has been so damaging, especially as the only reason for it seems to have been the protection of the new Minister for Children. Can the Secretary of State confirm weekend press reports that the Green Paper was ready for publication in early July, and that the measures in it—many of which will be welcomed on both sides of the House—have therefore been delayed for two months entirely for reasons of ministerial convenience?
That delay has been particularly harmful for the local authorities whose practices most need to change as a result of the Laming recommendations. In July Councillor Alison King, the chair of the Local Government Association social affairs and health executive, described the delays as "frustrating and disappointing". Since then we have wasted another two months.
The centrepiece of the announcement is the creation of a children's commissioner. Opposition Members hope that it proves to be an effective step forward and we certainly welcome measures that will raise the profile of child protection issues.
The Secretary of State spoke about legislating at the earliest available opportunity. Will he confirm that legislation will be introduced in the next Session? Can he also tell the House how the commissioner's

25
independence from the Government will be maintained, as that will be essential to preserving confidence in his work? Will he also confirm the wisdom of the view expressed by the Welsh children's commissioner this morning—that although a new commissioner will be useful, the real changes must come at local level among those who deliver the services?
The Secretary of State talked about early intervention, which we fully support, and about the need to share information better. Again, that is absolutely right. Does he accept that changes to the Data Protection Act 1998 will have to be made, and will he legislate to achieve them? He knows that what really matters for children at risk is the number of social workers, their training, local knowledge and ability to fit into a wider network of professionals. In that regard, how does he propose to deal with the issue raised by the chief inspector of social services when he said that another 50,000 staff were necessary to meet Government targets and revealed that 80 per cent. of some social work teams in some London boroughs are agency staff? With the best will in the world, they cannot be expected to have detailed local knowledge and sensitivities. Without that essential base, all the initiatives launched in the Green Paper will not be effective. Two years ago, the then Secretary of State for Health uttered similar words to those that we have heard today about attracting more social workers. Nothing happened before, so why should it be different this time?
One key message from Laming that I am glad to see the Government have taken on board—I hope that the Minister for Children, who has decided to leave our debate on this important document published under her responsibility, also accepts it—is the need for clear lines of accountability within local authorities and between national and local agencies.
Of course, we all hope that, after the changes, it will be necessary to identify much less often who was ultimately responsible for a failure of children protection. However, we also know that the buck must stop with an identified individual and everyone must know who it is. Can the Secretary of State confirm who the person will be and whether local authorities will have any say in establishing it? The response of local authorities will be key. From what the Secretary of State has told the House today, it seems that local authorities will have no freedom to decide how best to meet the need for clear lines of responsibility. It seems that they will have to adhere to his central blueprint, even when they are well advanced in changing their structures. Does he believe that top-down centralisation is the best way forward?
On children's trusts, how standardised does the Secretary of State want them to be and how will clear lines of accountability be established? What will be their role in the key task of sharing information between professionals and monitoring how effectively it has been done?
On the responsibility of schools and teachers within the framework, will teachers take on any extra responsibilities under the proposals? Will they require extra training, and what effect will it have on the work load agreement, by which the Secretary of State rightly sets so much store? What will be the schools'
26
responsibility for children who seldom, if ever, turn up? Many of them will be precisely the children most vulnerable to long-term abuse.
The Secretary of State mentioned the police. On the necessary changes to police practice, the Laming report dealt with the level of priority given to child protection issues. Can he explain whether any new lines of responsibility have been created? Specifically, what authority will the children's commissioner, or the Minister for Children, have over police priorities? Is child protection now a priority for the police?
Can the Secretary of State clarify the role that he sees for the many excellent children's charities that have built up so much expertise in helping vulnerable children? Will they be engaged in a genuine partnership, and not just used to fill the gaps in professionally provided services?
Everyone, both in this House and outside it, wants the Green Paper to lead to a rapid and visible improvement in our system of child protection. That improvement will be measured not by the headlines or the number of initiatives, but by a thousand small local changes in information sharing, professional practice and the sensitivity of intervention. All the welcome intentions of the Secretary of State will come to nothing without the right people working where it matters. The Opposition hope that it works, and we give all our support to the social workers, health care professionals, teachers and volunteers who will help to make it work.
Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman raised nine questions that I could identify. His first point was about the timing of publication. As we said in the House in July, his points were entirely specious, and I hope that the substance of the proposals will be the basis of the debate. Since July the proposals have, in my view, been improved, and we have used the time well.
The hon. Gentleman's second point was about the children's commissioner. That is an important issue, which I want to get right, but it is not the centrepiece of the proposals. He is right to say that it is an important part of the proposals, but the centrepiece is the overall integrated approach. The hon. Gentleman cited what the Welsh commissioner said this morning, and he is right to say that what happens locally is by far and away the most important thing.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, in accordance with convention, I cannot comment on what legislation may or may not be in the Queen's Speech, but I can confirm that we seek early legislation on this matter if possible. I can also confirm that the independence of the children's commissioner is essential; he or she will report independently and will report to the House entirely freely on what he or she has to say.
The hon. Gentleman's third point was about early intervention and data sharing, and the Data Protection Act. I can confirm that legislation to enable data to be shared is a high priority. I cannot tell him of the precise implications for current legislation, including the Data Protection Act, but I can tell him that the first requirement will be to ensure that data can be properly shared.

27
The fourth point was about the social services inspector, and I agree with her that the high proportion—in some places, the very high proportion of agency staff is an unacceptable state of affairs, which has to be changed. That is why the document gives such a high priority to work force reform and all the issues associated with that. This is not simply a question of pay, although some people argue that it is; it is a question of training, status and esteem, and in particular it is a question of the team-building approach that I have tried to highlight today.
The hon. Gentleman's fifth question was about where responsibility ends. Local authorities will not have a choice about whether there should be a director of children's services. It is right that in every local authority in every part of the country it should be clear that there is one individual who bears full responsibility for every child involved. Where there will be flexibility is about precisely what is the best way to get there; that will be part of the consultation process. As we said in the debate that the House had on these matters in July, there are some quite difficult dilemmas about the role of current directors of education, directors of social services, chief executives and so on. I acknowledge that it would be a mistake to take a particular blueprint for a solution and impose it on every local authority in the country. Equally, it would be utterly mistaken to allow local authorities to evade setting a key responsibility in the way that I have set out.
The hon. Gentleman's sixth point was about standardisation of children's trusts. I do not envisage that they will be standardised in every respect. The bids in our pilot—I think that there were 26 of them—had a variety of different formats and approaches. Again, I would expect local circumstances to inform the best way of putting it all together, but I expect that in every local authority there will be a consistent drive to develop the kind of integrated regime that I have described under the children's trust approach.
As for teachers' training and responsibilities, there is a need across the board for a common core of training among professionals; that is set out in the Green Paper. Children who turn up rarely are principally the responsibility of educational social workers in the local authority rather than that of individual schools—but as the hon. Gentleman said, they too need to be part of the team.
The eighth point concerned police responsibilities. The setting of priorities for the police is and remains the responsibility of the chief constable in consultation with the police authority, and nothing we do can override that. We propose to place the legal responsibility to give priority to child protection on every service, including the police service, and we think that that will properly reflect the need for priorities to be set.
The final question was on children's charities. I strongly agree with the hon. Gentleman. I take this opportunity to express my respect and admiration for the work of many children's charities up and down the country. We very much welcome a partnership with
28
them. It is fair to say that many of them welcome these proposals as a means of building those partnerships in the right way.
Jean Corston: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and thank him for it. I warmly congratulate the Government on bringing forward legislation to establish a children's commissioner for England. He will know that the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which I have the privilege to chair, published a report on 12 May this year entitled "The Case for a Children's Commissioner for England". Members of the Committee will be delighted that they have helped to persuade the Government of the rightness of that course of action.
The Committee recommended
"the establishment of a children's commissioner who would be a champion for the children of England, independent from but working closely with central government and other agencies. The commissioner would use the principles of the"
convention on the rights of the child
"as a guide and measure in considering delivery of services to children by government and public authorities. and would involve children as much as was appropriate in its work."
Does my right hon. Friend recall that one of the most telling findings of Lord Laming was that Victoria Climbié's murderer—her great aunt—time and again had interviews and assessments with professionals, but not one person thought to ask that little girl what was going on in her life? Does he agree with me that the establishment of the post of a children's commissioner will at long last give our children the protection and advocacy that they need?
Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Her commitment on this subject, with which I am familiar, and the commitment of the Committee that she has the honour of chairing, have been important to the Government in coming to the view that they have. I pay tribute to the Committee for its report for the reason that she gave. Children need a voice, and her Committee's report referred to
"a champion for the children of England",
which is precisely what we need. One of the most depressing things for anyone in my position is the feeling that people sometimes do not listen to children enough. We must listen to children and understand what they say, and that applies right across the public services. I hope that the children's commissioner will help us all to do that better.
Mr. Paul Burstow: I rise on behalf of the Liberal Democrats to welcome much of the Green Paper and much of the Secretary of State's statement, especially the proposals to make local responsibilities clearer, and to establish a children's director at a local level and a children's commissioner in England. The Liberal Democrats have long called for the establishment of the post of children's commissioner for England.
In response to the Victoria Climbié case, it is right and vital that we acknowledge that responsibility does not lie just with the services and agencies, but that a response is required from the whole society if we are to ensure that the tragic death of that little girl is not just one of many in the future.

29
Will the Secretary of State say a little more about how he intends to ensure that at a local level all the agencies responsible for child protection policy and practice are genuinely working together? Will he institute a review of targets at a local level to ensure that agencies are not distracted from working together by targets that actively discourage them from doing so? Could not the children's director be charged with that responsibility at local level?
Will the Secretary of State explain why, having established pilots for children's trusts—which the Liberal Democrats have welcomed—he now seems to be prejudging that process by announcing an end-date by which most local authorities will have to have moved to such a model? Why has sure start not been referred to as one of the things that could be included in children's trusts?
I welcome what the Secretary of State said about the arm's-length nature of the children's commissioner. How will the commissioner report to the House, and how will he or she be accountable to children, so that they can have a say in what the commissioner does?
The Green Paper talks in terms of services for children and young people, and of responsibility for adults and service providers, but it says nothing about children's rights. Why does it say nothing about the proposal of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to incorporate the UN convention on the rights of the child, so that this country has a clear foundation of rights as the basis of law to protect our children?
I welcome the fact that we are seeking to make sure that there is a clear information flow, free and confidential, between agencies, but what about the rights of children and young people to have access to that information to ensure that it is correct? Will that information survive once the child becomes an adult, or will it be destroyed?
How will the consultation that the Green Paper launches ensure that the views and aspirations of children and young people are actively sought? The Green Paper does not say how that will be done; indeed, it makes only two references to involving children and asking their views.
Liberal Democrat Members welcome many of the proposals and will actively work with the Government to support them when legislation is introduced in the House. There have been too many delays in publishing this Green Paper and as a result too many children have died. We must end those deaths and take measures that can reduce the risk of such deaths in future.
Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that there have been too many deaths. As I said, there has been a steady average of about 80 deaths from abuse each year for the past 28 to 30 years. That is a staggering figure and an appalling state of affairs. That is why I argued in my statement that it will not be a particular initiative or stunt that will solve the problem but the ongoing development of practice.
I agree very much with what the hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his remarks about the need for a whole society response. I am influenced by the observation of the workings of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which many police described as one of the most successful legislative measures that they had
30
experienced. That is because the Act makes it absolutely clear that crime is not the responsibility of the police alone; it is the responsibility of the whole of society working together to solve the problem.
Exactly the same is true in child protection, where social workers have felt beleaguered and pushed from pillar to post, having to make hard, almost impossible, choices between intervening too much and intervening too little, with disasters and tragedies occurring time after time. It is critical that the whole society approach that the hon. Gentleman described is part of how we operate.
There will be joint work at local level. That is why we have a director of children's services and it is why we are establishing children's trusts and the local safeguarding children boards. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that may require a review of the targeting regime, both nationally and locally, to ensure that targeting is correctly focused.
On the pilot scheme and the end-date, we have, as the hon. Gentleman said, had a wide variety of submissions on children's trusts, and we have looked at those carefully. Nevertheless, we need a basic national structure of children's trusts. I mentioned the sure start approach at the beginning of my statement because I believe that its principles are very important—too important to be left to the relatively small number of sure start areas in the country—and need to be in the mainstream of everything that we do.
I will take the hon. Gentleman's question about how the children's commissioner will report with his final point about consulting children. Obviously, the report has to be made to the House, but it will be made to children as well. We will encourage discussion with children's commissioners in other countries to see how that can best be done. We specifically want children's responses to our proposals; in fact, one of the documents that we published today, "Every Child Matters—What Do You Think?", is a digest of the Green Paper which is directed at children and young people and aims to encourage them to respond to the proposals through their various organisations. I agree that children and young people must be involved in what we do, so I take this opportunity to encourage as many of them as possible to read the digest and respond to it.
On children's rights, I heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Jean Corston), the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, said in welcoming the Green Paper. Let me make one fundamental point that follows from Lord Laming's report. The catalogue of key failures that lead to these avoidable deaths are failures in the practice of a wide variety of our public services.
I make no apology in saying that putting those things right is my priority. That is where we have to be. No right has meaning unless it is backed up by agencies and public services that can deliver. The right to live is the most fundamental of all rights. That does not need to be restated. We are failing in too many areas, and putting that right is my No. 1 priority.
I hear what has been said about access to data, but I want to treat the matter with care. I am aware of a case where a child died as a result of a failure of the probation service and the social services department to share data

31
because of perceived blockings on the sharing of data. It was an appalling case. It was not a question of the young child having access to the information, important though that is. The key thing is to ensure that professionals know where the problems occur and can intervene properly in the right sort of way.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: May I inform my right hon. Friend—I do not want to take away anything from the Chairman of the Human Rights Committee—that I represent a constituency where Brian Jackson, who wrote "Education and Social Class" many years ago, campaigned for 20 years for a children's Minister and a children's commissioner? This is a happy day for me, as a trustee of the charity that Brian Jackson set up, because something that he campaigned vigorously for has come about after so many years.
In welcoming the children's commissioner, I would point out that there is one way of giving him or her more independence, and my right hon. Friend knows well what I am about to say. The commissioner will have more independence if we make him or her responsible not to my right hon. Friend but to Parliament through the appropriate Select Committee. It would be an important step if my right hon. Friend made that announcement as soon as possible.
My last point—I know that many Members want to ask my right hon. Friend questions on this important statement—is not only to welcome the statement but to say that we will not eradicate deaths and other terrible things will happen to children in our country. Those of us who knock on doors in our constituencies know that poverty, drug addiction and the lack of a family—not the presence of a family—so often make our children vulnerable. I see the voluntary sector—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was about to put a question, but he has not, and I do not think that the Minister need respond.
Mr. Sheerman: Sorry.
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I broadly welcome the restructuring of local authority services that the Secretary of State has announced this afternoon, which will result in statutorily reinforcing cooperation between education and social services. I note also that in the creation of local children's safeguarding boards the right hon. Gentleman expects to net in police authorities. Will he tell the House whether that proposal will also, in his view, net in health authorities? Can he give the House more details about the practical role of the children's commissioner? We need—I believe that he shares my view on this—services that do what they are supposed to do to protect children and not, as Lord Laming said, another commentator.
Mr. Clarke: I can confirm what the right hon. Lady says about health authorities, but I can say a bit more. As for mental health services and primary care trust services, there is a division of children's services within those responsibilities. It is entirely imaginable and
32
feasible that in certain areas the PCT or the mental health trust will commission out their children's services so that they are within children's trusts more generally, so that they are even more intimately involved. Where that is not the case, they will be caught more directly, as the right hon. Lady implies, by the safeguarding children arrangements that I have described. We felt that we could not go so far as to say that every PCT or mental health trust should hive off its children's services into children's trusts, even though there might be logic for that, because lifelong responsibilities and serious bureaucratic issues are involved.
On the right hon. Lady's second point about the children's commissioner, I can confirm that the approach that we take to the commissioner is designed to ensure that he or she is the champion of children's rights, and is ready to intervene constantly on every point that I have already outlined. The precise way in which the commissioner works will be a matter for general discussion once we have established the necessary legislation.
Mr. Hilton Dawson: In welcoming every syllable that my right hon. Friend has uttered this afternoon, may I congratulate him and the Government on rejecting one aspect of Lord Laming's report and standing up for the independence of a children's commissioner, thus putting themselves in a position where they could be criticised by someone who had such independence? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the participation of children and young people in decisions that affect their lives both locally and nationally is the key to developing the radical transformation of services that he set out today? Will he explain how the national service framework for children fits with what is in the Green Paper?
Mr. Clarke: The national service framework is, and will continue to be, part of the overall arrangements that we have established. As for the participation of children and young people, I agree very much with my hon. Friend. It is important that in schools and children's services children's voices are heard and reflected in what happens. Of course, that will take place in various ways, and I do not wish to appear too prescriptive. However, we are right to be prescriptive in one sense—the establishment of a children's commissioner is meant to signal as strongly and clearly as possible that in every service the voice of children and young people should be heard and reflected in the way in which those services are run and organised.
Mr. Andrew Lansley: With a Green Paper published in September which was originally promised in the spring, it will be no surprise to the Secretary of State if we focus on issues of timetabling. According to the written text of the statement, the Secretary of State was going to say that "in the long term" services would be integrated into children's trusts. However, when he delivered the statement he said "in the medium to long term". Perhaps he will now elaborate on the prospective timetable for children's trusts because, in the absence of such an explanation and of legislation providing a framework

33
that services can use in coming together at a local level, there will be a degree of planning blight and uncertainty which may last for years.
Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is right to focus on timetabling in general. However, I modified the written statement with the words "medium to long term" because in politics and life generally the phrase "the long term" tends to imply a time that is a long way away. The message that I wanted to send was that we need to move more quickly. As the hon. Gentleman knows, progress has already been made in some parts of the country—I want to encourage and extend that. We will therefore publish a timetable. It is important for the reasons that I gave earlier about the way in which we operate that we consult properly on the timetable with everyone who has to put it into effect, and that is what we will do.
Mr. John Denham: I welcome my right hon. Friend's recognition of the fact that the potential of literally hundreds of thousands of young children is wasted because, as he put it, help is too little and too late. Does he agree with two things? First, if there is to be information sharing, it must be sufficiently good to track children as they move around the country, and not simply operate in each individual local authority area? Secondly, if we are concerned about hundreds of thousands of children, it will not be good enough to aim to refer them all to specialist services. We will need to bend some mainstream funding within schools, the health service and social services to enable the professionals to intervene much earlier. Indeed, we will save money if we intervene when a child is five, six or seven, rather than wait until they are a criminal, a drug abuser or have an unwanted pregnancy at 14, 15 or 16.
Mr. Clarke: I agree with both points made by my right hon. Friend. First, on tracking children as they move across the country, I am sure that he is correct about that. As a former Minister with responsibility for the police—an experience which I share—he will know that even without the complication of tracking movements around the country, there is not sufficient sharing of data between agencies. Even without addressing the point that he made, there is an enormous amount to do if we are to get things right but, of course, he was correct in what he said. As for specialist services, I focused on the need to generalise the sure start experience because it is universal in every relatively small community where it operates. It ranges from early intervention, even before birth, to early co-operation between various professional services. We must extend that model to every aspect of what we do.
My right hon. Friend is quite right that that does mean bending mainstream services to deal with particular people. One of the problems is the definition of risk, so to speak, in how we operate. There is a vast hierarchy of work that he, when he was responsible for the children's fund, led in highlighting the types of risk that exist. We must consider the matter from that universal base, targeted on the particular risks that cause the most danger.
Sir Patrick Cormack: As the Secretary of State has recognised the need for widespread change, what plans does he have for
34
improving education in schools so that at an early age, children are taught the value of marriage and the stable family?
Mr. Clarke: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the first aspect to which I drew attention when reporting the areas of action for the Green Paper was strengthening the role of children and families. That is a key aspect. Whatever the form of family relationship, a stable family background is the key foundation for any child to move forward. The bringing together of services as proposed will enable that to happen in a much more focused and stronger way. The focus that we have given to ethics and morality in school is important and right, and should move forward. The extended school approach that is already beginning to roll out gives a real possibility of creating such an overall approach. My fundamental answer is that I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but it is not simply a matter of an exhortation or a statement of principle. It is a matter of establishing services that put strong families, strong parenting and strong communities at the core of every child's education.
Diana Organ: My right hon. Friend rightly mentioned the importance of the sure start programme. It is a disappointment to many of us that we do not have a sure start programme, as we have seen elsewhere how successful it has been in ensuring that every child can develop its potential. Is a timetable set in the Green Paper for sure start or a similar model to be rolled out to every area, urban and rural?
As regards my right hon. Friend's concerns about protecting children and the exchange of information, in Gloucestershire we had a considerable report after the West case. One of the findings after that inquiry was that not enough information was gleaned from the domestic violence network information and the refuge information. Will that be included in the collaboration between agencies to protect children?
Mr. Clarke: I think that sure start is an outstanding programme. The reason why it has been focused—rightly, in my opinion—on the communities where there is most deprivation is precisely to intervene in the cycle of decline that can be so damaging in so many different areas. It is critical to establish the principles of sure start in every community in Britain. We cannot do that simply by adding to the number of existing sure start programmes and multiplying by a factor. We must change the practice, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) was suggesting, of education and social services more generally. I am extremely committed to that approach.
Ideas such as children's centres and extended schools are a central part of that approach. We will publish a timetable for achieving that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Diana Organ) mentioned. I discussed that in July with a major conference of people working with children, and they welcomed that approach. However—this is a tough message, but a true message—unless the culture of some of the public services involved in looking after children is changed in the way that I described in the Green Paper, we will not achieve the aim that my hon. Friend and I share.

35
On domestic violence issues, yes, we will seek to exchange information widely. It is one of the tragedies of the West case as I recall it that a number of those who lost their lives were people whom the system lost in the gap between primary and secondary education. The idea of a proper school record is a key element in trying to address that problem.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I appreciate that this is a very important topic, and it is one to which the House will no doubt take the opportunity to return in future. We must now move on to the next statement.

Middle East
4.19 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to make a statement on Iraq and the middle east.
Let me begin with Iraq. When I last updated the House, on 15 July, we had witnessed the formation of the Iraqi governing council and successful military operations against elements of the old regime. In late July, there were the deaths of Saddam Hussein's two sons. The reaction to that in Iraq, including the Sunni towns north of Baghdad, spoke for itself. The political process was advancing too. On 14 August the Security Council adopted resolution 1500, which welcomed the establishment of the governing council and created the United Nations assistance mission for Iraq.
As the House is well aware, however, those positive developments have since been overshadowed by a series of atrocities. There was the bombing of the Jordanian embassy on 7 August, which claimed the lives of 17 people. That was followed on 19 August by the attack on the UN headquarters in Baghdad, which caused the deaths of UN special representative Sergio Vieira de Mello and 21 others. Then on 29 August there was the assassination of Ayatollah Hakim in Najaf in a car bombing that killed more than 100 other worshippers.
Altogether, nine Britons have lost their lives in Iraq since the House rose on 17 July. In the south of Iraq, three separate attacks on 14, 23 and 27 August caused the deaths of five British soldiers from the Queen's Lancashire Regiment, the Royal Military Police and the Lowland Regiment of the Territorial Army. Last Thursday Ian Rimell, a British mines clearance expert, was murdered in northern Iraq. I know that I speak for the whole House when I say that our deepest condolences go to the families of the British victims and to the loved ones of all those killed by terrorists in Iraq, whether they be soldiers, international civil servants, Iraqi political leaders or Iraqi civilians going about their daily lives. I pay particular tribute to Sergio Vieira de Mello, who was an outstanding international diplomat.
I know that the House will also wish to join me in offering our deepest sympathy to the family and friends of Fiona Watson, who died in the bombing of the UN headquarters in Baghdad. Many colleagues in the House will recall that Fiona was a highly regarded officer of the House, who worked as a senior researcher in the international affairs and defence section of the Library between 1992 and 1997. Her subsequent work for the UN secretariat was recognised as being of the highest quality. She will be greatly missed both by former colleagues here and by her fellow officials at the UN.
Investigations are under way to bring the perpetrators of those and other acts of terrorism to justice. The attacks appear to come both from supporters of the Saddam regime and from terrorist groups from elsewhere in the region. What is clear is that those groups decided to target the UN and people like Ayatollah Hakim who were working so constructively and courageously for a new Iraq precisely because they could see the progress that the UN, the coalition

37
provisional authority and the Iraqi Governing Council were making. They wished literally to blow the process apart.
The threat from terrorists is now not just to the coalition forces, but to the Iraqi people and their future. That is now increasingly recognised by the international community. Whatever view was held about the military action itself, there is a determination throughout the civilised world that we must all ensure that the terrorists fail in their objective. For our part, we will not be deterred from our overall goal: to hand sovereignty to the Iraqi people as quickly as possible in conditions allowing them to build a secure and prosperous country. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Foreign Secretary, but we really cannot have electronic devices going off in the chamber. May I urge Members either to leave them outside or switch them off?
Mr. Straw: I was talking about sovereignty. Sovereignty can only be fully exercised in a climate of security. That is why the continued presence of coalition troops is vital if Iraq is to manage the transition to representative government, and to build a society based on tolerance, human rights and the rule of law.
At present there are 140,000 United States troops and more than 10,000 British troops in the country. Another 15,000 troops have been provided by 25 other nations, including 5,500 from five existing European Union member states and 2,300 from five accession countries.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence told the House earlier today, we will be deploying additional troops in the near future to the UK area of operations in south-eastern Iraq. This deployment will give extra capabilities to our commanders in theatre and increase our capacity to help to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure.
Urgent action is also being taken to build up Iraq's own security forces. Police numbers now stand at 37,000, and it is planned that that figure will rise to some 70,000. The training of the new Iraqi Army has begun with a target of three divisions by the middle of next year. An Iraqi civil defence corps of 14,000 is being trained and rapidly expanded to take over many guarding and patrolling duties, freeing up coalition forces for more demanding tasks.
On the question of further evidence relating to Saddam's illegal weapons programme, the Iraq survey group continues its work, albeit in a difficult security environment. It is a long-term task, and the survey group will make a progress report at an appropriate time.
I do not, in any way, underestimate the scale of the security and other problems that we face. They are very serious, but we should not lose sight of the effective work of the coalition provisional authority under ambassador Bremer and coalition forces and that of Iraq's governing council and Ministers. This week, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, our former ambassador to the UN, will be going out to Baghdad as the British Government's special representative. Last month, Sir Hilary Synnott, our former high commissioner in Pakistan, took up his
38
post in Basra as the regional co-ordinator for the CPA in southern Iraq. I know that the House will join me in sending them our good wishes.
The international staff in Iraq—including many Britons—are doing vital work in difficult circumstances. The delivery of essential services is gradually improving, food distribution systems have been restored and all 240 hospitals in Iraq are functioning. With the help of UNICEF, more than 22 million doses of vaccines have been provided—enough for 4.2 million children.
By the end of June, most schools in Iraq were open. We have launched an upgrade of school facilities, and 70 million revised textbooks will have been printed by the end of December. Universities have been operating as normal.
The water sector is obviously one of our top priorities. Projects are in hand in Baghdad and elsewhere to upgrade treatment plants and to build new ones to serve 11.5 million people The network has, however, been badly hit by organised sabotage, exacerbated by shortages of parts and chemicals.
Electricity and oil supplies have also been targeted by the terrorists. In response, an Iraqi force is being trained and armed to guard Iraq's oil and power facilities as well as its bridges and dams. Iraqis are helping coalition troops to secure the 19,000 km of power lines and the 7,000 km of oil pipelines in Iraq.
Our Department for International Development is moving quickly to allocate new funds for emergency infrastructure programmes in southern Iraq.
One of the immediate consequences of the bombing of the UN building on 19 August has been the scaling down of the UN presence in Iraq. We are in close touch with the UN about the implementation of further security measures to help it to restore its activity.
Over as short a time scale as possible, our overall goal is to create the conditions in which the Iraqi people can take responsibility for the governance of their country. Two months after its formation, the Iraqi governing council is heavily involved in key economic and political decisions. On 3 September, it appointed 25 interim Ministers. From now on, Iraq's government ministries will be led by Iraqi politicians, who will be responsible for implementing policy and for managing their budgets. Along with the governing council and the CPA, the Ministers enjoy full rights to initiate policy. The overall effect of those important changes has been a significant transfer of responsibility from the CPA to the Iraqis, a process that should accelerate from now on.
On the international front, I have been working closely over recent weeks with Secretary Powell and my colleagues within the EU and elsewhere to strengthen the UN mandate in Iraq. A draft text of a resolution is being discussed at the Security Council. Let me set out its central elements. The draft reaffirms the UN's support for the work of the governing council. It calls on the governing council to submit a timetable and programme for the drafting of a new constitution for Iraq and for the holding of democratic elections. The United Nations will itself be heavily involved in preparing the electoral register and other electoral processes.

39
The draft also proposes a United Nations-mandated multinational force under existing unified command arrangements. That should help to facilitate the provision of troops by other countries so far not involved in Iraq.
Finally, the text refers to next month's conference in Madrid, which will be attended by a number of potential donor countries and the international financial institutions, and calls upon UN member states to help the Iraqi people by providing resources for rehabilitation and reconstruction. Discussions on the draft resolution will resume in New York later today. I will of course report any outcome to the House and make available to it any published text.
Let me now turn to the situation in Israel and the occupied territories. I very much regret, as I am sure does the whole House, the resignation of the Palestinian Authority Prime Minister, Abu Mazen, over the weekend. We had confidence in him and we supported his efforts to deliver the Palestinians' implementation of their road map commitments in a difficult climate of violence and uncertainty. It was Abu Mazen's appointment in April that triggered the publication of the road map, which set out the aim of a secure state of Israel alongside a viable Palestinian state and how we achieve that.
But Abu Mazen's resignation must not be allowed to send the peace process back to square one. The Palestinian leadership must unite around a clear commitment to road map implementation. It needs to take firm action to stop the terrorists planning and executing attacks—such as the appalling 19 August bus bombing in Jerusalem—from territory under Palestinian Authority control.
The speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council Abu Ala—has now been nominated to take over from Abu Mazen. Abu Ala is a Palestinian leader with a long track record of efforts for peace. If his appointment is confirmed, we will judge him by his commitment to the peace process.
Similarly, we shall continue to encourage Israel to meet its obligations. Israel must create a climate within which moderate Palestinian leaders can prevail: by freezing settlement activity; by removing outposts, which are illegal even under Israeli law; by restoring Palestinian freedom of movement, so allowing economic activity to restart; by ending so-called targeted assassinations; and by ensuring that the security fence does not encroach on Palestinian land.
The House will wish to know that this morning I spoke to Nabil Shaath, the Palestinian Authority Foreign Minister, to Secretary of State Colin Powell and, shortly before making this statement, to Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom.
The responsibility of the international community is to do everything that we can to hold both sides to their commitments under the road map and to isolate the terrorists, and we shall continue to play our part. I welcome the fact the European Union is taking a lead in that respect. At the meeting that I attended on Saturday, European Union Foreign Ministers unanimously agreed that the Union should freeze the assets of Hamas.
40
In respect of both the middle east peace process and the situation in Iraq, Britain is seeking, in partnership with others, to bring its influence to bear on a region that has suffered unimaginable torment for decades. In recent months, thanks in part to our actions, the people of the area have had reason to believe that a peaceful and prosperous future might be within reach. That prospect must be kept alive against those who would plunge the region into chaos. We are determined to work with the international community to establish peace and security across the whole region. Despite the setbacks of recent days and weeks, that is the course that we shall continue to pursue.
Mr. Michael Ancram: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his lengthy and detailed statement and for advance sight of it.
I, too, deeply regret the resignation of Abu Mazen, which is an enormous blow to the middle east peace process. I fear that he has been let down by all sides. Abu Ala has shown in the past that he is prepared to work for peace in direct dialogue with the Israelis. If his appointment is confirmed, I hope that he will be given a fair chance to deliver on the principles of the road map, sufficient power by the Palestinian Authority to deal with the problems of terrorism, and a stronger adherence to the road map by the Government of Israel to enable him to show tangible benefits for the Palestinian people.
The news from Iraq is more grim than it was when I was in Baghdad at the end of July. I, too, pay tribute to the members of our armed forces who recently lost their lives. They died in the service of their country and the people of Iraq, whose lives they were trying to make better. Our thoughts are with their families and the families of Fiona Watson and Sergio Vieira de Mello.
Despite criticism of what we are doing in Iraq, I have nothing but praise for the performance of our troops in and around Basra and our team working with the CPA in Baghdad. Peacemaking and nation building are never easy, and they are all doing a remarkable job. I, too, wish Sir Jeremy Greenstock and Sir Hilary Synnott well in the challenging posts that they have undertaken.
On weapons of mass destruction, does the Foreign Secretary still agree with the Prime Minister that concrete evidence of such programmes and their product will be found? In May, the Prime Minister said that such information existed and would be published in due course. To restore public trust, would it not be a good idea to publish it now?
The latest draft United Nations resolution is welcome. There must be a single chain of command and control, which, given the circumstances on the ground, should logically be America-led. Will the Foreign Secretary tell his French colleague to stop posturing and start helping people to get on with what urgently needs to be done?
In Afghanistan and Bosnia, the UN has a significant role to play on the political and humanitarian front in co-ordination with NATO and American forces, but without controlling them. Why should it not do the same in Iraq?
I note what the Foreign Secretary said about Iraq's own security forces. The police numbers are encouraging, but is it not the case that the numbers in Baghdad, where some of the greatest difficulties arise, are still woefully low?

41
The greatest threat to security now is targeted terrorism, designed, as recent targets clearly demonstrate, to destabilise and undermine the reconstruction of Iraq. Oil, water, political leaders and international institutions are classic terrorist targets, and I fear that they will not be the last.
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that such terrorism must be pursued and ruthlessly eliminated with the help of the Iraqi people as a whole? Does he share my concern that the Iraqi people are, as I learned in Basra and Baghdad, increasingly resentful at the lack of urgency in restoring basic amenities such as water, electricity and sewers? They cannot understand why that is taking so long. They are incredulous that countries that put men on the moon 30 years ago cannot get the lights working in Iraq in four months. Such frustrations will only make Iraqi people less co-operative in fighting terrorism and, as recently seen in Basra, a source of instability.
This is certainly not the fault of our armed services. Indeed, as senior British military sources in Iraq told me, additional troops will achieve little if civilian reconstruction remains stagnant.
It is now clear that there has been a culpable failure of planning for post-war Iraq, for which the Government cannot this time escape blame. Ministers assured us that all this was in hand, so what went wrong? What plans were made to ensure the swift rehabilitation of basic amenities and utilities once the war was over? What plans were Drawn up for the speedy signing of contracts? How many reconstruction contracts are in place and how many are in preparation? What on earth has the Department for International Development been doing, and is it not about time that the Foreign Secretary took a grip?
The coalition urgently needs to show that it has a clearly defined strategy and that Iraq will be restored as soon as possible to the Iraqis. I therefore welcome the appointment of Iraqi Ministers by the governing council, but that, too, will be an empty gesture if major reconstruction work does not start soon.
What we did in the war was right. What we must not do now is squander the peace for lack of political direction. Yesterday, President Bush demonstrated a clear determination to make reconstruction work. This Government should get their act together and do the same—and this time announce it by a direct oral statement in Parliament and never again, as last week, by leaked memo. After the events of the last few weeks, that should be a totally discredited practice.
Mr. Straw: On the middle east, I note what the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) has to say. As I came into the Chamber there was no information confirming the appointment of Abu Ala as Prime Minister. I have indicated to the House that we will do all that we can to support the process and to encourage all sides to stick to their obligations under the road map, because the simple fact is that it remains the only viable path to peace for millions of Israelis and Palestinians.
The situation on the ground in Iraq is more serious than when the right hon. Gentleman was there on 27 July and there is one reason for that. He asked me whether I would tell my good friend Dominique de Villepin to "stop posturing". I was reminded of the parable of the beam and the mote at that point. On that
42
specific piece of advice on diplomacy, I do not wish to take his advice because I had constructive conversations with Dominique de Villepin at the weekend and we are looking forward with all other EU foreign Ministers to a constructive outcome to the discussions to provide an enhanced and strengthened role for the UN in Iraq.
I understand the difficulties of the official Opposition, who fully backed the military action that we took. However, it was not a shortage of planning that led to the atrocity against the UN on 19 August, or the even worse atrocity on 29 August against over 100 worshippers in Najaf; it was terrorists. If the right hon. Gentleman fails to understand that difference, it is not surprising that his analysis is so poor.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence put to the Conservative defence spokesman: if we are now being told that the planning has been totally inadequate—a point on which his right hon. Friend was totally silent when he visited Iraq on 27 July; I checked on Conservatives.com just to see—and that this is a total shambles, is that also a criticism of President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld, who have the greatest responsibility for Iraq? I look forward to the right hon. Gentleman making clear at whom his criticism is directed. [Interruption.] Yes, we take responsibility for what is happening in the south, but he must understand that by general agreement what has happened in the south has been more satisfactory than what is happening in many other areas, thanks precisely to those whom he is praising, who have done the planning and implementation with political direction. He needs to spell out—let this be heard very clearly in Washington—whether these criticisms from the neo-cons' friends also extend to the American Administration in Washington.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me two other questions. He asked about concrete evidence in respect of weapons of mass destruction. Plenty of concrete evidence of weapons of mass destruction was put before this House in successive documents—[Interruption]. Well, it was sufficient to convince Opposition Members and others on 18 March. If they are now saying that the 173 pages of the weapons inspectorate's reports were not sufficient, I am surprised that they did not say that during the debates on 17 and 18 March.
As for further evidence, the Iraq survey group is doing its job in more difficult circumstances than had been anticipated because of the situation caused by terrorists. At the appropriate moment, details of their work will be published.
On a unified command, we agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there should be a unified command of a multinational force under the United Nations mandate, and I do not anticipate very great difficulties in achieving that.
Menzies Campbell: May I begin by associating myself with the Foreign Secretary's expressions of sympathy and condolence, especially in relation to Fiona Watson, who was formerly my constituent and whose parents still live in Pittenweem in north-east Fife? The whole community was saddened by her death.

43
It is clear that there is broad agreement between the Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) and me on the middle east, so let me confine myself to two specifics. First, following the events of the past week, is it conceivable that there can be any lasting settlement that does not in some way involve Yasser Arafat? Is not the ever-extending so-called defensive wall an increasingly insurmountable and political obstacle to peace?
Secondly, I hope I might be forgiven the observation that the indignation of Conservative Members about Iraq might ring a little more true if there had been a little more scepticism before the conflict.
I was much impressed—indeed, persuaded—by the memorandum attributed to the Secretary of State, which somehow found its way into the public domain last week. Is it not clear that if additional troops from the United Kingdom and elsewhere are to be provided, they will be made available by capable nations only if a fresh United Nations mandate allows the UN a greater role in security and reconstruction than the Draft resolution currently contemplates? Indeed, a vital role in precisely the language used by President Bush and Prime Minister when they held a press conference in Northern Ireland before the outbreak of the conflict.
Mr. Straw: I am grateful for the tone of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks. I repeat my condolences to the family and friends of Fiona Watson. I know from direct contact with the family how devastating it has been for them and for the whole community in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's constituency.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked two questions about the middle east peace process, the first of which was whether there can be any lasting settlement that does not involve Yasser Arafat. If we ever secure a lasting settlement, it will be for historians to judge what positive or negative contribution Yasser Arafat made to it. Our position is that we deal with Heads of Government, and that includes Yasser Arafat. For that reason, among others, on 23 August, having spoken to Abu Mazen about the security situation, I spoke on the telephone to Chairman Arafat.
On the question of the security fence, I have made the British Government's position clear.
On the question of the United Nations mandate, a large number of countries have provided, or are providing, good troops on the ground, with 8,000 troops being provided by 10 other European Union members states or accession countries. Other countries might require a further mandate, which is one of the reasons for considering a further resolution, which I believe we will secure.
Under Sergio Vieira de Mello's leadership, the United Nations was playing an increasingly vital role, which is why I believe that terrorists decided to target the United Nations. Had the UN not been playing that role—had it been an irrelevance—it would not have been a target. The attack was launched precisely because, despite all the scepticism, the UN, the CPA and the governing council were making progress. The United Nations has
44
been doing a very good job, but I hope that the negotiations will further strengthen what it can do in this profoundly important country.
Mr. Tony Lloyd: Nobody can possibly derive any satisfaction from the situation on the ground in Iraq, which is grave and seems to be becoming graver, but does my right hon. Friend believe that his comments about the "Iraqisation" of the process are fundamental? At present—I do not intend these comments to be construed as aggressive—Iraq has a form of colonial government, and until such time as the Iraqis can see that there is an Iraqi Government of competence and capacity the difficulties of the present situation will continue.
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is correct. Of course, I was insistent that we described ourselves, with the US, as the occupying power in the first resolution because we were, and I thought that there should be no dubiety about it. But I also believe, as the whole House does, that we have to move swiftly to moving sovereignty to the Iraqi people. That is one of the aims of part of the Draft text that is now being discussed: to get the governing council, along with the United Nations Secretary-General and the CPA, to establish a clear timetable for moving from where we are to a fully representative Government by Iraqis for Iraqis with elections. I think that, once we have got that, with those signposts, along with other progress we hope to see made, the situation may well improve.
Chris Grayling: With hindsight, what should have been done differently to prepare for the aftermath of the war in Iraq?
Mr. Straw: I think that there could have been more effective preparations to deal with the possibility of terrorism. I do not for a moment suggest that everything was got right; that is palpably not the case. Certainly, one of the things that was not anticipated was the speed with which the Saddam Hussein regime would fall and the power vacuum that would be left. That said, when the shadow Foreign Secretary visited Baghdad in late July, there was gradual improvement—as I had seen in early July—across that country. It is not as a result of any defects in planning but as a direct result of terrorism that progress has been set back.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: On the leaked memo, I agreed with the Foreign Secretary when he said:
"The lack of political progress in solving the linked problems of security, infrastructure and the political process are undermining the consent of the Iraqi people to the coalition presence and providing fertile grounds for extremism and terrorism."
Some of us forecast that that might happen. Will he tell the House how 2,000 more of our troops going into the gravest danger will stop that? Should he not be telling the House what the Government's exit strategy is and when we will bring the troops home?
Mr. Straw: Paradoxically, putting in more troops now and taking other action with the coalition forces and the coalition provisional authority to secure and then improve the situation is the route by which we will be able to hand over control of Iraq to the Iraqi people

45
and then safely leave that country. That is what we want to do and what the Americans want to do, and we want to do so as quickly as possible, but we have very clear responsibilities not to create a vacuum there. I am fully aware of the frustrations of the Iraqi people—frustrations that existed in greater number under the Saddam regime but which of course could not be voiced because of the reign of terror that was operated. Of course I am aware of their frustrations, but Iraqis are the last people who wish coalition forces to leave tomorrow, as it were. They want a phased process of a handover of control of their country as quickly as possible to the people of Iraq.
Sir Teddy Taylor: I remind the Foreign Secretary that quite a few Conservatives did not vote with the Government on 18 March. Does he agree that there is little point in sending thousands more troops so long as the project is being interpreted, however unfairly, as some anti-Muslim crusade? Instead of trying to get thousands more troops from France and Germany, could not the Government concentrate on trying to get some of the responsible Arab countries to participate? For example, would he consider approaching countries such as Egypt and Libya, which have behaved very responsibly in recent years and that could make a huge difference if they were seen to be participating in the Iraqi venture?
Mr. Straw: Countries round the world, including in the region, have an important role to play in respect of Iraq, not necessarily only in providing additional troops but in political support, which I hope will be another element in the resolution that is finally agreed from the discussions in New York. It was palpable around the whole region before 18 March that Saddam Hussein was unloved not only by his own people but by one leader and one set of peoples of the middle east, and it was they who were very pleased to see the back of him.
Donald Anderson: The US Administration recognise that they need allies, and are converted—at least in this area of policy—to multilateralism. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have a special role in seeking to converge with the French Government to ensure that the EU divisions before the conflict do not spill over into the task of reconstruction, which is in all our interests?
What is my right hon. Friend's preferred timetable for restoring Iraq to the Iraqis and giving them a legitimate government?
Mr. Straw: I agree with my right hon. Friend's first point and I was much heartened by my conversations with EU Foreign Ministers at the weekend.
On the timetable, we all want this done as soon as is safe and possible, but the details of the timetable should come from the representatives of the Iraqi people on the Governing Council. It should not be initiated by the British Government.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Should we not put it on record that many of the forecasts of those who voted against going to war on 18 March have not come to pass? Should we not realise that it is not surprising that it takes a little longer than five months to
46
replace dictatorship and anarchy with democracy? May I express the hope that those who are working for us out there are given our total support here?
Mr. Straw: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments. He has been consistent in his approach and has stood by the position that he took up to 18 March. I only wish that hon. Members on his Front Bench had followed a similar—
Mr. Richard Spring: Exemplary.
Mr. Straw: Exemplary? I remind Opposition Front-Bench Members that the hon. Gentleman said that he was ashamed of them.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Did not Mahmoud Abbas's position become unsustainable when he was asked to deliver, in terms of suppressing terrorism, what he was not physically capable of doing while the Israelis are provoking terrorism by targeted assassination and by building the wall? Does he agree that there is no chance whatever for middle eastern peace as long as the Israeli Government are allowed to do whatever they think fit while Palestinians live in poverty and despair?
Mr. Straw: I spelled out clearly the Government's position on targeted assassinations and the security wall. We in the international community want the Israeli Government to follow that approach. On the discrete point about what brought down Abu Mazen, there was first the bombing by Hamas on 19 August, which killed a large number of entirely innocent men, women and children. There was a deliberate decision by Hamas, without any justification, to try to destroy the road map and undermine the authority of the Palestinian Authority.
The second problem that Abu Mazen faced was a lack of clarity about whether he was responsible for security forces in Gaza and, later, as it was hoped, on the west bank. The fact that there is such confusion, with some forces controlled directly by Chairman Arafat and some by the Palestinian Authority, is wholly unsatisfactory. In my conversation earlier today with the Foreign Minister Nabil Shaath, I spelled out the imperative of ensuring that there is clarity in respect of the security arrangements, and then that the Palestinian Authority take steps that they are obliged to take under the road map—and that they have pledged to take—to deal with terrorists operating in their territory.
Simon Thomas: May I first declare an interest, in that I recently returned from visiting Israel and Palestine with the Labour Middle East Council? We met Abu Mazen, who made it very clear to us that he felt that he was not being cut enough slack by the Israeli Government, that he did not have the opportunity to produce on the ground the results that the Israelis and the international community were expecting, because that Government were not doing their part with regard to settlements, for example. What steps is the right hon. Gentleman taking to ensure that the Israeli Government give enough room for manoeuvre to a future Palestinian Prime Minister, and have the UK Government given

47
any consideration to providing direct assistance to security forces on the Palestinian Authority side, to improve their detection of terrorism?
Mr. Straw: As I said, I have already been involved today in detailed discussions with the Foreign Ministers from Israel and the occupied territories, and with Secretary Powell. We stand ready to do everything we can. On the issue of providing further equipment for the security authorities in the occupied territories, we are certainly ready actively and positively to consider such requests, but we have to be assured about who will use such equipment and how it will be controlled. In our view, it will have to be controlled by the Palestinian Prime Minister and cabinet—specifically the Interior Minister. They must be people in whom the international community has confidence. If that does not happen, the current spiral will continue downwards.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Now that the Foreign Secretary is in plain-speaking mode, as evidenced by his attack on the shadow Foreign Secretary, will he extend that a little further and tell George Bush that he was a bit naïve and inexperienced when he flew on to an aircraft carrier on 1 May and said, "The war's over"? Will the Foreign Secretary also take the following into account? I heard him remark that he is meeting different people such as the French Foreign Minister to try to mend some fences with the United Nations. We tried to do that before the war began, and if there is any grovelling to be done to the United Nations, he should tell George Bush and his Republican guard to do the grovelling.
Mr. Straw: I know that the White House makes heavy use of the House of Commons website and Hansard reports.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Has not the Foreign Secretary been far too indulgent towards the attitude of the French and German Governments? On the issues of a United Nations resolution that can help with the reconstruction of Iraq, and of finding a framework for the operation of an international peacekeeping force, have the French and Germans not merely displayed schadenfreude but done damage to the prospects for peace in Iraq itself, and prejudiced any possibility whatsoever of a common European foreign policy, let alone of a single European Foreign Minister from either France or Germany?
Mr. Straw: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. I have spoken week by week by telephone, and in meetings, with Dominique de Villepin and Joschka Fischer, the two Foreign Ministers in question. Of course, they held a different position in respect of military action in Iraq, and we should respect that, just as some people did in this House. But they have shown a constructive approach to the security and reconstruction needs of Iraq, and conversations with them in New York and in other capitals continue.
On the issue of a common foreign and security policy, all of this emphasises the need to keep the matter an intergovernmental one in principle. One area about which I have been speaking today—Iraq—has been the
48
subject of a divided approach within Europe. The other area—the middle east—has been the subject of a common foreign policy. I should tell the hon. Gentleman that our own position has been greatly strengthen by the fact that we have the European Union with us, and I shall give one practical example. We could have taken action here to freeze the whole of Hamas's fundraising activities, but the fact that we were able to get the other 24 member states on board greatly strengthens the effectiveness of that action. The hon. Gentleman needs to address the question of whether he wants us not to seek to co-operate with our European Union partners. My view is that we should co-operate where we can. Often, co-operation achieves success, and where it does not, well, we take our own decisions.
Mr. Tom Levitt: Despite the existence of a recent opinion poll in Iraq showing overwhelming support for the strategy and record of the coalition in recent months, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is still far too early to judge either the success or, indeed, the failure of the current strategy? Does he share my confidence that in one, two or five years' time we will be able to look back on the difficulties that face us today, and on the sacrifices that are being made, as stepping stones towards the successful re-establishment of a free and independent Iraq?
Mr. StrawI do not think that there is any doubt that the vast majority of Iraqis overwhelmingly wish to see not only the end of Saddam Hussein but, obviously, the establishment of a representative Government in a stable and secure society. There are profound frustrations at the moment in some areas—not all—that we have to understand, but it is certainly too early to judge whether or not we have been successful. What I can pledge to the House is our determination, along with that of the coalition authorities and other countries working there, to do everything that we can to secure this goal of a secure, prosperous and stable Iraq.
Mr. Edward Leigh: Does the Foreign Secretary recall that many of us who voted against the war did so because we felt that no weapons of mass destruction would be found that posed a threat to this country? Indeed, we argued that this invasion would make terrorism worse, not better, and that is precisely the situation that we face now. Does he agree that we are in danger of being sucked into a Vietnam-type vortex whereby we will be constantly told that more troops are being provided? Is not the solution to try to re-engage the international community, and is it not about time that the American Administration and ourselves made active efforts to re-engage the French and the Germans? There is no point talking about the accession nations of eastern Europe. We have to deal with major international powers that have the ability to move the UN forward. Is the Foreign Secretary prepared to take the necessary steps to get us out of the morass?
Mr. Straw: Terrorism in a terrible form existed before 18 March and I do not accept for a second the hon. Gentleman's analysis of the causes of terrorism in Iraq today. As to re-engaging with France and Germany, and other key partners, we have been engaged with them throughout and, as I have already told the House, I am

49
greatly encouraged by the constructive atmosphere in which I have held many discussions with my French and German counterparts in recent weeks.
Ann Clwyd: My right hon. Friend has always been particularly candid about the difficulties that we face in the reconstruction of Iraq, but can I ask him to re-examine the position of the Iraqi army? I believe that it was a major mistake to stand down that army and we should reconsider the possibility of it serving the country again. I spoke this morning to someone who had been a general at a military academy, who told me that he could provide between 50 and 100 people to help the coalition to bring about security. We should think more about the contribution that Iraqis themselves can make to the stability and security of their own country.
Mr. Straw: The answer to my hon. Friend is yes. As I announced earlier, the Iraqi army is being rebuilt and the aim is to have three brigades—about 40,000—by the middle of next year. I shall certainly take forward my hon. Friend's specific suggestion with the coalition provisional authority.
Mr. Richard Younger-Ross: Will the Foreign Secretary tell us what additional non-military British and foreign resources will be made available for the reconstruction of Iraq, so that our Army does not have to spend time training police, running the banking system and supervising contractors? Will he have discussions with the Russians about the rebuilding of power stations, because they built them and they understand them best?
Mr. Straw: On additional funds, the Department for International Development has committed £198 million altogether this financial year. Within that overall figure, an allocation of £20 million was recently made for short-term infrastructure projects in the south of Iraq.
I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that we should, as quickly as possible, shift some responsibility from the military to civilians. That is why additional troops have been sent. The more quickly they can help the security environment, the easier it will be for civilians to do the job themselves.
I am familiar with the hon. Gentleman's argument that many power stations in Iraq were built by the Russians, and therefore have Russian parts and Russian dimensions. I have already witnessed what can only be described as serious sales pitch by representatives of the Russian power supply industry about the need for them to be in Iraq. I very much hope that they will be able to secure a fair proportion of the contracts.
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: In the light of current evidence, does my right hon. Friend believe it possible that the UK Government and their allies may have overestimated the extent and immediacy of the threat from Iraq—for example, in respect of a restarted nuclear weapons programme, biological and chemical weapons stocks, the quantity and range of missiles and their speed of deployment?
Mr. Straw: On some of my hon. Friend's detailed points, I await the judgment of Parliament's Intelligence
50
and Security Committee, which will shortly appear. I can tell my hon. Friend, however, that the decision taken by an overwhelming majority of the House on 18 March to take military action is as justified today as it was on that day. I remind the House that the principal reason why it took that decision was the continued defiance by Saddam Hussein of the will of the UN and a judgment that he would continue to defy that will unless military action was taken. I also say—and we all have to think about this—that had we not acted as we did, the world would be a very much less safe place. The House needs to think about this: we would have seen a re-empowered and emboldened Saddam Hussein, who would have been a real and profound source of longterm instability in the region.
Sir Peter Tapsell: Since no occupying power in the Mesopotamian area over the past 1,000 years has succeeded in persuading the Sunni, the Shia and the Kurds to co-operate, and if, as one of the Foreign Secretary's hon. Friends sensibly suggested, he is looking for an exit strategy, may I suggest the exit of the present Labour Government?
Mr. Straw: No Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: My right hon. Friend has not referred to the search for weapons of mass destruction. Can he explain how it has been possible to offer rewards for information leading to the arrest of Saddam Hussein and members of his regime, but no such rewards have been offered to those with information leading to the location of weapons of mass destruction? I have a strong feeling that the money would be quite safe.
Mr. Straw: I think that the factual basis of my hon. Friend's question is not quite correct. I know that the Iraq survey group and the military authorities have been seeking the active co-operation of all those who unquestionably were involved in Iraq's weapons programmes.
Mr. John Redwood: Given the welcome aim of involving the United Nations more and effecting a rapid transition to Iraqi self-government, does not the Foreign Secretary think it a good idea to suggest a date by which there would be total withdrawal of our troops, to provide a stimulus for those trying to create an Iraqi Government, and to send a clear message to the terrorists that we do not wish to have an army of occupation there for long?
Mr. Straw: It is sensible to set a timetable for the transfer of responsibility and sovereignty to the Iraqi people, but it would be irresponsible for us to do that without taking the lead from the Iraqis, and without making a judgment day by day and week by week about whether the security situation justifies a withdrawal.
Chris McCafferty: The whole House will join the Foreign Secretary in sending condolences to the families and friends of British victims in Iraq—but in view of the continual newspaper reports of the killing of ordinary innocent. Iraqis because of the over-zealous reaction of American forces, can the Foreign Secretary

51
tell the House how many ordinary Iraqi men, women and children have died since the peace began—and if not, why not?
Mr. Straw: The reason why not is that I do not have the estimate to hand. Some of the estimates are very difficult to come by, but I shall see whether I can get an estimate and place it before the House.
Dr. Vincent Cable: Can the Foreign Secretary confirm the reports that a significant number of Wahabi fundamentalists have crossed into Iraq from Saudi Arabia since the war, and are a major contributory factor to the violence? Are the Saudi Government helping or hindering in dealing with that problem?
Mr. Straw: It is true that a number of extremists have come into Iraq from a number of the neighbouring countries. The Saudi Government have given excellent co-operation to the coalition provisional authority and the coalition forces, and I think that they will continue to do so.
Mike Gapes: Will the Foreign Secretary remind the House that 500,000 children died as a result of the failed policy of containment, and that the Saddam preservation society on the Lib Dem Benches, who would have done nothing to get rid of Saddam, and the carping critics on the Tory Benches, should recollect that the policies that they supported in the past would have led to far more deaths of Iraqis this year to add to the 300,000 bodies that have already been dug up from the mass graves?
Mr. Straw: Terrible though those calculations are, I think that my hon. Friend is correct. Containment was not working. If we had not brought this matter to a head, my guess is that those who favoured some kind of deal with Saddam would have won the argument, and Saddam would have been re-empowered and emboldened to maintain and increase his reign of terror over his own people, in which it now turns out that hundreds of thousands—an estimated 300,000—died, as well as over the rest of the region.
The situation in Iraq today is not satisfactory, but we are working hard to improve it. However, in my judgment it is on any basis significantly better, and will be judged over time to be significantly better than under Saddam.
Mr. David Curry: All commentators refer to the increasing alienation of the Iraqi population because of what they see as the slow pace of reconstruction and the heavy-handedness in the response notably of the Americans. If there are increasing numbers of foreign troops and different nationalities in Iraq with many of whom the Iraqi people have no historical links, what steps will the coalition take to ensure that they understand that that is helping the reconstruction of their country and not merely helping to solve our military problem?
Mr. Straw: I pay tribute to the British troops operating in the south of Iraq, who have shown great
52
felicity and courage in getting alongside Iraqi people to try to build up their confidence, as they have in other theatres. On the whole, that is working. Sometimes they are engaged in straightforward conflict with particular groups of Iraqis because of criminals or terrorists operating against them. The most important things we can do to meet the aspiration to which the right hon. Gentleman referred is to secure a rapid transfer of power to the Iraqi people. That process has been started. As I spelled out to the House in my statement, 25 Iraqi interim Ministers have now been appointed and there is a governing council that is far more representative than any government under Saddam Hussein and which will increasingly take responsibility for the services that make a difference in the Iraqi people's day-to-day lives.
Jeremy Corbyn: After five months of occupation, and now an increase in the deployment of British troops in Iraq, does the Foreign Secretary think it is now time to reconsider the closeness of British foreign policy to that of the Bush Administration, and perhaps declare some independence in our foreign policy, rather than following George Bush from war to war?
Mr. Straw: I could go through the areas with regard to which we fully support the United States and the European Union and those with regard to which we have differences of opinion, but I do not think that there would be any point. The simple fact of the matter is that in some areas of the foreign policy proposed by the Government and supported by the House, such as our approach to Iran and to Chairman Arafat, we happen to have disagreements with the United States, but even my hon. Friend would be well advised to recognise that overall for the security of the international community it would not be wise for Europe, the United Kingdom and the United States to get too far apart. His own constituents would suffer if we did.
Mr. George Foulkes: The Foreign Secretary said that real progress on the ground in Iraq is being overshadowed and undermined by the atrocities. Does he agree that it is being underplayed by some people in the United Kingdom? He mentioned that all 240 hospitals in Iraq are functioning. The remarkable political pluralism that is represented by the governing council, if it is successful, could have an effect not just in Iraq but well beyond its boundaries. The last time my right hon. Friend made a statement mentioning these positive developments I looked in the newspapers the next day but there was no report of any word of it. Does he hold out any hope of its being reported tomorrow morning?
Mr. Straw: I live in hope.
James Purnell: Labour Friends of Israel also visited the region before the recess and we met Abu Ala. We were impressed by his commitment to peace and his track record on that. At the time, there was great hope about the ceasefire on the Israeli side, but also scepticism that it might be an opportunity for the terrorists to regroup and strike again. Unfortunately, that fear was realised, and the terrible thing is that it reinforced the scepticism on the Israel side.

53
Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that it is vital for the Palestinian Authority to clamp down on and prevent terrorism—not to stamp out every incident. but to convince the Israelis that that is its intention? That is also vital for the Palestinian Authority, because it must be in control of its area. It is the first function of any Government to protect their civilians and to be in charge of their area.
Mr. Straw: Yes, I do. As I spelled out, the Palestinian Authority have a clear responsibility to do that, and we hold them to it, but the international community and the Government of Israel have a responsibility for the climate that is created in which these things can happen.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Involved in Saddam Hussein's totalitarian control of the Iraqi people was the domination and subversion of three major sets of organisations: youth organisations, women's organisations and trade unions. Now that those are free, they can help to bridge the ethnic divisions in Iraq and to build democracy. What is being done to facilitate those organisations' work in achieving that?
Mr. Straw: A good deal is being done to build up civic society in Iraq. Obviously in the last month the prospects for doing that have been set back by the terrorist outrages, which have created straightforward insecurity in the areas where they took place and an atmosphere of insecurity across wider Iraq. Already, however, the fact that so many newspapers have been founded and are being published and that so many political parties are being formed shows that, to pick up on the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for just south of Ayr—
Mr. Foulkes: Come on. Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley.
Mr. Straw: Yes, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley—near Ayr.
54
That shows that Iraqis are already, even in these circumstances, enjoying freedoms of action and thought undreamt of during Saddam Hussein's regime.
David Cairns: My right hon. Friend said in his statement of Abu Ala: "We will judge him by his commitment to the peace process." Having been fortunate enough to meet Abu Ala, may I tell my right hon. Friend that I believe that he is absolutely committed to the peace process and is a leader of wisdom and pragmatism? However, he needs to be able to demonstrate that he is his own man if he is to have any credibility with Israel and the Quartet. To that end, would it not be a good first step if he could persuade the Palestinian security chief, who resigned at the same time as Abu Mazen and showed that he was not only paying lip service to the aim of dealing with terrorism but was doing something about it, to change his mind and come back on board? That would go some way to meeting some of the concerns expressed in Israel that the Palestinian Authority have to act as one against terrorism, not just paying lip service to that idea, but doing something about it.
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is not for us to get involved in the internal politics of the Palestinian Authority or any equivalent authority. However, I would say that Abu Ala has a very distinguished record as one of the architects of the Oslo accord, and he is a man of peace. It is crucial that he is given authority by Chairman Arafat and that he has the security forces under his control, in a co-ordinated command that enables him to carry out the key task facing any Government in the occupied territories: establishing their authority over the terrorist groups, eliminating them and making the occupied territories secure. If they are able to achieve that, and the Israelis and the international community have an important part to play in that, confidence will build up and, with a bit of luck, we will return to the virtuous circle that existed before Hamas set about blowing up the peace process on 19 August.

Point of Order
Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It has emerged in the last week that Mr. Andrew Gilligan, who was a witness before the Foreign Affairs Committee, was briefing Liberal Democrat and Tory Members of that Select Committee. That appears to be an abuse of the House. Will you look into it?
Mr. Speaker: I will write to the right hon. Gentleman.

Orders of the Day

  Water Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Speaker: I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. I also inform the House that there is an eight-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.
  5.24 pm
  The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Government are committed to sustainable development. In "Directing the Flow", published nearly a year ago, we set out our strategic vision for the future direction of water policy and firmly established the place of water among our broader sustainability objectives. The high level of importance that the Government attach to water sustainability is shown throughout the Bill.
  I shall outline the three main aims of the Bill. First, it improves water resource management and conservation by building upon existing legislation. Secondly, it addresses the issue of better regulation of the water industry, strengthening the voice of consumers and putting their needs at the centre of the regulator's responsibilities, equal in standing with the companies. Thirdly, it provides an increased opportunity for competition, benefiting large non-domestic consumers in the first instance.
  Part 1, along with elements of part 3, is about the long-term sustainable use of water resources. This objective is set against a background of increased water demand and the uncertainties of climate change, and it reflects a major aim of the water framework directive.
  Sustainability is about striking a balance between these potentially conflicting demands. The Bill strikes such a balance. It starts by placing a direct duty on the Secretary of State to encourage water conservation and an enhanced duty on the water industry. It sets up essential tools to manage water resources to help balance the conflict between the availability of resources and increasing demand. Water resource management plans and Drought plans that are detailed in part 3 will help water companies to forward plan, ultimately protecting their interests and those of consumers, while ensuring that any potential environmental damage is limited.
  Tony Lloyd: On the protection of consumers, in the House of Lords the Government set their face quite strongly against the rights of the new consumer council to make publicly available information that it felt was in the public interest. Why did the Government take that stance? Will there be an opportunity during the Bill's passage through this place to reconsider these matters and to reflect that consumers' interests would be greatly strengthened if consumer councils had the right to operate in accordance with, for example, freedom of information legislation?
  Mr. Morley: I confirm that there will be an opportunity during the Bill's passage through this place

  57
  to discuss such issues, both in Committee and on Report. As for the availability of information, I assure my hon. Friend that we want to ensure that the maximum amount of information is available to consumer bodies and is available to be put in the public domain. Water Voice will have the opportunity of appealing to the regulator if it feels that information is being unreasonably withheld. The argument is about just how far consumer bodies can go, and to ensure also that the way in which Water Voice is treated is consistent with the treatment of other consumer bodies that represent other utilities. That position was taken in the other place. There will be an opportunity to discuss the balance during the bill's passage.
  Mr. John Horam: Will the hon. Gentlemen tell me how far his Department, including the Secretary of State, have had discussions on forward planning with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister? I am thinking particularly of the issue of water in the south-east.
  Mr. Morley: That strays beyond the Bill's remit, but I am happy to answer the question. With major developments, there are planning issues. In the case of the south-east, there is the Thames gateway, which is a significant potential development. A joint committee has been set up by the Government, so that there is discussion between my Department, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Department for Transport about the demands that a large-scale development in areas such as the south-east will produce. Water resource management is one of those issues. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we take such issues seriously. We are addressing them in terms of future strategic planning and housing developments in the south-east and in other areas.
  Water undertakers already produce plans voluntarily, but the Bill makes them compulsory and enforceable. Greater accountability is the key to the Bill, enhancing Environment Agency powers to apply the "polluter pays" principle to water abstraction and increasing the level of information available to the public on water resources.
  If we are serious about sustainability, we must not assume that things can carry on in the same way forever. It means making sure that we fully understand the levels of resources and demand, which is very much the point made by the hon. Gentleman.
  We will limit activities where necessary, based on sound judgment and good reason. The Bill therefore brings some previously exempt abstractions into the licensing system. We are moving to a system where exemptions from licence control are linked to purpose—one where exemptions are linked to impact via the new threshold of 20 cu m a day, which can be varied as necessary. The control of all types of abstraction gives us the ability to manage and rebalance as necessary the allocation of water between various classes of abstracter and the environment.
  Mr. David Heath: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the concern of quarry producers in my part of the country and elsewhere about the effect of the new abstraction arrangements on their activities, particularly below-water table abstractions.
  58
  Can he enter into further dialogue with them, because I am sure that that their concerns can be met, and that we can have an adequate planning regime that deals with mineral permissions without a mismatch between the mineral permission on the one hand and the abstraction licence on the other?
  Mr. Morley: I shall come soon to that very point.
  However, mine dewatering has an impact on the environment and the water table. It is therefore perfectly legitimate to bring mine dewatering within the Bill's remit. Of course, I appreciate that there are issues relating to capital investment and long-term planning to which we are sensitive. We are adopting a reasonable position, and recognise both the needs of the industry and the need for proper resource management. There will be an opportunity to discuss that during proceedings on the Bill. It is a question of balance, and I believe that the balance set out in the Bill is about right.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Morley: I come now to dewatering, and if hon. Members wish to make points, I shall be happy to deal with them. Under the Bill, transfers for quarry dewatering are brought within the system. It is claimed in some quarters that quarry water is returned to the environment and is not consumed. However, dewatering has caused problems for other abstractors in the area who rely on water in the same strata, and it has caused damage to nature conservation sites. We need a safeguard for the activities but, of course, each activity should be treated on its merits.
  Tom Levitt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that explanation. No one would deny that controls are needed on the quality of water returned to the environment by dewatering, but time limits and the effect on investment are causing the problem. Ministers in another place have give verbal assurances, but why is there an objection to including the possibility of exemptions in either the Bill or guidance?
  Mr. Morley: As a general principle, the time limit is 12 years. Nevertheless, the Environment Agency in certain circumstances can provide longer time limits, depending on individual circumstances. It therefore comes back to the point that I made earlier—it very much depends on the circumstances of a particular application and the particular need. I fully expect the Environment Agency to be reasonable in the way in which it addresses that.
  Mr. David Curry: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Environment Agency already has powers to intervene where there are environmental difficulties. Would it not be more sensible, when allowing dewatering licences to be coterminous with the quarrying permit, to reinforce the powers of the Environment Agency to intervene in cases where there was a perceived environmental problem? That would get over the difficulties of investment and uncertainty.
  Mr. Morley: I accept the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making, and it is not unreasonable. It is a question of balance. The problem is that some mineral

  59
  extractors have permission that runs for a very long time, so the time limit for the abstraction licence has to be restricted. There is a presumption of renewal in the Bill and there is some flexibility for the Environment Agency, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly states. There is an argument about balance, but I think that the balance in the Bill is right.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: The Minister is obviously aware that this is causing a great deal of concern throughout the industry. Will he take the issue away after today's debate and consider whether 12 years is the right length of time? There is a great argument—apparently, it has even been accepted by the Prime Minister—about the amount of extra bureaucracy put on to businesses. This is one more layer that they could do without.
  Mr. Morley: It is true that there is a new restriction, but I repeat that I believe it is justified as it relates to extraction from the water table and can impact on other abstractors, their businesses and their needs, and can cause environmental damage. We are not taking a dogmatic position. It is a question of the balance between the needs of long-term investment in mineral extraction, and the needs of proper resource management. I believe that we have achieved the right balance, but that will be subject to the scrutiny of the House in Committee and on Report, and we will listen to the reasoned arguments put forward.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: On a slightly wider point, if we consider business needs in relation to bottled water, such as at Tŷ Nant in my constituency, or mines water, the issue is investment decisions and how the licensing regime interacts with those. What can the Minister say about the new water services authority, and how much emphasis will be placed on business needs, sustainability, job creation and employment in the deliberations of the authority and of the Government on the Bill?
  Mr. Morley: Those concerns are more than adequately addressed in the Bill. First, there is the presumption of renewal. Secondly, even where potential problems are identified, Environment Agency officials will sit down with the abstractor to discuss ways of resolving the problem. They will not go straight in and start taking people's licences off them without first trying to resolve the problem in a satisfactory way, recognising the needs of investment and social and business issues.
  Those are all presumptions in the Bill. They are recognised. The Bill aims at proper resource management in a balanced way, taking into account the conflicting demands in a reasonable and legitimate way. The points that have been raised about long-term investment—in mineral water, for example—are understood and taken into account.
  Diana Organ: Many quarry owners are concerned because of the commitment of long-term investment. If the Environment Agency is to revoke a licence, there is no right of appeal under the Bill. In any
  60
  other planning application where one loses the right to continue development, there is a right of appeal. It seems undemocratic that we are not allowing quarry owners the right of appeal once their licence has been revoked.
  Mr. Morley: There is in the Bill a right of appeal to the Secretary of State, so that safeguard exists in relation to licences that are withdrawn.
  Part 2 aims to provide a new and better regulatory environment for the water industry and its consumers. The new regulatory arrangements set out in the Bill reflect the need to balance consumer and industry interests highlighted in the 1998 White Paper "A Fair Deal for Consumers—Modernising the Framework for Utility Regulation". Water is unique among utilities. Environmental and public health issues mean that regulation of the water market needs the close involvement of environmental and Drinking water regulators. There is also the ongoing need for large-scale and long-term capital investment.
  The aim of the new regulatory framework is to improve quality of service by strengthening regulatory consistency and transparency and promoting consumer interests. The Bill replaces the existing director general of water services with a regulatory authority, as recommended by the Better Regulation Task Force. It places consumers at the heart of regulation with an independent consumer council for water, whose sole purpose is to promote the interests of consumers, undertakers and licensees. The new council will have the power to investigate complaints and to carry out investigations into consumer issues, public advice and information. To help it with these tasks, it has the power to demand information from the regulator and undertakers.
  Both the new regulatory authority and the council will have a duty to contribute to sustainable development, ensuring that the economic needs of the industry are balanced against the social concerns of consumers and important environmental issues linked with a finite resource.
  Paddy Tipping: My hon. Friend spoke about the need for balance. Is he aware of the upcoming price review, and has he seen the indications of the demands of the water companies for a 12 or 13 per cent. a year increase in water prices? That is not real balance, is it?
  Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend is trying to divert me from the subject of the Bill. What I can tell him is that I am well aware of the current price review, and that these are very early days.
  Part 2 also deals with competition. The benefits of genuine open competition are well known and widely supported. In the case of water, however, the potential for more innovation and improved service must be balanced against public health, the environment and affordability. That is coupled with another wider Government objective—to safeguard consumers' interests by ensuring that the water industry continues to provide water efficiently and effectively for all.
  Mr. John Redwood: Competition is the best way of guaranteeing better quality and better

  61
  supply. Many businesses are being ripped off by the water industry monopolists at present: prices are high, there is no specification that they want, and there are not the necessary volumes. Will the Minister consider lowering the suggested limit from 50 to 10 megalitres to allow most businesses to benefit from competition, and also allowing competition to all domestic consumers, who will otherwise be ripped off in the way described by the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping)?
  Mr. Morley: There are potential downsides to competition in the domestic water system. The Bill does introduce competition, but I think it right to adopt a cautious approach and, initially, to set a level that will benefit the very large consumers. Once experience of the competition has been gained and we are certain that it is not interfering with the environment, consumer protection and affordability, it will be possible to review the threshold in due course—I think a period of three years is being considered—to establish whether extending it can be justified. However. I feel that when we are dealing with something new that is as important as water supply, it is important to set an appropriate threshold.
  The Bill gives new entrants opportunities for competition, allowing them to supply large commercial and industrial consumers that use more than 50 megalitres of water a year. That signals a new approach, and, although limited, the measure will give us a chance to assess how the extension of competition in the industry can best work. We would expect a review of the competition framework by the three regulators no more than three years after the provisions came into effect, which would include reconsideration of the 50-megalitre threshold. The Bill provides a power to alter the threshold if that is considered appropriate.
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: How does the Minister square one of the likely effects of the limited competition that he is introducing—a reduction in the price of water to very large companies—with his stated desire to reduce consumption?
  Mr. Morley: Although efficiency of use may encourage consumption. I do not think that encouraging competition and lower prices necessarily encourages increased consumption. It is obviously in the interests of large water users to establish that reduced consumption and therefore reduce their costs.
  The Bill contains a number of miscellaneous provisions, including provisions helping to enhance the protection of people and property. They include amendments to the Reservoirs Act 1975 to improve reservoir safety, and measures to enable flood defence organisation and funding to be streamlined.
  The issue in part 3 that is likely to attract the most attention is water fluoridation. Including fluoridation in the Bill will enable local communities to make decisions about it. The current law gives water companies discretion on whether to agree to applications from strategic health authorities to add fluoride to local water supplies. That places too much responsibility on water companies to decide on what is essentially a public health issue when they do not feel qualified to do so. The Bill would place responsibility firmly in the hands of strategic health authorities, which would engage in consultation with local communities.
  62
  I emphasise that we are not seeking to put in place a central, national fluoridation programme. On the contrary, we believe that the choice should be made locally and that people should have that choice.
  I understand from talking to Members that there are strong opinions and feelings on both sides of the argument. Reflecting that, I make it clear to the House that there will be opportunities on Report to discuss the issue and to vote on it. I assure the House that because of the strongly held views it will be a free-vote issue. Members will be free to listen to the arguments both for and against and to make up their minds accordingly.
  Mr. James Wray: Can my hon. Friend tell me where chronic fluoride poisoning, dental fluorosis and skeletal fluorosis come from? Which substance causes them?
  Mr. Morley: The Medical Research Council, York university and other countries have conducted a number of detailed studies on that issue. On Report, I will be joined by one of my hon. Friends from the Department of Health because this is a health issue. Hon. Members will have the opportunity to examine the evidence, put their arguments and listen to the arguments for and against. They can raise their questions at the appropriate time.
  Mr. David Drew: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and I am very pleased that he has put it on the record that there will be a free vote. Some of us feel that it is inappropriate to discuss fluoridation in this Bill. If people are to vote on health authorities having the right to impose their will on water authorities, can he assure me that the reverse will also be true—that people who already have fluoridation will have the right to vote against fluoridating their water?
  Mr. Morley: I am sure that all health authorities will listen carefully to the majority opinion in their areas. I speak as someone who lives in an area where the water is already fluoridated and has been for a very long time.
  Norman Baker: I can confirm that there will also be a free vote on the Liberal Democrat Benches. The Minister wants local communities to decide the issue, but the decision rests with the strategic health authority. Being strategic, the health authority is not a local body. Moreover, the health professions have, by and large, already declared themselves in favour of the measure. That is not an independent, neutral position. Surely he should involve elected local councillors, who already have scrutiny powers at county council level, if local communities are going to decide such matters.
  Mr. Morley: Where strategic health authorities decide to consult, I am sure that the views of elected members and authorities will be taken into account along with other interests, which include the medical profession. The medical profession's views are important and should be heard. Many of its members are in favour because they have examined the evidence and considered the advantages and disadvantages of fluoridation.
  Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: Can the Minister say why the Government have changed

  63
  their position from that set out in the White Paper published on 6 July 1999, which stated that the matter should be transferred from strategic health authorities to local authorities?
  Mr. Morley: An amendment was moved and carried in the other place. The issue will, of course, be considered in Committee. That might help those Members who wish to intervene. I d o not want to go on for too long because many Members want to speak. There will an opportunity to debate the matter on Report, when Members can make their feelings known. I am also sure that there will be an opportunity for them to vote.
  Mr. Edward Garnier: I am grateful to the Minister for the indication that he gave of the conduct of the later stages of the Bill. We hope that there will be time for a proper debate on that question on Report. Would not Government and therefore public money be better spent on NHS dentistry, not on mass fluoridation? In my constituency, there is a remarkable lack of NHS dental surgeries. I hope that the Government will concentrate on that issue between now and Report rather than on the policy behind clause 61.
  Mr. Morley: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be able to look at the figures on the effects on children's dental cavities in areas where water is fluoridated and in those where it is not; he can make his mind up accordingly.
  Mr. John Bercow: As always, the Minister's generosity gets the better of him; I am grateful. Given that a Draft Bill has been in existence for nearly three years, how, in all candour, does he explain or defend the concentrated ambiguity of clause 89 on the subject of consultation? Just to give us a taste, can he tell us whether he thinks that it will be similar to, or very different from, the sort of consultation that the Government recently announced on constitutional reform?
  Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman has been around for long enough to know that a Bill that starts in another place is amendable. The Bill has been amended as part of the democratic process, and right hon. and hon. Members will consider it properly in this House. As for consultation, that is matter for strategic health authorities in partnership with their local communities. I am sure that that can be dealt with in further detail in due course.
  The Bill received general support in another place. We considered points that were raised there in the course of its passage, and important changes were made in respect of several issues, including fluoridation. The Government accepted the Opposition's recommendation that water conservation should be promoted across the public sector; consequently, clause 85 now includes a new duty on public bodies to give consideration to that matter. It was also agreed that the Environment Agency's existing duty to ensure that our water resources are used efficiently should be made explicit through what is now clause 75.
  64
  It was agreed that the economic, social and environmental considerations of water services are central to consumer interests. Therefore, the remit of the consumer council for water, which is covered in clause 38, has been extended to include a duty for the achievement of sustainable development. It is envisaged that the new consumer council will have a key role in decision making on water issues, and the Government accepted an amendment to clause 46 placing a duty on the authority to consult the council in relation to the exercise of its functions where appropriate.
  Diana Organ: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr Morley: I am trying to make some progress because I do not want to delay hon. Members who wish to speak.
  Clause 55 now imposes a duty to promote cooperation between regulators. That amendment encourages the exchange of information and the consistency of treatment of matters of common interest to regulators while having regard to protecting individual remits and the independence of each regulator.
  Clause 57 now gives powers to the Competition Commission to decide on a fair allocation of the burden of costs of appeals between the customer and the shareholder. That is intended to ensure that companies with fewer customers do not pass on disproportionate costs to households and businesses in their water bills.
  We did not make changes in response to all the points that were made. That was not because we were not prepared to listen, but because careful consideration of the arguments led us to conclude that amendments would not meet the need to balance the interests of all concerned, including the environment. consumers, water companies and other abstractors.
  It is worth making it clear that the Bill is not intended to cover all areas of water policy. It builds on existing legislation with measures that deal with water conservation, water resources and the water and sewage industry. It is essential, however, that it fits in with the broader strategic vision set out in "Directing the Flow".
  The Bill is consistent with the aims and objectives of the water framework directive. The Government remain of the view that it is appropriate to use the European Communities Act 1972, rather than the Bill, as the vehicle for transposing the directive. That is the approach that we took in the Draft regulations, which were published for consultation last month.
  The issues associated with existing private sewers are being covered by separate consultation. A public consultation exercise is under way, and we must await its outcome before considering what legislative changes, if any, are needed. We should not pre-empt the outcome in the Bill.
  I note, of course, that the official Opposition have tabled an amendment. They clearly found very little in the Bill with which to disagree, however, because the amendment seems to be completely irrelevant to what we are discussing. It says that the Bill
  "fails to provide the strategic framework to meet the challenges posed by the European Water Framework Directive and to ensure the long-term provision of safe, clean water across England and Wales".

  65
  I might point out that the application of EU directives under the European Communities Act was introduced by the Conservatives. Apparently, it was all right for them to use it in applying directives when they were in power, but now we are supposed to change that. Moreover, a great deal of consultation on the water framework directive remains to be done. The Bill plays an important part in introducing its measures, which we take very seriously, but it is not appropriate to introduce it fully at this stage.
  We want sustainable development to be at the heart of our water policy and the water and sewage industry. We want an industry that provides a quality service that responds to consumers' needs. That is the intention of the Bill, and I believe that it gets that difficult balance right. We are, of course, prepared to listen to all Opposition Members when the Bill goes through Committee. It is an important measure, and it deserves better consideration than is allowed for by the amendment, which is at best irrelevant and at worst a bit of petty politicking that ignores the serious issue of proper, sustainable resource management. That is at the heart of the Bill, which is why I commend it to the House.
  5.56 pm
  Mr. David Lidington: I beg to move, To leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Water Bill [Lords] because it fails to provide the strategic framework to meet the challenges posed by the European Water Framework Directive and to ensure the long-term provision of safe, clean water across England and Wales; does not make adequate provision for water resources in areas such as the south east of England where new housing is planned; undermines current customer structures; and fails to make proper provision for water conservation and flood prevention."
  I suppose that I should first thank the Minister for introducing the Bill on Second Reading and remark that it is a pleasure to see him supporting and endorsing a Bill that takes as a given the fact that the water industry remains in the private sector. Although we cannot yet, perhaps, count him as an ardent disciple of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) or my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), at least he may be inching in our direction in this respect.
  It is certainly true that the privatised water industry and the water regulators can point to considerable successes since privatisation. There have been marked improvements in water quality, fewer serious incidents of water pollution, better standards of Drinking water, and about £50 billion of capital expenditure on environmental improvements. However, as the Minister said, the water industry faces important challenges. Demand for water is rising—it is up by some 40 per cent. over the past three decades—and the Government's recently announced housing plans will add Dramatically to that demand, especially in the driest parts of this country. European Union figures show that the United Kingdom has the fourth lowest fresh water resources in the Community. Those are average figures that conceal big regional variations. In particular, southern and
  66
  eastern England are relatively arid, with rainfall at about half the average of the UK as a whole, yet they are also the regions where the population is most densely settled and pressure on demand is greatest.
  Climate change is likely to mean more extreme weather conditions in future, including the risk of more frequent floods and droughts. At the same time, public opinion and, perhaps above all, European legislation, demand still tougher environmental standards. However, improving those standards requires money for capital investment, and people who wish for environmental improvements also worry about the level of water charges that they face each year and each month. As the Bill passes through the House, we shall judge it in terms of how well we believe that it will help our country to tackle those important challenges.
  If we examine the range of measures, we can welcome some of them. They include the exemption from licensing of small-scale abstractions, the provision in clause 89 to make it easier to return contaminated land to use and the new rules on lateral sewers. On other matters, we want to press the Government to explain in greater detail the course that they advocate. Much of part 2 falls into that category. I have no great ideological objection to replacing the director general of Ofwat with a regulatory authority but it is not obvious why three or more people, all appointed by the Secretary of State, should be more effective, impartial and independent of the Secretary of State than the current director general. To some extent, I agree with the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd) about councils' right to obtain and publish information. I hope that that can be explored later.
  Mr. Peter Atkinson: My hon. Friend points out that the Bill needs careful consideration. How does he believe that that can happen if it has to leave Committee on 21 October?
  Mr. Lidington: As with other measures, the Government are attempting to shoehorn a Bill through Parliament in a time that suits Ministers and are not prepared to provide adequate opportunity for full parliamentary challenge and scrutiny.
  We are sceptical about some provisions, including the abolition of local flood defence committees and the power to revoke abstraction licences without compensation. Like the Select Committee, I question whether that will comply with the Human Rights Act 1998, which the Government introduced.
  Conservative as well as Labour Members will have a free vote on fluoridation. I believe that it is wrong to give the state the power to insist on putting medicine in the public water supply. The arguments of some advocates of fluoridation, such as "Let the people Drink Malvern", are unsatisfactory.
  Andy Burnham: Does the hon. Gentleman disown the water fluoridation legislation that his party introduced when in government?
  Mr. Lidington: The hon. Gentleman asks me about legislation that was introduced some years before I became a Member of Parliament. I therefore accept no

  67
  responsibility for it. I am stating my view of the Bill. It will guide my approach not only to the measure but to any other Bill on the subject in the time that I serve here.
  Tom Levitt: Does the hon. Gentleman take the same attitude to folic acid in flour or iodine in salt? Does he want them removed?
  Mr. Lidington: Water consumers should decide whether they wish to have fluoride, which they can easily obtain through numerous toothpastes and other products. Consumers should have the right to make the decision.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is deeply ironic that the Government try to ban natural herbal supplements and limit the amount of vitamins that we can take yet want to put fluoride in our water?
  Mr. Lidington: For once, I agree completely with the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend has been remarkably patient with the minority view in this country, which has been expressed too loudly in the House, that fluoride must be forced upon us. I am delighted that he is so robust. Many of us are with him and I urge Labour Members to join us if they do not want their view on the subject to be as unpopular as that on herbal medicines.
  Mr. Lidington: I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention.
  The Government's course entails some genuine practical difficulties. Little, if anything, in the Bill suggests how strategic health authorities are supposed to gauge public opinion. It is unclear what will happen if public opinion, having perhaps first favoured fluoride, were subsequently to switch, through, for example, the production of new scientific evidence. Would fluoridation be ended? The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) made that point earlier.
  What happens if communities with different health authorities, but served by the same water company and therefore the same network of pipes, reach different conclusions about fluoridation? In those circumstances, it would be impractical for the water undertakers or suppliers to send fluoridated water to one set of customers and unfluoridated water to the other. They would have to choose which set of customers to disappoint.
  The basic problem with the Bill is its failure to provide a coherent strategy to deal with the challenges that face the water industry and its customers. For all the slogans and spin about sustainable development and joined-up government, water policy is still too often decided in a disjointed or piecemeal fashion.
  68
  I agreed with the Minister's comment that we need to strike a balance between the interests of the environment and those of not only water companies but their industrial and domestic consumers.
  Dr. Phyllis Starkey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Lidington: No, I wish to make progress and I am conscious that many hon. Members wish to speak.
  As the Minister acknowledged, the Government have recently signed up to the European water framework directive, which will be effected later this year. It has enormous financial and regulatory implications for the Government, the water industry and water users. Until the House of Lords defeated the Government over what is now clause 2, the directive was not mentioned in the Bill. Clause 2 does little more than state what the Secretary of State will be legally obliged to do under the directive.
  The directive's requirements appear certain to affect the regulatory regime that the measure embodies. For example, let us consider water management. The directive requires water policy to be framed in river basin management plans, which are Drawn up on a six-year cycle. However, the Government have given no clear account of how the six-year cycle will relate to the five-year cycle of periodic reviews that determine the investments that companies should make and how much they should be allowed to charge their customers. The Bill contains no proposal to synchronise those two timetables, yet without such synchronisation, it is difficult to understand how we can form a coherent policy for water management in the United Kingdom.
  The directive is sure to require new investment. Water UK, to which the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), alluded, talks about expenditure of £20 million. Yet the Government's regulatory impact assessment, which was published last month, gave figures for costs of up to £4.2 billion for sewage companies. Paragraph D.141 of the same document states that the directive may lead to the imposition of stricter limits on abstraction and make it more expensive. I presume that if abstraction becomes more expensive, the extra expenses are likely to be passed on to water consumers.
  Lord Whitty said on 8 April in column GC 16 of the Lords Hansard that some investment schemes might need funding not in the distant future but between 2005 and 2010. That period is covered by the review, which, according to the Minister, is currently under way. The Bill is silent about the directive's impact on abstraction policy. A question mark remains over the Bill's compatibility with the directive. My reading suggests that the directive requires all abstraction licences to be subject to some sort of review. However, the Bill assumes that licences granted in perpetuity will continue without any such review or time limit.
  I hope that we will not take primary legislation through this House to do one thing and then find that the rules have been changed by the back door as a result of regulations to implement a directive with which the Government had previously assured us their Bill was compliant. There may be the need under the directive for

  69
  a draconian use of the controls applied by the Bill to meet the environmental standards that the directive requires.
  As has been pointed out, the Bill does not tackle the total lack of co-ordination between planning policy and water and flood management. The Government are currently proposing—perhaps "instructing" would be a
  —more accurate description—that half a million new houses should be built in the most arid parts of England. Yet the Deputy Prime Minister's policy document—laughably entitled "Sustainable Communities"—did not mention water. The Environment Agency told an inquiry by the relevant Select Committee into the Thames gateway project that it had not been consulted by the Deputy Prime Minister about the impact of his plans on water conservation, or on the risk of flooding. The Government appear to have woken up to this after they published their plans and issued their edicts to local authorities.
  The Environment Agency may now find itself having to use ever tighter restrictions on abstraction—using the powers that the Bill proposes should be given to it—and doing so at a real cost to consumers to mitigate the harm being wrought by the Government's perverse housing policies.
  We are worried also about the centralising direction of some of the measures in the Bill, which contains a host of additional powers for the Secretary of State and the Environment Agency, many of which we shall want to explore in greater detail in Committee and on Report. By contrast, powers are removed from local flood defence committees and from local authorities. For example, we see powers for the Secretary of State to insist on changes to water resources management and drought plans.
  I am disappointed that the Government have thrown away the opportunity to consider and, perhaps, introduce pilot projects for economic measures that might work to bring about water conservation and better water management from the bottom up, rather than being wedded so much to a top-down approach. The Bill does not address the possibility of tradeable permits for discharges or differential charging for abstraction rights, even though the Environment Agency is reported be considering those issues and even though the Bill includes a mechanism for transferring discharge consents.
  A market-led approach—piloting approaches based on differential pricing—might, for example, provide a greater incentive for worthwhile conservation measures such as trickle irrigation, giving them a market advantage over other methods of using water in agriculture and horticulture.
  I want to deal briefly with the question of water bills, which are already a heavy burden on consumers, especially pensioners and others on low or fixed incomes. As the hon. Member for Sherwood pointed out, the industry says that it would need a £15 annual increase in bills to meet its obligations under the water framework directive. That £15 is an average figure; there would be wide variations in the increases proposed between different regions of the country. The Bill's proposals on abstraction could end up making the cost to consumers higher still.
  70
  The six or 12-year limits on abstraction licences that were debated in the House of Lords would mean those licences lasting for a much shorter period than the investments for which they were supposed to provide water. The costs would have to be recovered from consumers over a shorter period unless the investment programme was to be scrapped entirely. The logical consequence of that is that we will see even sharper increases in water charges as a result of the policy of time-limiting over the relatively short period that the Government are proposing.
  During the Bill's future stages, I will want Parliament to explore further the opportunity that the Government rejected in the House of Lords at least to relate the time given to a particular licence to the lifetime and economic importance of the investment that that abstraction supports.
  Mr. Jonathan Djanogly: The Minister said that the 12 years was an adaptable period, but companies that have spoken to the Environment Agency have been told clearly that the 12 years will be a fixed period other than in very exceptional circumstances. To that extent, what the Minister said was slightly wide of the mark.
  Mr. Lidington: My hon. Friend's intervention reinforces the need for us to look more closely in Committee at the balance between industry and the environment.
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Has my hon. Friend noticed that the Government's own regulatory impact assessment of the competition proposals in the Bill—together with the opinion of the water industry—is that this measure could lead to consumer prices going up even if prices for large companies go down?
  Mr. Lidington: I have read that assessment and it appears that the limited competition offered by the Bill will cut prices for a handful of very large industrial consumers of water but seems unlikely to provide much benefit to other consumers. It is also being made clear by potential investors—companies such as Centrica—that the limited competition regime will not provide them with sufficient incentives to enter the business and offer alternative sources of water supply to the existing companies.
  Clearly, geography and the design of the current infrastructure impose limits on how much competition is practical now but I am puzzled as to why the Government did not extend competition further than the 50 megalitre limit that they are currently proposing, allowing those business and domestic consumers who would be able, in practice, to take advantage of competition to do so.
  Dr. Starkey: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way before he concludes. Will he clarify whether the views that he expressed on fluoridation were his personal views or the views of the Conservative party, whether he has consulted the shadow spokesman for health on the matter and whether the Whips will impose a three-line whip on his colleagues?
  Mr. Lidington: When the hon. Lady studies Hansard tomorrow, she will find that I opened my remarks on

  71
  fluoridation by making it clear that there will be a completely free vote among Front-Bench and Back-Bench Conservative Members. I have talked to my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), the shadow Secretary of State for Health, about the matter. He knew what I was proposing to say. I know his view and he is perfectly capable of expressing it as robustly as ever. I very much look forward to him doing so.
  Mr. Wray: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Lidington: The hon. Gentleman's request to me that the Minister give way makes it tempting, but I want to conclude to allow other hon. Members to speak.
  Water bills are being kept unnaturally high by the increased level of bad debt that water undertakers have to carry. The Government decided to abolish the right of water companies to disconnect customers who consistently refused to pay their bills, and one understands their motive for making that decision. Now, however, nearly one fifth of households do not pay their bills.
  Diana Organ: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Lidington: No, I will not. I hope that the hon. Lady will get the opportunity to speak later.
  Most hon. Members know, through their constituency correspondence from pensioners and others who struggle to pay the bills demanded of them, that those people find the current level of water payments difficult, and even oppressive. It is unfair on those people who are struggling to pay their bills that we should be prepared to tolerate deliberate—I stress that word—non-payment. Estimates were made during the debate in the House of Lords that an average of up to £9 is added to every household's water bill to cover the cost of those citizens who refuse to pay their bills. I regret the fact that the Bill has taken no steps to address those problems.
  The Bill will not deliver all the benefits that the Minister and the Government claim for it. It fails to address many of the important problems now facing the water industry. Our amendment gives the House the opportunity tonight to register its dissatisfaction with legislation that is badly flawed, and I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to express their scepticism about the Bill by joining me in voting for the amendment this evening.
  6.22 pm
  Mr. James Wray: It has been quite some time since I raised this issue in the House, but I have spent a great deal of time on it. I am very interested in water and where it goes, and I was very much against the privatisation of the water industry. When it went into private hands in Scotland, one of the reasons—
  Stephen Hesford: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I seek your assistance? Is it right that the Bill, and particularly the fluoridation proposals, do not apply to Scotland?
  Mr. Wray: I am here as a Labour Member of Parliament, a Westminster Member of Parliament. I am not here to vote on Scottish issues.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman will make clear his intentions as his speech continues.
  Mr. Wray: I was saying that the last time that I raised this issue was in Scotland, and that I was very concerned about it because there was a restriction on borrowing by local authorities. That is when all the peddlers moved in to get hold of the water, because it is a very profitable industry. They came in with their meters in the commercial sector, and now they are waiting to get full control so that they can meter domestic water, and I am very much against that. They have made millions by transferring the business from various companies all over the country.
  One thing that really bothers me is the way in which the Government have introduced clause 61, in which they propose that health authorities should be given new powers regarding fluoridation. Obviously, some people think that they know better than others. When I first came across the issue of fluoridation of public water supplies, I wrote to people in various countries for two years before I took the matter up, because I wanted to know more about it. I then decided, 25 years ago, to entice one of my constituents to take the matter to the Court of Session, because the Strathclyde regional authority wanted to spend £75,000 on machines to help the chemical industry. It certainly was not going to help the people. We all know that we get fluoride anyway, from our tea and our bread and from the fresh air that we breathe. It is also very difficult to measure one part per million. We undertook that case from a moral aspect, as well as from a medical and a legal aspect. We won it on the legal aspect because it was outwith the remit of a medical engineer to treat the people who drank the water. It was his job to treat the water and to make it wholesome for drinking.
  Ministers have obviously not done their homework on this issue. A committee was set up which could not reach a conclusion one way or another. It is claimed that fluorides are not a medicinal product, but section 130 of the Medicines Act 1968 states clearly what a medicinal product is. Fluorides are claimed to be a medicinal product under European Union legislation. The Medicines Act defines a medicinal product as a substance mixed with another and used to treat an animal or human being to cure a disease. Dental fluorosis is not a disease. I did not create the terms "skeletal fluorosis", "dental fluorosis" or "chronic fluoride poisoning"; they come from fluoride.
  Fluorosilicates are banned in Europe, and fluoridation is a criminal act under the Poisons Act 1972. If the Minister looks up all these various Acts, he will find these measures. They even exist under legislation relating to the protection of children. The new measures target children. In Birmingham, which has had fluoridation for 25 years, there are more dentists than in any other part of the United Kingdom. I do not know how those children get mottled teeth, but this is certainly a breach of civil liberties so far as the people of Britain and other parts of the world are concerned. That

  73
  is why I am against these proposals. The fluoride is not self-administered; this involves mass medication, which people are getting against their will.
  The Government should accept and respect the decisions made in various other countries that have voted on this issue and decided against such measures. They should respect people such as Dr. Moolenburgh in Holland, who carried out double-blind tests by splitting the country into two, one part of which was fluoridated, the other not. He became a Member of Parliament, because the whole country was split over the issue of the mass medication of people.
  This is a matter of individual choice. People can take fluoride in tablet form or in milk form, or in toothpaste. Even toothpaste manufacturers realise, however, that big claims could be made against them. Who would have the right to indemnify against such claims? Will this Government indemnify anybody if a case is brought against a pharmaceutical company? I do not think that they would, once the problem began, even though they say that they would.
  The easiest way to get rid of one's wife, if one wanted to do so, would be to go to a city with fluoridated water, and boil a kettle two or three times a night. That would produce a film in the kettle because of the high concentration of fluoride. If one were to stir a spoonful of that substance into her tea, she would be dead within 10 seconds.
  That is the danger. That is the problem.
  Fluorosilicates gather in cast iron pipes, which have been neglected over the years; they have not been repaired, and that has made it very difficult for the consumer.
  Why accept the medical profession's view on the matter when there is a split and a big question mark? Those who support water fluoridation should not think that they are right. During my time here, people have regularly written letters to me about fluoride—some against it and some for it. Those who are against do not want to accept that there is no real medical evidence. I hope that, when it comes to the vote, the people will vote against it.
  6.30 pm
  Norman Baker: I agree with the bulk of that contribution, although perhaps the suggested method of dealing with one's wife should not be given too much publicity outside the Chamber.
  Water is a precious resource. It needs to be dealt with carefully and differently from other utilities and, indeed, from other aspects of life. It is worth remembering that more than 1.1 billion people globally do not have access to safe water. More than 2.4 billion people have no proper access to adequate sanitation, resulting in the yearly deaths of up to 3 million people, mostly children under five. By 2025, up to 3 billion people will live in countries that have less than 1,700 cu m of water per capita, the quantity below which people start to suffer from water stress. That is the problem that we have internationally, which will be worsened by climate change and the other factors that are affecting the world, such as the increase in population
  We have those factors in this country—albeit,fortunately, to a lesser degree—but we have climate change, an increase in population and a concentration
  74
  of population in the south-east, where the Deputy Prime Minister is keen to build lots of homes. Therefore, we have problems. We need to manage our water carefully and responsibly.
  My colleagues and I welcome the Bill because it will, by and large, improve the management of water resources. It will, by and large, improve consumer representation. It will, by and large, improve a number of small problems that have been lingering for some time. The Minister referred to some of those in his contribution but, again, as with the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill, it is what is missing from the Bill that is a disappointment rather than what is in it. A range of things are missing, some of which are in the reasoned amendment tabled by the Conservatives.
  I disagree with the Conservatives on one major point. The Bill is beneficia1, although it may have lots of things missing. It is difficult to see why we should vote against a Bill that moves us in the right direction. It is a great pity that it does not move us further but, because it moves us in the right direction, I am recommending to my colleagues that we vote for it on Second Reading at least, although we will wish to table many amendments in Committee and on Report to try to fill the gaps and to improve the Bill.
  The Bill is missing in many ways, which is a pity given how long it has been in gestation: it has been around for about three years. In many ways, it is simply a replication of measures that were pulled from the Utilities Bill. I was on the Utilities Bill Committee when suddenly, because of a disagreement between the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Department of Trade and Industry—we were not told that that was the reason. though—the water measures in the Bill were with Drawn. Lo and behold, many of them appear unaltered in the Water Bill, so in the past three years it has simply sat on the shelf.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: It got stuck in the pipe.
  Norman Baker: Yes.
  The Minister said that the water framework directive needs to be dealt with under secondary legislation. That is curious.
  Mr. Morley: It is normal.
  Norman Baker: The Minister says that it is normal, but I refer him to a letter written by his predecessor on 3 March 2000, which says:
  "As we have been developing the Draft Water Bill"—
  it has been a long time coming, has it not?—
  "it has become increasingly clear that it makes more sense to tackle all the changes we want to see made to the regulatory framework for water in a single piece of new legislation."
  The reason we were given for the water provisions being pulled out of the Utilities Bill, and for the fact that there was no Water Bill for three years, was that everything was coming together in a co-ordinated, joined-up fashion. If only that were true. It is not true and the water framework directive is not being dealt with in the Bill. It is mentioned in the Bill. That is thanks not to the Government but to my colleague in the Lords, Baroness

  75
  Sue Miller, with support from the Conservatives, who arranged for it to be mentioned. Otherwise, it would not be mentioned at all.
  It is a great pity that the opportunity has been missed to bring together in a coherent piece of legislation the provisions in this Bill and the water framework directive because they impinge on each other and relate to each other. It makes sense to deal with them in one piece of legislation.
  We will come back to the water framework directive. I say in passing that, whatever the precedents have been, it is perhaps not satisfactory—let us put it no stronger than that—for a major piece of European Union environmental legislation to be dealt with by secondary legislation. We should debate it on the Floor of the Commons as part of primary legislation. It is a great pity that we are not doing so.
  Also missing from the Bill are any proper references to what the consumer will pay for water and the charging regimes, and that was referred to in passing by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington). It is true that water prices are now increasing Dramatically—the Minister says that the recommendations may not go through but they are there. It is also true that pressure will increase on the water companies, particularly in the south and south-east, because of shortage of supply, the requirement to build lots of new houses and the failure to consult the water companies and to take adequate notice of the problems that they have in supplying water not simply to all the new houses but to existing houses, when water consumption per head of population is increasing.
  It is also true, sadly, that the building regulations that apply to new houses have not been altered to require best practice in new dwellings. We still have very poor building regulations for new dwellings, and sorting that out should be a priority for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. It is also true—it is perhaps a controversial point—that we should move to a water charging system that is clear, fair, understandable and has environmental benefits. I refer to water metering, for which the principle has been established.
  The Conservative Government introduced water metering in the Water Act 1989. Initially, it was optional, but of course it is not optional for people who move into houses where meters are already in place: they have no option to remove them.
  The Government are conniving with the introduction of water metering by stealth. Water metering is being introduced slowly, gradually, across the country and I have no doubt that we will see it in 20 or 30 years' time. I have no doubt that the Government think that we will get there. They simply do not want to have an argument about it in public now. They are happy for the water companies and individuals to move slowly along that path and hope that no one notices.
  There are significant issues about water charging. It is becoming indefensible to have water charging for the majority of people based on the theoretical amount of money that a person could get from renting out their house in 1973, which is what the present arrangements are. It is difficult to justify a situation whereby people pay different amounts for water, some on what they
  76
  consume and some on what they do not. It is also difficult to justify in terms of equity and environmental good practice when people can use as much water as they wish and pay no more for the privilege, even if they are profligate with that vital resource. We do not apply that to electricity and gas. People might leave their lights on all day if they paid no extra for the electricity. We charge them for what they use. I cannot see why water should be any different.
  I understand that Norway and Ireland are the only two countries in Europe that do not have metered supplies, so we are very much in the minority in that arrangement. I think that the Government want metering, but they want it by stealth. They should come clean and introduce it as part of the Bill. It is central to the Bill, or should be, not simply in terms of fairness for the consumer—it would reduce consumption and benefit the consumer in that way—but in terms of environmental good practice. Less water would be used, which would mean less call on scarce natural resources, particularly in areas such as the south-east. If water consumption Drops, and the water metering trials in the Isle of Wight and elsewhere demonstrated a 10 per cent. drop in water consumption, which has been maintained—I spoke to Southern Water only last week to check that fact—the need for major capital investment is obviated, which in turn keeps the price of water down.
  Of course, I would not pretend that there are no problems with metering. We have to ensure that poor people with large families are properly protected. The vulnerable groups regulations are wholly inadequate and need to be significantly revised. It is important to have a realistic time scale, so that implementation can be done properly over 10 or 20 years. If we have metering, it must be done by rising tariffs, starting cheap and becoming more expensive, and vulnerable groups must be protected.
  Diana Organ: I gather that the hon. Gentleman is very much in favour of water metering, but he did not say how those poor and vulnerable members of society who might consider not using enough water for health and hygiene purposes are to be protected. I am thinking in particular of poor families and those caring for elderly people who might need to do a lot of laundry. He said a lot about the environment, but not about what should be done from the social angle.
  Norman Baker: The hon. Lady is absolutely right to press that point. It is the key argument against metering and must be resolved before it is introduced.
  The vulnerable groups regulations introduced by the Conservative Government offer reductions for people in exactly the circumstances that the hon. Lady described. It so happens that the regulations do not work properly—there is a terrible take-up rate, of about 1 per cent—so they need to be wholly revised, but the principle that such people could have help with metered bills has been established in legislation.
  Also missing from the Bill is how to deal with people who do not pay their water bills. The hon. Member for Aylesbury was right to point that out. The water companies tell us that there is a clear distinction between people who have genuine difficulties with their water

  77
  bills—they must be protected from disconnection, and it would be completely improper to return to that practice, whatever the Conservative line on it may be—and those who know that no disconnections can be effected and take advantage of that situation. I frankly confess that I do not know the solution to that major problem.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) recently conducted a survey of water companies, and they all made that point. Bournemouth and West Hampshire Water said:
  "A large problem remains with those who can pay, but won't pay. This problem is increasing due to the ban on disconnection."
  United Utilities said:
  "sanctions are needed to deal with those who choose not to pay, and adequate must be given for those who cannot pay."
  That has to be a sensible policy, although I do not know how it is to be translated into legislation that works. If we do not address the issue, more and more people will refuse to pay their bills simply because they know that they will not be disconnected.
  The Bill says nothing much about leakages. The Minister may say that he thinks that they have been dealt with, and certainly the situation has improved Dramatically over the past 10 years, but it has not improved for the section of pipe between the company supply at the stopcock and the householder's tap. Water UK says that a quarter of all leakage is in that section of pipe. The companies have dealt with their pipes, but the consumer, by and large, has not. People may be unaware that there is a leak, because the water is not metered, or they may not have the resources to deal with it. Whatever the reason, there is a major loss of water in that short piece of pipe. The Government must introduce measures to deal with that. Personally, I believe that ownership of the pipe should remain with the householder, but there should be an obligation on the water companies to make a significant contribution to dealing with such leaks. That would be better for the environment as well as making sense for the companies themselves in the longer run.
  The Bill contains little on private sewer adopters. The Minister said that he intended to do something about that. It is a big issue that has been around for a long time. Why is it not part of the Bill?
  Mr. Morley: Because the consultation is still going on. We take the issue seriously, which is why we commissioned a report by WS Atkins, which produced a number of options that have gone to consultation. When we have had the results, we will consider what is the best course of action.
  Norman Baker: I disagree not with the process that the Minister has outlined, but with the time scale. Why has it not been done already? The issue has been around for a very long time, yet the Government, who have been in power for six years, and the Tories before them, did nothing. Why are we only now told, with the Water Bill already before us, that a consultation exercise germane to that Bill is under way?
  Mr. Simon Thomas: The Minister tries to hide behind consultation. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Minister's Department undertook a consultation in
  78
  May 2000 in conjunction with the National Assembly for Wales on the provision of new drains and sewers for England and Wales, which recommended to Ofwat that
  "consideration should be given to reforming and simplifying the current arrangement so that property owners' responsibilities for drains and sewers would be limited to those on their land only"?
  That is not in the Bill, so we can see that nothing was done in the intervening three years.
  Mr. Morley: It is in the Bill.
  Norman Baker: We will have to have that argument in Committee.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: It is not fully in the Bill.
  Norman Baker: I cannot mediate between the hon. Gentleman and the Minister.
  I have spoken at length about what is not in the Bill—there is more not in it than there is in it—so let me now deal with what is in the Bill, and by and large offer it my support. The Government are right to grasp the nettle of abstraction licences I well understand the issue about investment, which has been put to me by several industry bodies as well as individual companies. It is right that we should explore that.
  Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: Is my hon. Friend aware of the considerable concern of the watercress growers in Dorset and Hampshire?
  Norman Baker: I assure my hon. Friend that they have been in touch with me, and my thoughts are always with them.
  Mr. Robert Key: And the watercress growers of Wiltshire have been in touch with me.
  Norman Baker: Well, they have not been in touch with me, so I am grateful to learn that watercress is also grown in Wiltshire. I shall pay due attention to watercress in Committee.
  It is right to deal with abstraction, but we must ensure that we do not have unwelcome significant impact on certain industries, and it is right for hon. Members of all parties to raise issues of concern in that regard.
  I pay tribute to the Government for introducing measures to improve consumer representation.
  The issue of flood defence committees has been around for some time, and the Minister will know that, with my experience of floods in Lewes, it is of particular interest to me. What is proposed is an improvement, although it is not quite in line with river basins.
  I want to mention fluoride—the dreaded word—and to remind everyone that this is the Water Bill, not the Fluoride Bill. Many important issues in the Bill have been hijacked by that one topic. I am not pretending that it is not important, but it is not the only thing in the Bill. I agree with the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) that this is not the appropriate place for the measure, but since it is here let me say that what the Bill contains relates to consultation, which no one can seriously object to. However, consultation must be

  79
  meaningful and local, and people must have a right to say yes or no to fluoridation in their area—including, by the way, the right to have fluoridation removed where it exists.
  The strategic health authorities are in no way representative of local views. As a body, they have already decided in favour of fluoridation, so they are hardly neutral. They are not local but strategic, and we do not know how they might consult local people. Presumably, they will send out a questionnaire, and will recommend fluoridation irrespective of the responses. That is not a satisfactory of dealing with a highly complex and controversial issue. If the Minister pursues that line, many people will vote against, irrespective of whether they are in favour of fluoridation. Local people must decide, but that is not what is proposed in the Bill as it stands.
  Mr. John Butterfill: Does the hon. Gentleman therefore think that if even just a bare majority were in favour locally of consultation—by whatever means—their view should prevail over that of the significant minority who were against?
  Norman Baker: That is a very difficult question. I am among the body of opinion who do not believe in fluoridation, and who think it wrong to inflict mass medication on the population at large. The purpose of adding fluoride to water is clearly to improve dental health—that is what everybody says. That is medication for health purposes.
  Dr. Howard Stoate: Is the hon. Gentleman therefore against the chlorination of water, which is designed to improve its quality? Is he against fortification of flour because it is now impossible to buy bread without fortification? Is he against the fortification of margarine, which has undoubtedly saved many thousands of children from getting rickets since the last war? Is it Liberal Democrat policy to be against the fortification and improvement of all substances consumed by consumers?
  Norman Baker: I am not sure that those are very fair analogies. There is a difference between removing dangerous pathogens from a substance, for example, and adding something to derive a perceived health benefit. As with other substances, people have some choice as to which flour they buy, but they have no choice in the water coming out of their tap—not even in the light of the Bill's competition proposals—so the situation is entirely different. Of course, my colleagues will not necessarily be swayed by my arguments; there is a free vote and they will make up their own minds. Nevertheless, we are all united on the important point that there must be proper consultation.
  The best thing that I can say about the Bill is that it is good as far as it goes and we support the measures in it, but what a pity that the Government have yet again failed to introduce environmental legislation in a coherent and proper manner. Yet again, they have failed to take an overall view; yet again, they have failed properly to incorporate EU directives into domestic legislation. That is a great pity, and yet again the Liberal
  80
  Democrats—and doubtless the Conservatives as well,on this occasion—will try to remedy that in Committee to make the Bill rather better than it is.
  6.52 pm
  Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: Although the Bill is in part to be welcomed by the House, because in many cases a complete overhaul is needed, I am opposed to slipping in the fluoride issue on the basis of an amendment made in the Lords. This issue divides all parties in this House, and as someone who has passionately opposed fluoridation for many years, I want to make my contribution on the basis of some simple aspects of fluoridation.
  In the 1970s, when I became chairman of a local health council, there was an enormous debate about the whole question of adding fluoride to the water supply. We rejected the idea, but because we were not democratically elected we passed the issue to the local councils to determine whether they thought it a good thing. The message came back loud and clear that they were opposed to the whole question of fluoridation.
  Many arguments have been presented in respect of fluoride, but I have resisted any temptation to wander into the science arguments. I shall stick to the simple argument, which is based on the question of mass medication. I shall explain why I am opposed to mass medication. Problems may be engendered in Scotland by virtue of the declining population. Given that a diminishing number of people are staying in Scotland, who is to say that, in 10 years' time, if such things are allowed to enter the water supply in Scotland, we will not add a substance such as viagra? Who is to say that that option will not be open to us? [Interruption.] Perhaps there are those in this House who think that a great idea—I see that many are smiling—but that could be the basis for mass medication all over again. Similarly, in certain areas of the country where there was a population explosion and schools were overwhelmed. might not bromide be added to the water supply? Who is to say that such things are not possible, if we start talking about adding substances to the water supply that do not actually improve the quality of the water itself?
  Reference was made in a previous intervention to certain substances that are added to the water supply, but which all improve the quality of the water. The difference between fluoride and any of those other substances is that fluoride does nothing to the quality of the water.
  Dr. Stoate: Does my hon. Friend not accept that the use of fluoride is being proposed to improve people's dental health? Its use is designed to improve the quality of life of children, who otherwise might suffer painful extractions and decaying teeth.
  Mr. Donohoe: As I said earlier, I am not willing to go down the road of the sanctity argument. I am advancing the simple argument, which my hon. Friend cannot dispute, that fluoride is not added to the water supply to improve its quality. That is the case that I want to argue.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Donohoe: I shall move on because I am conscious of the time.

  81
  I intervened on the Minister to ask why the Bill makes no mention of local democracy playing its part; indeed, the Government have presented no arguments in that regard. The White Paper "Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation", which was published on 6 July 1999, states:
  "And to ensure that the extent and validity of that public support is beyond all doubt we envisage transferring from health authorities to local authorities the requirement to undertake public consultation on fluoridating the local water supply."
  What has that proposal apparently been dropped? I want to know the answer to that question, because it is extremely important.
  On 9 July in another place, the Government introduced an amendment that will oblige all water suppliers and undertakers to fluoridate water supplies at the request of the health authority. Why are we talking about health authorities? What right have health authorities—which are in any case appointed by the Government themselves—in this regard? Many years ago, I was a member of a health council and I watched health authorities in action. They are not accountable; they are divorced from the surrounding population. That was why we argued forcefully in the 1970s for the need for local democracy and local accountability. The Government have not dealt with that issue at all in the Bill, and that worries me greatly.
  Andy Burnham: My hon. Friend is making an impassioned defence of the importance of democracy in such matters, but if we leave things as they are, these important decisions will be in the hands of plcs. What right do they have to decide whether a community such as Greater Manchester should or should not benefit from fluoridation? Surely such issues should be in the hands of the people, not of plcs. The status quo cannot be defended on any grounds.
  Mr. Donohoe: Local authority representatives are democratically elected, and I charge them with this responsibility. I expect the Government, on the basis of the White Paper, to allow local authorities to be the agents that determine whether fluoride is added to the water supply. No one else should be given that job.
  Mr. Parmjit Dhanda: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Donohoe: I cannot because I have little time and I am about to sum up.
  I want to conclude by asking the Minister why a particular part of the Bill refers to Scottish Water. As you pointed out in an earlier ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker, it will not cover Scotland, so why does that provision refer to Scottish Water? I want the Minister to answer that question this evening, given that this legislation is not intended to impact on Scotland.
  I expect assurances. I want the Government to take on board all the arguments that many people have presented to me in the past few months. As vice-chairman of the all-party group on fluoridation, I have received dozens of requests from people that their voices be heard in this Chamber, which is why I am speaking today. I congratulate the Minister on allowing a free vote, and I am glad that he pointed that out in his statement. For that reason alone, I shall not vote against
  82
  the Bill tonight, but I seek assurances that my concerns will be addressed in the Bill, and will become part of the Act.
  6.59 pm
  Mr. Peter Atkinson: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) and his impassioned plea against fluoridation, but the Bill deals with much wider issues. As I feared, fluoridation has dominated the debate, but I believe that all sensible Members should avoid it. We all know that if we say one thing about fluoridation, we will receive a host of letters; if we say something else about it, we will receive a host of letters from elsewhere. I shall therefore avoid the issue in my brief remarks, except to say that in the north-east of England fluoride is found in water as a natural course. In Hartlepool, for instance, the natural supply of fluoride is equal to the amount recommended by the British Dental Association. That is probably why the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) has such good teeth.
  Mr. Butterfill: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that because a substance occurs naturally in certain regions, even though it may be offensive in itself, it should be added to the water everywhere else?
  Mr. Atkinson: I am adopting a very liberal position on the matter in not saying whether I am on one side or the other.
  I want to return to the question on which the Minister earlier took interventions: the effect of the 12-year limit on transfer licences. It is a serious issue for the extractive industry, the mining industry, even—I learned only today—the watercress industry and perhaps the bottled water industry. There are nine quarries in my constituency, six of them substantial, making up a multi-million pound business, which provides many jobs—directly and indirectly—in the rural parts of Northumberland. It is a key industry. Open cast mining is another huge industry with enormous capital investment, but it is very difficult for companies to make the investment unless they are certain that they will receive a licence along with their planning consent.
  The Minister said that it was all a question of balance. One quarry in my constituency, the Barrasford quarry, has recently been given a 30-year extension of its rights to extract winstone. The company has spent millions of pounds on a long new road, moving the infrastructure about, and on an enormous number of environmental improvements. It even voluntarily relinquished, because of environmental concerns, certain areas that it had permission to quarry. It is a multi-million pound investment, but the Environment Agency could, at a stroke, eliminate the business if it failed to extend the licence.
  It is all very well saying that there should be a presumption for the Environment Agency to extend the licence, but I do not trust the Environment Agency or believe that multi-million pound investments should depend on its whim. During the foot and mouth disaster, which badly affected my constituency, the Environment Agency was one of the least co-operative bodies. We were faced with an enormous quantity of

  83
  unburied, unburned animal carcases, but the Environment Agency said that action could not be taken because of the risk to the water supply. It caused a real headache by being over-zealous in administering that viewpoint. I therefore believe that it is wrong to ask large companies to trust the Environment Agency, and I urge the Minister to nail down the problem in Committee and on Report in order to give confidence to the large investors and make it clear to them that it is worth opening a coalmine or a quarry and worth investing in the infrastructure.
  Mr. David Taylor: My constituency, too, contains numerous sizeable quarries. One company expressed to me its concerns about applications being wholly determined by an officer of the Environment Agency with no rights of appeal, no transparency and probably no compensation in the event of a refusal. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the Bill can be amended to deal with those problems?
  Mr. Atkinson: I certainly hope so and I urge the Minister to clarify the position and sort out the problem, which is important for the economies of many constituencies.
  Clause 35 poses another intriguing issue. It is an obscure little clause, which deals with the rights to extract water that are given to armed forces visiting this country. It does not explain why the Government have taken Crown immunity away from British forces, which is implied in the clause. Nothing else in the Bill clarifies it, but it could have an effect on my constituency—for example, in respect of military training in the Otterburn or other training areas when the armed forces, particularly the RAF, need to extract water. They will now have to go through a licensing system in order to continue to do so.
  I said that I would be brief, but the Bill is long and complicated, raising many difficult questions that will need to be debated at later stages. Yet there are no later stages, save for two weeks in Committee. I understand that the Bill will not have its Committee stage until next Tuesday—a week tomorrow—providing just four days and eight sittings for us to consider the whole Bill before the conference recess, after which a bit more time will be provided. That is a wholly inadequate time for debating the Bill. It is not particularly controversial, but it touches on all sorts of key issues, not least fluoridation. It is wrong to allot the Bill such a paltry time in Committee. Doing so adds to the Government's reputation for forcing through ill-considered and badly debated legislation.
  7.6 pm
  Mr. Alan Williams: First, I welcome the announcement of a free vote on fluoridation. Before that announcement, there were frankly ominous signs that Parliament was about to be bounced. The fluoridation proposal was not in the draft Bill put before the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee where expert witnesses could have examined it. A long time afterwards, the proposal was not in the Bill presented to the House of Lords for Second Reading. It was not in the Bill in Committee or even on Report in the other
  84
  place. Rather, it went into the Bill through a special procedure of recommittal to Committee, coupled with a Third Reading. It was then bounced on the House of Lords, which had little or no time to consider it. One is bound to ask what on earth changed so dramatically that it became essential to dragoon the proposal before Parliament just five sitting days before we rose for the summer recess.
  The Minister says that it is a public health issue. Yes, but that is to demean it, because it is not only a public health issue. More importantly, it is a matter of the fundamental individual rights of the citizen, and the House exists to protect those rights. It does not matter if the rights of only one citizen are being abused by the Executive; we are here to defend those rights. In this particular case, however, millions—not dozens or thousands—of people will be denied their right to refuse compulsory medication. They are going to be force-fed fluoride. Entire local populations will be compelled to take it irrespective of whether they want it or need it.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: Does the right hon. Gentleman share my concern that in the Welsh context it is not just local populations that are affected? It is a decision for the National Assembly for Wales and a whole country will be either fluoridated or not fluoridated on the basis perhaps of a narrow vote, a 2 per cent. turnout in a referendum or whatever. Does he agree that that flies in the face of any democratic control over the health and medication of a population?
  Mr. Williams: The hon. Gentleman wanted the Assembly and now he has it.
  Mr. Thomas: No, the right hon. Gentleman wanted an Assembly, I wanted a Parliament.
  Mr. Williams: Would it have been any different if it were a Parliament? The same issue would have arisen.
  What is so appalling is not only that it is being done by edict—the edict of Parliament is bad enough—but in a way that no individual can possibly avoid. It is being done through the water system. One cannot live or survive without water, or are Marie Antoinettes on either side of the House going to stand up to say, "Let them drink Perrier"? When something is in the water system, everyone has to take it whether they want to or not.
  The justifications put forward for that are spurious, and I have heard some of them today. The British Medical Association, for example, likened fluoride to iron and calcium and said that we see fit to make up for deficiencies in iron and calcium, so fluoride should be treated in the same way. However, need for iron and calcium is decided by the individual doctor for the individual patient; iron and calcium are not pushed through the water system so that everyone has to take them whether they want to or not.
  We have also been given the spurious example of chlorine. The Minister in the other House cited that example, but then he destroyed his case by saying that although chlorine was toxic, it was put in to disinfect the water. That is the important point. Chlorine is there to

  85
  make the water drinkable and to remove a risk, not to add a possible risk that need never be there. That is the fact that my colleagues have to face.
  Dr. Stoate: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Williams: I am sorry, but if I did I would be denying other people their opportunity to take part in the debate.
  We are devolving to a quango the duty to carry out consultation—what the Minister in the House of Lords described as a consultation of the whole population within an area. When he was asked how that could be done, he could not tell us—but what he did say for certain was:
  "The word 'referendum' never passed my lips".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 July 2003; Vol. 408, c. 651.]
  As a Welshman, I well understand why it did not.
  In this consultation, is there any guarantee of a level playing field in the presentation of a case? Perhaps the Minister will answer that question in his concluding speech. The Minister in the House of Lords admitted that public funds intended for the health service could be used by the health authority to conduct its campaign in favour of fluoridation. Money could be taken from a proper legitimate medical use and used improperly. Will similar moneys be available for those who oppose the idea? I very much doubt it.
  On spurious grounds of interpretation of evidence—from the York committee, for example—the idea has been put forward that fluoridation is necessary and is no danger. That claim so infuriated Professor Trevor Sheldon, who was the chair of the advisory group for the review that he wrote:
  "It is particularly worrying then that statements which mislead the public about the review's findings have been made in press releases and in briefings by the British Dental Association, British Medical Association, the National Alliance for Equity in Dental Health and the British Fluoridation Society."
  He then dealt with the errors. He ends with this remark:
  "there is a dearth of reliable evidence with which to inform policy. Until high quality studies are undertaken providing more definitive evidence, there will continue to be legitimate scientific controversy over the likely effects and costs of water fluoridation."
  There are doubts about fluoridation in practical terms—and I do not think that there are any doubts about it at all in constitutional terms.
  7.13 pm
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments expressed on the vexed subject of fluoridation by the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington). It seems to me that in the 21st century there has to be a more civilised way of dealing with the acknowledged problem of tooth decay in children than in force-feeding the many for the sake of the few. Some of the spin put on the issue both by the Department of Health and the British Dental Association has been deplorable. It is nonsense to claim that the York review conclusively proves that fluoridation is a good thing.
  I would also like to add a word about something that I do not think that the Minister has looked into—but perhaps we shall hear about that later. We know that
  86
  there is a huge debate about the impact of fluoridation on human health. but more work needs to be done on the effect on aquatic ecology of putting a registered poison into our water systems. No work has been done on that, and we are entitled to an impact assessment before any decision; are taken. To go ahead without that assessment would amount to negligence.
  Dr. Starkey: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that toxicity is a factor not only of the substance itself but of the level? To suggest that a substance is a poison and so would be poisonous at any level is a gross distortion of reality.
  Mr. Ainsworth: That is not what I suggested. I am merely saying that we need an impact study of the likely level and the likely impact on aquatic ecosystems. Shamefully, that work has not been done, and it should be done before any final decisions are taken.
  The Bill is a bit of a mixed bag. I fear that, as some of my hon. Friends have said, it is somewhat disappointing, even a little half-hearted. Nobody denies that in recent years good progress has been made in cleaning up the aquatic environment, but many sites are still threatened. The organisation Plantlife International, of which I should mention that I am a director, reckons that over half the species covered by species action plans are threatened by poor management, and 80 per cent. of lakes designated as sites of special scientific interest are currently polluted.
  Those issues are to be dealt with under the water framework directive procedure, not under the Bill, and it is regrettable—although I understand the reasons for it—that the Government have not been able to dovetail those processes more completely.
  I said that there was a strain of half-heartedness running through the Bill, and that is nowhere more evident than in the part dealing with competition. The Department's own regulatory impact assessment predicts that the maximum number of customers who could benefit from the measures is 2,000, which is a mere drop in the ocean—I am sorry about that unintended pun. The assessment also admits that the price for everybody else will rise. It is a strange piece of competition regulation that brings down the price for large companies but puts up the price for small consumers.
  That raised another issue. I thought that we were supposed to be discouraging large-scale users of water from using so much but if we bring down the price, we will inevitably remove the pressure to reduce consumption. The amount of water used by large corporations can be staggering. I came across some figures provided by the BBC, and I am going to use them—not that I intend to knock the BBC; all credit to it for providing the figures. It is interesting to note that last year every person who worked for the BBC used an average of 30 cu m of water. That is a total of 534 cu m—enough to fill 2.7 million baths—[Interruption.] They are a very clean lot at the BBC. Disturbingly, there had been a 20 per cent. increase in the water used since the previous year.
  The BBC has owned up to the problem—perhaps we would expect an organisation run by a man call Dyke to take water seriously. It has even installed something

  87
  called a waterless urinal, the details of which are unclear to me, but I gather that it suffers from technical problems, which I hope will be swiftly resolved.
  It is not clear whether the BBC falls into the category defined in clause 85 as
  "any other public body of any description".
  Indeed, it is not clear either whether it matters if it does fall into that category, because clause 85 is woefully inaccurate. It is an example of the sort of inadequacy that spoils the environmental purposes of the Bill. It requires public authorities to
  "take into account, where relevant, the desirability of conserving water".
  How binding is that? Who decides the meaning of "where relevant"? Are public bodies not likely to be among the lucky 2,000 beneficiaries of the competition measures provided in the Bill? Will not the relevance of cheaper water be competing with the relevance of conserving it?
  That is an issue of great importance, because water is a scarce resource.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury touched on that issue. I was astonished to discover that parts of the south-east have less rainfall per head of population per year than Ethiopia or the Sudan. That is a staggering fact, yet the south-east is where the Deputy Prime Minister in his wisdom has decided to impose massive house building targets without reference to the Environment Agency or the water companies, which are being asked to provide the water supply. Where will that water come from, and where will it go? The addition of half a million new homes equates to an additional demand for 85 million litres of water a day. The water is just not there. Nothing in the Bill prepares the water companies or consumers for the consequences of unsustainable population growth in parts of the country where water resources are already stretched to the limit. In the unlikely event of the Deputy Prime Minister performing a successful rain dance, the consequence would he flooding, because there is nowhere for that water to go. Asphalt is not noted for its porous qualities.
  The Bill does nothing to address these serious and fundamental problems. It acknowledges a problem, because it moves to tackle abstraction, which is important. I welcome those parts of the Bill that are designed to do that. However, I agree with English Nature that aspects of the regime as planned are not sufficiently robust. The Government should accept English Nature's advice that the gradual conversion of environmentally damaging licences towards 2012 should be accompanied by milestones and progress reports in 2006, 2008 and 2010, which would be in line with the habitats directive and with Government policy, and it would also bring certainty to those who currently own and operate licences.
  We in this country should recognise that we have a great deal to be thankful for, as many millions of people in the world live in chronic drought conditions. Our usage of water has increased by 70 per cent. in the last 30 years. I fear that we are taking water for granted, and we do so at our peril and to the detriment of the natural environment on which we all depend. I am afraid that
  88
  the Bill will do little to address these issues, and little therefore to tackle some of the underlying problems that we are storing up for our children.
  7.22 pm
  Ms Candy Atherton: I am pleased to take part in this debate. The Water Bill has been a long time coming, but it is worth waiting for as it deals with some important regulatory issues. It also delivers on the Government's aim to put customers at the heart of the regulatory process. I shall not discuss fluoridation, as I want to talk about water abstractions rather than dental abstractions.
  It should also be said that the Bill does not deal with the big issue that affects many of those who elect us to this place, which is the size of the bills coming through letterboxes. I understand that that is a matter for the periodic review, but I regret that it is not in this legislation, because we cannot ignore the issue.
  Last month, the water companies submitted their draft plans to the Office of Water Services as the periodic review was about to begin. In Cornwall, where people already have the largest water bills in the country, bills could rise £15 above inflation each year between 2004 and 2009. The average water bill will account for significantly more than 10 per cent. of a weekly pension. It is an unwelcome milestone, and it is fundamentally wrong. The Government should address the issue.
  I am not blind to the successes of the industry in recent years. We now have cleaner rivers and beaches, and companies have improved their management and favour a sustainable approach. However, sustainability must be linked to affordability. We must be conscious of the situation of the most vulnerable—the large family who cannot benefit from metering or the many pensioners who face the problem of fuel poverty that the Government have done so much to address. In effect, they suffer water poverty.
  The fact is that in the south-west, as every school child will tell you, 3 per cent. of the country's population pays for the management of 30 per cent. of our coastline, which many millions of people enjoy every year. We welcome those visitors, but the nation does not pay for those attractions, as it does for the national museums. It is local people in a low-wage area such as my constituency who pay.
  We all agree that water is a precious resource, and environmental degradation of sites of special scientific interest and other beauty spots cannot be a good thing. Managing our water and the environment is the central thrust of this legislation. We should all welcome a Bill that updates the hopelessly anachronistic rules on abstraction. It is not unkind to say that the system of licences as it stands is a complete and utter shambles.
  Some major abstractors currently hold licences as of right. Abstraction is estimated to affect several hundred sites that have been designated as SSSIs or are protected under European directives. The Bill is welcome in extending the use of time-limited licences from 2012, revoking licences of right when necessary and converting existing licences. It is an opportunity to deliver an efficient regulatory regime and to give the Environment Agency the power that it needs to manage our water properly.

  89
  Some of the debates about abstraction are incredibly technical. When the all-party water group, which I chair, held a meeting to discuss the Bill a few months ago, we entitled it "abstracting the truth", with an eye to the great weight of the technical clauses and the sizeable regulatory package. Amendments have been suggested about who is excluded and who is not. However, we should not confuse the important protection offered by licences by making exception after exception. Water is a precious resource and must be managed sensibly.
  I hope that we will have the chance to debate these more technical questions in Committee, and that one issue does not dominate the whole Committee process. We should broadly welcome the approach set out in the Bill, and recognise that it is a long overdue revision of the system following the 1998 review.
  Other regulatory changes are to be welcomed. The proposed changes at Ofwat and the creation of a regulatory board are sensible and bring the structure in line with that of other bodies. Ofwat is now overseeing the next periodic review. We all know how important that process is for all stakeholders, and the various pressures on and arguments that will be put to the regulator. Getting the structure right is vital.
  The proposed consumer council for water offers a chance to reinvigorate the customers' voice in the process. It could be an effective advocate for the consumer. If we can get a duty of sustainability, that will enable it to approach the whole question of affordability in a measured way, as part of the broader debate that links profits, tariffs and the environment.
  Other issues attract my attention. Surprisingly, clauses on contaminated water and water from coal mines have relevance to my constituency. In parts of Cornwall, people have to be careful where they walk, otherwise they may fall down a tin mine shaft. What about the discharge from former tin and copper mines that may cause pollution? I would hope to explore that issue in Committee.
  We also need to ensure that new regulation is consistent with existing directives, especially the water framework directive, which must be enacted by the end of this year. Clarity and consistency of working could save much head-scratching, not to mention lawyers' fees, in the future. Various suggestions will be put to the Committee, and I hope that Ministers will listen carefully.
  I hope that this issue is not used to confuse or delay this important legislation that, in one way or another, has had many delays already. Now that it is in the Commons we should welcome the chance to improve the management of a precious resource in the interests of all.
  It would be churlish not to recognise some of the water industry's successes in recent years. However, with climate change, the need to meet the highest environmental standards and rising bills, many of the old debates have come back. Indeed. in the south-west they never went away. The Bill is a welcome chance to consider wider issues and specific changes, as we create a sustainable and affordable future for the industry and customers.
  7.29 pm
  Mr. Simon Thomas: I certainly want to speak about fluoridation, but first I shall deal with the central principles of the Bill, which tries to address the country's needs but falls short of doing so.
  Surprising as it may seem, my county of Ceredigion has a water shortage. Wet Wales is short of water. Because we store only 2 per cent. of rainfall, we do not have a great ability to deal with periods of drought or climate change. As a result, the south of the county has a severe water shortage of about 1.7 million litres a day, which is equivalent to the usage of 2,800 households. By 2005, with the expected growth in the county which reflects that in south-east England—we have a similarly contentious housing plan, albeit on a smaller scale—we could have a shortage of 3.5 million litres a day. That, as I said, is in what is generally thought of as a wet country and a wet county.
  I therefore welcome the Bill's underlying principles, which are that the abstraction and use of water need to be reconsidered in light of sustainable development, that we need to reform the licensing system and that we need to try to establish a level playing field for different users, rather than favouring one type of user over another. However, I feel that the Bill will not achieve those aims.
  Wales has also experienced severe effects on special conservation areas similar to those mentioned by the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton), who referred to the effects on sites of special scientific interest. Extraction from an important river, the Afon Teifi, is affecting a habitat that Europe recognises as a candidate for special conservation area status. Conservation, water preservation and water use cannot be taken for granted. It is essential that the Bill gets things right for the long term, so that there can be investment to build a proper water industry and ensure affordability.
  On a related issue. we must ask whether the Bill takes the right approach to the whole industry. It will penalise some water users more than others. Let us look at the bottled water industry in Wales, which is tremendously important. The House sells Brecon Carreg water, and Tŷ Nant, in my constituency, is the source of one of the most famous mineral waters in Wales. It comes in the famous blue bottle, and the company employs 35 staff. Like many other industries in Wales, the water industry cannot be moved abroad—companies depend on the water from the area. Although many of them are no longer locally owned, they provide local employment.
  I shall use Tŷ Nant as an example of how companies may be affected by the Bill. The company recently increased its turnover by 20 per cent., thanks to the introduction of a new bottled water in a fully recyclable plastic bottle. It expects 50 per cent. growth next year, but that is the result of a one-off investment equivalent to 70 per cent. of its annual turnover. The company posed me a question that I want to ask the Minister: if a water bottling company has to invest 70 per cent. of its annual turnover over a 10 to 15-year pay-back period, how can a six or 12-year licensing framework give it, and the banks and the backers, the assurance that it needs to continue with that investment and employment?
  We have to bear it in mind that the annual production of the whole of the UK bottled water industry is equivalent to the amount lost from mains leakage in

  91
  nine hours. If we are trying to establish a level playing field, we must be careful not to break the back of some companies when the faults lie elsewhere. Treating bottled water companies the same as those that perform mains extraction would be like imposing the climate change levy on a scooter and lifting it from a power station.
  Another issue that I want to tackle is private sewerage. I hope that there will be an opportunity to consider the matter in the Standing Committee, of which I hope to be lucky enough to be a member. The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) made the important point that the Bill represents a missed opportunity to deal with private sewerage. I recognise that, as the Minister said in an intervention, there is some redress in the Bill for new private sewerage. However, in many estates in rural areas that were built in the 1970s, the 1980s and even the 1990s, sewerage has been installed to the minimum building standards. That is not good enough for adoption by water companies—they will not touch it. Only a couple of weeks ago, I visited Gelliwen in Llechryd in my constituency—a large estate that was built in the 1970s and has pitch pipes, which are not now suitable for adoption.
  The question that the Bill must answer is whether it will be feasible or possible in future to build private housing estates with sewerage pipes that are not suitable for adoption. It would be ridiculous to pass an Act that allowed that situation to continue, and we would miss an opportunity to ensure that every sewerage pipe put in the ground after the Act was passed was of an adoptable standard and would be adopted straight away. If we do not take that opportunity, we will store up huge ecological, environmental and social problems for the future. Clauses 97 and 98 are not adequate, so I hope that we will have an opportunity to investigate the matter further in Committee.
  Finally I turn to the contentious issue of fluoridation. I think that the measure is in the Bill because of the Prime Minister's words at the 1999 Labour party conference, when he said that everyone will have access to an NHS dentist. The Government's utter failure to ensure that that happens has allowed compulsory fluoridation to raise its ugly head again. I am opposed full stop to compulsory medication. I am opposed to putting folic acid in flour and to putting iodine in salt. If one goes to France, one can buy salt without iodine, and the French do not seem to be much more ill than we are; in fact, they live longer.
  I am particularly opposed to compulsory medication in respect of which we cannot control the dosage. We cannot control how much water people drink from the tap or the way in which they use that water. We cannot control the dosage where naturally fluoridated water then has fluoride added. This is an excuse for a dental health policy, and this Bill is the wrong vehicle for it. Fluoridation is a cop-out and a tacit acknowledgement that our NHS dental provision is failing those who need it most.
  The fluorides used are silicofluorides, which are not recognised by the Medicines Control Agency, which refused to classify them as a medicine product. We cannot buy them over the counter, but we are prepared
  92
  to put them in our water. That is a crazy and unacceptable situation, and I very much hope that, on a free vote, the House will turn it down.
  7.37 pm
  Mr. David Crausby: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate, especially on the question of water fluoridation. The most significant question is who should decide what our water supply contains, because therein lie extremely important issues about the addition of fluoride or indeed anything else that science might consider to be in the best interests of our health. For me, this is one of the most significant questions concerning freedom of choice.
  At this point I am not concerned with whether fluoride is good for the health of the nation. It is not for me to prove that it is unsafe; it is for those who advocate its addition to demonstrate its safety absolutely beyond doubt. They have not done so, and in those circumstances the public are reluctant to put themselves in the hands of scientists and those who refer to themselves as medical professionals. The public are right, because to do so would be foolish in the extreme.
  Richard Burden: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Crausby: I shall not give way because there is not enough time.
  The public should resist those who assume that they know what is good for us. Telling people. "This is in the public interest" is the starting point for every tin-pot dictator. Whether fluoride is good or bad for the health of our teeth is irrelevant. What is pertinent is that we should all be able to choose what we swallow. It is too easy to utilise the supply of what we drink to manage the population.
  In Britain we take our water for granted—we just turn on the tap and it rushes out. Elsewhere in the world, water is life and death.
  The public should therefore decide what may be artificially added to this vital resource, and every one of them should have their say.
  I acknowledge that there are scientific arguments both for and against the benefits of fluoride. What I do not accept is that those in favour of fluoridation have a monopoly of scientific wisdom—nor do I accept that as soon as anyone mentions the health of poor children's teeth, we must all jump into line and support whatever the so-called experts tell us.
  I know about poor children's teeth. I was a poor child, yet I still have a mouthful of my own teeth. That is not because I was forced to consume fluoride but because, although both of my parents worked extremely hard, we were still sufficiently poor not to be able to binge on sweets, chocolates and soft drinks at every opportunity.
  I went to school after the second world war. The fact that sweets were still rationed may also have helped. However, I do not hear a cry from any hon. Member to the effect that we should bring back ration coupons for confectionery in the interests of children's teeth. I am irritated when I hear sanctimonious talk from members of the dental profession about the dental health of the

  93
  poor. It makes me even more suspicious about fluoride. Dentists are not exactly known for their generosity. Too many of them are falling over themselves to get out of national health service dentistry in pursuit of wealthy private patients for them to be taken too seriously.
  I believe that the people should decide. I mean that they should actually decide. They should not be consulted, listened to and then completely ignored because those who have the power to make a decision think they know better. The British people must be able to choose what their children drink. The prime responsibility for children's health lies with parents, and that includes poor parents—or to use a more politically correct description, the socially deprived. To treat the poor differently is patronising.
  For a long time, the public have been kept on the edge of this debate. They have not had an opportunity to take a real part in it. As long as the decision whether to fluoridate is kept out of the public decision-making arena, the debate will rightly continue to be condemned as one conducted by powerful lobbies such as dentists, the British Medical Association, health authorities, water authorities, social workers, councillors and local government officers—everyone except those who write to me to say that they do not want fluoride in their water.
  The only democratic way to come close to achieving a fair representation of public approval or disapproval on this issue must be by way of a referendum, and that itself is incredibly imperfect. However, if it is right that we need a referendum to decide what currency we have and on what money we spend. it must be equally right that the question of what we drink should be decided in a similar way.
  To its credit, Bolton borough council made arrangements for just such a referendum in 1968. It was held on the question of adding fluoride to water supplies after the council had made a decision. When the results were announced, it was found that 27 per cent. had voted for fluoridation and 73 per cent. had voted against. Eighty-two per cent. of the electorate voted. There were 402 spoiled ballot papers. More than 100, 000 people took part in that referendum. Since I was elected in 1997, my mailbag has increased every time the issue has been raised. I have received hundreds of letters about fluoridation from my constituents over the years and only two letters in favour of it.
  One of my constituents, a dentist, recently wrote to me making the point that children hardly ever drink tap water these days, and that there are other means such as the administration of a controlled amount of fluoride in tablet form as part of their diet, or added to appropriately labelled milk or other soft drinks, that would be much more effective. I believe that he is right. Compulsory medication—that is what this is—is bound to be controversial and emotive in any democratic society. It is—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's time is up.
  7.45 pm
  Mr. Robert Key: I mind very much about water, about the use of water and about its disposal, and so do my constituents. My acquaintance with the River Avon, which flows through my constituency, started
  94
  very early. In 1948, when I was three, I fell in. Surprising as it might seem, but all the best stories are the true ones, I was fished out of the river by the Bishop of Bombay. I digress. However, the river in my constituency has been important to me all my life. Over the past 20 years in particular, while serving in the House, I have seen a number of measures relating to water and I have been waiting for the big moment, for this sort of Bill to come along to address many of the outstanding issues. I am convinced that we continue to abuse our most vital national resource here.
  We are not talking about a national ring main—some people advocate it—whereby the people of Manchester can generously give a lot of water to the people of the south-east. We are talking about piping water around, often in the wrong places. In my area of south Wiltshire, we are piping water from a low-rainfall chalk countryside to dense populations down in Yeovil and up in Chippenham. It is not for our own use. It is simply being transported. The impact on the river basin is huge in terms of low flows, a disturbed ecology and sewage flooding in the winter, as well as ordinary flooding, and water shortage in the summer.
  I have no difficulty in supporting the Opposition amendment tabled in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends, because it points out some of the deficiencies that have not been addressed in an otherwise sensible Bill.
  It is argued that the water framework directive would normally be dealt with in another way by perhaps the European Scrutiny Committee or by means of a statutory instrument. I accept that, but the trouble is that we would have only a short debate on the European water framework directive. We might be allowed two and a half hours. There might be only a one-and-a-half hour debate. There would be no substantive votes on the issue. There would be some general patter, but we shall never have a proper debate on the water framework directive unless we can have it while discussing a Bill of this sort.
  There are other areas where the Government should go much further. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) was right to point out the impact of new housing and industry on abstraction and sewerage. The demand for water is unsustainable. The planning authority cannot say no on the ground that there is not enough water or not enough sewerage capacity. The water and sewage companies cannot say no on the grounds of sewage flooding or low flows. We are told, "This is not a planning Bill. Come on, that would have to be in a planning Bill." Motion 5 on the Order Paper is precisely a programme motion on the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, but that Bill does not say anything about water and the water framework directive, nor about planning implications, and nor does the Bill that is before us. That is a frustrating situation.
  I move on to the general water efficiency duty. When the Government produced their consultation paper entitled "Taking Water Responsibly" they stated at paragraph 9.27 that they would bring forward legislation when parliamentary time allowed
  "to place all other abstractors under an enforceable duty to use water abstracted under authorisations in an efficient and effective manner."

  95
  That is not what is said in the Bill. I am delighted that my noble Friend Baroness Byford successfully introduced what is now clause 1. However, that does not really go far enough and I would wish to see that explored in Committee.
  Then we have the water conservation duty for public bodies, to which my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) was right to draw attention. Clause 85, which deals with water conservation by public authorities, says:
  "In exercising its functions and conducting its affairs, each public authority shall take into account, where relevant, the desirability of conserving water".
  That should be a duty, not an option—the provision does not go far enough.
  There are also problems, on a micro-scale if one likes, with water abstraction. In my constituency, people are concerned about the impact of the new regulatory proposals on what some call flooding and others warping—it simply means the old water meadows. Extraordinarily, DEFRA is giving grants of taxpayers' money for the restoration of our heritage of water meadows on the one hand but, on the other, says that it will charge for that. That is crazy, and I hope that we will sort it out in Committee.
  Secrecy is also a problem. There have been moves towards disclosure, which I very much welcome, but it really will not do to go on pretending that this is all hugely commercially sensitive and we cannot tell the wider public how many litres are being extracted from which borehole. I do not even see why the Ministry of Defence should hide behind Crown immunity so that it does not have to tell us what is happening in water abstraction. I asked a parliamentary question on Monday 24 February. In question 110, I asked the Ministry of Defence to tell us the daily abstraction rate for the Army's 24 boreholes on Salisbury plain. I was told by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie), the then Minister, that the
  "abstraction rate from individual boreholes has security implications and I am therefore withholding it under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information."—[Official Report, 8 April 2003; Vol. 403, c. 145W.]
  However, the hon. Gentleman generously told me that all the boreholes on Salisbury plain were taking an average total abstraction of 10,169 cu m. That is a sizeable river. It is secret, and it is absurd that it is.
  Watercress growers were mentioned earlier, and they face a genuine problem. I received a letter from my constituent, Mr. K. D. Hitchings of Broadchalke, who wrote:
  "I am the fourth generation to farm here at Broadchalke"—
  I know that he is, as I have visited his farm, which is wonderful. He continued:
  "I expected to have licence of right to the water for at least my generation as did my father, grandfather and great grandfather."
  Mr. Hitchings wants me to try to persuade the Government, for the sake of his family's future and the future of the whole industry, to introduce a statutory code of conduct for the Environment Agency in its use of powers granted by the Bill so that businesses with long-lived assets of that type can rely on, for example, 24 years' warning of change.
  96
  That is a lot to reflect on. Some people argue that trickle irrigation is dangerous, but agriculture takes only 4 per cent. of the water in this country, which is not very much. There is a peak in demand at certain times of year, notably the summer, when flows are low. However, in our neck of the woods in Wiltshire, we have low rainfall in the winter months as well. Let us not blame farmers for irrigation when they are using only 4 per cent. of the water—what is really needed is a change in attitude by all of us.
  Water is not free. We choke the atmosphere with carbon emissions, so we even affect the rainfall. We all have a responsibility in our homes not to waste water.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's time is up.
  7.53 pm
  Andy King: I very much welcome the Bill, which comes before the House at a time when the importance of the water supply throughout the world is increasingly understood by all of us. It is also timely because of climate change, which was referred to earlier. We must all learn to be far less wasteful with the precious resource of water.
  The vital importance of conservation is clear in my own constituency. Before today's debate, I visited Brandon marsh with English Nature and the Warwickshire Wildlife Trust, where I learned an important lesson. That site fulfils a central role in raising the awareness of communities around Coventry and Warwickshire of the role that ecology plays in everyone's lives. Conservation is extremely important, but it must be considered alongside the needs of the extraction industries. Brandon marsh is an old quarry site and next to the marsh there is an active quarrying undertaking. The quarrying industry and the conservationists both appreciate the importance of each other. The Bill must ensure that a balance is struck between the needs of industry and the importance of wildlife conservation.
  The Bill will reduce the impact of abstractions on such important wildlife sites, and provides an opportunity to achieve sustainable management of water resources across the country. The reforms in abstraction licensing are a huge step in the right direction, allowing for time-unlimited licences, many of which have existed for over 40 years, to be varied or revoked after 2012. Similarly, the new powers for the Environment Agency to enter into water resources management schemes with abstractors and issue enforcement notices, the duty to ensure that abstractors use water efficiently, and the corresponding duty on all public bodies to plan water conservation are welcome steps in conserving our water supply.
  However, I would welcome clarification from the Minister of the way in which the regulations will work in practice and can be strengthened if necessary. I hope that he will expand on that while the Bill is before the House. This is also a timely opportunity for him to confirm the Government's strategy to give permanent abstraction licences time-limited status. About 90 per cent. of all licences are permanent and, despite the policy of voluntary conversion since 1999, not one has been converted. The water framework directive requires the

  97
  regular review of abstraction licences, and that is perhaps one of the most important areas in which the Government should set clear targets along with the mechanisms to achieve them. I am also concerned that the term "serious damage" is open to dispute by lawyers. That would make the process of revocation or modification after 2012 complex and lengthy. I hope that consideration will be given to using the term "significant damage" instead, which would ensure consistency with the habitat regulations.
  I shall now move on to the adoption of sewers, an issue that has already been raised several times in our debate. The Bill begins to address that extremely important matter, which is of concern to many of my constituents and myself. I must declare an interest because, 25 years after moving into my house, I found out that the sewers were unadopted. If we carried out a survey in the Chamber, we would probably find that many Members and their families have been caught in the same trap. It is important that we begin to address that serious issue. It is a scandalous situation, and leaves people who have been unaware of their responsibility for up to 50 or 60 years liable for the costs of maintaining sewers.
  The Minister rightly said that he has undertaken an important consultation, and W. S. Atkins has produced a report for consultation, which is due to end on 23 September. I hope that every Member who is affected, and every local authority in England and Wales, will respond to that important issue. The problem is extensive, to say the least. Unless action is taken by the Government, it is a public health time bomb, for both the affected householders and the Government.
  The provisions of the Bill in that regard are welcome, ensuring that lateral drains must be of adoptable standard to be connected to a public sewer and addressing the problem of properties built between the 1995 amendment of the Environment Bill and the publication of proper planning guidance in 1999. The Bill does not, however, make private sewers the responsibility of water and sewage companies, and the undertaker still has the final say on adoption of existing laterals and sewers.
  We must take any opportunity to shift the balance in favour of the consumer. The Bill provides one opportunity to do that, in addition to the welcome provisions that it contains. Alternatively, the 2004 water price review, which is already likely to reflect the planned £21 billion investment by the industry, could take into account the additional costs of adoption and provide a timely opportunity to implement an acceptable solution. I very much hope that the Department's ongoing consultation will present its recommendations as soon as possible, so that we can finally take action to end a terrible problem for those affected.
  Another aspect of close interest to all my constituents will be the proposed regulatory framework and how it will protect consumers. I welcome the creation of an independent consumer council for water, but we must ensure that it has adequate powers and resources to improve the representation of consumers in what will remain a monopoly for the supply of ordinary households.
  98
  Finally, I should like to address the issue of fluoridation. That is an issue—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman will not finally have the chance to do that.
  8.1 pm
  Sue Doughty: The Bill represents an opportunity that was nearly lost. During its passage through the Lords, important amendments were made to the Bill, which has had a long gestation. Consultation could have taken place, and issues such as unadopted sewers and the European framework directive have not been incorporated into the Bill as we would have wished. There has been delay and, as has been pointed out, there will be an ungainly scamper to get the Bill through the House by the end of the Session. In Scotland, the Executive worked to take account of the European directive in a constructive way. It is difficult to see the logic of running the Bill in parallel with implementing the European directive.
  The Bill is about getting the water that we need and getting rid of the water that we do not need. It is about ensuring that the environment is protected, which must be done in an affordable way. For some of us living in the London area where our water bills are among the lowest, it is sometimes hard to understand the problems of the people in the south-east where water bills are the highest, despite the fact that they have such low incomes. There is considerable injustice in the way that people are charged for water. I hope that in the debate and subsequently in Committee, we will start to see the answers to some of thee problems that we face, but there are some questions that the Bill does not seem to answer.
  Water is a precious commodity. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) pointed out the problems that exist internationally, such as the shortage of water in other parts of the world—even in parts of Europe. When I was on holiday, I came across people who were sharing an apartment on a Greek island. The children left the tap on—English children, not knowing any better—and as a result the apartment was without water for three days, because water was delivered to the island by boat. We share the responsibility for tackling such problems.
  We face the problems of climate change and droughts and the floods that often follow. There is an urgent need for environmental action. Our water systems have improved: the return of the otter to many parts of the country is widely welcomed. When I worked in the water industry many years ago, that was just a hope, but now it is being realised. But there is the problem of licensed over-abstraction. A licence may have allowed for too much abstraction, which damages the balance of watercourses, the chalk infrastructure and the winter bournes that rely on water rising and falling. We are losing species where the water does not return in the winter as expected. Animals such as the water vole are being lost. Careful management of abstraction and of river basins is vital if there are not to be further losses.
  Sixteen out of 45 biodiversity action plan habitats in the UK are threatened by water abstraction. Again, close management is needed. I share the worries expressed by other hon. Members about the

  99
  interrelationship between the European framework directive, the time scales that it envisages, and the fact that it deals with river basin management plans, whereas the regions manage flood defences. We should take a holistic view because the climate problems arise from increases in water in some areas and lack of water where it is needed.
  We discussed earlier whether we should hold water in water meadows, and whether we do that to sustain species or as part of an integrated water management plan introduced in conjunction with DEFRA. Those important issues need to be considered as a piece, and I am worried about how the Government will integrate them.
  Nothing is being done about licences for abstraction from navigation authority reserves. Navigation authorities have a part to play and, although there is a view that such areas are enclosed, they have an effect on watercourses. Canals feed into rivers, and rivers sometimes feed into canals. There are reservoirs associated with navigation systems that provide habitats for important species, and they need protection from damage caused by changes in the water level. We need to consider abstraction there, and the need for licences. Other lakes, ponds and reservoirs that fall under the description of discrete waters will be excluded, leaving several sites of special scientific interest without protection. We need to know how all the sites that require protection from the damage that unregulated abstraction can cause are to be included in the licensing system.
  We support the Environment Agency as a competent body for flood defence, but it would be much more effective if that responsibility were handled by river basin management committees rather than regional committees. After all, water drains according to gravity, not bureaucracy.
  On the vexed problem of housing in the south-east, the question on everybody's lips is where the water will come from. We are not hearing any answers, but we are getting a little more news. The information that we received today that a Joint Committee is looking at major developments, particularly the Thames gateway, is welcome, but it does not provide the answer. That development is in an area of water shortage and if the water is not produced locally, how will it reach the area? Occasionally we hear talk of a national grid for water, but these are not simple matters. They have been examined time and again over the years. I remember when I was working in the water industry and we discussed the problems of water shortages in Yorkshire. It would be easy if one could ship water up and down the country, but that is not simple.
  Soft water being discharged into a hard water area causes major problems with species. In lead or other pipes where calcification has sealed joints, soft water erosion can cause leakages. There can be problems with turbidity and direction. Once the water has been through sewage treatment, it may be discharged into a river that is not compatible, which can cause difficulties. We need to consider what the planning guidelines provide for. There are many issues that we need to examine in Committee relating to the ability to pay and
  100
  why people on limited incomes who struggle to pay effectively subsidise those who choose not to pay. There is no justice in that, but the Bill says nothing about it.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has had her time.
  8.9 pm
  Dr. Phyllis Starkey: Various Opposition Members have tried to recruit the known water shortages in eastern and south-eastern Britain as an argument against the additional housing proposed by the Government. I assume that that means that the Opposition are happy to see house prices continue to rise in those areas, and for people such as my constituents to be increasingly priced out of the market.
  In my area, Lord Rooker is convening a board involving a number of public bodies, including the Environment Agency, to consider the implications of the housing growth that is proposed in Milton Keynes and the south midlands, and to plan now to ensure that all the necessary infrastructure is there to support it. I applaud such positive action, as opposed to the negative search for any old reason to prevent housing that is needed so much.
  I welcome the proposals to reform the system of abstraction licences. As many Members have pointed out, water is a scarce resource that needs to be used carefully. Both domestic and industrial users must begin to realise that although, obviously, it can be replaced by the rain, it is generally not replaced in the areas where it is consumed—and, in any case, the conversion of water into its purest form, for drinking and other purposes, uses energy. We should all be mindful of ways of reducing usage, conserving water and, where possible, reusing it.
  I urge Ministers not to give in to the siren calls and special pleading for innumerable exceptions for various industries. Industries that use water must themselves devote energy into thinking of ways of minimising that use, and reusing and recycling water. If they are allowed to slide through the licensing process, they will have no incentive to use a scarce resource sensibly and efficiently. All industries that use water have a duty to the environment and the community not to place an undue burden on that scarce resource, and not to have an undue effect on lakes, rivers and wetlands.
  The main subject that I want to discuss is fluoridation. It will come as no surprise that I am a strong supporter of it, for a number of reasons. The public health arguments in favour of it are irrefutable. There is evidence from areas where fluoride is naturally available, and from areas whose water supply has been fluoridated—such as Birmingham—that fluoridation reduces dental caries in children by a factor of about four. Water supply fluoridation is the easiest and safest way of delivering fluoride.
  This is about health inequalities. Dental caries is already much more prevalent among children in lower-income families, and the levels among such children are highest in parts of the country where the water is not fluoridated either naturally or by addition. Members who run away from that argument are really saying that they do not care if those poor children continue to have bad dental health when there is an easy, safe way for society to ensure that they are protected.

  101
  I urge all parents to take care of their children's health, and to teach them proper dietary habits that will stand them in good stead and make their teeth less subject to caries, but I do not think it right for society to refuse to take responsibility for the teeth of children whose parents are feckless or fickle, and to say that the fecklessness of their parents is tough luck. Given that there is absolutely no danger from fluoridated water, it would be irresponsible of us to leave those children unprotected.
  Mr. Graham Brady: Why does the hon. Lady think fluoridation has been abandoned in Switzerland after 41 years, amidst evidence that dental decay was increasing in spite of it?
  Dr. Starkey: The hon. Gentleman is misusing science. Of course fluoridation cannot protect those whose diet is rich in sugar and who do not eat high-fibre foods. As he should know, children in fluoridated areas should be compared with others eating the same food and living in areas where there is no fluoride.
  That brings me to the need for Members to understand how scientific research and methodology work. The balance of scientific and medical opinion is clearly in favour of the view that fluoride causes no demonstrable harm to public health, provided that it is at or below the recommended level. The World Health Organisation itself is certain that a level of 1.5 mg per litre poses no significant risk to consumers throughout their lives.
  Of course it will always be possible to find a scientist who has expressed and will express a dissident view, but the key is to look at peer reviewed science, the balance of scientific opinion, and the evidence emerging from meta-studies—the accumulated data from a number of different studies. That evidence is clear. It is dangerous to pay too much attention to dissident scientists. We should bear in mind the damage done by Dr. Duisberg, who persisted in propagating the view that there was no connection between HIV and AIDS despite a clear majority of scientific opinion that he was wrong. It is a mistake to cite non-peer reviews or dissident scientists who say that fluoride is dangerous. It is not dangerous: 300 million people worldwide drink fluoridated water, and many communities have been drinking it for up to 50 years.
  Opponents of fluoridation also keep describing it as mass medication. It is not; it would be if it were pharmaceutical, but it is supplementation. The analogy with added vitamins in bread flour and margarine and butter is entirely correct.
  Those are the main arguments that I wanted to present. This is a public health issue, and I am proud that it has finally been included in a Water Bill. I hope that Members will take account of the balance of medical and scientific opinion and not be led astray by alarmist rumours put about by many people that are based on no scientific reality.
  8.19 pm
  Mr. John Butterfill: First, I accept the sincerity of the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) in expressing her view. Secondly, I accept that dental caries are
  102
  unacceptably common in certain deprived communities in this country and that something needs to be done about that.
  As the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby) said in his powerful speech, however, there are ways of addressing the problem other than adding fluoride to the water supply. Fluoride treatments can be offered in ways other than through the water supply, and education is also important. I would not object to affected areas being given special subsidies to try to improve the dental health of the children concerned.
  I accept the view of the hon. Member for Milton Keynes. South-West on the scientific evidence. I went to the lengths of having my children's teeth fluoridated—one can get a special treatment privately—and buying them fluoride toothpaste. I do not deny—she suggested that some of us who are against fluoridation deny this—that there are benefits to fluoridation and that it is unlikely to be damaging. However, she accepted that there are alternative views. Indeed, some states in America are withdrawing fluoride because of the possibility of class actions.
  There is a principle that must be upheld. I am shocked and appalled by the British medical profession's view because I had believed that its ethics were that medicines should not be given to members of the public without their informed consent. Such a practice also breaches the Council of Europe convention on human rights and biomedicine, which states:
  "States may not medicate any individual contrary to their wishes except under…recognised public health emergencies. All medical interventions must be carried out under proper medical supervision, and in accordance with the patient's needs."
  Dr. Stoate: I am the only practising doctor in the House and the hon. Gentleman has attacked the medical profession, so it is right for me to mention the fact that we are talking not about medicating the population, but about a preventive supplement. Fluoridation is exactly the same idea as including vitamins A and D in margarine and folic acid in flour. Those things are included in the public interest and for the public good. Everyone in this country eats medicated flour and medicated margarine, and there is very little debate about it. Why should there be a huge difference between supplementing the foods that we eat and supplementing the water that we drink? The effects are the same—they are preventive measures.
  Mr. Butterfill: Fluoride is a medicine, which is precisely why the hon. Gentleman is so keen on it and why it is being treated as a medicine. There are alternative medicines, but there are no alternatives to fluoride in the water supply. Although the Minister thinks that we can all go out and buy Perrier water, I am not sure that the poor, about whom he purports to be concerned, can afford to do so.
  Fluoride is a poison under part II of the Poisons Act 1972, and fluoridation violates the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The Government can, of course, get over that problem by designating fluoride as a medicine, but the use of an unregistered substance for medical purposes would breach EC codified pharmaceuticals directive 2001/83. They would have to register fluoride as a medicine and subject it to full clinical testing, but it has not been registered or clinically tested.

  103
  Unfortunately for the Government, fluoridation also breaches the European convention on human rights. That is a serious difficulty, as this country has adopted, either directly or indirectly, a body of legislation that the Bill would breach. If the Government insist on the measure, they must amend the relevant legislation. In some cases, they will need to obtain the consent of the European Community. Water fluoridation violates both articles 3 and 8 of the European convention on human rights.
  Water fluoridation also breaches article 35 of the European charter of fundamental rights, which states that
  "the right to health care includes the right to refuse health care, for whatever reason. It establishes the individual's right to receive particular drugs or treatments—or to prevent them from having such treatment administered against his/her wishes."
  The Government are in breach of both those treaties, and the offer of indemnity is therefore illegal.
  The Government cannot have it both ways. They could say that fluoride is a medicine and go through all the procedures to amend the legislation. The Minister is shaking his head because he wants to administer fluoride as a substance, but it is actually a poison. I must warn him that there is no doubt that judicial review will be sought if the Government persist with their approach.
  The Minister should take cognisance of the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton), who said that this important Bill should not be hijacked by a completely different issue. Water fluoridation is an important issue that should be debated, and the legislative framework for it should also be properly debated.
  As the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Alan Williams) said, the Government introduced the clause under an extraordinary measure in the Lords, where there was not enough time for a proper debate. Indeed, there will not be enough time here for a proper debate. The issue is extremely important and concerns fundamental human rights. The. Government are behaving in what I hope I can describe as an uncharacteristically authoritarian way, although authoritarianism seems to be creeping more and more into everything that they do.
  The Government should withdraw the clause to allow proper discussion of the important issues contained in the rest of the Bill in Committee and on Report. If they persist with this perverse measure, they will prevent proper discussion and reasoned amendment of this important Bill. I praise them for introducing the Bill, although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) said, it has defects. None the less, if they persist with the measure, they will face legal action.
  8.27 pm
  Mr. Denis Murphy: I intend to deal with two measures in the Bill that affect Waters and Robson, a major employer in my constituency that bottles Abbey Well natural mineral water at source. My concern is based on the proposals for time-limited licences and a maximum period of 12 years. Although the Environment Agency would be minded to agree to further licensing periods, the Bill could still affect the future investment plans of companies that bottle water.
  104
  Bottled water is now a £1 billion-a-year industry. Many people prefer it to tap water because it is seen as pure and natural and people who take the Government's health advice and drink two litres of water per day probably drink it. Surprisingly, only 39 per cent. of the population drink bottled water. However, regular drinkers now drink 64 per cent. more bottled water than they did in 1992 and the market is predicted to grow year on year.
  I should like bottled water to replace over-sweetened drinks in school vending machines. In fact, Waters and Robson has just developed a plastic bottle that will fit into vending machines that dispense cans.
  Despite the rapid growth in bottled water in the UK, we drink much less of it than any other country in Europe. In 2001, the Italians drank most mineral water, consuming 167 litres of it per head per annum. followed by the French, who drank 143 litres per head. People in Belgium, Spain and Germany consume more than 100 litres each per annum. In the United Kingdom, people consume only 26 litres per annum.
  Consumption in the UK is forecast to increase at a minimum of 10 per cent. year on year. The UK water bottling industry currently bottles about 1.4 billion litres of water per year, which sounds like a lot of water. However, to put that figure in perspective I shall repeat a statistic that was given earlier: it is equivalent to less than nine hours' leakage from the mains water system.
  The bottled water market is very competitive. Imported brands have a strong presence, taking some 25 per cent. of the market. The best-selling and best-known brands in the United Kingdom are, sadly, French. British companies are determined to gain market share, but will need time and substantial investment in order to grow. Investment is needed for equipment, new bottling halls, warehouses and connected infrastructures. The payback on such capital investment is usually calculated at around 20 years. Investing in marketing, advertising and brand promotion is also crucial if UK bottlers are to compete with large continental brands. Marketing incurs a significant financial outlay, and returns are achieved over many years. Banks and other investors will be reluctant to invest in bottled water companies whose business might be curtailed by the length, loss or uncertainty of their abstraction licence.
  As a result, English and Welsh businesses—for it appears that this legislation is not to be introduced in Scotland—will have difficulty in expanding to meet projected consumer demand, and imported products will take an even larger share of the UK market. That will lead to job losses, often in rural areas that already suffer above average levels of unemployment. That is precisely the case at Waters and Robson in my constituency. It wishes to expand, but is unable to secure the necessary investment because of the uncertainty of time-limited licences. I therefore urge the Minister to exempt the bottled water sector from time-limited licences—or, if that is not possible, at least to allow them a licence period of 20 years.
  Although my first call was for a relaxation of regulation, my second call is for a tightening of regulations to protect existing natural mineral water sources in the form of boreholes. Let me explain a case, as yet unresolved, that could affect the Waters and Robson plant in Morpeth. The Northumbrian Water

  105
  Authority Act 1981 granted an exemption on Environment Agency involvement in licensing to any extraction of less than 400 gallons per day or 1 million gallons per year. The Bill expands that concept nationwide in the equivalent of litres—namely, 20,000 litres per day. A new company has just agreed to set up a water bottling plant some 200 m from the site of the Abbey Well borehole. It has applied for planning permission to build a factory and to sink a borehole. As it proposes to extract less than 1 million gallons a year, it did not have to apply to the Environment Agency in order to drill—all it had to do was to seek planning permission from the local planning authority, which, as it freely admitted, had no expertise in this field. Permission to drill for a well that pumps fewer than 20,000 litres a day falls between two bodies—the local authority and the Environment Agency. The local authority sought the view of the Environment Agency, which replied stating that there was a possible risk to Waters and Robson's current extraction.
  An important issue arose from the meeting between the planning authority and the Environment Agency's licensing officer: even if the proposed drilling had come under the agency's jurisdiction, it would not cover the protection for the specific requirements of natural mineral water. If the analysis of natural mineral water changes by more than 10 per cent. during one year, recognition could be withdrawn. So if a new drilling project introduces water of a different chemical makeup into a natural mineral water aquifer, thus causing a change in consistency, the mineral water brand extracted from that aquifer would lose its status and the company would effectively cease to exist as its brand would be dead. The Environment Agency has a responsibility only to prevent sources of water from being made unsuitable for drinking. It does not have a responsibility to concern itself with the specific make-up of the water.
  In view of that, I ask the Minister to ensure that protection is given to existing extractions that have specific requirements, such as natural mineral water. Any proposed drilling within 1 km of a natural mineral water source must be investigated by the Environment Agency, irrespective of the volume of water to be extracted. Moreover, the special requirements of natural mineral water must be considered in respect of the mineral content remaining constant, not just the water remaining drinkable. I urge the Minister to amend the Bill to include those two protections.
  8.33 pm
  Mr. Jonathan Djanogly: The opportunity to update our laws on a broad range of water issues is timely, not least because water demand has increased by more than 40 per cent. since the 1970s and massive new house building is likely in the southeast, an area of relative water shortage.
  Gravel quarrying, and therefore water extraction, is a significant industry in Huntingdonshire. I should like to disclose a non-registrable shareholding in Thames Water.
  Recently, there seems to have been a significant change in the way in which the public view water—effectively, from its being a given right, to be used without thought, towards its being a relatively scarce
  106
  resource or even a commodity. Public education has contributed to that, not least through the effects of drought and the loss of rivers.
  Privatisation has played its part, because water is now given a monetary value against which use and investment can be measured. There have been improvements, not least in piping, which, helped by decent rainfall earlier in the year, has contributed to there being no hosepipe ban this summer, for which my garden will be eternally thankful.
  I accept that large abstractions need to be controlled for the management of drought and flooding, for environmental reasons and to provide equality between abstractors. I note the Environment Agency's fair point that, in some areas where exempt abstractions operate, licensed operators have been unable to take their valid entitlement. Unsurprisingly, given its significant new powers, the agency has been supportive of the Bill, but it will be important to review how the powers work in practice, not least those in clause 27, which allows the agency to revoke or vary abstraction licences after July 2012 if they cause environmental damage.
  However, what is now seen as environmental damage is very different from what it was, say, 10 years ago or what it may be by 2012. I recently visited the airbase at Molesworth and was proudly shown the thriving water colonies of great crested newts, which nowadays would prevent any development on that land. However, given that businesses frequently invest on a 25-year or more basis, how will the Government satisfy businesses on their real concerns about losing the ability to trade, possibly with no compensation?
  The system of appeals to the Secretary of State seems weak. As my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) said earlier, the public sector itself is a large user of water. I ask the Minister whether the agency, which is an arm of Government, and the Secretary of State on appeal, are the right people to judge public sector licence applications. Does that not invite political interference, which the Government are rightly changing in their competition decisions?
  Furthermore, I am not entirely satisfied with the accountability of the Environment Agency, which will take significant powers under the Bill, mainly from local government elected members. Decisions on licences will no longer be taken by a committee of elected members, but by an officer of the local agency. I have a good relationship with my local agency staff, but that is not the case everywhere, as hon. Members have said. What happens if the agency gets it wrong? Where is the accountability? I should be grateful if the Minister would address that point.
  I have fears that the Bill represents yet another example of the Government's frequent desire for centralisation and of their lack of concern for local democracy. Flooding is a vital issue in my constituency, where all four market towns and 25 of the 50 villages are threatened by flooding annually. The issue, although of course requiring a strategic overview, normally comes down to dealing with the nitty gritty of flood defences village by village, if not street by street. Therefore, I fail to see how local concerns will be better served by the far-off distance of the new regional flood defence committees.

  107
  Many businesses, not least the quarries in my constituency, are concerned about the proposed maximum 12-year licences.
  Mr. Morley: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the powers in the Bill are to create more regional flood defence committees. Although the local ones are to be abolished, there will be one tier. We recognise that there is an issue about local democracy and accountability. At the moment, there is a limit on the number of regional committees. We intend to remove that, so that we can have more committees to take that point into account.
  Mr. Djanogly: I hear what the Minister says; this will be worth further review in Committee. If removing a level of government is the same as what the Government propose for regional government, I shall still have concerns.
  Many businesses, not least quarries, are concerned about the 12-year licences. When that issue was debated in another place, the Minister noted that 12 years was the agency guideline, not a maximum written into the Bill. Indeed, this Minister repeated that today. Presumably, a guideline can be changed at any time, but that is little comfort for businesses that wish to have certainty to invest on a 30-year or more basis, particularly when the agency has been making it clear that the 12-year limit will not be extended.
  For that reason, I support the view that licences should be issued for the same period as the planning permission. Not only would that provide certainty to the applicant, it would ensure that the local authority and the agency were forced to work together towards the same objectives. Importantly, it would ensure that a degree of local democracy—and, therefore, accountability—would be retained within the process.
  The trading of water rights, as consulted on by the Government, would be environmentally friendly and would improve the efficient sharing of water rights. Will the Minister explain why the Bill does not introduce these measures? I know that many of the examples given by the Government as to how the new licences work do not concentrate on the cost of required environmental reports, which are expensive, quite apart from the costs of any conditions on which the agency would have the right to insist. The implications of those extra costs need to be considered more fully in Committee.
  Finally, I wish to refer to fluoridation. Have we really advanced so little that the Government need again to tell us what we have to put in our tea? It is sad that, despite the potential for links with other diseases, the Government seem intent on permitting the indiscriminate mass medication of the country when they are, at best, unsure of the potential consequences. Clearly, tooth decay among children is a problem, but I suggest that the Government should worry more about public health campaigns for teeth and for balanced nutrition and against obesity—and that they sort out the lack of dentists in this country—rather than permitting the spiking of our children's Ribena.
  Apart from the nanny state principle of mass medication, the clause is riddled with difficulties. There is not nearly enough explanation as to how it will work.
  108
  How much power would a health authority have to compel a water company to include the chemicals? What penalty will the water company face if it refuses? How much local opposition to fluoridation would be sufficient for it to be considered unwanted? If the Bill passes, we can expect to see a raft of statutory instruments in the next few Sessions as this turns into a general debacle.
  Fluoride apart, my view is that the Bill is generally good on direction but short on the fine-tuning. I hope that the Government will listen to the valid comments made during the passage of the Bill as much as they have listened to the Environment Agency during the drafting.
  8.42 pm
  Paddy Tipping: This important Bill has taken a long time to come to the Commons. During the Bill's somewhat chequered history, the Government have listened to views and reacted accordingly. I was delighted when my hon. Friend the Minister said in his opening remarks that he would listen to the comments made in Committee. Against that background, and in the light of the speech we have just heard, it is surprising that the official Opposition have chosen to vote against the Bill on Second Reading. It is also interesting to note that during our discussions this evening, the Bill has been criticised for what is not in it rather than what is. It is inevitable that we shall debate water issues again over the next few years.
  We have talked about the need to invest in the water infrastructure where there is a legacy of neglect and liability that needs to be put right. The question is who should pay for it: the consumer or the company. The strident noises from some water companies in the run-up to the price review do not reflect a proper balance and it is important—I take comfort from what my hon. Friend the Minister said earlier—that the views of customers are heard during the debate.
  The Bill is important in that, for the first time, it brings competition into the water sector. I am pleased that we are embarking on that in a cautious way, with a 50 megalitre limit to begin with. I hope that, during the three-year period, we will look at reducing that limit to perhaps 20 megalitres or even 10. For big companies, there is a case for competition.
  In terms of household supply, and of the domestic customer, I would be far more cautious.
  We shall also need to return to water issues during the discussion on the water framework directive. I do not particularly care whether we deal with that matter in primary or secondary legislation; I would simply say that this is a major piece of legislation that will change the way in which we look at water resources. It will mean that we shall have to look at water in a much more strategic way, in river basin management areas. It is, therefore, important that we have a debate and that we take people with us during that debate. The clock is already ticking. We have 15 years in which to implement this legislation and we are already into the discussion. It is important that we pull together all the players and have the debate about the water framework directive.
  What attracts me about the Bill is that it reflects the need to change the regulations and the way in which we deal with water abstraction. In north Nottinghamshire, there has been a long-standing problem of over-

  109
  abstraction from the Bunter sandstone. The Dover beck, for example, has run dry; people used to be able to swim in it. There have also been problems at Rainworth water. In conservation terms, it is important that we change the way in which we abstract water.
  It is also important to listen to the needs of industry. Agriculture in Nottinghamshire is changing from a potato culture to one that produces other vegetables. That means more irrigation. Tony and Mark Strawson, who are big producers in north Nottinghamshire, recently won an award for water conservation. They do not dispute the need to change the legislation, but they know that they have to make capital investments.
  The important thing about the Bill is that the Environment Agency will make the decisions. It will have to be transparent and honest, and have discussions with people to build a consensus on the way forward in various areas. That applies to the quarrying industry, too. There are problems there. The Minister said that the Environment Agency would be reasonable, and called for sensitivity. I call for further discussions on this issue.
  I am delighted that the Coal Authority is to be given powers under the Bill. It has been operating on a wing and a prayer, but it will now have powers under the legislation. It will also need the resources to do the work. The problem of water discharge is a ticking time bomb. In 30 years, water could emerge out of Radford in central Nottingham. We must sort that out.
  We must also sort out private sewers. To our knowledge, 1,440 people in Newark and Sherwood have private sewers. We are making progress: the Atkins report is available and the consultation is taking place. I hope that, in Committee, the Minister will look closely at any amendment that gives enabling powers to take the private sewers issue further. When private sewers go wrong, they cause real hardship for people.
  Those are important issues in the Bill. I like the Bill, and I back it, but it is only a first step in relation to water conservation and resources, and we must go much further.
  8.48 pm
  Mr. Graham Brady: I am here this evening because I am appalled by the arrogance of those who believe that they have a right to require me, my family and my constituents to consume fluoride in water. I oppose that proposal, as did the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe), as a matter of absolute principle, because, however we play with semantics, this is a matter of compulsory medication. We can say that it is not medication but a supplement, but, however we play with the words, this measure is an attempt to affect the health of the population by requiring us to ingest a substance that may or may not be of our choosing.
  It is important to look at the matter in context. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) spoke about the authoritarianism of the present Government. Let us look at some of the other things that have happened in recent years. There has been a debate about whether parents should be required to use the combined measles, mumps and rubella vaccination rather than separate vaccines. At least in
  110
  that case it was argued that it was necessary and important to create herd immunity, because there was a danger to others.
  The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) spoke about the vitamin supplements directive. The argument on that appears to have moved on one stage: it seems to be that, even where people choose to take vitamins or supplements, the Government or agencies of the Government should be in a position to prevent them from so doing. This evening, we move from the sublime to the ridiculous because, having prevented people from taking supplements that they want to take, the Government are putting before us legislation that could require my constituents to take a supplement that they do not wish to take. All pretence has been dropped: the state knows better than my constituents.
  Is it the role of the state, or the role of parents and families to look after the dental health of children? That issue was raised earlier in the House by the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when he unveiled the new proposals for protecting children. He spoke about the importance of improving support for parents and about the balance between the role of the state and the role of the family. Now we have to ask whether the Government are seeking to support parents, or to take the responsibility for children's dental health out of parents' hands and to put it into the hands of the state?
  That is wrong not just because it is being done against people's wishes and because there are worries about the health implications—we could debate the science of fluoride for some time—but because, by the simple act of taking that responsibility away from people, yet another step is being taken towards creating a less responsible society, where parents feel that they can take less responsibility for the health and welfare of their children, where we all become more dependent on others and on the state.
  Adding fluoride to water is potentially harmful. Even the British Dental Association accepts that fluorosis is a fact and that it is created by the addition of fluoride to water. Many other claims of adverse health effects are made. We have a fundamental right to the purest water that it is possible to supply. Few things could be more fundamental but, that said, there are even more basic rights and freedoms at stake here: the freedom to refuse medication; the freedom of us all to make our own decisions about our health and that of our families; the right of parents to make decisions for their children; and, crucially, the responsibility to make the right decisions.
  The House is here first and foremost to protect the freedoms of our constituents, not to inflict things on them. I hope that, tonight and in further considerations of the Bill, the House will vote accordingly.
  8.54 pm
  Mr. Terry Lewis: We have reached the stage in the Second Reading debate where we are involved in repetition, repetition and repetition. I am afraid that I will have to contribute to that repetition.
  I welcome much in the Bill. However, my support for it is at risk due to the insertion of clause 61, which has been well debated this evening. It reintroduces the concept of mass medication to the people.

  111
  I refer obviously to the proposal to facilitate, largely against the wishes of the public, the corruption of the water supply with fluorosilicates. I shall return to that matter, because I want now to move to a positive note the Minister will be glad to hear.
  The new regulatory framework is not without merit. Short of bringing the water industry back into full public ownership, which is my preferred option, it none the less puts a positive gloss on the Bill. I am especially pleased that Ofwat is to be lined up for the chop, to be replaced by an independent consumer council. I am also attracted to the prospect of increasing the powers of the drinking water inspectorate to institute proceedings and impose penalties for the supply of unfit water or failure to supply information.
  I am less than enamoured of the idea of introducing, in clause 59 and schedule 4, the concept of competition in the water industry. However, I will not press that matter, as I would not get very far. Instead, I shall return to my principal objection to the Bill, which is the easing of the way to mass medication of the people.
  I object to the principle of adding fluorosilicates to the public water supply, and I object in particular to the way in which Ministers sneaked what, is after all a public health measure into a non-health Bill. I hope that, even at this late stage, the measure will be withdrawn so that it can be considered in the framework of public health legislation in due course. My support for the Bill tonight depends on that.
  Stephen Hesford: I have listened with care as that argument has been repeated a few times today. Is it not a spurious one, because the power to fluoridate is already contained in the Water (Fluoridation) Act 1985, and the Water Industry Act 1991, which are water Acts? It may be a public health measure, but this is the right place to discuss it.
  Mr. Lewis: The 1991 Act has flaws, as water companies cannot be forced to fluoridate, even if the local health authorities want that to happen—so it is my hon. Friend's argument that is spurious, not mine.
  The matter should be debated under a public health Bill and taken out of this essentially good Bill that has nothing to do with public health.
  Tom Levitt: Does my hon. Friend accept that the compulsory wearing of seat belts is a public health measure, and that was not in a health Bill either?
  Mr. Lewis: It was in a transport Bill, which is the right place for it. That really was a spurious argument.
  The zealots for fluoridation might better employ their energies arguing for more direct health care, based on ways of improving the nation's oral health. There can hardly be a single Member of Parliament who is satisfied with NHS dental provision in his or her constituency. More and more dentists are declining to do NHS work, and it is almost impossible in some areas to gain access to NHS dentistry. For the many people who cannot afford private dentistry, fluoridation is like offering a drowning man swimming lessons. Should we not tackle that issue first?
  112
  It is argued that record numbers of young children suffer from tooth decay and that it is they who will benefit most from fluoridation. The question for me is, how much fluoridated water is needed to prevent tooth decay? I do not know. It could be very little.
  My second recommendation to the mass medication lobby is that we should educate parents to stop feeding their kids on sugary soft drinks and other tooth-rotting convenience goodies. Manufacturers of such items should be prevailed on by Government to reduce the amount of tooth-rot that they encourage youngsters to digest.
  I am passionate about this argument. My own teeth, although not very pretty, are a full set and are about 64 years old. I attribute that to the fact that my childhood spanned the war years, when soft drinks and sweets were not part of people's diet—a factor referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby). I also recall that annual dental checks were carried out in schools by visiting dentists. All this with a war on. And now, the best that the fourth largest economy in the world can come up with is to mass medicate everybody cheaply, with the unproven benefit of reaching a minority.
  Finally, I turn to the public consultation promised in the Bill. I must ask Ministers to be open and transparent about their intentions; it will not be good enough to leave this matter to the strategic health authorities. Any meaningful test of public opinion must be carried out through the medium of local referendums. I hope and anticipate that when the Minister winds up, he will give grounds for comfort on this issue.
  9.1 pm
  Mr. Steve Webb: When I saw that the Government had added clause 61 to the Bill, I approached the issue with an open mind. I was born and brought up in Birmingham, where water is fluoridated. I experienced no adverse reaction, nor did I know of anyone who did. On the other hand, I instinctively feel anxious about adding something to the water supply, given that those who do not want it have no choice in the matter. So I found myself torn, and approached the issue with an open mind.
  I decided to consult my own constituents, in the spirit of clause 61, to discover how they felt about the issue. I sent e-mails to some 1,200 constituents, and sent text messages to dozens of others. I then pointed out in the local press that I was seeking letters from those who were either for or against fluoridation. My e-mails provided links to websites presenting the case for fluoridation—such as the Department's own website and that of the British Dental Association—and to websites presenting the case against, such as that of the National Pure Water Association.
  I invited my constituents to make up their own minds on the basis of the evidence before them, but I had little idea what the outcome would be. In fact, they were split down the middle almost exactly. The argument of those who were in favour of fluoridation was based predominantly on two reasons. First, they said that it was a question of democracy, and that the majority should have what they want. That is obviously a very important principle, but it is clear that restrictions are needed on the principle of the rule of the majority. For

  113
  me, one such restriction is that the majority should be constrained from imposing something on the minority if, for example, there is another way of delivering what they want, or if the minority are thereby being denied a choice that they might reasonably expect. I accept that local democracy is important, but it should not be unconstrained.
  The second reason given by those of my constituents who were in favour was either that they came from a fluoridated area and had good teeth, or that they had given fluoride tablets to their children, who also had good teeth. Such anecdotal evidence, which is all that many people have to go on, suggests that fluoridation is beneficial, but the strongest arguments came from those who were opposed to fluoridation. Indeed, they gave me reasons for their opposition. Lack of choice, which has been mentioned throughout this debate, was central: people who want fluoride can have it now, but those who do not cannot opt out.
  As an academic and a social scientist, I thought it important that I look at the scientific evidence. The Government themselves asked York university to review the evidence. I was struck by how the university's conclusions were then spun by everybody who examined them, such that Professor Sheldon—he has already been quoted during today's debate—felt moved to say that he was astonished at the poor quality and quantity of the research, and that there was "legitimate scientific controversy". I fully accept that some of the protagonists in this debate use rather lurid and extreme language and adopt an approach that is not very analytical. But if an eminent professor who has looked into the issue says that there is "legitimate scientific controversy", surely that is not a sufficient basis for adding something to the water supply; rather, it is a very weak basis.
  Hon. Members will have been sent copies of the British Dental Association's rather gruesome league table of the number of dental cavities in the teeth of children in their constituencies. Naturally, I looked up the figures for my own constituency and for West Bromwich, East—the constituency in which I was brought up—which has fluoridation. In West Bromwich, East, the average five-year-old has 0.94 decayed, missing or filled teeth; in my own constituency, which is not fluoridated, the figure is 0.9. The fact that the figure for cavities in my constituency, where water is not fluoridated, is lower than that for the midlands, where water is fluoridated, does not mean that I am going to infer that fluoridation does not work. But equally, I object to the argument—made by Members in the media and elsewhere—that because more cavities occur in Manchester, for example, than in Birmingham, fluoridation therefore works.
  Those figures prove that a whole variety of explanatory factors—access to dental care, dietary habits, what appears in water naturally, and a raft of other issues—are relevant. If scientists are acknowledging "legitimate scientific controversy" about the issue, how can it be right to impose it on people? Even if a majority in a local community are in favour, a significant minority will not want fluoridation, and they do not have the option of opting out.
  Stephen Hesford: The hon. Gentleman well knows—it is one of the more dreadful sub-texts to the arguments
  114
  against fluoridation, which has gone unspoken so far—that if the measure were passed, his local strategic health authority would, if his cavity figures are right, not ask for it to happen. It will not affect the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but it will affect parts of the country such as Manchester, Glasgow and other inner city areas. The hon. Gentleman is denying the benefits of public dental health to other parts of the country in the knowledge that he does not need it.
  Mr. Webb: The children in my constituency as much as anywhere else need good dental health. In fact, if the Government were serious about the problem, they would do much more on the front of NHS dentistry to deal with it. That is where the serious issue about children being denied proper dental health care lies.
  Much depends in the Government's approach on how the consultation is undertaken. We know that very powerful lobbies will be in favour and that important organisations are putting one side of the case. If they are resourced far more significantly than the other side, we may well get majorities in favour in my constituency. The resourcing of each side of the argument is relevant. I believe that in this case my role is to stand up for a minority who do not want something imposed on them.
  Another interesting aspect of my constituents' replies is how sceptical they are about Government assurances—not only the present Government's assurances—about science. My constituents simply do not trust Governments when they say that something is all right, good for them and safe. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) made a compelling point that fluoridation amounts to medicine, but it will not be regulated as medicine, so clinical trials will not be undertaken. We simply do not have the safeguards in place. The scientific experts have acknowledged that fluoridation is a matter of legitimate controversy, which provides an insufficient basis for imposing something on people who do not want it. We are currently debating one clause, so I shall reserve my opposition for the separate free vote later in our proceedings. I shall certainly oppose the relevant clause then.
  9.7 pm
  Andy Burnham: With permission, I shall also focus my remarks on clause 61.
  We may not like it, but Britain is an unequal country—unequal in respect of the spread of opportunity and wealth and consequently of public health. One of the most graphic illustrations of that fact is dental health. Tooth decay is a class issue: the highest levels are found in the most deprived communities and among those on the lowest incomes. Despite general gains in the overall health of the population, the country's dental health divide stubbornly refuses to narrow. Last week, the British Dental Association said that levels of dental disease in some communities were unacceptably high.
  The one thing about dental decay that makes it distinct from other diseases is that it is almost entirely preventable. It is not often that we get the chance to pass law to narrow this country's health divide and gain early results, but the Bill provides precisely that. If we fail to take it, we fail millions of children living in our most deprived communities.

  115
  It is approaching 20 years since the House passed the Water Fluoridation Bill 1985 under the Conservative Government, endorsing it in principle as a safe and cost-effective means of improving the nation's dental health. I pay tribute to the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) for bringing that legislation through. However, one offending word—a "may" rather than a "shall"—created a technical loophole, confirmed by judicial review, that thwarted the Bill's intentions. Since then, about 60 requests from health authorities for fluoridation have been rejected. Any attempt to correct the problem is seized on by opponents of fluoridation to open up the whole debate on fluoridation per se. We are witnessing precisely that today, but the fact is that the opponents lost the argument long ago. The will of the House was to give communities the power to choose water fluoridation, but that will is still being thwarted. If nothing else, basic democracy demands that the loophole be closed.
  Earlier this year I tabled an early-day motion calling on the Government to use this Bill to do just that, and to require water companies to fluoridate where health authorities requested it on the back of local support. One hundred and forty-nine Members on both sides of the House signed that motion, and it is to the great credit of both the Secretary of State and the Minister that they listened to the arguments, gauged the strength of support and introduced clause 61. As well as giving the country better teeth, that could achieve another huge leap, and restore some faith in the point of early-day motions.
  When given the chance to vote, Members of the other place weighed the evidence and came down overwhelmingly in favour of expanding water fluoridation where local communities wanted it. Those in doubt should look no further than the contrast between the west midlands and Greater Manchester. Those are conurbations with a similar social profile, and that is the factor that the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) missed. We must compare places with a similar social profile.
  On average, as the hon. Gentleman said, five-year-olds in Birmingham have less than one missing, filled or decayed tooth, but in Greater Manchester the average is three. In other words, children unlucky enough to have dental decay can have as many as six, seven, eight, nine or 10 decayed teeth. What explains the differences? The simple fact that water supplies in the west midlands have been fluoridated for 40 years. Is there any evidence of health problems resulting from that? Not a scrap.
  I have twice visited the Manchester dental school to witness tooth extraction under general anaesthetic. It does 1,500 such operations each year, and more than 2,000 are done in Greater Manchester as a whole. I saw one three-year old having 10 teeth removed under general anaesthetic, and it was both upsetting and shocking.
  Professor Anthony Blinkhorn. professor of oral health in the Central Manchester and Manchester Children's University Hospitals NHS trust, oversees those family traumas that happen week after week. He tells how children suffer the pain of tooth decay, then the trauma of the operation, then living with missing teeth,
  116
  and finally the likely damage to permanent adult teeth caused by the operation—and all that is avoidable. As he told The Guardian last week:
  "When a little boy comes into hospital, he has a smile. When he comes out, it is without one.">
  When I consider that similar general anaesthetic sessions are simply not happening in Birmingham, because there is no need for them, it makes me wonder what right those who oppose fluoridation, and do not live in Greater Manchester, have to prevent communities there from adopting it. What are their objections? The first is about adverse health effects, and in that context, I shall quote from a note sent by the chief medical officer to peers in advance of the vote in the other place:
  "Fluoride prevents tooth decay, which remains a significant public health problem in parts of England. From a public health perspective, fluoridation is the delivery method of choice to bring about population improvements in dental health, and should be considered locally when it is desired to reduce inequalities in levels of dental decay."
  That is good enough for me, and I would like to hear from any Member of the House who can give evidence to gainsay that professional opinion.
  Opponents of fluoridation bandy about health concerns to create a smokescreen, because their real concern, the civil liberties argument, is not strong enough to stand on its own two feet. Yes, there may be a small cost to civil liberties in adding a negligible amount of fluoride to water, but if the resulting benefit is improved dental health for a whole local population, most people conclude that it is well worth it.
  A national opinion poll survey published today by the British Fluoridation Society shows that 67 per cent. of people in Britain think that fluoride should be added to water if it can reduce decay—[Interruption.] People may laugh, but that was a totally independent survey carried out by—
  Mr. Brady: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Andy Burnham: I will not, because other people want to speak.
  People talk about choice, but what about the choice of a majority, especially in inner-city communities, to opt for fluoridation? It is time to set aside the bogus science and the scare stories and look at the facts. All the evidence from around the world says that fluoridation is safe and can improve the quality of life for all.
  I wish that we lived in a country in which, as hon. Members have described, all parents could afford to give their children a healthy diet, and ensure that they brush their teeth twice a day. but we do not. It is time to stop the vocal minority blocking a progressive change that will benefit millions of people, particularly children, in our most deprived communities. When we know of a safe method of reducing children's suffering, it is morally wrong for us in the House not to give local communities the power to choose it for themselves.
  9.14 pm
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: I want to refer to three issues: abstraction licences, the competition provisions and flood defence.

  117
  First, in my constituency, a good example of the reason why the reform of abstraction licences is welcome is the Fowlmere Nature Reserve run by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. It is an important wildlife site, and an area of open water and chalk grasslands. It is a designated site of special scientific interest, but it is being damaged by public water supply abstraction. I was there four years ago, when we had not had some of the more recent heavy rainfall. The society was contemplating the long-term absence of the spring-fed waters for the Fowlmere site, and it was having to think about bringing water in from south Norfolk to meet the needs of the site. It is not at that level of difficulty at the moment, but even now after the rainfall we have had in the past couple of years one of its most prominent springs is about to dry up.
  I was at the reserve a couple of weeks ago. Reform is necessary, but interestingly, about three miles up the road, chalk is quarried by Barrington Rugby Cement. Alongside the wildlife sites that we must protect, there are also the economic purposes for the abstraction of water. That is precisely the balance to which the Minister rightly referred. I share the view that has been expressed. Instead of a presumption in favour of renewal, if the abstraction of water is essential for the economic purposes in question and there is a long-term consent, such as a planning consent, there should be a presumption for a longer term for the licence. It will remain the case that if there is serious environmental damage, there is scope for a modification or revocation of a licence.
  Under those circumstances, either there has to be proper compensation or, preferably, before the point at which it becomes a distress purchase, the relevant economic activity has to have the opportunity, through trading of water rights, on which I hope the Environment Agency will make further progress relatively soon, to acquire the capacity that it requires. I hope that we can give those economic processes that depend for their livelihood on abstraction some confidence that they will not be abandoned without an opportunity to remedy their situation.
  Secondly, competition must be introduced at a level and to an extent that allows its dynamic effects to work. The issue is not only the threshold but the pricing regime. The threshold has been set. I am not an expert on the extent of water competition—not many people are, because we have seen too little of it. I suspect that the number of customers who will be brought into the marketplace will make it intensely difficult to get the dynamic effects of competition to apply. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) observed, the modelling for the regulatory impact assessment seems to imply that prices will go up for domestic consumers. I think that it will not work quite like that.
  As I understand schedule 4, the introduction of the cost regime and the cost principles will apply within a rate-of-return regulatory structure. The decrease in the return to a water undertaking as a result of the loss of some large users would have to be compensated for by an increase to domestic consumers. Under the cost principles in schedule 4, the water undertakers will get from the licensed water suppliers who come into the marketplace precisely the level of return on their assets that they were anticipating. Perhaps I am missing
  118
  something, but that arrangement seems to me to be designed not to allow competition to work in the industry. There must be a lower threshold, and it must be based on a flexible regime that allows the regulator to impose the cost structures that make sense in relation to the industry as it develops, and arguably as it moves away from the retail sector and from a rate-of-return system of regulation to one that is more flexible to competitive situations.
  I want briefly to turn to flood defence. The Minister of State has patiently listened to me on the subject on more than one occasion, and I will not go on. However, I want to mention two points. First, the Bill tackles the reorganisation of regional flood defence committees, and I am happy for that to happen, as long as they are based, in East Anglia, on rivers and catchment areas. The issue, as everybody knows, is what resources the committees will have to undertake the necessary flood prevention and defence schemes.
  We have this Water Bill, and the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill is in Committee, but neither, as far as I am aware, tells us what the development connection charge will be and how it will provide resources to the committees. As I understand it. some of the resources on which they will rely from April 2004 depend on that connection charge. I want the charge to be applied locally.
  Secondly, we have spoken briefly this evening about new flood storage areas—creating new wetlands of water meadows and the like. Everybody seems to agree that that is right, and the Minister himself has said so. We are giving the Environment Agency new responsibilities. Can DEFRA now set out how a simple scheme for relatively small projects would work? I have at least two, maybe three, in my constituency. We should be able to go to the agency with a worked-up project, and although' it probably would not qualify for a big budget, the mechanism to which I am referring would allow us to access agency money. That would probably be agricultural money, because there would be a win-win situation, not only for flood defence but for environmental purposes in agriculture. That money would subsidise the farmer who would probably have to set aside his land for new wet plain purposes and, as a corollary, for flood defence. Such a mechanism does not yet exist, and I hope that we will see one soon.
  9.22 pm
  Mr. Bill Etherington: I am very pleased to be able to say a few words in this debate. I was giving up hope. You may have noticed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that earlier time stood still for quite a while on the Annunicator.
  An awful lot has been said tonight about fluoridation, and in many respects I am sorry that I have to continue that debate. This is a very interesting Bill, and if it was not for clause 61, I would have no hesitation in supporting it, but I am afraid that the issue of fluoride is very near and dear to me. I have to admit that some years ago I was in favour of fluoridation. I thought that if dentists said that it was right, that must be the case. I then started to read a little about the matter, and one or two people pointed things out to me, and I changed my mind. For the last 10 or 11 years I have been vehemently anti-fluoridation.

  119
  I have to declare an interest in that I am secretary of the all-party group against fluoridation of domestic water. I am pleased that there has been so much support tonight for the case against fluoride, because over the years I had gained the impression that the pro-fluoride group was an unstoppable juggernaut. I wondered why, but of course when the pro-fluoride lobby is given state funding, that gives it a tremendous advantage over those who are trying to oppose fluoride.
  There are three issues involved here, and we must try to delineate them. There is the so-called scientific argument, the issue of democracy and the issue of human rights. Although we must delineate them, they are all connected. If, for example, we are not satisfied with the scientific argument, the other two issues do not matter. The same is true if we think that human rights or democracy are most important. One of my colleagues said earlier that he was not concerned about whether fluoride was safe as long as the decision was left to the electorate. I cannot agree with that, but I see the logic.
  I want to continue from the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), who mentioned the York report.
  Many people missed the importance of the report. The publication was distorted to such a degree that Professor Sheldon made a statement in January 2002. I will use his words so that I am not accused of using the wrong words. He said:
  "As Chair of the Group, I am concerned that the results of the review have been widely misrepresented."
  Later, when nothing had improved, the four scientists who were concerned wrote from the National Health Centre for Reviews and Dissemination in York. They used the word "misinterpretations". There is a tremendous difference between "misrepresentation" and "misinterpretation". In the end, we can leave people to come to their own conclusions.
  Much of the pro-fluoride group's argument is about so-called science. In fairness, the Government were concerned enough to set up a proper scientific review. It was not set up by people opposed to fluoridation. Let us consider some of the things that those involved in the review said, not what the British Dental Association is saying, or the British Medical Association, or the Department of Health. In respect of the effectiveness of fluoridation in reducing caries, they said:
  "We could discover no reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide."
  As for effectiveness of fluoridation in reducing inequalities in dental health across social groups, the review stated:
  "This evidence is weak, contradictory and unreliable."
  When it came to safety of fluoridation, the review stated:
  "Apart from an increase in dental fluorosis…we found no clear pattern among the possible negative effects we examined, and we felt that not enough was known because the quality of the evidence is poor."
  That is hardly a ringing endorsement of fluoridation.
  The York review asked for proper, decent quality research. We now know from the review that there has never been any good, decent research. Where are the
  120
  BDA and company coming from? There are Members of this place who say that there is an irrefutable argument in favour of the efficacy of fluoridation.
  Quite a lot has been said about the democracy issue. In Sunderland, there was a consultation process that was carried out in, I think, 1996. The Sunderland area health authority held two meetings in rather obscure places at rather bad times. That is not unusual and we have all come across it. We should not be too surprised. However, that process led to quite a lot of concern. The local newspaper, the Sunderland Echo, decided to publish both sides of the argument, and for once it did it reasonably well. I thought that it was quite impartial, and I do not always think that.
  The Sunderland Echo asked people to write or phone in. It has been said this evening that about 67 per cent. are in favour of fluoridation, but in Sunderland in 1996—I know that it was a few years ago—90 per cent. of those involved voted against. It was a decent consultation area. All right, it was carried out by the press. but we take notice of other things that are carried out by the media. We also take notice of the BDA. There has been an absolute travesty.
  Things were made worse when not long afterwards the Sunderland health authority took Northumbrian Water to court so that it could enforce what the public had said they definitely did not want. Fortunately, Northumbrian Water disagreed. That led to clause 61, which was introduced in the other place. We cannot go ahead otherwise.
  I do not want anyone to think that I am too much against the BDA, but I do not trust it. It has put out a wonderful document about tooth decay in various constituencies, for example, be it high, medium or low. Every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the figures. Some constituencies sit across health authority boundaries and so an approximation may have been made.
  But it is not quite as simple as that. My constituency is not even mentioned, and I do not know what the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), my hon. Friends the Members for Houghton and Washington, East (Mr. Kemp) and for Easington (Mr. Cummings), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) think about it. However, I think it is pretty poor. If the BDA is as thorough—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to cut the hon. Gentleman off in full flow, but he has had his time.
  9.30 pm
  Richard Younger-Ross: There are two issues that I wish to address briefly. The first is an issue that, I believe, should not be in the Bill, and the second is an issue that is not in the Bill but which, I believe, should be.
  We have already heard a lot about fluoridation, so I shall try to be brief, but I shall also give some new information. I am not sure whether I should declare an interest, because as a child virtually every back tooth in my mouth was filled. Having been through that, it could be said that I did not like going to the dentist and should be in favour of fluoridation, which is meant to end

  121
  cavities and the need for such treatment. However, that is not the conclusion that I have reached. Although I had a number of cavities, it cannot be argued that had there been fluoride in the area where I lived, it would have done anything about the problem—there may have been a raft of reasons for my having a large number of cavities and having to spend a lot of time at the dentist. I make that point to contradict what the hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) said. The examples that he gave were superfluous and quite misleading.
  We have heard that fluoridation is the best thing since sliced bread, but we must remember that sliced bread is not necessarily the best thing anyway—[Interruption.] We do have freedom of choice—we bake our own. There is evidence that fluoridation is harmful. Dartmouth News is not a magazine from Dartmouth in Devon. as glorious as it is, but from a college in Hanover, New Hampshire in the United States. Robert Masters produced a report on his research in which he said:
  "Analyzing a survey of over 280,000 Massachusetts children, the investigators found that silicofluorides—chemicals widely used in treating public water supplies—are associated with an increase in children's absorption of lead."
  He went on to say:
  "Compared to a matched group of 30 towns that do not use silicofluorides, children in 30 communities that use these chemicals were over twice as likely to have over 10 micrograms per decilitre of blood lead."
  There is therefore evidence that fluoridation is harmful.
  Andy Burnham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Richard Younger-Ross: No, because another Member may be able to speak if I finish quickly.
  Other countries do not allow mass fluoridation. France, Italy, Germany, Sweden, Denmark and Holland have all rejected fluoridation. Belgium has gone even further—last year, I am told, the Belgian Government banned the sale of fluoride tablets and chewing gum because of their concerns about safety. However, whether there are health benefits or not, there is the democratic matter of people's right to choose. I would argue that if the Minister were to start selling Coca-Cola outside, and sold both plain Coca-Cola and Coca-Cola with added fluoride, the public would choose to buy the Coca-Cola without fluoride. All the evidence that I have seen is that people do not want fluoride added to their water supply, so they should not be forced to accept it.
  I shall now turn to something that is missing from the Bill. Earlier, a Government Member mentioned the high water charges in the south-west. Devon and Cornwall pay the highest water charges in the country because of a mistake made after privatisation, where equalisation measures to meet the costs of improving the beaches and the waterways were not spread across the water companies, but fell solely on the people resident in that area. As a result, 3 per cent. of the population in Devon, Cornwall and other areas have paid for the clean-up of 30 per cent. of the beaches.
  When the Minister reflects on charges, will he consider changing the charge regime so that the people of the south-west can be compensated for the high
  122
  charges that they have paid for the clean-up of beaches that are enjoyed by hon. Members from all parts of the country who, I know, like a holiday in the south-west?
  9.35 pm
  Ms Joan Walley: In the two or three minutes that I have, I am glad to give a warm welcome to a Bill that is long overdue. At the world summit in Johannesburg last year, it was made clear that 1.1 billion people worldwide were without clean water and 2.4 billion were without proper sanitation. It is right that the Government are going ahead with the best possible strategic framework for the management of our water in this country. That is good news as regards the River Trent, which goes through much of north Staffordshire.
  In the brief time available to me, I shall flag up three issues. The first is that the Coal Authority will get new powers to deal with pollution from mine water. That should have come about at the time of the privatisation of the coal industry. It is long overdue and the measure will be welcomed across mining communities everywhere. It is good that it is in the Bill.
  The second issue that I wish to raise with my hon. Friend is one on which I have been lobbied by the ceramics industry in Stoke-on-Trent. Everybody understands the importance of sustainable development and the need for balance. In earlier speeches, hon. Members spoke about how the right balance should be achieved in the legislation. Will the Minister meet representatives of the British Ceramic Confederation to discuss the guidance? There is a difference between the criteria for abstraction licences for water use and those for dewatering. That must be reflected in the detail of the guidance that is to be issued.
  Thirdly, there is the issue of private sewers. Like many who have spoken in the debate, I believe that we should be bringing forward proposals for adopting private sewers. That is long overdue, and we have had to wait so long for the Bill. During the Committee deliberations on the Bill, will the Minister introduce proposals to address the problem of all those who cannot afford to deal with private sewers and who do not even know that such sewers belong to them?
  If I have time, I should like to remind my hon. Friend of letters that I have written to him. Rats have not featured in the debate so far, but when we are discussing public health issues, there is a clear need for us to give statutory backing to the code on sewer baiting for rats. I know that voluntary guidance was issued by Water UK, but many local authorities have not heard of it. There are rats right across the country. Many of the water companies try to ignore the voluntary code. We could so easily give it a statutory basis in the Bill going through Parliament.
  As we approach the magic hour of 9.40 pm, I shall end by saying that it would be a great pity if the Bill were hijacked entirely by the debate on fluoridation of the water supply. As someone with environmental concerns at heart, I want us to adopt the precautionary principle at all times and have a proper debate about how to deal with the appalling dental health care in many deprived parts of the country, including my constituency. I am not yet convinced that fluoridation is the way forward and that it would be compatible with the precautionary principle. I am grateful for the brief opportunity to raise those five issues.
  9.39 pm
  Mr. Bill Wiggin: The Bill exemplifies the gulf between the theory behind the Government's best intentions and the reality of their long list of missed opportunities. There are changes to the excellent job that Philip Fletcher has done as regulator that will make it easier for the Government to control the water regulator by dispensing with the individual and replacing him with a board nominated and paid for according to the wishes of the Secretary of State. There are also increases in the power of the Environment Agency, whose board has four members whose political declarations determine that they have previously been members of the Labour party. Perhaps that is why the Government have strengthened the Environment Agency's powers. Indeed, the agency performs so many roles that the enactment of the Bill will make it policeman, accuser, advocate, judge, jury and executioner. There is a major missed opportunity—the opportunity to allow the new board of the water services regulation authority to act as an appeal judge in regard to the Environment Agency's decisions. Sadly, as the Bill stands they will be unchecked.
  Of the 25 speakers in the debate, at least 14 wanted to discuss the addition of fluoride to water supplies. Speeches were time-limited, and to an extent the debate was hijacked by that subject. It is a great shame that the Bill did not contain a skeleton measure allowing proper consultation by strategic health authorities with the public. That is one of the biggest omissions: without such a measure, the quality of debate that has been denied to Members will also be denied to the public.
  Views on fluoridation differ, but we heard the views of two Scottish Members who were passionate about the subject. I now know how to murder my wife and although the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) mentioned adding Viagra to the water, he is also passionate about the anti-fluoride campaign. The right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) introduced the Welsh angle, and my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) described the problems with fluoride eloquently.
  The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) also discussed those problems, but, more important, he said that only 2 per cent. of rainfall was stored, which had caused a water shortage in his constituency. In a helpful and sensible speech, the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby) said that he should be allowed to choose what he swallowed. He then unfortunately had to own up to the fact that he had not been allowed any sweets because of rationing during the war.
  Paddy Tipping: Which one?
  Mr. Wiggin: The second world war, I believe.
  The hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) clearly had not read the Bill. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) adopted a scientific approach to the toxic benefits, or disastrous effects—[Interruption.] She was clear about the fact that toxic substances were of benefit if added to the water supply in sufficient quantities. What she did not tell us, and what I longed for her to tell us, was whether newborn babies could be given water with fluoride
  124
  added to it. There is a real danger that that may be so toxic that infants should be given milk diluted with spring water.
  The hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis), who made an important speech about the bottling of water, unfortunately said that he would like mineral water to be sold in school vending machines. Although helpful, his speech prompted a question: if fluoride is such an important addition to water, should it not be added to mineral water?
  The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) had sent 1,200 e-mails to constituents asking for their views on fluoride. The hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) was passionately in favour of adding it to water, but ignored the fact that others had drawn attention to the quantity of sugar in people's diets, which might have a more significant effect on tooth decay.
  The problem that the whole House faces is that there are huge gaps in scientific research. It would have been better if the Government had spent more money, or made more effort with their drafting, to ensure proper research so that the facts came out. Sadly, that has not happened.
  The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has helpfully identified a deficiency in the failure to connect the Bill with the water framework directive. Indeed, the implementation in national law of some aspects of the directive, such as efficient use and water abstraction, is a missed opportunity. Some 16 out of 45 UK biodiversity action plan habitats are threatened by water abstraction, and there may be a need for a water saving trust. Such a body, which would be similar to the Energy Saving Trust, could encourage water-efficient technology, water conservation at home and the use of other methods to ensure that customers change their habits to preserve clean water. Sadly, all those things are missing from the Bill.
  Another missed opportunity relates to the improvement of competition in the sector. We all want the benefits of fine pricing and higher efficiency, particularly as water customers cannot practically change their supplier and water companies still occupy a monopolistic position by default. What exactly is a licensed water supplier going to look like and how will it be treated for tax and other purposes? What is to prevent big water users from setting themselves up as licensed suppliers and writing off any losses against tax?
  I am in favour of including the domestic customer in all price advantages, because I do not accept that discounts do not benefit home consumers, who are as price sensitive as any company and perhaps even more so. I feel that the Government have failed in their duty to look after the smallest consumer.
  The soft drink sector is very successful, but it has high machinery costs and very high standards of cleanliness. The 12-year limit on abstraction licences will have a detrimental effect. About 1.4 billion litres of the 1.8 billion litres of water drunk in Britain is from Britain. Obviously, cutting from 20 to 12 years the period in which costs are offset will make UK-produced water more expensive and detrimental to those companies' competitiveness.
  There is a significant lack of proportionality in the Bill, especially in terms of powers allocated to the Environment Agency. It is not true to suggest that

  125
  planners ignore the Environment Agency. If that is the problem. surely it is time to include in the Bill an obligation to take account of Environment Agency objections in planning decisions. For example, it could be allowed more influence in seeking to prevent damage caused by drilling into aquifers already used by a mineral water company that could damage water quality. The safeguards in the code of practice for well drilling are clearly inadequate, and the Government have been complacent in ignoring that in the Bill.
  I mentioned investment with regard to the bottled water sector. The quarrying sector will now also have to rely on the mercy of the Environment Agency—an issue that many hon. Members raised—which will have the power to vary or revoke abstraction licences. That is a substitute for allowing proper consultation on environmental impact during the planning process. That could have been included in the Bill.
  There is a major failure to address the fundamental issue, which is compounded by the right of the Environment Agency to avoid compensating companies when it takes away their ability to conduct their business. That extra uncertainty further undermines investment confidence. Although the habitats directive allows compensation, the Bill does not. There is a presumption that the Environment Agency is flexible. It seems unlikely that it will move away from units of six years when issuing licences to tie in with the catchment abstraction management strategies. I have no confidence that it will issue meaningful licences for more than 12 years. Even if it does so, it will have the power to alter the licences, which will further undermine investor confidence.
  The problem with the Bill is that the Environment Agency has a priority for natural water, known as green water, which it will place above blue water or drinking water. The Bill so strengthens the Environment Agency that I have serious fears about the cost implications for domestic customers. Throughout the Bill, the agency is given more power and more opportunity to devise its own method for testing sustainable development. How will its sustainability criteria differ from those used in planning?
  The Bill falls short on a number of criteria, mainly because the Government have ignored large groups of interested parties, all of which have clear and valid arguments.
  The Bill represents a whole series of missed opportunities, compromises and weak drafting. Despite the fact that water is such an important part of good health, and of life itself, the Bill is incompetent, incomplete and inequitable. It demonstrates that this Government cannot be trusted with even the most straightforward piece of legislation, and I urge the House to make them think again by voting it down.
  9.50 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): We have had an interesting and mainly constructive debate. Many issues have been addressed, and I am sure that hon. Members will want to debate them further in Committee, which will sit for a total of 24 hours, and when the Bill returns to the Floor of the House on Report.
  126
  My hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment was extremely generous during his opening remarks in taking interventions. In the limited time that I have, I do not intend to repeat any of his responses, but I shall try to clarify one or two points that he did not have a chance to address because they were raised subsequently.
  I start with water resources and housing development. The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) rightly said that rainfall is not always an accurate measurement of water supply. He knows that from his own experience, as do I from droughts in the south-west, which also gets a lot more rain than London and the south-east. On the specific question of adequate water resources where housing is planned, particularly in the south-east, no new provisions are required. Water companies already have statutory duties to supply water for domestic and other purposes, and they already produce water resource management plans that look ahead 25 years in order to reconcile supply needs with likely demand. Clause 65 places those plans on a statutory basis.
  The updated abstraction licensing regime means that we will have the tools to sustain our water resources in the long term in the face of climate change and changing demands. As many right hon. and hon. Members made clear, that is always a question of balance. There has been quite a lot of special pleading from Members on both sides of the House for various interest groups, from the ceramics industry to the watercress industry. My hon. Friend the Minister helpfully said that he will be open to representations from hon. Members as the Bill proceeds through the House.
  I was pleased that several hon. Members mentioned the impact of the Bill on important environmental concerns such as biodiversity. For example, having recently visited the constituency of the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), I am aware of the problem of water extraction on the River Avon, which passes through his city. That has a negative impact on the positive attempts to restore the historic water meadows that form part of the famous view of Salisbury cathedral. I am sure that that experience will be replicated. Indeed, other hon. Members gave examples from their constituencies of the damaging environmental impact of water abstraction in certain cases. Ending exemptions for abstractors such as trickle irrigators and quarries will result in a fairer system for all abstractors. All abstractors will be subject to the new regime if they abstract more than the new standard threshold of 20 cu m per day. That new threshold means that some 20,000 abstractions, mostly by farmers, will not need to be licensed in future.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) and the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) mentioned costs. As a fellow south-west MP, one would expect that to be close to my heart. We pay the highest prices, and water prices are a burning political issue. The issue is not specifically addressed in the Bill, but I hope that the changes that it introduces to the regulatory regime and to the power of the consumer will help in addressing some of the concerns. Furthering the interests of consumers, as well as those of companies, will become a primary function of Ofwat. At present, the consumer's interests are very much secondary. The Bill also sets up

  127
  the independent consumer council for water, which will be well placed to hold companies and the regulator to account. It replaces Water Voice, which is part of Ofwat.
  Fluoridation has dominated much of the debate and I suspect that it will do so in the Bill's further stages. I shall not rehearse many of the arguments that were made today and will be made in future. The Government acknowledge that there are strong views on the issue, and Labour Members will have a free vote on the amendments on fluoridation. In the spirit of openness that Front-Bench spokesmen have demonstrated today, I put it on record that I support fluoridation as a sensible and long overdue preventive public health measure.
  Let me make several clarifications on factual matters. It was suggested that fluoridation had been abandoned in Switzerland. However, it has been abandoned in only one small canton on the basis of one piece of research, which, I am told, is contradicted by the wealth of research from other countries and parts of the world.
  In an intervention, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) claimed that those who advocated fluoridation were in a minority, but my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) corrected him. He told hon. Members that national opinion polls have consistently shown a majority of approximately 70 per cent. of the population in favour of fluoridation. The right hon. Gentleman is always keen to cite the other place as a true reflection of public opinion. He may be surprised to know that, contrary to the comments of some hon. Members, their lordships passed a Back-Bench—not a Government—amendment, on the subject by 153 to 31. That shows an overwhelming majority in favour of fluoridation.
  Fluorine is the 13th most commonly occurring element in the earth's crust. It occurs naturally in water and therefore cannot be compared to a discretionary medicine. No water fluoridation scheme has been introduced without local consultations and we intend to extend their range and content before a strategic health authority can request a water company to fluoridate its water. It may be helpful if I outline some details of the proposed consultation.
  The format will be prescribed in regulations and include the dissemination of proposals through press, radio, television and leaflets. It will involve public meetings, discussions in the local media, helplines and websites. There will be objective means of measuring public opinion that will ensure the representation of a wide range of backgrounds. We shall consult those with expertise on the best practice of measuring public opinion. In response to questions by several hon. Members, local authorities will also have a role in the consultation process.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) made a specific point about clause 61, which contains proposed new section 87B, and the Scottish provisions. Subsection (5) allows Scottish water suppliers to transfer water to areas of England that could be fluoridated in the case of serious drought or to cover deficiencies caused by maintenance.
  128
  There are no routine transfers of water from Scotland to England, such as those that occur between England and Wales. Water is supplied from Wales to England and, in some cases, from England to Wales. There is no fluoridation of water in Scotland and the Bill will not affect the provisions there.
  The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) questioned our threshold for competition. Thirty per cent. of major companies' revenues come from non-household customers and we believe that the threshold that we have set is large enough to test the new framework. However, as my hon. Friend the Minister said, the threshold is flexible and only a start. Extending competition at the beginning could have an adverse impact on domestic customers. It is therefore important to proceed with caution.
  The Bill builds on and strengthens the existing framework, especially in the Water Resources Act 1991 and the Water Industry Act 1991. It does not exist in a vacuum. Existing legislation has served us well. We have had the warmest and driest summer since 1995 but have managed to avoid the chaos that we suffered then.
  The Bill will carry forward the Government's commitment to a sustainable water policy. It provides for the sustainable use of water resources and sustainable regulation of the water industry and will leave us well placed to face the challenges of the future. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 136, Noes 356.

  Division No. 297]

  [9:59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Fallon, Michael

  Bacon, Richard

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Flight, Howard

  Bercow, John

  Forth, rh Eric

  Blunt, Crispin

  Fox, Dr. Liam

  Boswell, Tim

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Garnier, Edward

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Goodman, Paul

  Brady, Graham

  Grayling, Chris

  Brazier, Julian

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Greenway, John

  Burns, Simon

  Grieve, Dominic

  Burnside, David

  Hague, rh William

  Burt, Alistair

  Hammond, Philip

  Butterfill, John

  Hawkins, Nick

  Cameron, David

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

  Heald, Oliver

  Cash, William

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Hendry, Charles

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Chope, Christopher

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Clappison, James

  Howard, rh Michael

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Collins, Tim

  Hunter, Andrew

  Conway, Derek

  Jack, rh Michael

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Curry, rh David

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Dodds, Nigel

  Lansley, Andrew

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Leigh, Edward

  Duncan Smith, rh Iain

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  129

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Simmonds, Mark

  Lidington, David

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Soames, Nicholas

  Loughton, Tim

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Spring, Richard

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Maclean, rh David

  Steen, Anthony

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Streeter, Gary

  Malins, Humfrey

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Maude, rh Francis

  Syms, Robert

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Ottaway, Richard

  Viggers, Peter

  Page, Richard

  Walter, Robert

  Paice, James

  Waterson, Nigel

  Paterson, Owen

  Watkinson, Angela

  Pickles, Eric

  Whittingdale, John

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Wiggin, Bill

  Wilkinson, John

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Willetts, David

  Redwood, rh John

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Wilshire, David

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Young, rh Sir George

  Ruffley, David

  Selous, Andrew

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Mr. Mark Francois and

  Shepherd, Richard

  Mr. John Randall

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Ainger, Nick

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Allan, Richard

  Bryant, Chris

  Allen, Graham

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Burden, Richard

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Burgon, Colin

  Burnett, John

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Burnham, Andy

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Burstow, Paul

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Bailey, Adrian

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Baird, Vera

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Baker, Norman

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Banks, Tony

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Barnes, Harry

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Barrett, John

  Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

  Battle, John

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Caplin, Ivor

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Benn, Hilary

  Casale, Roger

  Bennett, Andrew

  Caton, Martin

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Berry, Roger

  Challen, Colin

  Best, Harold

  Clapham, Michael

  Betts, Clive

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Blackman, Liz

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Borrow, David

  Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Clelland, David

  Breed, Colin

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Brennan, Kevin

  Coaker, Vernon

  130

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

  Cohen, Harry

  Coleman, Iain

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Connarty, Michael

  Harvey, Nick

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Healey, John

  Corston, Jean

  Heath, David

  Cotter, Brian

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Cox, Tom (Tooting)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Crausby, David

  Hendrick, Mark

  Cruddas, Jon

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Heppell, John

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Cummings, John

  Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

  Heyes, David

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Davidson, Ian

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Denham, rh John

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Dismore, Andrew

  Illsley, Eric

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Doran, Frank

  Jamieson, David

  Doughty, Sue

  Jenkins, Brian

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Edwards, Huw

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Efford, Clive

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Etherington, Bill

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Farrelly, Paul

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Fisher, Mark

  Kemp, Fraser

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Flint, Caroline

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Follett, Barbara

  Foster, rh Derek

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Lamb, Norman

  Foulkes, rh George

  Lammy, David

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Gerrard, Neil

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Linton, Martin

  Gilroy, Linda

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Love, Andrew

  Goggins, Paul

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Grogan, John

  McCabe, Stephen

  Hain, rh Peter

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  MacDonald, Calum

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  MacDougall, John

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  McFall, John

  Hancock, Mike

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Hanson, David

  McIsaac, Shona

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  McKenna, Rosemary

  131

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Ruddock, Joan

  McNamara, Kevin

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  McWalter, Tony

  Salter, Martin

  McWilliam, John

  Sanders, Adrian

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Sawford, Phil

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Sheridan, Jim

  Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

  Simon, Sion (B'ham Erdington)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester 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, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns & Kincardine)

  Miliband, David

  Miller, Andrew

  Soley, Clive

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Squire, Rachel

  Moffatt, Laura

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Moore, Michael

  Stevenson, George

  Moran, Margaret

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Morley, Elliot

  Mountford, Kali

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Mudie, George

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Mullin, Chris

  Straw, rh Jack

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Stringer, Graham

  Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Stunell, Andrew

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Olner, Bill

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Organ, Diana

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Thurso, John

  Owen, Albert

  Timms, Stephen

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Tipping, Paddy

  Pearson, Ian

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Perham, Linda

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Picking, Anne

  Trickett, Jon

  Pickthall, Colin

  Truswell, Paul

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Plaskitt, James

  Pollard, Kerry

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Pound, Stephen

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Prescott, rh John

  Ward, Claire

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Purchase, Ken

  Watts, David

  Purnell, James

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  White, Brian

  Rammell, Bill

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

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

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Wilson, Brian

  Rendel, David

  Winnick, David

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Woolas, Phil

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Worthington, Tony

  Rooney, Terry

  Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Ruane, Chris

  132

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Gillian Merron and

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Mr. Jim Murphy

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Amendment on second or third reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

  Water Bill

    WATER BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME)
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 29 October 2002],
    That the following provisions shall apply to the Water Bill [Lords]

    Committal
    1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.

    Proceedings in Standing Committee.
    2. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 21st October 2003.
    3. The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

    Consideration and Third Reading
    4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
    5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
    6. Sessional Order B (programming committees) made on 28th June 2001 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.

    Other proceedings
    7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments or any further message from the Lords) may be programmed.—[Mr. Ainger.]
    The House divided: Ayes 350, Noes 135.

    Division No. 299]

    [10:31 am

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Cummings, John

    Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

    Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

    Ainger, Nick

    Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

    Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Allen, Graham

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

    Davidson, Ian

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

    Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

    Dawson, Hilton

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Denham, rh John

    Bailey, Adrian

    Dhanda, Parmjit

    Baird, Vera

    Dismore, Andrew

    Banks, Tony

    Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

    Barnes, Harry

    Dobson, rh Frank

    Battle, John

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Bayley, Hugh

    Doran, Frank

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Drew, David (Stroud)

    Benn, Hilary

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Benton, Joe (Bootle)

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Berry, Roger

    Edwards, Huw

    Best, Harold

    Efford, Clive

    Betts, Clive

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Blackman, Liz

    Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Etherington, Bill

    Boateng, rh Paul

    Farrelly, Paul

    Borrow, David

    Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

    Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

    Fisher, Mark

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Flint, Caroline

    Brennan, Kevin

    Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

    Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

    Follett, Barbara

    Foster, rh Derek

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Foster, Michael (Worcester)

    Bryant, Chris

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Burden, Richard

    Foulkes, rh George

    Burgon, Colin

    Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

    Burnham, Andy

    Gerrard, Neil

    Byers, rh Stephen

    Gibson, Dr. Ian

    Caborn, rh Richard

    Gilroy, Linda

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Godsiff, Roger

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Goggins, Paul

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Caplin, Ivor

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Casale, Roger

    Grogan, John

    Caton, Martin

    Hain, rh Peter

    Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Challen, Colin

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Clapham, Michael

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

    Hanson, David

    Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Harman, rh Ms Harriet

    Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

    Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

    Healey, John

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Clelland, David

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Cohen, Harry

    Hendrick, Mark

    Coleman, Iain

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Connarty, Michael

    Heppell, John

    Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

    Hesford, Stephen

    Cooper, Yvette

    Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Heyes, David

    Corston, Jean

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Cox, Tom (Tooting)

    Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

    Crausby, David

    Hope, Phil (Corby)

    Cruddas, Jon

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    138

    Howells, Dr. Kim

    Mudie, George

    Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

    Mullin, Chris

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

    Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

    Naysmith, Dr. Doug

    Iddon, Dr. Brian

    Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

    Illsley, Eric

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Irranca-Davies, Huw

    Olner, Bill

    Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

    O'Neill, Martin

    Organ, Diana

    Jamieson, David

    Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

    Jenkins, Brian

    Owen, Albert

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

    Palmer, Dr. Nick

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Pearson, Ian

    Perham, Linda

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Picking, Anne

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

    Pike, Peter (Burnley)

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Plaskitt, James

    Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

    Pollard, Kerry

    Kaufman, rh Gerald

    Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

    Keen, Alan (Feltham)

    Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

    Kemp, Fraser

    Pound, Stephen

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    King, Andy (Rugby)

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Primarolo, rh Dawn

    Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

    Purchase, Ken

    Kumar, Dr. Ashok

    Purnell, James

    Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Lammy, David

    Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

    Lazarowicz, Mark

    Raynsford, rh Nick

    Leslie, Christopher

    Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

    Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

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

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Linton, Martin

    Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Love, Andrew

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

    Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

    Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

    Rooney, Terry

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    McCabe, Stephen

    Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

    McCafferty, Chris

    Ruane, Chris

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Ruddock, Joan

    MacDonald, Calum

    Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

    MacDougall, John

    Salter, Martin

    McFall, John

    Savidge, Malcolm

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Sawford, Phil

    McIsaac, Shona

    Sedgemore, Brian

    McKenna, Rosemary

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Sheerman, Barry

    McNamara, Kevin

    Sheridan, Jim

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

    McWalter, Tony

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    McWilliam, John

    Singh, Marsha

    Mahmood, Khalid

    Skinner, Dennis

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

    Mandelson, rh Peter

    Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

    Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

    Soley, Clive

    Squire, Rachel

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

    Martlew, Eric

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Meacher, rh Michael

    Stevenson, George

    Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

    Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

    Michael, rh Alun

    Miliband, David

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Miller, Andrew

    Stoate, Dr. Howard

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Straw, rh Jack

    Moffatt, Laura

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Moran, Margaret

    Tami, Mark (Alyn)

    Morley, Elliot

    Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

    Mountford, Kali

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    139

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Whitehead, Dr. Alan

    Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Timms, Stephen

    Williams, Betty (Conwy)

    Tipping, Paddy

    Wilson, Brian

    Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

    Winnick, David

    Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Trickett, Jon

    Truswell, Paul

    Woodward, Shaun

    Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

    Woolas, Phil

    Worthington, Tony

    Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Wriaht Anthonv D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

    Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

    Wright, David (Telford)

    Vis, Dr. Rudi

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Wyatt, Derek

    Ward, Claire

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

    Gillian Merron and

    Watts, David

    Vernon Coaker

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Allan, Richard

    Fox, Dr. Liam

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

    Bacon, Richard

    Garnier, Edward

    Baker, Norman

    George, Andrew (St. Ives)

    Baron, John (Billericay)

    Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

    Barrett, John

    Gidley, Sandra

    Bellingham, Henry

    Goodman, Paul

    Bercow, John

    Grayling, Chris

    Blunt, Crispin

    Green, Damian (Ashford)

    Boswell, Tim

    Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Greenway, John

    Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

    Grieve, Dominic

    Hague, rh William

    Brady, Graham

    Hammond, Philip

    Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

    Hancock, Mike

    Brazier, Julian

    Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

    Brooke, Mrs Annette L

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Harvey, Nick

    Burnett, John

    Hawkins, Nick

    Burns, Simon

    Hayes, John (S Holland)

    Burnside, David

    Heald, Oliver

    Burt, Alistair

    Heath, David

    Butterfill, John

    Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

    Cable, Dr. Vincent

    Hendry, Charles

    Calton, Mrs Patsy

    Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

    Cameron, David

    Horam, John (Orpington)

    Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

    Howard, rh Michael

    Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Carmichael, Alistair

    Hunter, Andrew

    Cash, William

    Jack, rh Michael

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    Johnson, Boris (Henley)

    Key, Robert (Salisbury)

    Chope, Christopher

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Clappison, James

    Kirkwood, Sir Archy

    Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

    Collins, Tim

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Conway, Derek

    Lamb, Norman

    Cotter, Brian

    Lansley, Andrew

    Curry, rh David

    Leigh, Edward

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

    Liddell-Grainger, Ian

    Lidington, David

    Djanogly, Jonathan

    Lilley, rh Peter

    Dodds, Nigel

    Loughton, Tim

    Doughty, Sue

    Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

    Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Fabricant, Michael

    Mackay, rh Andrew

    Fallon, Michael

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

    Malins, Humfrey

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

    Flight, Howard

    Forth, rh Eric

    May, Mrs Theresa

    140

    Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

    Spring, Richard

    Stanley, rh Sir John

    Moore, Michael

    Steen, Anthony

    Moss, Malcolm

    Streeter, Gary

    Murrison, Dr. Andrew

    Stunell, Andrew

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

    Osborne, George (Tatton)

    Syms, Robert

    Ottaway, Richard

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Page, Richard

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Paice, James

    Taylor, John (Solihull)

    Paterson, Owen

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Pickles, Eric

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Portillo, rh Michael

    Thurso, John

    Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

    Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

    Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

    Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Pugh, Dr. John

    Viggers, Peter

    Redwood, rh John

    Walter, Robert

    Rendel, David

    Waterson, Nigel

    Robathan, Andrew

    Watkinson, Angela

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Webb, Steve (Northavon)

    Robinson Mrs Iris (Strangford)

    Whittingdale, John

    Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Wiggin, Bill

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Wilkinson, John

    Ruffley, David

    Willetts, David

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

    Sanders, Adrian

    Williams, Roger (Brecon)

    Selous, Andrew

    Wilshire, David

    Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

    Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

    Shepherd, Richard

    Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Simmonds, Mark

    Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

    Young, rh Sir George

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

    Younger-Ross, Richard

    Soames, Nicholas

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Mr. Mark Francois and

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Mr. John Randall

    Question accordingly agreed to.

    WATER BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]
    Queen's recommendation having been signified—
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52 (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
    That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Water Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

    (a) any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State under the Act,

    (b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment.—[Mr. Ainger]

    Question agreed to.

    WATER. BILL [LORDS} [WAYS AND MEANS]
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
    That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Water Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise℄

    (1) the extension of charging schemes of the Environment Agency under the Environment Act 1995;

    (2) the extension of matters which may be covered by conditions included in an appointment under Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Water Industry Act 1991 by virtue of section 11(1)(c) of that Act;

    (3) the imposition of penalties on companies holding appointments under Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Water Industry Act 1991, on companies holding licences under Chapter 1A of that Part of that Act ('water supply licences'), and (by virtue of the application of section 111 of the Enterprise Act 2002) on other persons;

    (4) the inclusion in water supply licences of conditions requiring the rendering of payments to the Secretary of State;

    (5) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Ainger.]

    Question agreed to.

    PLANNING AND COMPULSORY PURCHASE BILL (PROGRAMME) (NO. 2)
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 29 October 2002],
    That the following provisions shall apply to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 17th December 2002:
    Proceedings in Standing Committee (recommitted Bill)
    1. Proceedings in the Standing Committee on re-committal shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 23rd October 2003.
    2. The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
    The House divide: Ayes 307, Nose 167.
    Question accordingly agreed to.

    EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9)(European Standing Committees),

    Three Communicable Diseases
    That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 7115/03, Commission Communication on the EC Programme of Action on HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis in the context of poverty reduction; welcomes the update and considers this an important area for reducing poverty; and encourages the Commission to do more work on these diseases, including increasing access to essential medicines and strengthening health systems.℄[Mr. McAvoy.]
    Question agreed to.

    NORTHERN IRELAND GRAND COMMITTEE
    Ordered,
    That℄

    (1) the matter of the future direction of community relations policy in Northern Ireland, being a matter relating exclusively to Northern Ireland, be referred to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee;

    (2) the Committee shall meet at Westminster on Thursday 23rd October at half-past Two o'clock; and

    (3) at that sitting—

    (a) the Committee shall consider the matter referred to it under paragraph (1) above;

    141

    (b) the Chairman shall interrupt proceedings not later than two hours after their commencement; and

    (c) at the conclusion of those proceedings, a motion for the adjournment of the Committee may be made by a Minister of the Crown, pursuant to paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 116 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)).—[Mr. McAvoy.]

    MACHINERY OF GOVERNMENT CHANGES
    Motion made,
    That—

    (1) Standing Order No. 94 (Scottish Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)) be amended in line 2 by leaving out the second 'Scottish' and inserting 'Scotland';

    (2) Standing Order No. 103 (Welsh Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)) be amended in line 2 by leaving out the second 'Welsh' and inserting 'Wales':

    (3) Standing Order No. 119 (European Standing Committees) be amended in the table in paragraph (6), as follows:

    (a) in line 5, by leaving out 'Transport, Local Government and the Regions' and inserting 'Transport; Office of the Deputy Prime Minister';

    (b) in line 12, by leaving out 'Lord Chancellor's Department' and inserting 'Department for Constitutional Affairs (excluding those responsibilities of the Scotland and Wales Offices which fall to European Standing Committee A)';

    (4) Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended in the Table in paragraph (2), as follows:

    (a) before item 1 insert

    (b) '1 Constitutional Affairs

    Department for Constitutional Affairs(including the work of staff provided for the administrative work of courts and tribunals, but excluding consideration of individual cases and appointments, and excluding the work of the Scotland and Wales Offices and of the Advocate General for Scotland)
    11'; (b) leave out the item relating to the Lord Chancellor's Department inserted on 27th January;
    (c) in item 16, leave out 'Welsh Office (Office of the Secretary of State for Wales (including relations with the National Assembly for Wales))' and insert 'Wales Office (including relations with the National Assembly for Wales)'; and
    (5) the Order of 5th November 2001 relating to Liaison Committee (Membership) be amended, in paragraph (2), by leaving out 'Lord Chancellor's Department' and inserting 'Constitutional Affairs'.—[Mr. McAvoy.]
    Hon. Members: Object.

    ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT
    Motion made,
    That Mr Michael Meacher be discharged from the Environmental Audit Committee and Mr Elliot Morley be added.—[Mr. McAvoy.]
    Hon. Members: Object.

    Ordered,
    That Tom Levitt be discharged from the Committee on Standards and Privileges.—[Mr. McAvoy.]

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

    Sea Angling
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McAvoy.]
    10.44 pm
    Mr. Robert Key: Salisbury may be landlocked, but my father taught me to fish in river, loch and sea. As a teenager, I tied my own flies for trout fishing in the chalk rivers around Salisbury. Family summer holidays were spent sea fishing around the Summer isles, Raasay and the Fal estuary in Cornwall. Now I regularly watch, with envy, the sea anglers of Portsmouth, Southampton and Poole.
    In the 1950s and 1960s there was a large supply and a wide variety of inshore fish: not so now. There are many reasons for that, but I am not in the blame game tonight; I want to look firmly forwards.
    I am grateful to the British Anglers Sportfish Association—BASS—the National Association of Sea Anglers and the Sea Anglers Conservation Network for their briefing and advice over many months. I speak tonight on behalf of at least 1 million sea anglers who fish the inshore waters of our islands at least once a year, including about 375,000 bass anglers.
    Sea fishing is part of our heritage, and an important part of our economy. However, it is no longer basic fishing for the pot. Sea angling is a multi-million pound leisure activity. Today, the angler uses expensive, high-technology tackle, chosen from a wide choice of specialist gear that is available internationally, and today he and she are conservation-minded.
    Anglers travel long distances to the coast to fish. Many take their families with them, staying in rented accommodation, bed and breakfast, hotels and pubs, contributing much to the local economy. They support many jobs such as tackle manufacturing, the retail industry, mail order business, boat builders and chandlers, boat hire businesses, marinas, electronics, bait suppliers, clothing and footwear suppliers, a thriving specialist press and media and, of course, tourism. The fact is that recreational sea angling is now far more important economically than commercial inshore fishing.
    A decade ago, MAFF's Directorate of Fisheries Research at Lowestoft and Portsmouth university's centre for economics and management of aquatic resources published a report that found that sales of commercially caught bass were worth about £4 million, while 361,000 bass anglers spent £18 million on their activities. In 2000, the National Assembly for Wales commissioned a study that found that sea angling made an economic contribution to coastal Wales of £28 million, whereas commercial inshore fishing netted £9 million and offshore commercial fishing yielded just £12 million.
    The study suggested that sea angling had huge potential for growth and that modest, low-risk public investment would stimulate local economies, underpin coastal environmental programmes and encourage conservation of fish stocks. However, the study warned that poor recognition of the economic significance of recreational sea angling resulted in little Government support. It also warned that heavy commercial fishing of some species, especially illegal netting for bass, was undermining the resource base for recreational anglers.
    144
    Last year, an independent report commissioned by the Countryside Council for Wales and English Nature put the value of commercial landings in England and Wales at £35 million, while recreational angling generated £140 million for the coastal economy.
    Anglers have done their best to make their voice heard during the consultation on the Government's welcome review of the common fisheries policy. I bring their concerns to Parliament as part of that process. I support the view that certain of our fish stocks should be managed principally for recreational sea angling, so please will the Government accord sports fish status to certain species, including bass? As a matter of priority, will the Government intervene to tackle illegal and damaging inshore gill-netting?
    DEFRA is currently researching the economic benefits of recreational sea angling. The sea angling community expects that it will confirm that the value of sea angling in many coastal communities today is at least equal to that of inshore commercial fishing, which has existed in many places for hundreds of years. Overseas evidence indicates that when stocks are managed to produce plenty of mature fish, the number of recreational anglers increases proportionately. This activity and its economic multipliers support many livelihoods, afloat and ashore, which are every bit as valid as those within the commercial sector.
    The sea angling sector is seeking an equal partnership with the commercial sector and inshore fisheries management and regulation to provide taxpayers who fund sea fisheries committees and the Environment Agency with a sustainable and best value return from commonly owned resources.
    I therefore ask the Minister whether, with well over 1 million recreational sea anglers in Britain, the Government agree that the socio-economic impact of recreational sea angling is now at least equivalent to that of inshore commercial fishing? Has he got the message that the sea angling sector is seeking the Government's assistance just to balance the needs of commercial fishermen's livelihoods with those of recreational sea anglers through the sensible conservation of marine resources and sustainable harvesting?
    The sea angling community is concerned that committees and groups set up by the Government are overwhelmingly biased at present towards the commercial sector. That case was strongly made by the National Federation of Sea Anglers to the Minister in connection with the strategy unit's current review of British fisheries. I therefore very much hope that when considering the future protection of our marine resources and sustainable harvesting of fish the Government will give consideration to the recreational sector proportionate to the support afforded to the commercial fishing sector.
    Mr. Martin Salter: I endorse every jot and syllable of the case that the hon. Gentleman has made on behalf of Britain's 1 million sea anglers. May I draw his attention to the fact that there is a commonality of interest between the 2.5 million freshwater anglers, of whom I am one, and sea anglers. The over-fishing of our inland fisheries by commercial interests has led to predators such as cormorants coming inland and fishing out wonderful rivers such as the river Avon and many

    145
    others the length and breadth of the country. There is therefore a commonalty of interest between freshwater fishermen and sea fishermen, and there needs to be a commonality of approach to deal with the common problems that both those wonderful sports face.
    Mr. Key: Yes, there is such a commonality of interest. I am particularly glad that the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) is in the Chamber, because I know that he fishes in the river in Salisbury, and is extremely knowledgeable about these matters. He is quite right—there is a commonality of interest. We are all concerned about the impact of the cormorant inland, and there is a huge debate to be had about that, albeit perhaps not tonight. However, the hon. Gentleman is correct, and I endorse what he said. I might add that the sea angling community is distressed that it has taken a Member of Parliament from an inland constituency and another from Reading to raise this issue in the House. Apparently, there is a dearth of interest among coastal Members of Parliament from all parties, which needs to be addressed.
    All recreational sea angling from the shore and a significant proportion from boats takes place in inshore waters within six miles of the shore. Those inshore waters are being denuded of breeding stock and immature fish, and natural habitats are being destroyed by indiscriminate netting and trawling. Commercial fishermen have to throw back undersized fish that are already dead or die shortly afterwards. I therefore hope that the Minister agrees that sea fisheries committees should better enforce existing rules, have substantial representation from sea anglers and be cognisant of the benefit that sea angling brings to jobs and tourism.
    How do the Government propose to ensure that recreational sea angling is given equal consideration in Government decision making while responsibility for marine resources is split between DEFRA, which handles commercial sea fishing, and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which handles recreational sea fishing? There has been acrimonious inter-ministerial correspondence in recent years arguing about who does what and what representation there should be, but it is important that the Government either take urgent steps to ensure that DCMS plays a far greater role in determining policy for sea fish stocks or do something to bridge the gap between the two Departments.
    That division of responsibility has already resulted in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport not being involved in consultation on the UK's priorities for the common fisheries policy review. That review is central to conserving stocks that are vital to both sea angling and commercial fishing. While DEFRA is the sponsoring Department for the commercial sector, the DCMS, through Sport England, partially funds the National Federation of Sea Anglers, which represents more than 1 million sea anglers. In DEFRA's discussions about fish stocks, the interests of the commercial sector take precedence over sea angling instead of receiving equal consideration.
    Another clash occurred when the Government said in responding to the salmon and freshwater fisheries review that the Environment Agency had a duty to enhance the social value of fishing as a widely available and healthy form of recreation. The Government added
    146
    that this duty should be put on a statutory basis as soon as practicable because of the contribution that fisheries make to economic development, particularly in rural areas and to recreation. That was the finding of the salmon and freshwater fisheries review.
    We now hope that the sea fisheries committees will take the same line, which they are not doing at present.
    The Environment Agency has been extremely helpful. I am grateful to its parliamentary team for briefing me in advance of this debate. There is one point worth making. In the Environment Agency response in August 2002 to the DEFRA consultation on the review of the common fisheries policy, it stated in paragraph 3.9:
    "Recreational sea fishing is a major and growing resource, particularly in the recovering urban estuaries. Good quality sport for a range of species is enjoyed by thousands of fishermen across England and Wales. To date, many of these anglers feel that they have little representation of their interests. The Agency would wish to include full recognition and representation of the recreational fishing resource within the revised Common Fisheries Policy."
    We endorse that.
    It has been a privilege to speak for hundreds of thousands of sea anglers around our coasts. Now I and they await the Minister's response.
    10.55 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): I congratulate the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) on securing the Adjournment debate, and particularly on its subject, which is an important element of our fisheries whose voice, I accept, has not always been heard as it should have been.
    Sea angling is a selective, environmentally friendly and low-impact fishing activity, and an estimated 1.2 million anglers engage in sea angling every year in the UK. As the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, as well as the substantial economic contribution that they make, they clearly have a role to play in the management of the marine environment, particularly in inshore and coastal waters.
    The reformed common fisheries policy reflects the UK's goals for a policy based on environmental, social and economic sustainability. I shall deal a little later with the improvement that has taken place in our Department since we became DEFRA rather than the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and have taken more notice of environmental and sustainability factors. That is at the core of sea anglers' concerns.
    I welcome the fact that the reformed CFP is more inclusive than before, as it will need to be to ensure sustainable fisheries management. Although much of the CFP is specifically directed at the commercial fishing sector, a number of useful gains to recreational sea angling came out of last December's review. Those are the retention of the UK's 12-mile limit; provision for member states to introduce conservation measures within their 12-mile limit, provided such measures are not discriminatory; provision for the establishment of regional advisory councils; and Community action to reduce discards.
    I am aware of the figures cited by the hon. Gentleman about the considerable economic contribution that sea anglers make. They and the associated industry make an

    147
    important contribution to the coastal economy. DEFRA recently commissioned an economic evaluation of that contribution—a study welcomed by sea anglers—and we hope to receive its findings by the end of the year. The report will cover a range of issues, including identifying key areas of sea angling activity in England and Wales, assessing the economic contribution of sea angling, including the indirect benefit, and identifying key trends and future proposals for the sea angling sector.
    The sensible conservation of marine resources is certainly in the interests of both anglers and commercial fishermen, although the latter sometimes take some convincing. We shall continue to aim for a balance in Community fisheries policy that will ensure recovery of threatened stocks and preserve a viable degree of activity for communities that rely on fishing. We shall continue to press for the increased application of an ecosystems-based approach, including multi-annual management plans and action to reduce discarding and to avoid the unnecessary by-catch of endangered species.
    Anglers are now represented by ministerial appointees to most sea fisheries committees in England and Wales, and their local issues can be fully considered. My Department is considering the terms of reference for a study of fisheries enforcement issues. That could have a far-reaching impact on sea fisheries committees, and we shall ensure that the voice of recreational fishermen is heard. Sea anglers' interests will also be taken into account in the review of inshore fisheries management.
    The No. 10 strategy unit has been tasked with developing a strategy for a sustainable fishing industry in the UK, of which I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware. Sea anglers' representatives have been closely and productively involved with that project, and the National Federation of Sea Anglers is a member of the strategy unit stakeholder advisory group.
    The establishment of regional advisory councils under the reformed common fisheries policy was intended to increase the participation of those affected by the CFP to secure better and more regionally focused fisheries management. There will undoubtedly be areas of an RAC's work in which sea anglers can make a valuable contribution, and I would encourage them to become involved where they can.
    The hon. Gentleman spoke of threats to certain stocks, and of some of the equipment and techniques used by commercial fishermen whom he believes to be in contact with those on whose behalf he has spoken tonight. The latest science is not quite as depressing as he seemed to suggest. Certainly, the measures that he recommended do not seem necessary at this stage. The Government do, however, take a precautionary approach to stock levels, and we shall continue to keep the situation under review.
    148
    We recognise that the continuing development of certain fishing gear and techniques such as gill netting and trawling can, like all forms of fishing, have damaging effects on stocks. That is why technical conservation measures such as mesh size restrictions to allow undersized fish to escape are integral to the common fisheries policy, and they continue to be evaluated and developed.
    The hon. Gentleman described what he saw as a turf war or a conflict between the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, whose job was to represent the interests of recreational fishermen, and the Department for Environment, Food and Regional Affairs, which was primarily responsible for commercial fishing. That is a bit of a simplification—especially, as I said earlier,
    given that DEFRA was formed after the last general election. I have not been in my job for long, but I hope that one of the benefits has been its becoming a Department that is more open to environmental concerns and the importance of sustainable fisheries. Our Department works hard with scientists to ensure that our assessments of fish stocks are realistic, and that we do not allow any activity that would damage them. It is in everyone's interests—both commercial and recreational fishermen—that stocks are at healthy levels and that our policies ensure that they are.
    We work closely with the DCMS, and we are committed to maintaining a constructive dialogue on the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman. As part of that process, the DCMS participates in annual meetings, chaired by DEFRA, with representatives of sea angling and vessel-chartering interests. My Department is always happy to liaise with the DCMS to ensure that full account is taken of the needs of sea angling in consideration of future policy on fisheries issues.
    Both the hon. Gentleman and, in an intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) mentioned cormorants. I am well aware of the issue: licences have crossed my desk for the culling of cormorants where they seem to pose a threat to inland fisheries in particular. I am also aware of the large rise in the cormorant population. It is a complex matter. The arguments about why the cormorants are moving inland and why there are more of them need to be balanced. It may be because there are more fish farms now and fish farms are doing quite well in our rivers, which are much cleaner than they were a few years ago.
    Members may be interested to learn that today my Department hosted a major conference on the impact of cormorants in Bristol. As soon as I have some useful feedback and conclusions from that conference, I shall ensure that Members have access to it as early as possible.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at four minutes past Eleven o'clock.

CABINET OFFICE

  Government E-services
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office whether his additional duties as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster encompass the Government's UK online agenda responsibilities. [127080]

  Mr. Alexander
  As Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster I am responsible to the Sovereign for the administration of the Duchy.

  Among other wider Cabinet Office responsibilities, I am responsible for leading and supporting the e-transformation in government of which UK online is part. This falls to me in my role as Minister for the Cabinet Office with oversight of the Office of the e-Envoy and not in my role as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what action he is taking to make more on-line Government services available to people over 65. [128200]

  Mr. Alexander
  Ensuring high levels of take-up of online services by all users is an essential part of the e-government strategy. The Government is acting upon the recommendations of the National Audit Office report, "Progress in making e-services accessible to all access—and use by older people" to ensure that people over 65 are encouraged to take advantage of online services.

  This report highlights that older people are more likely to use online services when they can access them in places they would normally visit, such as libraries and community centres. The Government has established over 6,000 UK online centres in these locations where people can access the internet for free or at low cost with support to help them do so.

  The report also mentions that one factor preventing older people from using the internet, especially among those who have never used computers, is the feeling that it is of no relevance to them. One of the challenges for government is to demonstrate the benefits of the internet to older people. This we have done during the "Get Started" campaign which ran throughout May and June. The retirement pension is just one of the government services regularly used by older people that we are prioritising as part of our e-government programme.

  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what assessment he has made of the recommendations made by the Comptroller and Auditor General in the February report on offering Government services electronically to older people. [128195]

  Mr. Alexander
  The National Audit Office report provided a valuable means of focusing attention on
  15W
  what needs to be done to increase the numbers of older people in the UK accessing and benefiting from the internet and electronic services. My officials in the Office of the e-Envoy are working closely with colleagues at the Department for Education and Skills to look at implementing the report's recommendations.

  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on progress made in ensuring that all Government services are available on-line by 2005. [128197]

  Mr. Alexander
  We are committed to ensuring that central government services are made available electronically by 2005 and that key services achieve high levels of use. The latest Electronic Service Delivery survey shows that 63 per cent. of services were e-enabled at the end of 2002 and departments have forecast that they are on track for the 2005 target.

  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what assessment he has made of the number of users in(a) the UK and (b) other countries who access Government services through the internet. [128198]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Office for National Statistics publishes survey results on a quarterly basis of e-government use within the UK. The Office of the e-Envoy published an analysis of international comparisons of e-government use in the 2002 benchmarking study The World's Most Effective Policies for the e-Economy, a copy of which is held in the House Library.

  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what action he is taking to encourage more people to access Government services through the internet. [128199]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Government's target of getting all e-Government services online by 2005 has been enhanced to include the commitment "with key services achieving high levels of use". In order to achieve this, the Office of the e-Envoy is currently developing a methodology, definitions and targets for each of the key services. In order to encourage further take-up, the Office of the e-Envoy is working with Departments to develop strategies for ensuring maximum use of key services.

  Levels of internet access continue to rise, with 54 per cent. of adults now regular internet users. 47 per cent. of adults using internet in the last 12 months had accessed a government or public authority website (ONS, July 2003). In May we launched the "Get Started" campaign to promote the benefits of the internet to key groups such as the elderly, those with disabilities and the unemployed.

  It is vital that government websites are as accessible and as easy to use as possible. A report, the "Quality Framework for UK Government Website Design", was published on 24 July; it sets out clear guidance for government web managers to ensure they incorporate users' needs in their web design process. The report is available on the Office of the e-Envoy's website (http://www.e-envoy.gov.uk/Resources/WebGuidelines/fs/en).

SCOTLAND

  Caledonian MacBrayne
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what assessment he has made of the part played by Caledonian MacBrayne in supporting island economies; [128021]

  (2) when he last met the Secretary of State for Transport to discuss the future of Caledonian MacBrayne ferries; [128022]

  (3) how much grant was provided to Caledonian MacBrayne in each of the last six years; [128027]

  (4) what plans he has to meet employee representatives to discuss the future of Caledonian MacBrayne. [128035]

  Mr. McGuire
  Matters affecting the internal Scottish ferry services operated by Caledonian MacBrayne are devolved to the Scottish Parliament and fall within the responsibility of Scottish Ministers.

  Campbeltown-Ballycastle Ferry
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent assessment has been made of the effectiveness of Government support for the Campbeltown to Ballycastle ferry service. [127869]

  Mrs. McGuire
  Assistance for the ferry service between Campbeltown and Ballycastle is a matter for the Scottish Executive.

  Electoral Boundaries
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received from the Scottish Executive on difficulties arising out of non-coterminous electoral boundaries in Scotland. [128012]

  Mrs. McGuire
  No representations have been received recently from the Scottish Executive on non-coterminous constituency boundaries. However, the Executive's response in March 2002 to the Scotland Office's consultation on the size of the Scottish Parliament included its views on the possible difficulties that might arise from having different constituency boundaries between Westminster and Holyrood. These are recorded in the summary of the consultation responses which was placed in the Library of the House on 18 December 2002.

  Regional Statistics
  Mr. Alex Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on regional gross value added statistics. [127201]

  Mr. McGuire
  The regional gross value added statistics published by the Office for National Statistics provide a useful measure of economic activity across the countries and regions of the UK.

  Robin Rigg Wind Farm
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he was consulted by the Scottish Executive before their decision not to grant a public inquiry on the Robin Rigg wind farm. [127862]

  Mrs. McGuire
  My right. hon. Friend was not consulted by the Scottish Executive on this matter. The functions under the Electricity Act 1989 relating to the determination of applications for consent under section 36 of that Act, including those concerning a Public Local Inquiry, were executively devolved to the Scottish Ministers in 1999 by S.I. 1999/1750.

  Rosyth Ferry Terminal
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment has been made of the impact of the Rosyth ferry terminal traffic on the economies of(a) Fife and (b) Scotland.[128023]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The Rosyth to Zeebrugge ferry service is Scotland's only direct, daily, passenger and vehicle ferry service to mainland Europe and provides new transport and communication opportunities for business, tourism and freight operations. Assessing the economic impact of the ferry service for Fife and Scotland as a whole is a matter for Scottish Ministers.

  Scotland Act
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to amend the Scotland Act 1998 in respect of representation by elected members; and if he will make a statement. [126512]

  Mrs. McGuire
  Section 86 of the Scotland Act 1998 sets out in detail how the reduction in the number of hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies in this House is to be made. The Government has no plans to amend these arrangements.

ADVOCATE-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND

  Engagements
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Advocate-General how many official Scotland Office engagements she has undertaken in the last 12 months. [128026]

  The Advocate-General for Scotland
  I have undertaken a number of Scotland Office official engagements over the last 12 months.

PRIME MINISTER

  Boundary Commission for Scotland
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Prime Minister whether it is his policy that the fifth periodic review of the Boundary Commission for Scotland should be effected before the next general election. [128014]

  The Prime Minister
  Implementing the Boundary Commission for Scotland's recommendations on Scottish parliamentary constituencies before the next general election will depend on when the Commission 18W
  reports and on the date of that election. The Government is required, as soon as may be after the Commission has submitted its report, to lay this before Parliament, together with a draft Order in Council giving effect, with or without modifications, to the report's recommendations.

  Chechnya
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Prime Minister whether he raised the issue of unauthorised killings by Russians in Chechnya when he met President Putin in June. [127911]

  The Prime Minister
  I discussed the situation in Chechnya with President Putin, although this specific issue was not raised.

  Downing Street Staff (Security Clearance)
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 16 July to the hon. Member for New Forest, East ref. 126089, to what level of clearance Downing Street officials, whose roles may include seeing intelligence material, are vetted. [127909]

  The Prime Minister
  All staff are subject to the necessary level of security vetting.

  European Constitution
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish the text of the amendments to the draft European Union Constitution which are sought by the United Kingdom. [125002]

  Mr. MacShane
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government's proposed amendments to the Convention's draft Constitutional Treaty are available on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website (www.fco.gov.uk).

  Iraq
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the support expressed by Chechen leader Aslam Maskhadov for the US and UK decision to invade Iraq. [127910]

  The Prime Minister
  We have noted Mr. Maskhadov's statement.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 15 July 2003,Official Report, column 173W, on Iraq, what percentage of the total volume of the second dossier he estimates was taken from the three internet articles by Ibrahim al-Marishi, Sean Boyne and Ken Gause. [127912]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave on 15 July 2003,Official Report, columns 173–74W. Sections one and three of the document were based on intelligence material, as were elements of section two which were detailed in Alastair Campbell's supplementary memorandum to the FAC, dated 24 June, Foreign Affairs Committee Report HC 813–11, paragraphs 3 and 6, pages EV 10 to 11.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library the full text of the legal opinion of the Attorney-General in relation to the war in Iraq. [128266]
  19W
  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) on 22 May 2003,Official Report, column 914–15W.

  Israel
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the recent detention of John Morgan from West Belfast in Israel. [127966]

  The Prime Minister
  Mr. Sean O'Muireagain (also known as John Morgan) was arrested in the West Bank on 12 July 2003 and questioned by Israeli security authorities on suspicion of being connected with terrorist activities. The Israeli authorities found no evidence to implicate Mr. O'Muireagain in terrorist activities. He was released on 16 July 2003 and flew back to the UK later the same day. The FCO were in regular contact with Mr. O'Muireagain's family throughout.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Age Discrimination
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what recent research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on age discrimination. [127843]

  Malcolm Wicks
  In June 1999, the Government published the Code of Practice on Age Diversity. This was issued to employers with the aim of reducing age discrimination in the work place. A programme of research to evaluate the impact of the Code was carried out between March 1999 and December 2000. A full report of the findings from the evaluation was published by my Department in December 2001 entitled "Evaluation of the Code of Practice on Age Diversity in Employment: Report of Research Findings". A copy is available in the Library.

  Autism Spectrum Disorders
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will amend the eligibility criteria for disability benefits for people with autism spectrum disorders. [127854]

  Maria Eagle
  No. People with autism spectrum disorders are entitled to disability living allowance and attendance allowance on the same basis as anyone else with a severe disability. They will qualify if they meet the entitlement conditions for the benefit, which depend on the effects that severe physical or mental disability have on a person's need for personal care and/or their ability to walk and not on particular disabilities or diagnoses.

  The numbers of people receiving the benefits as a result of the effects of autism spectrum disorders are not recorded separately, but are included in the more general category of those with 'learning difficulties'. As at February 2003, over 239,000 people whose main disabling condition is recorded as learning difficulties were receiving disability living allowance.

  Child Support (Consolatory Payments)
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many Child Support Agency cases 20W
  have been referred for consideration for consolatory payments in the last year, broken down by month; how many payments have been accepted and made in the last year, broken down by month; what has been the overall cost of such payments; and if he will make a statement. [125933]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Mr. Doug Smith, dated September 2003:

  The Secretary of State in replying to your recent Parliamentary question about the Child Support Agency promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive.

  You ask how many Child Support Agency cases have been referred for consideration for consolatory payments in the last year broken down by month; how many payments have been accepted and made in the last year broken down by month; and what has been the overall cost of such payments; and if he will make a statement.

  It is not possible to determine the number of referrals made for consideration of consolatory payments, but I can tell you the number of consolatory payments made in 2002/03:

  April

  1,012

  May

  873

  June

  630

  July

  853

  August

  757

  September

  506

  October

  673

  November

  648

  December

  518

  January

  752

  February

  593

  March

  628

  Total

  8,443

  The overall cost of consolatory payments in 2002/03 was £660,615.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 16 June 2003 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. M. Willingham. [127745]

  Maria Eagle
  I replied to my right hon. Friend on 23 July 2003.

  Employers' Liability Compulsory Insurance
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the progress of the work being carried out by his Department on employers' liability compulsory insurance. [127798]

  Mr. Browne
  The Department published the First Stage Report of its review of Employers' Liability Compulsory Insurance (ELCI) on 3 June 2003. The report identified a number of significant areas for further action. These include working with interested parties to help develop the basis for more risk-related premiums; working with stakeholders to maximise the benefits for EL of current initiatives within the legal system; engaging with business, industry and other stakeholders to further evaluate the evidence for separating long-term occupational disease risks from
  21W
  accident risks; making rehabilitation play a more central role in the UK workers' compensation system; and reforming the arrangements for enforcement of EL.

  We will report in autumn on the progress that has been made and any further steps we intend to take.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate the Department has made of the eligibility for receipt of the minimum income guarantee among the elderly in the UK; and what his latest estimate is of the take-up rate. [127396]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The latest information is contained in the publication, "Income Related Benefits: Estimates of Take Up in 2000–01". A copy is held in the Library.

  Pension Credit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer of 10 July 2003,Official Report, column 979W, on pension credit, whether a pensioner who purchases an annuity after making a successful claim for pension credit will have to report that annuity purchase to the Department. [127231]

  Malcolm Wicks
  On applying for pension credit from age 65, pensioners are asked about any changes they expect to their pension income over the next 12 months. If additional income will become available within the next 12 months, but the amount is not yet known, their award will be fixed for reassessment at that date. If a change is expected in more than 12 months, their assessment will be fixed for the full five-year period allowed, during which any increases in pension income will be ignored. People who are entitled to any pension income which they have not yet drawn (including for instance an annuity from a personal pension) are treated as having that income available to them.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much he estimates the average pension credit recipient will receive in pension credit payments per year. [127170]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The average Pension Credit each recipient is estimated to receive per year is £2,250.

  Notes

  1. The estimates were arrived at by dividing forecast expenditure on Pension Credit y the forecast caseload and rounding to the nearest £50.

  2. Estimates relate to 2004–05, the first full year of Pension Credit and are in cash terms.

  3. All figures are based on published forecasts from Budget 2003, and are consistent with the DWP Departmental Report 2003.

  4. These estimates are based on planning assumptions of Pension Credit and should be treated with caution.

  Tax Credit Claims Forms
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the average time taken to complete claim form TC 600; and what useability tests his Department has undertaken for completing the form. [124311]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have been asked to reply.
  22W
  The time taken to complete a Tax Credits claim form will depend on the particular circumstances of the claimant. Claims for which no further information is required, and which pass the various pre award checks, go through the stages of calculating the award quickly and will normally be in payment within a few days.

  The form was subjected to rigorous usability testing before being introduced. This testing involved a sample number of existing Tax Credit recipients. The form was subjected to rigorous usability testing before being introduced. This testing involved a sample number of existing Tax Credit recipients.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Awards for All (Scotland)
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she last received representations from the Scottish Executive on the operation of Awards for All in Scotland; and if she will make a statement. [128002]

  Estelle Morris
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received no representations from the Scottish Executive specifically on the operation of Awards for All in Scotland. However, there was correspondence in June 2003, before we published the National Lottery Funding Decision Document. That document proposes to increase the upper grant limit of Awards for All in England. We believe that given the local community focus of Awards for All, any changes to the programme in other parts of the United Kingdom should be considered separately within Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  BBC Freeview
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate she has made of the proportion of the population of(a) the UK and (b) Scotland who are unable to receive BBC Freeview services. [128018]

  Estelle Morris
  I understand from the BBC that 73.1 per cent. of the UK households can now receive Freeview's services via digital terrestrial television. In Scotland, this figure is higher at 80.5 per cent. of households due to the nature of population distribution. Further information can be found on the website: www.freeview.co.uk.

  Channels 4 and 5
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate she has made of the proportion of the UK population who are able to receive(a) Channel 4 and (b) Channel 5. [128019]

  Estelle Morris
  I understand from the ITC that Channel 4 analogue services reach over 99.4 per cent. of the UK population and analogue Five coverage reaches about 80 per cent. of the UK population. Channel 4 and Five services are available across the whole UK via digital satellite and are also delivered by digital
  23W
  terrestrial television and cable. Further information on digital television coverage can be found on the website: www.dtg.org.uk

  Community Fund
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps she is taking to simplify the system of applying for Community Fund grants. [128000]

  Estelle Morris
  We intend to make it easier for all potential applicants to apply for Lottery funding. The Decision Document on Lottery funding, which DCMS published earlier this month, outlined ways in which the application process could be simplified for all Lottery distributors. Our proposals include making the new community distributor the first port of call for all applicants seeking advice or guidance, expanding the Awards for All scheme and piloting a new micro grants programme, improved turnaround times for smaller grants, and greater standardisation of Lottery application forms, customer care charters and complaints procedures across all distributors.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has for redeployment of members of her Department out of London and the South East. [125363]

  Mr. Caborn
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary (John Healey) on 11 July 2003,Official Report, column 1021W.

  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many(a) special advisers, (b) press officers, (c) civil servants, (d) advisers to civil servants and (e) permanent staff were working for her Department in each year since 1996. [126480]

  Mr. Caborn
  I refer the hon. Member to Table C of the annual publication 'Civil Service Statistics' which provides staff numbers, including press officers, in each department and agency from 1995 to 2002, copies of which are available in the Libraries of both Houses.

  The number of special advisers working in the department since 1996 are set out in the following table:

  Year

  1Number

  1996

  2

  1997

  2

  1998

  3

  1999

  3

  2000

  2

  2001

  4

  2002

  2

  2003

  2

  1 Total of 10 Special Advisers (full-time equivalents)

  In addition, there have also been two Ministerial Sports Advisers, two Ministerial Tourism Advisers and two Ministerial Music Advisers since 1996.

  Environmental Impact
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many of the Department's24W
  policies have been screened for their environmental impact since June 2001; how many environmental appraisals have been conducted, and on what policy issues; and what information has been published about these screenings and appraisals. [124718]

  Estelle Morris
  Environmental impact screening is undertaken as an integral part of the policy making process and separate records are not maintained.

  In respect of legislation, DCMS complies with guidelines by compiling Regulatory Impact Assessments (RIAs) for proposals that have an impact on business, charities and the voluntary sector. RIAs include details of the obvious costs, risks and benefits of the proposal but also the wider economic, social and environmental impacts. There is no separate section within an RIA specifically for environmental impacts, but where a proposal has an impact on the environment, it should be set out in the RIA. The impact will usually be included in the analysis of the costs and benefits of the proposal, or may be covered in the unintended consequences section.

  EU Directives
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the EU directives implemented by the Department since 8 June 2001. [126599]

  Mr. Caborn
  No EU directives have been implemented by the Department since 8 June 2001. I have nothing to add to my previous answers of 19 March 2002,Official Report, column 200–01W, and 29 April 2003, Official Report, column 336W.

  National Lottery
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the objective will be of the good cause to be helped by the new lottery fund which will supersede the Community Fund and the New Opportunities Fund; and what types of organisations are planned to be its principal beneficiaries. [127991]

  Estelle Morris
  The Department's Decision Document on Lottery funding, published earlier this month, confirmed our intention to create a new community distributor, which will take on the functions of both the Community Fund and New Opportunities Fund. It is proposed that the new distributor will act as a fund for transformation, supporting projects to revitalise and regenerate communities, particularly those at greatest disadvantage, across the UK. As with the two existing distributors, funding will be available to a wide range of organisations, with the focus being on projects which transform communities.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what interim arrangements she intends to put in place for the creation of the new lottery fund which will supersede the Community Fund and the New Opportunities Fund. [127992]

  Estelle Morris
  The Department's decision Document on Lottery funding, published earlier this month, confirmed our intention to create a new community distributor, which will take on the functions of both the Community Fund and New Opportunities Fund.
  25W
  Legislation will be needed fully to establish the new distributor. The two bodies have welcomed the proposal, and in the interim period have agreed to work together to look at bringing together their administrative and operational functions over the coming months.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the total balance held by each of the Lottery distributors was on 17 July; and if she will make a statement. [127997]

  Estelle Morris
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Distributor

  Balance (£)

  Heritage Lottery Fund

  982,700,272.70

  Community Fund

  256,374,661.71

  Millennium Commission

  198,814,261.94

  New Opportunities Fund

  851,399,441.55

  Arts Council of England

  234,702,785.11

  Arts Council of Scotland

  47,396,474.64

  Arts Council of Wales

  29,444,506.67

  Arts Council of Northern Ireland

  34,505,269.50

  Film Council

  71,454,508.56

  Scottish Screen

  914,754.59

  Sport England

  246,332,374.13

  Sport Scotland

  75,419,089.41

  Sports Council of Wales

  27,875,487.54

  Sports Council of Northern Ireland

  22,326,010.34

  UK Sport

  928,373.01

  Total

  3,080,588,271.40

  The total balance as at the end of June 2003 was the lowest month end balance since August 1997. All of this money has been committed to projects by distributors.

  This Department recently published the National Lottery Funding Decision Document, which sets out a number of proposals aimed at reducing further the balances held by distributors. These include issuing guidance on balance management to distributors and revising the Financial Directions distributors operate under in order to speed up the funding of smaller, low risk projects. There are also a number of other proposals which would require legislation. I have placed copies of the document in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to review the system whereby projects can only be supported by the National Lottery for a set period of time. [127998]

  Estelle Morris
  There are no plans at present to review the period of support for projects by the lottery. Funding is generally time-limited and usually for a maximum of three years. Following extensive consultations last year, however, the Heritage Lottery Fund extended the length of the maximum period of support for their revenue projects from three to five years. There is an opportunity for grants to be renewed to allow projects to continue in operation but such follow-on funding is unlikely to be repeated indefinitely.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on her projected timescale for implementing common branding for National Lottery supported projects. [127999]
  26W
  Estelle Morris
  The Government recognise that the simplest way of establishing the necessary link between buying a Lottery ticket and funding a Lottery project is to use the same brand for both. The Lottery Distributors are currently working with Camelot to develop an appropriate design. It is expected that, from autumn 2004, this will be offered on a voluntary basis to projects which have received Lottery funding. The display of the logo will then become mandatory for most future Lottery awards. Over a longer timescale, other ways of using the crossed fingers logo throughout the whole distribution process will be explored.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many staff are employed on the Young People's Fund of the National Lottery. [128003]

  Estelle Morris
  The Department announced that we were considering setting up a Young People's Fund, and the Decision Document published earlier this month confirmed that this will he fully established within a year, with an initial budget of £200 million. It is envisaged that the Fund will initially be managed by the New Opportunities Fund, but we have not yet reached the stage where staff have been allocated specifically to run the scheme.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate she has made of the proportion of National Lottery ticket sales made to(a) the young and (b) low income groups. [128004]

  Estelle Morris
  The available information is contained in an independent report on expenditure on the National Lottery (undertaken by Kerry Sproston) which was commissioned by the National Lottery Commission and published earlier this year. The report indicated that 17 per cent. of those aged 16–24 participated in the National Lottery, which was the lowest rate of participation for any age range. It also indicated that those on the lowest incomes (below £9,499 per annum) spent significantly less per week than those on incomes above this.

  The report is available on the Commission's website www.natlotcom.gov.uk. I am arranging for copies to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the extent of(a) overlap and (b) duplication in the work of the (i) Community Fund and (ii) New Opportunities Fund. [128005]

  Estelle Morris
  The Department's Decision Document on Lottery funding, published earlier this month, confirmed our intention to create a new community distributor, which will take on the functions of both the Community Fund and New Opportunities Fund. We believe there is significant overlap between the work of the two distributors, particularly in supporting local communities and the voluntary sector. The new distributor is intended to take advantage of these synergies to transform the lives of local people and communities across the UK.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on her policy on designating a National Lottery Day. [128006]
  27W
  Estelle Morris
  The Government's proposal for a National Lottery Day is designed to provide an annual focus on the Lottery and its achievements, to let the public see what their lottery money goes to fund. It will be an opportunity for Lottery funded projects throughout the UK wherever possible to open their doors or otherwise celebrate the Lottery's contribution. The exact form the day will take is still to be finalised, but it will have a strong regional and local focus and major prizes will be available to players.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the options being considered for giving the devolved Administrations more influence over how National Lottery funding is allocated. [128008]

  Estelle Morris
  Our provisional view is that we should retain a UK structure for distribution but that the devolved Administrations should have more influence in setting specific priorities and strategies, taking account of the needs and wishes of local communities and service providers there. We will consider how this should be done, consulting with devolved Administrations before coming to a final decision.

  OFCOM
  Mr. Bryant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the total salary budget is of OFCOM. [126316]

  Estelle Morris
  OFCOM are currently in the process of matching staff across from the existing regulators and, where necessarily, recruiting competitively. The pay bill for OFCOM in 2004–05 is projected, on a like for like basis, to be 5 per cent. below estimates of the combined salary bills for staff in the existing regulators.

  Playing Fields
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport whether a formal review of the work of the Playing Fields Monitoring Group is planned. [128612]

  Mr. Caborn
  Not at present.

  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when the next set of playing field statistics will be published; and whether these will include comparative statistics for the last two years. [128611]

  Mr. Caborn
  The 2002–03 playing fields statistics will be published shortly. They will be published in a form similar to the 2001–02 figures published on 14 July 2003, which will allow for easy comparison.

  Public Service Contracts
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many public service contracts were awarded by her Department(a) in total and (b) to small and medium enterprises in each year since 1997; and if she will make a statement. [127799]

  Mr. Caborn
  The public service contracts awarded since 1997 for the Department and its Agency, with the number of contracts awarded each year to SMEs are as follows.28W

  Year

  Number of Contracts

  SMEs

  Department for Culture, Media and Sport

  2003:

  (a)

  26

  (b)

  11

  2002:

  (a)

  36

  (b)

  10

  2001:

  (a)

  34

  (b)

  19

  2000:

  (a)

  26

  (b)

  11

  1999:

  (a)

  38

  (b)

  10

  1998:

  (a)

  61

  (b)

  28

  1997:

  (a)

  20

  (b)

  9

  Royal Parks Agency

  2003:

  (a)

  7

  (b)

  5

  2002:

  (a)

  14

  (b)

  7

  2001:

  (a)

  4

  (b)

  2

  2000:

  (a)

  12

  (b)

  4

  1999:

  (a)

  7

  (b)

  1

  1998:

  (a)

  10

  (b)

  5

  1997:

  (a)

  10

  (b)

  7

  Scottish Land Fund
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate she has made of future demand for grants from the Scottish Land Fund. [128001]

  Estelle Morris
  The New Opportunities Fund's Scottish Land Fund programme has generated strong interest among rural communities in Scotland in its first two years of operation. 129 applications have been made to the Scottish Land Fund to date, and 103 of these have been successful. The Fund currently receives around 20 eligible inquiries for funding per month and it estimates that this level of demand is likely to continue throughout the lifetime of the programme.

  Secondment
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what her Department's policy is on employing secondees from the private sector; how many secondees from the(a) private and (b) public sectors her Department employed in each year since 1997; from which companies and organisations they were seconded; at what level they were employed; and if she will make a statement. [127067]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport welcomes inward interchange from both the private and public sectors in our areas of responsibility. It enables us to build effective relationships through sharing and exchanging people, ideas and expertise and also fosters a more diverse environment in which we can draw on the experience and ideas of people from a wide range of backgrounds.

  The Department has had no members of staff seconded from the private sector since May 1997.

  The information in respect of secondees from the public sector is contained in the following table. Grades are given in the old unified grading system.

  Date started

  Secondment>from

  Grade

  1997

  NDPB

  HEO/SEO

  1998

  Local authority

  Principal

  Eastern Arts

  SCS

  Arts Council for England

  EO

  Arts Council for England

  Principal

  29W

  Date started

  Secondment>from

  Grade

  PACE

  HEO/SEO

  Comm. for Architecture and Built Environment

  HEO/SEO

  English Sports Council

  HEO/SEO

  1999

  Local Government Association

  Principal

  National Heritage Memorial Fund

  EO

  English Heritage

  Principal

  National Heritage Memorial Fund

  EO

  National Heritage Memorial Fund

  EO

  National Heritage Memorial Fund

  HEO/SEO

  National Heritage Memorial Fund

  EO

  National Heritage Memorial Fund

  HEO/SEO

  2000

  French Government

  Principal

  London borough grants

  Principal

  British Library

  AA/AO

  2001

  Oxford city council

  Principal

  British Library

  EO

  Prince's Trust

  HEO/SEO

  English Heritage

  EO

  National Campaign for Arts

  EO

  Comm. for Architecture and Built Environment

  EO

  2002

  Sport England

  Principal

  Comm. for Health Improvement

  HEO/SEO

  British Museum

  HEO/SEO

  Hackney council

  HEO/SEO

  British Library

  HEO/SEO

  Arts Council

  EO

  National Lottery Commission

  Principal

  British Museum

  HEO/SEO

  2003

  English Heritage

  EO

  English Heritage

  HEO/SEO

  V & A Museum

  EO

  Historic Manuscripts Commission

  EO

  English Heritage

  EO

  Supporters Direct
  Mr. Bailey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much money she has given to Supporters Direct to promote more democratic participation in the management of football clubs; and what related discussions she has had with the Football Association on the conversion of football clubs to mutual organisations. [127828]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government launched Supporters Direct in 2000 to assist and advise supporters' trust groups to get involved in the responsible running of clubs. Most Premier and Football League clubs now have club trusts, and majority shareholdings are now held by supporters' representatives at three clubs. Supporters Direct received £250,000 a year in public funding for 2000–01 to 2002–03, and will receive core funding of £325,000 for 2003–04. These amounts were, and will be, "top-sliced" from the Football Foundation's income from the Reduction in Pool Betting Duty.

  Supporters Direct has recently become an Industrial and Provident Society organised along mutual lines, and has suggested that professional football clubs could also benefit from the adoption of that status. I intend to discuss the issue with the football authorities once they have considered that suggestion in detail.

  Tourism
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what action the Government are taking to make the British tourism industry more competitive. [128574]
  30W
  Mr. Caborn
  The Government are encouraging competitiveness in the tourism industry by concentrating on measures that will encourage improvements to the quality of the product offered by individual tourism businesses through improvement in the skills base across the sector and encouraging effective investment in quality.

  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport works with other Whitehall Departments to ensure that issues such as planning policy reform meets the industry's needs and removes barriers to investment in the more productive types of tourism businesses. The Department is also represented on the board of the Best Practice Forum, which is part-funded by the Department for Trade and Industry. The Forum's Profit Through Productivity initiative provides business and enterprise support for the sector and aims to raise competitiveness and productivity across the sector.

  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what contribution in percentage terms was made by tourism in the South West to GDP in each financial year since 1997. [127820]

  Mr. Caborn
  Sub-national data of tourism's contribution to GDP are not generally available. South West Tourism is however currently producing a report on the economic value of tourism to the region which, I understand, is due to be published within the next month.

  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many tourists from overseas visited the South West in each financial year since 1997; and what percentage of overseas tourists to the UK this represented in each case. [127821]

  Mr. Caborn
  These data are shown in the table.

  Financial year

  Staying visits by overseas tourists to the South West (million)

  As a percentage of all staying visits by overseas tourists to the UK (percentage)

  1997–98

  1.88

  9.0

  1998–99

  2.04

  9.3

  1999–2000

  1.97

  8.4

  2000–01

  1.99

  8.6

  2001–021

  1.73

  8.4

  1 Provisional

  Source:

  International Passenger Survey, National Statistics

  TV Licences (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many people have television licences in Northern Ireland. [126500]

  Estelle Morris
  The number of television licences in force in Northern Ireland as at 31 March 2003 was 546,000, excluding Accommodation for Residential Care composite form licences, records for which are not available for individual nations and regions.

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many prosecutions there were in 2002 for failure to hold a television licence in Northern Ireland. [126501]
  31W
  Estelle Morris
  The number of prosecutions proceeded with by TV Licensing in Northern Ireland in 2002 for installation or use of television without a licence was 1,448.

  World Sports Events
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps she is taking to promote the United Kingdom as a venue for world sports events. [128235]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government are in the process of developing a long-term major events strategy aimed at attracting further world class sporting events to the UK. This plan will enable us to identify suitable major events and will help us to develop effective strategies to improve our chances of bidding for these events successfully.

  On 15 May 2003, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the Government's decision to support a bid to host the Olympics and Paralympics in London in 2012. We will work enthusiastically with the other stakeholders, the Mayor of London, and the British Olympic Association, and with London 2012, to ensure that the bid to bring the Games to London and the United Kingdom is a winning one.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  No Win, No Fee Cases
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will make a statement on the implications for the insurance industry of legal costs in relation to no win, no fee cases. [127804]

  Mr. Lammy
  Conditional Fee Agreements (CFAs), the most common type of 'no win no fee' agreements, were first introduced in 1995. In April 2000 success fees and after the event insurance premiums were made recoverable from the losing party to help redress the problem of the legal system being open only to people who were legally aided or who had adequate private means. The intention was to make it easier and more affordable for a wider range of people to enforce their rights. The reforms also provided defendants and their insurers with a fairer system by which to recover costs in successfully defended cases, whereas under Legal Aid, defendants were rarely entitled to recover costs from their legally aided opponent. The reforms provided increased deterrents to the bringing or defending of weak claims and stronger incentives for parties to settle cases early and cheaply because of the increased potential liability in costs.

  It is not possible to say yet whether legal costs to insurers have increased directly as a result of the introduction of CFAs, recoverable success fees and ATE insurance premiums. Recent research by Fenn, Gray and Rickman (January 2003) for the Civil Justice Council on the cost of road traffic accident cases up to £15,000 in value found that data on costs and damages from around April 2002 onwards showed large fluctuations in the volume and duration of settled claims and could not be relied upon. However, the research did indicate that there seemed to be little difference between
  32W
  CFA and non-CFA claims with respect to agreed base costs and disbursements, and that success fees and ATE premiums remain a relatively small part of overall costs recovered from insurers.

  The OFT commented in its recent fact finding study of the liability insurance market that it seemed unlikely the cost of individual claims has risen substantially as a result of the reforms and it was unclear whether they have had a significant impact on the frequency of claims. The OFT also said that while it had frequently been suggested the number of claims has risen because the reforms have made the claiming process easier and associated publicity has drawn more attention to the availability of compensation, the evidence for this was in fact largely anecdotal.

  EU Directives
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will list the EU directives implemented by the Department and its predecessors since 8 June 2001. [126595]

  Mr. Lammy
  No Directives have been implemented by the Department for Constitutional Affairs or the former Lord Chancellor's Department in the period from 8 June 2001.

  European Constitution
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what discussions he has had with(a) colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and (b) counterparts in the European Union about the legislative competencies covered by the draft European Constitution. [124784]

  Mr. Lammy
  As part of the normal Whitehall process, I and my officials have had regular correspondence with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to discuss all aspects of the Convention, including legislative competences. We have also had regular contact with Member and Accession States to discuss issues arising in the Convention. In line with exemptions 1 and 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, it is not the normal practice of Governments to disclose details about internal discussions, or information whose disclosure would harm the conduct of international relations or affairs.

  Judicial Appointments
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what research he has commissioned into judicial appointments since Judicial Appointments: the European and North American end to possible implications for the United Kingdom, published in 1997. [127876]

  Mr. Leslie
  My Department has not commissioned further external research on this matter. However, in drafting the consultation paper on the new Judicial Appointments Commission, Department for Constitutional Affairs officials carried out research using a variety of sources, which included making inquiries via the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in order to make any necessary amendments to update the information contained in the 1997 papers.

  Ministerial Visits
  David Davis
  To ask the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will list the(a) foreign and (b) UK visits the Secretary of State has made since 1st April; what the cost was to public funds of each trip; who he met; and what gifts were received. [126893]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Government publishes the overall costs of all Ministerial overseas travel and a list of all visits overseas by Cabinet Ministers costing in excess of £500 on an annual basis. The list for the period 1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003 was published by the Prime Minister on 16 July 2003 Official Report column 327W. The next list for the period 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004 will be published at the end of the financial year.

  In respect of gifts received, I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 14 March 2003, Official Report, column 482W.

  With regards to domestic visits undertaken since 1 April 2003, the Lord Chancellor visited the Channel Islands at a cost of £1713.43 where he met members of the Jersey, Guernsey, Alderney and Sark Governments. He received a miniature milk churn, a tie, a paperweight and a book about Jersey.

  He also visited Stratford-upon-Avon, at a cost of £288.00, where he met members of the Justices' Clerks' Society; Manchester, at a cost of £807.00, where he met members of the North West Law Centres Federation and the Solicitors Pro Bono Group; Hemsworth, at a costof £769.35, where he met various members of the public, and, the Isle of Man, at a cost of £551.32, where he met Her Majesty The Queen, HRH the Duke of Edinburgh and representatives of the Manx Government.

  The Lord Chancellor also visited Belfast, at a cost of £311.05, where he met the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland; Edinburgh, at a cost of £358.00, where he met Lord Cullen and Lord Gill; Preston, at a cost of £513.30, where he met members of the Lancashire Local Criminal Justice Board; and, Newcastle, at a cost of £877.43, where he met members of the Northumbrian Local Criminal Justice Board.

  Office for the Supervision of Solicitors
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs when he established the most recent review of the work of the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors. [127402]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department continuously monitors the situation at the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors (OSS) closely. The most recent large-scale review of the work of the OSS was completed in July.

  School Exclusions
  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many unsuccessful judicial appeals against fixed term exclusions from secondary schools in the UK have proceeded to the High Court in the last five years; and what has been the legal cost of defending these cases. [116937]
  34W
  Mr. Lammy
  The information requested is not collected centrally and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Taylor House
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many cases were dealt with at Taylor House on Monday 14 July. [127403]

  Mr. Lammy
  On Monday 14 July the Immigration Appellate Authority at Taylor House dealt with 90 oral substantive hearings of which 80 were asylum hearings and 10 were immigration hearings.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Affordable Housing
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his plans are for affordable housing in the South West region; and whether he plans to increase investment in the region in the next comprehensive spending review. [126933]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister plans for affordable housing in the South West region were set out in "Sustainable Communities in the South West" (February 2003).

  Funding for the provision of affordable housing in the South West has increased to £81 million for 2003–04, compared to just under £62 million for 2002–03. The programme is expected to deliver around 2,000 new affordable homes for the region in 2003–04.

  From 2004–05 the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is strengthening the role of the regions to ensure housing investment is targeted more effectively on local and regional investment priorities. Regional Housing Boards will advise on the best use of resources to support identified priorities in regional housing strategies.

  Decisions on future investment plans cannot be taken in advance of the next spending review.

  Communities Plan
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment his Department has made of the numbers of trained people needed in the building industry with reference to the Communities Plan; and if he will make a statement. [127763]

  Keith Hill
  The Communities Plan is clear that, in order to deliver my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister's vision of thriving, sustainable communities, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister needs to increase skills and capacity across the building industry.

  Sir John Egan has therefore been asked to conduct a review of the skills and training that built-environment professionals required to deliver sustainable communities. He will consider what skills these groups need to work collaboratively and how any skills gap can best be bridged.
  35W
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is also working with other Government Departments, agencies and the building industry to address the issues that are preventing young people from making construction their career of first choice.

  EU Directives
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the EU directives implemented by the Department since 8 June 2001. [126594]

  Keith Hill
  No European Union directives have been implemented by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister since its creation in May 2002. We are in the course of implementing Directive 2001/42/EC on the assessment of the effects on the environment of certain plans and programmes (the "strategic environmental assessment Directive"), and Directive 2002/91/EC on the energy performance of buildings.

  Green Burial Sites
  Mr. Fabian Hamilton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to issue planning policy guidance to local authorities on green burial sites. [127182]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has no plans to issue specific policy guidance on 'green' burial sites.

  Homeless Population
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what recent representations he has received on the(a) size and (b) condition of the homeless population. [127840]

  Keith Hill
  The most recent national estimate of the number of rough sleepers was derived from the 2002 Housing Investment Programme return from local authorities and shows a figure of 596—based on single night street counts and estimates.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's latest Statistical Release on statutory homelessness, from returns to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister by local authorities covering figures for England up to the end of March 2003, was published on 17 June.

  Information summarised in Table 4, "Acceptances by category of Priority Need", shows that 129,320 households were accepted as homeless and in priority need by local authorities in England during 2002–03.

  National and regional P1E-based figures—which include estimates for non-responding local authorities—appear in a quarterly Statistical Release, available in the Library of the House and via the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister website. An accompanying Supplementary Table presents key data at regional and local authority level. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister website link is http://www.housing.odpm.gov.uk/statistics/publicat/homelessness/index.htm#quarterly

  In May the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister issued a consultation document on "Improving Standards of Accommodation for Homeless Households in Temporary Accommodation". This seeks views on proposals to give the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's Bed and Breakfasts target full statutory force
  36W
  and to raise standards in all forms of temporary accommodation, particularly Bed and Breakfasts and to ensure that households in Bed and Breakfast hotels have access to health education and social services.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is working closely with the Department of Health to tackle the health inequalities that homeless people face as outlined in "Tackling Health Inequalities—A programme for Action".

  Local Authority Staff
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many whole-time equivalent staff posts there were in each local authority in England in the last year for which figures are available. [127205]

  Keith Hill
  The Local Government Employment Survey 2002 conducted by the Employers Organisation for Local Government found that as of June 2002 there were 2,023,983 employee jobs in local authorities in England. I have placed a breakdown of this figure, showing the number of employees in each local authority in England as at June 2002, in the Library of the House.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

  Ministerial Visits
  David Davis
  To ask the Leader of the House if he will list the(a) foreign and (b) UK visits he has made since 1 April; what the cost was to public funds of each trip; whom he met; and what gifts were received. [126888]

  Mr. Hain
  As Leader of the House of Commons, I have not made any foreign or UK visits.

  Written Ministerial Statements
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Leader of the House how many written ministerial statements were made on each day during the 2002–03 Session. [127825]

  Mr. Hain
  From the start of the 2003–03 session until 17 July inclusive, 1,103 written ministerial statements have been made. This is, on average, 8 per sitting day.

WALES

  Consultation Documents
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the consultation documents issued by the Wales Office in each of the last four years; what the cost was of producing each of these; how many documents were issued in each consultation; and how many responses were received in each consultation. [124568]

  Mr. Touhig
  The information is not readily available in the format requested. However since its creation in July 1999 the Wales Office has undertaken these consultations:July 1999. Countryside and Rights of Way Bill. 81 responses.
  December 1999. "Key issues and options for dealing with the problems caused by high hedges". 142 responses.
  February 2000. "Greater Protection and Better Management of Common Land in England and Wales".

  37W
  April 2000. "Amendments to the Government's Proposals for New Assisted Areas". 104 documents issued at no cost to the Wales Office and 18 representations received.
  July 2000. "Proposals to change the Administration of the Housing Transfer Programme".
  March 2001. "Government Proposal for the Reform of Business Tenancies" (jointly with Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions).
  May 2002. "Draft NHS (Wales) Bill". 42 responses received.
  June 2002. "Draft Mental Health Bill" (jointly with Department of Health).
  June 2002. Timing of Rent Increases Regulatory Reform Order (jointly)
  August 2002. "Draft Welsh Language Scheme for the Wales Office". Seven responses received.
  2002. Regulatory Reform (Housing Management Agreements) Order. 51 responses received.
  December 2002. "Ombudsmen's services in Wales: Time for Change?" Cost some £700. Some 700 copies issued and 50 responses received.
  April 2003. "Draft Public Audit (Wales) Bill". Over 130 documents were issued. 15 responses were received.
  July 2003. "Proposals for a Regulatory Reform Order to enable the Welsh Administration Ombudsman to undertake investigations as Commissioner for Local Administration in Wales".

  NHS Treatment Delays
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Health and the Welsh Assembly concerning a definition for an unreasonable period of delay for treatment within the NHS, as phrased in the European Court of Justice ruling on treatment of patients abroad for patients from Wales. [109878]

  Mr. Touhig
  Treatment under the national health service is a matter in Wales for the National Assembly for Wales. The National Assembly for Wales is in regular contact with the Department of Health and the other UK health departments with regard to EU and other international health matters.

  Race Relations
  Angela Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has been made in his Department and non-departmental public bodies on implementing the requirements of the Race Relations Amendment Act 2000; and if he will publish the results of the monitoring required by the Act. [117467]

  Mr. Hain
  On this matter the Wales Office will implement the policies of the Department for Constitutional Affairs and I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to her on 1 September 2003,Official Report, column 782W, by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs.

  Regulatory Impact Assessments
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his Department's regulatory impact assessment procedure; and how many RIAs have been reviewed in respect of the Department over the last year. [120744]

  Mr. Touhig
  A Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) is completed for all Wales Office regulatory proposals that have more than a negligible impact on businesses, charities or the voluntary sector.

  No RIAs have been reviewed in respect of the Department in the last year.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 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. [126675]

  Mr. Hain
  A Wales Office special adviser accompanied the Secretary of State to Spain in April 2002 and to France in July 2002. The costs of these trips by the special adviser was some £900 and some £700 respectively.

DEFENCE

  Armed Forces (Logistic Support)
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent steps he has taken to enhance the cost-effectiveness of the logistic support to the armed forces. [128440]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (David Wright) on 8 September 2003,Official Report, column 18.

  Royal Navy (Procurement)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress on the procurement of new ships for the Royal Navy. [128441]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence has embarked on the largest procurement programme of new ships for the Royal Navy in many years. There are currently some 10 projects at various stages of the procurement process. In the last three years, 15 new ships have been ordered, comprising six Type 45 destroyers, four Landing Ships Dock (Auxiliary), two survey vessels and three offshore patrol vessels. Future plans include the purchase of two new aircraft carriers, further ASTUTE class submarines and Type 45 destroyers, the future surface combatant and a number of support vessels.

  Armed Forces (Register of Electors)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps his Department has taken to ensure that service men and women are aware of the requirement to renew their entry on the armed forces register of electors on an annual basis. [128442]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Ministry of Defence issues an annual Defence Council Instruction explaining voting arrangements in detail to all members of the armed forces. The last was issued on 31 January 2003.

  Accommodation
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his policy is on expenditure on improvements and furnishings for the accommodation assigned to commanding officers; and if he will make a statement. [127114]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Defence Housing Executive (DHE)'s Key Targets require it to upgrade all of the core stock of Service Family Accommodation in Great Britain to Standard 1 for Condition, as funding allows. In this respect, no distinction is made between houses lived in by commanding officers and those lived in by any other service personnel and their families.

  All Service personnel are entitled to furnished accommodation, with the furnishings provided being of a standard quality, regardless of the occupant's rank. The exceptions to this are very senior officers and officers who hold 'Command Appointments', where, due to their appointment, they are required to provide official entertainment, and so they are entitled to have an enhanced standard of furnishings in public areas.
  40W
  Maintenance of furnishings in all properties is carried out within funding constraints, and items are only replaced when they become unserviceable.

  Armed Forces (Electoral Registration)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he has taken to ensure that members of Her Majesty's armed forces are aware of the new requirement to register to vote on an annual basis. [127748]

  Mr. Caplin
  It is the individual responsibility of each member of the armed forces to register to vote annually. The Ministry of Defence issues an annual Defence Council Instruction explaining this requirement in detail. The last was issued on 31 January 2003.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what procedures have been put in place to facilitate annual entry on the Service register of electors for Servicemen and women who are overseas or on active Service. [127749]

  Mr. Caplin
  It is the individual responsibility of each member of the armed forces to register to vote annually. Service personnel overseas can choose to register as Service voters by means of a Service declaration, but they can then only vote by proxy. Those who choose to register on their local electoral register will be able to vote either by post or proxy if they are overseas or away from home during any election. Every effort is made by ships, units, and stations to give reasonable assistance to personnel overseas to register or vote in line with their individual electoral registration choice.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of HM armed forces were registered to vote on the Service register of electors in each of the last three years. [127754]

  Mr. Caplin
  Information on the number of registered Service voters is no longer held centrally. With the introduction of the new voting arrangements from 16 February 2001, those armed forces personnel that now choose to be Service registered voters register annually with the individual electoral registration officers of their choice.

  Armed Forces (Community Support)
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to maintain a military presence in each area of the UK for the purposes of(a) recruitment and (b) community support. [127246]

  Mr. Ingram
  For the purposes of recruitment, a military presence is maintained in each area of the United Kingdom by way of the nationwide network of Armed Forces Careers Offices and satellite recruiting offices, totalling over 130 recruiting offices. In addition all three Services' Schools and Recruiting Presentation Teams, and Ethnic Minority Recruiting and Diversity Action Teams remain highly proactive; they will continue with their full programme of visits to schools, colleges, careers fairs and exhibitions, graduate fairs, regional and local communities, youth clubs, local events exhibitions and sporting events, the length and breadth of the country.
  41W
  The armed forces provide, and will continue to provide, a broad range of support across the country to the community. This includes support through a wide range of youth and educational programmes, such as Skill Force and the Army Cadet Force Outreach programme.

  The Department is committed to providing military assistance to civil authorities across the country in response to emergencies—for example, the response to foot and mouth disease. Operation FRESCO, Search and Rescue, and bomb disposal. Civil Contingencies Reaction Forces (CCRFs) are also being formed in each region to enhance our ability to support the police and other authorities during civil emergencies. The CCRFs are drawn from the Armed Forces Reserves for a number of reasons, including the fact that the Reserves 'footprint' across the country matches more closely the centres of population than the footprint of the Regular forces.

  Body Armour
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether all front line unit personnel serving on Operation Telic had body armour before combat operations started; [126096]

  (2) what kind of body armour was issued to soldiers serving with the Seventh Armoured Brigade in Basra; whether there was a reissue; and if he will make a statement. [112026]

  Mr. Ingram
  The majority of 7 Armoured Brigade had full combat armour at the start of combat operations. Body armour consists of a fabric cover and filler which confers a level of ballistic protection, and additional ceramic plates which provide an enhanced level of protection.

  Over 36,000 fill sets of Enhanced Combat Body Armour were delivered to theatre, enough for all personnel who needed it. However, not all units received ceramic plates due to supply difficulties within theatre. To minimise any operational risk that might have resulted, approximately 500 sets of Enhanced Combat Body Armour were reallocated to units assessed to have higher operational need.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans there are to further reduce the number of troops serving in Bosnia. [128537]

  Mr. Ingram
  The United Kingdom remains committed to safeguarding the security and stability of the Balkans, and continues to play a full role in the international community's objectives for the region.

  No reductions are planned for the UK's contribution to the Stabilisation Force (SFOR) in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which currently stands at 1,400 troops. NATO is currently conducting its autumn Periodic Mission Review (PMR), which will consider the NATO force structure. The UK will review its force contribution to SFOR in the light of the PMR's recommendations.

  Drinking Water Coolant
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what provision was made during(a) TELIC 1 and (b) TELIC 2 for the provision of drinking water coolant. [127107]

  Mr. Ingram
  Throughout the deployment and subsequent operations in both Kuwait and Iraq during Operations TELIC 1 and 2, bottled drinking water has been provided through the Ministry of Defence Food Supply Contractor. The quantities supplied have been consistent with the medical advice provided at the time. Sources of supply are subject to stringent quality controls to ensure that supplies meet, or exceed, EU quality standards. At static locations, where operational conditions allow, water is stored in refrigerated containers.

  Drummore Harbour
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next plans to dredge Drummore harbour; and for what reason the timescale has been changed. [127849]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Ministry of Defence has no plans to dredge Drummore harbour.

  Entertainment
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he has entertained Labour hon. Members at public expense in the last 12 months; and at what cost.[106397]

  Mr. Caplin
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence hosted the annual Defence Council Reception to which Members of all parties with a defence interest were invited. A small reception was also held for all Members of the House of Commons Defence Select Committee. The combined cost of these two functions was £7,848.

  Defence Ministers also host lunches and dinners for foreign defence Ministers who are visiting the United Kingdom on official business. A Member with a connection to that country, for example the Chair of an all-Party group, may be invited to this even irrespective of party.

  Any other expenditure is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  All expenditure incurred is in accordance with Paragraph 65 of the Ministerial Code.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his plans are for increasing the recruitment of women to the armed services; whether he has set a target; and if he will make a statement. [128157]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Armed Forces do not operate separate recruiting targets for women and recruiting initiatives are generally gender free. Nevertheless, the Services' recruiting organisation includes female personnel to assist a fair gender representation in recruiting activities. Furthermore all three Services have School Presentation
  43W
  and Recruiting Teams which visit many schools, including girl-only schools, each year. Recruit advertising also appears in female orientated magazines.

  These and other initiatives helped the Armed Forces to recruit 3,230 women in 2002–3, an increase of 540 over the previous year.

  European Rapid Reaction Force
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the European Rapid Reaction Force. [128424]

  Mr. Hoon
  Most of the 144 Capability targets which make up the Headline Goal have been met but there remain areas of significant shortfalls, some in key areas such as strategic lift, support helicopters and air-to-air refuelling. At Thessaloniki in June, the European Council agreed that the EU now has operational capability across the full range of Petersberg Tasks, limited and constrained by recognised shortfalls, which can be alleviated by the further development of the EU's military capabilities.

  Although EU nations are strengthening their military capabilities, there is no standing European Rapid Reaction Force nor any EU agreement to create one. Existing national or multinational forces, declared under the Helsinki Headline Goal, will be made available to the EU on a voluntary, case-by-case basis when required for a crisis management operation.

  HMS St. Albans
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much it cost to repair HMS St. Albans; what costs were recovered from the ferry company involved; and if he will make a statement. [127254]

  Mr. Ingram
  The total cost of the repairs to HMS St. Albans has yet to be finalised but is expected to be in the region of £2,5 million. The process to recover costs has started.

  Hydrographic and Oceanographic Survey Vessels
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the extent to which his Department's PFI partner, Vosper Thornycroft, was responsible for the delay in the building of(a) HMS Echo and (b) HMS Enterprise. [127189]

  Mr. Ingram
  An assessment of the extent to which the prime contractor, Vosper Thornycroft, is responsible for delays in building these vessels has been completed by the Ministry of Defence and the conclusions discussed and agreed with the company. I am withholding this information in accordance with Exemption 7 (Effective Management and Operations of the Public Service) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  The Survey Vessels contract is not under PFI terms, although Vosper Thornycroft is a PFI partner of the Ministry of Defence on other contracts.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many soldiers have been airlifted out of Iraq suffering from heat exhaustion. [128433]
  44W
  Mr. Caplin
  Since the start of military operations in Iraq, around 160 soldiers have been evacuated from Iraq suffering from heat-related illness.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on measures to secure Iraq's borders. [128421]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay), 8 September 2003,Official Report, columns 3–4.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the dates and circumstances of civilian deaths in(a) Basra and (b) Umm Qasr since 20 March which have involved British military personnel. [121537]

  Mr. Ingram
  We make every effort to minimise the impact of military operations on the Iraqi civilian population. We do not, and could not, record the numbers of Iraqi military personnel or civilians that have been killed or injured during the coalition's military action.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) armed Services personnel, (b) other non-Iraqi personnel and (c) Iraqi personnel are involved in maintaining peace and law and order in Iraq; in which areas these personnel operate; and if he will list (i) violent incidents in which they have been involved, (ii) fatalities and (iii) casualties since 23 April 2003. [122473]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 3 July 2003]There are some 160 United Kingdom Royal Military Police and Military Police operating in Iraq at present, assisting in maintaining law and order in southern Iraq. The Coalition Provisional Authority reports that there are some 31,000 Iraqi police now at work across Iraq. We do not centrally record the number of violent incidents in Iraq. But 17 UK Service personnel have died since 23 April 2003.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Military Policemen are deployed in Iraq; what their role is; and if he will make a statement on what protection is afforded to them whilst carrying out their tasks. [123838]

  Mr. Ingram
  As of 28 August 2003, there were approximately 180 Royal Military Police (RMP) in theatre serving on Operation Telic. Their duties include Force Protection, liaison with host nations, Prisoner-of-War handling, Close Protection and general police duties at military establishments. The Special Investigations Branch, which investigates incidents and allegations involving members of the UK armed forces, is also part of the RMP. Members of the RMP are afforded force protection measures appropriate to the duties they are carrying out.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the intelligence sources to which reference is made in the section on intelligence, at page 15 of his Department's recent report on first reflections on operations in Iraq, include the intelligence sources drawn upon in the preparation of the dossiers on Iraq's military capabilities published in(a) September 2002 and (b) February 2003 by the Government. [126922]
  45W
  Mr. Ingram
  The intelligence sources referred to in the Ministry of Defence's Iraq First Reflections Report are all the intelligence sources available to support the planning and conduct of the military operation including defence intelligence, intelligence from national agencies and intelligence from allies. However, the report's focus is on the intelligence on Iraqi military intentions in the period immediately before and during the conflict. The Government's Assessment of Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction described the role of intelligence in Part 1, Chapter 1 which lists the principal sources as the United Kingdom's intelligence and analysis agencies and intelligence from close allies.

  Mr. Bailey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans there are for the installation of air conditioning at Ministry of Defence troop bases in Iraq. [127128]

  Mr. Ingram
  At present, approximately half of all United Kingdom Service personnel deployed in Iraq have access to air-conditioned accommodation. Work is continuing to provide further air conditioning in accommodation areas throughout the area of operations. The majority of personnel should be provided with air-conditioned accommodation by the end of September 2003.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the Government's reply to the 56th Report from the Public Accounts Committee, Session 2001–2, what measures were taken, prior to the war in Iraq, to(a) invest in equipment, (b) raise awareness throughout the land forces and (c) refine tactics, techniques and procedures to improve Combat Identification in the land environment. [127307]

  Mr. Hoon
  Combat Identification is fundamental to combat effectiveness and enables us to minimise the risk of fratricide. We therefore have a continuing programme to support our armed forces' Combat Identification capability through investment in equipment, training and continuous review of tactics, techniques and procedures. Prior to war-fighting operations in Iraq we worked to ensure, as we do before any military operation, that robust Combat Identification arrangements were in place and that the best Combat Identification equipment available for this operation was provided.

  We worked very closely with the United States in the planning phase on a coalition concept of operations for Combat Identification. This related principally to specific marking systems for ground forces. We acquired a range of new equipment to ensure that UK
  46W
  land forces capabilities either complied with or exceeded the mandated standard. We also acquired sufficient sets of the US's recently developed satellite-based Blue Force Tracking tool to help our units operate with US forces. GPS navigation aids and the short-range Personal Role Radio, a part of the Bowman programme brought into service early, were widely available.

  UK and US forces also set up liaison arrangements to maintain dialogue on tactics, techniques and procedures for the operation and took steps to familiarise themselves with each other's forces.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many civil servants are in Iraq searching for weapons of mass destruction; and when they were sent. [128309]

  Mr. Ingram
  On 1 September 2003 there were 19 civil servants in Iraq working for the Iraq Survey Group employed in its task of searching for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. They arrived in theatre from 13 June 2003. This number will continue to change as new staff join and others complete their periods of duty.

  Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of British forces in Iraq are engaged in making safe unexploded ordnance; how many devices have been disarmed; and what other agencies are assisting in this work. [114516]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 19 May 2003]The United Kingdom currently has 10 Explosive Ordnance Disposal teams in Iraq consisting of 99 personnel.

  As at 4 September some 116,000 individual items of unexploded ordnance had been cleared. We estimate that over 220,000 rounds of small arms ammunition have also been cleared. The vast majority of unexploded ordnance is of Iraqi origin.

  A number of Non-Governmental Organisations have been conducting EOD clearance under the supervision of the United Nations Mine Action Coordination Team, including Minetech and Intersos.

  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what British resources have been devoted to investigating deaths by friendly fire during the Iraq conflict, broken down by number of people investigating and their Service. [115792]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 3 June 2003]All incidents where friendly fire is suspected are investigated fully. In the case of incidents arising from Operation Telic, most are being investigated by personnel from the Royal Military Police Special Investigations Branch. Eight personnel are currently employed on these tasks. Where appropriate, the incidents will also be the subject of individual Service Boards of Inquiry.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action he is taking to protect recently discovered mass graves in Iraq. [117059]

  Mr. Caplin
  The United Kingdom Government continue to believe that those who have been responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes in Iraq should be brought to justice. Where it is suspected
  47W
  that a mass grave site has been found, details of the site are passed to Coalition Joint Task Force 7 (CJTF7) Crime Investigation Division. Where possible, UK Forces will provide protection to such sites, but this requirement has to be balanced against other demands for their services.

  Maintenance Costs
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how often audits are made of maintenance programmes(a) involving Ministry of Defence agencies and (b) with outside contractors. [121250]

  Mr. Ingram
  Internal audits within the Ministry of Defence are conducted primarily by Defence Internal Audit (DIA) but there are also audit-style reviews by functional and business unit compliance teams as well as specific quality inspections against formal standards. The periodicity of internal audit review is now governed by an assessment of the risks inherent within any particular system or process and agreed by the Defence Audit Committee. As such, there are no longer routine or cyclical audits per se. It is not therefore possible to state how often audits of maintenance programmes may occur. Judgments regarding risk are made by senior managers responsible for the delivery of defence objectives rather than by auditors.

  There remains, however, flexibility within the internal audit process to undertake ad hoc reviews as well as consultancy and business development assignments and in recent years DIA has undertaken individual audits examining repair processes, prime contracting and estates maintenance at the request of management.

  Ref District

  A Maldon

  B Chelmsford

  C Rochford

  D Colchester

  E Tendring

  F Southend

  G Castlepoint

  (c,f,g) Local

  (a,b,d,e) North Essex

  H Kent

  Totals

  1990

  21

  27

  25

  73

  1991

  21

  23

  3

  47

  1992

  58

  88

  77

  223

  1993

  124

  194

  102

  420

  1994

  32

  555

  325

  912

  1995

  56

  5

  60

  12

  107

  33

  2

  360

  635

  1996

  91

  2

  48

  44

  206

  109

  1

  155

  656

  1997

  23

  0

  45

  5

  79

  30

  6

  91

  279

  1998

  49

  0

  31

  20

  129

  65

  5

  335

  634

  1999

  58

  1

  86

  23

  222

  52

  10

  543

  995

  2000

  48

  0

  48

  38

  322

  48

  1

  333

  838

  2001

  51

  0

  74

  22

  239

  35

  3

  477

  901

  2002

  50

  0

  16

  14

  154

  25

  0

  217

  476

  2003 to date

  9

  2

  2

  12

  104

  0

  0

  30

  159

  Oshkosh Transporters
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many kilometres on average an armoured brigade moves in 24 hours; and what the equivalent figures will be after the introduction of the Oshkosh transporters; [127111]

  (2) what change in capability there will be arising from the change from 120 Heavy Equipment Transporters for Square Brigade to 92 Oshkosh Tank Transporters. [127110]

  Military Police Training School
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what role the Royal Military Police Training School has played in supporting civilian services in emergencies in West Sussex in the last six years; and if he will list the occasions when they did so. [127247]

  Mr. Caplin
  There have been two occasions in the past six years when the Royal Military Police Training School has provided assistance in emergency situations. These were in November 2001 when there was flooding in the area and the School provided accommodation, catering equipment and personnel to assist in relief operations and damage prevention. From October 2002 to June 2003, during the recent firefighters dispute, the school provided accommodation, catering and equipment to military fire-fighters and civil police escorts.

  Shoeburyness
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many complaints about noise caused by explosions at Shoeburyness were received in each of the last 20 years from residents living in(a) Maldon District, (b) Chelmsford Borough, (c) Rochford District, (d) Colchester Borough, (e) Tendriny District, (f) Southend-on-Sea Unitary Authority, (g) Castlepoint District and (h) Kent. [128088]

  Mr. Caplin
  Complaints were not recorded before 1990. Between 1990 and 1994, complaints were divided into three broad geographical areas the first covering the immediate locality, the second North Essex and the third Kent. Since 1995, complaints have been recorded for the areas listed. The numbers of complaints from 1990 about noise from the range arising from demolitions, explosions and gunfire are as follows:

  Mr. Ingram
  It is not possible to provide a meaningful assessment of the distance an armoured brigade can travel in 24 hours because the rate of progress is governed by a wide range of variable factors, such as the type of terrain, climatic conditions, and the nature of any hostilities.

  The introduction of the new Oshkosh transporters will, however, introduce a significant increase in capability. Even though there will be 28 fewer transporters than we currently hold, the old vehicles have become increasingly difficult to maintain and the availability levels are therefore low. The new Oshkosh Tank Transporter fleet will be operated under a public private partnership

  49W
  initiative and payment is based on performance. Availability levels will be guaranteed, using vehicles leased from civilian hauliers if necessary.

  Additionally, the Oshkosh has a number of features that vastly improve its capability. These include a Central Tyre Inflation System (CTIS) giving the fleet an increased off road capability. It also has a dual winch system and can double load Warrior Armoured Fighting Vehicles unlike the Scammell Commander which was restricted to carrying only single Warriors. This double loading capability frees up considerable trailer space for the movement of Challenger 2 Tanks vital in the deployment of an Armoured Brigade.

  P2000 Coastal Training Craft
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his plans are for the deployment and utilisation of P2000 coastal training craft; and whether further vessels will be used for patrolling duties. [127120]

  Mr. Ingram
  In United Kingdom waters, P2000 craft are used to train members of the University Royal Naval Units in various sea going disciplines including ship handling, navigation and replenishment at sea. P2000 are also used for patrol duties and security duties off Gibraltar and Cyprus.

  RAF Chilmark
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the cost of clearing ordnance and contaminated land from the site of RAF Chilmark; and whether the land will be disposed of without liabilities on the purchaser. [126334]

  Mr. Caplin
  Since closure in April 1995, the cost of clearing ordnance from RAF Chilmark, including the preparation of Land Quality Assessments and remediation, has been approximately £1.8 million.

  Parts of the site have already been sold. It is Ministry of Defence policy to 'sell with knowledge'. Following completion of explosive ordnance clearance, the Land Quality Assessment and details of any remediation work will be made available to prospective purchasers, and will be taken fully into account in agreeing the terms of sale including price. Remediation of contamination prior to transfer will generally be confined to the removal of ordnance and other defence specific contaminants, such as chemical agents or radioactive and micro-biological material that a civilian contractor might not have the relevant experience to deal with.

  RAF Police
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether an RAF Policeman has the same level of training at the completion of Phase 2 as an Army Military Policeman to deal with(a) theft, (b) assault, (c) criminal damage and (d) other investigation work. [127245]

  Mr. Ingram
  Phase 2 training for the RAF Police and the Army's Royal Military Police (RMP) covers criminal damage, assault and theft. As the RMP course places greater emphasis on practical training and includes Investigative Interview Techniques, it lasts approximately 13 weeks longer than the RAF Police 50W
  course. From 11 September 2003, Phase 2 training for the RAF Police will be extended to cover all aspects of practical training and the course period will then exceed that of the existing RMP course.

  Rifles
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the total cost was to his Department to make the modifications to the SA80 rifle to bring it to SA80A2 standard; and how many SA80A2 rifles are in service with HM forces. [127115]

  Mr. Ingram
  The SA80 modification programme began in December 2001 and is expected to be completed by March 2006. A total of 190,000 weapons will be modified at a cost of £92 million including trials and training. As at 1 August 2003 some 79,000 SA80 A2 had been issued to units.

  Royal Fleet Auxiliary
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the projected cost and commissioning date of auxiliary oilers(a) Wave Knight and (b) Wave Ruler were when the contract was let; what the date of commissioning and the final cost are; and if he will make a statement. [127277]

  Mr. Ingram
  At the time the contact was let, in March 1997, the projected construction cost for Wave Knight and Wave Ruler was some £200 million. The contract cost for both vessels has still to be finalised but is expected to be between £210–£215 million. The increase reflects an addition to the contract for the procurement of spares and minor configuration changes to the ships' design over the period of the contract.

  The planned In Service Dates for Wave Knight and Wave Ruler when the contract was let were February 2001 and March 2002, respectively. Wave Knight was accepted into service in March 2003 and Wave Ruler in April 2003. The programme slippage arose as a result of shipyard loading and technical difficulties.

  Royal Navy
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many cadets from university Royal Naval units have joined the Royal Navy in each year since 1997. [127118]

  Mr. Caplin
  University Royal Naval Units (URNUs) produce a steady flow of recruits to the Royal Navy, but the numbers are not held as a unique statistic and the information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost. URNUs are not primarily intended to be used as a recruiting tool but to develop in undergraduates an awareness of the need for, and role of, the Royal Navy, with the aim of fostering an understanding of the Service within society at large.

  Service Personnel
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what proposals he has to make all methods of contact with families free for all armed services personnel; [128119]
  51W
  (2) by what methods servicemen are able to contact their families when on overseas operations; and what proposals he has to improve links when on longer term operations. [128117]

  Mr. Caplin
  The ability of deployed personnel to maintain contact with their families is a key part of the Operational Welfare Package (OWP) which was introduced in 2001 to replace the ad hoc welfare provision which had previously varied between operations, The OWP followed a comprehensive review of operational welfare, completed in December 1999, which took into account the views of hundreds of Service personnel across a wide range of operational theatres, as well as drawing on lessons from our allies. The OWP communications package includes free use of Forces Aerogrammes ('Blueys') and electronic-Blueys, 20 minutes of publicly funded telephone calls per week and access to internet and email facilities. The Ministry of Defence recognises the need to continually keep under review its Welfare Support Policy. In light of the experience's gained on various operational deployments during the last two years the Department is currently in the process of reviewing and evaluating the policy. It is too early to say what the outcome will be of this review.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many(a) Service personnel of officer rank, (b) Service personnel of other ranks, (c) industrial civilian personnel and (d) non-industrial civilian personnel were employed by the (i) RAF Maintenance Group Defence Agency and (ii) Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation in each year from inception to reorganisation as part of the Defence Aviation Repair Agency; how many were employed in Scotland in each case; what the total manning costs were for each category in each year, what the manning costs were for Scotland in each year, and if he will make a statement; [128041]

  (2) how many (a) Service personnel of officer rank, (b) Service personnel of other ranks, (c) industrial civilian personnel and (d) non-industrial civilian personnel were employed by the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency in each year from its inception to its disestablishment on 1 July 2001; how many of these were employed in Scotland; what the total manning costs were for each category in each year; what the manning costs were for Scotland in each year; and if he will make a statement; [128039]

  (3) how many (a) Service personnel of officer rank, (b) Service personnel of other ranks, (c) industrial civilian personnel and (d) non-industrial civilian personnel were employed by the (i) Defence Aviation Repair Agency, (ii) Meteorological Office, (iii) Hydrographic Office, (iv) Defence Services Organisation, (v) British Forces Post Office Agency, (vi) Defence Medical Education and Training Agency, (vii) Defence Medical Services Department, (viii) Defence Estates, (ix) Army Base Repair Organisation, (x) Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, (xi) Defence Procurement Agency, (xii) Warship Support Agency, (xiii) Disposal Services Agency, (xiv) Director General Commercial and (xv) Ministry of Defence Police in each year since inception; how many were employed in
  52W
  Scotland in each case; what the total manning costs were for each category in each year; what the manning costs were for Scotland in each year; and if he will make a statement; [128040]

  (4) how many (a) Service personnel of officer rank, (b) Service personnel of other ranks, (c) industrial civilian personnel and (d) non-industrial civilian personnel were employed by the Defence Secondary Care Agency in each year from its inception to its dissolution on 31 March; how many of these were employed in Scotland; what the total manning costs were for each category in each year; what the manning costs were for Scotland in each year; and if he will make a statement. [128038]

  Mr. Caplin
  Figures for Service and civilian personnel relating to each organisation have been placed in the Library of the House. Information on numbers of Service personnel working in Scotland, overall manning costs, and details prior to 1993, are not held centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Sir John Moore Barracks (Winchester)
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will make an announcement regarding the site at Sir John Moore Barracks in Winchester, and if he will make a statement. [127100]

  Mr. Caplin
  Sir John Moore Barracks at Winchester is currently the home of the Army Training Regiment, Winchester, part of the Initial Training Group, an Operating Division of the Army Training and Recruiting Agency (ATRA). As part of its strategy to achieve a more flexible approach to Initial Training, ATRA is examining alternative entry routes into the Army, with relevant training to meet the Army's future needs. A number of options are under consideration at the present time, but no decision on the way forward is likely before about April of next year. Whatever the outcome, no changes to the role of Sir John Moore Barracks are envisaged for the foreseeable future.

  Strategic Defence Review
  Mr. Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures are being taken to improve the ability of Britain's armed forces to be more rapidly deployable as set out in the strategic defence review. [128429]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor), 8 September 2003,Official Report, column 12.

  Suez Canal (Medals)
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects UK veterans of the Suez Canal Zone military operations in the 1950s to receive their campaign medals. [128315]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Ministry of Defence will start issuing medals to eligible veterans as soon as The Queen has seen and agreed the detailed qualifying criteria for the medal. The criteria are currently under consideration by the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals.

  Target Practice
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which ships his Department has used for target practice during the past five years. [127116]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence has a continuous requirement to trial and evaluate, under live conditions, the operational effectiveness of its weapon systems—in particular to prove their effectiveness against predicted results from modelling. As part of this requirement, the RN periodically conducts High Seas Firings (HSF) against targets, and uses the results to aid the continued tactical development of its weapons systems whilst also supporting research on survivability of current and future United Kingdom warship design and protection of personnel.

  During the past five years, the Department has arranged one HSF using ex-HMS Sirius as the target vessel. This was conducted between 28–29 September 1998. The RN also participated in two HSF exercises arranged by and at the invitation of the US Navy using ex USS Ashtabula and ex USS Wainwright on 14 October 2000 and 11 June 2002 respectively.

  Trained Personnel
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his Answer of 11th July, Official Report, column 1033W, on trained personnel, what research his Department has carried out into the numbers of Royal Naval personnel who have gone absent without leave since 1995; and if he will make a statement. [127069]

  Mr. Caplin
  No research has been carried out since 1995 into the numbers of Royal Naval personnel who have gone absent without leave, although the reasons for absence are routinely collected and reviewed. The increase in the number of Naval Service absences since 2000 shown in my answer,Official Report, column 1033W of 11 July 2003 was due to a change in the arrangements for reporting absence. Until then, no warrant for arrest was issued until the eighth day of an absence, and absentees who returned before then were not formally recorded. Since 2000 a warrant has been raised and absence has been formally recorded as soon as the absence has been established. This has had the effect of increasing the number of absences formally recorded, but is not indicative of an underlying increase in unauthorised absences.

  US Military Sites
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) which military sites in the UK are leased to the US Government; when each military base was first leased; what the date for termination is in each case; and what parliamentary approval was sought for the present lease arrangements;[127141]

  (2) what plans there are to lease further British military bases, or parts thereof, to the United States Government. [127144]
  54W
  Mr. Ingram
  As I stated in my answer to my hon. Friend on 10 July 2003,Official Report, column 940W, there are no such lease arrangements. Neither have we plans to enter into any such arrangements.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the arrangements are for the storage and possible deployment of nuclear weapons from military bases leased to the United States Government. [127143]

  Mr. Ingram
  The use of facilities on United Kingdom territory by the United States is a matter for joint decision by the two Governments in the light of the circumstances prevailing at the time. No UK military bases are leased to the United States.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether an individual accused of trespass onto a military base in the UK leased to the United States Government will be tried by(a) US and (b) British justice;[127145]

  (2) what control the UK Government can exert on activities taking place on military bases in the UK leased to the United States Government. [127142]

  Mr. Ingram
  No United Kingdom military bases are leased to the United States Government. Military bases are made available to the US visiting forces under the NATO Status of Forces Agreement of 1951, and other additional confidential agreements. An individual accused of trespass on to one of these bases would be subject to British justice, with any decision on prosecution being taken by UK authorities.

  Activities taking place on such bases is a matter for joint decision between the UK and US Governments in the light of the circumstances prevailing at the time.

  War Pensions (East Devon)
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people are in receipt of war and war widows' pensions in East Devon. [128129]

  Mr. Caplin
  As at 31 March 2003, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 1,220 war disablement pensions and 235 war widows pensions in payment to people in East Devon.

  Warship Deployments
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which Royal Navy warships are at sea without their full complement. [127113]

  Mr. Ingram
  As at 27 August, the Destroyer HMS Manchester, Frigates, HMSs Cornwall, Kent, Lancaster, Norfolk, Portland, Sutherland, Mine Counter Measure ships HMSs Quorn, Atherstone, Penzance and Cottesmore, the Survey Ship HMS Scott and the Patrol Vessel HMS Leeds Castle are at sea without full complements. Ships' complements are, however, carefully matched to the demands of operational tasking. Manning across the Fleet is constantly monitored to ensure that the sufficient levels of manpower are maintained for both current and contingent operations.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Pensioners
  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to enable pensioners to participate more fully in community activities [128135]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The Government has a target of increasing community participation by five per cent by 2006. We believe that increasing the engagement of older people in their communities is particularly important.

  The Home Office Active Community Unit leads the cross Government effort to achieve the target. It provides strategic funding for organisations such as Reach, RSVP and the Experience Corps to increase the levels of volunteering by older people. Funding is also given to several mentoring projects that involve older people either as the mentors or mentess.

  The ACU also works with other Government Departments to achieve the target, such as the recent collaboration with the Department of Work and Pensions on the production of a pre-retirement pack.

  The strategy for increasing community participation is currently being reviewed. Any new strategy will maintain a focus on older volunteers, both at national and local level.

  Asylum
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum applications have been made in Northern Ireland since 1 January. [126572]

  Beverley Hughes
  No statistics are kept on the numbers of asylum applicants in Northern Ireland, or any other geographic region in the UK, except by port of application. The requested information could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost by examination of individual case records.

  Incidence of crime per 10,000 households

  BCS 2000 crime in 12 months to December 1999

  BCS 2001 Crime in 12 months to December 2000

  BCS 2001–02 Interviews in 12 months to March 2002

  BCS 2002–03 Interviews in 12 months to March 2003

  Rural

  Non-rural

  Rural

  Non-rural

  Rural

  Non-rural

  Rural

  Non-rural

  Burglary

  340

  665

  234

  560

  236

  499

  272

  **488

  Violent crime

  506

  937

  543

  645

  398

  748

  *497

  **715

  Vehicle related theft1

  1,258

  1,990

  938

  1,787

  1,015

  1,686

  **932

  **1,563

  1 Based on vehicle owners only.

  Notes:

  1. Data for BCS 2000,2001–02 and 2002–03 uses the new calibration weights, data for BCS 2001 does not.

  2. The statistical significance of changes between BCS 2000 and BCS 2002–03 and also between BCS 2001–02 and BCS 2002–03 has been calculated.

  * Indicates a statistically significant change between BCS 2001–02 and BCS 2002–03 (there has been a statistically significant rise between BCS 2001–02 and BCS 2002–03 in rural violent crime and a statistically significant fall in non-rural vehicle related theft).

  ** Indicates a statistically significant change between BCS 2000 and BCS 2002–03 (there have been statistically significant falls between BCS 2000 and BCS 2002–03 in rural vehicle related theft and in non-rural burglary, violent crime and vehicle related theft).
  56W
  Mr. Godsiff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what powers he has to ensure that the Law Society complies in full with requests by the Immigration Services Commissioner for disclosure of information in respect of complaints against solicitors in asylum and immigration cases. [126830]

  Beverley Hughes
  We are considering the comments made about The Law Society in the Immigration Services Commissioner's Annual Report for 2002–03 and will discuss them with my right hon. Friend The Lord Chancellor before deciding what action to take.

  Correspondence
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letters from the hon. Member for Glasgow Shettleston to the MPCS section of Immigration and Nationality Directorate Croydon of 23 February, 7 April, 12 May and 12 June regarding Mr.Abdullah Turgut. [126511]

  Beverley Hughes
  I understand that the Immigration and Nationality Directorate replied to your letters of 23 February, 7 April, 12 May and 12 June on 17 July.

  Crime (Rural Areas)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the level of crime in rural areas in the 12 months up to(a) 31 March 1999, (b) 31 March 2001 and (c) 31 March 2003. [125892]

  Ms Blears
  According to the British Crime Survey (BCS) 2000, the BCS 2001, Crime in England and Wales 2001–02 and Crime in England and Wales 2002–03, levels of crime were substantially lower in rural areas than in non-rural areas in 1999, 2000 and the 12 months to March 2002 and March 2003. Data are not available for the 12 months to March 2001 due to the methodological changes in the BCS from calendar to financial year. The available information on crime levels for this period is as follows:
  57W
  The likelihood of becoming a victim of crime is also substantially lower in rural areas than non-rural areas during these periods. In 2002–03, 18 per cent. of victims of burglary lived in rural areas, similarly only

  Prevalence of Crime (percentage of victim once or more)

  BCS 2000 Crime in 1999

  BCS 2001 Crime in 2000

  BCS 2001–02 Interviews in 12 months to March 2002

  BCS 2002–03 Interviews in 12 months to March 2003

  Rural

  Non-rural

  Rural

  Non-rural

  Rural

  Non-rural

  Rural

  Non-rural

  Burglary

  2.6

  4.8

  1.9

  3.9

  2.0

  3.9

  2.5

  3.7

  Violent crime

  2.6

  4.7

  2.4

  4.1

  2.4

  4.5

  2.9

  4.4

  Vehicle related theft1

  9.0

  14.0

  6.9

  12.5

  7.9

  12.6

  7.7

  11.8

  1 Based on vehicle owners only.

  Note:

  1. Data for BCS 2001–02 and 2002–03 uses the new calibration weights, data for BCS 2000 and 2001 do not.

  Departmental Entertainment Budget
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his Department's hospitality budget(a) is in 2002–03 and (b) was in each of the last three years; and how much was left unspent at the end of each financial year. [99507]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) on 14 April 2003,Official Report, column 533W.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of regional variations in staff turnover in his Department. [112744]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The Home Office has not made a comprehensive study of regional variations in staff turnover.

  However, employee turnover is an important factor in considering payment of locational allowances for recruitment and retention purposes. Her Majesty's Treasury 2003 Pay Remit guidance specifically requires that local pay be considered, and analysis of employee turnover forms part of the Home Office's approach to this task.

  Departmental Website
  Dr. Vincent Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what actions he has taken or is taking to ensure that the websites of his Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies are accessible to partially sighted and blind people; and if he will make a statement. [117333]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The Home Office requires that all websites under its management be designed to meet government and international guidelines on accessibility. All new websites will be accessibility tested before publication, taking account of the guidelines recently issued by the e-Envoy as part of the Quality Framework for UK Government Website Design.

  Although some existing sites may not meet all of the criteria required, a review is being planned within a project to redevelop the Home Office website with the intention that these rigorous standards should be applied retrospectively.
  58W
  16 per cent. of victims of violence and 20 per cent. of victims of vehicle related theft (based on vehicle owners only) lived in rural areas. The available data is set out as follows.

  Depleted Uranium Thefts
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the security implications of the theft of 30lb of depleted uranium from a site in Thurrock in July. [126329]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 17 July 2003]I understand from Essex Police that the incident is being treated as a crime of theft of a vehicle. The van contained a box made of depleted uranium which was part of the normal emergency equipment carried in case there should be a problem with a radiation source in an instrument used for site radiography. The box was empty at the time of the theft and did not itself pose a significant risk from radioactivity.

  There is no indication the theft was in any way connected to terrorism.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions depleted uranium has been stolen from(a) the plant in Thurrock and (b) from other sites elsewhere in the United Kingdom over the past five years; and if he will make a statement. [126314]

  Mr. Blunkett
  In the past five years, the Health and Safety Executive have received only one report of depleted uranium being stolen or missing from the site in Thurrock. That was following the theft of a van on 7 July 2003. The van contained a box made of depleted uranium which was part of the normal emergency equipment carried in case there should be a problem with a radiation source in an instrument used for site radiography. The box was empty at the time of the theft and did not itself pose a significant risk from radioactivity.

  Thurrock have made no other reports of depleted uranium being stolen or lost. Records for the UK are not held centrally.

  Domestic Violence
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 31 March 2003,Official Report, column 577W, on domestic violence, how much of the funding that will be made available over the next three years to support work to develop mainstream responses to domestic violence will be provided to Surrey; and when the funds will be available. [126056]
  59W
  Ms Blears
  The Home Office is conducting a mapping exercise involving Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs) and Government offices, to inform the allocation of this funding; which will then be available to CDRPs and Government offices from the second half of this year.

  IT Contracts
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many outsourced IT contracts have been signed by his Department in each year since 1997; how much each of these contracts is worth; with whom they are signed; how many have been renegotiated; how many are still in place; and if he will make a statement. [126198]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  Since 1997 the Home Office, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) have outsourced the following IT services, which are listed:

  Home Office (central)

  1. 2000—HO central—Provision of IT infrastructure services for the core Home Office: signed with Sirius consortium (Fujitsu (formally ICL) supported by IBM (formally PWC) and Global Crossing). Contract value £209 million. Not renegotiated. Contract still in place.

  2. 2001—NPD—Provision infrastructure services: signed with Steria Group. Contract value £50 million. Not renegotiated. Contract still in place.

  Agencies

  1. 1998—UKPA—Provision of front end passport scanning: signed with Siemens Business Services. Contract value £80–100 million. Not renegotiated. Contract still in place.

  2. 1998—UKPA—Passport printing service: signed with Security Printing and Systems Ltd. Contract value £134.2 million. Not renegotiated. Contract still in place.

  3. 1999—UKPA—Provision of IT infrastructure services: signed with SEMA. Contract value £3.8 million. Not renegotiated. Contract still in place.

  4. 2000—Prison Service—Provision of IT infrastructure services: EDS supported by PA and Global Crossing (Quantum). Contract value £200 million. Renegotiated in 2002. Contract still in place.

  5. 2000—Crime Reduction Bureau—Provision of IT infrastructure services (10 years): signed with Capita group. Contract value £400 million. Not renegotiated. Contract still in place.

  6. 2000—Criminal Cases Review Commission—Provision of IT managed service: signed with Integris/Steria. Contract value £1,370,956. 2000–04. Renegotiated 2002. Contract still in place.

  NDPB

  1. 2000—National Intelligence Service (seven years)—Provision of IS support services: signed with Capita group. Contract value £2.5 million per year. The contract is due to be renegotiated in September 2003. Contract still in place.

  Khat
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the level of consumption of Khat in the UK; what plans he has to(a) control and (b) reduce Khat consumption; and if he will make a statement. [127515]

  Caroline Flint
  There are no centrally collected figures for the level of cat (or Khat) consumption, but Her Majesty's Customs and Excise estimates that between seven and 10 tonnes of the plant are imported into the United Kingdom each week.
  60W
  The Government has no plans at present to control Khat under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, but the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, which advises on these matters, keeps its legal status under review. The Home Office's Drugs and Alcohol Research Unit is shortly to embark on a detailed study to assess the level of harm caused by Khat. It is expected that a final report will be completed in September 2004, with interim findings being available in April 2004. The report will inform future decisions on whether Khat should be controlled within the 1971 Act.

  The Government is considering ways to address the problems of Khat misuse as part of a wider diversity initiative to ensure that the national drug strategy meets the needs of all our communities. This will include the development of appropriate drug prevention materials and information to raise awareness about the Khat misuse.

  Leighton Buzzard Police Station
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what grants are available from his Department to improve Leighton Buzzard police station, with particular reference to enabling(a) the restoration of a custody suite, (b) longer opening hours and (c) the provision of space for a greater officer establishment. [126374]

  Ms Blears
  Police authorities receive general capital grant and credit (borrowing) approvals to support funding their capital plans.

  In 2002–03 my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary established the Premises Improvement Fund to assist police authorities further in modernising the police estate and communications technology. The fund of £20 million is a matched funding initiative.

  Police authorities have been invited to submit bids for a second round of the scheme. Results will be announced later in the year.

  Passports
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long it takes for a passport to be renewed; and if he will make a statement on charges levied to British citizens for their applications. [128094]

  Ms Blears
  In the week ending 20 July 2003 the average processing time for a single straightforward properly completed application made by post was four days for a renewal.

  An increase in passport fees was announced on 18 July. The new fees which come into effect on 2 October 2003 are in the table.

  Partner/postal (£)

  Fast track (£)

  Premium (£)

  Adult

  42.00

  70.00

  89.00

  Child

  25.00

  60.00

  71.00

  Jumbo1

  54.50

  71.00

  95.50

  Collectives

  39.00

  N/a

  N/a

  1 Forty-eight page

  61W
  Passport fees are set to recover the costs of UK Passport Service's issuing passports and those incurred by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) on providing consular protection to British nationals in need of assistance overseas. The new fees will allow investment in enhanced anti-fraud measures and the Passport Service's customer improvement programme.

  Police Staff
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) police officers and (b) civilian support staff there were in each English constabulary in the last year for which figures are available. [127207]

  Ms Blears
  The latest available police officer strength figure is for 31 December 2002, that for police staff is for 31 March 2002.

  The figures are set out in the table.

  Police and civilian support staff strength

  Force

  Police officer strength as at 31 December 2002

  Police staff strength as at 31 March 2002

  Avon and Somerset

  3,172

  1,611

  Bedfordshire

  1,097

  524

  Cambridgeshire

  1,388

  733

  Cheshire

  2,084

  884

  Cleveland

  1,561

  626

  Cumbria

  1,121

  631

  Derbyshire

  2,010

  953

  Devon and Cornwall

  3,176

  1,639

  Dorset

  1,403

  741

  Durham

  1,645

  660

  Essex

  2,995

  1,571

  Gloucestershire

  1,187

  545

  Greater Manchester

  7,347

  3,135

  Hampshire

  3,636

  1,597

  Activity area

  Policy areas covered

  Reduction in crime and the fear of crime

  Policing, police standards and reform, reduction of crime (including Crime and Disorder Partnerships) and the fear of crime, street crime and community safety; youth crime prevention; anti-social behaviour; football disorder; criminal records; road safety enforcement, firearms

  Reduction of organised and international crime

  Counter-terrorism, international and European law enforcement and judicial cooperation, extradition; policing of organised and financial crime, high tech crime

  Ensuring the effective delivery of justice

  Overall responsibility for reform and modernisation of the criminal justice system (CJS), including CJS IT, building confidence in the CJS, narrowing the justice gap for victims and witnesses. Criminal law and criminal policy, legislation including Criminal Justice Bill and Sexual Offences Bill, policy on criminal procedure and evidence, CJS race issues

  Delivering effective custodial and community sentences to reduce re-offending and protect the public

  Effective enforcement of the sentences of the courts; public protection, rehabilitation and reducing re-offending; managing performance of the prison, probation and youth justice services

  Reducing the availability and abuse of dangerous drugs

  Overall responsibility for the anti-drugs strategy; enforcement and criminal justice interventions

  Regulating entry to and settlement in the UK effectively, in the interests of sustainable growth and social inclusion

  Nationality, immigration and asylum, including work permits; citizenship and inward migration; UK Passport Service

  Supporting strong and active communities in which people of all races and backgrounds are valued and participate

  Race equality and community cohesion; civil renewal, active citizenship and the voluntary and community sector. Regulation and licensing of animal scientific procedures; coroners; entitlement cards. Home Office input to policy on young people and families

  Central services

  Research and statistics; human resources; finance (including departmental unallocated provision); corporate development and support

  62W

  Police and civilian support staff strength

  Force

  Police officer strength as at 31 December 2002

  Police staff strength as at 31 March 2002

  Hertfordshire

  1,920

  1,121

  Humberside

  2,113

  816

  Kent

  3,441

  1,958

  Lancashire

  3,368

  1,442

  Leicestershire

  2,099

  816

  Lincolnshire

  1,224

  600

  London, City of

  797

  247

  Merseyside

  4,180

  1,532

  Metropolitan Police

  27,229

  10,459

  Norfolk

  1,503

  819

  Northamptonshire

  1,192

  742

  Northumbria

  3,976

  1,403

  North Yorkshire

  1,379

  743

  Nottinghamshire

  2,407

  1,087

  South Yorkshire

  3,183

  1,352

  Staffordshire

  2,228

  1,030

  Suffolk

  1,236

  692

  Surrey

  1,983

  1,043

  Sussex

  2,937

  1,507

  Thames Valley

  3,852

  2,061

  Warwickshire

  993

  459

  West Mercia

  2,160

  1,116

  West Midlands

  7,792

  3,007

  West Yorkshire

  5,029

  2,364

  Wiltshire

  1,121

  649

  Total (England)

  123,163

  54,913

  Departmental Policy Areas
  Mr. Dominic Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the policy areas covered by each of the activities listed in Table 5, page 173 of the Home Office Annual Departmental Report 2003. [123356]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The policy areas covered are as follows:

  Unaccompanied Asylum Seekers
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many unaccompanied asylum seekers under 18 received a custodial sentence broken down by(a) age, (b) sex and (c) establishment in 2002. [126968]

  Beverley Hughes
  I regret that the information requested is not available from existing data collection systems and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. Details of the immigration status of unaccompanied asylum seekers under 18 who have received a custodial sentence are not collated centrally and will not necessarily be recorded by the courts or the Prison Service.

  Information on asylum applications is published quarterly on the Home Office website at: http:/www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html. The next publication will be available from the end of August and will cover the second quarter of 2003.

  Youth Justice Board
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the membership of the Youth Justice Board. [126569]

  Paul Goggins
  In February 2003 my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary appointed two new members, Christopher Holmes CBE and Jackie Ballard. In June my right hon. Friend re-appointed three members and asked Sir Charles Pollard to serve as acting chair when Lord Warner left the board and has launched an open public competition to recruit a substantive chair.

  Four other existing board members' terms of appointment expire in September 2004. My right hon. Friend will be considering future membership once we have appointed a chair.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Liberia
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will make a statement on the political situation in Liberia; [128189]

  (2) what assessment the Department has made of the effects of the political situation in Liberia on neighbouring countries;[128226]

  (3) what discussions he has had with (a) the United Nations, (b) the United States, (c) the African Union and (d) the Liberian Government on (i) the deployment of peacekeeping troops to Liberia and (ii) measures to end the civil war there. [128225]

  Mr. Mullin
  Liberia has been at the heart of conflict in west Africa for over 20 years. The departure of Charles Taylor, and the subsequent peace deal, presents an important opportunity to work towards lasting peace in the region. The UK is committed to working closely with the international community, to ensure that the present Multi-National Force, and the UN Mission planned for Liberia, are successful in restoring peace and security to Liberia.
  64W
  We have committed £1 million to the Economic Community for West African States (ECOWAS) Multi-National Force that deployed on 4 August and have seconded a military adviser to ECOWAS. We have also offered military advisors to the UN planning mission and Head Quarters. The UK is also working in the UN Security Council to ensure that the forthcoming Resolution authorising the deployment of a UN mission will provide a robust mandate.

  We are monitoring developments in the region closely to ensure that ex-combatants do not export instability to neighbouring countries.

  UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the timetable the British Government has set for ratifying the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography. [127962]

  Mr. Rammell
  The United Kingdom signed this Optional Protocol in September 2000 and intends to ratify it at the earliest opportunity. To be able to ratify, we need to introduce a range of new offences to ensure that we are fully compliant with the instrument. Several of these, relating to trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation and the sexual exploitation of children for gain, are included in the Sexual Offences Bill currently before Parliament.

  The Optional Protocol also requires the criminalisation of behaviour which does not fall within the scope of the Sexual Offences Bill, such as trafficking people with the aim of: exploiting their labour; organ transfer and illegal adoptions. These measures are being pursued separately and will also require primary legislation. It is not therefore possible to say precisely when we will be able to ratify the instrument.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the timetable is for elimination of poppy production in Afghanistan; and what strategies are in place to fill any loss to local economies caused by the eradication of opium production. [127131]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Afghan Transitional Administration adopted a national drug strategy on 19 May 2003. Its objective is to eliminate the cultivation, processing and trafficking of illegal drugs in Afghanistan within 10 years. The UK has committed £70 million over the next three years to fund activities that will contribute to achievement of this objective.

  However, sustainable reductions in the Afghan drugs trade will be achieved only as progress is made on broader development and security. The UK is leading a Provincial Reconstruction team in Mazar-e-Sharif and has pledged £200 million of development assistance to help create the conditions in which viable alternatives to poppy cultivation can emerge.

  African Union
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has held with African leaders about the appointment of President Robert Mugabe by the African Union as its ambassador for southern Africa. [127140]

  Mr. Mullin
  Robert Mugabe was not appointed by the African Union (AU) as an Ambassador for southern Africa at the recent AU Summit. Zimbabwe was appointed as one of the 14 regional vice-chairs, who together with the current AU Chairperson, President Chissano of Mozambique, form the Bureau of the AU Assembly when it meets in session.

  The election of office-bearers, and the items included on the AU Summit agenda, are matters for the African Union.

  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what discussions he has had and intends to have with(a) the United Nations, (b) the United States, (c) the African Union and (d) President Mbeki of South Africa regarding Mr. Robert Mugabe's appointment as the African Union's ambassador for southern Africa;[128184]

  (2) what discussions he has had and intends to have with (a) the United Nations, (b) the United States, (c) the African Union and (d) President Mbeki of South Africa regarding the presence of Zimbabwe on the agenda of the African Union summit. [128193]

  Mr. Mullin
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Martin Caton) today (UIN 127140).

  Angola
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) of 20 May 2003,Official Report, columns 722–23W, whether the embassy in Luanda has received an answer to his Department's offer of United Kingdom security assistance; what further discussions (a) he, (b) members of his Department, (c) members of the embassy in Luanda have had with representatives of the government of Angola on this issue; and if he will make a statement. [128241]

  Mr. Mullin
  The British embassy in Luanda remains in touch with senior members of the Angolan Government and the Angolan military on the offer of UK assistance in Security Sector Reform. The most recent discussions were on 25 July. So far, the Angolan Government has not confirmed whether they wish to accept our offer.

  Burundi
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to assist the process of peace in Burundi; and if he will make a statement. [127816]

  Mr. Mullin
  The British Government are committed to supporting the Arusha process and the transitional government institutions. We have given extensive 66W
  support to South African Vice President Zuma and his facilitation team. We are also supporting the African Mission in Burundi, both financially and politically.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to ensure that the African Union mission in Burundi is effective and supported; and if he will make a statement. [127817]

  Mr. Mullin
  The UK is actively supporting the African Union's African Mission in Burundi (AMIB), both financially and politically. We have provided up to £3.9 million to supply vital equipment to the Mozambican contingent. We maintain regular contact with our international partners, the African Union, the UN and senior AMIB personnel, to ensure that AMIB is able to carry out its function.

  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with(a) the United Nations, (b) the United States, (c) the African Union and (d) the Burundi Government regarding international efforts to encourage rebel groups in Burundi to enter into peace negotiations with the Government of Burundi. [128123]

  Mr. Mullin
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met President Ndayizeye on 11 July to discuss the peace process. The UK maintains close contacts with the government of Burundi, the regional facilitation teams, the African Union and the UN, and our other partners in the international community in pursuit of peace in Burundi.

  China
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Chinese Government regarding the pending execution of Tenzin Deleg Rinpoche. [128185]

  Mr. Rammell
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Richmond Park Jenny Tonge on 20 March 2003 Official Report column 881W.

  We have noted the recent release of some of those arrested at the same time as Tenzin Deleg Rinpoche and shall continue to raise our concerns with the Chinese about this case.

  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had and intends to have with the Chinese Government on holding trials of Tibetan religious leaders in the presence of international observers before sentence is passed. [128187]

  Mr. Rammell
  We and our EU partners have made clear to the Chinese, authorities that all trials should be free and fair and respect due process.

  We continue to urge the Chinese authorities to ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had and intends to have with the Chinese Government regarding its refusal to drop pre-conditions to negotiations with the Tibetan Government in exile. [128188]
  67W
  Mr. Rammell
  We have made clear to the Chinese authorities our view that a long-term, peaceful solution to the Tibet issue can be found only through dialogue and continue to urge them to engage in dialogue with the Dalai Lama. We have welcomed the recent visits to China by representatives of the Dalai Lama.

  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised Tibet with Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing on 25 June, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister discussed the issue with the Chinese leadership during his recent visit to China.

  Colombia
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will press for action in the Council of Ministers to encourage the Colombian Government to respect human rights and international humanitarian law; and if he will make a statement. [127105]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Council of Ministers took such action in their Conclusions in December 2002. We work closely with our EU Partners on Colombia and human rights. The need to respect human rights and international law was reiterated in the Chairperson's Statement on the Human Rights Situation in Colombia at the UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva in April. The EU played a substantive role in the drafting of the Statement.

  In July EU member states attended the London Meeting on International Support for Colombia. The EU adhered fully to the London Declaration following the meeting, which again made clear the importance of human rights and international humanitarian law.

  Democratic Republic of the Congo
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what monitoring of the activities of international forces in the Democratic Republic of the Congo is undertaken by the UK; and if he will make a statement. [127394]

  Mr. Mullin
  The UK monitors the activities of both MONUC (the UN Organisation Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)) and the EU-led Interim Emergency Multinational Force (IEMF) in Bunia (north-eastern DRC), which is now ending its operations. We have received reports from the UN Secretary General and from the Operation Commander of the IEMF (who reports to the EU's Political and Security Committee in Brussels).

  The present peace agreements require the withdrawal from DRC of the forces of other foreign governments. Rwanda and Uganda maintain that they have withdrawn all their troops. We continue to monitor the situation closely.

  Diamond Trade
  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Governments of compliant countries in the Kimberley Process regarding 68W
  the trade in and export of illegal conflict diamonds in (a) Nigeria, (b) Angola, (c) Kenya, (d) Uganda and (e) Cameroon. [128130]

  Mr. Rammell
  Participating Governments met at the Kimberley Process plenary in April to discuss conflict diamonds. The meeting focussed on compliance by all participants with the minimum common standards set by the Kimberley Process certification scheme. Angola is one of 40 participants in the scheme.

  Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda and Cameroon are not major diamond producers or traders and are not participants in the scheme. There have been no recent discussions within the Kimberley Process about these countries.

  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Governments of(a) Nigeria, (b) Angola, (c) Kenya, (d) Uganda and (e) Cameroon regarding the trade in and export of illegal conflict diamonds. [128131]

  Mr. Rammell
  There have been no recent discussions on diamond trading with these Governments, other than Angola in its capacity as a participant in the Kimberley Process.

  Nagorno-Karabakh
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh. [127874]

  Mr. Rammell
  Our policy on the Nagorno Karabakh dispute is that we will support any mechanism for its resolution which both parties can accept and which has a realistic chance of delivering a lasting political settlement. The framework for discussing such mechanisms is the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Minsk Group The three co-chairs of the Minsk Group, Russia, US and France, have worked very hard to try to move a political process forward.

  The UK will be funding a £2 million three year project aiming to improve the prospects for a permanent settlement of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict. We shall continue to encourage the governments of both Azerbaijan and Armenia to look to the future and build a better relationship between their two countries.

  Sao Tome and Principe
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what discussions he has had with his Portuguese counterpart on the military coup in Sao Tome and Principe; what joint action has been decided; and if he will make a statement;[127256]

  (2) when he last held discussions with the Foreign Minister of Sao Tome; what the outcome of those discussions was; when he next plans to meet with him; and if he will make a statement;[127257]
  69W
  (3) what discussions he has had with his Nigerian counterpart on the military coup in Sao Tome and Principe; when these discussions took place; what the conclusion of the discussions was; and if he will make a statement; [127258]

  (4) what discussions he has had with his EU counterparts on the EU's role in securing a speedy return to constitutional order of Sao Tome and Principe; what plans have been made to achieve this; and if he will make a statement. [127263]

  Mr. Mullin
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has had no discussions with his counterpart on the military coup in Sao Tome and Principe. Efforts to mediate a resolution to the political crisis in Sao Tome—following the attempted coup of 16 July—have so far been led by the Community of Portuguese Speaking Countries, the Chairman of the African Union and the Acting President of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). We continue to monitor the situation in consultation with EU Partners, in particular the Portuguese. The UK is represented in Sao Tome by our ambassador in Angola, who has had informal discussions with his EU counterparts.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will estimate the cost of peace-keeping forces in Sierra Leone up to the present time; what additional aid and investment have resulted from that action; and if he will make a statement. [127806]

  Mr. Mullin
  The UN peacekeeping operation in Sierra Leone. UNAMSIL, was established in 1999. The total cost to the end of the present financial year (31 March 2004) is estimated at £1,894 million, of which the UK's contribution will be £92 million. The secure environment which UNAMSIL has helped to establish has allowed aid programmes to restart and the disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration of over 50,000 ex-combatants. UNAMSIL has now begun to reduce its numbers and is expected to complete withdrawal from the country in late 2004.

  The UK has provided £70 million in aid to Sierra Leone since the war ended in 2001. We have committed ourselves to a ten-year programme of support and have pledged £120 million towards the social and economic development of Sierra Leone over the next three years. Delivery of these funds is dependent on progress by the Government of Sierra Leone on key areas such as security sector reform, regulation of the diamond industry, corruption, government and media reforms, and the development of a poverty reduction strategy.

  In October 2002 the first British trade mission in over a decade visited Sierra Leone. Another trade mission will visit later this month and a delegation from the construction and consultancy industries is planned for early 2004.

  Somalia
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what participation in the Somali peace process has been undertaken by UK representatives; and if he will make a statement. [127176]
  70W
  Mr. Mullin
  An official from our High Commission in Nairobi is a member of the international observer group giving informal advice to the reconciliation conference's Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) Technical Committee (and its Chair, Ambassador Kiplagat). Britain has also contributed to a number of other initiatives designed to assist the talks, which continue to work towards reconciliation and agreement on an effective and inclusive government for Somalia.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs with what Somali groups and human rights organisations his officials have had discussions in the past year; and what his Department's assessment is of the human rights situation in Somalia. [127177]

  Mr. Mullin
  Officials in Addis Ababa, Nairobi and London have had extensive and regular contacts with large numbers of Somali civil society organisations with an interest in human rights. Without any effective central government in Somalia, and given the number of disparate armed groups, citizens' rights are routinely abused, especially in southern areas in conflict, However, the situation in Somaliland, which has a democratic government and functioning institutions, is better, with no reports of gross human rights violations.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what UK diplomatic staff have visited Mogadishu in the past year. [127178]

  Mr. Mullin
  None.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contacts UK representatives have with the effective Government of Somaliland in Hargeisa; and what plans the Government has to grant it diplomatic recognition. [127179]

  Mr. Mullin
  The British Ambassador in Addis Ababa, his consular and political officers, representatives from our High Commission in Nairobi, and representatives from other Whitehall Departments all visit Hargeisa regularly to meet representatives of the authorities there. There have also been several contacts in Addis Ababa and London. We have no plans to recognise an independent Somaliland.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received of the number of Somali people in refugee camps in countries neighbouring Somalia who wish to join their families in the United Kingdom; and what facilities are offered in British missions in(a) Addis Ababa and (b) Nairobi to facilitate this. [127512]

  Mr. Mullin
  There are no reliable data on numbers of Somalis in refugee camps wishing to join relatives with leave to remain in the United Kingdom. Our diplomatic mission in Addis Ababa routinely receives and processes applications from Somalis wishing to settle in Britain. Nairobi suspended its processing operation for Somali settlement visas in November 2002 due to security concerns arising from the Mombasa bombing. Following a recent review, it plans to resume this service on a limited basis in the next few months.

  Uganda
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of the impact of proposed changes to the constitution of Uganda with regard to presidential term limits on(a) the democratic development of Uganda and (b) the political stability of Uganda; and if he will make a statement. [128042]

  Mr. Mullin
  Changes to the Ugandan Constitution are being considered by a Constitutional Review Commission (CRC). The CRC is now finalising its report. We are taking a close interest in its work, and look forward to the publication of the report. Open and inclusive debate of the CRC's recommendations should help promote stability at a time of political change.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of Sudanese support of the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda; what discussions he has had on this matter with(a) the Government of Sudan and (b) the Government of Uganda; what the result of the discussions was; and if he will make a statement. [128043]

  Mr. Mullin
  We have seen no hard evidence that the Sudanese Government is providing support to the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) in Uganda. The UK Special Envoy for Sudan discussed the LRA with President Museveni of Uganda and with the Sudanese Prime Minister in late August. The Government of Sudan said that officers in the Sudanese army who had supplied the LRA on a personal basis had been disciplined, and that there was no official Sudanese support for the LRA.

  We welcome the recent appointment of a Ugandan ambassador to Khartoum and the recent visit of senior Ugandan Ministers, and hope that these initiatives will contribute to better understanding and cooperation between the two governments.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with representatives of the Government of Uganda about proposed changes to the constitution of Uganda with particular reference to presidential term limits; when these discussions took place; what the outcome was; and if he will make a statement. [128045]

  Mr. Mullin
  My noble Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, discussed the current process of constitutional reform with President Museveni on her visit to Uganda in early August.

  An independent Constitutional Review Commission (CRC) in Uganda is currently looking at possible constitutional changes. We are taking a close interest in its important work. It is expected to make recommendations soon. We hope that its proposals will pave the way for a transition to a properly constituted multi-party democracy in Uganda.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Accident Group
  Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had concerning payment of redundancy payments to employees of the Accident Group; and if she will make a statement. [121284]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Birmingham Redundancy Payments Office has received 1,870 claims from former employees of the Accident Group. Most of these workers have received payments or will do so in the next few days.

  Russian Northern Fleet
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on her role in the recent grant of financial aid to the Russian Northern fleet in respect to nuclear decommissioning; and from which budget this assistance came. [128167]

  Mr. Timms
  The Department manages a £32.5 million per annum programme of financial and technical assistance to Russia and other Former Soviet Union countries to address nuclear legacy issues. It includes a number of projects to help Russia deal with Spent Nuclear Fuel from decommissioned nuclear submarines as well as contributing to their dismantlement as part of the initiative launched by G8 leaders at the Kananaskis summit in 2002. Our initial portfolio of projects was announced during President Putin's state visit to the UK in June 2003. These include the dismantlement of two nuclear submarines, the construction of a new storage facilities for Spent Nuclear Fuel, and a series of projects to assist in the eventual safe removal of Spent Nuclear Fuel from Andreeva Bay—a former Russian Navy storage site for Spent Fuel from navy vessels and ice breakers. During this visit the Foreign Secretary signed a bilateral Agreement with the Russian Foreign Minister, which provides the legal cover for these projects to proceed. During the visit the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin) also signed the Arctic Military Cooperation Agreement (AMEC) that will allow a number of environmental nuclear clean up projects associated with submarine dismantlement to proceed. The AMEC assistance projects will be managed and provided with financial support under the DTI managed FSU Programme. In undertaking all these projects, the Department is working closely with both the MOD and FCO together with our Moscow embassy. We plan to publish by the end of the year a detailed report setting out the achievements in establishing this programme over the past two years. Further information on the programme and projects in Russia is available from the DTI website—www.dti.gov.uk/energy/nuclear/fsu/index.shtml

  Arms Exports
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the export licences on the Military and Dual Lists granted to companies in the UK or to a(a) UK registered company and

  73W
  (b) overseas national which have been (i) varied and (ii) revoked in each year since 1997; and if she will make a statement. [125666]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The details of export licences that have been revoked are published in the Government's Annual Reports on Strategic Export Controls, copies of which are the available from the Libraries of the House. The Annual Report also contains details of Open Individual Export Licences that have been varied so as to exclude a particular destination.

  Variations to licences may be made for a number of reasons and it would entail disproportionate cost to list all export licences that have been varied since 2 May 1997.

  The Department of Trade and Industry's Export Control Organisation does not record the nationality of applicants for an export licence.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the licences granted for the export of military equipment to Indonesia since 2002. [127042]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Between 1 January 2003 and 11 July 2003, the Department of Trade and Industry's Export Control Organisation issued 54 Standard Individual Export Licences and two Open Individual Export Licences, authorising the export of items on the Military List, where the end users were in Indonesia, with the following ratings:

  ML1

  ML4

  ML5

  ML6

  ML10

  ML11

  ML13

  ML22

  PL5017.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what vehicle models are specified in the open licence for the export to Indonesia of armoured all wheel drive vehicles; what the terms are of the licence; and for what reason an open licence was granted. [127043]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Department of Trade and Industry's Export Control Organisation issued an Open Individual Export Licence (OIEL) on 4 March 2002, authorising the export of no more than 3 CAMAC CAV 100 armoured all wheel drive vehicles to provide protection for BBC correspondents in Indonesia.

  The standard conditions set out in every OIEL include, for example, the right of the Department of Trade and Industry to revoke the licence at any time.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what components or associated equipment for Hawk aircraft and Scorpion tanks were licensed for export to Indonesia in 2002. [127044]
  74W
  Nigel Griffiths
  The details of all relevant export licences are published by destination in the Government's Annual Report on Strategic Export Controls. A copy of the 2002 Annual Report is available from the Libraries of the House.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if she will list the model and value of(a) aircraft cannons and (b) military use vehicles for which licences were granted for export to Indonesia in 2002;[127045]

  (2) if she will list the models of (a) aircraft cannons, (b) armoured fighting vehicles, (c) armoured personnel carriers, (d) combat aircraft, (e) combat helicopters and (f) general military aircraft for which components or associated equipment were licensed for export to Indonesia in 2002; and what the nature was of the components or associated equipment in each case. [127046]

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

  It would entail disproportionate cost to provide information on the models, values, components and associated equipment for which licences were granted for the proposed export to Indonesia since 2 May 1997.

  BNFL
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much public money has been invested by BNFL in the US Nuclear Energy Institute in each year from 1997 to date. [119537]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 16 June 2003]Subscriptions made by BNFL Inc. and Westinghouse Electric Company to the US Nuclear Energy Institute are a matter for BNFL.

  Departmental Costs
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the cost was to her Department for(a) ministerial cars and drivers, (b) taxis, (c) train travel, (d) the use of helicopters, (e) airline tickets and (f) chartered aeroplanes in each year since 1997. [123078]

  Ms Hewitt
  For parts (a and f) of the question I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 17 July 2003,Official Report, column 500W.

  For parts (b, c, d and e) the DTI has devolved to local management the authorisation of travel claims for its staff, subject to checking procedures. It does not record the cost of taxis, train travel, helicopters or airline tickets used by staff separately. To obtain accurate data for the information requested would entail disproportionate cost.

  Egg Industry
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the impact of possible reductions in European Union import tariffs on the UK egg industry. [127617]
  75W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government are in favour of substantial market liberalisation and it is our policy to encourage international trade. Reductions in import tariffs will open the EU market to greater competition but the UK egg industry is in a strong position to compete through its ability to adapt quickly to market needs including through the operation of quality assurance schemes.

  Electricity Supply Companies
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the companies supplying electricity to domestic consumers, indicating the nationality of the individuals and organisations holding a controlling interest. [128299]

  Mr. Timms
  The largest domestic electricity supply companies are Powergen, Innogy, Centrica, EDF Energy, Scottish Power, Scottish and Southern Energy.

  Centrica, Scottish Power and Scottish and Southern Energy are British owned. EDF Energy is owned by Electricite de France; Powergen is owned by German utility; EON and Innogy is also owned by a German company, RWE.

  There are also many smaller independent companies providing electricity to consumers.

  Further details of all the companies licensed to supply domestic electricity in the UK can be found on the Ofgem website: www.ofgem.gov.uk

  European Constitution
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with(a) colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and (b) counterparts in the European Union about the legislative competencies covered by the draft European constitution. [124773]

  Jacqui Smith
  As part of the normal Whitehall process, my officials and I have had regular correspondence with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to discuss all aspects of the Convention, including legislative competences. We have also had regular contact with member and accession states to discuss issues arising in the Convention. In line with exemptions 1 and 2

  2003

  UK visits

  2 April

  Visit to Oxford Engineering in Abingdon for the launch of the Manufacturing Advisory Service Report

  15 April

  Visit to Landrover/Jaguar at Browns Lane, Coventry

  20 June

  Visit to COR US plant on Teesside

  4 July

  Opening of East Midlands airport new terminal building and opening of the new Price Waterhouse building at Pegasus Business Park, Nottingham followed by an East Midlands in Europe lunch with business people at Autofil Ltd., Annesley, Nottinghamshire

  The cost of travel for my visits in the UK between 1 April and 31 July 2003 is £2,000. This figure includes travel costs for the accompanying Private Secretary which cannot be separated out.

  Post Offices
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many post offices were closed due to 76W
  of the 'Code of Practice on Access to Government Information', it is not the normal practice of Governments to disclose details about internal discussions, or information whose disclosure would harm the conduct of international relations or affairs.

  International Regulation
  Syd Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her policy is on working towards international regulations on the practices of companies operating in developing countries in areas where voluntary codes of practice have proved ineffective. [125900]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Government do not believe that a blanket regulatory approach at the international level would be a helpful or practicable one in respect of the wide variety of circumstances and impacts related to the activities of companies in developing countries. The Government will, however, continue actively promoting awareness of, and behaviour consistent, with the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises which provide recommendations on responsible business conduct and adherence to standards of behaviour supplemental to applicable law in individual countries.

  Ministerial Visits
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the(a) foreign and (b) UK visits she has made since 1 April 2003; what the cost was to public funds of each trip; who she met; and what gifts were received. [126871]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government publish the overall costs of all ministerial overseas travel and a list of all visits overseas by Cabinet Ministers costing in excess of £500 on an annual basis. The list for the period 1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003 was published by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 16 July 2003,Official Report, column 482W. The next list for the period 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004 will be published at the end of the financial year.

  In respect of gifts received, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 14 March 2003, Official Report, column 482W.

  Since 1 April 2003, I have undertaken the following visits in the UK:

  (a) unprofitability and (b) the reorganisation of the Post Office in (i) 1997, (ii) 1998, (iii) 1999, (iv) 2000, (v) 2001, (vi) 2002 and (vii) 2003. [128385]

  Mr. Timms
  I understand from Post Office Ltd. that no data is held on the profitability or unprofitability of privately owned sub post offices that close. I also understand that net post office closures in the last six financial years were as follows.
  77W

  Number

  Year to end March 1998

  243

  Year to end March 1999

  233

  Year to end March 2000

  382

  Year to end March 2001

  547

  Year to end March 2002

  262

  Year to end March 2003

  1345

  1 The figure for the year to end March 2003 includes 102 post office closures under the urban reinvention programme.

  Public Sector Contracts
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans her Department has to improve small business access to public sector contracts; and if she will make a statement. [127803]

  Nigel Griffiths
  A cross Government response to the Better Regulation Task Force report is due later in September and the DTI will take appropriate measures to support small business in implementing the response.

  Recycled Paper
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what volume of recycled paper was exported in each year from 1997 to date to(a) China, (b) the Middle East and (c) the Far East; and what percentage of the total volume of recycled paper in the UK in each of those years this represented. [127223]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The information requested is not available because the system of classification used to record trade does not separately identify recycled paper.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the effects of investment in renewable energy on reversing(a) climate change and (b) energy shortage. [128219]

  Mr. Timms
  The Energy White Paper, published earlier this year, estimated that by 2020 carbon emissions could be reduced by three to five million tonnes by achieving our aspiration of doubling the renewable share of electricity generation between 2010 and 2020. Diversification of our sources of energy supply will also contribute to increasing security of supply.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much of the Government's 2010 target for renewables(a) has been met and (b) is outstanding. [127193]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is as follows:

  (a) In 2002, the most recent year for which figures are available, 1.7 per cent. of our electricity came from renewable sources eligible for the Renewables Obligation. (Generation from all renewable sources, including large-scale hydro, was 3.0 per cent.)

  (b) The outstanding amount to reach a target of 10 per cent. of our electricity from renewables eligible for the Renewables Obligation is therefore 8.3 per cent.

  78W
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in what ways she is working with the Scottish Executive on targets to meet renewable energy. [127196]

  Mr. Timms
  The Department works closely with the Scottish Executive on renewable energy issues. There is a regular dialogue between Departments to share information and to monitor the progress that renewable energy sources are making.

  The Department has responsibility for the overall UK renewable energy target of 10 per cent. of electricity supplies to be generated from renewable sources by 2010. Renewable targets set within Scotland are a matter for the devolved Administration.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions she has had with her counterparts in other countries in Europe on their experience in renewables. [127197]

  Mr. Timms
  DTI Ministers and officials regularly engage with their European counterparts on the subject of renewables through such fora as the European Commission and the International Energy Agency, as well as bilateral meetings. Most recently, I met with my European counterparts during the joint energy and environment informal meeting at Montecatini in July, organised by the Italian Presidency, where much of the focus was on renewables.

  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action she is taking to encourage electricity companies to invest in renewable energy. [128218]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government have introduced a range of measures to encourage electricity companies to invest in renewable energy. The recently published Energy White Paper, "Our Energy Future—Creating a Low Carbon Economy", sets out the policy on the increasing role renewable technologies will play in our overall energy policy, and highlights many of the successes that have already been achieved.

  Our initial target is that 10 per cent. of the UK's electricity sales should be from renewable-sourced electricity by 2010. To help achieve the necessary growth to reach that target, we have introduced a number of initiatives:
  The Renewables Obligation (and associated Renewables Obligation Scotland). Introduced in April 2001, these require all licensed electricity suppliers in Great Britain to supply a specified and growing proportion of their sales from renewable sources.
  The Obligation is underpinned by a package of funding worth nearly £350 million, which will support our on-going New and Renewable R&D programme, and extensive programmes of capital grants for new and emerging technologies such as energy crops and other forms of bio-energy, offshore wind, solar photovoltaics, wave and tidal power.

  In order to develop our offshore wind potential, last year we published a consultation entitled "Future Offshore", which sets out a strategic framework to support the development of that industry. We have announced that future development should take place in three strategically significant areas—namely the North West (including Liverpool Bay), the Greater Wash and

  79W
  the Thames Estuary and plan to announce next month the names of successful bidders for projects within those areas.

  The Renewables UK unit to was set up last year within DTI with the specific aim of maximizing the benefits of renew ables to UK industry, and to help that industry develop.

  Industrial users of renewable sourced electricity also benefit from exemption from Climate Change Levy payments.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of her Department's support for renewable energy research. [127867]

  Mr. Timms
  A renewables innovation review is in progress and should be completed by end November 2003. It includes an assessment of past and present support programmes. A key aim is to ensure the Department's support is targeted so as to achieve maximum effect.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development if he will make a statement on progress made with the alternative livelihoods elements of the drug strategy in Afghanistan. [127132]

  Hilary Benn
  Eliminating illicit opium production in Afghanistan is a long-term challenge. The Afghan Government has set a target for eliminating cultivation within 10 years. The development of alternative livelihoods for poor people currently involved in opium production will take time. But work has started on a number of livelihoods programmes.

  The Department for International Development (DFID) is providing £20 million over three years to our livelihoods programme in Afghanistan. We are working with the Afghanistan Transitional Administration and maintaining coordination with other donors to develop and implement a coherent national sustainable livelihoods strategy for Afghanistan.

  Our main contribution to implementing the Afghan national counter-narcotics strategy is in facilitating opportunities for those currently involved in poppy cultivation to obtain alternative livelihoods, based on legal activities either in agriculture, small businesses or employment.

  We are funding with the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (£3.75 million) and the Aga Khan Development Network (£1 million) to pilot targeted livelihoods projects in areas affected by poppy cultivation. Lessons learnt from these projects can then be built on and incorporated into the national strategy.

  We are also funding programmes under the National Development Budget, such as the National Solidarity Programme (£2 million in this financial year), to provide greater social protection and better natural resource management. In support of these programmes we are working with other donors to provide a flexible package
  80W
  of technical assistance and training resources to increase the capacity of the Ministries of Rural Rehabilitation and Development and Agriculture and Animal Husbandry to manage priority investment programmes relevant to rebuilding livelihoods.

  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what liaison there will be between NGOs, UN agencies and the Transitional Administration in implementing Afghanistan's budget programmes. [127134]

  Hilary Benn
  The Afghan Government has established a system of Consultative Groups, which cover a wide range of policy areas crucial to the reconstruction process such as Health, Education, Infrastructure, Refugees and Returnees and Security amongst others. The Consultative Groups facilitate effective cooperation between the various donor governments, NGOs, UN agencies and other aid organisations in the planning, financing and implementation of the goals outlined in the National Development Budget for Afghanistan.

  Linda Perham
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what recent representations the Department has received on international investment in Afghanistan. [127790]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID has received recent representations from a UK based International Management Consultancy, McKinsey and Company. The company has developed a proposal on behalf of the Afghan Minister of Finance for a Venture Capital Fund to be launched in November 2003. The Fund will provide entrepreneurs with capital and business coaching. The proposal is being considered by officials.

  My Department has also received representations from Standard Chartered Bank. It will, as soon as relevant banking legislation is passed, be the first international bank operating in Afghanistan.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development if he will make a statement on the humanitarian consequences of the flooding of(a) southern and (b) north eastern districts of Afghanistan. [127936]

  Hilary Benn
  Recent wet weather has brought relief to Afghanistan after years of drought; however many houses in the poverty-stricken country are held together with mud and timber and are ill-equipped to cope with heavy rains.

  In May of this year three people were killed, 30 houses destroyed and 70 partially damaged as a result of heavy rainfall and flash floods in Baghlan, Kunduz and Takhar provinces in north eastern Afghanistan. Most personal belongings and food reserves were destroyed or buried in mud. Large swathes of arable land were also covered in mud following the floods.

  In the southern province of Helmand, at least 30 people were killed after powerful floods washed away their houses on 20 April.

  DFID is supporting the work of the UNHCR in Afghanistan (£5.8 million so far in 2003) who supplied tents, soap and food items to affected families through

  81W
  the local disaster management structure. Also the FAO has provided advice on remedial action, which can be taken by farmers to salvage their crops.

  Botswana
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what criteria the Department applies to the classification of groups of people as indigenous peoples; how these criteria apply to the classification of the(a) Gana, (b) Gwi and (c) Bakgalagadi peoples of Botswana; what discussions the Department has had with the Government of Botswana on this issue; and if he will make a statement. [128044]

  Hilary Benn
  There is no universally agreed definition of the criteria for classifying certain groups as indigenous people. The Government does not have its own hard and fast definition. We recognise that indigenous people are often particularly poor and vulnerable, and encourage governments to consult carefully with them about their needs and interests. We have discussed the situation of San communities in Botswana at ministerial level on several recent occasions.

  Burundi
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what action the Department has taken to assist in improving the systems of justice to deal with war crimes and crimes against humanity in Burundi; and if he will make a statement. [127819]

  Hilary Benn
  A number of donor countries are providing support to the justice sector in Burundi, particularly Belgium. DFID's support therefore focuses on a number of other areas equally critical to Burundi's prospects where we feel we can have an important role. These include political and financial help to support the delivery of a lasting ceasefire and implementation of the Arusha Accords; support for demobilisation and reintegration and security sector reform; development and implementation of a national poverty reduction strategy; increased management capacity to ensure macro-economic stability; the implementation of a national plan for HIV/AIDS prevention; as well as ongoing humanitarian assistance. We are working closely with our international partners to achieve these objectives.

  John Robertson
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what assessment he has made of the humanitarian situation in Bujumbura, Burundi. [128150]

  Hilary Benn
  The general humanitarian situation in Burundi remains poor, with very high levels of malnutrition, and, resulting from this, high levels of mortality. There are serious problems of access to some communities.

  So far this financial year we have provided funding of £400,000 through Medecins Sans Frontieres for medical support in Bujumbura Rural and nutrition programmes in Karuzi. We are about to make a contribution of £500,000 to the UN Consolidated Inter-Agency Appeal
  82W
  2003 and are currently considering a number of humanitarian proposals from other international NGOs and agencies.

  We stand ready to make further responses to the humanitarian needs of those most vulnerable, focusing on health and nutrition support through international relief organisations

  John Robertson
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what assistance his Department is giving to displaced persons on Bujumbura, Burundi. [128145]

  Hilary Benn
  The UK's humanitarian support to Burundi includes a £400,000 grant to Medecins Sans Frontieres for emergency health work, which benefits displaced persons in Bujumbura by increasing access to basic health and to emergency surgical services. We envisage a further £500,000 contribution to the UN Consolidated Appeal in the near future. We continue to monitor the humanitarian situation and will continue to respond to requests for support in line with perceived humanitarian priorities.

  Chad
  John Barrett
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what action his Department is taking to help Central African Republic refugees living in southern Chad. [127933]

  Hilary Benn
  We do not provide bilateral assistance to the Central African Republic or to the Republic of Chad. Our development assistance is provided throughmultilateral channels such as the EC and the UN agencies that operate in the two countries.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  John Barrett
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what impact recent reforms to the Common Agricultural Policy will have on developing countries. [127940]

  Hilary Benn
  The deal agreed by the Agriculture Council on 26 June represents a real shift in agricultural policy which will benefit developing countries as well as European farmers and taxpayers. The most important change is the de-linking of support from production, but there have also been significant changes to some commodity regimes. The reforms should connect European farmers more closely to the market and begin to reduce excessive production which results in dumping and harms developing countries, The deal will also pave the way for reforms to other EU commodity regimes and most importantly should give new momentum to the current round of WTO agriculture negotiations.

  Ethiopia
  John Barrett
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development if he will make a statement on the drought in southern Ethiopia. [127937]

  Hilary Benn
  Inadequate rainfall affected food production in many parts of the country, leading vulnerable communities to experience food shortages and nutrition related illnesses. In response, food aid has
  83W
  been distributed, and supplementary and therapeutic feeding programmes have been established to assist those most affected.

  This response has helped to reduce levels of malnutrition. However recent reports have indicated high levels of child malnutrition persisting in some parts of southern region. In these districts, government and NGOs are distributing dry ration (cereals), targeted supplementary food and have established additional therapeutic feeding centres.

  The situation has now stabilised. We will continue to monitor the situation closely and are prepared to provide additional support as necessary.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development if he will make a statement on the levels of child prostitution in Ethiopia. [127943]

  Hilary Benn
  In May this year the Ethiopian Government ratified the International Labour Organisation's (ILO) Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention (182) which commits it to take immediate and effective measures to secure prohibition and elimination of extreme forms of child labour including the use, procuring or offering of children for prostitution or pornography. We do not currently have access to published statistics specifying the extent of the problem in Ethiopia.

  DFID has funded an Information Communications Technologies project (ICT) in partnership with civil society organisations and the private sector, which seeks to provide street children with skills to enable them to gain beneficial employment. Specific project outputs include: ICT-based support to a girls club for the prevention of sexual abuse and exploitation of children, and ICT delivery of health related and life skills established through a drop-in centre for the prevention of sexual abuse and exploitation of children.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what work his Department is undertaking with the Government of Ethiopia to ensure that all Ethiopians suffering from the HIV and aids virus have access to anti-retroviral drugs; and if he will make a statement. [127944]

  Hilary Benn
  An estimated 2.1 million people are infected with HIV/AIDS in Ethiopia, from a population of 67 million.

  The Government of Ethiopia are continuing to work on necessary health regulatory systems such as anti-retroviral guidelines on formulation and dosage, and on the procurement, distribution and use of anti-retroviral drugs in Ethiopia. In July 2003, anti-retroviral drugs (generic and brand names) were legally introduced in Ethiopia for paying patients. However, due to scarcity of resources, the Government of Ethiopia are unable to provide free anti-retroviral drugs to all.

  DFID is funding Medecins Sans Frontiers to undertake a pilot HIV/AIDS project in Humera in West Tigray to distribute anti-retroviral drugs for treating HIV/AIDS patients. This is being done in close collaboration with the Regional Health Bureau and National HIV/AIDS Council and will serve as a pilot for larger scale schemes.

  Internet
  John Robertson
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what assessment he has made of the use of the internet for communities in the developing world as a tool for self-reliance. [128141]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID promotes the internet's use by communities in the developing world as a tool for self-reliance in several of its programmes in the field of Information communication technologies for development. For each of these programmes careful and thorough consideration has been given to ensure their effectiveness and extent to which they could be used as a tool for self-reliance. We also provide support for research into wider potential impact of the internet in local communities in developing countries.

  John Robertson
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what action the Department is taking to expand the use of(a) internet access and (b) electronic information to communities in developing countries. [128143]

  Hilary Benn
  (a) DFID is carrying out a number of initiatives designed to expand internet access in developing countries. These include:
  Catalysing Access to Information Communications Technologies in Africa (CATIA) 2003–06 which promotes reform and affordable access to new and traditional Information Communication Technologies (ICTs) across Africa and forms part of our response to the G8 Africa Action Plan.
  Building Digital Opportunities consists of a package of cross-sectoral initiatives that address some of the key barriers and opportunities for ICTs in achieving development targets.

  (b) DFID is also funding the Open Knowledge Network, an innovative project using ICTs to enable poor people to create and exchange local information and knowledge electronically, eventually on a global basis.

  Liberia
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what discussions the Department has had with non-governmental organisations on efforts to prevent cholera, gastroenteritis, diarrhoea and dehydration in the refugee camps in and around Monrovia, Liberia. [128221]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID has had a humanitarian assessment mission in Liberia since 15 August 2003, which has conducted assessments into the needs of the displaced populations in and around Monrovia. With overcrowding in the centres of displacement, and inadequate water and sanitation facilities, diarrhoeal diseases are reported to have increased, and cholera has been recorded (1,203 new cases were registered between 11 and 17 August in Monrovia, up from 727 cases in the previous week). We have had detailed discussions with the NGOs that are working in the health sector. Epidemic prevention measures are under way, and adequate quantities of supplies have been flown in and pre-positioned. An inter-NGO task force is monitoring the situation and coordinating prevention efforts. To date, we have committed £2.9 million in 2003 to the NGOs and international agencies providing health care
  85W
  in and around Monrovia. We have committed a further £4.7 million for additional humanitarian support. We are currently reviewing proposals submitted to us.

  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what discussions the Department has had with non-governmental organisations on the level of relief supplies in refugee camps in and around Monrovia, Liberia. [128222]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID has had a humanitarian assessment mission in Liberia since 15 August 2003 which has had extensive discussions with NGOs and conducted extensive assessments into the needs of the refugees camps in and around Monrovia. These have drawn attention to critical shortfalls in refugees' access to clean water, health services, food, sanitation facilities, and nutritional care. To help address these needs, we have committed £4.7 million to support the humanitarian work of the UN, the International Committee of the Red Cross and NGOs. This is in addition to the £2.9 million we have provided to international agencies and NGOs in Liberia so far this year.

  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what assistance the Department is giving to displaced persons in Liberia. [128223]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID has had a humanitarian assessment team in the region since 1 August 2003, and on the ground in Liberia since 15 August 2003. They have been assessing all aspects of the humanitarian crisis, including the needs of the displaced populations in and around Monrovia. The assessment has drawn attention to critical shortfalls in the displaced and host-population's access to clean water, health services, food, sanitation facilities and nutritional care. To address these needs, we have committed £4.7 million to support the humanitarian work of the UN, the International Committee of the Red Cross and NGOs. This is in addition to the £2.9 million we have provided to international agencies and NGOs in Liberia so far this year.

  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what assessment the Department has made of the level of clean water, medical supplies and other essential provisions in refugee camps in and around Monrovia, Liberia. [128224]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID has had a humanitarian assessment mission in Liberia since 15 August 2003, which has conducted extensive assessments into the needs of the displaced populations in and around Monrovia. The assessment has drawn attention to critical shortfalls in the displaced and host-population's access to clean water, health services, food, sanitation facilities, and nutrition. To address these needs, DFID has approved £4.7 million to support the humanitarian work of the UN, the International Committee of the Red Cross and NGOs. This is in addition to the £2.9 million we have provided to international agencies and NGOs in Liberia so far this year.
  86W
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what assessment the Department has made of the humanitarian situation in Liberia. [128227]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID has had a humanitarian assessment team in the region since 1 August 2003, and on the ground in Liberia since 15 August 2003. They have been assessing all aspects of the on-going humanitarian crisis, including the food, health, nutrition, water and sanitation sectors, and have been liaising with all humanitarian partners from the UN, the International Committee of the Red Cross and the NGO community. Based on the team's assessment, we have finalised a humanitarian response strategy to which we have committed £4.7 million. This will bring the UK's total humanitarian assistance to Liberia to £7.6 million for 2003. We will continue to keep the situation under close review and focus funding on those agencies that have the best access to those most in need.

  New Partnership for Africa's Development
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what assessment he has made of progress on the New Partnership for Africa's Development plan in southern African countries. [128192]

  Hilary Benn
  The New Partnership of for Africa's Development (NEPAD) is a continent-wide plan with ambitious aims of tackling poverty in the whole of Africa through increased investment, better governance and a partnership with donors based on mutual accountability. The UK fully supports the aims of NEPAD and recognises that it is a long-term plan.

  NEPAD has made substantial progress since it was founded in 2001. 16 countries have signed up to the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM), a voluntary initiative to improve political, economic and corporate governance in Africa. The first reviews are due to take place later this year. NEPAD has also made progress in drawing up plans for an African Peace Keeping Capacity, and plans on priority areas including infrastructure, agriculture and environment. This progress will lead to long-term improvements in governance, peace keeping and investment in southern Africa as well as other African regions.

  Of the southern African countries, both Mozambique and South Africa have signed up to the APRM. Presidents Thabo Mbeki of South Africa and Joaquim Chissano of Mozambique are particularly keen supporters of NEPAD and both Presidents are on the Heads of State and Government Implementation Committee of NEP AD. NEPAD is reflected in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Regional Indicative Strategic Paper. The Government of South Africa has a NEPAD outreach programme and a NEPAD coordinating point in its Department of Foreign Affairs- it is also seeking to establish NEPAD focal points in all Ministries. NEPAD is a long-term programme, it will take time to deliver, but it is gaining increasing support across the continent.

  New Technology Provision
  John Robertson
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what action he is taking to ensure that new technology provided to communities in developing countries is appropriate for need, sensibly deployed and that local people are consulted about their requirements. [128142]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID funds several projects helping to provide new technology to developing country communities. Each of these has emerged from extensive consultation with key stakeholders, including representatives of the communities themselves, to ensure that the provision is fit for purpose and appropriate to their needs.

  In addition, DFID is widely engaged in research and advocacy through, for example, the UN Information Communication Technologies Task Force and the World Summit on the Information Society aimed at focusing new technology policy on the needs and interests of poor people in developing countries.

  Nigeria
  John Barrett
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what progress is being made towards the immunisation of people in Nigeria against polio. [127942]

  Hilary Benn
  Routine immunization coverage in Nigeria reaches about 27 per cent. of children with Oral Polio Vaccine (OPV). Due to the poor state of routine immunization services, the Federal Government of Nigeria established in 1997 the National Programme on Immunization (NPI). The NPI has focussed on providing supplementary, door-to-door coverage with OPV using National and Sub-national Immunization Days (NIDs and SNIDs). Around 40 million doses are administered through NIDs and SNIDs every year.

  Interruption of the transmission of Wild Polio Virus (WPV) had been achieved in 29 out of 37 states by 2001, but unfortunately the situation has again worsened, with confirmed cases in 15 states in the first half of 2003. All these states are in the north, and the south remains polio-free. Adverse propaganda by religious leaders is alienating some sections of the population from the immunization workers.

  My Department is working with the Nigerian Government and with other international partners to meet the challenge of polio eradication in Nigeria. This includes a grant of £50 million to the World Health Organization for polio work in the ten global priority countries.

  Palestinian Refugees
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what support the Department provides to Palestinian refugees in(a) Jordan, (b) Lebanon and (c) Syria for (i) health programmes and (ii) relief of poverty; and if he will make a statement. [127813]

  Hilary Benn
  The great majority of DFID's support to Palestinian refugees is through contributions to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA) General Fund. This 88W
  provides education, health, relief and social services to Palestinian refugees in all five fields of operations: Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, the West Bank and Gaza Strip. UNRWA determines the allocations between fields, and between sectors. In 2002, DFID contributed £13 million to UNRWA's General Fund. A similar contribution is planned for 2003. In addition, we fund various technical cooperation projects, including health programmes in Lebanon.

  Sao Tome and Principe
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development (1) what analysis the Department has made of the effect of the military coup on(a) aid spending and (b) international development projects in Sao Tome and Principe; and if he will make a statement; [127259]

  (2) how much aid is spent directly by the Department in Sao Tome and Principe; and if he will make a statement. [127260]

  Hilary Benn
  The UK does not have a development programme in Sao Tome and Principe. The main bilateral donors are Portugal, France, Spain and Taiwan and the principal multilateral donors are the World Bank, European Community and the African Development Bank. Most development projects focus on infrastructure, agriculture, health and education. The recent coup brought the country to a standstill for a few days. But apart from temporarily slowing down the efforts of the donor community, recent events seem to have had no other negative impact on development programmes.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what projects in Sao Tome and Principe are funded through aid from the Department; and if he will make a statement. [127262]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID does not have a country programme for Sao Tome and Principe and therefore does not provide funding for particular projects in the country, apart from a small grants scheme for Angola and Sao Tome and Principe managed by the British Embassy in Luanda.

  Secondments
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what the Department's policy is on employing secondees from the private sector; how many secondees from the(a) private and (b) public sectors the Department employed in each year since 1997; from which companies and organisations they were seconded; at what level they were employed; and if he will make a statement. [127060]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID encourages secondments from a wide range of organisations in both the private and public sectors.

  Information on inward secondments for the period 1997–98 to 1999–2000 is not readily available. The following statistics relate to secondments into DFID in each financial year from 2000–01.
  89W

  Seconded to DFID

  Private Sector

  NGO

  Public Sector

  Organisation

  Grade1

  Total

  2000–01

  3

  1

  1 Marconi

  1 Virgin One

  1 SCS 3 Band A

  4

  1 Cisco Systems

  1 Other Government Dept

  2001–02

  1

  6

  1 International Alert

  2 Other Government Dept

  1 Met Police

  4 Band A 3Band B

  7

  1 Crown Agents

  2 European Commission

  2002–03

  15

  2SCS 1 Band A 12 Band B

  15

  14 Other Government Dept

  1 European Commission

  2003–04

  1

  1

  8

  1 Rio Tinto

  7 Band A 3 Band B

  10

  1 Christian Aid

  8 Other Government Dept

  1 SCS: Senior Civil Service

  1 Band A: Senior Executive Officer to Senior Principal [Grade 6]

  1 Band 8: Executive Officer, Higher Executive Officer, Civil Service Fast Stream

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what aid has been provided to Sierra Leone in each of the last five years; what private investment has taken place as a result; and if he will make a statement. [127807]

  Hilary Benn
  The total value of UK official aid to Sierra Leone in each of the last five financial years is as follows:

  £thousand

  1998–99

  9,153

  1999–2000

  30,044

  2000–01

  35,148

  2001–02

  37,177

  2002–03

  32,756

  Our programme does not include direct measures to promote investment. We have focussed on reconstruction and recovery programmes, security sector and governance reforms and budgetary support. The programme is intended to assist the development of safety and security and accountable and effective governance. These are essential conditions for investors. Key areas of our support for the promotion of investor confidence are public financial management, audit and public procurement reform, law reform, support to the Anti Corruption Commission and effective regulation of the diamond industry.

  We have recently carried out a review of programmes by the Government of Sierra Leone and other donors to support employment and investment, and are considering the possibility of supporting such programmes. We have also agreed a request by the Government to support a post of adviser on privatisation and investment in the Office of the President.

  Sudan
  John Barrett
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what steps he is taking to encourage a free press in Sudan. [127938]
  90W
  Hilary Benn
  We have regularly raised press freedom with the Government of Sudan bilaterally and through the EU-Sudan Political Dialogue, including at its most recent meeting on 21 July when EU Heads of Mission raised the closure of newspapers and restrictions on reporting. On 9 August President Beshir announced the complete lifting of press censorship. Our Embassy in Khartoum will monitor implementation of this arrangement. In 2003–04 DFID is funding a £9,570 training package for 60 selected young Sudanese journalists in modern journalist skills including editing, publishing and translation.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what assessment he has made of the warning of the World Food Programme that food rations in Sudan may be cut by 50 per cent.due to a lack of funding. [127939]

  Hilary Benn
  We remain concerned over World Food Programme reports that only 30 per cent. of their programmes are funded at present. We have provided two and a half million pounds so far this year and will consider further contributions as the need arises, in order that food is provided to vulnerable populations throughout Sudan.

  We welcome the progress both the United Nations and World Food Programme have made in recent months to expand humanitarian access; after a gap of five years, the World Food Programme has recently completed a successful barge operation delivering 2000 MT of food to 500,000 people (some for the first time)—and at a considerable saving when compared to the costs of air travel.

  We are also aware of the discussions between United States and Government of Sudan over the latter's change in policy regarding the import of genetically modified foods, and hope this can be resolved to the satisfaction of all parties.

  Uganda
  John Barrett
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what estimate he has made of the number of child soldiers in Uganda. [127932]
  91W
  Hilary Benn
  Exact numbers of child soldiers within the regular Ugandan Army have yet to be confirmed. We believe that the Government of Uganda is taking serious steps to address this issue. In May 2002 it ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. It has reinforced army recruitment systems in an attempt to screen out underage recruits. The issue remains a problem for the auxiliary forces, although the numbers are believed to be relatively small. UNICEF, diplomatic missions (including the UK) and the Uganda Human Rights Commission have brought specific cases to the Army's attention. With UNICEF's co-operation, we understand that these children are in the process of being demobilised. We will continue to monitor this issue closely.

  UNICEF Uganda also estimates that the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA), a rebel group operating in Northern Uganda, has abducted 20,400 children since 1990. Abduction and forced conscription of children is the chief recruitment method of the LRA. 6,000 of these children have yet to be accounted for.

  World Trade Organisation
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development whether the Government will provide human resources to aid developing nations in the negotiation process at the forthcoming WTO meeting in Cancun. [127298]

  Hilary Benn
  The UK trade related capacity building programme continues to provide support to developing countries to build their capacity to negotiate favourable deals in trade negotiations, interpret trade agreements, take advantage of new trading opportunities and reduce any negative effects of trade liberalisation. This includes support to organisations in Geneva offering independent advice, information on WTO issues and networking opportunities for countries with common interests or concerns. This will enable developing countries to draw up informed negotiating positions and connect with other countries with similar interests.

  Zimbabwe
  John Barrett
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what the latest crop forecasts are in Zimbabwe; and if he will make a statement. [127934]

  Hilary Benn
  Zimbabwe's maize crop was harvested in May. A joint FAO/WFP Crop and Food Supply Assessment Mission to Zimbabwe (19 June 2003) indicated that although national cereal production was considerably up on last year, a significant food gap remains.

  The Report estimated that cereal production for consumption in 2003–04 will be 980,000 tonnes. This is 41 per cent. higher than last year, but 51 per cent. below the 2000–01 harvest, which was itself significantly below average. Production of maize, the main staple, is forecast at 803,000 tonnes. This is 61 per cent. up on last year, but 46 per cent. lower than in 2000–01 and represents less than half of the national requirement. Wheat production has dramatically declined.
  92W
  Although food is now available in many areas, some areas (such as Matabeleland), will require food throughout the year. By January/February of 2004, the UN estimate that 5.5 million Zimbabweans will need help obtaining food. The UK government have just approved support for another £8 million for food aid through organisations such as CAFOD, Save the Children and Christian Aid. This includes food aid for vulnerable groups such as farm workers, children and the chronically ill. The European Commission has also contributed €25 million (of which the UK share is about €5 million) to this year's WFP emergency appeal.

  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what assessment the Department has made of the effects of the food crisis in Zimbabwe on neighbouring countries. [128190]

  Hilary Benn
  The food crisis in Zimbabwe is part of a wider crisis of economic collapse and failure of governance. There is no definitive account of the overall effect on the region. However, it is clear that the dramatic shift in Zimbabwe's fortunes from a significant exporter of food to a massive importer—with the majority of its population needing food aid last year and perhaps half this year—has affected food security throughout the region. Food security in other countries in the region has improved significantly following the May harvests. While this short-term progress is welcome, long-term efforts to reduce the likelihood of further food crises in Southern Africa will be unlikely to succeed without significant policy reform and economic recovery in Zimbabwe.

  Long-term efforts to increase investment and build economies in Southern Africa will also be hampered so long as present Zimbabwean policies continue. There has been a significant fall in trade with Zimbabwe; increased debt arrears to its neighbours primarily by Zimbabwean state-owned enterprises; and a negative regional image to investors, which has affected levels of foreign direct investment. The poor control of foot and mouth disease now widespread in Zimbabwe has also affected Botswana and threatens South Africa. The increase in illegal trade avoiding government controls between Zimbabwe and its neighbours is an additional negative impact.

  The crisis is also leading to higher vulnerability to HIV infection through greater movement of people and higher levels of unsafe prostitution, and has prevented more positive measures to control this pandemic in Zimbabwe, which will impact on the region in years to come. Large-scale migration has also occurred, especially to Botswana and South Africa. This has had a negative impact in terms of the numbers, and sparsely populated Botswana's capacity to absorb such large numbers makes it especially affected. However given the relatively high levels of education of Zimbabweans, it will also have a positive impact on their economies at great cost to Zimbabwe.

  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what assessment the Department has made of the humanitarian situation in Zimbabwe. [128191]
  93W
  Hilary Benn
  Zimbabwe's maize crop was harvested in April/May, but some parts of the country are already in need of food aid. Although the maize crop is 41 per cent. higher than last year's, this is still less than half of the 2001 crop. The Government of Zimbabwe has prepared its appeal for humanitarian assistance, but has committed few resources of its own due to the dire state of the economy. The amount of food requested from the international community is therefore greater than last year.

  The UN and Non-Governmental Organisations are starting to scale up feeding operations. The World Food Programme fed just over one million people in July and this has increased to 1.5 million in August. Approximately another one million are being fed by other international organisations. The UN predicts that 5.5 million people in Zimbabwe (46 per cent. of the population) will require humanitarian assistance by the end of the year. The UK government has just approved support for another £8 million for food aid through organisations such as CAFOD, Save the Children and Christian Aid. This includes food aid for vulnerable groups such as farm workers, children and the chronically ill. The European Commission has also contributed euro 25 million (of which the UK share is about euro 5 million) to this year's WFP emergency appeal.

  The UK Government, along with other development partners, is concerned that a new Government of Zimbabwe policy on NGOs could undermine the independence of NGO controlled feeding programme. The UN has already informed Zimbabwe Government that this policy is undermining contributions to this year's emergency appeal. We will be monitoring the situation on the ground carefully and will be prepared to suspend feeding programmes if there are reports of political interference in food distribution.

TREASURY

  Cancer (Gullet)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many patients were diagnosed with cancer of the gullet in(a) 2002, (b) 1998, (c) 1994, (d) 1990, (e) 1986 and (f) 1982. [127451]

  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. Simon Burns, dated 8 September 2003:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question concerning how many patients were diagnosed with cancer of the gullet in (a) 2002, (b) 1998, (c) 1994, (d) 1990, (e) 1986 and (f) 1982. [127451].
  Oesophageal cancer is commonly referred to as "cancer of the gullet". The numbers of registrations of newly diagnosed cases of cancer of the oesophagus in England for the years requested are given in the table below.
  Figures for 2002 are not available. The latest published figures are for 1999, as shown in the table. The first release of registrations of newly diagnosed cases of cancer in England for 2000 will be published on the National Statistics website at the end of August 2003.
  94W

  Registrations of newly diagnosed cases for oesophageal1 cancer in England, persons, selected years

  1Malignant neoplasm of oesophagus

  1982

  3,924

  1986

  4,339

  1990

  4,981

  1994

  5,611

  1998

  5,730

  1999

  5,893

  Note:

  For the years 1991 to 1994, International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision Code (ICD-9), code 150. For the years 1995 to 1999, International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10), code C15.

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics.

  Pre-eclampsia
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many babies(a) died and (b) were stillborn as a result of pre-eclampsia in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [127447]

  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. Simon Burns, dated 8 September 2003:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on the number of babies that (a) died or (b) were stillborn as a result of pre-eclampsia, during the last twelve months for which figures are available. (127447)
  In January 1986, with the introduction of a neonatal and stillbirth certificate in England and Wales, it is no longer possible to identify a single underlying cause of death, as equal weighting is given to the main conditions in the infant and the mother.
  In England and Wales for 2001, 60 babies under the age of one and 123 stillbirths had a mention of pre-eclampsia and eclampsia on the death certificate. including Hemolysis anaemia, Elevated Liver enzymes, Low Platelet count syndrome.
  There were also 17 babies under the age of one and 37 stillbirths that had a mention of pregnancy induced hypertension which was not specified as eclampsia or pre-eclampsia.

  Strokes
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people died from strokes and stroke-related diseases in each year between 1995 and 2002. [127700]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Chris Grayling, dated 8 September 2003:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question concerning how many people died from strokes and stroke-related diseases in each year between 1995 and 2002. (127700)
  I refer you to the answer given in Hansard on 17 July 2003, column 463W to Paul Burstow MP. This indicated that figures are to be found in the annual reference volumes "Mortality Statistics: Cause DH2" and provided an explanation of changes in the data series in 2001.The latest publication in this series contains figures for stroke for 2001 and is available on the National Statistics website at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_health/Dh2_28/DH2No28.pdf.

  Aggregates Levy
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much has been raised from the aggregates levy in each region in the UK since the levy was introduced. [127212]

  John Healey
  Aggregate Levy revenue receipts and forecast revenues were published in Table C8 of this year's Financial Statement and Budget Report [HC 500]. These are provided for the UK as a whole and are not available by geographical region.

  Mr. Mates
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how much was raised by the aggregates levy on(a) virgin aggregate and (b) processed aggregate products in Northern Ireland in financial year 2002–03; and how much is forecast to be raised by the levy on each in Northern Ireland in each financial year from 2003–04 to 2006–07; [127740]

  (2) what steps he has taken to monitor the environmental effects of the aggregates levy in (a) Great Britain and (b) Northern Ireland; and what the results have been; [127741]

  (3) when his officials last visited Northern Ireland to assess the impact of the aggregates levy on (a) the economy and (b) the environment in Northern Ireland. [127742]

  John Healey
  Data for revenue collected under the aggregates levy come from levy returns submitted by aggregates businesses and so do not include information on different types of aggregate exploited. These data are recorded for the UK as a whole and are not separately available for Northern Ireland. Revenue forecasts for the aggregates levy are also made for the UK as a whole, and not by region. Revenue raised by the aggregates levy in 2002–03 is published in Table 2.1D of Financial Statistics, June 2003, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. Revenue forecasts for 2003–04 are given in Table C8 of this year's Financial Statement and Budge Report (HC 500).

  Customs and Excise officials with policy and operational policy responsibility for the levy have visited Northern Ireland on a number of occasions to meet officials and industry representatives. The most recent meeting was in June and further meetings are planned.

  As with all taxes, the Government continue to monitor the impact of the aggregates levy as part of the Budget process. We recently commissioned further independent research into the effects of the levy in Northern Ireland and this research is continuing. The Northern Ireland aggregates industry has welcomed this further research and is fully involved in discussion with those undertaking it. The findings will help to inform policy relating to the levy in Northern Ireland.

  ASPIRE Programme
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the suppliers with whom Inland Revenue held discussions with regard to the Inland Revenue ASPIRE programme; whether bidders for the ASPIRE programme had been subject to an Inland Revenue compliance investigation in the previous three years;
  96W
  and what tax and interest recoveries had been made from the potential bidders for the ASPIRE programme. [125019]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue had discussions with a large number of potential suppliers in the early stages of the ASPIRE competition who expressed an interest in bidding for the contract. These bidders were reduced to a short-list of BT plc, Cap Gemini Ernst & Young and EDS in July 2002. As part of the development of their bids these three suppliers formed consortia with the following:

  BT plc are working with Computer Sciences Corporation and SchlumbergerSema.
  Cap Gemini Ernst & Young are working with Fujitsu Services.
  EDS are working with Accenture.

  The Inland Revenue has had frequent discussions with all seven companies since the short-listed bidders were announced.

  A provision in the ASPIRE Invitation to Tender (ITT) allowed the Inland Revenue to undertake a review of the tax affairs of the companies that responded to the ITT. These reports were used as a factor in the ASPIRE evaluation.

  Census
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what research he has commissioned into the effectiveness of current methods of research used to collect data for the United Kingdom's census; and if he will make a statement. [127405]

  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. Stephen O'Brien, dated 8 September 2003:
  As National Statistician and Registrar General for England and Wales, I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking about research into the effectiveness of the Census. (127405)
  Work is continuing within the Office for National Statistics (ONS), taking account of the evaluation of all aspects of the 2001 Census, to gain in particular, a better understanding of differences between the Census results and the previous mid-year population estimates. This research is wide ranging, including address-matching studies in Westminster and Manchester, a review of migration statistics and comparisons of census results with national and local administrative data sources.
  ONS recently published 'A demographic statistics service for the 21st century'. a wide ranging review of population statistics issues that set out the areas for development in the next decade.
  More specific research into the future of the census is also underway, considering the modifications that could be made to a traditional census, taking account of the lessons from the 2001 Census and the potential of new technologies. Alternatives to the traditional census approach are also being explored including: a rolling census, covering successive sections of the population each year; a sample census, only covering a percentage of the population; producing statistics from existing person-based data held by government for administrative purposes; or some combination of these. The first phase of this research will result in recommendations being published in late 2003.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total cost was in real terms of compiling data for the(a) 1981, (b) 1991 and (c) 2001 census. [127407]
  97W
  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. Stephen O'Brien, dated 8 September 2003:
  As National Statistician and Registrar General for England and Wales I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking what the total cost was in real terms of compiling data for the (a) 1981, (b) 1991 and (c) 2001 Censuses (127407)
  The cost for the 2001 Census in England and Wales, is £207m over the life of the project (1993–94 to 2005–06). This cost includes amounts in respect of initial planning, development, for the funding of major tests in 1997 and the conduct of the Census Rehearsal in 1999. Costs also include scheduled contract payments, recruitment and training of all the field staff, the publicity campaign and those incurred in making any final adjustments, prior to live running, to procedures and systems following the Rehearsal.
  Compared to the previous Census in 1991. the 2001 Census incurred additional real costs to cope with increases in the number of households and the increased difficulty in contacting households in today's social conditions. There were also costs resulting from expanding the census outputs to meet more demanding user requirements. However, there were savings derived from the introduction of automation of many processes.
  The 2001 Census included the processing of 100% of responses to all questions, which was a major user requirement. This was not a viable option for the 1981 and 1991 Censuses using the technology available at the time, and for a number of questions only a 10 per cent sample of forms from these Censuses were processed. The cost of the 2001 Census also included the Census Coverage Survey as a key part of the methodology. This was a validation exercise on a much larger scale than the small post-enumeration surveys carried out in previous Censuses.

  Child Tax Credit
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate how long it takes on average to(a) complete and (b) process the application form for child tax credit; and whether his Department has a target for the number of applications to be processed. [121581]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The time taken to complete a tax credits claim form will depend on the particular circumstances of the claimant. Claims for which no further information is required, and which pass the various pre-award checks, go through the stages of calculating the award quickly and will normally be in payment within a few days.

  The form was subjected to rigorous usability testing before being introduced. This testing involved a sample number of existing tax credit recipients.

  Credit Unions
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussion is taking place with the credit union trade associations on the process of establishing a simple representative body for credit unions in Britain; and if he will make a statement. [127808]

  Mr. Boateng
  No such discussion is taking place. Credit unions are free to affiliate to any, or none, of the main trade associations, and to change their affiliation from time to time.
  98W
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many members of credit unions and assets of credit unions there were, broken down by(a) affiliation to each credit union trade association and (b) no affiliation to a credit union trade association for the year ended 30 September 2002. [127809]

  Mr. Boateng
  The latest available statistics on the credit union sector in Great Britain, for the end of 2001, have been published by the Financial Services Authority on its website, to which I refer the hon. Member. At the end of 2001, there were 365,934 members of credit unions in Great Britain, and their total assets were £263.4 million. Statistics for end of 2002 are not yet available, as not all the underlying returns have been received by the Financial Services Authority.

  The Financial Services Authority does not at present aggregate credit union returns information according to the separate affiliation of individual credit unions, so the breakdown of information requested is not available.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to amend industrial and provident society legislation to bring it into line with company law; and if he will make a statement. [127818]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government is keen to see, where appropriate, a level playing field between industrial and provident societies and companies. The Industrial and Provident Society Act 2002 enables the Treasury to update industrial and provident society law, via secondary legislation, in line with changes in company legislation. The "Modernising Company Law White Paper", published in July 2002, announced a wide-ranging review of company law. In order to provide for a strategic, consistent and up-to-date approach, the Government believe that the general modernisation of industrial and provident society legislation in this area should be considered in the light of that review.

  Customs and Excise
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how he estimates the new investment announced for Customs will improve the service at(a) Newhaven, (b) Poole, (c) Isle of Wight, (d) Portsmouth and (e) Southampton; and if he will make a statement. [127148]

  John Healey
  The investment will be used by Customs to deploy new technology and extra operational activity at ports and airports to strengthen security at the UK frontier.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his latest assessment of the total cost per year is of employing mobile Customs teams to cover the ports of Newhaven, Poole and the Isle of Wight rather than a limited permanent presence; and if he will make a statement. [127150]

  John Healey
  For the fiscal year 2003–04, the current allocation of funds to cover travel and subsistence costs for Customs detection south region, which includes Newhaven, Poole and the Isle of Wight, is £1.7 million.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what factors underlay the decision to remove the permanent Customs presence from Poole, the Isle of
  99W
  Wight and Newhaven ports; if he will perform a risk analysis of these plans; if he will overturn the decision; and if he will make a statement. [127151]

  John Healey
  To meet the challenge of modern smugglers, Customs across the UK are changing their tactics and becoming more intelligence-led and less predictable. While it is important o maintain a level of deterrence at all locations—both at high-traffic, high-risk ports or airports, and at smaller, lower-risk locations—Customs cannot provide an effective detection capability nor any meaningful deterrence with small numbers of staff on regular and predictable rotas. Flexible, mobile teams can be deployed in larger numbers and with greater impact. Customs managers use risk assessment when deploying these teams to locations in the south and south west where they will have the greater impact on smuggling.

  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff will be allocated to the flexible customs team to be located at Plymouth under the Customs and Excise Business Plan; what their terms of reference will be; and what the team's(a) average and (b) maximum response times are expected to be. [127301]

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of days per year that the proposed mobile Customs teams will be able to have a presence in(a) Newhaven, (b) Poole and (c) Isle of Wight ports. [127149]

  John Healey
  Customs do not normally make available information concerning the deployment of operational law enforcement staff. Exemptions 4(b) and 7(b) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information apply.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about HM Customs and Excise operations in(a) Chester, (b) Pembroke and (c) Swansea. [127408]

  John Healey
  Customs and Excise law enforcement operations in Chester, Pembroke and Swansea will be intelligence-led, supported by flexible, mobile teams. Customs also have offices in these locations undertaking a range of VAT, International Trade and Excise work.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the use of mobile teams in the work of HM Customs and Excise. [127410]

  John Healey
  Experience demonstrates that flexible mobile teams allow Customs to deploy officers in larger numbers, less predictably and with greater impact, to any area of the UK, wherever intelligence identifies a risk.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the value of goods seized by HM Customs in(a) 2002 and (b) 2003. [127946]

  John Healey
  Customs record e goods they seize by quantity not value. Many seized goods do not have a specific monetary value and an aggregate figure for the value of all goods seized by Customs is therefore not available.

  Departmental Costs
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the cost was to his Department for(a) ministerial cars and drivers, (b) taxis, (c) train travel, (d) the use of helicopters, (e) airline tickets and (f) chartered aeroplanes in each year since 1997. [123074]

  John Healey
  Information relating to the cost of ministerial cars and drivers and of planes chartered for ministerial travel is the responsibility of the Cabinet Office.

  For expenditure by the Treasury on taxis up to 2000–01 I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by the then Economic Secretary (Ruth Kelly) on 4 February 2002, Official Report, column 698W.

  Information in respect of spending on taxis by the Treasury in 2001–02 and 2002–03, and on all other travel between 1997–98 and 2002–03, is set out in the table.

  £

  Taxis

  Other travel

  1997–98

  —

  945,450

  1998–99

  —

  1,320,078

  1999–2000

  —

  1,510,944

  2000–01

  —

  1,578,198

  2001–02

  120,189

  1,508,016

  2002–03

  129,503

  1,387,813

  All official travel is undertaken in accordance with the rules contained in the Department's staff handbook. All ministerial travel is undertaken in accordance with the rules set out in the publication "The Ministerial Code and Travel by Ministers", a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  ECOFIN
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the outcome was of the ECOFIN Council held on 16 July; what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including its voting record; and if he will make a statement. [127303]

  Ruth Kelly
  At the ECOFIN Council on 15 July, the UK was represented by our Permanent Representative to the EU and by the Treasury's Managing Director of Macroeconomic Policy and International Finance.

  The Italian Presidency presented its work programme. Following an exchange of views on the Presidency's Action Plan for Growth, Council Conclusions were agreed that invited the Commission and the EIB to conduct a needs assessment and make proposals for a programme to support growth and integration by improving and/or increasing overall investment and private sector involvement in TENs and R&D projects.

  EFC will assess these interim reports and prepare the Council discussion of the issue at the 7 October ECOFIN Council. The UK said that the highest priority was the Lisbon structural reform agenda and that the new initiative should be complementary.

  The Council agreed without debate a recommendation on the Netherlands' Stability programme.
  101W
  The Council agreed, without discussion, to a recommendation that Jean-Claude Trichet be appointed the President of the European Central Bank for a term of office of eight years. Under the provisions of the EC Treaty, only the member states which have adopted the euro can be involved in the appointment of the president of the ECB. The UK Protocol makes it clear that the UK does not participate in such appointments.

  The Council also agreed a mandate for the Financial Services Committee to prepare a report on the progress of financial integration and its economic benefits and to look further into areas where this integration might deliver significant increased economic benefits to the EU. This report will prepare a debate in the 2004 spring Council on key areas for further action.

  ECOFIN agreed Conclusions on the adoption of International Accounting Standards (IAS), stressing the importance of their adoption from 2005, including the immediate adoption of all existing IAS except those on financial instruments and the adoption of standards on financial instruments as soon as possible. The UK supported the adoption of all the relevant existing IAS. Its concerns were fully covered by the Conclusions.

  Under any other business, the Council exchanged views on the Commission's proposed VAT Reduced Rates Review. The UK welcomed the review, but noted that it would not accept any proposal which would remove its zero rates on children's clothes and shoes.

  No votes were taken at the meeting.

  Euro
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what funds have been allocated by his Department for the Government's campaign to promote UK entry to the European single currency. [127411]

  Mr. Boateng
  I refer to the answer the Economic Secretary gave to the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) on 20 June 2003,Official Report, column 458W.

  European Economic Convergence
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 3 July,Official Report, column 370W, on European Economic Convergence, what research he has commissioned into using discretionary fiscal policy to offset inflationary pressures; and if he will publish the results of this research. [127615]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Treasury published a paper "Fiscal Stabilisation and EMU" that included a discussion of these issues.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 14 July,Official Report, column 132W, on European Economic Convergence, what the element of pre-commitment is. [127616]

  Mr. Boateng
  In the context of my answer of 14 July,Official Report, column 132W, on European Economic Convergence, and with reference to the discussion paper "Fiscal Stabilisation and EMU", the element of pre-commitment refers to the institutional arrangements
  102W
  that would be put in place to demonstrate that stabilisation policy was credible, symmetric and consistent with sound public finances.

  Fuel Duty Rebates
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what value he attributed in pence per litre to(a) carbon dioxide saving, (b) improved local air quality, (c) diversity of supply and (d) economic development benefits in calculating duty rebates for (i) LPG and (ii) biodiesel and bicethanol. [127190]

  John Healey
  The Government offers lower duty rates for less environmentally-damaging fuels by offering duty differentials relative to the main road fuels. These differentials are intended primarily to reflect the relative environmental benefits of the fuel in question, but they also take account of other factors, such as costs of production and supply, and wider social and economic benefits, including fuel security and the potential to encourage the recycling of waste products. In the light of all these factors, we have set a duty incentive of 20 pence per litre in the case of biodiesel and bioethanol. For road fuel gases the incentives, when converted from pence per kilogram to the equivalent pence per litre, are 39.72 pence per litre for natural gases and 40.42 pence per litre for liquefied petroleum gas.

  It would not, however, be appropriate to compare the duty incentive for biofuels with those for road fuel gases. The latter are directed predominantly at improvement in local air quality rather than as a carbon saving measure. They also face significant market barriers: they require a dedicated and separate re-fuelling infrastructure and vehicles have to be converted or be specifically designed to use gaseous fuels. In contrast, incentives for biofuels are focused on climate change issues and greenhouse gas reductions. Biofuel blends can be supplied through the existing re-fuelling infrastructure and used in existing vehicles.

  Home Improvements (Finance)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what recent representations he has received asking him to reduce VAT on home improvements; and if he will make a statement; [126247]

  (2) what recent discussions he has had with (a) other government departments, (b) housing bodies and (c) other interested bodies on VAT on home improvements for poor housing; and if he will make a statement; [126248]

  (3) what recent representations he has received on improving poor housing stock and tackling problems of empty homes through financial grants; and if he will make a statement. [126249]

  John Healey
  The Government have already taken targeted and efficient action through the tax system and through public spending to support the regeneration of the UK's existing housing stock, including the introduction of reduced VAT rates on the renovation of empty properties and the £500 million housing market renewal fund for Pathfinder areas.

  The Government continues to receive representations from a wide range of interested bodies seeking additional reduced rates of VAT or additional grant

  103W
  funding to assist further in the renewal of the UK's housing stock and discussions take place on a regular basis where necessary to explore these proposals in more detail.

  The Government will consider all representations for new reduced rates in the context of the European Commission's upcoming review of the reduced rates provisions in the EC Sixth VAT Directive, and will consider all representations for increases in public spending in the context of the next Spending Review.

  Inland Revenue
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Inland Revenue submitted the Supplementary Memorandum published in the 29th Report of the Committee of Public Accounts, Session 2002–03, HC 332; how the adjustments in transfer pricing cases in the three years to 31 March 2002 referred to in the memorandum arose in each year; and how many adjustments arose from (a) LBO and (b) International Division-led cases in each year. [126364]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The number of adjustments was as follows:

  LBO led

  Revenue policy (international) led

  1999–2000

  158

  105

  2000–01

  195

  72

  2001–02

  166

  72

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the criteria were by which the Commissioners of Inland Revenue individually qualified for performance pay in each year since 1999–2000; and what performance pay they(a) might have been paid and (b) were paid in each year. [126365]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Commissioners are members of the Senior Civil Service (SCS), and as such subject to the rules for SCS pay. In accordance with Government policy on pay in the civil service those rules provide for consolidated base pay and bonuses to be performance related. So in all years since 1999–2000 the Commissioners could receive performance related pay.

  The pay of senior civil servants is reviewed annually by the Government, advised by the Senior Salaries Review Body. The pay of Permanent Secretaries, including the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue, is determined by the Permanent Secretaries Remuneration Committee; in its deliberations, the Committee has decided to follow the broad lines of the pay system which applies to senior civil servants generally.

  The table sets out the range of performance related base pay and bonus awards which the Commissioners might have been paid.

  Base pay (Percentage)

  Bonus

  1999–2000

  0 to 10.5

  Circa £300 to £400

  2000–01

  0 to 11

  £300

  2001–02

  0 to 11

  £300

  104W

  Base pay (Percentage)

  Bonus

  2003–03

  0 to 10

  High 4.23 per cent., Medium 3 per cent.

  2003–04

  0 to 9

  High 10.2 per cent., Medium 5.2 per cent.

  The pay of the Commissioners and other Board members is set out, in bands of £5,000, in the Inland Revenue Annual Reports. Details of performance appraisal, and of consequential pay adjustments, are considered to be confidential to the individual concerned.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many and what percentage of Inland Revenue postal enquiries received a complete response within 15 working days in each of the last 12 months. [126380]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The total volume of correspondence, and the percentage dealt with in the Inland Revenue local office network within 15 working days, in each of the last 12 months were as follows:

  Total post received (million)

  Percentage dealt with within 15 days

  2002

  June

  6.501

  79.9

  July

  4.971

  77.0

  August

  6.447

  77.7

  September

  5.249

  73.4

  October

  5.547

  72.3

  November

  6.674

  75.8

  December

  5.309

  77.6

  2003

  January

  6.619

  78.4

  February

  5.957

  83.3

  March

  6.104

  84.0

  April

  5.503

  85.6

  May

  7.568

  79.6

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many and what percentage of telephone calls to local Inland Revenue offices were answered at the switchboard within 20 seconds in each of the last 12 months. [126381]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The number and percentage of telephone calls answered within 20 seconds in the Inland Revenue local office network in each of the last 12 months were as follows:

  Number (million)

  Percentage

  2002

  June

  2.575

  89.6

  July

  3.296

  88.5

  August

  2.763

  90.4

  September

  2.959

  88.8

  October

  3.129

  92.7

  November

  2.982

  93.3

  December

  2.231

  92.0

  2003

  January

  2.473

  87.6

  February

  2.754

  91.2

  March

  3.130

  86.4

  April

  3.107

  85.5

  May

  3.286

  80.9

  June

  3.243

  83.1

  105W
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many and what percentage of callers to Inland Revenue enquiry centres without an appointment were attended to within 15 minutes in each of the last 12 months. [126385]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The number and percentage of personal callers to Inland Revenue Enquiry Centres attended to within 15 minutes in each of the last 12 months is as follows:

  Number of callers attended to in 15 minutes (000s)

  Percentage

  2002

  July

  289.5

  96.7

  August

  327.9

  97.0

  September

  331.1

  96.4

  October

  277.5

  98.0

  November

  294.5

  98.7

  December

  171.6

  98.9

  2003

  January

  561.2

  97.6

  February

  283.7

  97.9

  March

  298.7

  97.5

  April

  318.2

  88.3

  May

  465.3

  69.3

  June

  336.3

  72.1

  Iraq
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the projected cost is of British troops being stationed in Iraq for a further(a) six months, (b) 12 months, (c) 18 months and (d) 24 months. [127412]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government remains committed to maintaining appropriate forces in Iraq for as long as is necessary. Parliament will be invited to vote on provision for 2003–04 in Supplementary Estimates.

  Office for National Statistics
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the projected budget for the Office of National Statistics is for(a) 2003–04 and (b) 2004–05. [127216]

  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. Alex Salmond, dated 8 September 2003:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question concerning the projected budget for the Office for National Statistics for (a) 2003–04 and (1)) 2004–05. (127216)
  Information on the planned budget for 2003–04 and 2004–05 can be found in Table 1 of the Office for National Statistics 2003 Spring Departmental Report (Cm 5931), copies of which are available in the House of Commons library. A copy of the Report is also available on the National Statistics website at the following reference: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_other/ONS_Spring03_Departmental_Report.pdf

  Regional Gross Value Added
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the most recent estimates are for regional gross value added; and when new estimates will be released. [127215]
  106W
  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. Alex Salmond, dated 8 September 2003:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your question on what are the most recent estimates for regional Gross Value Added; and when new estimates will be released. (127215)
  The most recent estimates of regional Gross Value Added were published on 14 August 2003 (for revised 1989–1999 data) and 20 August 2003 (for 2000–2001 data).
  The data are available in the House of Commons Library and on the Office for National Statistics web site at http://www.statistics.gov.uk/regionalaccounts.
  Regional (NUTS level 1) Gross Value Added estimates for 2002 are due to be published in March 2004. Sub-regional (NUTS levels 2 and 3) estimates of Gross Value Added for 2001 are due to be published in October 2003.

  Store Cards
  John Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effects of high interest rates on store cards on consumer spending. [128147]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government's latest forecast of household expenditure was published in the Financial Statement and Budget Report (HC 500) on 9 April and took into account all relevant factors. Interest rates on store cards are unlikely to have a material influence on overall consumer spending.

  Tax Credits (Delayed Payment)
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people have been reimbursed for bank charges incurred as a result of delayed payment of tax credits. [121720]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) on 12 May 2003,Official Report, column 23W.

  Treasury Accommodation
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff will transfer to the HM Treasury building at 1 Horse Guards read, London from(a) the Inland Revenue and (b) HM Customs and Excise when construction work is completed; and what area in square feet will be occupied by staff transferring from (i) the Inland Revenue and (ii) HM Customs and Excise. [127065]

  John Healey
  Final decisions about numbers and space requirements will be taken once the outcome of the O'Donnell review of organisations dealing with tax policy and administration is known.

  Venture Capital
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact on the venture capital industry of taxing carried interest through income taxing rather than capital gains tax. [127078]
  107W
  Dawn Primarolo
  There has been no change to the taxation of carried interest and therefore no assessment has been made of the impact of taxation of carried interest on the venture capital industry. The tax treatment of carried interest has not been changed by the introduction of Schedule 22 in Finance Act 2003.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with the British Venture Capital Association in respect of taxation measures announced in the Budget; and if he will make a statement. [127079]

  Dawn Primarolo
  A meeting took place between the British Venture Capital Association (BVCA) and Inland Revenue officials on 9 June to discuss the impact of the new legislation in Schedule 22 Finance Act 2003 and this was followed by exchanges of correspondence. On 25 July, the Revenue published on their website two "Memoranda of Understanding" between the BVCA and the Inland Revenue clarifying, respectively, the Income Tax treatment of carried interests in Venture Capital Limited Partnerships and the Income Tax treatment of Managers' Equity Investments in Management Buyouts. They have also published on their web-site guidance on the income tax treatment of "Earn-outs" which are often a feature of venture capital arrangements.

  Working Tax Credit
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total cost was of the advertising of working tax credit; what(a) the installation and (b) the running costs of the helpline were; what evaluation is due to take place of the advertisement campaign; and if he will make a statement. [114959]

  Dawn Primarolo
  With regard to the total cost of advertising new tax credits (working tax credit and child tax credit) I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) on 18 March 2003,Official Report, column 681W. The advertising campaign is being evaluated by tracking research and media audits carried out by independent external agencies managed by COI Communications on behalf of the Inland Revenue.

  As to the costs of setting up and running the helpline I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) on 12 May 2003, Official Report, column 25W.

  EU Directives
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the EU directives implemented by the Department since 8 June 2001. [126591]
  108W
  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury plays a leading role in the UK's EU policy on financial services and tax. Since 8 June 2001, the Treasury has led on the implementation of 13 directives:

  Directive 98/4/EC, amending Directive 98/38/EEC co-ordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors. Implemented by the Utilities Contracts (Amendment) Regulations 2001 (S.I. 2001/2418) effective 26 July 2001;
  Directive 2000/46/EC on the taking-up, pursuit of and prudential supervision of the business of electronic money institutions (implementation date: 27 April 2002);
  Directive 2000/28/EC, amending Directive 2000/12/EC relating to the taking up and pursuit of the business of credit institutions (implementation date: 27 April 2002);
  Directive 2001/44/EC, amending Directive 76/308/EEC on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims resulting from operations forming part of the system of financing the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, and of agricultural levies and customs duties and in respect of value added tax and certain excise duties (implementation date: 24 July 2002);
  Directive 2000/31/EC on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market ("Directive on electronic commerce") (implemented by the Treasury as regards matters within the scope of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000: implementation date: 21 August 2002);
  Directive 2000/26/EC on the approximation of the laws of the member states relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (Fourth Motor Insurance Directive) (implementation date: 19 January 2003);
  Directive 2001/78/EC of 13 September 2001 amending Annex IV to Council Directive 93/36/EEC, Annexes IV, V and VI to Council Directive 93/37/EEC, Annexes III and IV to Council Directive 92/50/EEC, as amended by Directive 97/52/EC, and Annexes XII to XV, XVII and XVIII to Council Directive 93/38/EEC, as amended by Directive 98/4/EC (Directive on the use of standard forms in the publication of public contract notices) (implementation date: 4 February 2003);
  Directive 2002/38/EC and regulation 792/2002 regarding value added tax arrangements applicable to electronically supplied services and broadcasting;
  Directive 2002/10/EC concerning the structure and rates of excise duty applied on manufactured tobacco;
  Directive 2001/115/EC with a view to simplifying, modernising and harmonising the conditions laid down for VAT invoicing;
  Commission decision 2001/574, following directive 95/60/EC, establishing a common fiscal marker for gas oils and kerosene;
  Directive 2000/64/EC, amending various other Directives, with regard to the exchange of information with third countries. Implemented by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Disclosure of Confidential Information)(Amendment) Regulations 2003 (S.I. 2003/693) effective 3 April 2003;
  Directive 2001/17/EC on the reorganisation and winding up of insurance undertakings. Implemented (except as regards Lloyd's) by the Insurers (Reorganisation and Winding Up) Regulations 2003 (S.I. 2003/1102) effective 20 April 2003.
  I am not aware of any further directives being implemented since 8 June 2001, but the Department does not keep a single record of this information and it could be assembled only at disproportionate cost.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Food-related Activities
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) who will fund the initiative by the Food Standards Agency to set up inspection teams for food-related activities in schools; [127723]

  (2) how many inspection teams are to be set up under the initiative by the Food Standards Agency for food-related activities in schools; [127724]

  (3) what the terms of reference will be for the inspection teams that are set up under the initiative by the Food Standards Agency for food-related activities in schools; [127725]

  (4) how many nutritionists will be on each inspection team set up under the initiative by the Food Standards Agency for food-related activities in schools; [127726]

  (5) what food-related activities are to be inspected under the initiative by the Food Standards Agency to set up inspection teams for food-related activities in schools. [127727]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department for Education and Skills and the Food Standards Agency will jointly and equally fund an exercise that will aim to look at best practice in the whole school approach to food and nutrition.

  The exercise will involve five teams, each consisting of one OFSTED inspector and one nutritionist and will take place in a small illustrative sample of primary schools and early years' settings in England. The exercise will consider activities such as breakfast clubs, tuck shops, school lunches, vending machines, the taught curriculum, after-school cookery, or growing, clubs and water provision.

  In total three or four nutritionists will be commissioned for the initiative and will work in one or more of the five inspection teams. Each one will accompany an OFSTED inspector on each school visit.

  School Meals
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the progress of the school meals research project. [127728]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department for Education and Skills, in partnership with the Food Standards Agency, have commissioned research by Kings College London to assess whether food provided for school lunches in a selection of maintained secondary schools in England complies with statutory nutritional standards and associated guidance. The research, due to commence during the autumn school term 2003, will also aim to assess whether the food consumed by the children meets 110W
  nutritional guidelines and to gather other relevant background information.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proposals he has to encourage the provision of free school meals; and what the average cost to pupils was of school meals in the last 12 months. [128239]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Education Act 1996 places a duty on all local education authorities in England to provide, on request, free school meals to eligible pupils. A similar duty is transferred to the governing body of all maintained schools in England that have a budgetary element for school meals delegated to them. Children whose parents receive the following support payments are entitled to receive free school meals: income support; income based jobseekers allowance; support under Part VI of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999; child tax credit, provided they do not receive working tax credit and have an annual income, as assessed by the Inland Revenue, that does not exceed £13,230.

  This Department does not collect information on the cost of meals provided by schools.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what quality controls are placed upon school meals; and what assessment has been made of the potential benefits to child health of healthy school meal provision. [128240]

  Mr. Miliband
  Regulations introduced in April 2001, set minimum nutritional standards for school lunches in maintained schools in England. The standards are based on the four main food groups pictorially represented in the Government's 'Balance of Good Health' diagram, which suggests the types and proportions of foods that make up a balanced diet. Food from the four groups: fruit and vegetables; meat, fish and non-dairy sources of proteins; starchy food; and milk and dairy, are required to be available in schools at lunchtime and allow pupils to choose healthy and enjoyable school lunches. It is the responsibility of local education authorities or, where a budgetary element for school meals is delegated to them, a school's governing body to ensure that the standards are met. School governing bodies and LEAs (as the employer) have a general responsibility for protecting the health and safety of staff and pupils. This responsibility would extend to the quality of school meals.

  The Department for Education and Skills has not undertaken any specific assessment of the potential savings in child health in relation to healthy school meal provision.

  Teenage Pregnancies
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teenage pregnancies there were in(a) West Sussex and (b) England in (i) 2001–01, (ii) 2001–02 and (iii) 2002–03. [127547]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.
  111W
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Tim Lough ton, dated 8 September 2003:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking how many teenage pregnancies there were in (a) West Sussex and (b) England in (i) 2000–01, (ii) 2001–02 and (iii) 2002–03.
  The numbers of teenage pregnancies in England and Wales are compiled routinely by calendar years. The latest year for which figures are available is 2001. For this purpose, a teenage pregnancy is defined as a conception to a girl aged under 18. This includes pregnancies resulting in live births, still births and abortions, but not miscarriages prior to 24 weeks gestation.
  The information available is shown in the table below.

  Conceptions to girls aged under 18 in West Sussex and England, 2000–01

  2000

  20011

  West Sussex

  411

  407

  England

  8,700

  8,439

  1 Figures for 2001 are provisional

  Youth Clubs
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what funding is afforded to increasing youth club facilities and other projects aimed at getting children off the streets; and if he will make a statement on his policy on providing places for younger teenagers to go to socialise in the evenings. [1280971

  Alan Johnson
  Local authority youth services receive funding through the Education Formula Spending (EFS). This fund has a value of £513 million in 2003–04 and is an increase of 5.9 per cent. over 2002–03 budgets. In addition to EFS funds, the Government has made £10 million available to local authority youth services in each of the three years 2003–06 through the Transforming Youth Work Development Fund (TYWDF). With this resource, we want to see Local Authorities making good quality youth work provision available to all young people in the 13–19 age range. Many schools and Local Education Authorities (LEAs) offer learning activities after school as part of their study support provision. Funding for study support of £75 million is available this year through Standards Fund grant 206. National Voluntary Youth Organisations (NVYOs) receive ['finding to promote personal and social education. The NVYO Grant Scheme is a three year cycle of funding. There are 88 NVYOs running 98 projects which receive grants in the current cycle (2002–05) within a total budget of £18 million (£6 million a year). The grants cover up to 50 per cent. of the cost of the projects.

  Positive Activities for Young People (PAYP) aims to provide developmental and diversionary activities for 8–19 year olds from 2003 to 2006. It is supported by Departments and Agencies across Government providing funding allocations into a single pot. The total funding available for 2003–04 is £25 million. Funding for years two and three will be confirmed within the next two months.

  "Teacher Employment"
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will publish the results of his Department's surveys of local education authorities entitled "Teacher Employment", conducted in May. [119909]

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on recent redundancies of teachers in north-east Lincolnshire; and how many of these redundancies were attributed to insufficient school funds. [120061]

  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what his latest estimate is of the number of teacher redundancy notices that have been issued in 2003, broken down by local education authority; and if he will make a statement. [123042]s

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what his latest estimate is of the number of teacher redundancy notices that have been issued in(a) Chesham and Amersham and (b) Buckinghamshire in 2003. [123913]

  Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what redundancies of(a) teaching and (b) non-teaching staff have resulted from the funding of schools in this financial year. [125151]

  Mr. Miliband
  Provisional statistics on teacher and support staff numbers and teacher vacancies at January 2003 were published in April in "Statistical First Release 10/2003". Statistics due to be released on 9 September will provide regional and LEA level breakdowns of these figures; provisional national figures for January 2004 are due to be published next April. In May this year, in response to concerns about the difficulties some schools are facing as a result of changes to the funding arrangements, my Department liaised with local education authorities (LEAs) to make a broad assessment of the extent to which schools were making changes in their teaching staff complements. This included whether teachers were being made compulsorily redundant, and the possible reasons for changes in staffing, including falling rolls. LEAs' assessments were based on the best information available to them at that time; many told us that definitive information was not available and that the situation was changing rapidly as schools finalised their budgets and their staffing. In addition they advised that a significant number of the redundancy notices were "protective" and were likely to be withdrawn as the situation within schools and the LEA became clearer. My Department will continue to work closely with our national partners, including representatives of teachers, and have regular contact with LEAs.

  Administration and Buildings Funding
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how much funding has been allocated for(a) administration and (b) buildings for (i) University for Industry, (ii) the learning and skills councils and (iii) the Connexions service, broken down by (A) centrally and (B) locally allocated funds; [127880]
  113W
  (2) how much has been spent on (a) marketing and (b) advertising for (i) University for Industry, (ii) the learning and skills councils and (iii) the Connexions service, broken down by (A) centrally and (B) locally spent funds; [127881]

  (3) how much funding has been allocated for spending on consultants for (a) University for Industry, (b) the learning and skills councils and (c) the Connexions service, broken down by centrally and locally allocated funds. [127882]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  My Department makes available an annual grant which funds UFI's infrastructure and operating costs such as product development. In 2003–04 UFI has set aside £23.636 million to cover administration costs and £1.818 million to cover buildings costs. UFI does not allocate separate local funds for either administration or buildings.

  In 2002–03 UFI central expenditure on marketing and advertising was:
  (a) £10.126 million for marketing
  (b) £8.652 million for advertising.
  Much of the marketing developed centrally is also used locally by learndirect centres and hubs. Marketing and advertising at local level does however remain the responsibility of learndirect hubs and centres, many of which are private organisations who set their budgets accordingly. No central information is held on this local expenditure.

  In 2003–04 UFI have allocated £1.867 million for spend on consultants centrally. UFI uses consultants to support the development of the national learndirect network and does not allocate consultancy budgets at local level.

  The Learning and Skills Council (LSC)'s administration budget for 2003–04 is £218 million. This includes provision for expenditure on buildings. No specific amount for such provision is, however, earmarked. How the LSC allocates the £218 million funding for use centrally and locally, the amounts spent on marketing and advertising, and funding allocated for spending on consultants are matters for the Learning and Skills Council. I have therefore asked John Harwood, the Council's Chief Executive, to write to the hon. Gentleman with this information and to place a copy of his reply in the Library.

  For 2003–04 my Department has allocated £6.098 million for the salaries and associated administrative costs of staff comprising the Connexions Service National Unit. In addition, £2.625 million has been allocated to the Government Offices for the salary and associated administration costs of their staff managing Connexions.

  It is not possible to disaggregate the building costs associated with Connexions Service National Unit staff from the costs of other departmental staff using the same head office building, nor those costs associated with Government Office staff working on Connexions from those associated with other Government Office staff.
  114W
  When allocating funding locally to Connexions Partnerships no part is ring fenced specifically to meet administration and buildings costs. Partnerships have flexibility to use their funding in a way which best meets local needs.

  In 2002–03 central expenditure on marketing and advertising was:
  (a) £1.815 million for marketing
  (b) £1.451 million for advertising
  Locally, Connexions Partnerships are able to use their funding flexibility to address their own particular circumstances. Data is collected centrally on the broad areas of Partnerships' expenditure but not at a level detailed enough to enable identification of how much has been spent on marketing and advertising.

  No funding is allocated specifically for spending on consultants either nationally or regionally. However budget holders may decide to engage consultants where it is judged to be the most cost-effective method of achieving objectives When allocating funding locally to Connexions Partnerships no part is ring fenced for consultants. Partnerships have flexibility to use their funding in a way which best meets local needs.

  Adult Learning Grants
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the operation of the adult learning grant pilots. [127964]

  Alan Johnson
  Announced as part of the Government's Skills Strategy (CM 5810), the new Adult Learning Grant will offer an allowance of up to £30 per week to adults on low incomes studying full-time for a first full level 2 qualification (equivalent to 5 GCSEs or a National Vocational Qualification at level 2) and young adults on low incomes studying full-time for a first full level 3 qualification (equivalent to two A levels or a National Vocational Qualification at level 3). Piloting of the grant starts this month in further education providers in the following local Learning and Skills Council areas:

  Bedfordshire and Luton

  County Durham

  Devon and Cornwall

  Humberside

  Lancashire

  Leicestershire

  London West

  Shropshire

  South Yorkshire

  The Black Country.

  We will evaluate the impact of the pilot programme to establish, in the light of the conclusions of the next spending review, the best operational design with the intention of implementing a national roll out of adult learning grants.

  Baccalaureate
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of
  115W
  the average extra cost faced by a school intending to offer the International Baccalaureate examination system. [127884]

  Alan Johnson
  The International Baccalaureate is already approved under section 96 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000 and schools are free to offer the qualification if they wish. We have made no estimate of the additional costs to a school offering this qualification. The funding arrangements for post-16 learning, including school sixth forms, are the operational responsibility of the Learning and Skills Council. I have asked John Harwood, the Council's Chief Executive, to write to the hon. Member about the funding they provide to institutions that offer the International Baccalaureate and a copy of his letter will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many schools in England offer the International Baccalaureate to the students; [127886]

  (2) how many pupils took the International Baccalaureate in England in each year since 1997. [127887]

  Alan Johnson
  The information on International Baccalaureates in England is as follows:

  Number of institutions

  Academic year

  Schools

  FE Colleges

  Number of pupils

  1996/97

  12

  7

  504

  1997/98

  16

  7

  521

  1998/99

  16

  7

  618

  1999/2000

  15

  6

  553

  2000/01

  15

  6

  655

  2001/02

  21

  6

  854

  Broadband Access (Schools)
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures will be taken to provide broadband access to schools in areas where there is no broadband provision. [127090]

  Mr. Miliband
  Broadband is currently being rolled out through 10 Regional Broadband Consortia (RBCs). Each RBC is developing appropriate connectivity solutions for their area to ensure the Prime Minister's target of having all schools connected to broadband by 2006 is achieved.

  Where cabling infrastructure is not available, RBCs are successfully deploying a range of other technologies to ensure schools have access to reliable, high bandwidth connectivity. In a number of rural areas for example, wireless technologies such as Satellite and radio are being used effectively to connect schools.

  The DfES is also supporting the Government's Broadband Aggregation Project announced in July. From next April, nine Regional Aggregation Bodies will aggregate demand and procure broadband across the public sector. This will ensure best value and stimulate supply in areas where very little broadband is currently available.

  Capital Spending (Leicestershire)
  Mr. Dorrell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list capital spending on Leicestershire schools in each year since 1997–98. [127267]

  Mr. Miliband
  We do not collect detailed information on capital spend on school buildings. The table as follows sets out the capital allocations made by this government to Leicestershire Local Education Authority (LEA) and its schools since 1997–98. The LEA determines investment of these funds by prioritising the capital requirements of its schools through the asset management planning process. The authority may have augmented the government's funding from other sources.

  Leicestershire LEA capital allocations

  £000

  1997–98

  2,920

  1998–99

  5,505

  1999–2000

  8,332

  2000–01

  18,942

  2001–02

  12,843

  2002–03

  20,731

  2003–04

  27,582

  Children at Risk
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when the Green Paper on Children at Risk will be published. [127893]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Green Paper "Every Child Matters" is being published today.

  Children's Day Care Facilities
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many places have been provided in school holiday schemes in each of the past five years; [127899]

  (2) how many places in after-school clubs have been provided in each of the past five years; [127900]

  (3) how many day nurseries have operated in each of the past five years; [127905]

  (4) how many places there were in day nurseries in each of the past five years; [127906]

  (5) how many registered childminders there were on 1 January in each of the past five years; [127907]

  (6) how many playgroups were operating in each of the past five years; and how many places were provided in playgroups in each year. [127918]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is shown in the tables.

  Numbers of day care providers1 by type of provider, England, 1999–2003

  Position at 31 March each year

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Day nurseries2

  7,000

  7,500

  7,800

  n/a

  n/a

  Full day care3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  9,600

  Playgroups and pre-schools2

  15,000

  14,300

  14,000

  n/a

  n/a

  Sessional day care3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  11,600

  Childminders

  82,200

  75,600

  72,300

  n/a

  68,200

  117W

  Numbers of day care providers1 by type of provider, England, 1999–2003

  Position at 31 March each year

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Out-of-school clubs2

  3,800

  4,400

  4,900

  n/a

  n/a

  Holiday schemes2

  10,200

  411,700

  12,900

  n/a

  n/a

  Out-of-school day care3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  8,000

  Creche day care3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1,900

  n/a = not available.

  1 Figures have been rounded.

  2 Data Source: Children's Day Care Facilities.

  3 Data Source: Ofsted.

  4 Includes those schemes exempt from registration.

  Numbers of day care places1 by type of provider, England, 1999–2003

  Position at 31 March each year

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Day nurseries2

  247,700

  264,200

  285.100

  n/a

  n/a

  Full day care3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  383,200

  Playgroups and pre-schools2

  347,200

  353,100

  330,200

  n/a

  n/a

  Sessional day care3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  285,600

  Childminders

  336,600

  320,400

  304,600

  n/a

  300,600

  Out-of-school clubs2

  113,800

  141,100

  152,800

  n/a

  n/a

  Holiday schemes2

  435,300

  4490,400

  550,400

  n/a

  n/a

  Out-of-school day care3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  301,600

  Creche day care3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  43,900

  n/a = not available.

  1 Figures have been rounded.

  2 Data Source: Children's Day Care Facilities.

  3 Data Source: Ofsted.

  4 Includes those schemes exempt from registration.

  Local authorities were responsible for the registration and inspection of children's day care facilities until these responsibilities were transferred to Ofsted in September 2001. The figures on children's day care facilities up to and including 2001 were derived from local authority estimates returned to DfES by local authority social service departments.

  The period from September 2001 to March 2003 was designated as a transitional period where Ofsted, as a by-product of its inspections, validated the actual number of individuals and organisations that were providing child care. At the end of the transitional period, Ofsted conducted appropriate quality checks on its administrative database and released the number of provider and places in June, with further publications planned on a quarterly basis. The number of child care providers and places are not directly comparable with the previous data made available by the DfES because they were collected differently.

  With the introduction of the National Day Care Standards the day care facilities classification has been updated. Day nurseries, playgroups and pre-schools and childminders have been equivalently reclassified to full day care, sessional day care and childminders respectively.

  Day care figures for 2001 and earlier years for England and Government Office regions were published in DfES Statistical Bulletin 08/01, "Children's Day Care Facilities at 31 March 2001", which is available in the Library and on the DfES website: www.dfes.gov.uk/statistics Figures for 2001 for out-of-school clubs and holiday schemes have recently been revised. Latest child care statistics were published in a report by Ofsted,
  118W
  "Registered Childcare Providers and Places in England, 31 March 2003", which is available on the Ofsted website: www.ofsted.gov.uk/publications

  City Academies
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skill:; how many city academies had been set up by 1 July, and how many he anticipates being set up by September 2005. [127885]

  Mr. Miliband
  Three Academies opened in September 2002 and there are a further nine opening in September 2003. We anticipate that by September 2005 there will be 27 open Academies.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many pupils he expects to have been enrolled at city academies by the end of the academic year 2003–04. [127888]

  Mr. Miliband
  By the end of the 2003–04 academic year there will be 12 Academies open. These will cater for an estimated total of 10,710 pupils. This figure breaks down to 9,773 pupils who are under 16 and 937 pupils over 16. These figures include The City of London Academy which, being a totally new school, will have an initial entry of only 180 pupils.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average cost of setting up a city academy is to(a) public sector and (b) private sector investors. [127883]

  Mr. Miliband
  Of the 12 Academies currently open or opening this September the mean average expenditure across the projects is £23.10 million; £21.31 million from the public sector and £1.79 million from private sector investors.

  Recurrent costs cover establishing the initial feasibility of a project and, once a Funding Agreement has been signed, the implementation of proposals to open an Academy During the feasibility phase, grant of up to £250,000 is available; during the implementation phase, grant of up to £650,000 is available. These costs are met by the public sector.

  Classroom Assistants
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the impact of the new Formula Spending Share system on classroom assistant numbers in the South East; and if he will make a statement. [127285]

  Mr. Miliband
  In January 2003 there were more than 225,000 full-time equivalent support staff in schools in England including 122,000 teaching assistants, compared to 217,000 (including 106,000 teaching assistants) in January 2002. Statistics due to be released on 9 September will provide regional and LEA level breakdowns of these figures. It is for individual schools to decide on staffing levels in the light of their needs and priorities and the overall resources available to them. It is estimated that funding being made available to schools should enable them to recruit at least 50,000 additional full-time equivalent support staff over the lifetime of the current Parliament.

  Classroom Teachers
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of(a) how many and (b) what percentage of teachers on the General Teaching Council register are employed as classroom teachers. [127755]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Secretary of State has made no such estimate. The management of the register is a matter for the General Teaching Council and I have asked the council's registrar to write to the hon. Gentleman with information about teacher entries. A copy of his response will be placed in the Library.

  Connexions
  Valerie Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the purpose of Connexions, with particular reference to the range of options for post 16. [127112]

  Margaret Hodge
  Connexions is the Government's front line support service in England for all 13–19 year olds and those up to 25 who have learning difficulties and disabilities. It is a universal service that is differentiated according to the needs of young people. Its key purpose is to encourage more young people to continue and succeed in learning.

  Connexions provides a range of advice and support to help young people make the transition from compulsory education to post 16 learning, Higher Education and employment. Depending on the individual young person's needs this could include impartial careers guidance, information and advice on health, lifestyle, housing, financial support and other personal issues and access to personal development opportunities.

  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidance he provides to the Connexions service on the provision of advice to young lesbians and gay men facing homophobic abuse. [127871]

  Margaret Hodge
  We intend to issue guidance to Connexions personal advisers (PAs) on how to engage effectively with young lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) people in the autumn.

  The guidance will aim to raise awareness among Connexions PAs of the issues facing young LGB people. It will cover issues such as confidentiality, child protection, supporting a young person 'coming out', referring a young person to specialist agencies, multiple disadvantage and individual and organisational strategies to combat homophobia.

  Creative Education
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of creative education partnerships. [124253]

  Estelle Morris
  I have been asked to reply.

  In its first year of operation, our Creative Partnerships programme has involved 412 schools, 70,835 pupils and over 2,600 teachers, through nearly 900 projects. Arts Council England is currently
  120W
  conducting a national review of the first year of Creative Partnerships and this will inform the expansion of the programme from 2004. In addition, the National Foundation for Education Research is conducting a major evaluation of the impact of the programme and will report in spring 2005.

  Deficit Budgets
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools have set deficit budgets for the academic year 2003–04. [127879]

  Mr. Miliband
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Departmental Costs
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the cost was to his Department for(a) ministerial cars and drivers, (b) taxis, (c) train travel, (d) the use of helicopters, (e) airline tickets and (f) chartered aeroplanes in each year since 1997. [123083]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The cost within my Department for each of the travel categories since 1997 is as follows:

  (a) Ministerial cars—I refer the hon. Member to the answer provided by the Cabinet Office,

  (b) Taxis—this information is not held centrally and can be obtained only at a disproportionate cost,

  (c) Train travel—the information provided can only be given from August 1998, as no central data was held prior to this date.

  Year

  Cost on rail travel (£)

  1998–99

  3,055,026

  1999–2000

  5,882,502

  2000–01

  6,140,805

  2001–02

  8,071,544

  2002–03

  6,749,194

  The annual cost for each year includes NDPB spend as it has not been possible to identify DfES spend separately. The former Employment Service left the contract on 31 March 2002 and they accounted for approx 30 per cent. of the spend.

  (d) Helicopters—no costs incurred.

  (e) Airline—the information provided can be given only from August 1998, as no central data was held prior to this date:

  Year

  Cost on air travel (£)

  1998–99

  835,981

  1999–2000

  1,265,621

  2000–01

  2,013,043

  2001–02

  1,720,275

  2002–03

  1,056,124

  The annual cost for each year includes NDPB spend as it has not been possible to identify DIES spend separately. The former Employment Service left the

  121W
  contract on 31 March 2002 and they accounted for approx 30 per cent. of the spend.

  (f) Chartered planes—I refer the hon. Member to the answer provided by the Cabinet Office.

  Departmental staff have a responsibility to give due consideration to cost when planning any official travel and extensive guidance is provided on how to get the best out of official travel. All ministerial travel is undertaken in accordance with the rules set out in the Ministerial Code and Travel by Ministers, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Departmental Flexibility
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of his Department's end year flexibility for(a) 2003–04, (b) 2004–05 and (c) 2005–06. [127929]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Planned spending for the next three years, including the planned use of previously uncommitted End Year Flexibility, is set out in my Departmental Annual Report published on 14 May (Command Number 5902). In addition I have recently agreed that some programmes can carry forward resources into 2003–04 where expenditure is occurring later than originally planned. This includes over £100 million of programmes funded through the Learning and Skills Council and, as I set out to the House on 17 July 2003,Official Report, column 456, I am drawing on additional funding available from end year flexibility and other redirection of existing resources to finance the reversal of the previously announced reduction of standards fund support to schools in 2004–05 and 2005–06.

  The details of this commitment will be announced in due course.

  Departmental Framework Contracts
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his answers of 22 May 2003,Official Report, column 1001W, and 12 June 2003, Official Report, column 1023W, for each departmental framework contract, what the total expenditure is on paid publicity services, categorised according to media, including design and print, for each of the last five years for which he has figures available. [128158]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department's Marketing and Publicity Specialist Buying Unit initiate and manage 140 framework agreements with a range of suppliers covering several media areas. The following figures show expenditure by framework media area placed by Marketing and Publicity Division. (It should be noted that from 2002–03, an increasing proportion of such work is handled outside of Marketing and Publicity Division through a system of devolving non priority work to individual policy teams.)

  £ million

  Print

  Binders and Plastics

  Design

  Writers

  Video/Audio Visual

  2000–01

  10.5

  1.6

  3.3

  251,000

  1.1

  2001–02

  12.6

  2.7

  2.7

  389,000

  955,000

  2002–03

  5.7

  1

  1.3

  521.000

  864.000

  122W

  £ million

  Typesetting and Translation

  Photography

  Conferences

  Exhibitions

  PR

  2000–01

  225,000

  124,000

  5.8

  1.4

  318,000

  2001–02

  315,000

  103,000

  4.7

  926,000

  1.5

  2002–03

  63,000

  109.000

  1.6

  536,000

  2

  Note:

  The PR costs for 2000–2001 differ from previous PQ responses as the figures above do not include PR expenditure via CO1 but expenditure through framework agreements only.

  Early Years Education
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of three-year-olds have access to early years education in(a) Somerset, (b) Devon, (c) Wiltshire, (d) Cornwall, (e) Dorset, (f) North Somerset, (g) Bath and North East Somerset and (h) Bristol. [127772]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  The available information is shown in the table.

  Number of free early years education places1 taken up by three- year-olds, January 2002

  Local education authority area

  Number of free early years education places taken up by three-year-olds

  Somerset

  2,400

  Devon

  2,800

  Wiltshire

  2,000

  Cornwall

  3,400

  Dorset

  1,300

  North Somerset

  1,100

  Bath and North East Somerset

  730

  Bristol, City of

  3,800

  1 A free early education place is defined as a part-time place at a maintained nursery school or primary school or a part-time equivalent place, i.e. five sessions (half days) a week, at a provider other than a maintained nursery or primary school.

  We have made the commitment that by April 2004, six months ahead of our original target, all three-year-olds whose parents want one, will have access to a free, part-time early education place.

  The latest figures on early years provision in England were published by the Department in the Statistical First Release 15/2003, "Provision For Children Under Five Years Of Age In England—January 2003 (Provisional)", copies of which are available from the Library and the Department's website: www.dfes.gov.uk/statistics

  EU Committees
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list(a) the names, titles and grades of the officials who sit on the EU Socrates committee, (b) the number of times, and the dates, on which it has met since January 2002, (c) the agenda items it has considered since January 2002, (d) the decisions it has made since January 2002 and (e) the means used to communicate the decisions to the House. [110282]
  123W
  Alan Johnson
  Meetings of the Socrates committee are attended by delegates drawn from the 30 participating states of the 15 European Union countries, the European Economic Area countries of Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein, the 10 acceding countries, Romania and Bulgaria. Usually two officials of the Department for Education and Skills attend the committee.

  The Socrates committee met five times on 17–18 January 2002,14 June 2002,7–8 November 2002, 16–17 January 2003 and 12–13 June 2003. In addition, there was an informal meeting of the committee in May 2002 to discuss evaluation of the Socrates programme.

  The role of the Socrates committee is to oversee the powers delegated to the European Commission by the Council of Ministers to implement the Socrates programme. The committee's business is largely concerned with the technical details of the programme operation, such as project selection for programme support, publicity, information and budget allocation. In common with other Comitology committees its decisions are not routinely deposited for scrutiny under established scrutiny procedures, unless they are politically significant.

  Together with member states, the Commission has been conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of Comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission". The working group on the Friends of Comitology is meeting later this month to discuss proposals for interim reform.

  As an obligation to this decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of the committee. The second report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses oh 10 January 2003 ref 5060/03, COM(03)733.

  As part of the review process, the UK Government have encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every Comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

  Examination Awards
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what discussions his staff have had with the examination awarding bodies since December 2002; and if he will make a statement. [128099]

  Mr. Miliband
  Discussions between DfES officials and the examination awarding bodies are held in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the DfES and the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.

  DfES officials formally meet the chief executives from three unitary awarding bodies, AQA, Edexcel and OCR twice a year. Since December 2002, one meeting has taken place on 1 April and another is scheduled for November. The majority of DfES's contacts with the awarding bodies occur at meetings organised by the QCA.

  Family Centre Places
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many family centre places have been provided by local authorities. [127889]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  This information is not available in the form requested. However, in 2001–02, (the latest date for which data are available), gross expenditure by councils in England on family centres was £139.4 million.

  Formula Spending Share
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the transfers into and out of formula spending share for 2004–05, and grants which are due to cease at the end of 2003–04; and whether his Department plans consequently to adjust the baseline calculation for floors and ceilings. [127164]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Secretary of State's statement of 17 July on school funding indicated that the standards fund would be maintained at its 2003–04 levels.

  Details of any transfers into or out of formula spending will be announced later in the year, as will details on the baseline for floors and ceilings. However, we will ensure that every school and LEA has a reasonable year-on-year increase in its overall per pupil funding.

  Free School Milk
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures he is taking to encourage local authorities to introduce free school milk for children aged seven years. [128236]

  Mr. Miliband
  This Department supports the provision of free and paid for milk in maintained schools and encourages schools and local education authorities to offer it to pupils. Guidance produced to assist schools to implement regulations, which set nutritional standards for school lunches includes a strong recommendation from the Secretary of State that drinking milk is available to all pupils as an option every day. Following a 20 per cent. reduction in the EU subsidy on school milk from January 2001, this Department agreed jointly with the Department of Health and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to top up the annual £1.5 million shortfall. This assistance helps prevent possible increased costs of providing school milk.

  Free School Transport
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the maximum age is at which local education authorities must provide free transport to pupils who attend their nearest school if the distance between home and school is beyond the statutory walking distance. [127094]

  Mr. Miliband
  Statutory home to school transport provisions apply to pupils of compulsory school age. A pupil usually ceases to be of compulsory school age on the last Friday in June in the school year in which he or she reaches 16.

  Further Education Colleges (Finance)
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the total cost was of bids submitted by further education colleges for growth in 2003–04 in respect of(a) 16–19 and (b) adult provision; what proportion of the bids in each category have been met by the Learning and Skills Council; and if he will make a statement. [127959]

  Alan Johnson
  There has been very considerable growth in allocations to further education colleges. In the 2003–04 academic year, a total of £2,072 million was allocated for 16–18 year olds, £1,828 million for adult learning (including adult basic skills) and £321 million for Additional Learning Support. This represents increases of £284 million (16 per cent.), £181 million (11 per cent.), and £37 million (13 per cent.) respectively above the comparable allocations for 2002–03.

  Plans for growth are agreed between the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) and individual colleges as part of discussions on forward plans. Individual college proposals are supported by local LSCs where they fit with the Local Strategic Plan, which outlines the learning and skills needs in the local area. In 2003–04, all such proposals for growth in respect of participation by 16–18 year olds and basic skills provision for adults were met in full. In addition to the extra funding provided for Adult Learning, proposals totalling a further £30 million were unable to be met within available resources.

  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment has been made by his Department of the impact of the performance related funding system set out in Success for All on equality of opportunity for learners; and if he will make a statement. [127960]

  Alan Johnson
  The measures set out in Success for All will reward those colleges which meet their targets for student success and provide clear incentives for colleges to improve their performance in this respect. Floor targets have set clear expectations about minimum acceptable performance levels and these will drive up performance in colleges and providers whose learners currently have the lowest chance of securing the qualifications for which they are aiming. Through their agreed three year development plans, colleges and providers will set out their plans for improving student services and teaching standards. These approaches will benefit all learners, helping ensure more learners receive a high quality learning experience. In particular, they will benefit learners enrolled with colleges and providers whose performance is least good and this will enhance equality of opportunity for learners.

  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much of the funding totals shown for further education in the Departmental Annual Report 2003 is assumed to be for(a) participation, (b) investment, (c) local intervention and development funding and (d) other funding for the years (i) 2003–04, (ii) 2004–05 and (iii) 2005–06; and if he will make a statement. [127993]

  Alan Johnson
  The information requested is set out in the table.
  126W

  £ million

  2003–04

  2004–05

  2005–06

  Participation

  4,278

  4,625

  4,988

  Investment

  266

  316

  343

  Local intervention and development funding

  132

  177

  191

  Other

  56

  56

  56

  Total

  4,732

  5,173

  5,579

  These figures are rounded to the nearest £ million and are consistent with those published in the Departmental Annual Report 2003. We plan a 19 per cent. real terms increase in total funding in 2005–06 compared to 2002–03, which demonstrates this Government's commitment to further education.

  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what level of funding has been allowed in his Department's expenditure plans to compensate further education colleges for the transfer of responsibility for increases in the employer contributions to the teachers pension scheme in(a) 2003–04, (b) 2004–05 and (c) 2005–06; and if he will make a statement. [127994]

  Alan Johnson
  The Department has made available funding of £80 million in 2003–04 to compensate publicly funded further education colleges for changes to the Teachers' Pension Scheme. In 2004–05 the funds available will rise to £84 million and in 2005–06 to £87 million.

  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the estimated cost is to further education colleges of the increases in employer national insurance contributions introduced in April 2003 for(a) 2003–04, (b) 2004–05 and (c) 2005–06; and if he will make a statement. [127995]

  Alan Johnson
  The additional cost in employers' national insurance contributions in 2003–04 for all further education institutions in England is estimated to be £25 million. Further education institutions receive funding for staff costs from a variety of sources, both public and private, so the element of the increase to be covered from public sources will be only a proportion of this. In 2003–04 assumed total funding for further education allocated to the Learning and Skills Council will increase by 6 per cent. in real terms compared with 2002–03. This places further education colleges in a good position to meet cost increases and invest in improving services for learners and employers.

  The likely cost of the increase in national insurance contributions in future years depends on a number of variables including the number of staff employed and the level of their pay. These are matters for colleges to determine within the resources that are available to them. Given this, the Department does not provide estimates of such costs for future years.

  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the level is of projected enrolments in terms of full time equivalents based on the funding assumed for participation in further education in the Departmental Report 2003 for(a) 16 to 19-year-olds and (b) adults in (i) 2002–03, (ii) 2003–04, (iii) 2004–05 and (iv) 2005–06; and if he will make a statement. [127996]
  127W
  Alan Johnson
  Funding for participation in further education, as set out in the Departmental Report 2003, is based on the following assumptions of funded enrolments in terms of full-time equivalents (FTEs):

  Assumed FTEs 2002–03 to 2005–06

  Thousand

  2002–03

  2003–04

  2004–05

  2005–06

  16–18 year olds

  509

  534

  566

  596

  19+year olds

  571

  582

  594

  604

  These are assumptions, not targets, that are subject to revision. The key assumption is that a rising proportion of the cohort of 16–18 year olds, which is itself increasing in size because of demographic changes, will

  £

  2002–03

  2003–04

  2004–05

  2005–06

  Cash terms

  Including money for teachers' pension scheme

  4,020

  4,310

  4,530

  4,720

  Excluding money for teachers' pension scheme

  4,020

  4,240

  4,460

  4,650

  Real terms (2002–03 prices)

  Including money for teachers' pension scheme

  4,020

  4,200

  4,300

  4,370

  Excluding money for teachers' pension scheme

  4,020

  4,130

  4,230

  4,310

  Source:

  DfES estimates and projections.

  The figures shown above for 2003–04 to 2005–06 are consistent with the Spending Review 2002 settlement for Further Education announced in November 2002 which was the most substantial increase in FE funding since college incorporation in 1993. They will deliver higher standards and reform of the local pattern of provision and therefore better meet the needs of learners and employers.

  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much was allocated for(a) the Teaching Pay Initiative for further education colleges and (b) the staff development component of the Standards Fund for colleges in 2002–03; how much colleges will receive in 2003–04 from the 2 per cent. enhancement of funding rates allocated for the transfer under Success for All; and if he will make a statement. [128029]

  Alan Johnson
  In 2002–03 Further Education colleges were allocated £142 million pounds for the Teaching Pay Initiative, and £53 million for the staff development component of the Standards Fund. These funds were consolidated into participation funding for the academic year 2003–04 and the funding rate was increased by 3.5 per cent. to reflect this. Colleges will receive £138 million from the 3.5% increase. A further £50 million will be allocated to some colleges to meet the costs of implementing increased funding for colleges with high area costs and disadvantage factors, and to fund additional participation through pilots such as those in adult skills and partnerships for progression in 2003–4.

  As well as consolidation of these funds, further education colleges will also receive an increase of £63 million or 2 per cent. in their core unit of funding per
  128W
  choose to enrol in FE sector colleges.

  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the planned total funding is per full-time equivalent student in further education for adults in(a) 2002–03, (b) 2003–04, (c) 2004–05 and (d) 2005–06 in (i) cash terms and (ii) real terms at April 2003 prices, on the basis of GDP deflator projections (a) with and (b) without the additional funding made available to compensate colleges for increases in employer contributions to the teachers pension scheme: and if he will make a statement. [128028]

  Alan Johnson
  Unit of funding figures are not available separately for adults.

  The total unit of funding in further education in cash and real terms in 2002–03 prices are set out as follows:

  full time equivalent learner in return for agreeing a three year development plan. The real terms increase in the participation unit of funding, together with the consolidation of previously targeted funds and three year funding agreement, are what colleges were calling for. They give colleges more control over the funds allocated to them and a longer term planning horizon.

  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what average increase expressed in real terms he estimates further education colleges will receive in 2003–04 for(a) growth in participation and (b) other funding increases (i) in total funding and (ii) after discounting actual Teacher Pay Initiative and staff development allocations for 2002–03, the additional costs of employers contributions to the Teachers Pension Scheme from April 2003 and the additional costs arising from the increase in employers national insurance contributions from April 2003; and if he will make a statement. [128030]

  Alan Johnson
  The real terms increase in assumed total funding for further education allocated to the Learning and Skills Council for 2003–04 is 6 per cent. compared with 2002–03. This increase excludes the additional funding of £80 million made available to compensate colleges for an increase in the employer contribution rate arising from technical changes to the Teachers' Pension Scheme. It includes funding for additional student numbers.

  We estimate that funding available for participation will increase by around 7 per cent. in real terms. This includes funding for additional student numbers. We estimate that funding available for non-participation budgets for purposes such as investment to raise standards and improve the capital infrastructure will

  129W
  increase by 3 per cent. in real terms. These figures exclude the impact of the transfer in 2003–04 of funding in respect of the Teaching Pay Initiative and staff development from the non-participation baseline into the participation baseline.

  We estimate that the costs of the increase in employers' national insurance contributions and of the additional increase in employers' contributions to the Teachers Pension Scheme as a result of the latest actuarial revaluation, represents around 0.7 per cent. of the value of total funding, or around 0.8 per cent. of the value of funding for participation.

  The real terms increases in funding for colleges in 2003–04 place them in a good position to meet cost increases and invest in improving services for learners and employers.

  Gifted Children
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what provisions are made to cater for particularly gifted children from state schools; and if he will make a statement on his policy on gifted children being able to fulfil their potential. [127956]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Government are making support for gifted and talented pupils integral to its core strategies to improve teaching and learning. Its gifted and talented education programme in England includes: a dedicated strand of Excellence in Cities, supporting intensive provision in disadvantaged areas; a range of national activity, featuring the Academy for Gifted Youth; and a new dimension provided through the Gifted and Talented Arm of London Challenge. The Government believes that all children, including the most able, deserve an education that meets their needs and provides them with the challenge to fulfil their potential.

  Jean Monnet Chairs
  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many Jean Monnet chairs are based in UK universities; what the value of the grant funding of these posts is; what the salaries of(a) these chairs and (b) professorships nationally agreed rates are; and how many Jean Monnet chairs there are per capita in each EU member state. [127760]

  Mr. Miliband
  Between 1990 and 2002, 107 Jean Monnet Chairs in UK universities were approved. Chairs are co-financed, with the European Commission providing up to 80 per cent. of the eligible costs and remaining costs paid for by the host universities. Up to 1999, the maximum level of European Commission financing for a Jean Monnet Chair was euro 60,000 for a 3-year period. Between 2000–02 it was euro 30,000.

  Salaries of Jean Monnet Chairs vary between universities. As of 1 August 2002, the Professorial minimum in pre-1992 higher education institutions is £.40.841. For institutions which gained university status in 1992, there is no set minimum or maximum salary level.
  130W
  The following table shows the number of Jean Monnet Chairs in each EU member state between 1990 and 2002 together with the chairs per capita, based on population figures for 2002.

  Countries

  Jean Monnet chairs

  Chairs per capita

  Austria

  10

  0.0000005

  Belgium

  11

  0.000001

  Denmark

  15

  0.0000027

  Finland

  7

  0.0000013

  France

  68

  0.0000011

  Germany

  60

  0.0000007

  Greece

  28

  0.0000026

  Ireland

  19

  0.0000048

  Italy

  50

  0.0000008

  Netherlands

  25

  0.0000015

  Portugal

  16

  0.0000015

  Spain

  70

  0.0000017

  Sweden

  8

  0.0000009

  United Kingdom

  107

  0.0000017

  Total

  494

  —

  Mathematics Teaching
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to improve the teaching of mathematics. [127781]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We have achieved the best ever primary school test results in mathematics. In the 2003 Key Stage 2 tests 73 per cent. of 11 year olds achieved the expected level in mathematics, a 14 percentage point increase since 1998. The National Primary Strategy will continue to help teachers improve the learning and teaching of mathematics, focusing on aspects that pupils find most difficult.

  The KS3 results are also at their best ever this year, with mathematics up from 2002 by three percentage points, with 70 per cent. achieving the expected level. Through the continuing success of the Key Stage 3 National Strategy, where improving the teaching of mathematics remains a key priority, we expect standards to continue to rise.

  The independent Post-14 Maths Inquiry is due to publish its final report at the end of September and is expected to make recommendations on the pedagogy, curriculum and qualifications for those aged 14 and over and to propose options for a new National Centre of Excellence for Mathematics Teaching.

  National Foundation for Educational Research
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much funding the Department provided to the National Foundation for Educational Research in each year since 1990; and if he will place in the Library a copy of the Foundation's document, Sounds before letters: final evaluation of POPAT. [127199]

  Alan Johnson
  Information on funding provided to the national Foundation for Educational Research is only available from 1995. The cost of providing information prior to this date would be disproportionate. The funding provided by the Department each year from April 1995 is as follows.
  131W

  £

  Funding provided by the Department

  1995

  312,808

  1996

  307,100

  1997

  200,984

  1998

  311,924

  1999

  759,209

  2000

  304,547

  2001

  319,090

  2002

  104,943

  The Department did not commission the National Foundation for Educational Research to evaluate POPAT.

  National Literacy Strategy
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the effect of the National Literacy Strategy on literacy skills among primary school pupils in Taunton. [127773]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The National Literacy Strategy has transformed standards of literacy in our primary schools. Nationally, 75 per cent. of pupils achieved level 4 or above in the 2003 Key Stage 2 English tests, 10 percentage points more than in 1998. A recent international study showed that England's 10-year-olds are now the third most able readers in the world.

  In Somerset schools, the percentage of pupils achieving level 4 in the Key Stage 2 English tests has improved by seven percentage points, from 67 per cent. to 74 per cent., between 1998 and 2003. We are unable to disaggregate the results for Taunton schools.

  National Primary Strategy
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what representations he has received in relation to the National Primary Strategy. [127921]

  Mr. Miliband
  Following the publication of "Excellence and Enjoyment—A strategy for primary schools" in May 2003, we have received a number of responses from individuals and organisations. In addition, we have invited 6,000 primary headteachers to attend a series of conferences, where they will have the opportunity to comment on the strategy.

  Ormond Road Workshops
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what applications have been made to the Learning and Skills Council for funding of the Ormond Road Workshops in Islington; on what dates applications were received; and what the decision was in each case. [127397]

  Mr. Miliband
  This is a matter for the Learning and Skills Council. John Harwood, the Council's Chief Executive, will write to my hon. Friend with the information requested and place a copy of his reply in the Library.

  Public Relations Consultants
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his answer of 12 June,132W
  Official Report, column 1026W, what his Department's budget for public relations consultants in the financial years 2003–04 and 2004–05 is. [128237]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The Department's anticipated expenditure on public relations consultants in 2003–04 is £1,573,000. Plans and budgets for the Department's communications activity, including use of public relation consultants, for 2004–05 have not yet been developed and so it is not possible to give the information requested.

  Pupil Funding
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if the guaranteed minimum per pupil increase in 2004–05 and 2005–06 will(a) take account of standards fund payments to schools and (b) apply only to the age-weighted per pupil funding. [127972]

  Alan Johnson
  The Secretary of State's statement of 17 July on school funding said that the Standards Fund would be maintained and inflation-proofed at 2003–04 levels. The level of Standards Fund allocations will therefore be guaranteed separately. The guaranteed minimum per pupil increase will refer to school budget shares, excluding the part funded through the Learning and Skills Council, for which separate arrangements will be in place as outlined in the statement. The Department is working with local education authorities on the methodology for the guarantee, and aim to issue draft regulations and guidance during the autumn.

  Qualifications and Curriculum Authority
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) when he expects the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority to meet its obligations under section 95 of the December 2002 Tomlinson Report to publish a Memorandum of Understanding between the QCA and the awarding bodies before the first anniversary of the publication of that report; [128098]

  (2) what discussions took place between the Department and the awarding bodies as stipulated in section 95 of the December 2002 Tomlinson Report relating to the Memorandum of Understanding published on 19 June; [128100]

  (3) what plans he has to call together the relevant staff of his Department, of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority and of the awarding bodies to discuss jointly the Memorandum of Understanding (a) drawn up between his Department and the QCA, and (b) drawn up between the QCA and the awarding bodies; [128101]

  (4) when he expects to meet his obligation under section 95 of the December 2002 Tomlinson Report to publish a Memorandum of Understanding between the DfES and the awarding bodies before the first anniversary of the publication of that report. [128102]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the Department and the
  133W
  Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) was published on QCA's website on 19 June. I placed a copy in the Library on 18 June. The MoU refers at paragraph 11 to the basis on which the Department meets the awarding bodies.

  The relationship between QCA and the awarding bodies is covered by QCA's regulatory arrangements which include the accreditation criteria and Codes of Practice published jointly by the Qualifications, Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales, the Northern Ireland Council for the Curriculum Examinations and Assessment and QCA. There is no need for a separate memorandum of understanding between DfES and the awarding bodies. QCA will continue to monitor and review its regulatory arrangements and to meet regularly with the Joint Council for General Qualifications.

  Regular teachers with qualified teacher status in England

  Thousand

  Nursery and primary2

  Secondary3

  Special4

  Total (FTE)

  Full time

  Part time (FTE)

  Total (FTE)

  Full time

  Part time (FTE)

  Total (FTE)

  Full time

  Part time (FTE)

  Total (FTE)

  1992

  187.2

  173.9

  13.3

  192.1

  180.2

  11.9

  15.6

  14.7

  0.9

  394.9

  1993

  188.4

  175.1

  13.3

  192.3

  180.1

  12.2

  15.5

  14.6

  0.9

  396.2

  1994

  189.0

  175.4

  13.6

  186.4

  174.2

  12.2

  15.3

  14.3

  1.0

  390.7

  1995

  190.0

  175.8

  14.2

  188.3

  175.4

  12.9

  15.2

  14.1

  1.1

  393.5

  1996

  190.8

  176.3

  14.5

  187.9

  174.5

  13.4

  14.9

  13.8

  1.1

  393.6

  1997

  190.7

  175.9

  14.8

  187.7

  174.3

  13.4

  14.7

  13.5

  1.2

  393.1

  1998

  189.0

  174.0

  15.0

  187.7

  173.9

  13.8

  14.3

  13.1

  1.2

  391.0

  1999

  189.9

  174.0

  15.9

  189.8

  175.7

  14.1

  14.2

  12.9

  1.3

  393.9

  2000

  191.6

  174.9

  16.7

  191.1

  176.6

  14.5

  14.1

  12.8

  1.3

  396.8

  2001

  192.6

  174.7

  17.9

  193.8

  179.2

  14.6

  14.0

  12.7

  1.3

  400.4

  2002

  193.0

  173.9

  19.1

  196.6

  181.3

  15.3

  13.9

  12.4

  1.5

  403.5

  20031

  191.9

  171.6

  20.3

  198.0

  182.3

  15.7

  13.7

  12.2

  1.5

  403.6

  1 Data are provisional but are unlikely to change.

  2 Pupil numbers in nursery and primary schools decreased by 48,000 between 2002 and 2003.

  3 Includes sixth form colleges prior to 1994.

  4 There are fewer pupils in special schools as they have been moving into mainstream schools in the period covered in this table.

  Note:

  Teachers in service and teacher vacancies (618G) has a survey date of the third Thursday in January.

  Source for note:

  618g survey.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many people working as teachers in employment based training routes(a) commenced training and (b) gained qualified teacher status in each year from 1996–97 to 2002–03. [126938]

  1997/98

  1998/99

  1999/2000

  2000/01

  2001/02

  2002/03

  RTP new entrants1

  7

  77

  69

  96

  155

  214

  OTTP new entrants1

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  755

  910

  GTP new entrants1

  89

  572

  872

  1,860

  3,507

  3,813

  Total new entrants1

  96

  649

  941

  1,956

  4,417

  4,937

  Total QTS awards2,3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  691

  2,437

  3,842

  1 RTP and GTP trainees may begin their training at the start of the autumn, spring or summer terms. OTTP trainees may begin their training at any time.

  2 Total numbers of awards made to RTP, OTTP and GTP trainees during the academic year, irrespective of in which academic year the completers' training commenced. Planned length of training may alter during the programme if a candidate switches from full- to part-time employment or vice-versa, or if training progresses more quickly or slowly than originally planned.

  3 A further 14 employment-based trainees have been awarded QTS so far in the 2003/04 academic year.

  Source:

  Teacher Training Agency Employment-based Routes Data Management System

  Qualified Teachers
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teachers with qualified teacher status were working(a) full-time and (b) part-time in (i) secondary, (ii) primary and (iii) special schools in each year from 1992–93 to 2002–03. [126935]

  Mr. Miliband
  The number of regular teachers with qualified teacher status in England broken down by phase and split by full and part-time full time equivalents (FTE) is given in the following table. Other regular teachers, of which there were 15,200 in maintained schools in England in 20031, are teachers who hold recognised school-teaching qualifications from countries outside the European Economic Area; trainees on employment-based routes to QTS (the Graduate, Registered and Overseas-Trained Teacher Programmes); and instructors with special qualifications or experience of a particular subject.

  Mr. Miliband
  The table shows the available data for the Graduate and Registered Teacher Programmes and the Overseas-Trained Teacher Programme. No data relating to earlier employment-based training routes, such as the Licensed Teacher Scheme, are available in the form requested. No data on numbers of Qualified Teacher Status awards made to employment-based trainees is available for years before 2000/01.

  Regional Assemblies
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what responsibilities and functions would pass from his Department to an elected regional assembly on its establishment. [127753]

  Mr. Miliband
  The aim of elected assemblies is to ensure that regional functions are carried out effectively and better reflect the needs of the region. Assemblies will also play an important role in supporting delivery of the Department's skills agenda, including ensuring coherence between national, regional and local level. Central to this will be its role in appointing two members to each of the Boards of the local Learning and Skills Councils in its region. It will also be consulted on other appointments; and on the LSC's guidance and plans for learning and skills development.

  Regular Teacher (Definition)
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what his definition is of a regular teacher; and when that definition was made. [126937]

  Mr. Miliband
  Teachers employed on contracts of a month or more are defined as regular teachers. Teachers employed on contracts of less than a month are defined as occasional teachers. Information has been collected on this basis since the 1960s on the Annual Survey of Teachers in Service and Teacher Vacancies (Form 618G).

  The Department has used regular teachers as its standard definition for the number of teachers in the maintained sector for most purposes since 2000. This provides a stable measure of teacher numbers that is not affected by the relatively large year-on-year fluctuations in the demand for occasional teachers. The number of occasional teachers rose markedly between January 1999 and January 2001 and then fell in both 2002 and 2003. Both regular and occasional teacher numbers continue to be provided in official publications.

  Schools
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list local authorities in which spending on(a) special educational needs and (b) excluded pupils increased by a higher percentage than the individual schools budget in 2003–04, giving in each case the percentage increase for each budget head. [127928]

  Alan Johnson
  The Secretary of State published tables showing this information on the 2 May. A copy was placed in the Library of the House. Detailed expenditure data will be made available in September to allow benchmarking by LEAs and their Schools Forums, and this will show year-on-year changes for a range of selected expenditure categories from 2002–03 to 2003–04, for both Schools and LEA Budgets. These will include changes in spending on special educational needs and spending on pupils educated other than at school.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the circular documents that were sent by his Department to 136W
  (a) primary schools, (b) city technology colleges, (c) other secondary schools and (d) special schools between 1 September 2002 and 1 July 2003; and how many pages each document contained. [127903]

  Mr. Miliband
  We sent the following in the period 1 September 2002 to 1 July 2003:

  To all primary schools: 27 documents—total number of pages: 480

  To all city technology colleges: 30 documents—total number of pages: 850

  To all special schools: see the following:

  To all other secondary schools: 30 documents—total pages: 850

  Primary schools

  The 27 documents sent to all primary schools were as follows:

  Letter from Secretary of State on the Criminal Records Bureau

  Guidance on School Teachers Pay and Conditions 2002

  School Performance Tables

  September 2002 class size count

  Further literacy support file

  Building on improvements (literacy and numeracy)

  Secretary of State letter on KS2 results

  New school finance pack flyer

  Early Years headcount1

  New funding system for LEAs

  Criminal Records Bureau: update on arrangements

  National literacy and numeracy refresher pack

  Languages for all: languages for life

  Information on Sure Start

  Raising Standards and tackling Workload (National Agreement)

  Letter from officials about development of an 'e-batch' system

  Building schools for the future

  Write here, write now

  Annual Schools census 2002

  Threshold guidance details

  Excellence and enjoyment: a strategy for primary education

  Safeguarding children: practice guidance for practitioners (summary)

  Extended schools: providing opportunities and services for all

  Childcare in extended schools

  ICT in the literacy hour

  City Technology Colleges (CTCs)

  CTCs automatically received the same documents as those sent to 'other secondary schools'.

  They were not sent any separate documents.

  Special Schools

  We are unable to provide total figures for special schools. This is because each school will have received documents that were relevant to their KS equivalent intake. So those with young people aged 5–11 would have received some of the material aimed at KS1 and KS2 level. Those with young people aged 11–16 would have received some of the material aimed at KS3 and KS4 level. Those with pupils aged between 5 and 16 would have received some of the material aimed at stages KSI-KS4.
  137W
  Special schools automatically received a further document that went neither to primary schools nor to secondary schools. This was the report of the special schools working group which ran to 180 pages.

  No special school would have received documents in excess of the individual totals shown for other secondary schools or for primary schools.

  Other Secondary schools

  The 30 documents sent to other secondary schools were as follows:

  Letter from Secretary of State on the Criminal Records Bureau

  Key Stage 3 framework for ICT capability

  Schools and Colleges performance tables

  Secretary of State letter on KS3 results

  Revised guidance on dis-application of the national curriculum at KS4

  Target setting at Key stage 3

  Guidance on School Teachers Pay and Conditions 2002

  New school finance pack flyer

  KS3 year 9 booster: Maths

  KS3 year 9 booster: Science

  KS3 year 9 booster: English

  Annual Schools census 2002

  New funding system for LEAs

  Criminal Records Bureau: update on arrangements

  Languages for all: languages for life

  Letter from officials about development of an `e-batch' system

  Consultation on 14–19 arrangements: outcomes pack

  Raising Standards and tackling Workload (National Agreement)

  A new specialist system: transforming secondary education

  Building schools for the future

  Survey of absences in schools

  National non statutory specification for careers education and guidance

  Safeguarding children: practice guidance for practitioners (summary)

  12th youth cohort study

  Threshold guidance details

  Extended schools: providing opportunities and services for all

  Childcare in extended schools

  Governing body procedures from 1 September 2003

  Celebrating commonwealth day partners in development

  Child protection: post-Climbie report

  In addition we sent a copy of the monthly DIES bulletin (`Spectrum' which carries news and publications of interest) to all schools each month. These varied in length but in total 11 bulletins were sent with the total number of pages running to 120.
  1 The early years headcount material was sent once a term.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the potential financial liability of school governors where a school sets a deficit budget. [127752]
  138W
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Section 50(7) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 provides that the governors of a school do not incur any personal liability in managing a delegated budget, provided they act in good faith. It does not appear to the Government that ordinarily the decision of a governing body to set a deficit budget is an act of bad faith such that individual governors would lose the protection of corporate status, and potentially be personally liable. However, such issues clearly turn on their own particular circumstances; and relevant matters would include whether members had conscientiously considered the relevant facts and circumstances, and had not knowingly misled the local education authority.

  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidance he has given to local education authorities on the modernisation of school libraries. [127786]

  Margaret Hodge
  Guidance on the design of school libraries is contained in the Department's Building Bulletin 82, "Area Guidelines for Schools", and Building Bulletin 95, "Schools for the Future—Designs for Learning Communities". Both documents are published by the Stationery Office, but can also be viewed on www.teachernet.gov.uk/schoolbuildings.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will instruct Ofsted to include the provision of science and biology fieldwork as one of the criteria for assessing school performance. [127744]

  Margaret Hodge
  This is a matter for Ofsted. HM Chief Inspector, David Bell, will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of his letter in the Library.

  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to improve the quality of school science laboratories. [127835]

  Mr. Miliband
  This government aims to improve school laboratories in line with the recommendations of Sir Gareth Roberts report in 2002 on the supply of scientists, so that there are no unsatisfactory laboratories by the end of this spending review period in 2005–06, and all school laboratories are good or excellent by 2010. Capital funding available for investment in school buildings, including in laboratories, is 3.8 billion this year, and it will rise to over £5 billion by 2005–06. Most of this funding is allocated by formula to schools and to local education authorities so that they can invest in their school buildings in line with priorities determined locally through a rigorous, transparent and consultative asset management planning process, which reflects local needs and government aims. Guidance to schools and local education authorities on capital funding reflects its aim to improve school laboratories.

  Further, earlier this year, we launched Building Schools for the Future, which aims to renew all secondary schools in England so that they are suitable for the teaching and learning needs of the 21st century,

  139W
  in ten to fifteen years from 2005–06, subject to future public spending decisions. This programme includes developing a number of exemplar designs for secondary schools, including laboratory provision, which will reflect our ambitions for schools for the future.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which recent studies of literacy and numeracy standards among primary school children his Department has analysed; and what assessment he has made of these studies. [127920]

  Alan Johnson
  The Department seeks to keep abreast of all research and evaluation of standards and practice in literacy and numeracy. On standards in England, the most comprehensive studies have been the evaluations of the National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies by Ofsted and by the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, which found that the Strategies have had a significant impact on the standards attained and on the quality of teaching in primary schools. On international comparisons, the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study found that children in England are among the most able readers in the world at the age of 10. England was ranked third of the 35 countries involved.

  The National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies from their inception were based on the best available research, and as our support for literacy and numeracy standards develops further through our primary strategy, "Excellence and Enjoyment" we will continue to ensure a sound evidence base for our policies.

  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps he is taking to prevent homophobic bullying in schools; and what guidance is issued to headteachers in this respect. [127872]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Our free pack "Bullying: don't Suffer in Silence" is designed to help schools deal effectively with all forms of bullying. It recommends explicit reference to homophobic bullying in school anti-bullying policies so that pupils know it is unacceptable. The pack and our anti-bullying website also refer to other organisations that can provide additional help to young people affected by homophobic bullying.

  Every secondary and middle school in England will shortly receive expert advice and training on improving attendance and behaviour. This will include material on the importance of tackling bullying in any form.

  Tackling homophobic bullying will also feature in planned new National Healthy School Standard guidance and guidance for Connexions Personal Advisers.

  Mr. Dorrell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the schools in Leicestershire that are in the special measures category. [127265]
  140W
  Mr. Miliband
  The schools in Leicestershire which currently require special measures as of 18 July 2003 are as follows:

  (a) Leicester City LEA:

  Spinney Hill Primary and Community Centre (Primary)

  Queensmead Junior School (Primary)

  Forest Lodge Primary School (Primary)

  (b) Leicestershire LEA:

  Latimer Primary School (Primary)

  John Cleveland College (Secondary)

  Longslade Community College (Secondary)

  Shelthorpe Primary School (Primary)

  Thrussington CE Primary School (Primary)

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills in what exceptional circumstances local authorities will be free to passport less than the full increase in schools formula spending share to schools. [127927]

  Alan Johnson
  The Secretary of State's statement of 17 July on school funding made clear the Government's expectation that "barring wholly exceptional circumstances, each and every LEA should 'passport' the full increase in its Schools Formula Spending Share (SPSS) into a matching increase in the Schools Budget". In considering whether or not to use his reserve power to set a minimum schools budget for the following financial year for any LEA proposing not to passport, the Secretary of State will consider all relevant circumstances including the reasons put forward by the LEA. He has made no pre-judgment on what would be considered exceptional. The current expectation is that every authority will passport and the Government will ensure that every local authority receives sufficient central Government grant to "passport" in full the increase in SPSS into its Schools Budget.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether schools forums will be able to agree a funding baseline for the guaranteed per pupil increase which is higher than current per pupil funding. [127931]

  Alan Johnson
  The Secretary of State said in his statement on school funding of 17 July stated that local education authorities and schools will work together through their Schools Forums to agree the funding baseline to which the guaranteed per pupil increase will be applied. We aim to issue guidance and draft regulations on this during the autumn.

  Science Curriculum
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what plans he has to reassess the provision for fieldwork within the curriculum for science(a) GCSE and (b) A-level; and if he will make a statement; [127750]
  141W
  (2) what assessment he has made of the resource implications that would arise if all secondary schools were required to make provision for fieldwork for all pupils; [127751]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the implications for environmental awareness of access to field work as part of the biology curriculum; [128064]

  (4) what information his Department collects centrally about secondary schools providing science or biology field work opportunities for all pupils; and what strategies he has for encouraging such provisions. [128065]

  Alan Johnson
  There are no plans to reassess the provision for field work within science GCSE or A-level. The existing science National Curriculum at Key Stages 1–4, together with current GCSE and A-level syllabuses, encourages field work; there is also a pilot at A-level which places particular emphasis on it. Additionally, all primary and secondary schools are required to make provision for fieldwork for all pupils as part of the Geography curriculum. The Department does not collect information centrally about the provision of science or biology field work opportunities for pupils.

  No assessment has been made of the implications for environmental awareness of access to field work as part of the biology curriculum. "Growing Schools" encourages schools to use the 'outdoor classroom' as a resource in all subjects including science. The National Association of Field Studies Officers and the Field Studies Council are members of the National Advisory Group.

  Special Needs
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what types of specific handicap or special need are defined as constituting special needs; and how many children there were with each specific type of handicap, at 11 July. [127923]

  Margaret Hodge
  Section 312 of the Education Act 1996 sets out that children have special educational needs if they have a learning difficulty which calls for special educational provision to be made for them. Children are defined as having a learning difficulty if they:

  a. have a significantly greater difficulty in learning than the majority of children of the same age;
  b. have a disability which prevents or hinders them from making use of educational facilities of a kind generally provided for children of the same age in schools within the area of the local education authority; OR
  c. are under compulsory school age and fall within the definition above or would so if special educational provision was not made for them.

  Four main areas of difficulty or need are identified in the statutory SEN Code of Practice, published in November 2001. Some of these can be sub-divided to give 11 categories:

  a. Cognition and learning needs
  Specific learning difficulty
  Moderate learning difficulty
  Severe learning difficulty
  Profound and multiple learning difficulty
  142W
  b. Behaviour, emotional and social development needs
  Behaviour, emotional and social difficulty
  c. Communication and interaction needs
  Speech, language and communication needs
  Autistic spectrum disorder
  d. Sensory and/or physical needs
  Visual impairment
  Hearing impairment
  Multi-sensory impairment
  Physical disability

  The Department does not currently collect data about the numbers of children with specific types of special educational need. However, we will be collecting this data from January 2004 and have recently published guidance to support this process. I will ensure that the hon. Member receives a copy.

  Standards Fund
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether it is his policy that increases in schools formula spending share made in 2003–04 to reflect the removal of standards funds will be reversed to reflect the restoration of standards funds in 2004–05 and 2005–06. [127925]

  Alan Johnson
  The restoration of the standards funds in 2004–05 and 2005–06 are a separate issue from the transfer of funding to schools formula spending share in 2003–04. Therefore the restoration of standards fund in 2004–05 and 2005–06 will have no effect on the level of the schools formula spending share for those years.

  Teachers
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what criteria are to be applied in September 2004 for teachers to move from upper pay scale 2 to upper pay scale 3; and if he will make a statement. [126843]

  Mr. Miliband
  For Upper Pay Scale 3, we have proposed to the School Teachers Review Body STRB) that there should be a series of changes including a simple new application requirement for progression, as well as a clear role for the governing body in deciding well in advance how many teachers should progress. We also plan rigorous new excellence criteria for progression, and to cash-limit resources to a level that will find progression at about a third of those eligible in September 2004. We have asked the STRB to make recommendations in November so that schools can better plan their budgets for 2004–05.

  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teacher redundancies have been made in(a) Dorset, (b) Poole and (c) Bournemouth local education authorities in each year since 1997. [125034]

  Mr. Miliband
  Definitive information on redundancies of teachers is not collected centrally. Provisional statistics on teacher and support staff numbers and teacher vacancies at January 2003 were published in April in Statistical First Release 10/2003.
  143W
  Statistics due to be released on 9 September will provide regional and LEA level breakdowns of these figures; provisional national figures for January 2004 are due to be published next April. In May this year, in response to concerns about the difficulties some schools are facing as a result of changes to the funding arrangements, my Department liaised with local education authorities (LEAs) to make a broad assessment of the extent to which schools were making changes in their teaching staff complements. This included whether teachers were being made compulsorily redundant, and the possible reasons for changes in staffing, including falling rolls. LEAs' assessments were based on the best information available to them at that time; many told us that definitive information was not available and that the situation was changing rapidly as schools finalised their budgets and their staffing. In addition they advised that a significant number of the redundancy notices were `protective' and were likely to be withdrawn as the situation within schools and the LEA became clearer. My Department will continue to work closely with our national partners, including representatives of teachers, and have regular contact with LEAs.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his answer of 7 July 2003,Official Report, column 633W, on teacher redundancies, what the reasons were for the delay in answering the question; at what level information on redundancies is collected centrally; if he will place that information in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [125772]

  Mr. Miliband
  The answer to the hon. Member's earlier question was being processed in the usual way and was answered at the earliest opportunity. Provisional statistics on teacher and support staff numbers and teacher vacancies at January 2003 were published in April in Statistical First Release 10/2003. Statistics due to be released on 9 September will provide regional and LEA level breakdowns of these figures; provisional national figures for January 2004 are due to be published next April. In May this year, in response to concerns about the difficulties some schools are facing as a result of changes to the funding arrangements, my

  Numbers of applicants and participants to date

  By September

  New applications to join Fast Track

  New offers made to join Fast Track

  New entrants to Fast Track ITT1

  Newly Completed ITT and gained QTS1

  In Fast Track teaching posts

  On Fast Track teaching programme

  2001

  1,574

  136

  110

  n/a

  n/a

  120 (incl. 10 deferring)

  2002

  1,010

  161

  117

  100

  110

  249 (incl. 22 deferring)

  2003

  2185

  378

  2310

  110

  239

  2549

  1 Not applicable to those already holding QTS when selected for Fast Track.

  2 Provisional.

  Fast Track teachers in post in September 2003: detailed breakdown

  Type of school

  Total

  Primary

  69

  Secondary

  168

  Special

  2

  Total

  239

  144W
  Department liaised with local education authorities (LEA)s to make a broad assessment of the extent to which schools were making changes in their teaching staff complements. This included whether teaches were being made compulsorily redundant, and the possible reasons for changes in staffing, including falling rolls. LEAs' assessments were based on the best information available to them at that time; many told us that definitive information was not available and that the situation was changing rapidly as schools finalised their budges and their staffing. In addition they advised that a significant number of the redundancy notices were `protective' and were likely to be withdrawn as the situation within schools and the LEA became clearer. My Department will continue to work closely with our national partners, including representatives of teachers, and have regular contact with LEAs.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much his Department has spent on the fast track teacher training programme in each year, broken down by category of expenditure since the scheme commenced; how many applications there were for each year; how many were allocated a place each year; how many obtained qualified teacher status; how many entered teaching, broken down by(a) primary, (b) special secondary, (c) community, (d) foundation, (e) voluntary aided, (f) voluntary controlled and (g) independent school; and how many have subsequently left teaching. [126936]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Fast Track teaching programme is a long-term investment in developing effective leadership in schools. This year has seen a record number of appointments to the programme, more than double the totals in previous years.

  Investment in the Fast Track teaching programme

  £ million

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Information and Publicity

  1.83

  1.99

  1.75

  Application materials, assessment and selection

  2.38

  3.78

  2.38

  ITT and CPD

  0.00

  0.65

  1.87

  Pay, mentoring, career guidance and miscellaneous costs

  0.40

  1.85

  2.08

  Total

  4.60

  8.27

  8.07

  Fast Track teachers in post in September 2003: detailed breakdown

  Type of school

  Total

  of which:

  Community

  168

  Foundation

  31

  Voluntary aided

  27

  Voluntary controlled

  12

  City Academies

  1

  145W
  Six individuals accepted onto the Fast Track programme since its inception have subsequently left the programme to enter teaching in the independent sector; four from the first year's intake and two from the second.

  No-one who has taken up a Fast Track teaching post has subsequently left teaching. One individual has left her Fast Track teaching post to take up promotion as an Assistant Head.

  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teacher vacancies there are within the Leeds education authority. [127297]

  Mr. Miliband
  Teacher vacancies at local authority level for January 2003 will be published in a Statistical First Release on 9 September 2003. Data for 1997 to 2002 were published in table 14 of the Teachers in Service and Teacher Vacancies Statistical First Release (SFR18/2002) in August 2002. A copy has been placed in the Library. The table is also available on the statistics section of the DfES website at: http://www.dfes.gov.uk/statistics/DB/SFR/s0346/index.html.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teacher vacancies there were in special schools in each of the last five years, broken down by local education authority. [127919]

  Mr. Miliband
  The table shows the number of teacher vacancies in maintained special schools in England at January of each year. Data for 2002 are the most recent available at local authority level. Provisional figures for January 2003 show that the number of vacancies in maintained special in England schools fell to 240.

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Gateshead

  3

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  4

  2

  1

  0

  2

  North Tyneside

  0

  0

  1

  0

  2

  South Tyneside

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Sunderland

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hartlepool

  0

  2

  1

  0

  1

  Middlesbrough

  3

  1

  0

  0

  2

  Redcar and Cleveland

  2

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Stockton on Tees

  0

  0

  2

  0

  2

  Darlington

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Durham

  2

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Northumberland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North East

  15

  6

  5

  1

  11

  Cumbria

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Former Cheshire

  7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cheshire (post 1.4.98)

  —

  1

  2

  2

  2

  Halton

  —

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Warrington

  —

  0

  1

  1

  0

  Bolton

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Bury

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Manchester

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Oldham

  2

  0

  3

  1

  6

  Rochdale

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Salford

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Stockport

  2

  0

  1

  1

  1

  Tameside

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Trafford

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wigan

  3

  2

  0

  1

  0

  Former Lancashire

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lancashire (post 1.4.98)

  —

  4

  6

  4

  4

  Blackburn with Darwen

  —

  0

  2

  0

  3

  Blackpool

  —

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Knowsley

  1

  3

  5

  1

  0

  Liverpool

  0

  7

  0

  0

  0

  St. Helens

  0

  0

  1

  0

  2

  146W

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Sefton

  1

  1

  0

  4

  0

  Wirral

  0

  0

  0

  4

  1

  North West

  24

  19

  22

  19

  21

  Kingston upon Hull, City of

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  North East Lincolnshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North Lincolnshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  8

  North Yorkshire

  2

  0

  1

  1

  1

  York

  0

  1

  0

  1

  2

  Barnsley

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Doncaster

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Rotherham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Sheffield

  1

  0

  2

  0

  1

  Bradford

  4

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Calderdale

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kirklees

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Leeds

  3

  3

  3

  1

  0

  Wakefield

  0

  0

  0

  3

  0

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  10

  6

  6

  7

  17

  Derbyshire

  3

  0

  3

  2

  3

  Derby

  1

  0

  1

  0

  5

  Leicestershire

  0

  0

  3

  0

  1

  Leicester

  1

  3

  1

  6

  3

  Rutland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Lincolnshire

  3

  3

  3

  2

  5

  Northamptonshire

  0

  0

  1

  4

  0

  Former Nottinghamshire

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Nottinghamshire (post 1.4.98)

  —

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Nottingham

  —

  0

  1

  5

  2

  East Midlands

  8

  6

  13

  19

  19

  Former Hereford & Worcester

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Herefordshire

  —

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Worcestershire

  —

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Former Shropshire

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Shropshire (post 1.4.98)

  —

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Telford and Wrekin

  —

  0

  6

  0

  0

  Staffordshire

  0

  4

  7

  3

  1

  Stoke on Trent

  0

  0

  1

  2

  0

  Warwickshire

  1

  2

  1

  3

  3

  Birmingham

  0

  2

  3

  2

  11

  Coventry

  0

  1

  0

  0

  2

  Dudley

  3

  2

  2

  2

  1

  Sandwell

  0

  1

  0

  6

  6

  Solihull

  1

  1

  3

  2

  6

  Walsall

  1

  1

  0

  0

  1

  Wolverhampton

  1

  3

  5

  3

  0

  West Midlands

  7

  18

  29

  25

  33

  Former Cambridgeshire

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cambridgeshire (post 1.4.98)

  —

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Peterborough

  —

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Norfolk

  1

  1

  1

  4

  3

  Suffolk

  3

  7

  4

  1

  3

  Bedfordshire

  3

  2

  6

  5

  4

  Luton

  2

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Former Essex

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Essex (post 1.4.98)

  —

  7

  10

  5

  7

  Southend on Sea

  —

  2

  0

  0

  1

  Thurrock

  —

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Hertfordshire

  6

  7

  0

  5

  2

  East of England

  20

  26

  21

  21

  27

  City of London

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Camden

  5

  8

  1

  2

  4

  Greenwich

  5

  1

  5

  2

  2

  Hackney

  3

  6

  5

  5

  3

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  6

  1

  3

  6

  1

  Islington

  2

  0

  0

  5

  2

  Kensington and Chelsea

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Lambeth

  0

  2

  8

  6

  11

  Lewisham

  3

  2

  4

  3

  0

  Southwark

  0

  4

  1

  5

  1

  Tower Hamlets

  1

  5

  3

  6

  6

  Wandsworth

  15

  12

  8

  6

  13

  Westminster

  4

  4

  5

  2

  4

  Barking and Dagenham

  2

  4

  0

  1

  0

  Barnet

  0

  4

  4

  4

  1

  Bexley

  2

  0

  4

  3

  1

  Brent

  7

  1

  2

  0

  4

  Bromley

  0

  1

  2

  2

  1

  Croydon

  7

  1

  4

  2

  0

  Ealing

  5

  5

  5

  0

  1

  Enfield

  3

  2

  2

  3

  7

  147W

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Haringey

  0

  3

  3

  2

  0

  Harrow

  1

  2

  8

  2

  5

  Havering

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hillingdon

  1

  1

  1

  6

  4

  Hounslow

  1

  3

  2

  0

  1

  Kingston upon Thames

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  Merton

  1

  1

  2

  5

  0

  Newham

  1

  0

  3

  2

  3

  Redbridge

  6

  6

  2

  0

  2

  Richmond upon Thames

  1

  1

  0

  3

  1

  Sutton

  1

  2

  0

  0

  3

  Waltham Forest

  1

  0

  0

  0

  4

  London

  84

  82

  887

  86

  85

  Former Berkshire

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bracknell Forest

  —

  0

  1

  1

  1

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  —

  0

  6

  4

  3

  West Berkshire

  —

  0

  1

  1

  0

  Reading

  —

  0

  5

  4

  4

  Slough

  —

  1

  1

  3

  0

  Wokingham

  —

  3

  1

  3

  1

  Buckinghamshire

  11

  7

  3

  5

  5

  Milton Keynes

  4

  3

  0

  2

  5

  East Sussex

  3

  1

  4

  1

  2

  Brighton and Hove

  0

  0

  0

  2

  3

  Hampshire

  8

  3

  7

  8

  9

  Portsmouth

  0

  3

  0

  3

  4

  Southampton

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  Isle of Wight

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  Former Kent

  18

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kent (post 1.4.98)

  —

  9

  13

  23

  9

  Medway

  —

  1

  3

  5

  3

  Oxfordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  Surrey

  6

  3

  2

  17

  12

  West Sussex

  2

  4

  2

  6

  3

  South East

  53

  39

  50

  89

  70

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Bath and North East Somerset

  0

  1

  0

  1

  2

  City of Bristol

  2

  7

  6

  0

  2

  North Somerset

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  South Gloucestershire

  2

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Cornwall

  0

  3

  0

  0

  0

  Former Devon

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Devon (post 1.4.98)

  —

  0

  1

  2

  0

  Plymouth

  —

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Torbay

  —

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Dorset

  0

  0

  2

  2

  0

  Poole

  2

  0

  0

  2

  1

  Bournemouth

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Gloucestershire

  1

  0

  1

  3

  0

  Somerset

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Wiltshire

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Swindon

  0

  1

  1

  2

  0

  South West

  12

  14

  11

  13

  9

  England

  233

  216

  244

  280

  292

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his answer of 7 May 2003,Official Report, column 695W, whether he has set a date for the launch of the Teachernet emergency planning website; and what the cost has been of developing the website. [121562]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 24 June 2003]Following the trialling we hope to be able to launch the website by the end of October, assuming that all the further development work and testing are satisfactorily completed and clearances obtained. The cost of developing the site, approximately £60,000, remains unchanged from my previous reply of 7 May.

  The website will bring together a range of information already publicly available to schools. It will cover: planning, including health and safety, evacuation
  148W
  procedures and emergency services; types of incidents, which includes fire, flooding, terrorism and threats by post; and resources, such as forms to help schools with risk assessments.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what statistics his Department collects on assaults on teachers; and how many teachers have been the subject of(a) physical assaults, (b) verbal assaults and (c) other threatening behaviour from (i) children and (ii) parents in each year since 1988. [127896]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department does not collect information on assaults on teachers. However, serious injuries to primary and secondary school teachers in Great Britain caused by physical violence reported to the Health and Safety Executive under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995 have been as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1996/97

  83

  1997/98

  119

  1998/99

  124

  1999/2000

  135

  2000/01

  135

  2001/02

  110

  The figures include major injuries and also injuries resulting in more than three days' absence from work as a result of assault. Information is not available on whether the assaults were carried out by children, parents or others.

  Mr. Dorrell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teachers were employed in Leicestershire schools expressed as full-time equivalents on 1st April in each year from 1997 to 2002. [127266]

  Mr. Miliband
  Teacher numbers as at January in each of these years were published in table 13 of the Teachers in Service and Teacher Vacancies Statistical First Release (SFR 18/2002) in August 2002. A copy has been placed in the Library. The table is also available on the statistics section of the DfES website at: http://www.dfes.gov.uk/statistics/DB/SFR/s0346/index.html

  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on salaries of teachers in the Greater London area. [127833]

  Mr. Miliband
  Teachers' salaries are regularly monitored using the Department's Database of Teachers' Records. Regional salary data from this source are published each year in the Department's evidence to the School Teachers' Review Body (STRB), a copy of which is in the library. The evidence is also available on the DfES website at http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/management/payandperformance/pay/strb2003/. The STRB also carries out a sample
  149W
  survey of about 3,000 schools in England and Wales each year to inform its annual teachers' pay review. The results of this survey can be found on the STRB website at: http://www.ome.uk.com/stp review.cfm.

  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) teachers and (b) classroom assistants there were in schools in (i) the Taunton constituency and (ii) Somerset in each year since 1997. [127776]

  Mr. Miliband
  The number of full time equivalent (FTE) teachers and teaching assistants in the maintained sector in Taunton constituency and Somerset LEA since 1997 are shown in the following table.

  Teachers and teaching assistants in Taunton constituency and Somerset: 1997–2002

  Taunton constituency

  Somerset LEA

  FTE number of teachers1

  FTE number of teaching assistants1,2

  FTE number of teachers3

  FTE number of teaching assistants1,2

  1997

  680

  140

  3,480

  610

  1998

  650

  150

  3,480

  660

  1999

  650

  160

  3,380

  680

  2000

  670

  170

  3,530

  710

  2001

  690

  210

  3,770

  830

  2002

  720

  230

  3,770

  920

  1 Source: Annual School Census.

  2 Includes nursery assistants, special needs support staff, minority ethnic pupil support staff and other teaching assistants.

  3 Source: 618G survey of teacher numbers and vacancies.

  Annual school census and 618G have a survey date of the third Thursday in January.

  Local education authority level data for 2003 will be published in a statistical first release on 9 September.

  Tuition and Top-up Fees
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the cost of abolishing tuition and top-up fees in 2003–04 would be; and what the cost of administering the eligibility assessment for loans and fees is. [127296]

  Alan Johnson
  English HE institutions' income from the standard fee of £1,125 is estimated at £847 million for 2003/04, comprising £431 million in private contributions and £416 million in public contributions through the fee remission grant. English HE institutions will not start to receive income from variable fees until 2006/07. Data on the cost to local education authorities of administering the eligibility assessments for loans and fees is not separately identified in the information collected by the Department on LEA spending.

  Under-achieving Students
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps he is taking to raise the performance of under-achieving students. [127779]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The Primary and Key Stage 3 National Strategies are designed to raise standards for all students but include a strong focus on under-achievement. At Primary stage we provide several programmes to help pupils reach the expected level for 150W
  their age by the end of Key Stage 2, plus targeted local support to schools and LEAs on addressing under-performance. Further measures being introduced this September, such as the Primary Leadership Programme, are also designed to tackle lower attainment. Evidence of the impact of our programmes is reflected in the Key Stage 2 results. The 2003 results show that 75 per cent. of 11-year-olds achieved the expected level for their age in English and 73 per cent. in maths. This represents a 10 percentage point increase in English and a 14 percentage point increase in maths since 1998.

  We are using a similar model to address under-performance for pupils aged 11–14 through the Key Stage 3 Strategy. There are tailored support programmes in each of the three years at Key Stage 3 to help lower-attaining pupils reach the expected level at age 14. We are also targeting schools and LEAs that we believe would benefit from additional support. After only the first full year of the Strategy, the Key Stage 3 tests results stand at their best ever, Maths is up by three percentage points to 70 per cent. achieving level 5 (the expected level) and science and English are both up by one percentage point to 68 per cent.. There have also been improvements in level 6 attainment of four and seven percentage points in maths and science respectively.

  At Key Stage 4 we are also supporting schools where pupil performance is too low. We are directing substantial resources through Excellence in Cities to transform standards in urban areas facing the challenges associated with cities. We are also supporting schools in difficult circumstances to address under-performance through the Leadership Incentive Grant.

  Union Learning Fund
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the Union Learning Fund. [127789]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Unions have a key role in promoting learning and skills in the workplace, and to help them achieve this, the Department has provided financial support through the Union Learning Fund since 1998. The Union Learning Fund is now in its sixth year and has supported over 400 projects from over 50 different unions, working in almost 3,000 workplaces. Many Union Learning Fund projects are specifically aimed at widening participation in learning: basic skills, social inclusion and equal opportunities and improving access to learning. Evaluation up to 2002, together with performance management data for July 2003, has shown that over 36,000 people have completed learning courses, over 6,500 Union Learning Representatives have been trained and around 180 new learning centres have been opened. Unions have been very successful in engaging non-traditional learners including older males and shift workers.

  One of the Union Learning Fund's greatest strengths is the success of Union Learning Representatives, a new type of lay union representative whose main function is to advise union members about their training and development needs. Union Learning Representatives are ideally placed to help and encourage workers to improve their skills, particularly the lowest skilled and

  151W
  those with literacy and numeracy problems. They share a level of trust with union members who would be embarrassed about admitting their learning needs to their employer.

  Following a consultation exercise in 2001, we introduced legislation to give Union Learning Representatives the same rights to paid time off for training and for carrying out their duties as those enjoyed by shop stewards and other union representatives at workplaces where a union is recognised for collective bargaining purposes. The legislation on Union Learning Representatives came into effect on 27 April along with the revised ACAS Code of Practice.

  Additional funding for Union Learning for the next two financial years, announced in the last budget, will help us continue to build on the positive contribution made by Union Learning Representatives.

  Vocational Qualifications
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on measures to ensure that qualifications offered at apprenticeship, skilled craft and technician level are sufficient to meet the needs of business. [128207]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Government published its national Skills Strategy on 9 July in 21st Century Skills: Realising Our Potential. It is a cross-Government strategy that sets out our approach to meeting skill needs, including making sure that qualifications are appropriate to the needs of businesses. There were frequent discussions between the Secretary of State for Education and Skills and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry during its development, and was a co-signatory to the White Paper published in July. This close involvement will continue in the implementation stage.

  At the heart of the strategy is a shared aim that learning programmes and the qualifications that accredit them will respond fully to the skill needs of employers. DTI are closely involved in the joint remit for improving vocational qualifications which is being taken forward by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, the Learning and Skills Council and Sector Skills Development Agency. The high profile, business-led Modern Apprenticeship Task Force is taking a key role in promoting Modern Apprenticeships to employers, improving their quality and increasing take-up. Sir Robin Young, DTI Permanent Secretary, is a member of the Task Force. A close working relationship is also being established with DTI in promoting the development of foundation degrees to meet the growing demand for skills at the higher technical and associate professional level. The White Paper also set out the intention for the DTI to be joint sponsors of the Sector Skills Development Agency. All of this action
  152W
  demonstrates the close working relationships between the two Departments to ensure that qualifications are appropriate to the needs of employers.

  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the level of qualifications at(a) apprenticeship, (b) skilled craft and (c) technician level held in (i) the UK and (ii) other European Union countries. [128208]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  While we compare well at higher education level, our percentage of the workforce qualified to intermediate skill levels (based upon qualifications gained at apprenticeship, skilled craft and technician level) is low: 28 per cent. in the UK compared to 51 per cent. in France and 65 per cent. in Germany. An EU wide comparison is not available.

  However, using a different measure the OECD estimates the proportion of adults (aged 25–64) who are qualified to upper secondary level (intermediate level education and based upon the highest level of education completed) in the UK is 63 per cent.. This is similar to France (64 per cent.) and the Netherlands (61 per cent.) but much lower than Germany (83 per cent.), Denmark (80 per cent.) or Sweden (81 per cent.). The UK however performs much better than Italy (44 per cent.) and Spain (40 per cent.).

  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action he is taking to encourage school leavers to seem qualifications at(a) apprenticeship, (b) skilled craft and (c) technician level. [128206]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Government are committed to ensuring that the work based learning route, and the qualifications and programmes within it (notably Modern Apprenticeships) will continue to deliver high quality, innovative provision, derived from and appropriate to the needs of the UK's industry and economy. The Government have detailed their vision for achievement in the recently published White Papers covering the development of 14–19 year olds and the Skills Strategy for 21st Century. These reveal the importance the Government are giving to vocational development from school to the workplace and the need for cohesion between education and the world of work to achieve the challenging target outlined in the reports. The Government launched a Modern Apprenticeship (MA) Task Force, chaired by Sir Roy Gardner, in February 2003 to oversee and steer the promotion and integration of modern apprenticeships, including vocational qualifications, into the workplace. This Task Force will report regularly to Government on progress widening the choice for young people to take up modern apprenticeship opportunities.

  Connexions, the Government's front line support service for young people in England aged 13–19, offers teenagers integrated impartial advice and guidance on career paths and access to personal development opportunities based on the needs and aspirations of young people. This service enables young people to consider a full range of career options and make informed choices which include work-based provision.

HEALTH

  Bivalve Molluscs
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the level of state funding for laboratories researching contamination of bivalve molluscs by(a) Novavirus and (b) hepatitis A virus. [128265]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Since April 2000, the Food Standards Agency has spent £1.5 million on projects relating to the contamination of bivalve molluscs by Norovirus and Hepatitis A virus.

  Medical Staff (Protection)
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what protection is afforded to nurses and other medical staff in the workplace from members of the public; what assistance is given by the police to hospitals and other medical treatment centres; and what recent measures he has introduced to improve co-operation. [128112]

  Mr. Hutton
  Responsibility for tackling assaults against staff working in the National Health Service passed to the Counter Fraud and Security Management Service (CFSMS) on 1 April 2003. During 2003–04, the CFSMS will be taking forward a number of initiatives to reduce the number of both physical and non-physical assaults. The CFSMS is currently developing:conflict resolution training for all frontline staff including nurses and general practitioners as a key preventative measure to reduce the number of incidents;
  a national and consistent reporting system to record incidents of physical assaults on staff, using a common definition, with the ability to track cases from report to conclusion. This will allow for intervention where appropriate in order to ensure the best possible outcome for the victim concerned and help increase the rate of offenders prosecuted;
  a consistent locally managed reporting system will be established to deal with non-physical assaults using the common law definition. Clear definitions of assault swill enable sanctions that are appropriate to the incident to be sought;
  a legal protection unit to provide health bodies with advice on cost-effective methods of pursuing a wide range of sanctions against offenders including criminal and civil action where appropriate;
  ways in which technology can be used to provide better protection for staff. This work is undertaken in co-operation with the Home Office;
  a Memorandum of Understanding with the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) to ensure that a consistent national approach to reducing physical and non-physical assaults on staff is taken by both the NHS and the police.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what targets were set in the Zero Tolerance campaign; what progress has been made; and how many targets have been met. [128111]

  Mr. Hutton
  In 1999, in its "working together" framework, the Government set the National Health Service trusts three targets to reduce the number of incidents of violence against N HS staff:by April 2000, to have systems in place for recording incidents of violence to staff and publish strategies to achieve reductions in the levels of violence by: 20 per cent. by April 2001–02; and 30 per cent. by April 2003–04.
  154W
  A recent National Audit Office (NAO) report, "A safer place to Work—Protecting NHS Hospital and Ambulance Trust Staff from Violence and Aggression", reported that:
  around 90 per cent. of NHS trusts have violence policies and systems in place for recording incidents; and
  the majority of NHS trusts did not meet the 2001–02 target for reducing incidents by 20 per cent.

  The NAO acknowledged that the increase in reported violent and abusive incidents in the majority of NHS trusts was mainly due to improved reporting rates, generally among NHS staff and in particular increased reporting of verbal abuse. The NAO suggests in its report, and this appears to be reflected in the data held by the Health and Safety Executive, that levels of physical assaults are stabilising.

  Responsibility for tackling assaults against staff working in the NHS passed to the Counter Fraud and Security Management Service (CFSMS) on 1 April 2003. During 2003–04, the CFSMS will be taking forward a number of initiatives to reduce the number of both physical and non-physical assaults. The CFSMS is currently developing:
  conflict resolution training for all frontline staff as a key preventive measure to reduce the number of incidents;
  a national and consistent reporting system to record incidents of physical assaults on staff, using a common definition, with the ability to track cases from report to conclusion. This will allow for intervention where appropriate in order to ensure the best possible outcome for the victim concerned and help increase the rate of offenders prosecuted;
  a consistent locally managed reporting system will be established to deal with non-physical assaults using the common law definition. Clear definitions of assault will enable sanctions that are appropriate to the incident to be sought;
  a legal protection unit to provide health bodies with advice on cost-effective methods of pursuing a wide range of sanctions against offenders, including criminal and civil action where appropriate;
  ways in which technology can be used to provide better protection for staff, working with the Home Office. One of the chosen test sites for the "Safer Hospitals" project as an ambulance trust;
  a Memorandum of Understanding with the Association of Chief Police Officers to ensure that a consistent national approach to reducing physical and non-physical assaults on staff is taken by both the NHS and the police.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many incidents of violence and abusive behaviour by NHS patients in England against NHS staff there were in 2001–02. [127533]
  155W
  Mr. Hutton
  There were an estimated 112,0001 reported violent or abusive incidents involving staff in national health service trusts and health authorities in England in 2001–2002.1 The 2001–02 total has been estimated to include organisations which did not provide figures and the results are based on surveys by the Department of Health and the National Audit Office.

  Product Labelling
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department is taking to enable labelling of imported agricultural products produced to(a) animal welfare and (b) environmental care standards below those of the United Kingdom. [128122]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Food labelling rules are set at European Union level; the Department is not aware of any plans to introduce new rules to cover animal welfare and environmental care standards. Information on these matters can be given voluntarily on labels so long as it is not false or misleading. The Food Standards Agency is encouraging industry to provide consumers with more information on food production standards, including animal welfare and environmental care standards.

  Accident and Emergency Services
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to pilot the 'See & Treat' scheme at Royal Bournemouth Hospital at other hospital sites. [127647]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Most accident and emergency (A&E) departments now have 'See & Treat' schemes in place, specifically to target patients with minor injuries and illnesses. The British Association for A&E Medicine and the Royal College of Nursing have endorsed it as an appropriate model of clinical care. The expectation is that 'See & Treat', or something similar, should be put in place in most trusts. However, it is the trusts' responsibility to decide if, when and how to implement.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has undertaken of the cost of implementing a 'See & Treat' scheme in A&E departments. [127648]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  There may be costs associated with the implementation of initiatives such as 'See & Treat', but any costs will depend on how an individual trust implements the scheme locally compared to its existing accident and emergency department procedures.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were admitted to NHS hospital wards from Accident and Emergency after being examined by a doctor in(a) one hour or less, (b) over two hours but less than three hours, (c) over three hours but less than four hours, (d) over four hours but less than five hours and (e) over five hours in (i) the last 12 months for which figures are available and (ii) 1997–98. [127494]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Department collects information on total time in accident and emergency (A&E) from arrival to admission, transfer or discharge.156W
  Information is also collected and on waits for admission as an emergency via A&E from the point of decision to admit to admission. This information is published quarterly.

  Information is not collected on the time from a patient being first examined by a doctor to admission.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what targets he is planning to set for accident and emergency departments in the next year. [127318]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  In 2000, the NHS Plan set the challenging improvement target that no patient should spend more than four hours in an accident and emergency department from arrival to admission, transfer or departure by the end of 2004.

  Trusts will continue to be monitored on their progress towards this target, but there are no plans to set further targets for accident and emergency departments in the next year.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the method used for measuring accident and emergency targets in March. [127319]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Department set an internal milestone that 90 per cent. of patients in England should wait less than four hours in accident and emergency (A and E) departments by the end of March 2003.

  This was not a target but an interim milestone set to assess progress towards achieving the NHS Plan target to reduce the maximum time a patient should wait in A and E from arrival to admission, transfer or discharge to four hours from December 2004.

  Performance against the milestone was measured using routine data trusts provide to the Department.

  Adult/Adolescent Wards
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) adult and (b) adolescent wards were in operation in April in each year since 1997. [127507]

  Mr. Hutton
  Central information is not collected specifically in relation to adult and adolescent wards. The average number of wards in England reported by national health service organisations is shown in the table.

  Average number of wards

  2000–01

  9,676

  2001–02

  9,074

  2002–03

  10,353

  Before 1 April 2000, this data was not collected. These figures exclude units such as intensive treatment units, accident and emergency/admissions units, coronary care units, special care baby units, paediatric intensive care and day case wards.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many mixed sex(a) adolescent and (b) adult wards there are in England. [127508]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information is not available in the format requested.

  Agency Staff
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent by the NHS on locum and other agency doctors in each of the past three years. [109087]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested on locum doctors is not held centrally. Information on agency doctors is shown in the table.

  Expenditure on non-NHS medical staff by NHS trusts, health authorities and primary care trusts—England

  England total (£)

  1999–2000

  106,125,019

  2000–01

  138,342,148

  2001–02

  197,775,563

  Sources:

  1. Annual financial returns of NHS trusts

  2. Annual financial returns of health authorities

  3. Annual financial returns of primary care trusts

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost to the NHS of agency nurses was in 2002 in each NHS region. [127528]

  Mr. Hutton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) on 28 March 2003,Official Report, column 443W.

  AIDS
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent on AIDS research in each of the last six years. [127345]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Funding for research on AIDS is provided from a number of different sources, including the Government, charities and industry. The Department of Health does not routinely collect information on all research expenditure. The figures shown in the table for estimated Government spend on research relating to AIDS are approximate.

  Year

  £million

  1997–98

  15.4

  1998–99

  16.2

  1999–2000

  20.2

  2000–01

  22.9

  2001–02

  20.4

  A figure for 2002–03 is not yet available. The figure for 2000–01 is higher than the figure (£21.3 million) given the former Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears) on 16 July 2002, Official Report, column 212W, as the estimate of spend that the Medical Research Council included in this earlier figure was provisional. The figures for all years include estimated spend by Department of Health national research programmes and arm's length bodies. Management of much of the research supported by National Health Service research and development funding is devolved and expenditure at project level is not held centrally by the Department. In addition to specific projects, the Department also provides support for research commissioned by charities and the research councils that takes place in the NHS. The total investment is therefore greater.

  Allergies
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many specialist allergy clinics there are in the NHS. [127627]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Royal College of Physicians published their report 'Allergy the unmet need, A Blueprint for better patient care' on 25 June 2003. Their report refers to the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology (BSACI) and British Allergy Foundation (BAF) respectively, who compiled a list of national health service allergy clinics which were NHS consultant-led and based at NHS hospitals in the United Kingdom.

  The subsequent BSACI handbook "National NHS Allergy Clinics" (2001) lists 86 NHS consultant led clinics in the UK. There were an additional 15 clinics run by NHS consultants identified by the British Allergy Foundation (BAF) in the handbook. Six of these 101 clinics offered services led by a whole-time specialist allergist.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS trusts have reported vacancies for allergy specialists. [127628]

  Mr. Hutton
  The National Health Service vacancy survey collects information on the number of posts which trusts are actively trying to fill which have been vacant for three months or more. As at 31 March 2003, there was one three month consultant vacancy in allergy in England.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many allergy sufferers are on waiting lists for NHS treatments. [127626]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The information requested is not centrally collected. Waiting list data are collected according to the type of specialist the patient is due to see and therefore the number of allergy sufferers waiting for treatment are not separately identifiable as they may be included in a range of specialist waiting lists. However, all patients for consultant led hospital treatment, including those with allergies, are benefiting from shorter maximum waiting times.

  Allograft Implants
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of people in England receiving allograft implants were subsequently infected with(a) Hepatitis and (b) HIV in the last 12 months. [127542]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The percentage of people in England receiving allograft implants subsequently infected with hepatitis or HIV is not recorded nationally as part of the routing follow-up post transplant.

  Donor screening procedures as advised by the Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Blood and Tissues for Transplant (MSBT) are very effective and all transplant co-ordinators are required to ensure all the relevant data are collected and screening tests performed. This information is double-checked by the

  159W
  UK Transplant duty office. As a result there have been very few recorded cases of transmission of any of the serious blood borne viruses.

  Alternative Medicine
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the Complementary and Alternative Medicine Research Awards run by his Department. [127730]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The awards made in the first round of the scheme were announced on 17 April 2003. The total value of these awards exceeds £1.3 million. Details of the operation and timing of the next round have not yet been determined.

  Alzheimer's Disease
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has undertaken into a possible connection between Alzheimer's disease and obesity. [127696]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Department has not undertaken any research into a possible connection between Alzheimer's disease and obesity.

  The main agency through which the Government support medical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council (MRC). The MRC is an independent body, which receives its grant in aid from the Office of Science and Technology.

  The MRC is not currently undertaking any research into a possible connection between Alzheimer's disease and obesity. However, it is funding research into dementia (including Alzheimer's Disease) and also funding research into nutrition.

  Ambulance Services
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many 999 calls were made to the Greater London Ambulance Service in the last 12 months for which figures are available for which a police presence was also provided; and what criteria are used to decide whether a police presence is required to an ambulance call-out. [127470]

  Mr. Hutton
  This information is not held centrally. The London Ambulance Service National Health Service Trust (LAS) does not routinely collect this information. The LAS informs me that the decision whether to call police for assistance is made either by control room staff or by ambulance crews using information on the nature of the call.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many 999 calls were made to the Greater London Ambulance Service over the last 12 months for which figures are available for which it was decided an ambulance was not necessary; and what proportion of calls over this period such calls represented. [127486]

  Mr. Hutton
  This information is not centrally held.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many ambulance call-outs were made in the last 12 months for which figures are available in(a) Essex and
  160W
  (b) England; and what average length of time it took for ambulances to reach (a) the patient and (b) the hospital to which the patient needed to be taken. [127466]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The latest information about the proportion of emergency calls resulting in an ambulance arriving at the scene of the reported incident, within the Government's target response times for Essex and all other ambulance trusts, is contained in the Department of Health Statistical Bulletin, "Ambulance Services, England 2002–03".

  Copies of the bulletin have been placed in the Library and are also available at www.doh.gov.uk/public/sb0313.htm.

  Information on the average length of time taken for ambulances to reach the hospital to which the patient needed to be taken is not collected centrally.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of ambulance response times meet the eight minute target; and how many met the target in 2001–02, broken down by trust. [127534]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The latest information about the proportion of emergency calls resulting in an ambulance arriving at the scene of the reported incident within the Government's target response times for all other ambulance trusts, is contained in the Department of Health Statistical Bulletin "Ambulance Services, England 2002–03".

  Copies of the bulletin are available in the Library and also at: www.doh.gov.uk/public/sb0313h

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the performance targets set by his Department for ambulance services. [127324]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Ambulance national health service trusts should respond to 75 per cent. of category A (life threatening) calls within eight minutes. All other emergency calls should be responded to 95 per cent. of the time within 14 minutes in urban areas and 19 minutes in rural areas.

  Information about ambulance services response times are collected each year by the Department and published annually. The latest information shows that nationally 74.6 per cent. of category A calls resulted in an emergency response arriving at the scene of the incident within 8 minutes compared to 70.7 per cent. in 2001–02. Further information is contained in the Department of Health statistical bulletin Ambulance Services, England 2002–03.

  A copy is available in the Library and also on the Department's website at www.doh.gov.uk/public/sb0313.htm.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the effect of speed restrictions on ambulance response times. [127325]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  No national studies have taken place on the effect of speed restrictions on ambulance response times.
  161W
  Drivers of ambulance vehicles can claim exemptions from some of the provisions of various Road Traffic Acts and Regulations—including speed restrictions—where it hinders them from responding to a life threatening emergency call.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) emergency vehicles and (b) vehicles for non-emergency services were in service with each NHS ambulance trust in each of the last three years. [127336]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to protect ambulance staff from aggressive behaviour by patients. [127736]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Government are determined to tackle the assaults and intimidation that too many national health service staff face. As part of the work previously carried out under the NHS zero tolerance zone campaign, specific guidance to support managers and staff working in ambulance trusts, "Managing Violence in Ambulance Trusts", was issued by the Department of Health.

  Responsibility for tackling assaults against staff working in the NHS passed to the Counter Fraud and Security Management Service (CFSMS) on 1 April 2003. During 2003–04 the CFSMS will be taking forward a number of initiatives to reduce the number of both physical and non-physical assaults. The CFSMS is currently developing;
  conflict resolution training for all frontline staff including ambulance staff as a key preventative measure to reduce the number of incidents;
  a national and consistent reporting system to record incidents of physical assaults on staff, using a common definition, with the ability to track cases from report to conclusion. This will allow for intervention where appropriate in order to ensure the best possible outcome for the victim concerned and help increase the rate of offenders prosecuted;
  a consistent locally managed reporting system will be established to deal with non-physical assaults using the common law definition. Clear definitions of assault will enable sanctions that are appropriate to the incident to be sought;
  a legal protection unit to provide health bodies with advice on cost-effective methods of pursuing a wide range of sanctions against offenders including criminal and civil action where appropriate;
  ways in which technology can be used to provide better protection for staff. This work is undertaken in co-operation with the Home Office. One of the chosen test sites for the "Safer Hospitals" project is an ambulance trust;
  a Memorandum of Understanding with the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) to ensure that a consistent national approach to reducing physical and non-physical assaults on staff is taken by both the NHS and the police.

  Anaemia
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of people in(a) England, (b) Wales, (c) Scotland and (d) Northern Ireland are anaemic. [127538]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Information on the percentage of people in England who are anaemic was last collected for the Health Survey for England in 19941. The data indicated that 4.1 per cent. of men and
  162W
  10.8 per cent. of women aged 16 and over were classified as anaemic using the World Health Organisation definition of anaemia, that is that haemoglobin levels of less than 13g/dl (grams per decilitre) for men and 12g/dl for women.

  Information on the percentage of people who are anaemic in Scotland and Wales can be obtained from the devolved administrations. While the institutions in Northern Ireland are dissolved responsibility rests with Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office.
  1 Ref: Health Survey for England 1994 eds. Colhoun, H. and Prescott-Clarke. P. ISBN 011 321 895

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in the UK are needlephobic; and what assessment he has made of the need for a needle-free anaemia testing device. [127537]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Department of Health has not made an assessment of the numbers of people in the United Kingdom with a needle phobia or the need for a needle-free anaemia testing device.

  Angina
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the total cost to the NHS of treating patients with chest-pain caused by angina in each of the last five years. [127442]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  No information is held centrally concerning the total cost to the national health service of treating patients with chest-pain caused by angina.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the English population suffers from angina. [127443]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Nationally representative figures on the prevalence of heart disease and its risk factors are available from the Health Survey for England. The most recent estimates of the prevalence of angina were published in The Health Survey for England—Cardiovascular Disease 1998 table 2.1, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures his Department is taking to reduce the need for hospital treatment for patients suffering from angina. [127445]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Patients are usually treated with medical therapy or in more serious cases, surgical revascularisation to relieve symptoms of angina. The national service framework (NSF) for coronary heart disease (CHD) recommends patients receive the following medical therapy:sublingual nitrates for immediate treatment control
  beta-blockers, nitrates or calcium antagonists
  aspirin
  statins to reduce cholesterol levels.

  Spending on statins has risen from £170 million in 1998 to £552 million in 2002.

  The Priorities and Planning Framework requires that primary care, update practice-based registers so that patients with CHD continue to receive appropriate advice and treatment in line with NSF standards and

  163W
  by March 2006, ensure practice based registers and systematic treatment regimes, including appropriate advice on diet, physical activity and smoking.

  At the same time the Government have been engaged in a wide ranging programme to prevent heart disease, including action on smoking, free fruit in schools and physical activity.

  Arthritis
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which primary care trusts have not yet implemented in full the NICE guidance on anti-TNF therapies for rheumatoid arthritis. [128228]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Information on the number of primary care trusts (PCTs) making anti-TNF therapy available to patients is not collected centrally. Funding to meet the recommendations of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence has been included in the allocations made to PCTs over the period 2003–04 to 2005–06.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients within the Adur, Arun and Worthing PCT area have been prescribed anti-TNF treatment for severe arthritis in the last 12 months. [127561]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Information is not held centrally on the number of patients who have been prescribed anti-TNF drugs (Etanercept and Infliximab). Information is available on the number of prescription items of drugs that are dispensed in the community in England. The use of anti-TNF drugs in the community is negligible, but they are used extensively in hospitals. Although negligible, details of these anti-TNF drugs (contained in the British National Formulary paragraph 10.1.3) are included in the Prescription Cost Analysis publication, which can be accessed at http//www.doh.gov.uk/prescriptionstatistics/index.htm.

  Information is not held centrally about drugs prescribed and dispensed in hospitals.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many severe arthritis sufferers there are within the Adur, Arun and Worthing primary care trust area. [127562]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Information on the incidence of individual conditions is not collected centrally.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many primary care trusts have made TN Fa available to arthritis sufferers in 2002–03; and if he will list them. [127697]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Information on the number of primary care trusts making anti-TNF therapy available to patients in 2002–03 is not collected centrally.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding has been made available to primary care trusts to implement the National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidelines on TNFa therapy. [127698]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Funding to meet recommendations of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence has been included in the allocations made to primary care trusts for the period 2003–04 to 2005–06.

  Asthma
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people suffer from asthma and how many suffered from asthma in each of the last five years. [128124]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Information on the incidence of individual conditions is not held centrally. It is estimated, however, that asthma affects around 4 per cent. of adults and 4 to 6 per cent. of children sufficiently severely to require medical supervision. This amounts to around 2 million people in England.

  Hospital Episode Statistics data, based on finished consultant episodes (FCEs), show a decline in the number of people who were admitted to hospital between 1997–2002. This information is shown in the table.

  Year

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Admissions

  71,434

  69,824

  66,054

  60,376

  60,134

  Note:

  An FCE is defined as a period of patient care under one consultant in one healthcare provider. The figures do not represent the number of patients, as one person may several episodes within the year.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has commissioned into the relationship between lifestyle and(a) asthma and (b) diabetes. [127346]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The main agency through which the Government support medical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council (MRC). The MRC is an independent body, which receives its grant in aid from the Office of Science and Technology. The Department of Health funds research to support policy and the delivery of effective practice in the national health service.

  The lifestyle factors that interact with asthma will be very different for different people and will also change through an individual's life. In 2001–02 the MRC spent £0.3 million on research relating to lifestyle and asthma. The Department is funding research on air pollution and asthma, and a project on the effect of a low allergen indoor environment on exacerbations of asthma.

  The importance of healthy lifestyle choices for avoiding or delaying the onset of diabetes and its complications is well established. In 2001–02 the MRC spent £2.7 million on a wide range of research relating to lifestyle and diabetes. The Department and the MRC worked together with Diabetes UK and the Wellcome Trust on the "Review of Current and Future Research on Diabetes", published in October 2002. The review identified a need for genetics and molecular biology to be brought into large-scale epidemiological studies, with definition of lifestyle and environmental factors. A Department led task group with participation from the MRC, Diabetes UK and others has been established to determine how best to take forward the proposals in the review.

  The Department, MRC and the Wellcome Trust are to provide an initial £61 million to support the development of the UK Biobank project. This project aims to obtain comprehensive data on the combined

  165W
  effects of genotype, lifestyle and environmental exposure to assess the risk of developing the common multi-factorial diseases of later life, including diabetes.

  Autism
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what day care facilities are available to those suffering from autism; and if he will make a statement on the importance of interaction to autism sufferers. [127954]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Many people with autism also have a learning disability and may make use of learning disability day care services. Where people on the autistic spectrum have mental health problems, they may find mental health day care services helpful. Adults with Asperger's Syndrome or higher functioning autism are not precluded from using learning disability services, where appropriate, and may ask statutory services for an assessment of their social functioning and communications skills in order to establish their level of need.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what training is given to carers of autistic children; what other support services are available; and on what wage levels carers are placed. [127955]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Learning Disability White Paper, "Valuing People" (Cm 5086), published in March 2001, details training and qualification requirements for staff working with adults and children who have both autism and learning disability. It states that, from April 2002, all new entrants to learning disability care services should be registered for qualification on the learning disability awards framework (LDAF) and that by 2005, 50 per cent. of front-line staff should have achieved at least National Vocational Qualification Level 2.

  The LDAF contains two vocational qualifications—a level 2 certificate and a level 3 certificate in working with people with learning disabilities. Both these certificates include a module about autism. The LDAF modules can be used as part of the induction and foundation training that new care staff should undertake.

  Parent carers of autistic children receive help from local authorities (under section 17 of The Children Act) and the National Health Service on how best they can support their child. This could include skills training, both on an individual basis and in groups. Much of this support is provided in partnership with parents in their own homes and takes into account the family's individual circumstances. Other support available includes the National Autistic Society's "Help" programme, which offers training to parents in caring for their newly diagnosed autistic children. The Government helped to fund the development of this programme.

  Carers of people with autism may be employed by local authorities, local or national voluntary sector organisations such as the National Autistic Society and the Disabilities Trust or private sector care providers. The wage levels of paid carers are a matter for individual employers and would take account of the grade and experience of the individual staff.
  166W
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will commission an economic analysis of the(a) cost in public funds of treatment of autism and the (b) benefits of funding preventative support services for people with autism spectrum disorders and their families. [127855]

  Dr. Ladyman
  We have no plans to commission an economic analysis of the costs associated with autism. A paper on this subject in 2001 by Jarbrink and Knapp ("Autism" Vol 5(1) pp 7–22) gives estimates of the costs of autism and points up the long-term cost-effectiveness of early interventions. Early diagnosis and early intervention are key issues being addressed as part of the development of the children's national service framework (NSF), which will set national standards for health and social services departments. We have already announced that autism will be used as an exemplar in the NSF. This is being informed by the National Autism Plan for Children which was published in March.

  Babies
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the possible health risks associated with parents falling asleep in bed with their babies or young infants. [127435]

  Dr. Ladyman
  There is an association between parents falling asleep in bed with their babies and the tragic occurrence of cot death. The Department has issued guidance which addresses this hazard, details of which are available at http://www.doh.gov.uk/cotdeath/. There is also the possibility that an adult may roll over while asleep and smother their baby, or that the baby might fall from the bed and so be injured. The Child Accident Prevention Trust—a voluntary organisation which receives grant aid from the Department of Health—has issued guidance entitled "Keep your Baby Safe". This addresses health risks associated with parents falling asleep with their babies.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 8 May,Official Report, column 866W, on baby vaccines, if he will publish the responses to the letters of 1 April from the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency to UK vaccine marketing authorisation holders asking for an update on progress in reducing or removing thiomersal from vaccines. [123459]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer on 3 July]The information provided by pharmaceutical manufacturers to the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) is commercially sensitive and its confidentiality is guaranteed by The Medicines Act 1968. The Medicines Act 1968. The MHRA cannot publish the manufacturers' responses (which are still being received). The MHRA is continuing to work with the vaccine manufacturers to make every effort to remove or reduce the thiomersal component present in vaccines, including those used in the childhood immunisation programme. The only vaccine routinely administered to babies in the UK which contains thiomersal is diphtheria-tetanus-whole cell pertussis (DTwP). MMR HiB, oral polio and meningitis C vaccines used in the UK childhood vaccination programme are all thiomersal free.

  Bilateral Health Arrangements
  Mr. John Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the non-EEA countries and territories with which the UK has bilateral health arrangements. [128090]

  Mr. Hutton
  A full list of the non-EEA countries and territories with which the United Kingdom has bilateral health arrangements is given in pages 28–31 of the Department of Health leaflet "Health Advice for Travellers", which is available in the Library together with information on the services available free or at reduced cost in each of the countries or territories concerned.

  Blood Pressure
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans the Government has to publicise information on blood pressure. [127721]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  High blood pressure—hypertension—is a major risk factor for stroke, coronary heart disease and other illnesses such as kidney disease and aortic aneurysm.

  Blood pressure is part of the core data collected each year by the Health Survey for England. Tables on trends in blood pressure are updated each year and released on the Department of Health website. At the same time a main report is published together with a summary of Key Findings. For 2002 the report will focus on the health of children and young people and will include a section on blood pressure. Publication of the report for the 2002 survey is expected at the end of this year.

  In order to increase public awareness of hypertension and its attendant risks, as well as the importance of prevention and early detection, the Department of Health provided funding in 2002 for the Blood Pressure Association's "National Blood Pressure Testing Week". With 100,000 people tested at 1,350 blood pressure testing stations nation-wide, the purpose of the campaign is to raise public awareness of high blood pressure and encourage everyone to know their own blood pressure numbers. The Department of Health is also supporting the 3rd National Blood Pressure Testing Week (15–21 September 2003).

  In his Annual Report for 2002 on the state of the public health the Chief Medical Officer reviewed progress in the area of high blood pressure, which was one of the five areas covered in his 2001 report.

  Prevention of hypertension through a healthy lifestyle, including diet and physical activity is key. The Food Standards Agency (FSA) has published a consumer leaflet designed to raise awareness of salt intake, how to cut down on salt and the health benefits of reducing salt in the diet. The FSA regularly publishes a range of surveys and a survey showing the salt levels in certain food products will be published later this year.

  Bone Injuries
  Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent in England on the prevention of(a) all injuries as a result of a fall, (b) hip fractures and (c) osteoporosis among older people in the last 12 months. [127591]
  168W
  Dr. Ladyman
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Bovine Derivative Bone Grafts
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of people in England receiving bovine derivative bone grafts subsequently contracted BSE or CJD. [127544]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  In England only one patient with CJD is known to have had a bone graft. The graft was derived from the patient's own bone and was not bovine derived.

  Broomfield Hospital, Chelmsford
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many operations were cancelled at Broomfield hospital, Chelmsford in the last available quarter; and what percentage of the cancelled operations were consequently carried out within four weeks. [127461]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The information requested is not collected for individual hospital sites. Broomfield hospital is part of Mid-Essex Hospital Services National Health Service Trust. The number of last minute cancellations for non-medical reasons at Mid-Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust in the period January to March 2003 was 174. Information is not collected on the proportion of these cancellations that were consequently carried out within four weeks.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many mixed sex wards and wards have been artificially divided into single-sex bays at Broomfield hospital, Chelmsford. [127464]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The information is not available in the format requested. Ward level data are not collected.

  The Department of Health has set three objectives to support the elimination of mixed sex accommodation with a deadline of December 2002, designed to deliver separate sleeping areas, separate toilet and washing facilities and safe facilities for the mentally ill. That deadline has now been reached and today over 98 per cent. of wards across the national health service meet these standards. Given that there are some 10,000 wards in use, this is a significant achievement. A number of new hospitals and health care facilities are currently in construction, which will ultimately bring all wards to the required standards.

  Cancer
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are employed directly in the management of cancer within the NHS. [127653]

  Mr. Hutton
  Of the staff directly involved in the management of cancer, the workforce census only separately identifies the medical specialties in the cancer group.

  The specialties included in the cancer group are clinical oncology, clinical radiology, haematology, histopathology, palliative medicine and medical oncology. As at 31 March 2003, there were 4,059

  169W
  hospital medical consultants within the cancer group in England. This represents an increase of 29 per cent. since September 1997.

  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the quality of care cancer patients receive from the NHS. [127784]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Some of the cancer research funded by Government (an estimated total of £190 million in 2001–01) is on quality of cancer care. The National Health Service Research and Development Programme on Service Delivery and Organisation (SDO) is currently commissioning projects on the evaluation of cancer services quality with an expected total value of around £0.6 million. The SDO Programme is also funding a £0.4 million project studying patient experience of cancer services. The NHS R&D Health Technology Assessment Programme commissions research on the comparative clinical effectiveness of interventions in cancer care.

  The NHS Plan set out the intention to make available authoritative, evidence-based guidance on all aspects of NHS cancer care. The National Institute of Clinical Excellence was therefore asked to build on the existing cancer service guidance programme by commissioning a comprehensive package of guidance for cancer services covering all cancers. The Department's policy research programme has funded the evidence-based reviews underpinning the development of this guidance.

  The findings of the National Cancer Patients Survey were published in July 2002, with 65,500 responses covering all 172 NHS trusts in England with eligible patients agreed to participate in the survey. In this, patients were commenting on treatment they received between July 1999 and June 2000—before publication of the NHS Cancer Plan in September 2000. The survey provides a benchmark against which implementation of the National Cancer Plan can be monitored.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many full-time cancer specialists were working in the NHS, broken down by speciality, in each of the last six years. [127315]

  Mr. Hutton
  The table shows the number of hospital medical staff within the cancer group specialties, with full-time contracts for the last six years. Only consultant data are available for March 2003.

  Hospital medical staff within the six main cancer specialties by nature of contract

  All staff

  Of which: Consultant

  England

  All contracts

  Full-time

  All contracts

  Full-time

  1997

  All main cancer specialties

  5,180

  3,978

  3,155

  2,530

  Of which:

  Clinical oncology

  647

  501

  287

  231

  Clinical radiology

  2,014

  1,718

  1,442

  1,238

  Haematology

  1,026

  733

  488

  393

  Histopathology

  1,027

  770

  769

  581

  Medical oncology

  271

  160

  89

  42

  Palliative medicine

  195

  96

  80

  45

  1998

  All main cancer specialties

  5,350

  4,208

  3,273

  2,617

  of which:

  Clinical oncology

  676

  540

  299

  246

  Clinical radiology

  2,075

  1,752

  1,481

  1,252

  170W

  Hospital medical staff within the six main cancer specialties by nature of contract

  All staff

  Of which: Consultant

  England

  All contracts

  Full-time

  All contracts

  Full-time

  Haematology

  969

  736

  478

  381

  Histopathology

  1,100

  853

  828

  635

  Medical oncology

  327

  221

  102

  57

  Palliative medicine

  203

  106

  85

  46

  1999

  All main cancer specialties

  5,688

  4,488

  3,362

  2,698

  Of which:

  Clinical oncology

  698

  560

  305

  248

  Clinical radiology

  2,164

  1,842

  1,507

  1.269

  Haematology

  1,102

  800

  510

  404

  Histopathology

  1,129

  896

  836

  654

  Medical oncology

  375

  278

  110

  69

  Palliative medicine

  220

  112

  94

  54

  2000

  All main cancer specialties

  5,955

  4,669

  3,528

  2,770

  Of which:

  Clinical oncology

  711

  572

  307

  248

  Clinical radiology

  2,303

  1,923

  1,585

  1,297

  Haematology

  1,080

  778

  527

  413

  Histopathology

  1,199

  957

  865

  671

  Medical oncology

  404

  292

  133

  77

  Palliative medicine

  258

  147

  111

  64

  2001

  All main cancer specialties

  6,375

  4,983

  3,721

  2,848

  Of which:

  Clinical oncology

  776

  631

  333

  260

  Clinical radiology

  2,454

  2.026

  1,645

  1,305

  Haematology

  1,134

  825

  556

  420

  Histopathology

  1,291

  1,044

  915

  705

  Medical oncology

  435

  301

  147

  90

  Palliative medicine

  285

  156

  125

  68

  2002

  All main cancer specialties

  6,706

  5,227

  3,913

  2,929

  Of which:

  Clinical oncology

  785

  638

  315

  237

  Clinical radiology

  2,538

  2,063

  1,702

  1,326

  Haematology

  1,150

  847

  588

  429

  Histopathology

  1,374

  1,117

  968

  745

  Medical oncology

  504

  355

  185

  103

  Palliative medicine

  355

  207

  155

  89

  March 2003

  All main cancer specialties

  1—

  1—

  4,059

  3,059

  Of which:

  Clinical oncology

  1—

  1—

  366

  265

  Clinical radiology

  1—

  1—

  1,781

  1,401

  Haematology

  1—

  1—

  598

  437

  Histopathology

  1—

  1—

  994

  783

  Medical oncology

  1—

  1—

  172

  94

  Palliative medicine

  1—

  1—

  148

  79

  1 Not available. 2003 data are taken from the medical and dental work force mini census, which only counted consultants.

  Note:

  1997 to 2002 data as at 30 September and 2003 data as at 31 March.

  Source:

  Department of Health medical and dental work force census.

  Care Homes
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nursing care and residential care beds were provided by local authorities in each year since 1997. [127355]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The latest available information on the number of nursing and residential care home places provided by local authorities in each year since 1997 is shown in the table.
  171W

  Residential and nursing care home places by type of home, England 1997–2001—England, as at 31 March

  Rounded numbers

  Number of places

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Residential care

  LA staffed

  65,820

  63,980

  59,030

  55,460

  50,860

  Independent1

  246,550

  252,810

  252,290

  253,360

  252,380

  Nursing care

  Independent2

  196.270

  205,590

  202,150

  193,330

  186,830

  Dual registered

  25,770

  31,120

  32,720

  37,090

  37,940

  Total all homes

  534.410

  553,490

  546,190

  539,240

  528,000

  1 Includes places in voluntary, private and small residential homes.

  2 Places include beds in general and mental nursing homes, private hospitals and clinics.

  Source:

  RA form A and KO36, RH(N) forms, Department of Health.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the number of care home beds in Essex. [127493]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The latest available information on the number of care home beds in Essex is shown in the table.

  Care home beds in Essex 1999–2001

  Essex Area1

  2Total number of care home places

  As at 31 March

  1999

  14,730

  2000

  14,200

  2001

  14,230

  1 Care home places in nursing homes in North and South Essex health authorities and residential homes in Essex shire county and Southend and Thurrock unitary authorities.

  2 Total includes places in residential LA staffed, independent and dual registered homes, and beds in general and mental nursing homes, private hospitals and clinics.

  Source:

  RA Form A and RH(N) forms, Department of Health

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many care home beds there are in(a) Greater London and (b) England. [127502]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The latest available information on the number of care home places in Greater London and England as at 31 March 2001 is shown in the table.

  Number of care home places in London1 and England (rounded numbers)

  As at 31 March 2001

  Total number of care home places2

  England

  528,000

  London

  47,430

  1 All residential homes in councils with social services responsibilities in inner and Outer London and all nursing homes in Health Authorities within London.

  2 Includes places in residential LA staffed, independent and dual registered homes and beds in general and mental nursing homes, private hospitals and clinics.

  Chelmsford Primary Care Trust
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the prescribing budget is for the Chelmsford Primary Care Trust for the financial year 2002–03. [127462]
  172W
  Dr. Ladyman
  Audited information in respect of the annual financial position of all national health service organisations must be published in their individual annual accounts and should be available centrally in autumn of each year.

  I understand that Chelmsford Primary Care Trust has already made public that it has allocated £13.664 million from its 2002–03 unified budget towards the anticipated cost of prescribing for its general practitioners.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what accumulated deficit has been identified by the Chelmsford Primary Care Trust for(a) the financial year 2002–03 and (b) the current financial year. [127487]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Audited information in respect of the annual financial position of all national health service organisations must be published in their individual annual accounts and should be available centrally in autumn of each year.

  I understand that Chelmsford Primary Care Trust has already made public that it has identified a deficit of £805,000 for the financial year 2002–03 and the deficit for the first quarter of 2003–04 is £228,000.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps will be taken to comply with Lord Laming's recommendations on child protection when formulating future star ratings for(a) hospital trusts, (b) primary care trusts and (c) mental health trusts. [127916]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Government's response to the Victoria Climbié Inquiry report, to be published later this year, will set out the situation on performance assessment in the national health service.

  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether all NHS trusts offer to their nurses and key workers access to expert child protection advice and support 24 hours a day, seven days a week; and what mechanisms his Department has put in place to ensure that this requirement is being met. [127010]

  Dr. Ladyman
  This information is not collected centrally. However, I have asked the Commission for Health Improvement to assess child protection arrangements in the national health service and to report on the strengths and weaknesses of existing NHS arrangements.

  Chlamydia/HIV
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department is undertaking into the links between HIV and AIDS awareness campaigns and education and the incidence of chlamydia in young people. [127545]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department of Health contributes £1 million annually to support a national programme of Sexual Health and HIV research which informs our work to prevent the spread of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs). The current programme does not include specific research into links between HIV and AIDS awareness and the incidence of chlamydia, although we do know that the widespread HIV prevention campaigns of the 1980s did lead to a reduction in the prevalence of many other STIs. Our
  173W
  regular surveys which measure the impact of the Teenage Pregnancy campaign, also provide data on the awareness of STIs among young people. This shows that awareness of HIV is high among this group and that awareness of chlamydia is increasing, possibly as a result of increased publicity on the subject, such as the Government's 'Sex lottery' campaign.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many women were tested for(a) chlamydia and (b) HIV in each of the last five years. [127543]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department of Health does not hold central data on the total number of men and women who have undergone testing for chlamydia. We do, however, hold data on those who have tested and received a positive result.

  Year

  Male

  Female

  1998

  18,937

  24,975

  1999

  21,808

  29,196

  2000

  26,632

  34,815

  2001

  29,602

  38,644

  2002

  34,341

  43,796

  Source:

  Health Protection Agency

  Estimates for the number of men and women tested for chlamydia through GUM Clinics, General Practitioners or Antenatal Care Providers in England between 1997 and 2002 are shown in the table. Note that data on antenatal testing of women are available only from 2000.

  Year

  Male

  Female

  19971

  75,113

  60,020

  19981

  79,665

  63,998

  19991

  81,842

  65,614

  20002

  93,262

  345,083

  20012

  122,178

  473,321

  2002

  161,911

  544,466

  In addition, all blood donations are screened for HIV and in the table below are the estimates of the numbers of the donations screened for both men and women.

  Year

  Total

  1997

  3,040,022

  1998

  2,864,483

  1999

  2,922,045

  2000

  2,903,565

  2001

  2,849,740

  2002

  2,844,465

  Notes:

  1 Data from Genitourinary clinics and general practitioners only.

  2 Includes preliminary unpublished data from the "National Survey of HIV in Pregnancy and Childhood", source: Institute of Child Health.

  Source:

  In calculating these estimates, data from the following surveys were used: denominator survey (CDSC) to provide GP testing estimates, KC60 (CDSC) to provide GUM testing estimates, National survey of HIV in Pregnancy and Childhood (ICH) to provide Antenatal testing estimates.

  Cholesterol
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to improve the measurement of cholesterol in the over-50s. [127735]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The planning and priorities framework, "Improving, Expansion and Reform", which sets out priorities for the next three years for the national health service, includes a target for practice based registers to ensure that patients with, or at high risk of, coronary heart disease and diabetes receive appropriate care and treatment in line with national service framework standards, including advice on diet, physical activity and smoking. Patients at risk of coronary heart disease include those with hypertension, diabetes and who are obese.

  The quality and outcomes framework within the new general medical services contract, being introduced from 1 April 2004, will reward general practitioners who monitor, and can demonstrate control of, the cholesterol level of patients suffering from chronic heart disease.

  Clinical Data
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS hospital files holding clinical data on patients(a) went missing temporarily and (b) were lost in each year since 1995. [127186]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information requested is not available. The Department of Health does not monitor or gather statistics on the management of clinical records in National Health Service hospitals and trusts and consequently has no record of numbers of files temporarily missing or lost.

  Each NHS trust and strategic health authority is legally responsible for managing its own records and complying with legislation and guidance relating to the clinical data they collect on patients.

  In the NHS, guidance and governance arrangements have been designed to assure compliance with law and good practice, while minimising the overheads of managing and auditing detailed procedures. Independent authorities, such as the Audit Commission, Health Service Commissioner and Information Commissioner, oversee the governance arrangements and may impose sanctions where there is a significant failure to comply.

  Commission for Health Improvement
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in which languages the patient surveys issued by the Commission for Health Improvement were published. [127322]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  It is not possible to identify from patient records what language a patient speaks. Therefore the initial contact has to be in English. Survey guidance for trusts points to a range of options for helping patients whose first language is not English.

  Community Health Councils
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with staff working at Community Health Councils on the closure of such health councils. [127167]
  175W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The closure of Community Health Councils (CHCs) was first announced in the NHS Plan in July 2000. Since then, this subject has formed part of the discussions Ministers have had with CHC staff and members as part of various visits around the country and there have been meetings with Stakeholder groups, including the Association of Community Health Council in England and Wales and trades unions. Officials in the Department of Health have had similar meetings and local employers and CHC leads have held open meetings to discuss the closure with staff and members.

  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when Community Health Councils will be closed in England. [127168]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I refer the hon. Member to the Written Ministerial Statement made by my hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State on 4 June 2003,Official Report, columns 22–23WS. It is still our intention to abolish Community Health Councils on 1 December 2003.

  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions have taken place on the redundancy payments staff will receive when community health councils are closed. [127169]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I met with trade unions representing Community Health Council (CHC) staff on 16 July to discuss staffing issues and also received feedback from a meeting held recently with key stakeholders, including CHC staff, members of the Association of Community Health Councils of England and Wales, the Council for Patient and Public Involvement in Health and the trades unions.

  Officials have worked with the trade unions and a revised human resources framework for CHC staff was issued on 25 July. This document, which was jointly with Unison and Amicus-MSF, covers not only the issue of redundancy but also the support and advice that is available to CHC staff to help them secure alternative posts within the National Health Service. It is hoped that this will address some of the concerns and anxieties raised.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he plans to keep Community Health Councils operational after 1 December 2003. [127429]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  It is still our intention to abolish Community Health Councils on 1 December 2003.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many Community Health Councils have had to leave their previous premises because of the decision to keep CHCs operational until December. [127430]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To date, no Community Health Councils (CHCs) have had to leave their premises specifically because of the decision to keep CHCs operational until 1 December. However, it is estimated that about 56 CHCs will need to leave their current premises before the abolition date for reasons including the cost of extending the lease arrangements where previous notice had been given. Decisions will be based on local circumstances and suitable alternative arrangements will be discussed with local CHC staff and members.
  176W
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many letters his Department has received opposing the abolition of community health councils; and if he will make a statement. [127460]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Since the abolition of community health councils was first announced in the NHS plan in July 2000 the Department has received many letters commenting on this issue. However, owing to the volume of correspondence which the Department receives and the way in which that correspondence is filed, the information cold be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Congestion Charge
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many letters he has received from health service personnel concerning the Central London congestion charge since the charge began. [127499]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department has received three letters from national health service professionals about the impact of the congestion charge since the charge began.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact of congestion charging in Central London on(a) doctors, (b) nurses, (c) consultants, (d) paramedics and (e) ancillary staff. [127500]

  Mr. Hutton
  The congestion charging scheme includes a number of measures to minimise the impact of congestion charging on National Health Service staff. This includes:Exemption of NHS vehicles currently exempt from vehicle excise duty, including ambulances and paramedic vehicles.
  A provision to reimburse journeys by NHS staff required to carry specified items, such as controlled drugs or confidential information, as part of their operational duties, that should not be transported on public transport.
  A provision to reimburse journeys by NHS staff for the purpose of providing emergency on-call services.

  The NHS steering group on this issue will shortly by writing to all NHS organisations to ask for data relating to the impact of the scheme for the period 17 February to 17 August. This data will be collated through the steering group and it will report on the outcome of this review in September.

  Consultants
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in consultant recruitment in the last 12 months. [127479]

  Mr. Hutton
  As at 31 March 2003 there were 28,024 consultants working in the national health service. This represents an increase of 1,580 or 6.0 per cent. since March 2002. Between September 1997 and March 2003 there has been a 31 per cent. increase in the number of consultants.

  From March 2002 to date, 179 consultants have been recruited through the Department of Health's international recruitment campaign.
  177W
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in(a) Mid-Essex Hospital NHS Trust and (b) Greater London have been waiting more than 13 weeks to see a consultant. [127484]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information is shown in the table.

  Patients who are waiting over 13 weeks for a first consultant out-patient appointment following G(D)P written referral: Position at 31 March 2003

  Organisation

  Number

  Mid-Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust

  450

  North West London HA

  3,818

  North Central London HA

  5,040

  North East London HA

  7,860

  South East London HA

  4,556

  South West London HA

  3,056

  Source:

  Department of Health form QM08

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many vacancies there were for consultants in the last year for which figures are available. [127374]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department of Health does not collect information on individual vacancies. The national health service vacancy survey collects information on the number of posts which trusts are actively trying to fill which have been vacant for three months or more.

  As at 31 March 2003, the three month vacancy rate for consultants was 4.7 per cent.

  Paddington Health Campus
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the estimated completion date is of the proposed Paddington Health Campus. [128091]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Paddington Health Campus is expected to be a project that will take a decade to fully complete, though patients will be using the facilities from 2009–10.

  Coronary Heart Disease
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in England suffer from coronary heart disease; and what proportion of the overall population these represent. [127446]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Nationally representative figures on the prevalence of heart disease and its risk factors are available from the Health Survey for England. Although the definition of coronary heart disease as such is not used in the Health Survey for England, the survey reports the prevalence of ischaemic heart disease which is defined as ever having angina or a heart attack, confirmed by a doctor. The most recent estimates of the prevalence of ischaemic heart disease were published in "The Health Survey for England—Cardiovascular Disease 1998", table 2.2, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Deep Vein Thrombosis
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures have been taken by his Department in 178W
  the last 12 months (a) to increase awareness about and (b) to reduce the number of people who suffer from deep vein thrombosis. [127477]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  In 2001 the Department of Health issued information and advice to the airlines and the public about minimising the risk of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) during long journeys. This included practical advice for air passengers on long haul flights. It also identified certain groups who may be at a higher risk of DVT and advised them to seek medical advice before travelling and described simple in-seat exercises that should be recommended to all air passengers.

  To maximise access for the public to this information and advice it is available through health services, the internet at http://www.doh.gov.uk/dvt/, the airlines and NHS Direct and will be kept under review in the light of new research information. No further advice has been issued.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in England have been diagnosed with deep vein thrombosis in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [127489]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Deep vein thrombosis is linked to older age, cancer, trauma, surgery and long periods of immobilisation, oral contraception, pregnancy and a number of conditions related to hyperactive blood clotting.

  The number of admissions where primary diagnosis was phlebitis and thrombophlebitis of other deep vessels of lower extremities. in national health service hospitals in England in 2001–02 was 23,801.

  Notes:

  Admissions are defined as a first period of patient care under a consultant in one health care provider.

  The figures do not represent the number of patients, as one person may have several admissions within the year. This is the latest year for which data are available.

  The primary diagnosis is the first of seven diagnosis fields in the HES data set and provides the main reason why the patient was in hospital.

  Figures have not yet been adjusted for shortfalls in data (i.e. the data are ungrossed).

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to reduce the number of cases of deep vein thrombosis affecting women during pregnancy. [127595]

  Dr. Ladyman
  In 2001, the Department of Health issued information and advice to the airlines and the public about minimising the risk of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) during long journeys. This included practical advice for air passengers on long haul flights. It also identified certain groups, including pregnant women, who may be at a higher risk of DVT and advised them to seek medical advice before travelling and described simple in-seat exercises that should be recommended to all air passengers.

  In order to maximise access for the public to this information and advice, it is available through health services, on the internet at http:///www.doh.gov.uk/dvt/, from the airlines and NHS Direct and will be kept under review in the light of new research information.
  179W
  The Department also produces "The Pregnancy Book" and "Birth to Five", which are given to all first time mothers by their midwife. Both books contain practical advice for pregnant women about DVT and advise them to consult their general practitioner or midwife before travelling by air.

  Dementia
  Mrs Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the most significant known risk factor for dementia is; how many people are living with dementia in(a) the UK and (b) Sefton; and how many of those people are under the age of 65. [127661]

  Dr. Ladyman
  There is no routine collection of information at national or local level about the number of people living with dementia. The research, quoted by the older people's national service framework in 2001, estimated that approximately 600,000 people in the United Kingdom have dementia, of whom there are about 17,000 people under the age of 65.

  The most significant known risk factor for dementia is age. It is estimated that about 5 per cent. of people over 65 have dementia, rising to about 20 per cent. in the population over 80.

  Departmental Press Office
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the total cost was of running the Department's press office in the latest year for which figures are available. [127473]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The total costs for the Department's press office for 2002–03 are likely to be £1,154,000, including all staff and non-staff related administration costs.

  This figure may still be subject to change, as the accounts are not yet closed for that period.

  Departmental Priorities
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his Department's priorities; and how many there are. [127459]

  Mr. Hutton
  The national priorities for the National Health Service are set out in "Improvement, Expansion and Reform: The next three years: Priorities and planning Framework" (PPF) 2003–06, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Diagnostic and Treatment Centres
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many doctors will be needed to staff the new diagnostic and treatment centres. [127328]

  Mr. Hutton
  The number of doctors needed to staff National Health Service-run diagnosis and treatment centres (DTCs) is a matter for the NHS trust managing the unit, working with their local workforce development confederations to ensure the best use of staff in the local health economy.

  The number of doctors working in new independent sector run DTCs will be determined during the contract agreement process with preferred bidders. The
  180W
  procurement documentation sent to short-listed bidders asked them demonstrate that their workforce strategy would not be disruptive to the local health economy. and to indicate the numbers of additional clinical staff and NHS staff, working in an agreed and structured way, that will work in these new units.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which procedures are expected to be carried out in diagnostic and treatment centres. [127329]

  Mr. Hutton
  Diagnosis and treatment centres are expected to provide booked diagnosis and treatment, on a day case or short inpatient stay basis, in high volume "routine" specialities such as orthopaedics, ophthalmology and general surgery.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the Government will use a standard tariff for treatments carried out at diagnostic and treatment centres. [127365]

  Mr. Hutton
  From this year, the Government has introduced a new financial system to provide a transparent, rules-based system for paying providers of services to National Health Service patients. Primary care trusts will commission the volume of activity required to deliver service priorities, adjusted for case-mix, from a plurality of providers on the basis of a standard national price tariff. These arrangements apply equally to NHS trusts and NHS—diagnosis and treatment centres.

  Diet
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how he will measure the success of the Five-A-Day scheme. [127373]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Consumption of fruit and vegetables is monitored in national surveys, including the annual Health Survey for England, the annual Expenditure on Food Survey, and the periodic National Diet and Nutrition Survey.

  The New Opportunities Fund has commissioned evaluations of the two elements of the Five-a-Day programme that it is funding at present—the 66 primary care trust-based community initiatives and the regional scaling up of the National School Fruit Scheme. Each evaluation will use a dedicated dietary assessment tool, the development of which was commissioned by the Department of Health at the time of its original pilots.

  Awareness and usage of the Five-d-Day logo launched in March will also be monitored nationally.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the Government plans to increase the funding for Five-a-Day Local Community Initiatives available through the National Lottery New Opportunities Fund; and if he will make a statement. [128231]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The lottery-funded New Opportunities Fund is providing £10 million over two years to 2005 to support Five-a-Day community initiatives based in 66 primary care trusts (PCTs). These PCTs, like all PCTs in England, have a duty to improve the health of their communities which requires them to lead on public health issues such as healthy eating. By 2004 PCTs will be managing up to 75 per cent. of the total national health service budget for England to
  181W
  commission services to meet the needs of their population, which may include Five-a-Day projects to increase fruit and vegetable consumption. The Department of Health continues to fund the production of Five-a-Day resources which are available, free, to all PCTs but it does not ring fence funds for Five-a-Day within PCTs' allocations.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures his Department is taking to improve people's diets, with special reference to people living in socially deprived areas. [127453]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department of Health, working with the Food Standards Agency and other partners, is taking a range of measures to improve people's diets. The following measures specifically relate to deprivation.

  The lottery-funded New Opportunities Fund is providing £10 million over two years to support "Five-a Day" community initiatives led in 66 of the most deprived primary care trusts. These aim to increase access to fruit and vegetables and awareness of the health benefits of eating at least five portions of a variety of fruit and vegetables each day.

  The "NHS Priorities and Planning Framework 2003–06" sets a target to increase breastfeeding initiation rates by two percentage points a year, focussing especially on women from disadvantaged groups.

  The Welfare Food Scheme provides free milk and vitamins to over 700,000 pregnant women, mothers and young children. It is primarily targeted at low income families. The Department plans to reform the scheme by 2004 by broadening its nutritional basis, strengthening links with the national health service and providing increased support for breastfeeding mothers.

  District Nurses
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the role of district nurses in the NHS; and what plans he has to increase their role. [127283]

  Mr. Hutton
  District nurses have an important contribution to make in improving health and health care. The implementation of policies to improve access, promote earlier discharge from hospital and the national service framework for older people require district nurses and others to develop their roles. To support their development I launched a strategy for nursing in primary care, in November 2002. 'Liberating the Talents: helping nurses and PCTs deliver the NHS plan' provides a framework for district nurses and other primary care nurses, for developing their roles based on the needs of patients. Workshops on implementing `Liberating the Talents' have been held for all primary care trusts in England. It is for PCTs to determine locally how to maximise the role of nurses in delivering Government priorities.

  Doctor-Nurse Ratios
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the ratio of(a) doctors and (b) nurses to people is in England. [127524]

  Mr. Hutton
  The table shows the ratio of hospital, public health medicine and community health services staff, general practitioners and nurses to the population in England.

  Population per Doctor/Nurse

  Number

  England, as at 30 September 2002

  England total

  Population

  49,342,229

  Doctors1

  104,460

  Population per Doctor

  472

  of which:

  HCHS staff1

  72,168

  Population per Doctor

  684

  General Medical Practitioners2

  32,292

  Population per Doctor

  1,528

  All Qualified Nursing Staff

  367,520

  Population per Nurse

  134

  1 HCHS stands for Hospital, Public Health Medicine and Community Health Services.

  2 Excludes Hospital Medical Hospital Practitioners and Hospital Medical Clinical Assistants, most of whom are GPs working part-time in hospitals.

  Notes:

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

  2. Practice Nurses employed by Unrestricted Principals and Equivalents (UPEs).

  3. 2001 based resident population projections for England for mid year 2002.

  Sources:

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics.

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce census.

  Government Actuary's Department (GAD).

  Doctors
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average number of hours worked per week by doctors in training were in England in the last year for which figures are available. [127375]

  Mr. Hutton
  The actual hours worked by junior doctors are not monitored centrally. We do however measure average maximum hours in order to assess compliance with the New Deal. The last occasion these figures were collated was in March 2003. This data revealed that out of nearly 32,000 junior doctors, about 90 per cent. were working less than 56 hours a week.

  Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many doctors were employed(a) at the Princess Royal Hospital and (b) in general practice in the Wrekin in each year since 1997. [127590]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  183W

  Doctors employed at the Princess Royal Hospital Trust and GPs employed within Telford and Wrekin Primary Care Trust (actual numbers); 1997 to 2003

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  March 2002

  2002

  March 2003

  Princess Royal Hospital NHS Trust

  HCHS doctors1

  98

  100

  103

  107

  122

  —

  122

  —

  of which:

  Consultants

  34

  32

  36

  38

  40

  40

  40

  44

  Telford and Wrekin PCT

  General Medical Practitioners2

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  88

  86

  85

  89

  90

  of which:

  Unrestricted Principals and Equivalents (UPEs)3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  82

  81

  80

  82

  82

  n/a = Not available

  1 Excludes Hospital Medical Hospital Practitioners and Hospital Medical Clinical Assistants, most of whom are GPs working part-time in hospitals.

  2 All Practitioners include UPEs, Restricted Principals, Assistants, GP Registrars, Salaried Doctors (Para. 52 SFA), PMS Other and GP Retainers.

  3 UPEs include GMS Unrestricted Principals, PMS Contracted GPs and PMS Salaried Gps.

  Note:

  Data for 1997–99 as at 1 October, 2000–02 as at 30 September, March 2002 and March 2003 as at 31 March.

  Sources:

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics.

  Department of Health Medical and Dental Workforce Census.

  Ealing Hospital Trust
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the resignations of the non-executive team of the Ealing Hospital Trust. [127640]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  A joint press release was issued by the National Health Service Appointments Commission and the North West London Strategic Health Authority on 26 June 2003 announcing resignations from the board of the Ealing Hospital Trust. This stated that the chair and three non-executive directors were standing down because of a break down in relationships, and to make it easier for an independent review of corporate governance systems at the trust to be carried out by the trust's auditors. A caretaker chair is now in post and the three non-executive positions have been advertised.

  East and North Hertfordshire Trust
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the findings of the external investigation into presentation of waiting figures by East and North Hertfordshire Trust are to be published. [127695]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire Strategic Health Authority published the report of the independent external inquiry into the management of waiting lists at East and North Hertfordshire National Health Service Trust on 8 July 2003.

  Copies of the report are available on the Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire Strategic Health Authority website, at www.bhha.nhs.uk.

  Electronic Foetal Monitoring
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each hospital trust(a) the measures used to collect information and (b) the information collated on electronic foetal monitoring. [127097]
  184W
  Dr. Ladyman
  Trusts are required to collect information on maternity care through the Department of Health's Hospital Episodes Statistics system. This information is published in the National Health Service Maternity Statistics Bulletin, England 2001–02. The most recent bulletin, number 2003/09, was published on 16 May 2003. A copy is available in the Library and is also available on the Department of Health's website at www.doh.uk/public/sb0309.htm

  Information on other measures used by each hospital trust to collect information, including information on electronic foetal monitoring is not collected centrally.

  Emergency Services
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) emergency journeys and (b) emergency calls there were in each year from 1995–96 to 2001–02. [127715]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Information on the number of emergency journeys and emergency calls for ambulance trusts in England are contained in the Department of Health Statistical Bulletins, "Ambulance Services, England".

  Copies of the bulletins are available in the Library and on the Department's website at www.doh.gov.uk/public/sb0313.htm (covering the period 1997–98 to 2002–03) and www.doh.gov.uk/pub/docs/doh/amb9899.pdf (covering the period 1994–95 to 1998–99).

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average response times for emergency calls were in each health authority in each year from 1995–96 to 2001–02. [127717]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Information on average response times in each health authority is not collected centrally.

  The Department collects information on the proportion of emergency calls resulting in an ambulance arriving at the scene of the reported incident within the Government's

  185W
  target response times for all ambulance trusts in England. These are contained in the Department of Health Statistical Bulletins, "Ambulance Services, England".

  Copies of the bulletins are available in the Library and also on the Department's website at www.doh.gov.uk/public/sb0313.htm (covering the period 1997–98 to 2002–03) and www.doh.gov.uk/pub/docs/doh/amb9899. pdf (covering the period 1994–95 to 1998–99).

  The information relating to Wales and Scotland is a matter for the devolved Administrations.

  While the institutions in Northern Ireland are dissolved, responsibility rests with Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) front line ambulances, (b) patient transport vehicles, (c) fast response cars, (d) medical motorbikes and (e) special care baby units (i) serve and (ii) served Essex in May 1997. [127467]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many 999 calls were made to the Essex Ambulance Service in the last 12 months for which figures are available for which it was decided an ambulance was not necessary; and what proportion of calls over this period such calls represented. [127469]

  Dr. Ladyman
  I am advised by Essex Ambulance Service National Health Service Trust that it answered 141,775 999 calls in the period 1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003.

  I understand that these calls resulted in the trust responding to 124,063 incidents. Of these incidents, 1,364 were cancelled before the ambulance arrived due to hoax calls. The remaining 122,699 incidents resulted in 107,343 patients being taken to hospital. This results in 16,720 incidents where an ambulance was not required, which equates to 13.47 per cent.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) front line ambulances, (b) patient transport vehicles, (c) fast response cars, (d) medical motorbikes and (e) special care baby units serve Greater London. [127478]

  Mr. Hutton
  This information is not held centrally. Information from the London Ambulance Service National Health Service Trust is shown in the table.

  Vehicles and units serving Greater London

  Front line ambulances

  395

  Patient transport vehicles1

  252

  Fast response cars (RRUs)

  59

  Medical motorbikes (MRUs)

  11

  Special care baby units (SCBUs)

  8

  1 Made up of six generic types of vehicles

  Endometriosis
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to produce a public information campaign to raise awareness of endometriosis. [124189]
  186W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  We recognise the very important role that voluntary organisations such as the National Endometriosis Society (NES) and Simply Holistic Endometriosis (SHE) Trust have in promoting awareness of this debilitating condition.

  We are currently making funds available to NES to produce an information leaflet for women encouraging those with symptoms to discuss them with their general practitioner. They will also produce a leaflet for GPs, which will be the first point of contact for women with this condition, highlighting the symptoms and encouraging early referral.

  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research has been carried out by or on behalf of his Department on the use of complementary medicine in treating endometriosis. [127873]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  No such research has been undertaken.

  Epothilones
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement regarding Government funding and support of research and development of epothilones. [127555]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  No research on epothilones is currently being funded by the Medical Research Council or the Department. Commercial trials are in progress.

  Eye Surgery
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the recovery time and success rates of those patients undergoing(a) LASIK, (b) LASEK, (c) PRK and (d) ALK; and what the side effects of each are; [127535]

  (2) what recommendations have been made to the NHS with regard to the range of (a) myopia and (b) hyperopia that would benefit the most from refractive surgery. [127536]

  Mr. Hutton
  The majority of laser eye surgery to correct refractive errors takes place in private hospitals, which are regulated by the National Care Standards Commission (NCSC), which is currently monitoring developments in this area. Providers of laser eye surgery are required to be registered with the NCSC and to keep records for inspection by the NCSC of each surgical procedure undertaken, including accidents or adverse events. Service providers are subject to annual inspection by the NCSC.

  The National Health Service does not routinely provide laser eye surgery to correct refractive errors. However, it is considered when a specific clinical need could justify its use. Examples could include adjustment of the refractive error of one eye to make it similar to the other (a) condition known as anisometropia) or patients shown to be severely depressed by the need to wear glasses (and where contact lenses are contraindicated). These are rare occurrences and are evaluated on an individual patient basis.

  Health Care (EU)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the recent European Court ruling about the eligibility of all EU citizens to non-hospital care in any EU country. [127635]

  Mr. Hutton
  The judgment in a similar case before the English courts (Watts v. Bedford Primary Care Trust) is awaited for guidance on the extent to which the recent European Court of Justice ruling in case C (Muller-Faure/van Riet) applies in the United Kingdom. When that is available, careful consideration will be given to any implications for policy and practice in the UK.

  Falls
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what percentage of ambulance call outs to people over the age of(a) 50 years and (b) 65 years in each of the last five years for which figures are available were as a result of a fall. [127350]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  The national service framework (NSF) for older people, published in 2001, requires the NHS, working in partnership with councils, to take action to prevent falls and reduce resultant fractures or other injuries in their populations of older people. Older people who have fallen should receive effective treatment and prevention and, with their carers, receive advice on prevention through a specialised falls service. All local health and social care systems should have established this service by April 2005 and achievement of this NSF milestone will be monitored centrally.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how much was spent on the funding of falls coordinator posts in England in 2002–03; [127347]

  (2) what he estimates to be the cost of (a) all injuries as a result of a fall, (b) hip fractures and (c) osteoporosis to the national health service in the last 12 months; [127348]

  (3) how many designated falls co-ordinators are in post in the United Kingdom. [127364]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer the hon. Member to the responses given by my hon. Friends the then Minister of State and the then Under-Secretary of State for Health on 5 March 2003,Official Report, column 1121W.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the progress of local health authorities against the national service framework for older people's 2003 milestone on falls prevention. [127351]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Department of Health will be monitoring formally the overall falls milestone of integrated health and social care falls services by April 2005 as this is included as one of the key targets in "Improvement, Expansion and Reform", the priorities and planning framework for 2003–06. It is now for strategic health authorities to plan, deliver and monitor progress locally on the other falls milestones in the national service framework for older people.

  Food Additives
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what resources the NHS is allocating for research into the link between food additives and behavioural deficits in children. [127720]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  There are currently no national health service studies on this subject. However, last year the Food Standards Agency (FSA) set up an ad hoc, multi-stakeholder working group to advise on the feasibility of conducting research on a possible relationship between exposure to certain food additives and behavioural effects in children; and to advise on the most suitable experimental strategies. In the light of this advice the FSA advertised for suitable research proposals. Following appraisal, successful proposals are likely to be commissioned early next year.

  Food Poisoning
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of food poisoning were notified to his Department in each year since 1997. [127338]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  A summary of the food poisoning notifications received in England and Wales for the years 1997–2002, is shown in the table.

  Food poisoning notifications—annual totals: England and Wales. 1997–2001

  Total

  Formally notified

  Otherwise ascertained

  1997

  93,901

  54,233

  39,668

  1998

  93,932

  53,764

  40,168

  1999

  86,316

  48,454

  37,862

  2000

  86,528

  46,481

  40,047

  2001

  85,468

  46,768

  38,700

  2002

  72,649

  38,541

  34,108

  Source:

  HPA Statutory Notifications of Infectious Diseases—Last updated: July 2003

  Food Standards Agency
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many consultations have been issued by the Food Standards Agency in each year since its inception. [127340]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Since its inception the Food Standards Agency (FSA) has operated under the three guiding principles of putting the consumer first, being open and accessible and being an independent voice. To do this effectively the FSA consults widely before making recommendations, unless urgent action is required, and engages with a plethora of stakeholders as part of its general policy-making process. It uses a wide range of consultative methods such as open/public meetings, specific stakeholder meetings, focus groups, standing consultative groups and questionnaire-based surveys. For formal written consultations, the FSA has published 331 on its website since its establishment in April 2000: 46 between April to December 2000, 80 in 2001, 128 in 2002 and 77 between January to July 2003.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how often he plans to meet officials from the Food Standards Agency. [127343]
  189W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I meet the Chair of the Food Standards Agency every four to six weeks and meet its officials on a regular basis for briefings.

  Foundation Trusts
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what process will be used to recruit members of NHS Foundation Trusts. [127625]

  Mr. Hutton
  It will be for each national health service foundation trust to determine what approach to take.

  A source book has now been developed to help applicants for NHS foundation trust status develop their governance and membership arrangements. NHS foundation trusts will be under a statutory duty to take steps to have a representative membership.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether foundation hospitals established in England will be required to treat patients referred by general practitioners based in Wales. [127376]

  Mr. Hutton
  Arrangements for cross border referrals to national health service foundation trusts are expected to continue to work in the same way as referrals from NHS Commissioners in Wales to NHS trusts currently operate.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of how many members a foundation trust will have. [127644]

  Mr. Hutton
  National health service foundation trusts will be required to set their own minimum membership as part of their constitution. The Independent Regulator must be satisfied that the membership is sufficient to ensure that a Board of Governors can be elected according to its constitution and that the actual membership will be representative of those eligible.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for piloting the scheme for foundation hospitals. [127645]

  Mr. Hutton
  We have no plans to pilot national health service foundation trusts.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to send out the source book for foundation hospital applicants. [127646]

  Mr. Hutton
  A first version of the governance source book has been made available to applicants. This will be supplemented, over time, to include learning from the experience of first wave applicants.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the role of the Foundation Trusts Regulator. [127662]

  Mr. Hutton
  Subject to Parliament, the Independent Regulator for National Health Service foundation trusts will be responsible for authorising, monitoring and regulating NHS foundation trusts. Details of the role of the Independent Regulator can be found in the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill.
  190W
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the Regulator of Foundation Trusts will be required to maintain universal access to healthcare services. [127663]

  Mr. Hutton
  Subject to legislation, the Independent Regulator will be required to exercise his functions in a manner that is consistent with the performance by the Secretary of State of the duties under sections 1, 3 and 51 of the National Health Service Act 1977.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what role he will play in the work of foundation trusts. [127664]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Secretary of State has overall responsibility for the National Health Service. The Secretary of State sets the strategic vision for the health service, distributes resources to the NHS, sets the national tariff and will set national standards. The Secretary of State's main role, with regard to NHS foundations trusts, will be to decide whether to support proposals for NHS foundation trust status.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps will be taken to ensure that foundation trusts do not turn away patients with chronic conditions. [127665]

  Mr. Hutton
  The services National Health Service foundation trusts provide for NHS Commissioners will be set out in legally binding contracts.

  NHS foundation trusts will be required, under their terms of authorisation, to continue to provide essential NHS services to NHS commissioners.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether each foundation trust will have unique clinical targets and health care priorities. [127666]

  Mr. Hutton
  National Health Service foundation trusts will be established with the principal purpose of providing NHS services to NHS patients. They will be held to account for delivering the outputs agreed with primary care trusts and other partners in the health economy, as part of the commissioning process.

  NHS foundation trusts will be independently inspected by the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection against the same national standards as other NHS trusts.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the extent to which foundation trusts will have access to non-public finance. [127681]

  Mr. Hutton
  National health service foundation trusts will have freedom to decide where to go for capital borrowing.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with City institutions about interest rates available for bond-based finance for foundation trusts. [127682]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department of Health has undertaken a wide range of consultations with a variety of City institutions over future financing options for national health service foundation trusts.

  Free Nursing Care
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many whole-time equivalent nurses are responsible for assessing patients for free nursing care; [127488]

  (2) how many people are awaiting an assessment for free nursing care; and what proportion that represents of people who require an assessment for free nursing care; [127509]

  (3) how many people have been waiting (a) less than one month, (b) over one month and less than two months, (c) over two months and less than three months, (d) over three months and less than four months and (e) over four months for an assessment for free nursing care. [127510]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Information on a survey of primary care trusts (PCTs) carried out in December 2002, which requested information on PCTs' progress on determining the nursing needs of nursing home residents supported by local authorities, was placed on the Department's website at www.doh.gov.uk/jointunit/nhsfundednursingcare/dec2002resultspub.xls on 6 May 2003. In mid-December 2002 approximately 20 per cent. of the assessments of residents supported by local authorities, which were required by April 2003, had been completed. No further updated or detailed information is held centrally.

  Arrangements for carrying out assessments are organised locally and no information on the number of nurses involved is held at central level.

  Free Prescriptions
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who is eligible for free prescriptions. [127699]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The following categories of people are eligible for free national health service prescriptions:Men and women aged 60 and over;
  Children under 16;
  Young people in full-time education aged 16, 17 and 18;
  Pregnant women and women who have had a child in the previous 12 months who hold a valid exemption certificate;
  People who hold a valid exemption certificate for a war or Ministry of Defence disablement pension but only in respect of medication for the disablement;
  People suffering from the following conditions who hold a valid exemption certificate:
  permanent fistula (including caecostomy, colostomy, laryngostomy, or ileostomy) which requires continuous surgical dressing or requires an appliance
  diabetes insipidus or other forms of hypopituitarism
  diabetes mellitus (except where treatment is by diet alone)
  hypoparathyroidism
  myasthenia gravis
  myxoedema
  epilepsy requiring continuous anti-convulsive therapy;
  continuing physical disability which prevents the patient from leaving his residence without the help of another person.
  192W
  People (and their partner) receiving income support
  People (and their partner) receiving jobseekers' allowance income-based
  People who are entitled to, or named on, a valid NHS tax credit exemption certificate
  People named on a valid HC2 charges certificate for full help (under NHS low income scheme).

  Fizeon
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the drug Fuzeon. [127433]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  On 27 May 2003, the European Commission issued a Marketing Authorisation valid throughout the European Union for the medicinal product Fuzeon, which contains enfuvirtide. The approved indication is:"in combination with other antiretroviral medicinal products for the treatment of HIV-1 infected patients who have received treatment with and failed on regimens containing at least one medicinal product from each of the following antiretroviral classes: protease inhibitors, non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors and nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, or who have intolerance to previous antiretroviral regimens. In deciding on a new regimen for patients who have failed an antiretroviral regimen, careful consideration should be given to the treatment history of the individual and the patterns of mutations associated with different medicinal products. Where available, resistance testing may be appropriate."

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Dorrell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioner posts in Leicestershire are vacant. [127269]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The information is not held centrally in the format requested.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners have entered general practice in each of the last six years; and how many have retired. [127384]

  Mr. Hutton
  It is not possible to provide comparable figures for general practitioners joining the work force and those retiring from the work force. This is because the time sequences and groups covered differ. The available information is set out in the tables.

  Numbers of Unrestricted Principals and Equivalent (UPE) general practitioners joining the workforce 1996–97 to 2001–02

  Year1

  Number of UPEs2 joining General Practice

  1996–97

  1,302

  1997–98

  1,333

  1998–99

  1,229

  1999–2000

  1,203

  2000–01

  1,452

  2001–02

  1,633

  Notes

  112-month periods October to September

  2 UPEs include General Medical Services (GMS) Unrestricted Principals, Personal Medical Services (PMS) Contracted GPs and PMS Salaried GPs.

  Source:

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics
  193W

  Numbers of general practitioners1 retiring in the financial years ending 1996–97 to 2002–03

  Year2

  Number of GPs retiring3

  1996–97

  537

  1997–98

  509

  1998–99

  457

  1999–2000

  339

  2000–01

  584

  2001–02

  604

  2002–03

  532

  Notes:

  1 These figures include UPEs and all other GPs

  2 12 month periods April to March

  3 These figures include retirements on the grounds of age and voluntary early retirements before the NHS Pension Scheme's normal retirement age of 60

  Source

  NHS Pensions Agency

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the average length of time GPs in England spent with their patients in individual consultations in the last 12 months. [127454]

  Mr. Hutton
  The data are not collected either routinely or by health authority.

  Under the new general medical services contract, which will be introduced from 1 April 2004, length of consultation is one of the indicators within the quality and outcomes framework. Practices will be able to increase earnings if they provide appointments and consultations which equal or exceed the times specified in the framework.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the population in(a) Greater London and (b) England are registered with a GP. [127503]

  Mr. Hutton
  The vast majority of the population is registered with a general practitioner. At 30 September 2002 (the latest published data), 8,122,456 people were recorded as registered with a GP or with a provider of personal medical services (PMS) in the areas covered by the five London strategic health authorities. In England, 51,552,391 people were recorded as registered with a GP or a provider of PMS.

  However, these figures are greater than their respective population figures. Therefore, it is not possible to express accurately the percentages of the population that are covered. This is due to "list inflation". This arises where a patient moves his or her registration and for a transitional period may be registered on two lists. Similarly, an individual who dies or moves outside London and/or England may remain on a list for a time.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what contingency plans he has made in the event of doctors rejecting GP contracts. [109922]

  Mr. Hutton
  General practitioners voted overwhelmingly to support the new general medical services contract on 20 June.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on GP recruitment. [127491]
  194W
  Mr. Hutton
  The NHS Plan set a target of recruiting an additional 2,000 general practitioners (GPs) between 1999 and 2004. A range of measures have been put in place to increase GP recruitment:The number of GP registrars has increased from 1,340 in 1997 to 2,070 in March 2003 providing a substantial increase in the number of qualified GPs.
  The GP Returner Scheme launched in November 2002 provides a clear, supported route back into general practice. Under the scheme returning GPs receive paid, individually tailored refresher training (full- or part-time) a dedicated return coordinator with whom they meet regularly, and a contribution towards their professional expenses.
  The Golden Hello Scheme offers up to £5,000 to new GPs or those returning to practice from the Retainer Scheme, with up to a further £7,000 if they take up post in an area designated as under-doctored. On 29 November 2002 the scheme was extended to qualified doctors who are not currently working in national health service general practice who return to take up an NHS post.
  In November 2002 the Flexible Careers Scheme, which only applied to hospital doctors, was extended to offer GPs new options to work more flexibly, to work part-time and to give them a route back to practice when they want to return to the NHS.
  The NHS Delayed Retirement Scheme (formerly Golden Goodbye Scheme) which pays £2,000 per year to GPs between the ages of 60 and 64 inclusive who continue to work in a substantive primary care post.
  Increased funding for locum cover for family doctors for maternity, paternity and adoptive leave.
  A £22 million training package to increase the number of GP trainers and training practices.
  A £55 million package to improve primary care premises in deprived parts of the country including new premises to train and employ more GPs.

  Alongside these initiatives there is the new general medical services contract, which will provide GPs with the opportunities and funding to improve their working lives by allowing them to opt out of providing out-of-hours arrangements and additional services. This will make it easier for them to work flexibly and move in and out of salaried and independent contractor status and enable a new portfolio approach to career development which will make it easier for GPs to adapt their career to suit their aspirations.

  We are now starting to see significant increases in the number of GPs. In the six months to 31 March 2003, GP numbers grew by 500. 1,240 of the NHS Plan target has now been delivered and we expect to see further increases as these measures take effect.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioner vacancies there were in each primary care trust in 2002 and how many there are now. [127525]

  Mr. Hutton
  In the 2002 General Practitioner Recruitment Retention and Vacancy Survey, health authorities reported that 2,615 GP vacancies were recorded at some stage during the period March 2001 to February 2002.

  Figures for individual primary care trusts are not available because the data for the 2002 survey were returned in aggregate form by the former health authorities that existed at the time.
  195W
  The 2003 GP Recruitment, Retention and Vacancy Survey will be published later this year.

  Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average GP waiting times were in the Wrekin in each year since 1997. [127580]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  At March 2003, results from a primary care access survey indicated that 94 per cent. of patients in Telford and Wrekin Primary Care Trust were able to be seen by a general practitioner within two days.

  Prior to that, on the basis of similar data collected at health authority level, within Shropshire Health Authority, at March 2002, 80 per cent. of patients were able to be seen within two days.

  At September 2001, 80 per cent. of patients were able to be seen within two days. This is the earliest date for which these data are available.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the criteria are for GPs to be eligible for a cash payment of up to £125,000 for IT. [127692]

  Mr. Hutton
  The previous arrangements for the computer reimbursement scheme were detailed in paragraph 58 of the Statement of Fees and Allowances. The scheme allowed for the direct reimbursement of a proportion of the costs incurred by a practitioner, restricted principal, partnership or group practice in purchasing, leasing or upgrading a computer system, and for maintaining the associated hardware and software. Practices were only eligible to claim reimbursement of expenditure on systems which are accredited to national standards defined in Requirements for Accreditation 99 (v1.1 and v1.2).

  The new general medical services contract will facilitate the modernisation of information and technology in general practice and support the local health community. Under the contract, new money will be spent providing new systems and upgrading existing systems. In addition, primary care organisations will be responsible for funding the purchase, maintenance, future upgrades and running costs of integrated information technology systems, which includes those used in general practice.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the practices that have received payments for IT; and how much they received. [127693]

  Mr. Hutton
  There are over 8,700 practices in England. The Department of Health does not collect information on the amounts reimbursed to the individual general practitioner practices for information technology.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the operating systems which are approved by the Department of Health for GPs to receive payments for IT systems. [127694]

  Mr. Hutton
  Under current arrangements the Department of Health does not accredit operating systems for use by general practitioner practices. However, the national programme for information 196W
  technology will be defining clear interoperability standards as new integrated care record services are rolled out across the national health service.

  The clinical GP systems listed have been accredited against current Requirements for Accreditation (RFA) requirements.

  RFA99v1.2:

  Blue Bay/SAIC—GPS version 5.4

  EMIS—PCS

  Protechnic Exeter—Version 19

  Healthy Software—Version 5

  In Health Solutions—Ganymede version 5.1

  Microtest—Practice Manager 2 version 1.7.1

  The Phoenix Partnership—System One version 1

  RFA99v1.1:

  Chime—GP Care Version 4

  EMIS—LV5.2 and GV2 version 2

  In Practice Systems—Vision Version 3

  Seetec—GP Enterprise Version 1.5

  Torex Health—Premiere Version 2.2, Premiere Synergy Version 1.0, System 6000 version 3.3 and System 5 version 5.8

  Torex Pennine—Visual Phoenix version 2.1

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) male and (b) female GPs have switched to working part-time since 1st July 2002. [127529]

  Mr. Hutton
  The number of female and male general practitioners who have switched to working part-time since 31 March 2002 is shown in the table.

  All practitioners1 working full-time as at 31 March 2002 and part-time as at 30 September 2002 by sex

  Numbers (headcount)

  Practitioners

  Female

  Male

  England Total

  320

  174

  146

  1 All practitioners include GMS unrestricted principals, PMS contracted GPs, PMS salaried GPs, restricted principals, assistants, GP Registrars, Salaried Doctors (paragraph 52 SFA), PMS other and GP Retainers.

  Information can only be provided as at 31 March 2002 and 30 September 2002 because these are the dates when the workforce mini census and workforce annual census were carried out respectively.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many new(a) male and (b) female GPs opted to work part-time between 1 January and 30 June in (i) 2002 and (ii) 2003. [127530]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information can only be provided between 30 September 2001 and 31 March 2002 and 30 September 2002 and 31 March 2003, because there are the dates when the workforce annual census and workforce mini census were carried out.

  The number and proportion of new male and female general practitioners (GPs) who opted to work part time between 30 September 2001 and 31 March 2002 are shown in table 1.

  The number and proportion of new male and female GPs who opted to work part time between 30 September 2002 and 31 March 2003 are shown in table 2.
  197W

  Table 1: Unrestricted principals and equivalents (UPEs)1 joiners by commitment and sex, between 30 September 2001 and 31 March 2002

  Total

  Full-time

  Of which

  Male

  Female

  Part-time

  Percentages all joiners working part-time

  Of which

  Male

  Percentages male joiners working part-time

  Female

  Percentages female joiners working part-time

  Joiners

  800

  436

  274

  164

  364

  45.5

  99

  26.5

  265

  62.1

  Of which

  New Joiners

  519

  305

  189

  116

  214

  41.2

  50

  21

  164

  58.5

  Re-joiners

  281

  131

  85

  46

  150

  53.4

  49

  36.6

  101

  68.7

  Note:

  UPEs include GMS Unrestricted principals, PMS Contracted GPs and PMS salaried GPs.

  Source:

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics

  Table 2: Unrestricted principals and equivalents (UPEs)1 joiners by commitment and sex, between 30 September 2002 and 31 March 2003 (numbers-headcount)

  Total

  Full-time

  Of which

  Male

  Female

  Part-time

  Percentages all joiners working Part-time

  Of which

  Male

  Percentages male joiners working part-time

  Female

  Percentages Female joiners working part-time

  Joiners

  977

  568

  339

  229

  409

  42.0

  120

  26.0

  289

  55.7

  Of which

  New joiners

  596

  372

  218

  154

  224

  37.6

  47

  17.7

  177

  53.5

  Re-joiners

  381

  196

  121

  75

  185

  48.5

  73

  37.6

  112

  59.8

  Note:

  UPEs include GMS Unrestricted principals, PMS contracted GPs and PMS salaried GPs.

  Source:

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics.

  Genetially Modified Foods
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has undertaken into the health impact of genetically modified foods. [127738]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Food Standards Agency (FSA) funds two extensive research programmes that underpin the safety assessment of genetically modified foods.

  This research is undertaken by independent research scientists and is peer reviewed before final reports are made publicly available through the FSA's library. Details of the research programme are published in the FSA's Research and Surveys Programmes annual report and are available on the FSA website.

  Green Burial Sites
  Mr. Fabian Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research he has undertaken into the effect of green burial sites on the welfare of bereaved families. [127183]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Department has not undertaken any research into the effects of green burial sites on the welfare of bereaved families.

  Health Action Zones
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish a report on the progress of Health Action Zones. [127367]

  Mr. Hutton
  The University of Glasgow was contracted to undertake the evaluation of health action zones. The research team is currently working on the final report for the Department of Health. The intellectual property reights for the findings rest with the contractor and the Department will encourage them to publish.
  198W
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to ensure that health action zones include withdrawal and rehabilitation clinics for people who have been over-medicated and may have severe dependency problems. [127851]

  Mr. Hutton
  Health action zones (HAZs) were set up to address health inequalities in the most deprived areas of England. It is for the primary care trusts (PCTs) within HAZ areas to decide, with local stakeholders, which services should be provided and how to allocate resources to deliver them. PCTs have a responsibility to ensure that adequate controls are in place to minimise dependency and to treat dependency problems where they occur.

  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to instruct health action zones to undertake an audit of the(a) financial and (b) quality of life costs of the adverse effects of psychotropic drugs. [127858]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  All medicines are assessed for quality, safety and efficacy prior to the grant of a licence by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), with independent expert advice from the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM). A licence will not be granted unless the MHRA/CSM considers the benefits of treatment outweigh the risks of adverse effects. Once licensed, the MHRA/CSM continue to monitor the safety of medicines in clinical practice and take necessary action to optimise their safe use.

  Health action zones were set up to develop local, bottom-up approaches to tackling health inequalities in the 26 most deprived areas of England. It is for the primary care trusts within those health action zones areas to decide with local stakeholders what those approaches will be and how best to allocate resources to deliver them.

  Heart By-pass Operations
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of state for Health how many heart by-pass operations have been carried out by the NHS in the last 12 months for which figures are available; and how many were carried out in the same period in(a) 2000, (b) 1998, (c) 1994, (d) 1990 and (e) 1986. [127444]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The national service framework for coronary heart disease and NHS Plan targets for an extra 6,000 heart operations by April were met a year early.

  The table shows the number of coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) procedures carried out in 2001 (latest available figures), 2000, 1998, 1994 and 1990. Figures are not available for the period before 1989–90.

  Coronary Artery Bypass Grafts

  1989–90

  9,404

  1993–94

  17,351

  1997–98

  19,816

  1999–2000

  21,081

  2000–01

  22,325

  Heartburn
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many patients in England suffered from heartburn in the last 12 months for which figures are available; and what proportion of the population these represent; [127449]

  (2) what measures his Department is taking to reduce the number of people who suffer from heartburn. [127452]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Information on the incidence of individual conditions, such as heartburn, is not collected centrally. It is estimated, however, that around 40 per cent. of the adult population may suffer from dyspepsia. Dyspepsia refers to a spectrum of usually intermittent upper gastrointestinal symptoms.

  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence is currently preparing a guideline on "Dyspepsia: managing adult patients in primary care". The guideline is currently out as a draft for first consultation. This national guideline will provide recommendations and supporting evidence on caring for patients with dyspepsia.

  Hepatitis
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hepatitis B carriers there are in the United Kingdom. [127359]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Studies suggest that the prevalence of chronic hepatitis B infection in the population of England is around 0.3 per cent., equivalent to 150,000 hepatitis B carriers.

  Information on hepatitis B in Scotland and Wales is available from the Devolved Administrations. While the institutions in Northern Ireland are dissolved, responsibility rests with Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office.

  Hip Replacements
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the use of(a) bovine derivative substitutes, (b) hydroxyapatites and (c) coraline derivative substitutes in hip revisions, with special reference to efficacy, duration of use and cost; [127540]

  (2) if he will make a statement on his recommendations to the NHS on the use of porous hydroxyapatites for use in hip revisions. [127541]

  Mr. Hutton
  All these materials are used as artificial bone substitute implants. They have a variety of uses, but in hip replacements they can be used in granular form and moulded in a paste with the patient's blood which is then used to fill the space left if a patient has lost their natural bone (a process which can occur in a failing hip replacement).

  These products are regulated in line with the Medical Devices Regulations 2002 (SE2002 No. 618). Under these regulations, the manufacturer is required to place the CE marking on the medical device—unless it is part of a clinical investigation approved by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) or a custom made device—indicating that the medical device meets the essential requirements for safety and design in Annex 1 of Council Directive 93/42/EEC. For the medical devices specified, the manufacturer's declaration will be audited by an independent Notified Body. Any product bearing the CE marking may be placed on the United Kingdom market.

  The Department of Health and the MHRA do not collect information on efficacy and costs of these products. Duration of use is a matter for the individual manufacturer of the product.

  HIV/AIDS
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what tests are carried out on HIV-infected patients to establish whether they have a drug-resistant strain of the virus. [127441]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  There are two kinds of test that can be performed to determine whether an HIV-infected patient has a drug-resistant strain of the virus. Genotypic testing, which involves identifying mutation in the viral genetic material, has been adopted for widespread clinical use and is undertaken by specialist clinical virology laboratories. Mutations are associated with resistance to antiretroviral drugs and this information can be used to predict which drugs are likely to work for a particular individual. Phenotypic testing is more complex. requires high-containment laboratory facilities, and is not routinely available in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many people in England were infected with HIV in each of the last five years; [127439]

  (2) how many people in England were infected with AIDS in each of the last five years. [127440]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The number of new cases of HIV infection and AIDS diagnosed in England in each of the last five years is shown in the table.
  201W

  Year of diagnosis

  HIV

  AIDS

  1998

  2,615

  732

  1999

  2,872

  672

  2000

  3,608

  750

  2001

  4,725

  633

  20021

  5,234

  679

  1Numbers will rise, particularly for the most recent year, as further reports are received.

  Source:

  Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre, Health Protection Agency (data to end June 2003)

  Home Carers
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he has given to local authorities on providing assistance to home carers. [127793]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Carers are entitled to an assessment to determine their needs as carers and eligibility for support. The Carers Grant, worth £100 million this year, provides money for local councils to provide short breaks for carers to enable them to continue in their caring role. The Grant will continue until at least 2006, during which time it will increase to £185 million to provide extended care and 130,000 further breaks to carers.

  Carers are also entitled to cash payments for carers' services to enable them to purchase the type of support they require and promote a better quality of life.

  Hospice Movement
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimate he has made of the cost to the hospice movement 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; [127400]

  (2) if he will provide a grant to hospices to compensate for the recent increase in the level of charges for checks by the Criminal Records Bureau in respect of paid staff. [127401]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Responsibility for paying the fee for a criminal record disclosure rests with the individual applicant, although it is open to the employer to reimburse the cost. The Home Department has placed in the Library a regulatory impact assessment, which assesses the impact of the fee increase across all sectors.

  The level of funding agreed is a matter for local discussion and decision. We have made available an additional £50 million per annum for specialist palliative care, including hospices, for the three years beginning 2003–04. This extra £50 million is to help tackle inequalities in access to specialist palliative care to enable the National Health Service to increase their contribution to the cost hospices incur in providing agreed levels of service.

  Hospitals
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has had regarding the star rating system. [127377]
  202W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Commission for Health Improvement (CHI), which is now responsible for publishing the NHS Star Ratings, has received a small number of queries from trusts seeking clarification over the calculation of their Star Rating. Representations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health have included a small number of right hon. and hon. Members, members. of the public and national health service staff proffering views on the NHS Star Ratings system. These views are being passed to CHI so that they may inform future developments of the star ratings system.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what qualitative basis star ratings for hospital-acquired infections are calculated. [127567]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Two new performance indicators related to hospital acquired infections contributed to the star ratings this July. The first, a methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) improvement score was based on quantitative data from the national mandatory MRSA surveillance system. The second, an infection control procedures indicator was based on a qualitative assessment against the infection control standard. Full details of these indicators are on http://www.ratings.chi.nhs.uk/Trust/Indicator/indicators.asp?trustType = 1

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures his Department has in place to reduce incidences of MRSA in NHS hospitals. [127334]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  We already have standards to ensure there is a managed environment which minimises the risk of infection to patients, staff and visitors. In addition, infection control procedures and a methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus score are now performance indicators and contributed to the star ratings in July. We are continuing work to improve infection control in hospitals by developing a longer term strategy to reduce health care associated infections, spearheaded by the Chief Medical Officer.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many new hospitals have opened in the last three years; and at what cost. [127357]

  Mr. Hutton
  35 new hospital building schemes have become operational since July 2000. The schemes and their capital values are shown in the following table:

  Scheme

  Capital value (£ million)

  Dartford and Gravesham

  94

  Buckinghamshire Hospitals

  45

  Queen Elizabeth Hospital—Greenwich

  96

  County Durham and Darlington Acute Hospitals

  61

  Calderdale and Huddersfield

  65

  South Manchester University

  67

  Norfolk and Norwich Health

  158

  Hereford Hospitals

  64

  Barnet and Chase Farm

  54

  Worcestershire Acute

  87

  County Durham and Darlington Acute Hospitals

  48

  King's Healthcare

  76

  Swindon and Marlborough

  100

  Leeds Community and Mental

  47

  Bromley Hospitals

  118

  Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals

  22

  West Middlesex University Hospital

  60

  Berkshire Healthcare

  30

  Rochdale

  24

  203W

  Scheme

  Capital value (£ million)

  Central Sheffield University Hospitals

  24

  Royal Berkshire and Battle Hospital

  84

  Queens Medical Centre—Nottingham University Hospital

  17

  West Sussex Health and Social Care

  22

  North Staffordshire Combined Healthcare

  28

  Oxleas

  11

  North East London Mental Health

  11

  Northern Birmingham Mental Health

  18

  Cornwall Healthcare—Bodmin

  10

  East London and The City Mental Health—Newham

  15

  Luton and Dunstable

  15

  Northumbria Healthcare—Wansbeck

  18

  Royston Buntingford and Bishop Stortford PCT

  15

  Royal Wolverhampton Hospitals

  13

  Northumbria Healthcare—Hexham

  29

  Swale PCT

  14

  IT Projects
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the IT projects his Department(a) plans to undertake in the next year and (b) has undertaken, broken down by (i) expected date of commencement and completion and (ii) cost. [127353]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on information technology projects with the Department of Health, costing £100,000 or more, that are planned, under way or are due to be completed in the financial year 2003–04 have been placed in the Library.

  Learning Disability Services
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on the identification and dissemination of examples of good practice in learning disability services. [127852]

  Dr. Ladyman
  We have received no such representations but recognise the importance of sharing examples of good practice to help ensure the improvement of services across the country.

  Our proposals for improving services for people with learning disabilities, their families and carers are set out in the White Paper "Valuing People: A New Strategy for Learning Disability for the 21st Century" (Cm 5086), published in March 2001. The White Paper sets out a challenging programme of action which will make a real difference to people's lives.

  Our annual report on learning disability, "Making Change Happen" (HC514), published in April 2003, reports progress made in implementing "Valuing People" and contains examples of good practice. The valuing people support team, set up as part of the White Paper implementation programme, has been operating since February 2002. A core component of the support team's work, through publications, conferences, and other events, is the sharing and promoting of good practice among learning disability partnership boards throughout England.

  Locums
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many locum doctors there are. [127480]
  204W
  Mr. Hutton
  A locum can be defined as a doctor with a temporary as opposed to substantive contract who temporarily fills vacant positions or covers the work of absent colleagues.

  The table shows the number of medical and dental staff with locum contracts working in the national health service as at 30 September 2002.

  Hospital, Public Heath Medicine and Community Health Services (HCHS): Medical and dental locum staff

  (Headcount)

  England as at 30 September 2002

  Number

  All locums1

  3,700

  1 HCHS doctors with locum contracts—excludes doctors who also hold a substantive contract.

  Note

  Locum data was not collected in the HCHS March 2003 mini census.

  Source:

  Department of Health 2002 medical and dental locum work force census.

  The following table shows the number of general practitioner locums working in the NHS as at 31 March 2003.

  General Medical Practitioners1 who work exclusively as locums, in England, as at 31 March 2003

  Number

  Loums2

  4,644

  1 All practitioners include GMS Unrestricted Principals, PMS Contracted GPs, PMS Salaried GPs, Restricted Principals, Assistants, GP Registrars, Salaried Doctors (Para 52 SFA), PMS Other, GP Retainers and Flexible Career Scheme Gps.

  2 General Medical Practitioners with locum contracts—excludes doctors who also hold a substantive contract in GP practice.

  Source:

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics.

  Mary Rose Birthing Centre
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what consultations took place with(a) local women and their families, (b) other service users, (c) community representatives and (d) NHS organisations before the proposal to close the Mary Rose Birthing Centre was taken; and if he will make a statement; [128307]

  (2) if he will make it his policy to reconsider the proposal to close the Mary Rose Birthing Centre at St. Mary's hospital in Portsmouth; and if he will make statement; [128308]

  (3) what assessment his Department has made of the proposal to close the community midwife-led maternity service unit at St. Mary's Hospital Portsmouth, and transfer the maternity service to Queen Alexandra hospital; what research has been conducted on the risks to expectant mothers; and if he will make a statement; [128323]

  (4) what guidance he has given the Portsmouth Hospital NHS Trust following the report to the Department of Health Children's Taskforce from the Maternity and Neonatal Workforce Group on the proposal by the Trust to close the Mary Rose Birthing Centre; and if he will make a statement; [128324]
  205W
  (5) what representations he has received on the proposal to close the Mary Rose Birthing Centre in Portsmouth. [128325]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The future configuration of local maternity services in Portsmouth and South East Hampshire is currently under careful consideration as part of the wider restructuring of local acute services. There are no plans to close the Mary Rose Birthing Centre, but the local national health service is considering the possible relocation of the unit along with the main Consultant-led maternity service at St. Mary's hospital to the new Private Finance Initiative hospital on the Queen Alexandra site. During September and October 2003, the local NHS has a programme of engagement to discuss the proposals with local residents and community representatives.

  The Department has received two representations about the future of the unit. I am aware that the hon. Member wrote to my right hon. Friend on 13 August about this issue. The Department has not issued any guidance to NHS trusts following the report from the Maternity and Neonatal Workforce Group to the Children's Taskforce.

  Maternity Services
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many births in the NHS were delivered by caesarean section in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and if he will give this figure as a proportion of the total number of births delivered in the NHS. [126999]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The table shows estimated numbers and percentages of deliveries by caesarean section for years 1997–98 to 2001–02. The information is taken from the data published in National Health Service Maternity Statistics, England: 2001–02. The bulletin, number 2003/09, was published on 16 May 2003. A copy has been placed in the Library and is also available on the Department's website at http://www.doh.gov.uk/public/sb0309.htm.

  Caesarean deliveries, NHS hospitals, England

  Estimated numbers of Caesarean deliveries

  Percentage of deliveries that were by Caesarean

  2001–02

  119,100

  22.0

  2000–01

  118,200

  21.5

  1999–2000

  116,500

  20.6

  1998–99

  110,300

  19.1

  1997–98

  106,500

  18.2

  Source:

  Department of Health, Statistics Division 3G—Maternity Hospital Episode Statistics

  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to respond to the Health Committee's report on the provision of maternity services in England. [127001]

  Dr. Ladyman
  A response to the Health Committee's report into the provision of maternity services will be made shortly.
  206W
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many maternity units there are in the United Kingdom; and whether they all include specialist facilities for premature babies. [128113]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Information on the number of maternity units in the United Kingdom is not held centrally. Information about maternity units in England is collected by trusts and put on the hospital episode statistics system. Each trust may be responsible for one or more large hospitals and possibly several maternity units. Some of these units will have specialist facilities for premature babies.

  Information on maternity units in Scotland and Wales is available from the devolved administrations. While the institutions in Northern Ireland are dissolved, responsibility rests with Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding has been made available since 1997 for maternity units; and what measures have been taken to reduce deaths of newborn babies. [128114]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Expenditure data on maternity services are collected within National Health Service trusts and primary care trusts in England. Information on funding maternity units is not held centrally. However, the table shows national total expenditure on maternity (including in-patients, out-patient and community services), 1997, 1998 to 2001–02.

  Hospital&community Health Services Expenditure on Maternity Services—England 1997–98 to 2001–02

  Year

  Expenditure on Maternity Services (£)

  2001–02

  1,270,961,420

  2000–01

  1,192,362,905

  1999–2000

  1,153,864,597

  1998–99

  1,089,179,652

  1997–98

  1,053,832,887

  Source:

  1. Annual Financial returns of NHS Trusts, 1997–98 to 2001–02

  2. Annual financial returns of Primary Care Trusts, 2000–01 and 2001–02

  The Government have provided additional funding to improve facilities for the care of newborn babies. In 2001–02 and 2002–03 we invested £100 million capital in more than 200 maternity units in England. The money is being used to modernise and refurbish the units and to improve the environment in which care is provided and better to meet the needs of women and their families. All projects are due to be completed this year.

  The Government have also provided additional funding in support of those babies who are in need of specialist and intensive care facilities. In 2000 the Government introduced recurrent funding of an additional £5 million to address local difficulties in neonatal intensive care services. An additional £6.5 million was also invested in new and upgraded neonatal intensive care equipment, and an additional £10.5 million for critical care nurse training. A comprehensive review of neonatal intensive care services has been conducted with a view to developing further the strategy for neonatal intensive care across the country, and increased funding has been announced to implement the results. There will be £12 million

  207W
  revenue funding available this year, increasing to £20 million from next year, and there will also be £20 million available for capital expenditure this year.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the availability of emergency midwives; and what proposals he has to ensure that enough staff are present to provide emergency midwifery services. [128115]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Government is committed to increasing the number of midwives working in the National Health Service. Our target is clear: we want to see 2,000 more midwives working in the NHS by the end of 2006 than there were in 2000.

  In September 2002 there were 680 more midwives working in the NHS than there were, in September 2000. We expect there to be further increases, as a result of an increase in the number of people in training and return to practice initiatives.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment has been made of the proportion of babies born at home and in hospital for the latest year for which figures available; what midwives pay has been on average in each of the past five years; and whether midwives receive extra payment for providing late night and emergency services. [128116]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information relating to home and hospital births is collected by the Office of National Statistics. The latest figures available are shown in the table.

  Births occurring in hospital, at home and elsewhere 2001 and 2002 in England

  Year

  2001

  2002

  Births:

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  In hospital

  546,070

  97.8

  547,482

  97.7

  At home

  11,543

  2.1

  12.055

  2.2

  Elsewhere1

  658

  0.1

  795

  0.1

  Totals

  558,271

  100.0

  560,332

  100.0

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics

  Note:

  1Elsewhere is usually either a private dwelling which is not the mother's usual residence, or on the way to hospital

  From 1 April 2003, midwifery staff directly employed in the National Health Service on national terms and conditions received an above inflation pay increase of 3.225 per cent. Pay has increased across the board for all midwives employed on national terms and conditions by at least 30 per cent in cash terms since 1997.

  All midwives and nurses directly employed in the NHS on national terms and conditions are currently paid and graded in accordance with a nationally agreed clinical grading structure which is shared with nurses. Newly qualified midwives enter the clinical grading structure at grade E.

  The estimated average earnings of nurses and midwives at grades E to I since 1998 is shown in the table. Average earnings for midwives cannot be identified separately.
  208W

  Year

  Estimated average earnings £

  1998

  21,100

  1999

  22,600

  2000

  23,900

  2001

  24,900

  2002

  26,000

  Source:

  Department of Health's staff earnings surveys 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2002.

  Notes:

  1. The estimate for 2001 is based on the 2000 earnings survey projected forward in line with the April 2001 pay settlement.

  2. Figures include allowances and overtime.

  3. Figures are rounded to the nearest £100.

  Currently, all midwives directly employed in the NHS on national terms and conditions receive pay enhancements where their working patterns fall outside of normal hours. This includes overtime, special duty payments for work performed late at night and allowances for any emergency duty they are called to do. Full details of the rates of pay and relevant allowances for midwives employed on national terms and conditions are contained in the "Nursing and Midwifery Staffs Negotiating Council Conditions of Service and Rates of Pay." A copy has been placed in the Library.

  The information in this answer relates only to England. Information relating to home and hospital births and the pay and terms and conditions for midwives in Scotland and Wales is a matter for the devolved administrations. Whilst the institutions in Northern Ireland are dissolved, responsibility rests with Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office.

  Medical Records
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the Government's policy concerning the addition to medical records of material received from third parties without medical qualifications. [128136]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Department of Health does not publish guidelines on what should be recorded in a patient's medical record; the judgment of what is relevant is left to the responsible health care professionals. However, the General Medical Council (GMC) in its 'Good Practice' guidance provides general advice on the use and content of medical records.

  At present the patient's total national health service medical record consists of a series of paper sub-records divided according to the organisations where the patient has received health care. This means that a patient could have a record for each hospital and other health organisation he/she has attended as well as a general practitioner record. The health care professionals of each organisation are responsible for compiling and maintaining the medical records.

  Should the patient's health care professional judge that some information, from whatever source, could make a contribution to the patient's health care, then it would be appropriate for it to be included in the patient's medical record. The fact the information is contained in the medical record is accepted as having been vetted by health care professionals and relevant to

  209W
  the patient's health and care. The patient cannot at present ask for information from an external source to be added to the medical record.

  Work currently being taken forward by the national programme for information technology will provide an electronic summary record for each patient in England. This record will either hold or provide access to the key information provided by all NHS organisations involved in the patient's care.

  A section of this record will be under the patient's control. They will be able to add comments, including information from third parties (with or without medical qualification), to their records to ensure those records will contain the views and information that they wish to have, in addition to the normal information provided by the NHS.

  Mental Health
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the hospital budget has been spent on mental health services in each year since 1997. [127333]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Mental health services are provided across a spectrum of hospital and community services, including staff, teams and beds in hospital as well as other settings. Separate data relating to the proportion of hospital budgets alone spent on mental health are not kept. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) on 15 July 2003,Official Report, column 227W, concerning spending on mental health care as a percentage of total hospital and community health service expenditure.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will establish an independent inquiry into the treatment of mental health patients from ethnic minority groups. [127361]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  We do not consider it necessary to hold an independent inquiry into the treatment of mental health patients from ethnic minority groups.

  However, the Department of Health acknowledges that mental health services are not currently fully meeting the needs of people from black and minority ethnic groups and has an extensive programme of work under way and plans that aim to address this issue.

  Further information is available from: www.nimhe.org.uk about our programme of current work.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment he has made of the accessibility of mental health services to ethnic minority groups. [127362]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  As part of issuing the report, "Inside Outside", the Department funded a series of consultation events with the black, south Asian, Chinese and Irish communitiee, to help inform further work on black and minority ethnic mental health. Feedback from groups and from a questionnaire includes their view on accessibility of mental health services. The feedback will be made available and will help to inform the final guidance document to services on black and minority ethnic mental health. The guidance document will be issued for consultation later this year.
  210W
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have received electro-convulsive therapy in each of the last five years, broken down by(a) men, (b) women and (c) ethnic minority group. [127363]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The latest information available on electro-convulsive therapy (ECT) is that contained in the Department of Health's publication, "Statistical Bulletin Electro Convulsive Therapy: Survey Covering the Period from January 2002 to March 2002, England". This was a follow-up to an earlier survey of the period January to March 1999. Both surveys were undertaken to provide data on ECT that are not currently available elsewhere.

  The 2002 survey confirmed the continuing downward trend in the number of administrations of ECT. It collected information from national health service and independent sector care settings, including nursing homes, on the total number of administrations of ECT in NHS and independent sector care settings including data on sex, age ethnicity, legal status and method of consent. It found that in the period January to March 2002:
  2,300 patients received ECT treatment compared to 2,800 in 1999;
  there were 700 male patients receiving treatment, compared with 1,600 female patients;
  there were 12,800 administrations of ECT compared to 16,500 in January to March 1999;
  the ethnic group with the highest number of patients receiving ECT treatment was 'white', that is white British, Irish or from other white background, with 1,800 of the 2,300 who received ECT treatment;
  the ethnic group with the lowest number of patients receiving ECT treatment was the 'multi-ethnic origin' group with six of the 2,300 who received ECT treatment. However, the rates for this and some other ethnic groups were based on very small numbers of patients; and
  the spread of the ECT patients among the various ethnic groups was broadly similar to the spread seen in the general population. However, it should be noted the ethnicity category 'not stated' accounted for 18 per cent. of all ECT patients in this survey, more than twice the rate in the 1999 survey. Comparing only those patients receiving ECT whose ethnic origin was reported, 96 per cent. were white, similar to the results from the 1999 survey. However, the proportion of the general population who are white is slightly down to 91 per cent. compared with 92.7 per cent. in 1999. Further information on the ethnicity of ECT patients can be found in Table 8 of the 2002 Survey.

  Copies of the 2002 Survey and the earlier 1999 Survey are available in the Library or can be downloaded from the Department of Health's website at: http://www.doh.gov.uk/public/work_health_care.htm#menthealth

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he plans to take over the next 12 months to improve the services for(a) ethnic minorities, (b) homeless people and (c) asylum seekers with mental health difficulties. [127576]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Department is continuously seeking to improve mental health services for all, including vulnerable groups such as black and minority ethnic groups, the homeless and asylum seekers with mental health problems.

  For black and minority ethnic groups, following the issue of "Inside Outside" earlier this year, the Department will be issuing draft guidance to services

  211W
  on black and minority ethnic mental health for consultation. This will be in conjunction with a major work programme initiated by the National Institute for Mental Health in England for black and minority ethnic mental health service users.

  Information from the adult mental health services mapping database shows that there were 66 homeless mental health teams, including homeless mentally ill initiative teams, in England in March 2003. Further details of these teams are available at http://www.dur.ac.uk/service.mapping/amh2002/queries/.

  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent on mental health provision in Somerset in each year since 1997. [127822]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Figures are not held by English county. The table shows expenditure on mental illness by Somerset health authority and primary care trusts within Somerset.

  Somerset health authority area mental illness expenditure

  £000

  1997–98

  23,273

  1998–99

  25,431

  1999–2000

  28,473

  2000–01

  31,969

  2001–02

  51,581

  Notes:

  1. Expenditure relates to the commissioning of secondary care mental illness only.

  2. Mental illness expenditure includes expenditure by the health authority and primary care trusts on behalf of other NHS bodies. This is a particular factor in the increase between 2000–01 to 2001–02 for Somerset.

  Sources:

  Health authority audited accounts 1997–98 to 1998–99.

  Health authority audited summarisation forms 1999–2000 to 2001–02.

  Primary care trust audited summarisation schedules 2000–01 and 2001–02.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what mental health facilities exist for asylum seekers in(a) Bedfordshire and Luton Community NHS Trust, (b) Black County Mental Health NHS Trust, (c) Buckinghamshire NHS Trust, (d) Camden and Islington Mental Health and Social Care Trust, (e) Central and North West London Mental Health NHS Trust, (f) Community Health Sheffield NHS Trust, (g) Cornwall Partnership NHS Trust, (h) Derbyshire Mental Health Services NHS Trust, (i) East London and the City Mental Health NHS Trust, (j) East Sussex County Healthcare NHS Trust, (k) Lancashire Care NHS Trust, (l) Leeds Mental Health Teaching NHS Trust, (m) Newcastle, North Tyneside and Northumberland Mental Health, (n) Norfolk Mental Health Care Trust, (o) Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Trust, (p) Pennine Care NHS Trust, (q) Somerset Partnership NHS and Social Care Trust, (r) South Birmingham Mental Health NHS Trust, (s) South West London and St George's Mental Health NHS Trust, (t) South West Yorkshire Mental Health NHS Trust, (u) Surrey Hampshire Borders NHS Trust, (v) Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust and (w) Tees and North East Yorkshire NHS Trust; and what plans are in place to improve facilities in these trusts in 2004–05; [127968]
  212W
  (2) what facilities exist for ethnic minorities with mental health difficulties in (a) Bedfordshire and Luton Community NHS Trust, (b) Black County Mental Health NHS Trust, (c) Buckinghamshire NHS Trust, (d) Camden and Islington Mental Health and Social Care Trust, (e) Central and North West London Mental Health NHS Trust, (f) Community Health Sheffield NHS Trust, (g) Cornwall Partnership NHS Trust, (h) Derbyshire Mental Health Services NHS Trust, (i) East London and the City Mental Health NHS Trust, (j) East Sussex County Healthcare NHS Trust, (k) Lancashire Care NHS Trust, (l) Leeds Mental Health Teaching NHS Trust, (m) Newcastle, North Tyneside and Northumberland Mental Health, (n) Norfolk Mental Health NHS Trust, (o) Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Trust, (p) Pennine Care NHS Trust, (q) Somerset Partnership NHS and Social Care Trust, (r) South Birmingham Mental Health NHS Trust, (s) South West London and St George's Mental Health NHS Trust, (t) South West Yorkshire Mental Health NHS Trust, (u) Surrey Hampshire Borders NHS Trust, (v) Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust and (w) Tees and North East Yorkshire NHS Trust and what plans are in place for 2004–05 to improve facilities for ethnic minorities. [127979]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Data are not available in the requested format.

  The Department is continuously seeking to improve mental health services for all, including vulnerable groups such as black and minority ethnic groups, the homeless and asylum seekers with mental health problems.

  For black and minority ethnic groups, following the issue of "Inside Outside" earlier this year, the Department will be issuing draft guidance to services on black and minority ethnic mental health for consultation. This will be in conjunction with a major work programme initiated by the National Institute for Mental Health in England for black and minority ethnic mental health service users.

  Results of the adult mental health services mapping exercise, which provides detailed information on the numbers, functioning and composition of services by local implementation team and strategic health authority boundaries, are available at hhtp://www.dur.ac.uk/service.mapping/amh/index.php.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, (1) how many early intervention teams have been established in(a) Bedfordshire and Luton Community NHS Trust, (b) Black County Mental Health NHS Trust, (c) Buckinghamshire NHS Trust, (d) Camden and Islington Mental Health and Social Care Trust, (e) Central and North West London Mental Health Trust, (f) Community Health Sheffield NHS Trust, (g) Cornwall Partnership NHS Trust, (h) Derbyshire Mental Health Services NHS Trust, (i) East London and the City Mental Health NHS Trust, (j) East Sussex County Healthcare NHS Trust, (k) Lancashire Care NHS Trust, (l) Leeds Mental Health Teaching NHS Trust, (m) Newcastle, North Tyneside and Northumberland Mental Health, (n) Norfolk Mental Health Care Trust, (o) Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Trust,

  213W
  (p) Pennine Care NHS Trust, (q) Somerset Partnership NHS and Social Care Trust, (r) South Birmingham Mental Health NHS Trust, (s) South West London and St. Georges Mental Health NHS Trust, (t) South West Yorkshire Mental Health NHS Trust, (u) Surrey Hampshire Borders NHS Trust, (v) Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust and (w) Tees and North East Yorkshire NHS Trust. [127973]

  (2) how many mental health crisis resolution teams have been established in (a) Bedfordshire and Luton Community NHS Trust, (b) Black County Mental Health NHS Trust, (c) Buckinghamshire NHS Trust, (d) Camden and Islington Mental Health and Social Care Trust, (e) Central and North West London Mental Health NHS Trust, (f) Community Health Sheffield NHS Trust, (g) Cornwall Partnership NHS Trust, (h) Derbyshire Mental Health Services NHS Trust, (i) East London and the City Mental Health NHS Trust, (j) East Sussex County Healthcare NHS Trust, (k) Lancashire Care NHS Trust, (1) Leeds Mental Health Teaching NHS Trust, (m) Newcastle, North Tyneside and Northumberland Mental Health, (n) Norfolk Mental Health NHS Trust, (o) Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Trust, (p) Pendine Care NHS Trust, (q) Somerset Partnership NHS and Social Care Trust, (r) South Birmingham Mental Health NHS Trust, (s) South West London and St. George's Mental Health NHS Trust, (t) South West Yorkshire Mental Health NHS Trust, (u) Surrey Hampshire Borders NHS Trust, (v) Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust and (w) Tees and North East Yorkshire NHS Trust. [127977]

  (3) how many mental health crisis resolution teams offer 24 hours cover in (a) Bedfordshire and Luton Community NHS Trust, (b) Black County Mental Health NHS Trust, (c) Buckinghamshire NHS Trust, (d) Camden and Islington Mental Health and Social Care Trust, (e) Central and North West London Mental Health NHS Trust, (f) Community Health Sheffield NHS Trust, (g) Cornwall Partnership NHS Trust, (h) Derbyshire Mental Health Services NHS Trust, (i) East London and the City Mental Health NHS Trust, (j) East Sussex County Healthcare NHS Trust, (k) Lancashire Care NHS Trust, (1) Leeds Mental Health Teaching NHS Trust, (m) Newcastle, North Tyneside and Northumberland Mental Health, (n) Norfolk Mental Health NHS Trust, (o) Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Trust, (p) Pennine Care NHS Trust, (q) Somerset Partnership NHS and Social Care Trust, (r) South Birmingham Mental Health NHS Trust, (s) South West London and St. George's Mental Health NHS Trust, (t) South West Yorkshire Mental Health NHS Trust, (u) Surrey Hampshire Borders NHS Trust, (v) Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust and (w) Tees and North East Yorkshire NHS Trust. [127978]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Data are not available in the requested format.

  Results of the adult mental health services mapping exercise, which provides detailed indormation on the numbers, functioning and composition of crisis resolution and early intervention teams by local implementation team and strategic health authority boundaries, are available at www.dur.ac.uk/service.mapping/amh/index.php.
  214W
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what facilities exist for homeless people with mental health needs in(a) Bedfordshire and Luton Community NHS Trust, (b) Black County Mental Health NHS Trust, (c) Buckinghamshire NHS Trust, (d) Camden and Islington Mental Health and Social Care Trust, (e) Central and North West London Mental Health NHS Trust, (J) Community Health Sheffield NHS Trust, (g) Cornwall Partnership NHS Trust, (h) Derbyshire Mental Health Services NHS Trust, (i) East London and the City Mental Health NHS Trust, (j) East Sussex County Healthcare NHS Trust, (k) Lancashire Care NHS Trust, (1) Leeds Mental Health Teaching NHS Trust, (m) Newcastle, North Tyneside and Northumberland Mental Health, (n) Norfolk Mental Health NHS Trust, (o) Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Trust, (p) Pennine Care NHS Trust, (q) Somerset Partnership NHS and Social Care Trust, (r) South Birmingham Mental Health NHS Trust, (s) South West London and St. George's Mental Health NHS Trust, (t) South West Yorkshire Mental Health NHS Trust, (u) Surrey Hampshire Borders NHS Trust, (v) Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust and (w) Tees and North East Yorkshire NHS Trust; and what plans are in place to improve facilities for the homeless in 2004–05. [127974]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Data are not available in the requested format.

  The Department of Health provides services for rough sleepers with mental illness through the homeless mentally ill initiative. 32 local authorities will continue to receive support.

  It may also be helpful to know that the adult mental health services mapping database shows that there were 66 homeless mental health teams, including homeless mentally ill initiative teats, in England in March 2003. Further details of these teams are available at http://www.dur.ac.uk/service.mapping/amh2002/queries/

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether there are women-only mental health services in(a) Bedfordshire and Luton Community NHS Trust, (b) Black County Mental Health NHS Trust, (c) Buckinghamshire NHS Trust, (d) Camden and Islington Mental Health and Social Care Trust, (e) Central and North West London Mental Health NHS Trust, (f) Community Health Sheffield NHS Trust, (g) Cornwall Partnership NHS Trust, (h) Derbyshire Mental Health Services NHS Trust, (i) East London and the City Mental Health NHS Trust, (j) East Sussex County Healthcare NHS Trust, (k) Lancashire Care NHS Trust, (1) Leeds Mental Health Teaching NHS Trust, (m) Newcastle, North Tyneside and Northumberland Mental Health, (n) Norfolk Mental Health Care NHS Trust, (o) Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Trust, (p) Pennine Care NHS Trust, (q) Somerset Partnership NHS and Social Care Trust, (r) South Birmingham Mental Health NHS Trust, (s) South West London and St George's Mental Health NHS Trust, (t) South West Yorkshire Mental Health NHS Trust, (u) Surrey Hampshire Borders NHS Trust, (v) Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust and (w) Tees and North East Yorkshire NHS Trust. [127975]
  215W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Data are not available in the requested format.

  Results of the adult mental health services mapping exercise contains information on women-only services and is available at http://www.dur.ac.uk/service.mapping/amh/index.php.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the level of provision of child and adolescent mental health services in(a) Bedfordshire and Luton Community NHS Trust, (b) Black County Mental Health NHS Trust, (c) Buckinghamshire NHS Trust, (d) Camden and Islington Mental Health and Social Care Trust, (e) Central and North West London Mental Health NHS Trust, (f) Community Health Sheffield NHS Trust, (g) Cornwall Partner ship NHS Trust, (h) Derbyshire Mental Health Services NHS Trust, (i) East London and the City Mental Health NHS Trust, (j) East Sussex County Healthcare NHS Trust, (k) Lancashire Care NHS Trust., (l) Leeds Mental Health Teaching NHS Trust, (m) Newcastle, North Tyneside and Northumberland Mental Health, (n) Norfolk Mental Health NHS Trust, (o) Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Trust, (p) Pennine Care NHS Trust, (q) Somerset Partnership NHS and Social Care Trust, (r) South Birmingham Mental Health NHS Trust, (s) South West London and St. George's Mental Health NHS Trust, (t) South West Yorkshire Mental Health NHS Trust, (u) Surrey Hampshire Borders NHS Trust, (v) Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust and (w) Tees and North East Yorkshire NHS Trust. [127976]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Systematic mapping of local child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) provision across England was launched last year and it is intended to repeat this annually. This will provide detailed information on service provision, service activity levels and expenditure on CAMHS by provider trust and by local authority and primary care trust commissioners. Data currently available can be found on the dedicated website at www.dur.ac.uk/service.mapping/CAMH/.

  The Government's strategy for the development of CAMHS, initiated in 1999, has made significant progress in improving the overall quality and accessibility of local services for children and young people with mental health problems. Our current central investment programme of £250 mil lion over the coming three years aims to help secure comprehensive CAMH in all areas by 2006 in line with the objectives contained in "Improvement, Expansion, Reform—the Priorities and Planning Framework 2003/2006" published by the Department in October 2002.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide a breakdown of expenditure on mental health provision in each health authority/PCT area in England in each year since 1990. [127985]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Breakdown of expenditure on commissioning of secondary care mental illness services from 1992–93 to 2001–02, which is the latest year for which figures are available, has been placed in the Library. Data are not available for 1990–91 and 1991–92 data have not been included because of concerns over its quality.
  216W
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many primary care mental health workers have been employed by(a) West Sussex Health and Social Care NHS Trust and (b) all mental health trusts; [127549]

  (2) how many primary care mental health workers are employed by (a) Bedfordshire and Luton Community NHS Trust, (b) Black County Mental Health NHS Trust, (c) Buckinghamshire NHS Trust, (d) Camden and Islington Mental Health and Social Care Trust, (e) Central and North West London Mental Health NHS Trust, (f) Community Health Sheffield NHS Trust, (g) Cornwall Partnership NHS Trust, (h) Derbyshire Mental Health Services NHS Trust, (i) East London and the City Mental Health NHS Trust, (j) East Sussex County Healthcare NHS Trust, (k) Lancashire Care NHS Trust, (l) Leeds Mental Health Teaching NHS Trust, (m) Newcastle, North Tyneside and Northumberland Mental Health, (n) Norfolk Mental Health Care Trust, (o) Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Trust, (p) Pennine Care NHS Trust, (q) Somerset Partnership NHS and Social Care Trust, (r) South Birmingham Mental Health NHS Trust, (s) South West London and St George's Mental Health NHS Trust, (t) South West Yorkshire Mental Health NHS Trust, (u) Surrey Hampshire Borders NHS Trust, (v) Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust and (w) Tees and North East Yorkshire NHS Trust. [127969]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The NHS Plan set out that one thousand new graduate primary care workers trained in brief therapy techniques of proven effectiveness will be recruited to help general practitioners manage and treat common mental health problems. The target date set for local services through priorities and planning guidance is December 2004; training courses have just been established and arrangements to monitor recruitment are currently in hand. This means that the information requested about the employment by specialist trusts of new graduate workers is not yet available.

  However, it may be helpful to point out that our guidance for local services on recruitment suggests primary care trusts, rather than specialised trusts, are likely to be the lead employers. A copy of this guidance may be found on the Department's web site at www.doh.gov.uk/mentalhealth.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what improvements the Government is planning for mental health services in England. [127550]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Government's agenda for modernising mental health services in England includes a modern service framework, which sets national standards for the delivery of modern services; a thorough review of the legislative basis for mental health care to reflect modern patterns of treatment and care; and significant additional investment of over £300 million to support the delivery of these targets and services.

  More detailed information about the mental health modernisation programme can be found on our website at www.doh.gov.uk/mentalhealth. However, to summarise briefly, the programme includes action to reduce suicide rate and deaths by undetermined causes by 20 per cent. by 2010; reduce the duration of untreated

  217W
  psychosis to a service median of less than three months, (individual maximum less than six months) and providing support for the first three years for all young people who develop a first episode of psychosis by 2004; offer 24-hour crisis resolution to all eligible patients by 2005; deliver assertive outreach to the 20,000 adult patients with severe mental illness and complex problems who regularly disengage from services by December 2003; increase breaks available for carers and strengthening carer support and networks to the benefit nationally of approximately 165,000 carers of people on the care programme approach by 2004; improve mental health care in prisons so that all prisoners with severe mental illness have a care plan by April 2004 (approximately 5,000 prisoners nationally) and ensure appropriate use of secure and forensic facilities by 2004, contributing to the national target of moving 400 patients from high secure hospitals by 2004.

  The Department aims to expand the mental health workforce by employing 1,000 new graduate workers in primary care, 500 community mental health "Gateway" workers, 700 more staff to support carers, 300 prison in-reach staff, 400 staff to support secure step-down by 2004; and 300 extra prison in-reach staff, 500 community development workers for black and minority ethnic communities, 200 staff and six outreach teams for personality disorder and training of 3,000 support, time, recovery, "STR" workers by 2006.

  The Department aims to expand the mental health workforce by employing 1,000 new graduate workers in primary care, 500 community mental health "Gateway" workers, 700 more staff to support carers, 300 prison in-reach staff, 400 staff to support secure step-down by 2004, and 300 extra prison in-reach staff, 500 community development workers for black and minority ethnic communities, 200 staff and six outreach teams for personality disorder and training of 3,000 support, time, recovery, "STR" workers by 2006.

  The Department is also committed to ensuring that, by April 2004, protocols are in place across all health and social care systems for the care and management of older people with mental health problems; and that all child and adolescent mental health services provide comprehensive service including mental health promotion and early intervention by 2006.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what level of funding per capita is being spent by(a) Adur, Arun and Worthing primary care trust and (b) West Sussex Health and Social Care NHS Trust on services for people with mental health difficulties in the current financial year. [127551]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The latest information for 2002–03 on the level of spend per capita in Adur, Arun and Worthing Primary Care Trust will be available in the autumn. Information for the current financial year is not available. The Department of Health does not collect the information requested at National Health Service trust level.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans for improvement his Department has for provision of respite breaks for carers of those with mental health difficulties. [127552]
  218W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The NHS Plan set a target for 2004 that 700 more staff will be recruited to increase the breaks available for carers and to strengthen carer support networks. In pursuance of this target, all regular carers of people with mental health problems will have been identified, received an assessment and have their own care support plans by 2004 and local support networks for these carers will have been developed. The statutory and voluntary sectors currently provide support to carers, and the Department of Health has developed a service specification for carers; support services, including respite breaks, against which we will measure progress.

  Carers' Grant, introduced in 1999, has provided an extra £225 million over the past four years to increase the number of short breaks for carers to enable them to continue in their caring role. In recognition of its importance to carers, it has been extended for a further three years to 2005–06, by which time it will be worth £185 million to provide extended care and 130,000 further breaks to carers.

  Carers' grant funds can appropriately be used to provide breaks for carers of adults with mental health problems to help meet objectives set out in the mental health national service framework.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to end the use of adult mental health units for mentally ill children. [128616]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Children and young people who require in-patient mental health care should receive it in a unit suitable for their age and development. This would normally be in a ward or unit designated for their age group, but in certain cases an adult ward may be a necessary short term alternative for some young people, depending upon the nature and urgency of their mental health need.

  The children's national service framework (NSF) will be setting out standards for child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS). A sub-group has been established to look at the specific needs of children and young people who may require in-patient services. The recommendations of this group will help to inform the mental health component of the children's NSF.

  We are also making a substantial additional investment, some £250 million over three years, to improve CAMHS. This will assist the service to meet the new capacity assumptions set out in the Department's Priorities and Planning Framework, particularly the expectation that all areas will provide a comprehensive CAMHS by 2006.

  Methylphenidate
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of children prescribed methylphenidate for severe attention deficit hyperactivity disorder have been regularly monitored to assess improvement in the last year. [127096]
  219W
  Dr. Ladyman
  This information is not collected centrally. In 2000 the National Institute for Clinical Excellence looked at the use of methvlphenidate in treating attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Among other recommendations it concluded that:Methylphenidate should be used as part of a comprehensive treatment programme for children with a diagnosis of severe ADHD;
  Children on drug therapy should receive regular monitoring;
  Methylphenidate should be discontinued if improvement of symptoms is not observed after appropriate dose adjustment over one month; and
  Treatment should be initiated by specialists but general practitioners may be involved in continued prescribing and monitoring under shared care arrangements.

  Microbiology Services
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the(a) Health Protection Agency and (b) NHS laboratories which are providing microbiology services for food, water and environmental testing. [127684]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The following Health Protection Agency (HPA) laboratories provide food, water and environmental testing services to local authorities in England:London Food and Water and Environmental Microbiology Laboratory;
  Wessex Environmental Microbiology Services, Southampton;
  West Midlands Health Protection Agency Regional Microbiology Laboratory, Birmingham;
  North East Health Protection Agency Regional Microbiology Laboratory, Newcastle;
  Yorkshire and the number Health Protection Agency Regional Microbiology Laboratory, Leeds;
  South West Health Protection Agency Regional Microbiology Laboratory, Bristol.

  The HPA also directly manage the following units in National Health Service trust laboratories which provide food, water and environmental testing services to local authorities:
  Kent Environmental Microbiology Services, Ashford;
  The Sussex and Surrey Environmental Microbiology Service, Brighton;
  Food, Water and Environmental Laboratory, Chelmsford;
  Reading Environmental Microbiology Services.

  The following NHS trusts provide food, water and environmental testing services to local authorities, as commissioned by the HPA in accordance with service level agreements:
  Carlisle Hospitals NHS Trust;
  Countess of Chester Hospital NHS Trust;
  Gloucestershire Royal NHS Trust;
  Hereford Hospitals NHS Trust;
  James Cook University Hospital NHS Trust;
  Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust;
  Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Trust;
  Northern Lincolnshire and Good Hospitals NHS Trust;
  220W
  Preston Acute Hospitals NHS Trust;
  Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust;
  1Queens Medical Centre, University Hospital NHS Trust, Nottingham;
  Royal Cornwall Hospital NHS Trust;
  Royal Devon and Exeter Healthcare NHS Trust;
  Royal Shrewsbury Hospital NHS Trust;
  Royal Hull Hospitals NHS Trust;
  Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust;
  University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust;
  University Hospitals Leicester NHS Trust;
  University Hospital of North Staffordshire NHS Trust.
  1 This laboratory provides water and environmental services. Food testing services in this area are provided by the Northern Lincolnshire and Goole Hospitals NHS Trust.

  This list relates to services to local authorities. In addition, many other NHS trusts undertake limited testing on their own environmental and water samples for hospital infection control purposes.

  Mid-Essex Hospital NHS Trust
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) hospital nurse and (b) consultant vacancies there are in the Mid-Essex Hospital NHS Trust. [127471]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The information is shown in the table.

  Department of Health Vacancies Survey, March 2003, vacancies in Mid-Essex Hospital Services Trust three month vacancy rates, numbers and staff in post

  Qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff

  England

  of which: RQ8 Mid-Essex Hospital Service NHS Trust

  March 2003

  Three month vacancy rate (percentage)

  2.9

  0.8

  Three month vacancy number

  7,967

  7

  September 2002

  Staff in post (whole-time equivalent)

  279,287

  872

  Staff in post (headcount)

  346,537

  1,237

  Notes:

  1. Three month vacancy information is as at 31 March 2003.

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

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

  4. Three month Vacancy Rates are calculated using staff in post from the Vacancy Survey, March 2003.

  5. Nursing staff in post data are from the Non-Medical Workforce Census, September 2002.

  6. Consultant staff in post data are from the Medical and Dental March 2003 Mini-census.

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

  Sources:

  Department of Health Vacancies Survey, March 2003.

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census, September 2002.

  Department of Health Medical and Dental March 2003 Mini-census.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) general practitioner and (b) practice nurse vacancies there are in the Mid-Essex Hospital Trust area. [127437]
  221W
  Dr. Ladyman
  The Department of Health first carried out a survey into GP recruitment, retention and vacancies in 2000. The information was collected from health authorities. The latest published data are for 2001–02.

  The information available for Essex covers all vacancies outstanding at any time in the 12-month period between 1 March 2001 and 28 February 2002. Essex health authority and South Essex health authority each had 46 general practitioner vacancies which were outstanding at some time in this 12-month period.

  Information on practice nurse vacancies is not collected centrally.

  Midwives
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many whole-time equivalent midwives worked in the NHS in 2001–02; and how many registered midwives worked in the NHS in 2001–02. [127520]

  Mr. Hutton
  The non-medical work force census as at 30 September 2001, the mid-point of 2001–02, shows that 18,048 whole-time equivalent midwives and 23,075 midwives (headcount) were working in the national health service.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the ratio of midwives in post to the total number of births was in(a) England and (b) each NHS maternity unit in each year since 1996–97. [128154]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the ratio of midwives to number of deliveries in England and by health authority area for each year between 1996–97 and 2001–02 has been placed in the Library. Reliable information by maternity unit or organisation is not available.

  Ministerial Responsibilities
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which Minister is responsible for(a) complementary medicines, (b) nutrition, (c) the Health Protection Agency, (d) arthritis and (e) obesity. [127739]

  Percentage of children immunised against MMR

  Somerset Health Authority

  Dorset Health Authority

  by their 5th birthday1

  by their 5th birthday1

  by their 2nd birthday

  first dose

  first and second dose

  by their 2nd birthday

  first dose

  second dose

  1997–98

  94

  -

  -

  93

  -

  -

  1998–99

  91

  -

  -

  90

  -

  -

  1999 2000

  90

  96

  87

  86

  95

  83

  2000–01

  90

  96

  86

  78

  95

  78

  2001–02

  88

  95

  85

  82

  93

  73

  Note:

  1Information about uptake at age five was collected for the first time in 1999–2000.

  Source:

  Department of Health, Statistics Division SD3G, COVER data.

  MRI Scanners
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many MRI scanners are available to patients in Somerset; where they are located; and how old each scanner is. [127823]
  222W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Public Health is responsible for complementary medicines, nutrition, the Health Protection Agency and obesity.

  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State is responsible for arthritis.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many times Ministers in his Department have travelled abroad at public expense since March 2002; what countries they have visited; and what the total cost of each visit was. [127476]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Since March 2002, Ministers have travelled abroad to the United States of America, Belgium on three occasions, Italy, Luxembourg, Mexico, Norway and Switzerland.

  The total costs of these visits are shown in the table:

  Destination

  Costs £

  United States of America

  5,892

  Belgium

  1.

  416

  2.

  1,170

  3.

  306

  Italy

  944

  Luxembourg

  545

  Mexico

  10,520

  Norway

  1,075

  Switzerland

  668

  MMR Vaccine
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the take up has been of the MMR vaccine in(a) Somerset and (b) Dorset in each of the last five years. [127771]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Information about immunisation rates for measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) for children in the Somerset Health Authority and Dorset health authority by their second birthday and by their fifth birthday for the last five years is shown in the table.

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  There are two magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanners located within the Somerset area, as shown in the table. In addition, patients in Somerset have access to MRI scanners located within neighbouring trusts as listed.
  223W

  MRI scanners available to patients in Somerset

  National health service trust

  Hospital

  Year installed

  Somerset area trusts

  East Somerset

  Yeovil district hospital

  1995

  Taunton and Somerset

  Taunton and Somerset hospital

  2001

  Neighbouring trusts

  The Royal United hospital

  Royal United hospital, Bath

  1996

  The North Bristol

  Frenchay hospital, Bristol (two scanners)

  1994 and 2002

  Southmead hospital, Bristol

  2000

  United Bristol Healthcare

  Bristol Royal Infirmary (two scanners)

  1992 and 2002

  Bristol Haematology and Oncology Centre

  1996

  The Royal Devon and Exeter Healthcare

  Royal Devon and Exeter hospital, Wonford

  1995

  National Fruit Scheme
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evaluation of the National Fruit Scheme has been completed; and when he will publish the results. [128232]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Evaluation of the National School Fruit Scheme pilots was carried out by the Department of Health in 2000 and 2001 to examine the practicalities of operating the scheme within schools and the logistics of the supply and distribution arrangements. The results of this were published in March 2002 in a summary document, "National School Fruit Scheme Evaluation Summary".

  Further ongoing evaluation has been conducted by the Department on the practicalities of implementing the Food Dudes programme in large numbers of schools and on the practicalities of introducing different produce types including carrots and tomatoes. The Department is considering the most appropriate format for publication of these further evaluations. In addition, the New Opportunities Fund has recently commissioned an evaluation of the dietary impact of the scheme.

  New Hospitals
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which foreign companies have submitted bids to(a) build, (b) staff and (c) run new hospital establishments; and which health trusts (i) have invited bids and (ii) plan to invite bids in the next year. [127917]

  Mr. Hutton
  No information is held centrally regarding the country in which bidders on new hospital establishments are either registered or owned.

  Procurement for standard hospital buildings/facilities can be broken up into two categories: Private Finance Initiative (PFI), including PFI build and PFI Diagnosis and Treatment Centres (DTCs) and publicly funded, comprising the DTC programme and ProCure21 Initiative (ProCure21). Under ProCure21, the capital spend of £1.2 billion per year will be divided between a group of pre-tendered Principal Supply Chain Partners.

  Under the PFI, procurement timetables are held centrally only for major prioritised schemes (capital value over £20 million).
  224W
  Listed below are all schemes that have invited bids and are currently in procurement with a capital value of £20 million or over.

  Barts & the London NHS Trust

  University Hospital Birmingham NHS Trust

  North West London Hospitals NHS Trust

  Mid Yorkshire Hospital NHS Trust

  North Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust

  Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust

  Salford Royal Hospitals NHS Trust

  Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust

  Lewisham Hospital NHS Trust

  St Helens and Knowsley Hospitals NHS Trust

  Oxford Radcliffe Hospital NHS Trust

  Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  Tameside and Glossop Acute Services NHS Trust

  Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Trust

  University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust

  University Hospital of North Staffordshire NHS Trust

  United Bristol Healthcare NHS Trust

  Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  Central Manchester Healthcare/Manchester Childrens Hospital

  NHS Trust

  Newcastle Upon Tyne NHS Trust

  University of Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust

  Southern Derbyshire NHS Trusts

  Listed below are trusts that are currently timetabled to invite bids by advertising in the Official Journal of the European Communities (OJEC) within the next calendar year.

  Walsall Hospitals NHS Trust

  Whipps Cross University Hospital NHS Trust

  St Mary's Hospital NHS Trust

  Peterborough Hospitals NHS Trust

  Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust

  Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust

  South Devon Healthcare NHS Trust

  Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust

  Essex Rivers Healthcare NHS Trust

  Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust

  The Royal Wolverhampton Hospitals NHS Trust

  DTCs

  Dudley Hospitals Group

  Swindon NHS Trust

  Hinchingbrooke, Huntingdon

  225W
  The following is a list of publicly funded schemes over £20 million that are currently in the procurement stages.

  DTCs

  Princess Alexandra NHS Trust, Harlow

  Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen NHS Trust

  Independent Sector DTCs

  Eleven trusts that published OJEC advertisements in December 2002 with a capital value of £20 million and above are:

  Basildon and Thurrock University Hospitals NHS Trust

  North Bradford Primary Care Trust

  Burton Hospitals NHS Trust

  Nottingham City Primary Care Trust

  Daventry and South Northants Primary Care Trust

  Greater Manchester Strategic Health Authority (on its own behalf and on behalf of other NHS bodies)

  Mendip Primary Care Trust

  Plymouth Primary Care Trust

  Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital Trust

  Bristol South and West Primary Care Trust

  South Gloucestershire Primary Care Trust

  ProCure21

  The trusts in ProCure21 with schemes with a capital value of £20 million and above are:

  Royal Orthopaedic Hospital

  Blackpool, Fylde and Wyre NHS Trust

  Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospitals

  Shropshire County PCT

  National Blood Service

  The Newcastle Upon Tyne NHS Trust

  Stockport NHS Trust

  Diabetes
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are employed directly in management of diabetes within the NHS. [127650]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Of the staff directly involved in the management of diabetes, the workforce census only separately identifies the medical speciality of endocrinology and diabetes mellitus.

  As at 31 March 2003, there were 473 hospital medical consultants within the speciality. This represents an increase of 62 per cent. since September 1997.

  NHS (Ethnic Minorities)
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures are in place to ensure equal access to the delivery of services within the NHS for ethnic minority groups. [127385]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department is committed to transforming the national health service so that it produces faster, fairer services with equity of access for all. The creation of more equal access for black and minority ethnic people is an integral and vital aspect of the Department's programme of investment and reform.
  226W
  The Department is taking action at a number of levels to ensure equal access to NHS services.

  A primary care trust (PCT) transformational change programme has been jointly sponsored by the Department, the national primary and care trust development programme and Manchester Central PCT aimed at promoting excellence on race equality among PCTs including improving access to services for minority ethnic people.

  A core group of strategic health authority (SHA) chief executives have convened to undertake work to provide practical steps to help SHAs deliver the race equality agenda and improve access for minority ethnic communities.

  The Department is committed to the collection of ethnic origin information using the 2001 Census categories as part of the process of monitoring access to services within the NHS.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide a breakdown by ethnic minority working w thin the NHS. [127719]

  Mr. Hutton
  The following table shows the percentage of medical, dental and non-medical staff by ethnic category working in the national health service as at September 2002.

  Hospital, public health medicine and community health services (HCHS): Medical, dental and non-medical1 staff by ethnic category

  England, as at 30 September 2002

  Numbers (percentages)

  All staff

  100.0

  All ethnic groups

  73.1

  2001

  White

  58.8

  Population

  Black or Black British

  2.3

  Census

  Asian or Asian British

  3.1

  Ethnic

  Chinese

  0.3

  Group

  Mixed

  0.6

  Categories

  Any other ethnic group

  1.0

  Not Stated

  7.0

  All Ethnic Groups

  26.9

  Earlier

  White

  23.7

  Ethnic

  Black

  0.7

  Group

  Asian

  1.4

  Categories

  Any other ethnic group

  0.5

  Not Sated

  0.6

  Notes:

  1. The ethnic breakdown of non medical staff is estimated from the 66 per cent. of HCHS organisation that reported 90 per cent. or more valid ethnic cods on the September 2002 census.

  2. From 1 April 2001, newly appointed staff have been asked to classify themselves using the ethnic categories listed in the 2001 population census. Existing staff will be reclassified over time but data returns currently include a mixture of 2001 categories and older information based on 1991 population census categories.

  Source:

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce census.

  Department of Health non-medical workforce census.

  NHS (Health and Safety)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are employed in management of health and safety within the NHS. [127655]
  227W
  Mr. Hutton
  This information is not held centrally by the Department of Health. The National Audit Office report, "A Safer Place to Work—Improving the Management of Health and Safety Risks to Staff in NHS Trusts", reported that 95 per cent. of national health service trusts have a competent person(s) to lead on health and safety matters and that the remaining 5 per cent. of trusts had a vacancy to fill.

  NHS Staff
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many people are employed in information technology within the NHS, broken down by trust; [127649]

  (2) how many people are employed in risk management within the NHS; [127651]

  (3) how many people are employed within equipment purchasing within the NHS; [127652]

  (4) how many people are employed in patient complaints within the NHS. [127654]

  NHS Hospital and community health service (HCHS): Administrative and managerial staff by grade as at 30 September each specified year (headcount)

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Total

  182,652

  185,214

  191,738

  199,603

  211,653

  227,303

  Clerical and administrative1

  160,479

  162,521

  167,451

  174,347

  184,229

  195,009

  Manager2

  14,645

  14,706

  15,408

  16,369

  17,684

  20,435

  Senior manager2

  7,528

  7,987

  8,879

  8,887

  9,740

  11,859

  1 Clerical and administrative staff working in central functions. The group includes areas such as personnel, finance, IT, legal services, library services, health eduction and general management support services.

  2 Managers have overall responsibility for budgets, manpower or assets, or are accountable for a significant area of work. Senior managers include staff at executive level and those who report directly to the board. These staff are essential to the smooth running of hospitals, trusts and Strategic Health Authorities. This excludes nursing, ST and T and ambulance managers in post requiring specific clinical qualifications.

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-medical Workforce Census.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) electricians, (b) gardeners, (c) maintenance engineers and assistants, (d) kitchen staff and (e) cleaners were employed by the NHS in each year since 1997. [127505]

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

  Whole-time equivalent

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Estates (maintenance and works)1

  13,295

  12,715

  12,333

  12,016

  11,758

  11,831

  Support workers2

  66,706

  65,301

  64,140

  62,858

  63,568

  64,018

  Headcount

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Estates (maintenance and works)1

  13,614

  13,096

  12,712

  12,413

  12,109

  12,206

  Support workers2

  93,323

  91,157

  89,483

  87,340

  87,843

  88,285

  1 Estates staff includes electricians, gardeners and engineers. These are unable to be separately identified.

  2 Support workers includes kitchen staff and cleaners. These are unable to be separately identified.

  Notes:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest whole Number

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-medical Workforce Census
  228W
  Mr.Hutton
  The information requested is not separately available, staff employed in information technology, risk management, and equipment purchasing are included in the broader category of "administrative staff employed in central functions" and patient complaints staff are included in "support to doctors and nurses".

  As at September 2002, there were 85,706 administrative staff employed in central functions and 26,302 support workers to doctors and nurses.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many administrators were employed in the NHS in each of the last six years; [127317]

  (2) how many managerial and administrative jobs were created in the National Health Service in the last 12 months. [127371]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the number of managers and administrators employed in the national health service in each of the last six years is shown in the following table.

  Within the non-medical work force census, electricians, gardeners and maintenance engineers and assistants are included in "estates staff- in "hotel, property and estates". Kitchen staff and cleaners are included with "support workers supporting doctors and nurses."

  As at 30 September 2002, there were 12,206 estates staff and 88,285 support workers employed in the National Health Service.
  229W
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many days off work have been taken by NHS employees each year since 1997 owing to stress; and how much this time off has cost the NHS. [127330]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department of Health does not collect data centrally on how many days off work have been taken by National Health Service staff owing to work-related stress, or the associated costs.

  The National Office Audit report "A Safer Place to Work—Improving the Management of Health and Safety Risks to Staff in NHS Trusts" reported that stress accounts for 30 per cent. of sickness absence in the NHS.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of stress levels among staff in the NHS; and what proposals he has to reduce this level. [127331]

  Mr. Hutton
  The National Audit Office report "A Safer Place to Work—Improving the Management of Health and Safety Risks to Staff in NHS Trusts" reported that stress accounts for 30 per cent. of sickness absence in the National Health Service.

  Integral to the Department's plans for reducing levels of work-related stress in the NHS is the Improving Working Lives (IWL) initiative. IWL sets NHS-wide standards to cover a range of workforce issues, including the provision of childcare, flexible working, improvements to work/life balance, as well as ensuring the provision of counselling services for all staff.

  Sexual Health
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are employed in sexual health within the NHS. [127656]

  Mr. Hutton
  Within a hospital medical setting, sexual health is generally covered by the genito-urinary medicine specialty.

  The number of hospital and community health services medical staff specialising in genito-urinary medicine is shown in the table.

  Hospital, Public Health Medicine and Community Health Services (HCHS): hospital and CHS medical staff with a specialty in genito-urinary medicine

  England, as at 30 September 2002

  Number (headcount)

  All staff

  866

  of which:

  Consultants

  274

  Source:

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce census.

  General practitioners and nurses are also involved in sexual health issues, as are other health professionals in, for example, family planning clinics. The Department does not collect specific data on the numbers of such staff working in the national health service.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures his Department(a) has taken over the last 12 months and (b) plans to take over the next 12 months to stress the importance of sexual health; and what impact such measures have had thus far. [127458]
  230W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department of Health is continuing to implement the Government's National Strategy for Sexual Health and HIV, and details of the actions being taken are contained in the National Strategy for Sexual Health and HIV Implementation Action Plan. Progress on the Strategy's implementation will be monitored by the recently established independent Advisory Group on Sexual Health. The Health Select Committee has recently published its report on Sexual Health and the Government's response to its recommendations will be published shortly.

  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the percentage increase in(a) HIV, (b) chlamydia, (c) syphilis and (d) genital warts was in the last year for which figures are available for (i) Fenland and East Cambridgeshire Primary Care Trust and (ii) East Anglia, broken down by (A) sex and (B) those aged (1) 15 and under, (2) 16–19, (3) 20–25, (4) 25–35 and (5) over 35. [127958]

  Dr. Ladyman
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were diagnosed as suffering from a sexually transmitted infection in(a) 2002, (b) 2000, (c) 1995, (d) 1990, (e) 1985 and (f) 1980. [127455]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Data on diagnoses of sexually transmitted infections (STI) made within genito-urinary medicine clinics in England for the years 1990 to 2002, plus 1985 and 1980, are listed. These do not include STI diagnoses or treatments made within a primary care setting, for which we do not hold data centrally.

  Number

  2002

  644,399

  2001

  608,726

  2000

  570,072

  1999

  533,790

  1998

  506,908

  1997

  481,892

  1996

  451,903

  1995

  428,938

  1994

  390,876

  1993

  363,806

  1992

  372,282

  1991

  379,098

  1990

  367,256

  1985

  1362,700

  1980

  2288,000

  1Approximation, based on total UK data of 398,547.

  2Approximation, based on total UK data of 316,548

  The Government's 10 year National Strategy for Sexual Health and HIV, launched in 2001, the first ever national strategy for sexual health, is to tackle these rising rates of infections and modernise and improve access to sexual health services.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many women suffered from(a) syphilis and (b) gonorrhoea (i) in 1997 and (ii) on the latest date for which figures are available. [127456]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The number of people diagnosed with syphilis and gonorrhoea are shown in the table.
  231W

  Year

  Male

  Female

  Syphilis (primary and secondary)

  1997

  98

  49

  2002

  1,062

  137

  Uncomplicated gonorrhoea

  1997

  8,418

  3,981

  2002

  16,980

  7,417

  Note:

  Diagnoses in genitourinary medicine clinics only. Data not held centrally on diagnoses in primary care settings.

  The Government's ten year National Strategy for Sexual Health and HIV, launched in 2001, is designed to tackle these rising rates of infections and modernise and improve access to sexual health services.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much funding is being dedicated to campaigns raising awareness in England of(a) sexually transmitted diseases and (b) HIV and Aids in 2003–04 and is planned for 2004–05. [127546]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department of Health has allocated £3.25 million in 2003–04 for work to prevent, and raise awareness of, sexually transmitted infections, which includes the national 'Sex Lottery' campaign (which also includes information on HIV). In addition, £1.85 million has been allocated specifically for HIV and AIDS prevention and awareness raising activities. In addition, primary care trusts are responsible for meeting the sexual health promotion needs of their local populations and this work is funded from mainstream National Health Service allocations and therefore details of expenditure are not held centrally.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the incidence is of sexually transmitted diseases in England in(a) school-aged children and (b) adults over the age of 50 years. [127548]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Centrally held data are available for the following five sexually transmitted infections, broken down according to these age groups.

  Condition

  15 and under

  16–19

  45 plus

  Primary and secondary infectious syphilis

  4

  67

  234

  Uncomplicated gonorrhoea

  1,216

  17,654

  4,487

  Anogenital herpes simplex—first attack

  643

  11,628

  6,259

  Anogenital warts—first attack

  2,802

  59,189

  14,739

  Uncomplicated chlamydial infection

  3,914

  67,714

  4,793

  Source:

  Health Protection Agency

  Overseas Health Services
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS patients have been sent abroad for treatment; and at what cost in the last five years. [127380]

  Mr. Hutton
  A total of 477 patients have been referred for treatment abroad as part of the overseas treatment programme in the last five years.

  A centrally funded pilot project took place between January and April 2002 at a cost of £1.1 million. This was extended for orthopaedic treatment overseas, with patients drawn from five different health authority areas at a cost of a further £2.1 million.

  The option of receiving treatment abroad has also been offered as part of two patient choice pilot schemes.
  232W
  The London Patients Choice Project (LPCP) has spent a total of £148,766 on funding overseas treatment. This includes all programme costs, for treatment, travel, comprehensive rehabilitation, and out-patient clinics run in the United Kingdom by European clinicians.

  The final costs for the cardiac programme are not available as yet. To date, 19 patients have been treated abroad.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how long the patients who have been sent abroad by the NHS for treatment had been waiting in their own locality. [127381]

  Mr. Hutton
  The details of the length of time that individual patients have been waiting before receiving treatment abroad is not held centrally. However, the option of going overseas is usually offered to patients who are clinically fit for travel and who have been waiting relatively long periods.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to change the practice of sending patients abroad for treatment. [127382]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Government have made a commitment to developing greater diversity and plurality in healthcare provision in the future. This means that the national health service will be able to explore a range of options to help it deliver shorter waiting times and increase patient choice. These options include more effective use of the independent sector in the United Kingdom, innovative use of capacity in the NHS, and using NHS and independent sector diagnosis and treatment centres. The policy is that wherever possible the NHS should seek to attract overseas providers to the UK. However, where it makes sense in terms of value for money and convenience for patients, overseas treatment does offer a further means to add to the capacity of the NHS, to reduce waiting times and extend the choice available to patients.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health where the financial liability lies for follow-up operations which take place in English NHS hospitals following a patient's NHS treatment abroad. [127497]

  Mr. Hutton
  Financial liability for any subsequent treatment needed by national health service patients following treatment abroad rests with the NHS.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many operations have been carried out abroad but paid for by the NHS since January 2001, broken down by operation; and what the total cost to the NHS of each patient's treatment was while abroad including travel expenses. [127516]

  Mr. Hutton
  A total of 477 patients have been referred for treatment abroad as part of the overseas treatment programme since January 2001. Of these, 19 patients have been treated for cardiac procedures, 37 have been treated for ophthalmological procedures and 421 have been treated for orthopaedic procedures.

  A procurement process identifying spare capacity abroad is currently active, so the costs of specific procedures abroad are commercially sensitive. However, prices are comparable to spot purchasing in the United Kingdom private sector.

  NHS Beds
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many national health service beds were available in England in(a) 2000, (b) 2001 and (c) 2002. [127352]

  Mr. Hutton
  The average daily number of available beds in wards open overnight in national health service trusts in England is shown in the table.

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Average daily number of general and acute

  135,080

  135,794

  136,583

  Average daily number of beds in all specialties

  186,290

  186,091

  184,871

  Source:

  Department of Health form KHO3

  This information is published annually on the Department of Health website at http://www.doh.gov.uk/hospitalactivity.

  NHS Counter Fraud Team
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list recoveries worth more than £500,000 secured by the NHS Counter Fraud team since 1997. [127732]

  Mr. Hutton
  Figures dating from 1997 are not available. The National Health Service Counter Fraud Service, now the Counter Fraud and Security Management Service (CFSMS), was formed in 1998, with the overall remit to tackle fraud and corruption within the NHS.

  The CFSMS has, to date, demonstrated a £70 million a year reduction in losses to fraud through preventative action and recovered over £14 million of fraudulently obtained money through our investigative work.

  Individual cases, where in excess of £500,000 has been secured by CFSMS, are shown in the table. There are many other cases, where recoveries have been secured and the individual amounts concerned are less than £500,000.

  Subject

  Amount of recovery (£)

  Pharmaceutical Products Supplier

  650,000

  Pharmaceutical Products Supplier

  1,128,000

  Pharmaceutical Products Supplier

  1,337,680

  Pharmaceutical Products Supplier

  1,750,000

  Dispensing Doctor (GP)

  799,087

  Dentist

  1,150,000

  Total

  6,814,767

  NHS Dentistry
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what data support the 5 rating given to Burley, Pendle and Rossendale primary care trust for access to NHS dentistry. [127188]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The indicator in the 2002–03 National Health Service performance ratings relating to access to NHS dentistry asked primary care trusts (PCTs) whether or not they had 'plans in place to enable 234W
  people to obtain NHS dentistry within local standards, following requests for help through NHS Direct and local inquiry points' at the end of March 2003.

  Therefore, if a PCT met this criteria then, as per the performance ratings scoring system, they were assigned a score of five. Conversely, if a PCT did not meet this criteria at the said date, they would be assigned a score of one. Burley, Pendle and Rossendale PCT reported that it had met the above criteria and thus was assigned a score of five for this particular performance indicator within the 2002–03 NHS performance ratings. This score was then used in conjunction with performance on a wide range of other measures to determine that NHS organisation's performance (star) rating.

  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria determine whether a primary care trust qualifies as providing access to an NHS dentist. [127388]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Primary care trusts (PCTs) should be able to respond to requests for dentistry whether it is emergency, urgent or routine as defined by the clinical algorithms developed with the dental profession by NHS Direct. For each of these categories of need, the PCT needs to have a distance standard related to local geography, which has been agreed with local stakeholders and published. For emergency care, distance standards would be similar to those for other National Health Service emergency services. A PCT providing full access to NHS dentistry will be achieving compliance with both clinical and distance standards. Not all PCTs fulfil both these sets of criteria.

  The 2002–03 performance indicator for dentistry asked if
  "plans are in place to enable people to obtain NHS dentistry within local standards, following requests for help through NHS Direct and local enquiry points".

  This was to recognise the endeavours of PCTs to address dentistry issues even where they remain unresolved.

  A new NHS dentistry support team has been set up to work with local officials in PCTs with particular issues regarding access to NHS dentistry to help them tackle these problems. The support team will be up and running in September this year, and will have support funding to address particularly acute of long-standing difficulties.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS dentists are available in the Adur, Arun and Worthing PCT area. [127560]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  National health service dentists cover dentists in the general dental service (GDS), hospital dental service (HDS), community dental service (CDS) and personal dental service (PDS). Information at primary care trust (PCT) level is not available for the CDS and HDS because these services are provided by NHS trusts, which do not have clearly defined geographical boundaries.

  The latest information for March 2003 is shown in the following table and gives the number of GDS and PDS dentists who carry out the majority of the work in Adur, Arun and Worthing PCT.
  235W
  These figures are on a headcount rather than whole-time equivalent basis and take no account of part-time working. Dentists working in both PDS and GDS are counted in the GDS only.

  NHS Dental Services: Number of dentists in Adur, Arun and Worthing PCT, as at 31 March 2003

  Adur, Arun and Worthing PCT1

  GDS dentists

  98

  PDS dentists2, 3

  12

  1 Dentists who carry out the majority of their work in the PCT.

  2 Dentists working in the PDS who are not also working in the GDS.

  3> West Sussex Community PDS scheme covers Adur, Arun and Worthing PCT.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS dentists there are in the Chorley constituency; and what steps he is taking to increase the number of NHS dentists in the Chorley constituency. [127292]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information on the number of dentists in the Chorley constituency is shown in the table.

  General and Personal Dental Service: number of dentists in the Chorley and South Ribble constituency area

  Health authority/primary care trust1

  GDS dentists

  Salaried dentists

  PDS dentists2

  At 30 September 2002

  South Lancashire HA

  100

  1

  3

  At 31 March 2003

  Chorley and South Ribble PCT

  56

  1

  3

  1 Only dentists with the majority of patients in the South Lancashire HA and the Charley and Ribble PCT are included.

  2 Dentists working in the South Lancashire PDS pilot who are not also working in the GDS.

  Notes:

  1. Dentists are free to work in more than one health authority or primary care trust, therefore, dentists who do some work in this area HA/PCT but more in another HA/PCT have not been included.

  2. NHS dentists cover dentists working in the General Dental Service (GDS), Hospital Dental Service (HDS), Community Dental Service (CDS), Personal Dental Service (PDS) and Salaried Service of the GDS.

  3. The number of GDS dentists includes Principals, Assistants, Vocational Dental Practitioners.

  4. These figures are on a headcount basis rather than a whole time equivalent (wte) basis and therefore take no account of part-time working. In the GDS, the amount of time spent working in the NHS varies greatly with a large proportion of dentists doing some private work. Dentists working solely in private dentistry are not covered in these figures.

  I understand that Cumbria and Lancashire strategic health authority is working with the local Chorley and South Ribble Primary Care Trust (PCT) on access to national health service dentistry. Chorley and South Ribble PCT has plans in place to enable people within Chorley to obtain NHS dentistry service.

  NHS Direct
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost has been of NHS Direct. [127379]
  236W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Since March 1998, NHS Direct sites have been funded from a top-sliced central budget. The total costs of the service since 1998–99 are given in the table.

  Total cost (£ million)

  1998–99

  14

  1999–2000

  55

  2000–01

  90.1

  2001–02

  109.7

  2002–03

  124

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost is per call to NHS Direct. [127556]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The average cost of a call to NHS Direct is currently about £18.00, although this is expected to fall further in the future as call volumes rise. The National Audit Office has found that half of callers are directed to forms of care they would not have chosen and that this tends to be care of a lower level and cost of intervention. More than half of NHS Direct costs are saved in this way.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many qualified nurses work for NHS Direct, broken down by grade. [127557]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  There are approximately 1,100 whole-time equivalent nurses working for NHS Direct. Specific information about NHS Direct nurses broken down by grade is not collected centrally.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many calls were made to NHS Direct in each year since it was set up. [127568]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The table shows how many calls have been made to NHS Direct since its launch in March 1998.

  Financial year

  Total calls handled

  Cumunative total calls

  1998–99

  110,000

  110,000

  1999–2000

  1,650,000

  1,760,000

  2000–01

  3,420,000

  5,180,000

  2001–02

  5,213,062

  10,393,062

  2002–03

  6,318,844

  16,711,906

  2003-July 2004

  1,653,344

  18,365,250

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many different callers have used NHS Direct in each year since it was set up. [127569]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  NHS Direct has handled over 18 million calls since the service was launched in March 1998, and NHS Direct Online has had over 8 million visitors. Specific information is not available on how many different callers have used NHS Direct each year since the service was set up.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) nurses and (b) managers are employed by NHS Direct. [127637]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Currently all NHS Direct members of staff are employed by their host organisation trust. NHS Direct employs approximately 1,100 whole-time equivalent nurses across the 22 NHS
  237W
  Direct sites. Specific information about the number of managers employed by NHS Direct is not collected centrally.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the budgeted cost of NHS Direct in financial year 2003–04 is. [127638]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The total budgeted cost for the NHS Direct telephone service, NHS Direct Online, and other related services for the financial year 2003–04 is £124 million.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health from how many sites NHS Direct operates; and how many staff are employed at each site. [127639]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Specific information on how many staff are employed at each of the 22 NHS Direct sites is not collected centrally. The following table outlines the number of nurses and call handlers based at each site.

  Staff in post FTE

  Sites

  Nurses

  Call handlers

  Total FTE

  1. Anglia

  38.63

  15.22

  53.85

  2. Avon

  47.53

  29.43

  76.96

  3. Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire

  47.80

  23.17

  70.97

  4. East Midlands

  70.80

  36.21

  107.01

  5. Essex

  50.03

  24.95

  74.98

  6. Hampshire

  56.31

  15.60

  71.91

  7. Kent, Surrey and Sussex

  64.83

  28.70

  93.53

  8. Manchester

  87.35

  41.40

  128.75

  9. Midlandshires

  55.26

  33.72

  88.98

  10. North and Central London

  22.68

  12.94

  35.62

  11. North East

  56.76

  28.00

  84.76

  12. North East London

  23.20

  16.70

  39.90

  13. North West Coast

  76.51

  18.48

  94.99

  14. South East London

  36.58

  23.39

  59.97

  15. South West London

  25.60

  12.60

  38.20

  16. South Yorkshire

  39.63

  26.80

  66.43

  17. TENYAS

  34.70

  13.10

  47.80

  18. Thames Valley

  46.50

  15.20

  61.70

  19. West County

  59.27

  29.80

  89.07

  20. West London

  38.70

  22.60

  61.30

  21. West Midlands

  50.47

  24.96

  75.43

  22. West Yorkshire

  52.93

  24.45

  77.38

  Total

  1,082.07

  517.42

  1,599.49

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of calls to NHS Direct result in(a) no further action being taken by the caller, (b) the caller being advised to contact their GP, (c) the caller being advised to attend an accident and emergency department and (d) an ambulance being summoned to the caller's location. [127642]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  45 per cent. of calls to NHS Direct result in no onward referral to another service, 35 per cent. of callers are advised to contact their general practitioner, 7 per cent. of callers are advised to attend an accident and emergency department, and 3 per cent. of callers required an ambulance dispatching to the caller's location.

  Source:

  NHS direct data April 2003-June 2003.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are employed by NHS Direct, broken down by(a) grade and (b) salary. [127636]
  238W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Currently, all NHS Direct members of staff are employed by their host organisation trust. Specific information about the number of people employed by NHS Direct, broken down by grade and salary is not collected centrally. Approximately 3,000 members of staff are employed by NHS Direct.

  NHS Fraud/Inefficiency
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures his Department is taking to reduce the levels of(a) financial waste, (b) fraud and (c) inefficiency in the NHS; and what progress has been made over the last 12 months. [127492]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department of Health monitors and manages the performance of the national health service in the delivery of the key targets set out in the NHS Plan. In addition, the NHS is subject to external independent audit by the Audit Commission and the National Audit Office. They publish a number of studies each year on the value for money of aspects of the NHS. The Department of Health considers each of these reports, and implements their recommendations where appropriate.

  The Counter Fraud Service, now Counter Fraud and Security Management Service (CFSMS), was formed in September 1998, with a remit to tackle fraud and corruption within the NHS. It established a risk measurement programme to carry out an exhaustive examination of valid samples of cases in each area of NHS spending and to produce statistically robust estimates of fraud accurate to plus or minus 1 per cent. of losses. These exercises are among the first of such exercises to be undertaken anywhere in the public or private sectors.

  The first measurement exercise concentrated on patient fraud. To deter and prevent patient evasion of NHS charges and to increase the anti-fraud culture, point of dispensing and point of treatment checks were introduced. These checks require patients to provide proof of exemption to charges. The measurement exercises have already demonstrated a reduction in fraudulently claimed exemption to these charges from approximately £170 million to £109.17 million per year, a reduction of 36 per cent. since 1998.

  Over 1,400 cases of potential fraud have been detected and investigated. This has resulted in 160 successful criminal prosecutions with 98 per cent. success rate, 215 civil and disciplinary sanctions have been applied and over £14 million recovered. Additionally, over £31 million of fraud has been identified and stopped.

  As action takes place to counter fraud in the NHS the measurement process will be repeated to demonstrate what progress has been made to reduce fraud to an absolute minimum.

  In addition, governance arrangements have been improved to ensure the necessary standards of accountability, probity and openness through the introduction in 1999 of the Controls Assurance Standards.

  NHS Finance
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary o State for Health if he will make a statement on the balance of income and expenditure of health authorities and the NHS trusts in England for the financial year ending 31 March. [127354]

  Mr. Hutton
  The audited information in respect of the 2002–03 financial position of all national health service organisations will be published in their individual annual accounts and will be available locally in September and centrally in the autumn.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he is planning to meet the chairmen of NHS trusts to discuss administrative costs. [127360]

  Mr. Hutton
  My right hon. Friend will meet chairs of national health service trusts on 9 September; a wide range of issues will be discussed.

  NHS Finance
  Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the NHS funding budget was for Shropshire in each year since 1997; [127585]

  (2) what the budget of Shropshire Primary Care Trust was in each year since 1997 and will be in each year up to 2005–06; [127588]

  (3) what the budget of Telford and Wrekin Primary Care Trust was in each year since 1997 and will be in each year up to 2005–06. [127589]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Revenue allocations for Shropshire Health Authority, Shropshire County Primary Care Trust and Telford and Wrekin Primary Care Trust are shown in the tables.

  Total allocation for Shropshire HA 1997–98 to 2002–03

  Period

  £000

  1997–98

  169,555

  1999–99

  178,325

  1999–2000

  247,650

  2000–01

  270,975

  2001–02

  295,252

  2002–03

  326,945

  Total allocation to PCTs comprising the former Shropshire HA 2003–04 to 2005–06

  £000

  Period

  Shropshire County PCT

  Telford and Wrekin PCT

  2003–04

  230,545

  124,364

  2004–05

  252,424

  136,914

  2005–06

  275,548

  152,918

  Allocations for 1999–2000 onwards are not comparable with those for 1997–98 and 1998–99 which cover hospital and community health services only. 1999–2000 was the first year of unified allocations, which cover hospital and community health services, prescribing and discretionary general medical services.

  From 2003–04 allocations are made to PCTs.

  NHS Hospital Trusts
  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS hospital trusts have general hospitals in different towns. [117771]

  Mr. Hutton
  Of the trusts in England with more than one general hospital, 75 per cent. have hospitals in more than one town. The remaining 25 per cent. have all their hospitals in the same town.

  NHS Recruitment
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many advertisements for non-clinical jobs within the NHS have been advertised in the national press each year since 1997; and at what cost. [127368]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department of Health does not hold this information centrally.

  The Department is currently commissioning a national electronic recruitment service for the National Health Service. It will link with NHS Careers to provide a web-based service advertising posts, providing information about careers, jobs and NHS employers, and an electronic application process, supported by a call centre service to provide flexible, interactive access to information and job and training opportunities. The new service will enable the NHS to reduce its recruitment and advertising costs.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what budget his Department has in the current year for job advertisements. [127369]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Department does not have a budget specifically for job advertisements, but does have a recruitment budget, which for the current year is £300,000. The costs for job advertisements are met from this budget.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much each primary care trust spent on advertising job positions in(a) 2001, (b) 2002 and (c) 2003. [127370]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department of Health does not hold this information centrally.

  The Department of Health is currently commissioning a national electronic recruitment service for the National Health Service. It will link with NHS Careers to provide a web-based service advertising posts, providing information about careers, jobs and NHS employers, and an electronic application process, supported by a call centre service to provide flexible, interactive access to information and job and training opportunities. The new service will enable the NHS to reduce its recruitment and advertising costs.

  NHS Professionals
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which NHS trusts are using NHS Professionals. [128155]

  Mr. Hutton
  There are currently 75 national health service trusts using NHS Professionals. These are listed.
  241W
  NHS trusts using NHS Professionals

  Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust

  Barking Havering and Redbridge NHS Trust

  Basildon PCT

  Basildon and Thurrock University Hospitals Trust

  Bath and North East Somerset PCT, Bath

  Billericay PCT

  Central Liverpool PCT

  Chelmsford PCT

  Chelwell Vale PCT, Oxfordshire

  Christie Hospital NHS Trust, Manchester

  Dudley Group of Hospitals NHS Trust, Stourbridge

  East and North Herts NHS Trust, Stevenage

  East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust

  Epping Forest PCT

  George Eliot NHS Trust, Nuneaton

  Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children Trust

  Harlow PCT

  Lancashire Care NHS Trust, Preston

  Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust, Leicester

  Maldon and South Chelmsford PCT

  Mid Essex Hospitals Trust

  Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust, Wakefield

  Milton Keynes PCT

  North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol

  North Cheshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  North East Oxfordshire PCT

  North Essex Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust

  North Mersey Community NHS Trust

  North Middlesex University Hospital

  Nottingham City Hospital NHS Trust

  Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre NHS Trust, Oxford

  Oxford City PCT

  Oxford Learning Disability NHS Trust

  Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS Trust

  Oxfordshire Mental Healthcare NHS Trust

  Pennine Care NHS Trust

  Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, Oldham

  Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust, Harlow

  Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham

  Redditch and Bromsgrove PCT

  Royal Liverpool Children's NHS Trust

  Royal National Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases

  Royal United Hospital Bath NHS Trust

  Royston, Buntingford and Bishops Stortford PCT

  Salford Royal Hospitals NHS Trust

  Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  South East Oxfordshire PCT

  Southend Hospital Trust

  South Leeds PCT

  South Manchester University Hospitals Trust

  South Tees Hospitals NHS Trust, Middlesbrough

  South West Oxfordshire PCT

  South West Yorkshire Mental Health NHS Trust

  South Worcestershire PCT

  St. Helens and Knowsley Hospitals NHS Trust

  242W

  St. Mary's NHS Trust, London

  Stockport NHS Trust

  Stoke Mandeville Hospitals NHS Trust

  Suffolk West PCT

  Thurrock PCT

  United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  University College London Hospitals NHS Trust

  University Hospital, Nottingham NHS Trust

  Uttlesford PCT, Essex

  Walsall PCT

  Walton Neurology and Neurosurgery NHS Trust, Liverpool

  West Suffolk Hospitals NHS Trust

  West Middlesex University Hospitals NHS Trust

  Whipps Cross University Hospital NHS Trust

  Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  Worcestershire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust

  Worcestershire SSA

  Wyre Forest PCT

  NHS Salaries
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance his Department issues to NHS trusts about limits on staff salaries. [127341]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department does not issue guidance to national health service trusts on limits to individual staff salaries. In each of the five years from 1998–99 to 2002–03, the Department issued guidance recommending a financial envelope for increases in each organisation's pay bill for senior managers.

  NHS Costs
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the rate of increase of NHS specific costs on an annualised basis. [127621]

  Mr. Hutton
  In order to estimate the rate of increase of national health service costs annually, the Department of Health uses the Hospital and Community Health Services pay and prices inflation. For 2001–02 (the latest year for which data are available), the pay and prices percentage growth over the previous year was 5.1 per cent.

  NHS Trust Chief Executives
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS trust chief executives have resigned in each of the past five years. [127731]

  Mr. Hutton
  We do not collect any information on national health service trust chief executive resignations. This information is not monitored by the Department of Health and therefore not held centrally.

  NHS Walk-in Centres
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many NHS walk-in centres have been been established in the UK; [127383]

  (2) how many NHS walk-in centres there are in England. [127712]

  Mr. Hutton
  There are 42 National Health Service walk-in centres in the United Kingdom.
  243W
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many people are employed in NHS walk-in centres, broken down by(a) grade and (b) salary; [127710]

  (2) how many (a) nurses and (b) managers are employed by NHS walk-in centres; [127711]

  (3) how many staff are employed at each NHS walk-in centre. [127714]

  Mr. Hutton
  This information is not held centrally.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the locations of NHS walk-in centres in England. [127713]

  Mr. Hutton
  A full list of National Health Service walk-in centres and their location had been placed in the Library. This information can also be found at www.doh.gov.uk/nhswalkincentres

  NHS Whistleblowers
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many whistleblowers have been suspended from work within the NHS as a result of allegations and complaints in the last 12 months: [127482]

  (2) how many staff within the NHS have been suspended from work as a result of allegations by whistleblowers in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [127483]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the number of suspensions of staff working in the national health service, specifically relating to whistleblowing is not colleted centrally, but may be held at a local level by NHS employers.

  The Government expect a climate of openness and dialogue in the NHS that encourages staff to feel able to raise concerns about health care matters sensibly and responsibly without fear of victimisation.

  The Department of Health will shortly be issuing new guidance to all NHS employing organisations to support them in developing and/or reviewing their

  Chair

  Non-executive

  Total

  Party

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  2001–02

  Conservative

  11

  6.96

  40

  4.42

  51

  4.79

  Independent

  —

  —

  7

  0.81

  7

  0.66

  Labour

  31

  19.62

  212

  23.40

  243

  22.84

  Liberal Democrat

  7

  4.43

  38

  4.19

  45

  4.23

  None

  109

  68.99

  603

  66.56

  712

  66.92

  Other

  —

  —

  6

  0.69

  6

  0.59

  2002–03

  Conservative

  9

  4.92

  63

  5.87

  72

  5.73

  Independent

  —

  —

  16

  1.58

  16

  1.35

  Labour

  43

  23.50

  125

  11.64

  168

  13.37

  Liberal Democrat

  3

  1.64

  25

  2.33

  28

  2.23

  None

  127

  69.40

  842

  78.40

  969

  77.09

  Other

  1

  0.57

  3

  0.30

  4

  0.34

  244W
  whistleblowing policies and procedures. A copy of the policy pack, which has been produced in partnership with Public Concern at Work, will be placed in the Library.

  NICE Guidance
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to issue guidance on wounds and injuries. [127095]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) has already published guidance on the prevention of pressure ulcers, infection control and the treatment of difficult-to-heal wounds. It is now preparing a suite of guidelines on this topic which will be published over the period August 2003 to April 2006. Full details of this work programme and the anticipated publication dates are available on the NICE website at: www.nice.org.uk

  Nicotine Replacement Therapy
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to make nicotine replacement therapy available through the NHS. [127680]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Nicotine replacement therapy products were made available on national health service prescription in April 2001.

  Non-Executive Appointments
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list non-executive appointments to NHS bodies in the last two years, broken down by political affiliations. [127563]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The National Health Service Appointments Commission will be publishing its annual report in the autumn of 2003, listing the names of all chairs and non-executives serving on NHS boards and giving details of any political activity undertaken. The current overall figures for political activity undertaken by candidates appointed in the last two years are shown in the table.

  Nurses
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses were recruited by the NHS in 2002. [127526]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the number of recruits to the national health service is not collected centrally. Information on the number of nurses employed in the NHS is collected in the non-medical workforce census, but does not distinguish between leavers and joiners. Between September 2001 and September 2002, there was a net increase of 17,140 nurses employed in the NHS.

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

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of the nurses who are employed by the NHS are(a) set to retire in the next five years and (b) under the age of 30. [127527]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is shown in the table. Information about the age profile of practice nurses is not collected centrally. The information provided therefore excludes practice nurses.

  As at 30 September 2003, the non-medical workforce census shows that there were 346,537 qualified nurses (excluding practice nurses) working in the national health service. Of these 20,309, or 5.8 per cent., were aged 55 to 59, 5,509, or 1.6 per cent., were aged over 60 and 48,774, or 14 per cent., were aged under 30.

  NHS hospital and community health services: qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff by specified age bands—England as at September 2002

  headcount

  All staff

  Up to 30

  55 to 59

  Over 60

  Of which

  All qualified staff

  346,537

  48,774

  20,309

  5,509

  Nurse consultant

  330

  8

  7

  1—

  Manager

  5,784

  118

  480

  97

  Registered sick children's nurse

  12,288

  3,157

  410

  94

  Registered midwife

  23,249

  2,038

  1,495

  361

  Health visitor

  12,774

  262

  1,606

  448

  District nurse (1st level)

  12,141

  497

  1,227

  279

  District nurse (2nd level)

  1,252

  43

  136

  43

  Other 1st level

  255,712

  41,383

  13,015

  3,482

  Other 2nd level

  18,450

  1,268

  1,933

  704

  Unspecified

  4,557

  1—

  1—

  1

  1 Equals zero

  Notes:

  Other 1st level and 2nd level include staff coded as community psychiatric nurses (CPN) and community learning disability nurses (CLDN) with a specific recordable community qualification.

  Source:

  Department of Health 2002 non-medical workforce census.

  Mr. Dorrell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many agency nurses were employed in Leicestershire hospitals on average in 2002–03; and what proportion this represented of total nursing staff. [127270]

  Dr. Ladyman
  This information is not collected centrally.
  246W
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to increase the number of nurses in training. [127316]

  Mr. Hutton
  The NHS Plan sets out the Government's commitment to increase the number of nurses and midwives in training by 5,500 each year by 2004 over 1999 levels. Since 1999 the number of nurses and midwives entering training each year has increased by 4,474 to 23,181.

  We have increased funding for nurse training by over 100 per cent. since 1997-from £752 million in 1997–98 to £1,517 million in 2003–04. We are working closely with the higher education sector to increase capacity and look at innovative ways to boost the number of practice placements.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what checks his Department conducts on the qualifications of agency nursing personnel; and what assistance his Department gives to(a) hospital trusts and (b) health authorities in checking the qualifications of agency nursing staff. [127326]

  Mr. Hutton
  Providers of temporary staffing should conform to the principles and standards in the Department's Code of Practice for the Supply of Temporary Staffing when supplying temporary staff to the National Health Service. NHS employers should ensure that they request a declaration of adherence to the code of practice when engaging with a provider of temporary staff. The code states that information relating to the staff member's qualifications, training and membership of professional bodies should be obtained by the provider. In addition, the Nurses Agencies Regulations 2002 require nurses agencies to ensure that full and satisfactory information is available in relation to a nurse's qualifications, training and current registration with the Nursing and Midwifery Council before supplying the nurse.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many nurses recruited into the NHS in each of the last three years have come from overseas; [127519]

  (2) how many nurses were recruited from overseas in the last 12 months for which figures are available; and from which countries. [127915]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) registers all nurses who work in the United Kingdom and it is the NMC that hold the statistics for the number of overseas nurses who are accepted on to their register.

  This information can be obtained from the NMC at www.nmc-uk.org

  The NMC statistics details nurses that are registered to work in the United Kingdom and not just in the National Health Service. A large proportion of these nurses will be working in the independent sector.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many practice nurses were in place in GP surgeries in each of the last five years. [127531]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  247W
  Between 1998 and 2002, the number of practice nurses employed in the national health service has increased by 2,089 or 11 per cent.

  Practice Nurses1 in England 1997–2002

  Numbers (headcount)

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Practice nurses

  18,894

  19,495

  19,200

  19,846

  20,983

  1 Practice nurse headcount information was estimated in 1998 and 1999. Data as at 1 October 1998–99 and 30 September 2000–02.

  Source:

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to increase the number of practice nurses working in GP surgeries. [127532]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Government is implementing a range of measures to increase the numbers of staff working in the national health service, including practice nurses. These include an increase in pay, encouraging the NHS to become a better employer through the "Improving Working Lives and Positively Diverse" programmes, increasing training commissions, reducing student attrition, running national and local recruitment and return to practice campaigns, and supporting international recruitment where appropriate. In addition, we have recently developed a dedicated NHS Careers factsheet on practice nursing, to promote further careers and opportunities in this field. A copy of the factsheet is available in the Library.

  As a result of these measures, there are now over 2,500 more practices nurses working in the NHS since 1997 (NHS Workforce Census). This has contributed in helping to meet the NHS Plan target for 20,000 more nurses two years ahead of schedule.

  Obesity
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action(a) has been taken and (b) is planned to address NHS provision for the management of overweight and obese patients that were identified as patchy in the National Audit Office report on Tackling Obesity in England. [127688]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The NHS Plan and the national service framework for coronary heart disease (CHD) (launched after the National Audit Office survey), sets standards for health authorities in partnership with local authorities, primary care trusts (PCTs) and NHS trusts, for the development and delivery of effective policies for reducing overweight and obesity, promoting healthy eating and increase physical activity.

  The NHS Priorities and Planning Framework for 2003–06 includes targets on reducing CHD. One of these targets requires practice-based registers and systematic treatment regimes, including appropriate advice on diet, physical activity and smoking, to cover the majority of patients at high risk of coronary heart disease, particularly those with hypertension, diabetes and a body mass index greater than 30 (that is, people who are obese).
  248W
  PCTs, as local providers and commissioners of services, determine the most appropriate methods to deliver health care to their populations, based on clinical need and effectiveness, as well as local circumstances, drawing on the available evidence. The Health Development Agency will publish their review of effective interventions for the prevention and treatment of obesity later this year. Work on how to put the evidence into practice is also being taken forward.

  In line with recommendations of the National Audit Office and Public Accounts Committee reports, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence and the Health Development Agency have been tasked by the Department of Health to work collaboratively to develop guidance on the identification, prevention and management of obesity and maintenance of weight reduction.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to produce national guidelines for the management of obesity in addition to those which are part of the National Framework for Coronary Heart Disease and Diabetes; and if he will make a statement. [127689]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Following publication of the Government's strategy for sustainable farming and food, the Department of Health is leading on developing a cross-Government food and health action plan. The plan will pull together all of the issues that influence what we eat and will address food production, manufacture and preparation, access to healthier food and providing information for consumers about healthy eating and nutrition, which is of direct relevance to the prevention and management of obesity.

  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) has already issued national guidance on the anti-obesity drugs orlistat and subutramine, treatment with which should be accompanied by appropriate advice on diet, activity and behavioural strategies. NICE has also issued guidance on surgery to aid weight reduction for people with morbid obesity and have been tasked, in collaboration with the Health Development Agency, to develop guidance on the identification, prevention and management of obesity and maintenance of weight reduction.

  To ensure there is a co-ordinated and strategic approach to the planning and delivery of sport and physical activity, an activity co-ordination team (ACT) has been established. The team, jointly led by the Department of Health and the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, will set out a cross-government strategy to work towards the challenging target for 70 per cent. of the population to be active by 2020. The Department of Health has published a national quality assurance framework for exercise referral systems, offering guidance to primary care and fitness professionals, who work together to offer tailored exercise and physical activity programmes to patients.

  The Department has also supported the development guidance for professionals in primary care on weight management in children and adolescents, produced by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, and

  249W
  National Obesity Forum. We are also funding research on family-based treatment for obese children that will include resources for health professionals.

  The Health Development Agency will publish their review of effective interventions for the prevention and treatment of obesity later this year. Work on how to put the evidence into practice is also being taken forward.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action the Government are taking to tackle obesity in children. [127314]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government are committed to tackling the rising trend in childhood obesity and we have put in place cross-Government programmes of work to improve diet and nutrition and increase physical activity levels. Commitments for action on obesity, diet and physical activity are outlined in the NHS plan and the national service frameworks, particularly those outlining action on coronary heart disease and diabetes.

  The Department of Health is leading on developing a cross-Government food and health action plan. The plan will pull together all of the issues that influence what we eat and will address food production, manufacture and preparation, access to healthier food and providing information for consumers about healthy eating and nutrition. Action on physical activity will be guided across Government by an activity co-ordination team, jointly led by the Department of Health and the Department of Culture, Media and Sport. These initiatives will be of direct relevance to the prevention and management of obesity in children and adults.

  Current action on diet includes initiatives to increase breastfeeding (breastfed babies may be less likely to become obese later in life than formula fed babies); reform of the welfare foods programme to use the resources more effectively to ensure children in poverty have access to a healthy diet; a five-a-day programme which includes the National School Fruit Scheme; the Healthy School Programme; the Food in School programme and nutritional standards for school lunches. Work is also under way with the food industry to improve the overall balance of diet including salt, fat and sugar in food, working with the Food Standards Agency.

  Current action on physical activity includes the transformation over the next three years of physical education, school sport and club links and the building and refurbishment of physical education and sports facilities in schools. In addition, the Department of Health, together with Sport England and the Countryside Agency is leading on a local exercise action pilots (LEAP) programme, which includes children and young people as one of its target groups.

  Official Publications
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list his Department's spending on official publications since July 2001. [127323]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The accounting general ledger system is unable to differentiate between official publications and campaign materials. To separate the data in the manner requested would incur disproportionate cost.

  Operations
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average cost to the NHS was of(a) a hip replacement, (b) a hysterectomy, (c) a cataract extraction, (d) a tonsillectomy, (e) a kidney transplant and (f) a hernia operation in the last 12 months. [127386]

  Mr. Hutton
  The most up to date costs published by the Department of Health are for the financial year 2001–02 and are shown in the table. The costs detailed represent the national average cost in the national health service for all NHS patients treated as an inpatient or day case. These costs are collected using healthcare resource groups (HRGs), which are groups of treatments that are clinically homogeneous and have similar costs. Therefore, the treatments the HRGs contain are less specific than those listed in the question.

  HRG code

  HRG label

  Average (£)

  H01

  Bilateral Px Hip Replacement

  4,831

  H02

  Primary Hip Replacement

  4,360

  M07

  Upper Genital Tract Major Procedures (Hysterectomy)

  2,077

  B02

  Phakoemulsification Cataract Extraction with Lens Implant

  671

  B03

  Other Cataract Extraction with Lens Implant

  740

  C24

  Mouth or Throat Procedures—Category 3 (Tonsillectomy)

  793

  C34

  Mouth or Throat Procedures—Category 4 (Tonsillectomy)

  1,114

  L01

  Kidney Transplant

  14,208

  F71

  Abdominal Hernia Procedures >69 or w cc

  1,902

  F72

  Abdominal Hernia Procedures N70 w/o cc

  1,225

  F73

  Inguinal Umbilical or Femoral Hernia Repairs >69 or w cc

  1,165

  F74

  Inguinal Umbilical or Femoral Hernia Repairs N70 w/o cc

  831

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients are on planned waiting lists for(a) cataract operations and (b) other operations in each English health authority; and if he will make a statement. [127163]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the number of patients waiting on a planned list is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many follow-up operations have taken place in English NHS hospitals following a patient's operation abroad which was paid for by the NHS. [127468]

  Mr. Hutton
  Of the 477 patients who have received treatment abroad under the overseas treatment programme, three have received follow-up operations upon their return to the United Kingdom.

  Organ Donors
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many registered organ donors there were in each year since 1997, broken down by local authority area. [127775]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The chart lists the number (in thousands) of people who joined the National Health Service organ donor register between 1997 and 2002 by health region in England and Wales. The information is not available by local authority area.
  251W

  (thousands)

  Region

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Eastern

  95

  78

  133

  119

  67

  93

  London

  84

  118

  115

  121

  78

  115

  North West

  94

  80

  175

  120

  71

  99

  Northern and Yorkshire

  88

  81

  210

  126

  76

  117

  South East

  151

  132

  251

  217

  128

  186

  South West

  106

  83

  154

  131

  87

  115

  Trent

  77

  64

  141

  91

  61

  87

  West Midlands

  74

  57

  122

  92

  58

  77

  Wales

  33

  30

  29

  51

  34

  40

  Total

  802

  723

  1,330

  1,068

  660

  929

  Pain Relief
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to assist people living with persistent pain; what pain relief drugs are available; and if he will make a statement on the(a) effectiveness of such drugs and (b) problems with their side effects. [128078]

  Mr. Hutton
  Pain management is an important component of most patients' care. The Clinical Standards Advisory Group (CSAG) report on pain services, published in 2000, highlighted variations in access to pain services throughout the country. The report made recommendations to National Health Service acute trusts and commissioners on how pain services should be delivered in order to reduce the variations to access. It recommended that primary care trust commissioners should review local provision of pain services, looking particularly at the provision of more specialised treatments on a networked basis. In this review, account should be taken of the needs of both adults and children, and include patients with acute pain resulting from sudden illness or accident, as well as postoperative pain and chronic pain. Trusts should agree with commissioners the services that are appropriate to meet local needs.

  All medicines are assessed before licensing by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), with independent expert advice from the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM). A licence will not be granted unless the MHRA and the CSM are satisfied that the medicine meets appropriate standards of safety, quality and efficacy at the time of licensing.

  Details of the different classes of medicines used in the treatment of persistent pain and their side effects are contained within the British National Formulary (section 4.7, page 208, BNF 45, March 2003), a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding has been made available for research into pain relieving drugs; if he will make a statement on the current status of cannabis for pain relief uses; and what progress has been made in discussions on the use of cannabis for medical purposes. [128079]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The main agency through which the Government support medical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council (MRC). The MRC is an independent body that receives its grant-in-aid from the Office of Science and Technology. The MRC is currently funding a number of projects investigating the mechanisms of pain that could 252W
  eventually lead to the development of pain relieving drugs. Information on these projects can be found on the MRC website.

  The Department of Health funds research to support policy and the delivery of effective practice in the National Health Service. Current projects include a £0.6 million study of the comparative effectiveness of topical and oral Ibuprofen for the treatment of chronic knee pain in older people and a £0.6 million study of interventions for pain relief in patients with abdominal malignancy. The Department also provides NHS support funding for research commissioned by the research councils and charities that takes place in the NHS.

  A marketing authorisation has not been issued for cannabis for pain relief uses. Like any other medicinal product, cannabis can be granted a marketing authorisation for medical purposes only when supporting data have been submitted to demonstrate that the quality, safety and efficacy of the product are satisfactory for the intended use.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reason the figures for waiting lists for in-patient treatment in individual trust areas described in his Department's Press Release 2003/0253, published on 4 July, were not used in his answer to question ref 124998, tabled by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford. [126327]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer on 17 July]The figures for waiting lists for inpatient treatment given in my response to the hon. Member of Monday 14 July,Official Report, column 128W, are those used in the Department of Health's Press Release 2003/0253, which was published on 4 July 2003.

  Patient Deaths
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of relative levels of patient deaths among patients treated by nurses with university qualifications. [127575]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department does not collect patient specific information about the precise qualifications held by staff involved with patient care.

  Patient Residence Criteria
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria his Department uses to decide whether a patient is ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom; and what guidance his Department has issued on this matter. [127332]

  Mr. Hutton
  "Ordinarily resident" is a common law concept considered by the House of Lords in 1982 in the case of Rv. Barnet LBC ex parte Shah. Although the case being considered was in the context of the Education Acts, the Lords' interpretation is generally recognised as having a wider application. To be considered ordinarily resident a patient needs to be living lawfully in the United Kingdom voluntarily and for settled purposes as part of the regular order of their

  253W
  life for the time being, with an identifiable purpose for their residence here which purpose has a sufficient degree of continuity to be properly described as settled.

  It is for individual national health service trusts to decide whether a particular patient is ordinarily resident and therefore entitled to the full range of NHS treatment free of charge, or is liable to pay for hospital treatment under the provisions of the National Health Service (Charges for Overseas Visitors) Regulations 1989. The Department of Health issued guidance to the NHS on this in 1988. Updated guidance was issued on 29 July 2003.

  PET Scanners
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many positive emission topography scanners are in use in the NHS; [127572]

  (2) how many private PET scanners are in use in the UK; [127573]

  (3) how many PET scanners used by the NHS have been purchased through (a) mainstream hospital trust expenditure, (b) new opportunities fund lottery funding and (c) voluntary fund raising.[127574]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  There are five positron emission tomography (PET) scanners in national health service hospitals in England used for routine clinical assessments. They are situated at Guys, St. Thomas', Middlesex, Mount Vernon and Hammersmith hospitals. In addition three private facilities including a new mobile PET scanner in London are available for NHS patients.

  The two scanners situated at Guys and St. Thomas' were purchased through a combination of funding from the hospital trust, the United Medical and Dental Schools and charitable funding from the unit's special trustees. The scanner at the Middlesex hospital was funded by the unit's special trustees. The scanner at Mount Vernon hospital was funded from charitable funds and the scanner at Hammersmith hospital was provided through a charitable donation.

  Pre-eclampsia
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many women suffered from pre-eclampsia in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [127448]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The number of women who suffer from pre-eclampsia is not available. The estimated number of non-delivery episodes in hospital with a mention of pre-eclampsia (ICD Code 014) in 2001–02 is 4,500. The estimated number of deliver episodes with a mention of pre-eclampsia in 2001–02 is 9,300.

  This is not the same as the number of women with pre-eclampsia as the number of delivery episodes and nondelivery episodes may overlap. For example, a woman with pre-eclampsia may have one or more episodes in hospital before her delivery and she may also have a mention of the diagnosis of pre-eclampsia during her delivery episode.

  The information provided is taken from the Maternity Hospital Episode Statistics and can be found in Tables 27 and 28 of the bulletin, NHS Maternity
  254W
  Statistics, England, 2001–02. A copy is available in the Library or at Department of Health website: http://www.doh.gov.uk/public/sb0309.htm

  Pregnancy-related Deaths
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many women have died in each of the last 10 years from pregnancy-related causes. [128400]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Department does not collect the information in the format requested. However, the table, taken from the latest report on the Confidential Enquiries into Maternal Deaths in the United Kingdom (CEMD), shows the direct and indirect maternal deaths and mortality rates per 100,000 maternities reported to Registrars and the CEMD; United Kingdom, for each triennium since 1988.

  Direct and indirect maternal deaths and mortality rates per 100,000 maternities reported to Registrars General and to the CEMD; United Kingdom 1998–99

  Triennium

  1988–90

  1991–93

  1994–96

  1997–99

  Maternal deaths known to Registrars General

  Number

  172

  150

  175

  142

  Rate

  7.3

  16.5

  28.0

  36.7

  Direct death known to inquiry

  Number

  145

  128

  134

  106

  Rate

  6.2

  5.5

  6.1

  5.0

  Indirect death known to inquiry

  Number

  93

  100

  134

  136

  Rate

  4.0

  4.3

  6.1

  6.4

  Total known to inquiry

  Number

  238

  228

  268

  242

  Rate

  10.1

  9.8

  12.2

  11.4

  Total maternities

  Number

  2,347,529

  2,317,328

  2,197,640

  2,123,614

  1 Final ONS revised figures for 1991–93: the rate available at the time for the publication of the 1991–93 report was 6.0.

  2 England and Wales figures for 1994 now include underlying cause and mentions (ICD9 630–676).

  3 The rate for 1994–96 in the previous report was 7.4.

  Private Health Services
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the number of private beds available in national health service trust hospitals. [127356]

  Mr. Hutton
  I rifer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) on 30 June 2003,Official Report, column 164W.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether(a) Department of Health and (b) NHS employees are entitled to private medical care as an employment benefit. [127687]

  Mr. Hutton
  Both the locally negotiated terms and conditions of service for employees of the Department of Health, and the nationally negotiated terms and conditions for staff working in the National Health Service make no provision for any entitlement to private medical care.

  Professional Negligence
  Mr. Dorrell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was paid to cover professional negligence claims on Leicestershire hospitals in each year since 1997–98; and what proportion each sum represented of those hospital budgets. [127268]

  Dr. Ladyman
  This information is not collected.

  Psychotropic Medication
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he has given to local specialist services for people with severe challenging behaviours on the use of(a) educational, (b) behavioural, (c) environmental and (d) dietary stategies in preference to psychotropic medication. [127859]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The report of the Mansell Committee (HMSO) 1993) provided guidance aon services for people with learning disabilities and challenging behaviour. Our White Paper "Valuing People" (Cm 5086), published in March 2001, notes that psychotropic medication may be very effective if someone has an underlying psychiatric disorder but points out that there is concern that too often this medication is used as an alternative to adequate staffing. The interventions to be used will depend on the individual situation and the factors that are contributing to the nature and severity of the behaviours that occur.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many agencies his Department has created since May 1997; what their purpose is; and how many staff each employs. [127504]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department has created two executive agencies since 1997. The NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency was set up on 1 April 2000, with staff transferred from the Department of Health. The agency's purpose is to modernise and improve the performance of the national health service purchasing and supply system, and become and centre of expertise, knowledge and excellence on matters of purchasing and supply for the NHS. The agency negotiates national contracts for the benefit of the NHS in England. The agency has 314.5 whole-time equivalent members of staff.

  The Department created the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) on 1 April 2003 following the decision to merge the Medicines Control Agency and the Medical Devices Agency. The MHRA is responsible for the regulation of medicinal products and medical devices in the United Kingdom. It also represents national interests in the regulation of these sectors at European level. The number of staff employed by the MHRA as at 1 April 2003 was estimated to be 644.

  Racial Harassment
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what action his Department is taking to tackle racial harassment in NHS workplaces; [127358]
  256W
  (2) what steps he is taking to eradicate racism in the NHS. [127734]

  Mr. Hutton
  Linked to improving working lives we have the national positively diverse programme to support employers in working towards eradicating racism in the national health service.

  One hundred and seventy NHS organisations are taking part in the national programme, with 10 lead sites exploring, developing and disseminating practical ways of managing diversity in the NHS for the benefit of both staff and users of the service in the health care work force.

  The development of black and minority ethnic networks at local (trust) and regional levels has also been actively encouraged with seed funding being provided by the Department of Health.

  Redundancies
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff have been made redundant in the NHS as a consequence of the reorganisation of area health authorities into strategic health authorities. [117191]

  Mr. Hutton
  Over 20,000 staff from health authorities and regional offices of the Department of Health transferred employment into primary care trusts and new strategic health authorities on 1 April 2002. In order to minimise redundancies and to ensure that valuable skills are not lost to the national health service all staff were guaranteed employment for a 12-month period ending 31 March 2003. At the end of this period 234 staff had been unable to find a suitable post and were made redundant and/or took early retirement.

  Research
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to ensure that all public funded research is recorded and made freely available to(a) patients, (b) health professionals, (c) the public and (d) members of the scientific community. [127870]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department funds the National Research Register (NRR) and the Research Findings electronic Register (ReFeR). The NRR is a database of ongoing and recently completed research projects funded by, or of interest to, the National Health Service. The ReFeR is a database of findings from the NHS research and development programme and the Department's policy research programme. Both registers can be accessed through the Department's R and D website at www.doh.gov.uk/research.

  The national electronic Library for health provides health professionals and the public (through NHS Direct Online) with knowledge and know-how to support health care related decisions. The electronic Library for social care makes knowledge available to social care practitioners, managers, service users and carers.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of Department of Health research funding was spent on research into(a) heart disease, (b) obesity, (c) strokes and (d) arthritis in the last 12 months. [127706]
  257W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The main agency through which the Government support medical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council (MRC). The MRC is an independent body which receives its grant-in-aid from the Office of Science and Technology. Available figures for 2001–02 are shown in the following table. Disease-specific spend data for 2002–03 is still being collated and figures will be available in the autumn.

  MRC spend in 2001–02

  £ million

  Circulatory disease

  26.3

  Obesity

  2.1

  Stroke

  3.9

  Arthritis and rheumatism

  4.2

  The Department funds research to support policy and the delivery of effective practice in the NHS. Spend by the Department's national research programmes in the four subject areas is shown in the following table.

  DH spend in 2002–03 (main national programmes)

  £ million

  Heart disease

  1.4

  Obesity

  0.1

  Stroke

  0.6

  Arthritis

  0.3

  Management of much of the research supported by national health service research and development funding is devolved and expenditure at project level is not held centrally by the Department. The Department also provides support for research commissioned by charities and the research councils that takes place in the NHS.

  Annual figures for net spend on research and development by the MRC and the Department are published in "The Forward Look 2003" which is available on the Office of Science and Technology website at www.ost.gov.uk/research/forwardlook03.

  Retired Surgeons/Anaesthetists
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the Department of Health's policy is on the use of retired surgeons and anaesthetists. [127708]

  Mr. Hutton
  All practitioners aged over 65 may continue to practice if it is regarded by their employer as being in the interest of the service. Employment contracts may be extended for one year at a time, until the age of 70. National health service trusts may employ practitioners over the age of 70 but it is the trust's responsibility to ensure that the practitioner is suitably qualified and fit, both mentally and physically to undertake the duties of the post.

  The Department of Health has published guidance "Reviewing your retirement options: Consultants and senior hospital doctors", to support consultants who wish to continue working beyond the retirement age.

  Rough Sleepers
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance his Department has issued 258W
  to (a) primary care trusts and (b) health care professionals to improve access to health services by homeless people. [125851]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 15 July 2003]The Department has not issued guidance to primary care trusts on this issue, but reminded general practitioners, in the February 2003 issue of its monthly newsletter, "GP Bulletin", that National Health Service primary medical care is available to homeless people who do not need to have a permanent address to register for services.

  Salt
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the recommendations of the Chief Medical Officer in relation to salt in nutrition. [127632]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  This Government are committed to reducing population average intakes of salt, and as 75 per cent. of the salt comes from processed foods, has called on industry to take a meaningful lead in reducing the salt content of processed foods. The Chief Medical Officer's (CMO's) 2002 Annual Report urged:"the food industry—including manufacturers, retailers and caterers to drive down the salt content of food—a potentially life saving measure".

  The Department along with the Food Standards Agency is holding meetings with food sectors representing the main contributors to salt intake and other key stakeholders to achieve this goal.

  CMO endorses and supports the recommendation to reduce the population average intake of salt, which is the principle source of sodium, from 9g to 6g/day and the recent recommendations for children's salt intake by the Scientific Advisory Committee of Nutrition. Even a small reduction in sodium intake can help to reduce the burden of high blood pressure, a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease in our population.

  Sex Equality:and Discrimination Directive
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact on the NHS of the proposed Directive on sex equality and discrimination.[127624]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department of Health is committed to providing equality of opportunity in all aspects of its work. All policy development must support the core principles of the NHS Plan, one of which states that the national health service of the 21st century must be responsive to the needs of different groups and individuals within society and challenge discrimination on the grounds of age, gender, ethnicity, religion, disability and sexuality.

  While as yet there is no official published Directive text, once a draft Directive is put forward by the European Commission (EC) the United Kingdom Government will aim to work positively and constructively with the EC and other member states on extending the existing sex discrimination legislation to cover goods and services and to ensure that the final agreement fully reflects UK priorities and concerns.

  Shrewsbury Hospitals
  Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) consultants and (b) nurses were employed in (i) the Princess Royal Hospital and

  Hospital, public health medicine and community health services (HCHS) consultants and nursing staff (actual numbers)

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  March 20031

  Princess Royal Hospital National Health Service Trust

  (a) HCHS medical and dental consultants

  34

  32

  36

  38

  40

  40

  44

  (b) nursing staff2

  348

  377

  390

  405

  418

  425

  3—

  Royal Shrewsbury Hospitals National Health Service Trust

  (a) HCHS medical and dental consultants

  74

  83

  83

  89

  95

  98

  107

  (b) nursing staff2

  783

  796

  815

  832

  928

  988

  3—

  1 Figures for 1997 to 2002 are as at 30 September. 2003 data are as at 31 March.

  2 Nursing staff shows qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff.

  3 Denotes figure not available.

  Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) out and (b) in-patient treatments there were at (i) the Princess Royal Hospital and (ii) the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital in each year since 1997. [127581]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The information requested is shown in the tables.

  Out-patient treatments at Princess Royal Hospital and Royal Shrewsbury Hospital—consultant out-patient attendances for all specialties, 1997–98 to 2002–03

  First attendance seen

  Subsequent attendances seen

  Total attendances seen

  Princess Royal Hospital NHS Trust

  2002–03

  44,178

  76,001

  120,179

  2001–02

  42,868

  75,632

  118,500

  2000–01

  42,068

  34,311

  126,379

  1999–2000

  41,039

  30,051

  121,090

  1998–99

  38,547

  76,678

  115,225

  1997–98

  39,218

  75,977

  115,195

  Royal Shrewsbury Hospitals NHS Trust

  2002–03

  64,141

  86,512

  150,653

  2001–02

  57,937

  88,570

  146,507

  2000–01

  55,537

  86,594

  142,131

  1999–2000

  49,734

  89,783

  139,517

  1998–99

  41,260

  86,545

  127,805

  1997–98

  40,627

  86,797

  127,424

  Note:

  Total out-patient attendance figures are for the whole course of treatment that covers the initial consultation through to follow ups after any in-patient admission. Treatment is taken in its widest sense and not just that a procedure or operations has taken place.

  Source:

  Department of Health form KH09.

  In-patient treatments at Princess Royal Hospital and Royal Shrewsbury Hospital—finished consultant episodes and finished in-year admissions

  Finished episodes

  In-year admissions FCEs

  Princess Royal Hospital NHS Trust

  2001–02

  32,486

  27,710

  2000–01

  29,108

  26,418

  1999–2000

  28,450

  25,660

  1998–99

  26,252

  24,311

  1997–98

  25,397

  23,288

  260W
  (ii) the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital in each year since 1997. [127579]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  In-patient treatments at Princess Royal Hospital and Royal Shrewsbury Hospital—finished consultant episodes and finished in-year admissions

  Finished episodes

  In-year admissions FCEs

  Royal Shrewsbury Hospitals NHS Trust

  2001–02

  63,720

  56,976

  2000–01

  61,042

  54,489

  1999–2000

  60,525

  53,845

  1998–99

  59,686

  53,611

  1997–98

  56,973

  50,947

  Notes:

  1. Grossing: figures have not yet been adjusted for shortfalls in data (i.e. the data are ungrossed).

  2. A finished consultant episode (FCE): defined as a period of admitted patient care under one consultant within one healthcare provider. Figures do not represent the number of patients, as a person may have more than one episode of care within the year.

  3. Admissions are defined as the first period of in-patient care under one consultant within one healthcare provider. Admissions do not represent the number of in-patients, as a person may have more than one admission within the year.

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health.

  Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds there were at(a) the Princess Royal Hospital and (b) the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital in each year since 1997. [127582]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The average daily number of available beds in wards in wards opening overnight in the Princess Royal National Health Service Trust and the Royal Shrewsbury NHS Trust is shown in the table.

  Princess Royal Hospital NHS Trust (RKF)

  Royal Shrewsbury Hospital NHS Trust (RLZ)

  Year

  All beds

  General and Acute

  All beds

  General and Acute

  2001–02

  346

  346

  541

  479

  2000–01

  342

  342

  516

  454

  1999–2000

  345

  345

  499

  431

  1998–99

  336

  336

  486

  417

  1997–98

  308

  308

  462

  393

  This information is published annually on the Department of Health website at http://www.doh. gov.uk/hospitalactivity.
  261W
  Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what(a) capital and (b) other grants and allocations were made to the Princess Royal hospital in each year since 1997. [127583]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Capital Allocations to the princess Royal Hospital National Health Service Trust since 1996–97 are shown in the table.

  (£) thousands

  Financial Year

  Capital Allocation

  1996–97

  2,260

  1997–98

  1,069

  1998–99

  1,180

  1999–2000

  3,735

  2000–01

  2,634

  2001–02

  4,540

  2002–03

  2,575

  Information on other grants made from, the Department of Health to the princess Royal Hospital NHS Trust since 2000–2001 are shown in the table.

  (£s)

  2000–2001

  2001–2002

  2002–2003

  Hospital cleanliness

  50,000

  40,000

  0

  Ward budgets

  45.000

  0

  0

  Improving staff working environment

  25,000

  0

  0

  Ward housekeepers

  55,000

  0

  0

  NHS menu

  7.000

  0

  0

  Reforming emergency care (A and E nurses)

  0

  18,321

  73,561

  Reforming emergency care (A and E networks)

  0

  4,100

  17,000

  Theatre projects

  0

  0

  25,000

  Sexual health and HIV strategy

  0

  0

  10,000

  It is not possible to provide information on other grant prior to 2000–01, as this would incur disproportionate costs.

  Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the(a) waiting list numbers and (b) waiting times were for (i) in-patients and (ii) out-patients at the Princess Royal hospital in each year since 1997. [127587]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Sibutramine
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many prescriptions have been(a) issued and (b) issued to children for sibutramine. [127089]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  In 2002, 197,000 prescription items of sibutramine were dispensed in the community in England. Of these, it is estimated that 1,000 items were dispensed to children. There is no information available on the number of children who received sibutramine. Information is not held centrally about drugs prescribed and dispensed in hospitals.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have been prescribed sibutramine for(a) up to four weeks, (b) one to three months, (c) three to 12 months and (d) longer than 12 months. [127099]
  262W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested is not held centrally. However guidance issued by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence recommends that people should continue with treatment for more than four weeks only if they have lost 2 kg in weight, and beyond three months if they have lost at least 5 per cent. (5 kg for each 100 kg) of their body weight from the start of the drug treatment. Treatment is not recommended for more than 12 months.

  Smoking
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on the future use of the terms light and mild on cigarette packets. [127737]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government recognise that certain terms can be used to suggest that one tobacco product is less harmful than another. We are therefore committed to banning the use of "misleading descriptors."

  The Tobacco Products (Manufacture, Presentation and Sale) (Safety) Regulations 2002 prohibit the supply of tobacco products, "the packaging of which carries any name, brand name, text, trademark or pictorial or any other representation or sign which suggests that that tobacco product is less harmful to health than other tobacco products." The supply of such cigarette packets must cease as of 30 September 2003.

  The Government would expect the prohibition to include terms such as "light" and "mild".

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to pilot the scheme running at hospitals in Norwich to help patients following the ban on smoking in the hospitals. [127691]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Department of Health has no plans to pilot national smoking prevention schemes. With the changes under "Shifting the Balance of Power", it is now for strategic health authorities and their primary care trusts to introduce smoke-free policies.

  The Chief Medical Officer's annual report recommended to Government, that among other recommendations, employers should plan to introduce smoke free workplaces; the public sector and health service should take the lead and this year set dates by which their premises will become entirely smoke free.

  The Department of Health are also running a pilot study, led by St. George's hospital, to look into developing a toolkit of introducing a smoking cessation service/policy within hospitals. The results of this study should be available in 2005. We have also asked the British Thoracic Society to undertake a survey of hospitals to see what smoking policies they have introduced.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the recommendations of the Chief Medical Officer in relation to smoking in public places. [127631]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Chief Medical Officer's report should leave no-one in any doubt that secondhand smoke is an important public health issue, and the Government are looking very closely at the Chief
  263W
  Medical Officer's recommendations. We wish to ensure real progress is being made in the availability of smoke-free public places.

  In our 1998 White paper, "Smoking Kills", we agreed that completely smoke-free places are the ideal. The World Health Organisation's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which the UK signed in June 2003, also called for action to protect people from tobacco smoke. Taking action on smoking in the workplace and in public places is an important element of international best practice in tobacco control.

  We also want to increase the public's awareness of the real health risks from second-hand smoke: not merely the discomfort caused by being in a smoky atmosphere. That is why we have launched an education campaign, making everyone aware of the need to protect others, particularly children, from the harm caused by second-hand smoke. From 1 April 2003. the Department of Health has also taken a lead in making all our buildings smoke-free and we will be encouraging others to follow this lead.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what basis the Government used for establishing smoking cessation targets for primary care trusts. [127623]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  There are national targets. Primary care trusts (PCTs) have not been set smoking cessation targets. PCTs were asked to plan together with their strategic health authorities low to support the national Priorities and Planning Framework (PPF) target:"to reduce the rate of smoking contributing to the national target of: reducing the rate in manual groups from 32 per cent. in 1998 to 26 per cent. by 2010; 800,000 smokers from all groups successfully quitting at the four week stage by 2006".

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much the Government has spent centrally on smoking cessation advertising and awareness campaigns since 1995; and what central allocations have been made in the current year. [128233]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  International evidence shows that key elements in any tobacco control strategy are advertising and public education. In the 1998 White Paper, "Smoking Kills", the Government committed itself to a programme of public education to persuade smokers to quit and non-smokers not to start.

  Education and media campaign spending is shown in the table.

  Year

  £ millions

  1995–96

  5.5

  1996–97

  6.5

  1997–98

  16.5

  1998–99

  2.7

  1999–2000

  15.9

  2000–01

  13.73

  2001–02

  13.3

  2002–03

  13.0

  2003–04

  114.2

  Note:

  1 Expenditure to date
  264W
  This funding includes expenditure on telephone helplines per annum for the NHS Smoking Helpline—£1.1 million; the NHS pregnancy smoking helpline—£152,000; and the NHS Asian Tobacco Helpline—£78,500. £15 million over the three years from 2003–04 to 2005–06 will be available to key health charities, beginning with the British Heart Foundation and Cancer Research UK to develop hard-hitting messages on the dangers of smoking.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much the Government have spent centrally on smoking cessation programmes in each year since 1997; and how much has been allocated in the current year. [128234]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The national health service stop smoking services were launched in 1999. The services received a total of £76 million over a four year period 1999–2000 to 2002–03.

  A further £138 million has been allocated over the three years 2003–06.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether his Department tracks smokers who have given up for longer than four weeks through the smoking-cessation services. [127679]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department of Health does not require the national health service stop smoking services to track smokers who have given up for longer than four weeks, although some services do. Follow-up at four weeks was chosen as a viable, practical way to ascertain initial success, following advice from experts in smoking cessation.

  Data from 52-week follow up were originally collected for clients who set a quit date in specialist services in health action zones in 1999–2000. A high proportion of clients were lost to the service and some services found that 52-week follow up took disproportionate resources.

  Solvent Misuse
  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action his Department has taken to implement the recommendations arising from the seminar 'Young People and Solvent Misuse: Developing a Shared Approach', held on 19 November 2002. [127795]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The report on outcomes from the seminar 'Young People and Solvent Misuse: Developing a Shared Approach' was circulated to delegates in August. The Department is setting up a national stakeholder group to support the development and implementation of the Department's Action Plan on Volatile Substance Misuse. The stakeholder group will take account of recommendations arising from the seminar.

  Speech and Language Therapists
  Mr. Dorrell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many vacancies there are in Leicestershire for speech and language therapists; and what proportion this represents of the total number of such posts in Leicestershire. [127272]
  265W
  Dr. Ladyman
  Information on vacancies is collected via the National Health Service Workforce Vacancy Survey. The Survey defines a vacancy as one that has lasted for three months or more which employers are actively trying to fill.

  From the latest information available there are no three-month vacancies for speech or language therapists in Leicestershire.

  Standing Medical Advisory Committee
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the membership is of the Standing Medical Advisory Committee; and if he will make a statement. [127202]

  Mr. Hutton
  The current membership, at 18 July 2003, of the Standing Medical Advisory Committee (SMAC) is:

  Dan Ash*—President, Royal College Radiologists

  Nick Astbury*— President, Royal College of Ophthalmologists

  Susan Benbow—Old Age Psychiatrist (Manchester)

  Carol Black*—President, Royal College of Physicians

  Ian Bogle*—Chairman, Council of the British Medical Association

  Graeme Catto*—Chair, General Medical Council

  John Chisholm GP and Chairman of GMSC (London)

  Alan Craft*—President, Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health

  William Dunlop*—President Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and Chair of the Joint Consultants Committee

  Sian Griffiths*—President, Faculty of Public Health Medicine

  Bill Gunnyeon*—Dean, Faculty of Occupational Medicine

  David Haslam*—Chairman, Council of the Royal College of GPs

  Peter Hutton*—President Royal College of Anaesthetists

  Brian Jarman—Professor of Primary Care (London)

  Flora Jessop—Specialist registrar histopathology (Cambridge)

  James Johnson*—Chairman, Council of the British Medical Association

  Bruce Keogh—Cardiothoracic Surgeon (Birmingham)

  Tamara Madej—Consultants Anaesthetist (York)

  Peter Morris*—President, Royal College of Surgeons of England

  John Newton—Epidemiology Research (Oxford/Southampton)

  Ken Nischal—Consultant Ophthalmic Surgeon/Paediatrics (London)

  Colin Roberts—Medical Microbiologist (Oxford)

  Angela Robinson—Consultant/Honorary Senior Lecturer GU/HIV (London)

  Martin Roland—General Practitioner (Manchester)

  Mike Shooter*—President, Royal College of Psychiatrists

  Sunil Sinha—Consultant Paediatrician (Middlesbrough)

  Susan Tuck—Consultant Obstetrician and Gynaecologist (London)

  James Underwood*—President, Royal College of Pathologists

  * Denotes ex-officio member.

  Information about SMAC can be found on the Department of Health website at http://www.doh. gov.uk/smac/index. htm.

  Stolen NHS Property
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the value is of NHS property stolen from NHS premises during each of the previous five accounting years and so far during this accounting year. [127160]
  266W
  Mr. Hutton
  Historically, there has been no routine collection of this kind of information. Individual health bodies are required to keep registers of losses, which are retained locally.

  The Counter Fraud and Security Management Service, launched on 1 April 2003 is currently reviewing the management of security within the national health service.

  Stroke Units
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many hospitals have a specialist stroke unit; and what percentage of hospitals this represents; [127704]

  (2) what progress has been made towards the target of 100 per cent. of hospitals having a specialist stroke unit by April 2004. [127705]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The most comprehensive source of information is the National Sentinel Stroke Audit, carried out by the Royal College of Physicians. The audit was commissioned by the national health service in 1998 and was last updated in 2002. The results can be found at http://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/pubs/strokeaudit01–02.pdf. The 2002 audit shows that 73 per cent. of trusts who participated had a stroke unit compared to 56 per cent. three years earlier. The audit shows that 80 per cent. of trusts that participated have a consultant physician with specialist knowledge of stroke who is formally recognised as having principal responsibility for stroke services. While it is recognised that some services need to increase their capacity, the audit notes that very significant improvements have already been made.

  Our major vehicle for further improving standards for stroke services is through the older people's national service framework (NSF) which sets specific milestones for improvement by 2004 of stroke services in primary care trusts, specialist services and general hospitals that care for people suffering from a stroke. Our document, "Improvement, Expansion and Reform", which sets for the NHS a Priorities and Planning Framework for 2003–06, makes clear that implementation of the older people's NSF is a top priority, and that the 2004 milestone around specialist stroke services is a key target.

  We monitor progress against the key milestones in the NSF. From the information gathered so far we know that 83 per cent. of the hospitals who have replied, now have plans to have a specialist stroke service in place by April 2004.

  Implementation of the NSF for older people is leading to real improvements in stroke services and making a difference to people's lives. The development of better services and improved standards in stroke care requires the right balance between national standards, provided by the NSF, national clinical guidelines and local control. It will be important to ensure that stroke care services are co-ordinated and fully integrated within a full range of other relevant local services.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many stroke units there are in the NHS; and where they are. [127327]
  267W
  Dr. Ladyman
  We do not routinely collect the information requested. The most comprehensive source of information is the National Sentinel Stroke Audit, carried out by the Royal College of Physicians. The audit was commissioned by the National Health Service in 1998 and was last updated in 2002. The results can be found at http://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/pubs/strokeaudit01–02.pdf. The 2002 audit shows that 73 per cent. of trusts who participated had a stroke unit compared to 56 per cent. three years earlier. The audit shows that 80 per cent. of trusts that participated have a consultant physician with specialist knowledge of stroke who is formally recognised as having principal responsibility for stroke services. While it is recognised that some services need to increase their capacity, the audit notes that very significant improvements have already been made.

  Our major vehicle for further improving standards for stroke services is through the older people's national service framework (NSF) which sets specific milestones for improvement by 2004 of stroke services in primary care trusts, specialist services and general hospitals that care for people suffering from a stroke. Our document, Improvement, Expansion and Reform, which sets for the National Health Service a Priorities and Planning Framework for 2003–6, makes clear that implementation of the older people's NSF is a top priority, and that the 2004 milestone around specialist stroke services is a key target.

  We monitor progress against the key milestones in the NSF. From the information gathered so far we know that 83 per cent. of the hospitals who have replied, now have plans to have a specialist stroke service in place by April 2004.

  Sugar
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans the Government have to restrict the amount of sugar in foods manufactured primarily for children. [127716]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The NHS Plan and the Food Standards Agency (FSA) nutrition action plan identify Government commitment to working with the food industry to improve the overall balance of the diet. This includes aspects of food content relating to salt, fat and sugar.

  The FSA and the Department are in discussions with industry on reducing salt in foods. Work on sugars and fat will follow subsequently.

  Suicide
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in meeting the "Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation" target on suicide reduction. [127366]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The "Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation" target is to reduce the death rate from suicide and undetermined injury by at least a fifth by the year 20010, from a baseline of 9.2 deaths per 100,000 population in 1995–97 to 7.4 deaths per 1,000,000 population in 2009–11.
  268W
  The suicide rate for the single year 2001, the most recent available, was the lowest recorded. The European Age Standardised Rate in 2001 was 8.9 per 100,000 population, a decrease of 5 per cent. on 2000 which was 9.3. There was also a fall in mental health in-patient suicide in 2001.

  As the only full-year figures we have since the publication of the "Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation" strategy are for 2000 and 2001, it is still too early to assess progress in meeting this target. Current trends do not as yet provide a robust indication of the effect of the strategy. If the trend of the last three years continues, then the target will be met, however this is much too short a period from which to extrapolate a robust trend.

  Sun Creams
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures were taken in the last 12 months to promote the use of sun protection creams over the 2003 summer. [127474]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The United Kingdom Health Departments have funded the SunSmart sun awareness campaign run by Cancer Research UK. One of the key messages of the campaign's health promotion materials (leaflets, posters and factcards) is "to use a factor 15 + sunscreen". The campaign and its materials have been widely publicised in both national and local media.

  Testicular Cancer
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures his Department has taken over the last 12 months to raise awareness of testicular cancer and the importance of self-checking, with specific reference to men aged under 35 years; and what further measures he plans to take in the future. [127485]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Testicular cancer is almost always curable if found early. The disease responds will to treatment even if it has spread to other parts of the body. More than nine out of 10 patients are cured.

  There is currently no method by which a man can reduce his risk of developing the disease, but awareness of its early signs and symptoms should be encouraged. Men should be aware of any unusual changes and consult doctors early in order to ensure the maximum chance of a cure. That is why, in April last year, we collaborated with Cancer Research UK in the production of a testicular self-awareness leaflet, "Testicular Cancer: Spot the Symptoms Early".

  We are also currently working with the Department of Psychiatry of Disability at St. George's Hospital Medical School on the production of testicular awareness materials for men with learning difficulties.

  Teeth
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children have had impacted third molars removed in each year since 1997; and how many showed signs of pathology in their teeth. [127093]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The number of children who have had impacted third molars removed in England in 1997–98 to 2002–03 is shown in the table. Children are
  269W
  defined as being under 18 years of age. Records of the pathology of the teeth prior to extraction are recorded as part of the patient's clinical notes, but are not collected centrally. Nevertheless, the table provides encouraging evidence of progress on implementation of the recommendations that the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) made in 2000 that the routine prophylactic removal of pathology-free wisdom teeth should be replaced by standard routine follow-up.

  General, Personal and Hospital Dental Service: Number of children who have had impacted third molars removed in 1997–98 to 2002–03, England

  Total

  General Dental Service1

  Personal Dental Service1

  Hospital Dental Services2

  1997–98

  33,700

  32,100

  0

  1,544

  1998–99

  3,562

  1,861

  10

  1,691

  1999–2000

  2,685

  1,356

  9

  1,320

  2000–01

  1,842

  891

  6

  945

  2001–02

  1,516

  724

  5

  787

  2002–03

  n/a

  684

  5

  n/a

  n/a = data not available.

  1 Based on dental treatment claims for payment.

  2 Number of admissions for surgical removal of impacted third molar based on finished consultant episodes. Patients may have more than one admission within a year.

  3 Estimated using figures for number of teeth extracted in the general dental service.

  Sources:

  1 Dental Practice Board.

  2 Hospital Episode Statistics.

  Treatment Availability
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the(a) efficacy and (b) availability within the NHS of (i) gold, (ii) Enbrel and (iii) Remicade. [127553]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) was asked to appraise the use of infliximab (Remicade) and etanecerpt (Enbrel) in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. NICE issued its guidance on 22 March 2002, which recommended the use of etanecerpt for the treatment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) and etanecerpt and infliximab for adult rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Clinicians will still be responsible for exercising judgment in individual cases in the light of NICE's guidance and the evidence on which it was based.

  Gold therapy may be used to suppress the disease process in rheumatoid arthritis. It may be given by intramuscular injection as sodium aurothiomalate, or given by mouth as auranofin.

  These drugs are available on the national health service for use in cases where the clinician and patient decide this is the best option.

  Tuberculosis
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were diagnosed as suffering from tuberculosis in(a) 2002, (b) 2000, (c) 1998, (d) 1996 and (e) 1994. [127431]
  270W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Statutory notifications to the Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre of the Health Protection Agency show that the number of people diagnosed with pulmonary and non-pulmonary tuberculosis in England and Wales for the years mentioned are shown in the table.

  Notifications

  1994

  5,591

  1996

  5,654

  1998

  6,087

  2000

  6,797

  2002

  16,891

  1 Provisional figure

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people suffering from AIDS are also infected with tuberculosis. [127432]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The numbers of HIV-infected individuals diagnosed with AIDS in the last five years in England, for whom pulmonary or non-pulmonary tuberculosis was the first AIDS-defining illness, are shown in the table.

  Number of cases

  1998

  117

  1999

  93

  2000

  142

  2001

  168

  2002

  1206

  1Numbers may rise, particularly for the most recent year, as further reports are received.

  Source:

  Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre, Health Protection Agency (data to end June 2003).

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. [126668]

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many times special advisers have accompanied ministers on overseas visits in the last 12 months for which figures are available; which countries were visited; and what the total cost of each individual visit was. [127472]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Between 31 March 2002 and 31 March 2003 special advisers have travelled abroad in an official capacity on three occasions: to Washington DC, Brussels and Mexico.

  Destination

  Cost (£)

  Washington

  5,784

  Brussels

  1,170

  Mexico

  10,220

  Waiting Times/Lists
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were waiting more than 21 weeks at the end of March for an outpatient appointment, broken down by NHS hospital trusts. [127320]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the number of patients at each National Health Service trust and primary care trust (as a provider) who have been waiting more than 21 weeks for a first consultant outpatient appointment following a general practitioner written referral at 31 March 2003, has been placed in the Library.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of patients in each health authority in England were waiting for treatment for more than 12 months in 2001–02. [1275211

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the percentage of patients who were waiting over 12 months at the end of each quarter for elective inpatient admission by English health authorities in 2001–02, has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people suffering from(a) motor neurone disease, (b) migraines, (c) Parkinson's disease, (d) epilepsy and (e) Alzheimer's disease waited (i) up to four weeks, (ii) four to 13 weeks (iii) 13 to 17 weeks, (iv) 17 to 21 weeks, (v) 21 to 26 weeks and (vi) more than 26 weeks from the receipt of a GP written referral request to a first out-patient attendance in each quarter since Quarter 1 of 1996–97 in each NHS trust and primary care trust. [127024]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Information at the level of detail requested is not available centrally. We have set targets to reduce the waiting between referral and first outpatient appointment in all cases to 16 weeks by 1 April 2004. Each year maximum waiting times will fall so that, by the end of 2005, the first out-patient appointment will be cut to three months. Urgent cases will continue to be treated much faster. People with neurological conditions will benefit from these reductions in waiting times.

  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what percentage of people suffering from strokes waited for less than four hours for admission to accident and emergency in each quarter for which data is available since Quarter 1 of 1996–97 in each NHS trust and primary care trust; [127026]

  (2) what percentage of stroke victims received brain imaging within 48 hours of the onset of the stroke in each quarter for which data is available since Quarter 1 of 1996–97 in each NHS trust and primary care trust.[127027]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Information about stroke services at the level of detail requested is not available centrally. The most comprehensive source of information on stroke services is the National Sentinel Stroke Audit, carried out by the Royal College of Physicians. The results can be found at http://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/pubs/strokeaudit01–02.pdf.
  272W
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the latest average waiting time is for in-patient treatment in(a) Greater London and (b) England. [127501]

  Mr. Hutton
  The table shows the latest estimated average waiting times for elective inpatient admission for England and each London strategic health authority.

  Average (median) waiting times for elective inpatient admission: England and London SHAs (commissioner based): Position at 31 May 2003

  Median waiting times (months)

  England

  2.80

  North West London HA

  2.69

  North Central London HA

  2.73

  North East London HA

  2.99

  South East London HA

  2.92

  South West London HA

  2.74

  Source:

  Department of Health form QF01

  The Medians in the table are based on aggregate data, categorised into waiting time bands, and do not reflect shifts in the waiting time profiles within these bands, only between bands. Progress on delivering maximum waiting times may not necessarily translate into a reduction in the median waiting time, because of shifts in low time bands.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average waiting times are in each hospital trust; and what these were 12 months ago for(a) hip replacements, (b) cataract operations and (c) heart operations. [127558]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on waiting times for elective in-patient admission is not collected by type of operation.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average waiting times outside Accident and Emergency departments were in each health authority in each year from 1995–96 to 2001–02. [127718]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Work Force Development Confederations
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he has given to Workforce Development Confederations on staff training on the(a) recognition and (b) response to autism spectrum disorders. [127853]

  Dr. Ladyman
  We have not issued specific advice on autism to national health service workforce confederations. However, the learning disability White Paper, "Valuing People", points out the need for local NHS workforce confederations to take account of workforce requirements in learning disability, which often occurs in association with autism.

  "Valuing People" also requires learning disability partnership boards to develop local workforce and training plans. Local bodies with interests in staff training should be aware of the learning disability awards framework, which contains two vocational qualifications—a level 2 certificate and a level 3 certificate in working with people with learning

  273W
  disabilities, both of which include a module about autism. These modules cover both recognising and responding to autistic spectrum disorders.

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to ensure that casualty departments are adequately staffed after the implementation of the European Working Time Directive. [128214]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department has issued guidance on implementing the Working Time Directive (WTD), HSC 2003/001, "Protecting Staff, Delivering Services, Implementing the European Working Time Directive for Doctors in Training", and also on configuration of services, "Keeping the NHS local". Together, these emphasise the importance of innovative solutions to maintain local access to services while achieving compliance with the WTD. This is a local national health service responsibility, supported by the 7.4 per cent. per annum real term increase in funding over the next five years.

  To assist trusts in meeting the WTD and to support increases in consultant numbers the Department has increased significantly the number of specialist registrar (SpR) training opportunities, including 80 in accident and emergency. I announced on 17 July 2003 that postgraduate deans will be instructed to give priority to hospitals facing WTD challenges when considering the allocation of 1,500 additional locally funded SpR training opportunities available this year. This will ensure that training posts are focused on those hospitals under the greatest pressure in complying with the WTD. Further training posts will also be approved where this can help trusts with compliance.

  Successful implementation of the WTD will mean staff working differently. A programme of 19 pilot projects has been set up to develop and test innovative solutions to implementing the WTD. The "Hospital at Night" pilot project utilises a central multi disciplinary emergency team to provide cover across the hospital at night.

  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions he has had with doctors' representatives regarding the implementation of the European Working Time Directive. [128215]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department regularly discusses Working Time Directive (WTD) implementation with representatives of the medical profession both formally and informally. A WTD) implementation with representatives of the medical profession both formally and informally. A WTD expert group meets regularly with members from several medical Royal Colleges, the joint consultants committee, the British Medical Association junior doctors committee and the Department of Health.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the Royal College of Physicians report on the Working Time Directive. [127709]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department is committed to working with the Royal College of Physicians and other bodies to achieve compliance with the European 274W
  Working Time Directive (EWTD). To assist trusts in meeting the EWTD and to support increases in consultant numbers, the Department has increased significantly the number of specialist registrar (SpR) training opportunities.

  I announced on 17 July 2003 that postgraduate deans will be instructed to give priority to hospitals facing EWTD challenges when considering the allocation of 1,500 additional locally funded SpR training opportunities available this year. This will ensure that training posts are focused on those hospitals under the greatest pressure in complying with the EWTD. Further training posts will also be approved where this can help trusts with compliance.

TRANSPORT

  Blue badge Scheme
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list the action he intends to take in respect of each of the recommendations from the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee on the future of the Blue Badge Scheme; and if he will make a statement; [127981]

  (2)when he expects the changes to the Blue Badge Scheme which do not require primary legislation to be in place; and if he will make a statement; [127982]

  (3)what plans he has to amend the publication, The Blue Badge Scheme parking concession for disabled and blind people; if he will make the section on the duties of blue badge holders clearer; and if he will make a statement. [127983]

  Mr. McNulty
  As my colleague the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) announced on 18 December 2002 a summary of our responses to each of DPTAC's recommendations has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  We will be taking forward the majority of the recommendations through changes to primary and secondary legislation, research and in new guidance to local authorities on the scheme. As we progress our work we will be consulting and involving major disability organisations, many of which act as umbrella organisations representing people with a range of disabilities. Copies of consultation material will additionally be made available to any individual or group who requests it.

  We are pursuing a suitable legislative slot for those changes requiring primary legislation. In the meantime we have begun work on those recommendations which require changes to secondary legislation and will also be embarking on a number of research projects over the next few months. The new guidance, which will cover all aspects of the scheme will be issued when changes have been introduced.

  The Department's publication, "The Blue Badge Scheme: Parking concessions for disabled and blind people" will be amended to reflect those changes and will be issued in tandem with the guidance.
  275W
  Timing for introduction of the changes will be subject to the outcome of the research, consultations and the parliamentary process as appropriate. I am not able at this stage to give a firm timetable, but would reassure my hon. and learned Friend that we are firmly committed to introducing the changes at the earliest possible opportunity.

  Bus Services (Merseyside)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the change in(a) the number of passenger journeys and (b) passenger mileage has been on supported bus services in Merseyside from 2000–01 to 2002–03. [128582]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department does not collect information on the number of passenger journeys on supported services or passenger mileage on those services in Merseyside.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the average age of buses in Merseyside is; and whether there has been a change in the average age of buses in Merseyside over the last two years. [128583]

  Mr. McNulty
  DVLA records for Public Service Vehicles registered in Merseyside showed an average age of 8.4 years in 2000. The average age was 8.7 years in 2002.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many CCTVs are in use on supported buses in Merseyside. [128584]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department does not collect information on the number of CCTV cameras or recording equipment fitted to buses.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many low floor wheelchair accessible vehicles are used on supported services in(a) Merseyside and (b) Sefton. [128585]

  Mr. McNulty
  Merseytravel advise that all the vehicles used on their supported services are low floor and wheelchair accessible. This equates to approximately 270 vehicles across the county of Merseyside, of which approximately 60 are used on routes which, at some point, pass through the district of Sefton.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the rate of(a) punctuality and (b) reliability of Merseyside supported bus services was in the last year for which figures are available. [128586]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department does not collect information on bus punctuality. Bus reliability is measured in a quarterly survey through a panel of large bus operators, but was not designed to show reliability in each Passenger Transport Authority area or to distinguish the reliability of supported bus services from the reliability of commercial bus services.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps have been taken to reduce environmentally harmful emissions from supported bus services in Merseyside. [128587]
  276W
  Mr. McNulty
  The Government's measures to promote the shift to environmentally clean low-carbon vehicles and fuels include the 'TransportEnergy' programmes, which include financial support for bus and other transport operators to purchase or convert to cleaner fuels or vehicle technology.

  TransportEnergy has supported the purchase of four CNG (compressed natural gas) buses and the retrofitting of 80 buses with pollution reduction devices by the Merseyside Passenger Transport Executive.

  Coastal Lifeboats
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on Government funding for coastal lifeboats. [127866]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In the United Kingdom, 296 coastal lifeboats are provided for front line search and rescue purposes by the Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI) which, as a charity, receives no Government funding. In addition, there are 42 independent rescue boats which are made available for search and rescue purposes. These boats are usually part of local charitable organisations or privately funded and again receive no Government funding.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) special advisers, (b) press officers, (c) civil servants, (d) advisers to civil servants and (e) permanent staff were working for the Department in each year since 1996. [126476]

  Mr. McNulty
  I refer the hon. Member to Table C of the annual publication "Civil Service Statistics", which covers permanent staff numbers for the Department and its agencies from 1995 to 2002. Copies of these are available in the Libraries of the House. Alternatively this information is available from the Cabinet Office website.

  There is one special adviser currently in post, a further post is vacant.

  There are 16.8 permanent press officers (full-time equivalent) currently employed in the DfT press office.

  The job title 'advisers to civil servants' described above does not correspond to any current job titles in this Department.

  Network Rail
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has made and intends to make to Network Rail to ensure that disused land is sold at cost value to local authorities to enable flood remedial measures to be implemented. [128211]

  Mr. McNulty
  None. This is a commercial matter for Network Rail.

  Mr. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the Strategic Rail Authority and Network Rail's decision to opt for closure and diversions to allow engineering work. [128640]
  277W
  Mr. McNulty
  The Strategic Rail Authority and Network Rail's approach will enable the work to be done more quickly and efficiently and the inevitable disruption will be contained to a much shorter period. Disruption to passengers will be minimised by the use of diversionary routes and alternative services.

  GB Railways Group
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he first received reports from the Strategic Rail Authority of the bid by FirstGroup plc for GB Railways Group plc; and if he will make a statement. [127228]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department first received a report from the Strategic Rail Authority on this matter on 8 July 2003.

  Rail Freight
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to encourage businesses to use rail services as a means of transporting goods; and what assessment his Department has made of methods businesses use to transport products. [128244]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Strategic Rail Authority set out its objectives for freight in its revised Strategic Plan, published in January. Copies of this document are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Mersey Tunnels
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has received copies of accounts of income and expenditure for the Mersey Tunnels in accordance with section 100 of the County of Merseyside Act 1980. [127963]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Merseyside Passenger Transport Authority (Merseytravel) submitted Outturn forms recording Mersey Tunnels income and expenditure to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in August 2003.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last received a set of accounts of income and expenditure for the Mersey Tunnels prior to 1 January. [127965]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Merseyside Passenger Transport Authority (Merseytravel) submitted Outturn forms recording Mersey Tunnels income and expenditure to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in August 2002.

  National Air Consultation
  Alan Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what meetings he has had with(a) British Airways, (b) British Airport Authority, (c) other industry bodies, (d) local authorities and (e) environmental groups on the National Air Consultation; what the agenda of each meeting was; and if he will meet representatives of the London Borough of Hounslow to discuss their concerns. [127756]

  Mr. McNulty
  Ministers and officials attend many meetings with a wide range of organisations including those representing industry, local authorities, and environmental concerns. It is not possible to provide a278W
  definitive list of those meetings which have included discussions about "The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom" consultation.

  National Walking Strategy
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish a National Walking Strategy; and if he will make a statement. [128613]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department issued a discussion document on walking on 30 June. "On the move: by foot" seeks views from all interests on how we might improve conditions for pedestrians and increase levels of walking. Responses to the document have been requested by 26 September and will help to inform a strategic action plan of measures and initiatives to encourage more journeys on foot and identify any related guidance required.

  Operation Bream
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many arrests were made in Merseyside owing to the joint initiative Operation Bream. [28593]

  Mr. McNulty
  Operation Bream was a high visibility intensive policing operation along a single bus corridor and resulted in 72 arrests.

  Rail Transport
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the effect of reduced use of rail transport by business on road and air services; and what assessment has been made on what pollution problems could result. [128248]

  Mr. McNulty
  Our policies aim to provide safe, reliable and secure transport that supports sustainable economic growth. The use of rail is then a commercial matter for the businesses concerned. Any assessment of pollution problems resulting from any modal shift from rail to road or air would be difficult to undertake, because it would depend on the locations concerned and the time of travel.

  Rail Services
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to improve the on-time performance of rail companies. [127842]

  Mr. McNulty
  Our top priority is to see significant improvement in rail punctuality and reliability. The rail industry, under the leadership of the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA), is working increasingly closely together to deliver this. The SRA has issued a template performance action plan to all train operators. The plan requires train operators to identify the main causes of delay, and to produce action plans to address them.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how much ridership has changed on average over the last two years for rail travel in Merseyside; [128588]

  (2) what percentage of trains in Merseyside ran no more than five minutes late in the last year for which figures are available. [128590]
  279W
  Mr. McNulty
  The number of passenger kilometres travelled on Arriva Trains Merseyside services rose from 255 million in 2001–02 to 275 million in 2002–03 and the number of passenger journeys rose from 23.8 million to 24.9 million in the same period.

  For the year to 31 March 2003, 91.5 per cent. of Arriva Trains Merseyside services arrived within five minutes of their scheduled arrival time.

  The Strategic Rail Authority publishes statistics for each train operating company in its Annual Report, and in the quarterly National Rail Trends and six-monthly "On Track" publications, each of which is available through the Libraries of the House.

  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received regarding Silverlink's advice to rail passengers to go on holiday during a period of maintenance. [128275]

  Mr. McNulty
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received no representations regarding Silverlink's advice to rail passengers to go on holiday during a period of maintenance.

  Reading Station
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the Strategic Rail Authority to provide him with the business case for a major scheme at Reading station; and when he expects to publish the business case. [127123]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Strategic Rail Authority, in conjunction with Reading Borough Council, is developing a business case for major capacity enhancements at Reading. The project would require a Transport and Works Act Order, an application for which would be made around 2005. The business case will form part of that application.

  School Buses
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the results of the yellow school bus pilot schemes will be published; and if he will make a statement on proposals to encourage wider take up of such schemes. [128196]

  Mr. McNulty
  We expect to receive the final report of the independent evaluation of the yellow school bus pilot schemes by the end of September. We will give careful consideration to the findings of the study before deciding on next steps.

  Speed Cameras (Romford)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the number of speed cameras in Romford. [128379]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In the London borough of Havering, of which Romford is a part, there are currently 13 fixed camera site housings available for speed camera enforcement and one site enforced periodically by a mobile camera unit.

  Speeding
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he will take to reclaim from local 280W
  partnerships money paid in fines as a result of convictions for speeding based on evidence from speed cameras which are not (a) properly identified and (b) positioned in accordance with Government guidelines; and if he will make a statement. [128089]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The rules and guidelines relating to the safety camera netting-off programme have no bearing on the prosecution process. Where camera partnerships fail to meet visibility and conspicuity rules they may be suspended from the scheme and payments withheld.

  Local Transport Plans
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to encourage local authorities to show how they intend to improve urban design and regeneration in their next local transport plans. [128644]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Government recogniseb the importance of Local Transport Plans as a tool that local authorities may use to regenerate and improve the urban environment, in and around local transport infrastructure. We are currently considering how this might be reflected in our guidance for local authorities on their next Local Transport Plans.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Foodstuffs Trade
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the balance of payments in the UK in foodstuffs; and if she will make a statement. [128056]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The following table shows the level of exports, imports and trade gap for the United Kingdom in food, feed and drink, for each of the last five years (1998–2002).

  £ billion

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Total Exports

  9.2

  8.9

  8.7

  8.5

  8.9

  Total Imports

  17.1

  17.2

  16.8

  18.3

  19.1

  Trade Gap1

  -7.9

  -8.3

  -8.1

  -9.8

  -10.2

  1 In the calculation of the trade gap the values of exports and imports are measured slightly differently. For exports, values include the costs allowed under "free on board" which refers to the total export values of goods leaving the country. For imports, values include the costs allowed under "cost insurance freight" which refers to the total value of the goods imported into the UK. Thus for imports into the UK the cost of transportation between the port or place of dispatch and the UK port or place of importation is included. As a result imports are overstated relative to exports by about 5 per cent. The figures are not seasonally adjusted.

  Source:

  HM Customs and Excise Data prepared by Statistics (Commodities & Food) Accounts and Trade, ESD, DEFRA Crown Copyright

  Corporate Environmental Reports
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many FTSE
  281W
  350 companies have responded to the Prime Minister's October 2000 challenge to produce corporate environmental reports. [127837]

  Mr. Morley
  This Department conducted a survey last year of the progress made by companies in the FTSE 350 in voluntary reporting of their environmental performance. An account of the results of this survey was placed in the Library of the House in July 2002.

  Egg Industry
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will be raising the UK egg industry at the Fifth World Trade Organisation Ministerial Conference in Cancun. [127597]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will aim to secure a positive outcome for all UK interests at the Fifth WTO Ministerial. She is aware of the concerns of the British egg industry about market access and will take due account of those concerns in her discussion in Cancun.

  Environmental Legislation
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to raise awareness among small businesses of environmental regulations and legislation. [127838]

  Mr. Morley
  The central thrust of the Department's efforts to raise awareness of environmental regulations and legislation is the NetRegs project. NetRegs aims to provide clear and coherent guidelines for businesses (principally small/medium-sized businesses) on environmental legislation, and how to comply with it. Sector-specific guidelines for 100 industry sectors will be available on its website (www.netregs.gov.uk) by the time the project finishes at the end of March 2004; currently there are guidelines for over 55 business sectors already published on the site. NetRegs is a partnership between the Environment Agency, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, the Environment and Heritage Service Northern Ireland, and the DTI. It is funded by the Treasury's Capital Modernisation Fund.

  To publicise NetRegs to its target audience, the NetRegs team has successfully engaged the support of the relevant trade media, associations, and business support organisations in 'spreading the word' on a sector-by-sector basis, as each sector's guidelines are launched on the website. So far NetRegs has generated over 700 pieces of media coverage since October 2002 and over 180 organisations have to date actively supported and or promoted the site.

  Defra also undertakes initiatives in relation to specific areas of new legislation. For example, between September 2002 and February 2003 Defra, DTI and the Small Business Service ran over 30 seminars across the UK to raise awareness of the European Directives on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE), which must be transposed into UK legislation by the summer of next year.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) which 282W
  countries have sent radioactive material to the United Kingdom for disposal since 2001; and what charges were levied; [128107]

  (2) how many shipments of radioactive waste have been sent abroad to be disposed of since 2001; and what the destination countries were. [128108]

  Mr. Morley
  Imports and exports of radioactive waste into, out of, or through the European Union are controlled under European Commission Directive 92/3 Euratom. This Directive is implemented into UK law by the Transfrontier Shipment of Radioactive Waste Regulations 1993. Authorisations under the regulations are administered in England and Wales by the Environment Agency, in Scotland by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and in Northern Ireland by the Environment and Heritage Service.

  Under the regulations three shipments of radioactive waste into the UK have been authorised since 2001. Small quantities of mixed solid and liquid laboratory wastes were received from the British Antarctic Survey in 2001 and 2002, and contaminated oilfield equipment was received from Norway in 2002. No charges have been levied by the regulatory bodies for issuing an authorisation. Any other costs involved are a commercial matter for the consigners and/or consignees, as relevant.

  No shipments of radioactive waste for disposal have been sent abroad from the UK since 2001.

  Antibiotics
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on her policy towards the use of antibiotics in animal feed. [128260]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Antibiotics cannot be used in animal feed unless they are authorised either as veterinary medicinal products or as zootechnical feed additives (which are used as growth promoters).

  The Government recognises the important role that authorised antibiotics play in maintaining animal health and welfare. However it takes very seriously the possibility of their contributing to the development of antimicrobial resistance in bacteria affecting humans. The Government has therefore developed a comprehensive strategy for maintaining the effectiveness of antimicrobial products and reducing the overall pool of antibiotic use in animals. A key element in this strategy is promoting the prudent use of authorised antibiotic medicines and feed additives in animal husbandry.

  The Government is satisfied that the four feed additives authorised as antibiotic growth promoters are not related to any therapeutic antibiotics currently used in human or animal medicine. However it supports the phasing out of these products on a precautionary basis from 1 January 2006 under new EU legislation on Feed Additives coming into effect next year. The Government believes that this provides sufficient time for the industry to introduce new husbandry methods before the authorisations for antibiotic growth promoters are withdrawn. Defra is working closely with the industry's

  283W
  Responsible Use of Medicines in Agriculture (RUMA) alliance in drawing up plans to assist industry to adjust to the loss of these products from January 2006.

  Avian Influenza
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the current outbreak of avian influenza in the European Union. [128252]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  European Community legislation lays down procedures for controlling avian influenza (AI) outbreaks in EU member states. The measures taken by the Dutch, Belgian and German authorities and endorsed by the European Commission follow the rules laid down in this legislation.

  Following the confirmation of AI in the Netherlands and Belgium in March and April 2003 respectively, the Dutch and Belgian authorities imposed a standstill on the transport of live poultry and hatching eggs within those countries. The Dutch and Belgian authorities also stopped their exports of live poultry, hatching eggs and fresh unprocessed and non-heat treated poultry manure and litter. In May 2003, AI was also confirmed in the Land of North Rhine-Westphalia in Germany and the German authorities took similar action. In each instance the European Commission put in place Community legislation to reinforce the action taken by the countries concerned.

  In each case following the confirmation of AI, Defra issued Declarations under domestic animal health legislation to ban imports of live poultry, hatching eggs, racing/show pigeons, fresh unprocessed and non-heat-treated poultry manure or litter and dead day-old chicks from the Netherlands, Belgium and the affected part of Germany. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland also introduced similar Declarations. EU legislation does not permit trade in fresh poultry meat if it was obtained from poultry originating in established surveillance zones in those countries. In light of Germany and Belgium's confirmation on 26 June and 16 July 2003 respectively, that there had been no further outbreaks and that the disease had been successfully eradicated, restrictions were lifted from Belgium and the affected part of Germany. Defra revoked the declarations and have informed the trade that they can import live poultry, hatching eggs, racing/show pigeons and fresh unprocessed and non-heat treated poultry manure and litter from the whole of Germany and Belgium.

  On 22 July 2003, Defra issued a Declaration lifting all import restrictions on live poultry, their hatching eggs and racing/show pigeons from the Netherlands except from the area between the provinces of Utrecht and Gelderland and the area North of Limburg in the Netherlands.

  The European Commission is keeping all member states informed of the AI situation in the Netherlands. The Government are satisfied that the German, Dutch and Belgian authorities have done all that was needed to control the disease. Defra will continue to monitor the situation in the Netherlands.

  Officials have reviewed and updated the AI contingency arrangements. In the event of an outbreak of avian influenza in the UK, the structures, frameworks
  284W
  and systems that are set out in Defra's Foot and Mouth Disease Contingency Plan will be put in place as appropriate. In support of these plans are operational instructions detailing the actions to be taken to deliver the plan. As part of the review of our state of readiness, we have taken powers which would allow a pre-emptive or firebreak cull should that be necessary (The Avian Influenza and Newcastle Disease (England and Wales) Order 2003).

  Defra has also kept the industry informed and up to date information on the AI situation may be obtained from the Defra website. Defra also reminded egg and poultry producers in the UK about the need for stringent biosecurity measures at all times. Officials asked poultry producers in the UK to be vigilant for any signs of respiratory disease in birds and contact their local veterinary office immediately if they have any concerns.

  Bovine TB
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many cattle were slaughtered because of bovine TB in each year since 1997 in(a) the Taunton Constituency, (b) Somerset, (c) North Devon Constituency and (d) Devon. [127777]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The data requested is not available for the Parliamentary constituencies of Taunton or North Devon. However, the number of cattle slaughtered under bovine TB measures in Somerset and Devon, from 1997 to 2002, is given in the table below. As a result of county boundary changes in the past, the number of cattle slaughtered because of bovine TB in part of the county of Somerset is shown in TB statistics as being in "Avon". Therefore, the data for "Avon" is also included.

  Number of cattle slaughtered under bovine TB control measures 1997–20021

  Year

  Somerset

  Avon

  Devon

  1997

  191

  75

  493

  1998

  264

  276

  550

  1999

  339

  145

  870

  2000

  644

  275

  1,291

  2001

  125

  125

  621

  2002

  881

  769

  3,009

  1 In 2001, the TB testing and control programme was largely suspended due to the Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) outbreak. Since testing resumed in 2002, resources have been concentrated on herds with overdue TB tests which would have had a longer period in which to contract the disease. Also the proportion of high risk herds being tested post-FMD is greater than that prior to the outbreak. As a result, the number of TB reactors identified and slaughtered in 2002 is not comparable to those identified and slaughtered in previous years.

  British Products
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has made to other departments in support of the use of British farm products by their departments. [128257]

  Alun Michael
  The EC Treaty and EC procurement directives do not permit discrimination on the basis of nationality. Defra is however working with others in the
  285W
  public sector to integrate sustainable development considerations into their procurement of food and catering services. One of these considerations is that their specifications should not discriminate against or prevent local businesses from competing in the supply market.

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has made to the Ministry of Defence on the use of British products in the supply chain. [128258]

  Alun Michael
  The EC Treaty, and EC procurement directives do not permit discrimination on the basis of nationality. Defra is however working with the Ministry of Defence and other departments to take forward the public sector food procurement initiative. This is designed to help the public sector "to promote public procurement of food that supports delivery of the Government's Sustainable Farming and Food Strategy for England". The objective is intended to encourage public sector to procure food in a manner that promotes sustainable development and does not discriminate against local and UK suppliers. Information can be found at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/sustain/procurement/index.htm

  BSE
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what form the tests to ensure there is no BSE in over-thirty-month beef will take; how long an individual test will take; and where and when these tests will take place. [128334]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Government are currently considering the FSA recommendation that the over-thirty-month rule could be amended. If the rule is amended, over-thirty-month cattle would be tested for BSE using the Bio-Rad test, which is one of the five rapid diagnostic tests approved by the European Union. The test is carried out using brain stem tissue taken from the cattle following slaughter. It takes about six hours and will be carried out at LGC laboratories at Teddington, Runcorn and Edinburgh. These laboratories will run an overnight testing service.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what facilities will be required at slaughterhouses for the BSE tests on over-thirty-month beef; and whether separate units will be required at slaughterhouses to enable animals to be tested. [128335]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  If the over-thirty-month rule is amended, slaughterhouses would require a dedicated area for sampling including access to washing facilities. They would also need to ensure that they have sufficient space to store carcases and edible offals until test results are known. Although there are no current plans to require slaughterhouses to operate separate units for processing over-thirty-month cattle for human consumption, some might choose to do so for operational reasons.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the estimated cost is of the new testing arrangements when 286W
  the Over-Thirty-Month Scheme is lifted; and whether there will be a single national slaughterhouse for the scheme. [128336]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  If the over-thirty-month rule is amended, the costs of testing for BSE over-thirty-month cattle for sale for human consumption would be shared by Government and industry. The Government will pay for the rapid test kit and the testing process. The precise cost is commercially sensitive but it is within the EU's state aid limit of 40 euros. Abattoirs will pay for the sampling, packaging and transportation of samples to laboratories and other in-abattoir costs. A significant number of abattoirs have indicated that they may be interested in slaughtering cattle aged over-thirty-months if the rule is amended.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the Over-30-Month Scheme; what changes she plans to make to the scheme, and if she will make a statement; [128383]

  (2) whether the Government will phase in the changes to the Over-30-Month Scheme; and when the changes will take effect. [128386]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Over-30-Month Scheme (OTMS) provides an outlet for cattle which are excluded from the food chain by the Over-30-Month (OTM) Rule. The Food Standards Agency has carried out a review of the OTM Rule, and has advised the Government that it would be acceptable on public health grounds to replace the OTM Rule by BSE testing of cattle older than 30 months in two stages. Cattle born after August 1996 could be allowed into the food supply, after being tested for BSE, at the earliest from January 2004, with the possibility of complete replacement of the Rule by testing from July 2005. The Government are considering this advice. Any change to the OTM Rule is likely to lead to parallel changes to the OTMS.

  Cages (Hens)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to encourage a switch towards more advanced well-managed cages for egg-laying hens. [128684]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2002, lay down specific requirements in terms of space and design which cages for laying hens must meet. From 2012, cage systems must be enriched to meet additional requirements. Both the industry and Defra have research programmes which aim to evaluate the emergence and development of new systems of production.

  Combined Heat and Power
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to ensure that electricity derived from CHP is financially more attractive to use than electricity from other carbon-based technologies. [127224]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The measures to support CHP announced in the Energy White Paper, taken together with the measures we have previously introduced, and detailed in the draft CHP Strategy, will significantly help CHP. These include:
  287W
  Exemption from the climate change levy for fuel inputs and electricity outputs from Good Quality CHP;
  The £50 million Community Energy programme promoting community heating;
  The introduction of a target for Government Departments to use CHP generated electricity by the end of the year.

  Contagious Animal Diseases
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list those outbreaks of contagious animal diseases which have occurred since May 1997, for which the European Commission has issued Decisions or communications to limit their spread; what numbers of livestock were killed to limit spread; what support funds were released in

  Classical swine fever 2000

  Foot and mouth disease 2001

  Number of confirmed cases

  16

  2030

  Livestock killed for disease control

  74,793

  4,230,786

  Compensation paid for livestock (£)

  4,453,399

  1,033,000,000

  Total compensation for which EU reimbursement claimed (includes other costs) (£)

  7,632,925

  1,581,000,000

  Maximum rate of EU re-imbursement (percentage)

  50

  60

  Maximum amount of re-imbursement (£)

  3,816,463

  948,600,000

  Amount received to date1 (£)

  1,809,460

  217,000,000

  1 Further amounts will only be paid following completion of Commission audits of expenditure incurred during the disease outbreaks.

  Convention on Europe (Animal Welfare)
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether her Department was consulted on the Swedish Government's recent approach to the British Government in the European Convention with respect to the issue of animal welfare; at what level such consultation took place; when; and if she will make a statement. [128262]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  There is no record of any such approach to this Department by the Swedish Government.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what reasons underlay the delay in responding to the letter received by the Department on 16 December 2002 from Mr. Ian Marsden and P. Westby of Accrington regarding biodiesel. [127101]

  Alun Michael
  I have looked at the way in which the case was dealt with and it appears that this was an unusual case in which the details of a draft response were considered by officials and Ministers on a number of occasions before a reply was sent to the hon. Gentleman on 27 June. The delay is unacceptable and falls far short of the standards now achieved within Defra. Having massively improved the turnaround of replies to MPs we are now trying to eradicate occasional lapses of this sort which are unacceptable.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the letter from her Department dated 18 June to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Ms M. Bromley, if she will require the Food Standards Agency to send the promised reply to the right hon. Member without delay. [127747]
  288W
  compensation; what amount was taken up by government; and what proportion of the value of lost stock this equated to. [128263]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Since May 1997 there have been two outbreaks of contagious notifiable disease which have occurred in the UK—classical swine fever in 2000 and foot and mouth disease in 2001. Control of these was governed by both domestic and EU legislation. On both occasions the European Commission also issued Decisions.

  A proportion of the costs of eradicating these diseases can be reimbursed by the European Commission to the member state, and the UK Government have submitted official applications for such reimbursement. Relevant details are as follows:

  Alun Michael
  I regret that my right hon. Friend's letter was not shown to me before it was transferred to the Food Standards Agency. However that transfer was correct as the Food Standard Agency is responsible for the Food Supplements Directive. I cannot speak for other Departments and my right hon. Friend may therefore wish to direct his inquiries to colleagues in the Department of Health.

  Countryside Agency
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what assessment she has made of the Countryside Agency's handling of its budgetary affairs in 2003–04; and if she will make a statement; [127765]

  (2) if she will take steps to ensure that the finances of the Countryside Agency are managed in such a way that will ensure funding arrangements for partnerships can be made clear at an early stage for 2004–05 and left unchanged. [127766]

  Alun Michael
  I have discussed with the Countryside Agency the way in which it manages its finances in view of the "hold" placed on some budgets, including Vital Villages, at the start of this financial year. This was done by the Agency because of the very high level of applications received and the consequent need to target money at the areas of greatest need, but it is unfortunate that this caused uncertainty to a number of organisations who were dependent on the Countryside Agency grant for continuity of their work. I am drawing to the attention of the Agency and other organisations funded by Defra the requirements on finance contained in the Government's compact with the Voluntary Sector. It should be noted that the Agency's grant in aid has been significantly increased this year.
  289W
  It is for the Countryside Agency to manage its finances within the budgets set for it and has been doing so against the background both of the major and novel task of access mapping, whose costs depend on public responses which are hard to predict, and of the demand-led nature of its major grant programmes. Despite these factors the budget for Vital Villages has been held to the level set at the start of the year. Budgets have also been agreed for Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will meet Hampshire county council to discuss the effect on its rural transport partnership of late changes in funding by the Countryside Agency. [127767]

  Alun Michael
  The Countryside Agency manages the Rural Transport Partnership scheme on behalf of Defra and day to day decisions on the operation of the scheme are a matter for the Agency. However, the Agency has assured me that rather than cuts to the Rural Transport Partnership scheme, the budget for 2003–04 has been increased by £2 million since the original budget announcement. Demand for the scheme has been high and the funds available have had to be shared among as many projects as possible. In the South East region it is the Rural Transport Partnership officers themselves who have decided which projects should take priority.

  Departmental Discussions
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions her Department has had with(a) the United States, (b) the European Union and (c) environmental organisations on international measures to assist developing nations in reducing climate change. [128216]

  Mr. Morley
  As climate change is a global problem, it is important that all countries engage constructively in international action to tackle it. With this in mind, Defra, along with other Government Departments, has regular discussions in both formal and informal fora with the United States, other European Union member states and environmental organisations on measures to assist developing countries to address climate change. These discussions include: the need to integrate climate change into national strategies for sustainable development; the importance of capacity building; the role of technology transfer and, the operationalisation of the Clean Development Mechanism.

  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions her Department has had with(a) the United States, (b) the European Union and (c) environmental organisations on the obligations of (i) the UK and (ii) others to reverse (A) climate change and (B) energy shortage. [128217]

  Mr. Morley
  As climate change is a global problem, it is important that all countries engage constructively in international action to tackle it. With this in mind, Defra, along with other government departments, has regular discussions in both formal and informal fora with the United States, other European Union Member States and environmental organisations on action to address climate change. Although these discussions are 290W
  often linked to energy policy, the security of energy supply is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions her Department has had with the Department of Trade and Industry on investment in renewable energy. [128220]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Achieving the commitments set out in the energy white paper will require close integration across departments and much more widely. To make this a reality the white paper announced the creation of a Sustainable Energy Policy Network of policy units from across Government departments, the devolved administrations, regulators and key delivery organisations that are jointly responsible for delivery. Working within this framework my Department has regular discussions with the Department of Trade and Industry on a wide range of energy policy issues, including the development of renewable energy.

  Public Sector Procurement (UK Food)
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on her Department's policy on public sector procurement of United Kingdom sourced food products. [128242]

  Alun Michael
  Defra's policy on the UK's public sector procurement of food is given in the guidance we have published on integrating sustainable development issues into public procurement of food and catering. It explains that buyers should ensure that specifications do not discriminate against or prevent local businesses from competing in the supply market, while pointing out that the EC Treaty and EC procurement directives do not permit discrimination on the basis of nationality. The guidance is aimed at the public sector as a whole and should help to increase the opportunities for local and UK producers to compete for public sector contracts. Information can be found at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/sustain/procurement/index.htm.

  Locally Grown Produce
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures have been taken to promote and encourage the consumption of locally grown produce in the last 12 months. [128245]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Government recognises the benefits of local food and is keen to encourage a flourishing local food sector. Over the last 12 months, we have made provision under the England Rural Development Programme for grants for activities such as the establishment of farmers' markets and other direct sales outlets, the development of local branding initiatives and the formation of collaborative groups to market produce. Defra has also helped to finance workshops organised by the IGD designed to bring together supermarkets and small local producers to explore how barriers to local sourcing can be overcome. One practical area where the Government can have a direct effect on the local food sector is public procurement. Defra has published guidance on its website (http://www.defra.gov.uk/farrri/
  291W
  sustain/procurement/index.htm) that, among other things, should help to increase the opportunities for local and UK producers to compete for public sector contracts. We have asked Government Departments to produce their own action plans on public procurement. We are also encouraging local authorities to do the same.

  We have recently drawn up a local food policy paper examining the rationale for public support and setting out a framework within which support will be given. The paper is published on the following website address: http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodrin/specialfoods/localfood/index.htm. The framework focuses on added value at national level, the public procurement initiative and spreading best local food practice nationwide. We will also continue to deploy our various funding schemes to encourage a flourishing local food sector. This activity will complement measures at a regional level which the Regional Development Agencies will be implementing as part of their wider food and drink strategies.

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures her Department has taken to promote local trade fairs and farmers' markets in the last 12 months. [128246]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Local trade fairs and farmers' markets are an excellent way to raise awareness about local and regional food. In the last 12 months, we have made provision under the England Rural Development Programme for grants for projects promoting farmers' markets and other direct sales outlets. For example, within this period we have awarded 100,256 to the National Association of Farmers' Markets to raise the profile of farmers' markets across England and increase public awareness of them. In addition, in November last year Lord Whitty wrote to all Local Authorities outlining the benefits farmers' markets bring and the role they play in bringing urban and rural communities together. Finally, Defra provides funding to Food from Britain, which has responsibility for promoting the production and consumption of quality regional food and drink. One of the measures for doing this is by providing business support, through the network of Regional Food Groups, to those producers wishing to exhibit at trade fairs both at a local and national level.

  Foreign Policy
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the application of the ethical dimension of foreign policy in her Department's activities overseas. [128253]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The common theme of the Department's overseas activity is sustainable development—meeting the needs of today without compromising the needs of future generations.

  Defra's overseas activities support the Government's wider international objectives, by contributing to preventive measures designed to address potential causes of future conflict; by supporting multilateral cooperation to address international problems; and by contributing to the spread of good governance.
  292W
  Defra's key international activities support sustainable development by:
  tackling the causes and effects of environmental degradation, for example, by addressing climate change;
  promoting sustainable use of natural resources, including water, soil, forestry, fisheries, and biodiversity; and
  promoting fairer world trade in agriculture, notably through CAP reform and the WTO's Doha Development Agenda.

  These overseas activities, on which Defra works closely with other Departments, particularly the FCO, DfID, and DTI, help address problems facing the world's poorest countries.

  EU Legislation
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on her Department's application of(a) subsidiarity and (b) proportionality in applying EU legislation. [128254]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Department considers whether the implications and effects of subsidiarity are relevant in respect of each proposal that falls under the remit of the UK parliamentary scrutiny procedures. The Department provides Parliament with a concise assessment of whether the Government believe the proposal in question is justified in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the EC Treaty.

  The Department's policy is to consider proportionality as an integral part of the Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA). All proposed legislation is examined to ensure that the approach—both in negotiation and final implementation, is appropriate to the risk posed, and that costs are identified and minimised wherever possible.

  Departmental Spending
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much has been spent by her Department on encouraging(a) co-operation and (b) stronger marketing for British farmers and food produce in each of the last 10 years. [128054]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Department has over the last 10 years pursued various initiatives designed to encourage and support co-operation between farmers and the better marketing of food produced by them, or which have contributed to these objectives. These include the work that the Department has undertaken to promote agricultural exports, its support for Food from Britain and regional food groups, its promotion and administration of protected food names schemes, the support that it is giving to English Farming and Food Partnerships (which has been set up by industry to promote collaboration and co-operation) and grants made available under various grant schemes such as the Agriculture Development Scheme, the schemes operating under England Rural Development programme, and those under the EU Structural Funds. Identifying all of these initiatives, and isolating or estimating the expenditure that relates directly to encouraging cooperation and marketing, could be done only at disproportionate cost.
  293W
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) how much has been spent by her Department on progressive and appropriate science and technology in the area of food security, by type, in each of the last 10 years; [128055]

  (2)how much has been spent in support of science and technology for agriculture in each of the last 10 years. [128061]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Details of Defra funding of science and technology (S&T) activities are regularly published through the Government's Forward Look, the 2003 version of which has just been published (http://www.ost.gov.uk/atoz.html)

  Although the Department is involved in much work relating to food security, none of this is classed as S&T and figures are not therefore available under this category.

  Expenditure on S&T in support of agriculture for the last 10 years, taken from the Forward Look, is:

  £million

  1993–94

  92.80

  1994–95

  93.10

  1995–96

  93.70

  1996–97

  92.00

  1997–98

  91.60

  1998–99

  91.70

  1999–2000

  89.30

  2000–01

  90.20

  2001–02

  92.60

  2002–03

  92.40

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much has been spent by her Department on the protection against the importation of(a) dangerous and (b) unacceptably produced food in each of the last 10 years. [128057]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  All products of animal origin imported from third countries into the UK must enter at designated UK Border Inspection Posts (BIP) where they are subject to veterinary inspections. The Inspection services at the BIP are the responsibility of the local authority. UK and EC legislation requires that costs incurred by the local authority while carrying out checks are recovered from the importer. Details of costs are not held centrally.

  As part of their normal duties, local and port health authorities were responsible for checks on passenger baggage and cargo at ports and airports until 11 April 2003, to prevent the illegal importation of products of animal origin. Between October 2002 and April 2003, Defra funded additional enforcement activity at the border. From 11 April 2003, HM Customs and Excise became responsible for anti-smuggling action in relation to these products. A total of £6 million additional resources is being provided this year on work to tackle illegal imports.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much has been spent by her Department on the development of 294W
  crops which offer sustainable alternatives for (a) fuel, (b) medical and (c) plastic products in the UK in each of the last 10 years. [128058]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  This Department has research programmes supporting the sustainable development of arable and horticultural crops relevant to both food and non-food uses. The total research expenditure on these crops is about £16 million per year. This includes about £0.5 million on biomass energy crops, £1 million on oilseed rape and £2 million on wheat.

  The research programme specific to the non-food uses of crops is market-led and aims to respond positively to all proposals for high quality pre-competitive research to support the development of non-food products. The research spending over the last 10 years specifically supporting the development and use of crops for fuel, medical and plastic products is as follows:

  £

  Fuel

  Medical

  Plastic products

  1993–94

  0

  0

  30,000

  1994–95

  323,000

  0

  140,000

  1995–96

  293,000

  0

  141,000

  1996–97

  316,000

  0

  247,000

  1997–98

  328,000

  7,000

  246,000

  1998–99

  378,000

  0

  160,000

  1999–2000

  560,000

  0

  59,000

  2000–01

  780,000

  127,000

  74,000

  2001–02

  591,000

  219,000

  146,000

  2002–03

  654,000

  240,000

  83,000

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures are in place to maintain the United Kingdom market share of indigenous fruit and vegetables; and how much has been spent on these measures in each of the last five years. [128062]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  There are no specific measures in place to maintain the UK market share of indigenous fruit and vegetables. However, Defra funds strategic research and development, worth some £11 million pa, which helps our fruit and vegetables producers to increase their competitiveness. Growers can also take advantage of assistance available under the England Rural Development Programme and other grant schemes.

  Energy Crops
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on Government strategy to increase the amount of energy crops grown in United Kingdom. [127614]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  This Department is committed to supporting the growing of energy crops in England. We have allocated £29 million under the Energy Crops Scheme to support the planting of short rotation coppice (SRC) and miscanthus, and the setting up of producer groups to supply SRC to energy end-users. £3.5.million has been allocated to develop supply chains for energy crops and woodfuel, from harvest to energy end-users. Energy crops can be planted on set-aside land and receive payments under the Arable Area Payments Scheme.
  295W
  £66 million is available to develop markets for biomass, including energy crops, in heat, combined heat and power, and power generation. Officials are working closely with project developers and others, including the Local Support Teams set up under the Countryside Agency's Community Renewables Initiative, to promote the potential of energy crops. Recently, over 200 farmers attended one such event near Swindon. The co-firing of energy crops with fossil fuels is permitted under the Renewables Obligation. To encourage the market for transport biofuels, which can be produced from energy crops, the Government introduced a cut in the duty rate for biodiesel in July 2002 and has announced the intention to cut the duty rate for bioethanol in January 2005.

  Alternative Fuels
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the environmental attributes of(a) LPG, (b) biodiesel and (c) bioethanol. [127191]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  An assessment of the environmental performance of various alternative fuels, including LPG, was carried out by the Cleaner Vehicles Task Force in 2000. The research showed that LPG can have air quality benefits over conventional fuels in terms of reduced emissions of particulates and oxides of nitrogen, and reduced noise, although progress with conventional engine and fuel technologies is reducing this advantage. A copy of the report "The environmental impacts of road vehicles in use" is available on the Department for Transport's website, at: www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_roads/documents/page/dft_roads_506888.hcsp

  The Government recently published a consultation document seeking views on the future structure of the Government's support for the road fuel gases LPG and natural gas in the short to medium term, to ensure that future support continues to reflect environmental and other policy objectives. A copy of the consultation, which closes on 17 September, is available at: www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_roads/documents/page/dft_roads_508355.pdf

  An assessment of biodiesel was commissioned by Defra from Sheffield Hallam University in 2001. The report found that emissions of carbon dioxide are significantly reduced for biodiesel compared to conventional diesel. Consistent air quality benefits from biodiesel in terms of emissions of particulates and oxides of nitrogen have not been established. A copy of the report "Evaluation of the comparative energy, global warming and socio-economic costs and benefits of biodiesel" is available on the Defra website at: www.defra.gov.uk/science/project_data/DocumentLibrary/NF0422/nf0422.pdf
  A number of reports show that life cycle emissions of carbon dioxide are significantly lower for a range of vehicle types run on bioethanol compared to petrol or diesel. Research includes "Energy and greenhouse gas balance of biofuels for Europe—An update", CONCAWE, April 2002 and "Well-to-wheel analysis of energy use and the Greenhouse gas emissions of advanced fuel/vehicle systems—A European Study", L-B-Systemtechnik Consultancy, September 2002.
  296W
  Research has also been carried out on local air quality benefits. An assessment of the emissions performance of bioethanol undertaken by AEA Technology plc (Ethanol Emissions Testing, March 2002) was published by the Department for Transport. The report found that tailpipe emissions of particulates are significantly reduced for bioethanol compared to petrol but as petrol engines are very low emitters of particulates, the large reduction in emissions from bioethanol results in only a marginal improvement in air quality. Emissions of oxides of nitrogen are not significantly changed compared to petrol.

  EU Committees
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the(a) activities and (b) mandate of the (i) EU Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health, (ii) Community Committee for the Farm Accountancy Data Network, (iii) Management Committee for Live Plants, (iv) Standing Committee on Agricultural Plants, (v) Management Committee on Poultrymeat and Eggs, (vi) Standing Committee on Agricultural, Horticultural and Forestry Seeds and Plants, (vii) Standing Committee on Propagating Material and Plants of Fruit Genera and Species, (viii) Management Committee on Tobacco, (ix) Management Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture, (x) Committee on the Conservation, Characterisation, Collection and Utilisation of Genetic Resources in Agriculture, (xi) Management Committee for Beef and Veal, (xii) Standing Committee for Propagating Materials of Ornamental Plants and (xiii) Management Committee on Wine. [128256]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The activities and mandates of the above listed Committees are wide-ranging and varied. A synopsis of the Committees' activities and mandates are outlined as follows:

  Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health

  The activities of the EU Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health (SCoFCAH) include animal health and welfare, controls and import conditions, biological safety of the food chain, general food law, toxicological safety of the food chain, animal nutrition and phytopharmaceuticals. SCoFCAH is a regulatory Committee which meets under Comitology rules. It has the power to discuss and agree proposals for Commission legislation designed to maintain the Safety of the EU food Chain. It can agree Commission rules relating to EU production and to third country imports.

  Community Committee for the Farm Accountancy Data Network

  The Committee meets three times a year to consider all aspects of the Farm AccountancyData Network, from developing the network itself (including reviewing legislation) to commissioning and presenting economic research into the impact of policy proposals on farm businesses. The Committee was established by Council Regulation 79/65/EEC to set up a harmonised farm accountancy system across the EU to support farm business analyses and determination of farm incomes to meet the needs of the Common Agricultural Policy.
  297W
  Managment Committee for Live Plants

  The mandate of the Management Committee for live plants and floriculture products is to assist the Commission in the management of the common organisation of the market in live trees and other plants, bulbs, roots and the like, cut flowers and ornamental foliage, as established by Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 234/68. The Commission has not convened a meeting of the Committee since it last met in July 2001. Items discussed then included market statistics and EU enlargement.

  Standing Committee on Agricultural Plants

  There is no such Committee.

  Management Committee on Poultrymeat and Eggs
  The Management Committee for Eggs and Poultry meets once a month to examine the market situation and the regulations that implement the CAP regimes for these commodities. The Committee has the authority to fix export refund rates and import representative prices for poultrymeat, eggs and egg products, and to make changes to Commission Regulations on certain marketing standards for eggs and poultrymeat and production and marketing of eggs for hatching.

  Standing Committee on Agricultural, Horticultural and Forestry Seeds and Plants

  The Standing Committee on Seeds and Propagating Material for Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry meets to consider a wide range of administrative, technical and regulatory arrangements for the implementation of the provisions of the Council Directives on the marketing of seeds and propagating material. The Committee's mandate is to carry out the duties devolved to it by these Council Directives. Reports of the Committee's activities can be found on the Commission's website at: http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/rc/scsp/index_en.html.

  Standing Committee on Propagating Material and Plants of Fruit Genera and Species

  The mandate of the Standing Committee on Propagating Material and Plants of Fruit Genera and Species is contained within Council Directive 92/34 on the marketing of fruit plant propagating material and fruit plants intended for fruit production. The Committee gives opinions on amendments and implementing measures associated with the Directive, and on the arrangements for carrying out and reviewing Community comparative trials on fruit planting and propagating material. Recent activities of the Committee include a review of the genera and species covered by the Directive, an evaluation of CAC (Conformitas Agraria Communitatis) and certification requirements and comparative trial matters. Agendas and meeting reports for this Committee are available on the European Commission's website at http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/rc/scpfgs/index_en.html.

  Management Committee on Tobacco

  The Management Committee on Tobacco exists to carry out the requirements of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92 on the common organisation of the market in raw tobacco.

  The Committee last met in June to consider matters relating to the management of the market for raw tobacco, including exemptions from the buy-back scheme and fixing for 2003 the definitive allocations of financing under Community Tobacco Fund.
  298W
  Management Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture

  This Committee was established under Article 30 of the Common Fisheries Policy's (CFP) basic framework regulation (Council Regulation 2371/2002). It can deal with any issues relating to the detailed implementation of the CFP, but has recently concentrated on the successor arrangements to the Multi-Annual Guidance Programme for the management of EU fleet capacity.

  Committee on the Conservation, Characterisation, Collection and Utilisation of Genetic Resources in Agriculture

  The mandate of the Committee on the Conservation, Characterisation, Collection and Utilisation of Genetic Resources in agriculture is to advise the Commission on draft measures made under Council Regulation 1467/94 on assisting the co-ordination, at Community level, of certain national measures for the conservation, characterisation, collection and utilisation of genetic resources in agriculture, aiming to achieve an approach in line with the aims of the Common Agricultural Policy. Regulation 1467/94 established a programme for the conservation, characterisation, collection and utilisation of genetic resources in agriculture for a period of five years. A revised proposal for a successor regulation in 2001 is expected later this year. The Committee recently met, during which meeting it reviewed the state of projects approved under Regulation 1467/94 and considered informal Commission ideas for the revised proposal for a successor regulation.

  Management Committee for Beef and Veal

  The Management Committee for Beef and Veal is mandated to provide close co-operation between Member States and the Commission in order to facilitate the implementation of measures provided for in the CAP regime for Beef and Veal (Council Regulation (EC) No. 1254/99 of 17 May 1999). The normal work of the Committee involves regular consideration of the market situation (including production, consumption, imports and exports). Its work also includes setting export refund rates, adjudicating intervention tenders (purchases and sales), opening import tariff quotas, consideration of technical aspects of beef carcase classification and price reporting and consideration of implementational aspects of the various producer support schemes and other technical measures.

  Standing Committee for Propagating Materials of Ornamental Plants

  The mandate of the Standing Committee for Propagating Materials of Ornamental Plants is contained within Council Directive 98/56 on the marketing of propagating material of ornamental plants. The Committee gives opinions on amendments and implementing measures associated with the Directive, and on the arrangements for carrying out and reviewing Community comparative trials on ornamental propagating material. Recent activities of the Committee include a review of control arrangements under the Directive and comparative trial matters, Agendas and meeting reports for this Committee are available on the European Commission's website at http://europa.eu.int/comm.food/fs/rc/scop.index_en.html.

  Management Committee for Wine

  The Management Committee for Wine assists the Commission in its responsibility for the management of the wine sector. It considers draft Commission legislation

  299W
  and gives its formal opinion on Commission proposals. The Management Committee for Wine is mandated to provide close co-operation between Member States and the Commission in order to facilitate the implementation of measures provided for in the CAP wine regime (Council Regulation 1493/1999). The objective of these measures is to maintain and improve the balance between the supply and demand for wine on the Community market and to enable the sector to be more competitive in the longer term.

  European Union
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what discussions her Department's Ministers held with other departments with respect to formulating policy on the Convention on the Future of Europe; and if she will list the policy areas discussed; [128160]

  (2) what papers her Department drafted for submission to the Convention on the Future of Europe; [128161]

  (3) if she will list the documents submitted to the Convention on the Future of Europe which related to the reform of (a) the Common Fisheries Policy and (b) the Common Agricultural Policy. [128163]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  As part of the normal Whitehall process, Defra Ministers have had regular discussions with other Departments to formulate policy on the Convention. Such discussions have informed the negotiating position of the UK Government representatives on the Convention but Departments have not been required or invited to submit documents to the Convention itself.

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will take steps towards the restoration of fisheries policy to national control, in the context of the Laeken Mandate and the Convention on the Future of Europe. [128162]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The principal aim of the Convention on the Future of Europe, as set out in the Laeken Declaration of December 2001, is to address the following issues:a better division and definition of competence in the European Union;
  simplification of the Union's instruments;
  more democracy, transparency and efficiency in the European Union:
  a Constitution for European Citizens-not changing but simplifying existing Treaties.

  The draft EU Constitution does not extend Community Competence over fisheries, but clarifies the present situation. We support the current framework because effective management of fisheries requires close international co-operation, and the Common Fisheries Policy provides this. If the CFP has failings, the answer is to negotiate improvements, as we did at the Council last December.

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment her Department has made of the effect of EU enlargement on the competitiveness of British agriculture. [128174]
  300W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  EU enlargement represents a considerable expansion of the single market. The increase in the size of the single market presents UK producers with additional markets for their output as well as potential competitors for current markets. However, the implications for UK producers are not expected to be significant in the short term, both because of the continued application of CAP market measures and because trade liberalisation between the EU 15 and CE 10 is already well under way.

  In the longer term the effect of enlargement will depend, in large part, on rates of productivity growth, and we have commissioned a detailed study to examine this issue. The objective of this project is to analyse the potential for changes in relative productivity growth in the new member states and the existing EU and the impact that this will have on agricultural markets. The project is expected to be completed by the end of the year and will be published.

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment her Department has made on the effect of EU enlargement on the scale of the agricultural work force in the EU. [128173]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Information on the agricultural workforce in both the EU 15 and the candidate countries is published by Eurostat. The latest Eurostat estimates, for 2001, show the level of employment in the Agriculture, Forestry, Hunting and Fishing sector was 6,701 thousand in the EU 15 and 3,871 thousand in the CE 10. This 2001 data implies that enlargement would be expected to increase the scale of the workforce by nearly 60 per cent.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of EU legislation relating to agricultural production standards identified by her Department as having been implemented in the United Kingdom but not in other member states. [128063]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Government have not made such an assessment. The European Commission is responsible for monitoring the transposition of Community law. Each year the Commission draws up a report on the monitoring of the application of Community law in all member states. This report is available on the Commission's website www.europa.eu.int.

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make it her policy to undertake departmental assessment of the competitive financial impact of EU regulations on UK agriculture. [128255]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Departments are required to undertake Regulatory Impact Assessments (RIA) for all proposals that impose a burden or realise a benefit to business, charities and the voluntary sector, including those arising from the EU. In February 2002, a two stage 'competition assessment' was introduced as part of the RIA process. The first stage identifies whether the regulation will have an effect on competition; if the effect on competition is significant a second; more rigorous examination of the likely effects is carried out.
  301W
  In addition to the UK RIA requirement, in June 2002 the European Commission adopted an Action Plan for Better Regulation, in which it committed itself to introducing systematic impact assessment for new policy proposals.

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the decision not to apply for a derogation to Regulation (EC) 1774/2002. [128261]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The EU Animal By-Products Regulation (EC 1774/2002) is directly applicable in all member states. However, the UK has applied for transitional measures where it was clear that sectors of industry needed further time to comply with the requirements of the regulation. It is not clear what aspect of this regulation the hon. Member thinks we should have obtained a derogation from.

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the working groups in the European Communities which relate to climate change. [128164]

  Mr. Morley
  The European Community has set up two groups relating to climate change: the Working Party on International Environment/Climate Change and the Monitoring Mechanism Committee.

  The Working Party on International Environment/Climate Change considers key international climate change issues and develops the policy positions that the EU takes in the international climate change negotiations. It generally meets monthly and is attended by officials heading the climate change delegations of each of the member states, and the European Commission. The working party is supported by several expert groups of officials that provide advice and recommendations on a range of technical issues such as carbon sinks, the Kyoto mechanisms, reporting and accounting, and, further action beyond the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol (2008–12).

  The Monitoring Mechanism Committee assists the European Commission with tasks related to the monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions by member states, and the evaluation of progress by member states towards meeting their commitments. It was established by Council Decision 93/389/EEC as amended by Decision 99/296/EC. The committee has set up three working groups, comprising the relevant experts from member states and the Commission, on annual emissions inventories, national programmes and projections, and emissions trading. The committee meets once a year, usually in September, and is attended by officials from climate change delegations of each member state and the European Commission.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with(a) colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and (b) counterparts in the European Union about the legislative competencies covered by the draft European constitution. [124775]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  As part of the normal Whitehall process, Defra Ministers and officials have had regular discussions with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on all aspects of the Convention, including legislative 302W
  competences. We have also had contact with Member and Accession States to discuss issues of mutual interest arising in the Convention.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list proposed EU legislation identified by her Department as setting agricultural production standards below those in place in the UK. [128052]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  There are no EU proposals for legislation currently being negotiated which set agricultural production standards below those already in force within the UK.

  Export Credits
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what recent discussions her Department has had with the Department of Trade and Industry on reforming the Export Credits Guarantee Scheme; [126361]

  (2) what plans she has to reform the Export Credits Guarantee Scheme. [127184]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department is continually engaged in detailed discussions with the Export Credits Guarantee Department (ECGD)—the Department responsible for export credits—with a view to ensuring that the provision of export credits takes full account of sustainability considerations. Discussions take place at both official and ministerial levels.

  Recent discussions between Defra and ECGD have focused on:
  revisions to ECGD's Case Impact Analysis Process, including agreement that in future, ECGD would normally expect to disclose details of High Potential Impact cases at least 60 days prior to making a decision on whether to provide support;
  the UK's approach to the forthcoming review of the OECD agreement on Common Approaches on the Environment and Officially Supported Export Credits;
  an initiative to seek improved terms of support for renewable energy projects through discussions in the OECD; and
  detailed analysis of applications for support which are currently being assessed under ECGD's Sensitive Case procedure—in particular the Baku-Ceyhan oil pipeline project and the Sakhalin oil and natural gas project.

  Defra will continue to work closely with ECGD on these and other issues to ensure that the principles of sustainable development are reflected fully in the policies and operations of that Department.

  Farm Maps
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will issue new satellite measured farm maps to all farmers to enable them to comply with the new requirements of the IACS forms. [128686]

  Alun Michael
  All farmers should receive their Rural Land Register farm maps by the middle of November this year. These maps are digitised using Ordnance Survey MasterMap and aerial photographs where further clarification is required.

  Fisheries
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many fishing vessels there are in each EU applicant state capable of fishing in the North Sea. [128178]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Under the outcome of the CFP review, fishing rights will continue to be based on the principle of relative stability. This means that none of the applicant countries will gain access to regulated fish stocks in EU waters, including the North Sea. Access will be limited to unregulated stocks outside the 12 mile limit. It is not possible to estimate the number of vessels that might fish in this area.

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many foreign nationals work on UK flagged fishing vessels. [128179]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Information is not held on this subject by Defra or the other Fisheries Departments in the UK.

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of United Kingdom flagged fishing vessels(a) by tonnage, (b) by horse power and (c) in absolute terms are owned by foreign nationals. [128180]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The information sought is set out in the following table.

  UK registered vessels at 1 January 2003

  UK registered foreign owened vessels as a proportion of the UK total for:

  Number of UK registered fishing vessels

  Number of UK registered foreign owned vessels

  Fleet Number

  Tonnage

  Engine Power

  Over 10 metre vessels

  1,805

  1,21

  6.7%

  17.5%

  16.8%

  All vessels

  7,578

  121

  1.6%

  16.0%

  11.5%

  The Department does not maintain comprehensive records on the beneficial ownership of fishing vessels. The number of foreign owned vessels is based on advice from local port offices of the Fisheries Departments in the UK on the vessels that are considered to be partly or wholly owned by foreign interests. This information relates to vessels over 10 metres in overall length. Information is not held on vessels under 10 metres, in which we are not aware of any significant overseas interest.

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what European Community compensation(a) is available to and (b) has been taken up by the Government for UK fishermen affected by the 2002 days at sea limits.[128264]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Under the Fisheries Structural Fund, grants co-financed by the EU may be made to fishermen for the temporary cessation of their activities. Where a recovery plan is adopted by the Council, compensation may last for one year, and may be extended by one further year. Where the financial contribution from the Structural Fund exceeds €1 million or 4 per cent. of the Community financial assistance for fisheries in the UK, the measure must include a decommissioning scheme,304W
  with the aim of removing vessels with fishing effort at least equal to the effort of the vessels for which compensation is given.

  This provision is not being used in the UK, but the Scottish Executive is financing an equivalent scheme using national funding.

  Community funding is also available for decommissioning vessels. Defra is awaiting clearance by the EU Commission of a scheme under the provision, and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development for Northern Ireland has announced its intention to introduce a scheme. The Scottish Executive has implemented a parallel scheme with national funding.

  Flood and Coastal Defences
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the adjustable flood control and defences that have been constructed since May 1997; what analyses have been made of upriver spillover since construction; and if she will make a statement. [128168]

  Mr. Morley
  Defra provides grant aid as a percentage of eligible costs to the flood and coastal defence operating authorities in England—the Environment Agency (EA), local authorities and internal drainage boards—to assist with capital works and studies to manage flood risk. Since May 1997 approximately 800 such capital construction projects have been approved by Defra for grant and/or completed by the operating authorities. However information is not held centrally as to whether these defences were adjustable or not. I regret this information could not be provided except at disproportionate cost.

  The Environment Agency is by far the largest flood risk operating authority in England, being empowered to manage flood risk from all rivers designated as "main" and from the sea. The agency undertakes analyses both upstream and downstream of new defences, both adjustable and fixed, prior to construction in order to understand the river regime. These "river models" provide a tool for understanding how different types of flood defence structure can influence the river regime and assist in the final selection and detailed design processes. By undertaking this in advance of construction any potential adverse impacts should be avoided or minimised.

  Unless particular circumstances arise it is not usual to revisit river models soon after the construction of new defences given the pre-construction activities. However, periodic modelling of many rivers/locations is undertaken through other agency activities such as periodic reviews of defence performance and improvement strategies, broad scale modelling for flood mapping, flood risk assessments and catchment flood management plans.

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the long-term strategic maintenance plans for flood defences in Lincolnshire. [128169]

  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency has long-term flood management strategies in place for each of the major rivers in Lincolnshire: the Nene, Welland,
  305W
  Glen and South Forty Foot. These strategies are implemented through maintenance regimes and capital improvement works, and are subject to regular review. Responsibility for maintenance of other flood defences in Lincolnshire rests with the agency, local authorities or internal drainage boards.

  The agency will also be preparing more wide-ranging catchment flood management plans for the major rivers over the next three years, and a revision of the shoreline management plan for the Wash will be started next year.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on changes in(a) the level and (b) the mechanisms of flood and coastal defence funding. [127759]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government are committed to maintenance and improvement of flood and coastal defences, including those to reduce the risk of coastal erosion as well as flooding, and have planned to spend nearly £1.5 billion in this and the next two years:

  £ million

  Defra1

  ODPM2

  Total

  2002–03

  131

  280

  411

  2003–04

  144

  295

  439

  2004–05

  137

  332

  469

  2005–06

  182

  382

  564

  1 For capital projects, Environment Agency national initiatives such as National Flood and Coastal Defence Database and Catchment Flood Management Plans, Storm Tide Forecasting Service etc.

  2 Funding from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to local authorities to support their levies to the Environment Agency and internal drainage boards and their own spend on flood and coastal defence.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the Government's conclusions of the Flood and Coastal Defence Funding Review on 12 March 2003. We propose that Government funding of the Environment Agency's flood defence service should in future come from a single stream of Defra block grant which will replace the existing requirement to approve individual projects for capital grant and the levies currently paid by local authorities to the Agency. These changes will provide more assured flood defence funding for the Agency and allow better long-term planning. The introduction of block grant to replace individual project approvals relies on successful passage of provisions in the Water Bill and, subject to this, we aim to implement the changes as soon as possible.

  Fluoridation
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the effects of water fluoridation on farm businesses. [128171]

  Mr. Morley
  Fluorine is a natural environmental contaminant and both feeding stuffs and water for livestock contain fluorides. Some fertilisers and ingredients of livestock and poultry diets contain relatively high concentrations of fluorides. Drinking water limits are designed to accommodate exposure to other sources of fluorides in the diet and in the 306W
  environment. The best available evidence suggests that safe upper fluoride concentrations in livestock and poultry drinking water are up to 2 mg/l.

  If the water fluoridation provisions in the Water Bill before Parliament were enacted, all local farmers or their representative organisations would be able to participate in public local consultations. There would be no new water fluoridation schemes unless the majority of the local population were in favour. Arrangements for the conduct of local consultations, and the assessment of public opinion will be set out in regulations under powers in the Water Bill. It will also be possible to alter the target fluoride concentration by statutory instrument.

  Food Assurance Schemes
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps her Department is taking to promote food assurance schemes in the UK. [128048]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Department has made clear its support for assurance schemes as part of the Government's Strategy for Sustainable Farming and Food.

  Assurance schemes are a priority for grant aid under the new Agriculture Development Scheme, launched last year to take forward important elements of the strategy. Assured Food Standards has received grant aid under the scheme for projects to create an independent, authoritative body for food assurance; review assurance standards and their delivery; and develop a marketing and communications strategy.

  Some assurance schemes may also be eligible for help under the Rural Enterprise Scheme, which forms part of the England Rural Development Programme. We have, for instance, helped LEAF (Linking the Environment and Farming) develop their premium assurance scheme for horticultural produce.

  Ultimately, promotion of the individual schemes is a matter for the private sector bodies that own and administer them.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment her Department has made of the comprehensibility of existing food assurance schemes for consumers in the UK. [128049]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Department has not itself undertaken any work to assess the comprehensibility of existing food assurance schemes for consumers in UK. However, various other organisations have considered consumers' understanding of assurance schemes. These include an independent review of assurance schemes (June 2002) carried out for the Food Standards Agency and the National Consumer Council's report on consumers' views on labelling (Bamboozled, baffled and bombarded, February 2003), commissioned by the Food Standards Agency.

  Food Security
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what steps her Department is taking to assess the role of British
  307W
  agriculture in providing national food security; and if she will adopt the concept as a central principle of her Department's work; [128050]

  (2) what steps her Department is taking to examine the risks inherent in a reduction in British agriculture's capacity to produce food and non-food products. [128051]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Defra has a role to play with others in providing all citizens with access to healthy food and in ensuring the continuity of essential supplies of food. The Government believes that national and international food security is best facilitated through improved trading relationships based on more open international markets and reductions in trade distorting subsidies. Our domestic agriculture industry has an important contribution to make by improving its ability to produce efficiently and sustainably what the market requires. The Strategy for Sustainable Farming and Food sets out how Government and industry is working in partnership to deliver this objective.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what(a) policy and (b) financial assessment she has made of food security in the UK; and if she will make a statement.[128046]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Food security in the UK, including the threat to the food chain, is monitored very closely by the Government and we and the industry remain vigilant. Advice on any terrorist threat to the UK is the responsibility of the Security Service. The Director General of the Security Service is responsible to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for this advice, which is provided on a continual basis. Strategic assessments about terrorist threats to the UK are provided to the Government by the Joint Intelligence Committee.

  Freedom of Information act
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the electronic document and electronic record management systems which have been procured by the public authorities listed in Parts I to V of Schedule I of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for which she is responsible. [116389]

  Alun Michael
  Defra is currently in the process of procuring and implementing a corporate electronic document and record management system. A number of electronic document management systems have been procured for use on a smaller scale in specific areas of Defra; these are listed as follows:

  Product

  Supplier

  Docs Open

  Hummingbird

  Filenet

  Panagon

  Keyfile

  Sydoc (UK) Ltd.

  Wisdom

  Diagonal Solutions

  Genomics Research
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the potential of genomics research for conventional plant breeding. [127836]
  308W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  Genomics is a set of technologies central to the public sector investment underpinning crop breeding. The Government fund genomics research through a range of research programmes in Defra, Research Councils, and other Departments. As a technology, the potential of genomics is addressed in relevant strategic plans. In addition, research funders have their own mechanisms to assess the potential of their research both at programme and project level.

  Defra's current research underpinning crop breeding is informed by a specially commissioned research project that provided an assessment of the potential of publicly-funded genomics research. The project entitled `The Role of Future Public Research Investment in the Genetic Improvement of UK Grown Crops' was completed in September 2002. The assessment provides a strong rationale for public investment and has informed the Defra Science and Innovation Strategy. It has been widely distributed within the research and crop breeding community, and is available on the Defra website.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the products undergoing genetically modified organism field testing in the United Kingdom. [128165]

  Mr. Morley
  Listed are the genetically modified organisms which are undergoing trials in the UK this year under consents issued in accordance with Part B of European Directive 2001/18/EC. All these trials are for research and development purposes, and none of the GM organisms in question have consents for placing on the market as commercial GM products.

  GMO

  Purpose of modification

  Potato

  Altered carbohydrate metabolism

  Wheat

  Altered bread-making quality

  Sugar beet

  Herbicide tolerance

  Barley

  Altered malting and nutritional quality

  Pea

  Reporter gene linked to a drought responsive promoter

  Oilseed rape

  Herbicide tolerance

  Bacterium

  Development of vaccine for use against typhoid

  Bacterium

  Development of vaccine for use against traveller's diarrhoea

  Bacterium

  Development of vaccine for use against hepatitis

  Import Standards
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures are in place to prevent the importation of agricultural products produced to unacceptable standards in(a) animal welfare and (b) environmental care, from (i) the EU and (ii) elsewhere. [128053]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Comprehensive legislation exists to protect both the environment and the welfare of farmed animals within the EU. On a wider front, the World Trade Organisation's (WTO) Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement allows for prohibition of imports only in the case of a threat to human, animal or plant health in the importing country. Products may also be banned in accordance with the terms of Multilateral Environmental Agreements to which the UK is a party. More generally, we seek to engage in
  309W
  multilateral dialogue on how environmental standards can be raised in line with our overall aims to promote global sustainable development and eradicate poverty in developing countries. In addition, the EU has made firm proposals on animal welfare in the context of the current WTO agricultural trade negotiations.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on Government policy on animal welfare in the Intergovernmental Conference. [128182]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  At the Intergovernmental Conference, which starts in October, the Government will remain committed to maintaining a policy towards the EU that focuses on a Union that is more transparent, accountable and effective, and better able to deliver on issues which matter to its citizens. The aim of the IGC is to agree the European Convention's draft Constitutional Treaty before the June 2004 elections for the European Parliament.

  With respect to animal welfare, we are pleased that the Protocol to the Treaty of Amsterdam has been retained in the new draft Treaty and will remain legally binding. The draft Treaty continues to recognise animals as sentient beings and requires full regard to be paid to their welfare when formulating and implementing policies.

  Animal Movements
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the policy on livestock movement restrictions; whether she plans to make any changes; and if she will make a statement. [128339]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  A standing animal movements regime came into force on 1 August, maintaining the 6 day standstill but with additional exemptions for male sheep and cattle during the main breeding season. My noble Friend Lord Whitty set out the thinking behind this decision in a written answer on 2 July 2003,Official Report (Lords), volume 650, columns WA 117–120.

  OSPAR
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the role of the European Union in OSPAR after the coming into force of the European Constitution. [128159]

  Mr. Morley
  The European Constitution is currently still in draft and subject to negotiation. No change in the working of OSPAR is envisaged once the European Constitution comes into force.

  Seals
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to tackle the phocine distemper virus in seals in the UK. [1278341]
  310W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  The first case of phocine distemper virus (PDV) was reported at Anholt, Denmark in May 2002. This was the same place that the previous PDV outbreak in 1988 originated. The epizootic reached the east coast of England in August 2002.

  Drawing on the lessons learned during the last outbreak, Defra helped voluntary organisations prepare and cope with the PDV outbreak as it hit UK waters. Discussions were held about the disposal and vaccinations options for seal carcases and the resulting guidance notes were published along with other useful information on the dedicated Defra PDV website (http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/ewd/seals/index.htm).

  Defra commissioned the Institute of Zoology (Zoological Society of London) to monitor, report and produce information about the progress of the virus. The helpline was funded by Defra and the Devolved Administrations. We worked closely with voluntary organisations and other Government Departments, including The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA), The Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SSPCA), The Institute of Zoology (IOZ), Scottish Executive Environment Rural Affairs Department (SEERAD), National Assembly for Wales Agriculture Department (NAWAD), The Department of Environment (Northern Ireland) (DoE NI), and the Sea Mammal Research Unit (SMRU).

  The outbreak was formally declared to be over in the UK at the end of February this year, and was responsible for the deaths of almost 4,000 seals. The Sea Mammal Research Unit continues to monitor seal mortality in UK waters to provide an early warning system for any future outbreaks.

  Policy Development
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the use of global(a) population figures and (b) food production trends in policy development by her Department. [128047]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Assessments of the impacts of EU policies under the CAP can be influenced by world market trends for agricultural commodities and my Department considers projections of these made by international organisations such as OECD. In projecting these trends, analysts will take account of likely levels of world food production, consumption and trade flows. Population changes may influence these trends.

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the role of the Precautionary Principle in determining Government policy in areas of scientific contention within her Department's responsibilities. [128181]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The purpose of the Precautionary Principle is to create an impetus to take a decision notwithstanding scientific uncertainty about the nature and extent of the risk. Defra is committed to using the Precautionary Principle in line with the comprehensive guidelines and advice set down in 2002 by the
  311W
  Interdepartmental Liaison Group on Risk Assessment and is also mindful of the European Council Resolution on the Precautionary Principle agreed by Heads of Government at Nice in December 2000.

  Recycling
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she takes to ensure that the incentives local authorities receive to collect paper by weight to meet Government targets are followed by action by those councils to ensure the method of collection is one which facilitates effective recycling. [127222]

  Mr. Morley
  Each local authority in England has been set statutory recycling and composting standards (targets) for 2003–04 and 2005–06. These targets relate to the percentage of household waste sent for recycling, not the amount collected. Individual local authorities are responsible for deciding how to meet these targets in the light of local circumstances which will include settlement patterns, waste characteristics and the market for recycling. Where authorities are contracted to supply paper (and other materials) to selected reprocessors, they will be required to supply materials in the form specified by the reprocessors, which will influence their collection practices.

  Guidance on methods of collection which facilitate recycling should be based on sound data. The Waste Resources Action Programme (WRAP) has recently conducted an extensive survey with the aim of providing a baseline measure for the quality of paper reaching reprocessors from different collection methods. The results of this study are due to be published in Autumn 2003.

  River Nene
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to investigate the response by the Environment Agency to the recent major pollution incident on the River Nene between Peterborough and Northampton. [127758]

  Mr. Morley
  Defra officials have checked the response by the Environment Agency to this pollution incident. They are satisfied with the extent and the manner in which the Environment Agency has carried out, and continues to carry out, its investigations into the cause and effect of the incident. I will be writing to my hon. Friend about this in more detail in reply to her letter of 15 July.

  Rural Transport
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to ensure the sustainability of individual rural transport partnership schemes in the light of the 10-year transport plan; and if she will make a statement. [127764]

  Alun Michael
  The Rural Transport Partnership programme is run by the Countryside Agency, on behalf of Defra in order to demonstrate ways of providing flexible transport in rural communities. It provides start up funding for up to three years to community based rural transport initiatives to help them develop and implement their plans. It is additional to and outside the 312W
  mainstream of the long-term investment framework for transport set out in the Government's 10-Year Plan. We are awaiting the Agency's evaluation of the Rural Transport Partnership scheme and will consider its future in the light of this evaluation and the review of rural delivery by my noble Friend Lord Haskins.

  Sheep Tagging
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the estimated costs of sheep tagging(a) to the industry and (b) as an average per capita to farmers in 2002–03. [128170]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Department's Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) estimates the additional cost to the sheep industry of implementing the EU proposals on sheep identification to be in the order of £89 million per annum for a manual double tagging system, and for an electronic identification system in the order of £44 million per annum with a one off capital investment of around £45 million.

  The RIA also estimates typical business costs to be:

  £

  Medium upland holding (600 ewes)

  Medium lowland (600 ewes)

  Additional annual cost of moving from existing requirements to double tagging and manual recording

  1,582

  2,034

  Additional annual cost of moving from existing requirements to electronic identification

  12,736

  13,376

  Additional annual cost of moving from double tagging to electronic identification

  11,661

  11,950

  1 Includes £500 capital investment for hand held reader

  Waste Management
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the percentage was of collection of municipal(a) non-recyclable and (b) recyclable waste in the UK in the last 12 months. [127389]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department does not collect the information required to answer this question fully. However, results from the Department's Municipal Waste Management Survey for England show that 13 per cent. of Municipal Waste collected by local authorities was either recycled or composted in 2001–02.

  The Strategy Unit estimated in their report, "Waste Not, Want Not", that over 50 per cent. of household waste sent to landfill sites or incinerated in England could be diverted from incineration or landfill through home composting and recycling on the basis of current best practice.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many(a) on-farm drum incinerators, (b) on-farm carcase incinerators and (c) waste oil burners are in operation in England; and what the total capacity is in each case. [122755]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  It is not possible to provide the complete detailed breakdown requested.
  313W
  Neither the Department nor the Environment Agency holds definitive data with regard to on-farm drum incinerators. However it is estimated that approximately 27,000 drum incinerators are in use in England and Wales.

  A central register of operators indicates that as at 1 July 2003 there were 306 approved Specified Risk Material (SRM) incinerators in Great Britain. In addition, it is believed there are around 2,500 low capacity (less than 50kg/hour) non-SRM animal carcase incinerators mainly on pig and poultry farms in the UK.

  Burning waste oil as a fuel is permitted under an exemption under Part I of the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994. This exemption only applies when the total amount of waste oil burned does not exceed 2,500 litres an hour in any one engine. At the last count (Nov. 02) the Environment Agency had registered 36 such exemptions.

  Applications to operate other types or capacities of waste oil burners are regulated by Local Authorities at a local level and no central database exists. However,

  Operator

  Location

  Planning Status

  NEWLINCS Developments

  Grimsby

  Granted

  Onyx

  Portsmouth

  Granted after appeal

  Onyx

  Marchwood, Southampton

  Granted

  Surrey Waste Management

  Capel, Surrey

  Granted, but there has been a successful legal challenge

  Grundons

  Slough

  Granted

  Onyx

  Chinetham, Surrey

  Granted

  HLC Waste Management Services

  Neath, Port Talbot

  Granted

  Waste Recycling Group

  Hull

  Planning appeal turned down

  Kent Enviropower

  Maidstone,Kent

  Granted

  Riverside Resource Recovery

  Bexley. London

  Application submitted; public inquiry under way

  Shanks

  Milton Keynes

  Application submitted

  Onyx

  Sheffield

  Application approved

  Sita

  Ridham Dock, Kent

  Subject to a planning appeal

  County Environment Services

  Roche, Cornwall

  Application submitted

  314W
  according to the 2001–02 Local Air Pollution Control Survey it is believed there are over 1,100 small waste oil burners which operate with a maximum burning capacity of 0.4 megawatts to 3 megawatts net rated thermal input. However, the industry estimate is that the actual number of burners with this capacity may be as high as 10,000.

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the waste incinerators undergoing planning review. [128166]

  Mr. Morley
  Details of planning applications for proposed facilities which have yet to be determined by the respective local planning authorities are not held centrally. The table gives the number and status, as at 16 June 2003, of proposed new municipal waste incineration plants in England and Wales of which we are aware. The table contains information shared with the Environment Agency by prospective applicants for pollution control permits. There may also be other planning applications or amendments which have been submitted to local authorities over which the agency has not been consulted. The planning status may have been changed since the data were supplied.

DEFENCE

  Trident Programme
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon)
  The current estimate of the total acquisition cost of the Trident programme, with payments already made expressed at the prices and exchange rates actually incurred and future spend at the current financial year exchange rate (the hybrid) estimate, is now £9,803 million. Leaving aside the effects of price inflation and exchange rate variation (+£1 million), there has been a real cost increase of £2 million. Expenditure on the Trident acquisition programme to 30 September 2002 represented over 99 per cent. of the total estimate. If all expenditure, past and projected, is brought up to this current year's economic conditions (the non-hybrid estimate) the estimate is £14,913 million.

  The programme continues to show an overall reduction in real terms on its original 1982 estimate. This reduction, including the savings resulting from the decision to process missiles at the United States facility at Kings Bay, Georgia, now stands at over £3.6 billion at current prices.

  The proportion of the estimate for work undertaken in the United Kingdom continues to be around 70 per cent.

  Our four in-service Vanguard Class submarines are successfully maintaining continuous at-sea deterrence, with HMS Vanguard now undergoing a planned major overhaul.

  Estimate Table

  £million

  US

  UK

  TOTAL

  Hybrid

  Previous estimate (2002) at 2001–02 economic conditions (£1:$1.46)

  2,884

  6,916

  9,800

  Real changes

  0

  +2

  +2

  Price inflation on unspent balance

  0

  0

  0

  Exchange rate variation on unspent balance

  +1

  +1

  Revised estimate at 2002–03 economic conditions (£1:$1.39)

  2,885

  6,918

  9,803

  Non-hybrid,

  Previous estimate (2002) at 2001–02 economic conditions

  4,059

  10,318

  14,377

  Real changes

  0

  +2

  +2

  Price inflation

  +69

  +258

  +327

  Exchange rate variation

  +208

  +208

  Revised estimate at 2000–01 economic conditions (£1:$1.39)

  4,336

  10,578

  14,913

  Note:

  Figures rounded to nearest £ million hence any apparent imbalances.

  Iraq
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon)
  Real progress has been made in Iraq over the last few months. Coalition forces continue to support Iraqi leaders both nationally and at the local level. Political progress has been made, with the increasing effectiveness of the Iraqi Governing Council and the recent appointment of Iraqi departmental Ministers. We now seek to accelerate progress in other areas, including enhanced security across the country, and the reliable provision of basic utilities.

  In the light of the evolving security situation in Iraq and the increasing military tasks arising out of the reconstruction efforts in the south of the country, the UK Divisional Commander in theatre has been conducting a formal review of UK forces and resources in Iraq. While the full scale of the requirement, which will be largely driven by initiatives of the Coalition Provisional Authority and the Department for International Development (DFID) to accelerate reconstruction activities in Iraq, has yet to be fully developed, there is an immediate requirement for two battalions and some additional specialist personnel, vehicles and equipment to allow him to fulfil the expanding range of tasks for UK forces in Multinational Division (South East) (MND(SE)).

  Accordingly, we are deploying to Iraq the balance of 2nd Battalion The Light Infantry a company of which is already in theatre. This battalion will be involved in supporting current operations, and in offering additional protection to the Coalition Provisional Authority. They are currently based in Cyprus and were already identified as an "Over the Horizon Reserve" for Iraq. Their role in Cyprus will be filled by two batteries from 16 Regiment Royal Artillery.

  In addition, 1st Battalion The Royal Green Jackets (1 RGJ) will deploy to Iraq immediately supported by some specialist personnel and equipment. This deployment will enable MND(SE) to increase force protection, accelerate training of the Iraqi Civil Defence Corps and to improve our information gathering capability in MND(SE). 1 RGJ are currently designated the Spearhead Land Element, are already at high readiness, and are therefore the most appropriate unit to call upon. They will be replaced as Spearhead Land Element by 42 Commando Royal Marines.

  We plan to maintain the deployment of these units until around November, providing an interim additional capability to our commanders in theatre. Additional units would deploy to replace them in theatre if the requirement remained. We plan for some of the roles progressively to be conducted by Iraqi personnel.

  In addition to the requirements that we have already fully identified, we anticipate additional tasks in the near future which will require military resources, in particular the provision of military support to critical infrastructure work planned by CPA(S) and DFID. This work will deliver a more stable power supply, improve fuel availability and significantly improve the delivery of water services to all sectors of the population in the MND(SE) area. The military capabilities needed will be identified as the detail of the plan's

  3WS
  implementation takes shape. We will immediately take steps to identify and reduce notice to move for some additional headquarters and units, to allow further deployments as rapidly as possible in response to this accelerating programme of work.

  These measures will give extra capabilities to our commanders in theatre, allowing them to increase their proactive efforts to improve wider security across the region, and allowing them to support the essential reconstruction and regeneration efforts in their area of operations. The commitment of the United Kingdom and its Armed Forces to Iraq remains undeterred by recent events. We are determined to help the Iraqi people to forge a new, peaceful and secure future for themselves and we will meet this commitment with appropriate forces in Iraq for as long as required, and no longer.

TREASURY

  Double Taxation Convention (Australia)
  The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo)
  A new comprehensive Double Taxation Convention with Australia (which will replace the existing Agreement) was signed on 21 August 2003. After signature, the text of the Convention was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses and made available on the Inland Revenue's website. The text of the Convention has been scheduled to a draft Order in Council and is today being laid before the House of Commons.

  2001 Census: Key Statistics for Health Areas
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Healey)
  The report"Key Statistics for health areas in England and Wales", containing results from the 2001 Census, was laid before Parliament and published on 31 July 2003.

  This report contains results from the 2001 Census for the areas covered by the 26 Strategic Health Authorities, over 300 Primary Care Trusts in England and the 22 Local Health Boards in Wales. The tables present similar information to that previously published for local authorities on 13 February 2003 and for wards on 30 June 2003. The data are also available on the Neighbourhood Statistics section of the National Statistics website.

  Central Government Fees and Charges Recovery Policy
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng)
  The Treasury has reviewed the normal recovery policy for services where fees and charges are set by central government. The Treasury has concluded that the cost of capital rate in fees and charges where the norm is full cost recovery (and in appropriate exceptions from the norm) should be reduced from 6 to 3.5 per cent. in real terms (keeping parity with the reduction in the discount rate for appraisal and evaluation of projects in central government and with the cost of capital in government resource accounts and budgets). For commercial services where there is or may be private sector competition, and a profit may be appropriate in the interests of fair competition, the required rate of return of at least 8 per cent. in real terms has been 4WS
  replaced with an illustrative range starting with 5.5 per cent. Departments will need to make their own assessment of the appropriate rate of return for commercial services, but the rate is expected to fall in a range 5.5 per cent. to 15 per cent. in real terms (pre-tax), depending on factors such as the level of risk. In practice, the upper end of the range will rarely be used, as it is unusual for public sector bodies to engage in such high-risk activities.

  The revised policy applies to central government departments, including agencies and Trading Funds, NHS Trusts and other NHS bodies and appropriate non-departmental public bodies. It will be used in determining fees and charges in the next Fees Order to be presented, or the equivalent point for commercial or other charges. Where a consequent change in fees and charges is required, it should be effective no later than 1 April 2004. This timetable should allow for consultation about the new fee levels where the legislation or customary procedure provides for consultation. However, the words "used in determining fees and charges" have been used advisedly. Capital is often a relatively small factor in total costs and the effect may be rather to moderate the increase to statutory fees arising from changes to other costs rather than to reduce fees. There may also be services which are intended to recover full costs, but have not been achieving this objective and may therefore continue to experience increased fees and charges; or commercial services where the price charged in a competitive market may already be consistent with the revised policy and therefore require no reduction. The purpose of the revised policy is to put the cost of, and return on, capital on to a more current basis, not to make reductions in fees and charges unless they flow naturally from the revised policy (or unless there are other good reasons for a reduction such as a fall in other costs).

  As a consequence-of the revised policy on fees and charges, the financial objectives of Government Trading Funds (the required rates of return) will also be reviewed. They will be adjusted where necessary by laying a Treasury Minute under the Government Trading Funds Act 1973 before the House during the financial year 2003–04. Trading Funds undertake a wide range of charging activities—statutory, commercial, inter- departmental or a mix of those. The further financial objective will therefore need to be determined individually for each Fund.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Equality Commission for Northern Ireland
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Paul Murphy)
  Under s73(2) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, I have appointed nine new Commissioners to the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland. They are:

  Anne O'Reilly (Deputy Chief Commissioner) Annie Campbell

  Brian Carlin

  Eileen Evason

  Tom Haverty

  5WS

  Michael Rea

  Audrey Simpson

  Daphne Trimble

  Derick Wilson

  The appointments took effect from 2 August 2003 and last for three years.

  Maghaberry Prison
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Paul Murphy)
  On 5 August, we announced that there would be a short review in response to concerns expressed about the safety of prisoners and staff within Maghaberry Prison. The terms of reference for the review were as follows:To consider, in consultation with prison management, staff, their unions, prisoners and other interested groups and taking account of relevant practice in other jurisdictions, the options for improving conditions at Maghaberry Prison, particularly as they relate to safety, for all prisoners and staff, remembering the Prison Service's statutory obligations as set out at section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, and bearing in mind the lessons of the past and the new environment created by the Good Friday Agreement, and to make recommendations to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  We invited John Steele, a former head of the Northern Ireland Prison Service, to lead the review and he was assisted by Father Kevin Donaghy, a former chaplain at the Maze Prison, and Canon Barry Dodds, a former chaplain at the Crumlin Road Prison in Belfast.

  We are very grateful to John Steele, Fr Donaghy and Canon Dodds for conducting this review during the month of August and providing us with a number of timely and informative recommendations. The Government received the Steele Group's recommendations at the end of August and, having given them the most careful consideration, has decided to accept them in principle and has asked the Northern Ireland Prison Service to establish an additional regime for eligible paramilitary prisoners.

  It will take some time to develop and implement these recommendations: the review was designed to provide the Government with ideas on how the safety issue might be addressed rather than the precise working arrangements that would need to be put in place, and these will take some time to develop. We will take what immediate steps we can in the interim and it is expected that the new regime should be in place as quickly as possible.

  The key recommendation is that republican and loyalist paramilitary prisoners should be accommodated separately from each other and from the rest of the prison population. This is a significant change from the fully integrated prison regime that has been running at Maghaberry Prison for nearly 20 years. That regime has been successful for those who have chosen to make the most of the opportunities offered to them but, like any prison regime, it requires the co-operation of prisoners.

  The Government's decision is no reflection on the professionalism and dedication of Northern Ireland Prison Service staff in pursuing a normal integrated
  6WS
  regime. We still believe that integration is the safest regime for prisoners and staff when prisoners conform and co-operate. But we have to deal with the small minority of prisoners who have now refused that cooperation.

  In the face of that, the Government has a responsibility to respond to these changed circumstances. In order to help protect the safety of prisoners and staff working with them, a separate regime must be put in place for eligible paramilitary prisoners.

  This does not constitute a return to the conditions that existed at the Maze Prison; nor can we allow it to become a staging post on the road to Maze-style segregation. No one wants a return to the conditions that pertained at Maze where staff were threatened, intimidated and subjected to brutal attacks and where prisoners could threaten and intimidate other prisoners with impunity. Indeed, by far the majority of the most serious incidents that have taken place in Northern Ireland's prisons have happened under segregated conditions.

  The crucial difference between what John Steele has recommended and what happened at the Maze is that Prison Officers must remain in control and the Government will do all that it can to ensure that this is the case. As the review team recommended, the Northern Ireland Prison Service will draw up and publish a compact which will detail what the eligibility criteria will be, what type of regime separated prisoners can expect and what the Prison Service will expect in return.

  The success of the new arrangements will require the Prison Service management and staff to be given the wholehearted backing of the community and their representatives. The Government looks forward to them receiving that support for what we all recognise is a very difficult task.

  We intend that this arrangement should not be to the detriment of the remainder of the prison population. The Northern Ireland Prison Service has made major advances towards a 'normal' prison system since the closure of the Maze. The Government believes that the resettlement of prisoners and reducing the risk of their re-offending is what the community wants its Prison Service to do. The Government hopes that they continue to build on that progress and that the majority of prisoners, who I am sure will wish to continue under integrated conditions, will take advantage of the opportunities offered to them.

  The Steele Group also made a number of other recommendations, which the Northern Ireland Prison Service has started to address.

  On behalf of the Government, I would like to express our deepest gratitude for the work of the prisons staff and to commend them for the way in which they carry out their duties often under extremely demanding conditions, and in the face of serious provocation and intimidation. The new arrangements will throw up many challenges for staff, but we know there is a wealth of experience and commitment to be drawn upon in implementing these recommendations.

  A copy of the Steele Group's recommendations has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Forensic Science Service: Annual Report and Accounts 2002–03
  The Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing, and Community Safety (Ms Hazel Blears)
  I have today laid before Parliament copies of the Forensic Science Service's Annual Report and Accounts for 2002/2003.

  Performance against Agency targets 2002/2003
  The FSS met seven of its nine targets and put in a strong financial performance.

  Financial targets
  A 23.4 per cent. return on capital employed was produced against a minimum target of 10 per cent.
  A three-year rolling efficiency gain of 13.8 per cent. was achieved against a target of 10 per cent.

  Service Delivery
  A 74 day turnround time in 90 per cent. standard jobs (violent and volume crime cases) was achieved against a target of 70 days.
  Dispatch dates in 94 per cent. of urgent, 93 per cent. critical cases and 96 per cent. in persistent young offenders cases were met against targets of 98 per cent., 98 per cent. and 99 per cent. respectively.
  Dispatch dates in 93 per cent. of all categories of cases were met against a target of 93 per cent.
  An 11 per cent. increase on baseline in a transactional index of customer perception was achieved against a target of five per cent.
  Service level agreements were put in place with 98 per cent. of police forces against a target of 92 per cent.
  Application for 100 per cent. of Reporting Officers for accreditation to the Council for the Registration of Forensic Practitioners, where appropriate, was achieved against a target of 100 per cent.
  External quality accreditation to ISO standards was maintained.

  The main targets for 2003–04, the agency's fifth year of trading fund, are as follows. The targets are set out in full in Annex A.

  Finance
  Target: a minimum of 15 per cent. return on capital employed (three year rolling average)
  Target: a real reduction in charges by limiting price increases to 75 per cent. of the Average Earnings Index.
  Target: an increase in investment in development to 12 per cent. of turnover
  Target: generate £1 million external funding for research and development

  Non-Finance
  Target: 14 day average to inform customers of DNA crime scene stain result.
  Target: six day average to inform customers of DNA suspect sample result.
  Target: turnaround time for 95 per cent. of jobs to be 42 days by year end
  Target: maintain ISO accreditation.
  Target: maintain Investors in People accreditation.
  Target: introduce new diversity programme.

  Annex A
  The Forensic Science Service Agency targets for 2003/2004
  Finance:
  Target: a minimum of 15 per cent. return on capital employed (three year rolling average)
  Target: a real reduction in charges by limiting price increases to 75 per cent. of the Average Earnings Index.
  Target: an increase in investment in development to 12 per cent. of turnover.
  Target: generate £1 million external funding for research and development.
  Non-Finance:
  Target: establish an internal FSS end to end case ownership process.
  Target: to have processes in place with 25 per cent. of police forces within six months and 60 per cent. by year end that agree new definitions of timeliness based on investigative and evidential contributions of forensic science.
  Target: set up a pilot with customer to get agreement to devise a new process of end to end case ownership.
  Target: sign up 60 per cent. of customers (Police and CPS) at force level to service agreements (timeliness and charging) in context of National Protocol.
  Target: to have a process in place for 25 per cent. in six months and 60 per cent. by year end of cases to have a dedicated FSS case officer.
  Target: develop training packages to support New Ways of Working by the year end.
  Target: to engage training organisations to roll out training for Police and CPS.
  Target: to design and develop a link between the National DNA Database and The National Automated Fingerprint Identification System (NAFIS).
  Target: develop capability and capacity to deliver fast track processing of DNA samples within 48 hours.
  Target: average time to analyse and inform customers of DNA crime scene stain results (normal track) of 14 days.
  Target: 95 per cent. of DNA crime scene stain results to have a turnround time of 20 days
  Target: average time to analyse and inform customers of DNA suspect sample results on The National DNA Database (normal track cases) of six days.
  Target: 95 per cent. of DNA suspect sample results to have a turnround time of ten days
  Target: increase forensic effectiveness by developing an index and benchmark with Police Standards Unit (PSU).
  Target: turnround time for 95 per cent. of jobs to be 42 days by year end
  Target: maintain ISO accreditation
  Target: maintain Investors in People accreditation Target: establish and implement a Diversity programme Target: maintain Investors in People accreditation. Target: introduce new diversity programme.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Regional Development Agencies
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt)
  As part of a rolling programme of appointments, I have decided to appoint new Chairs to three of the Regional Development Agency boards
  9WS
  outside London; the Mayor of London makes appointments to the LDA. The new Chair for EEDA will be Richard Ellis; for One NorthEast, Margaret Fay; and for Yorkshire Forward, Terry Hodgkinson.

  The appointments will begin on the 14 December 2003 and are for three years, expiring on 13 December 2006. The rolling programme enables the boards to be refreshed and bring new talent and ideas to the boards on a regular basis. I have placed further details of the new appointees in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Decisions on the appointments have been made following open competition and consultation with key national and regional players.

  Power Cuts (London/Kent)
  The Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services (Mr. Stephen Timms)
  Her Majesty's Government have noted with concern the problems that have recently occurred on the National Grid. I would like to inform the House of the events of Thursday 28th August, when power was temporarily lost to an area of South East London and Kent, and of a further loss of power on Friday 5 September in the Birmingham area, and on the actions taken since.

  In the early evening, on 28 August, electricity supply was lost to some 410,000 customers in South London and parts of Kent. Power was restored to the transmission system within 30 minutes and within another 11 minutes the local distribution system was re-energised and normal power was restored in all areas.

  However, the consequences of the power failure were serious. There was disruption to surface rail, underground, street lights and traffic systems, water supply and sewerage systems as well as to electricity users in homes and workplaces. While London's critical infrastructure does have back-up arrangements, there was significant disruption, especially to the transport service. I understand that all of the back-up plans are under review by those agencies involved in the light of the difficulties caused to passengers after the power cut.

  On 29 August I wrote to National Grid Transco (NOT) registering my grave concern about the power disruption and asking them to provide me with a full report explaining why it happened; what actions were taken; what the risks were of a similar action occurring in the future and what measures they would undertake to prevent a recurrence. On the 29 August I also met with the Chief Executive of NGT. My officials have been in close contact with NGT and EDF throughout. I expect a full report from NGT later this week, which I will place in the Libraries of the House.

  My officials in the Engineering Inspectorate will need to consider the report carefully, liaising with the companies concerned. Ofgem will do likewise and will be reporting by the end of September on their initial assessment and will be considering the incident in light of National Grid's obligations. It may therefore be a number of weeks before we have a full understanding of the events. The DTI Engineering inspectorate has power to mount a full investigation and make recommendations should that be required.
  10WS
  Initial reports from NGT indicate that the power cut was a result of a transformer fault followed by another fault on a high voltage cable. As a result, electricity supplies could no longer be maintained to the affected areas and a power blackout ensued. EDF (the local distribution company in the area) was also affected, losing power to parts of its network.

  It has been suggested that a lack of investment caused the problem. The Chief Executive of National Grid Transco told my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and myself, in a letter of 29 August, that this event "cannot be attributed to under-investment or to resource issues on the network". This issue will of course be considered further.

  There has also been speculation that the fault was related to a shortage of generating capacity. However there was no shortage of generating capacity at the time, and the transmission system in the area would normally have been adequate to carry the electricity flow required. On present evidence it appears that the problem was solely a transmission failure.

  I am very concerned that between 10.10 and 10.52 on 5 September another power failure should have occurred in the Midlands, this time affecting some 200,000 consumers. Again although I understand power was quickly restored, this second incident does raise questions about the reliability of the Transmission network that I am pursing as a matter of urgency with NGT.

  Of course risks to complex systems such as the supply of energy cannot be completely eliminated, but I am determined to use this experience so that together with other Government agencies, the Regulator and the companies involved, we can help minimise and where necessary, manage them. The Secretary of State and I are determined to ensure that the necessary lessons are learnt.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  UN Convention Against Torture
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell)
  I am pleased to be able to announce that, today, the UK has taken a significant step towards ratification of the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT). I am today laying before Parliament an Explanatory Memorandum, which explains how the UK meets the provisions of the Protocol.

  We hope that the ratification process can be completed with the United Nations by the end of this year. This will make the UK one of the very first UN member states to have ratified the Optional Protocol. We signed the Protocol on 26 June, becoming one of only six countries worldwide to have done so.

  The UK is committed to the fight against torture. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office's Anti Torture Initiative, launched in 1998, continues to provide a focus for us on this issue. The follow-up to our ratification of the OPCAT will be an important part of the current

  11WS
  phase of the Initiative. We will undertake a lobbying campaign urging other countries to sign, ratify and implement both the Convention Against Torture and the Optional Protocol.

  Wilton Park: Annual Report and Accounts 2002–03
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Chris Mullin)
  Wilton Park is an academically independent Executive Agency of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Its Annual Report and Accounts for 2002–03 were laid before the House on 17 July 2003.

  Wilton Park's performance against agreed targets for the FY 2002–03, which work from framework targets for cost recovery, quality of conference programmes and standards of service, and the targets for the current year are shwon in the table.

  2002–03 Target

  2002–03 Performance

  2003–04 Target

  Total Income

  £3,314,000

  £3,591,000

  £3,372,000

  Excellent rating for programmes

  56.7

  57

  57

  Excellent rating for administration

  89

  87.4

  89

  Iraq: The Foreign Secretary's Letter to the Rt. Hon. Michael Ancram QC MP, 16 July 2003
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw)
  "Dear Michael,
  In our exchange on the floor of the House on 8 July I undertook to write to you to let you know when I first knew that the February briefing paper drew on the work of Dr Al-Marashi.
  The first I knew of this was after the story was made public by Channel 4 on 6 February. This was after Colin Powell had spoken to the UN Security Council (5 February), and the Prime Minister's remarks to the House (3 February).
  I am placing a copy of this in the Library, and in Hansard via a Written Ministerial Statement.
  Yours ever,
  Jack Straw"

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Liberia (Humanitarian Situation)
  The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Hilary Benn)
  Following the most recent fighting in Liberia, between 200,000–300,000 people had to leave their homes and seek shelter in over 100 different locations in Monrovia. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and a small 12WS
  number of NGOs have provided emergency humanitarian assistance throughout the crisis under extreme conditions, and in the last few weeks, the UN and additional NGOs have re-entered Liberia to increase the humanitarian effort. Malnutrition remains a major concern particularly amongst vulnerable groups, and safe drinking water as well as sanitation and basic hygiene remain critical issues, especially in the areas where refugees have moved to. Security remains a major concern for operational humanitarian agencies. Whilst the deployment of ECOWAS (ECOMIL) has stabilised a secure zone in and around central Monrovia, access is still very limited outside the city. Agencies are operating on the basis of ad-hoc negotiated access to rebel-controlled areas. In such difficult circumstances, it is crucial that the UN takes a strong lead in humanitarian co-ordination. After a difficult beginning, the agencies have reported that coordination with the UN has now dramatically improved.

  On August 21 DFID committed an additional £4.7 million to support humanitarian needs in Liberia. The funds are being allocated to UN agencies, NGOs and the ICRC to provide an immediate response, This brings the UK's total humanitarian assistance to Liberia to £7.6 million this year. Our approach is to strengthen the UN system to take on a lead role in co-ordination and delivery of assistance, to support NGOs and the Red Cross in provision of immediate relief, and to ensure collaboration between the major donors in planning and monitoring of assistance. Last month we hosted a meeting of NGOs working in Liberia, or planning to do so, to discuss the situation and identify what help is needed on the ground. We have invited NGOs to put proposals to us and we have just agreed to fund a supplementary feeding programme for all refugee children under the age of five in Monrovia. Our strategy has been developed with advice from an assessment team who are currently based in Monrovia. This team will remain in the region to assess the evolving humanitarian situation in Liberia, and monitor DFID-funded operations.

  The UK is committed to working closely with the international community to ensure that ECOMIL, and the UN Mission planned for Liberia, are successful in restoring peace and security. We have contributed £1m to ECOMIL and have seconded a military adviser to ECOWAS. We have also offered military advisors to the UN planning mission and headquarters. The UK is also working in the UN Security Council to ensure that the forthcoming Resolution authorises the deployment of a UN mission with a strong mandate to: restore and maintain security; establish peace-building initiatives; and provide the conditions to allow the Transitional Government to operate effectively and work towards holding free and fair elections. We are monitoring developments in the region closely to ensure that ex-combatants do not cause problems in neighbouring countries. A regional approach to Disarmament, Demobilisation and Reintegration (DDR) will be important if the region is to eliminate the guns for hire culture that has developed. We are discussing options for DDR with the UN, ECOWAS and other interested parties, and are considering how we can best support this process.

HEALTH

  Contingencies Fund
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. Stephen Ladyman)
  The Department of Health is to meet an urgent cash requirement for new services from the Contingencies Fund. Parliamentary approval for additional resources of £22 million for the set-up of these new services will be sought in a Supplementary Estimate for the Department. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £11.3 million will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.

  The expenditure is required to ensure the set-up of two new bodies detailed in the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill currently before Parliament. The Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection [CHAI] and the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) are planned to come into effect on 1 April 2004, subject to the successful passage of the Bill. This date is key for delivering operational effectiveness gains (including retention of valuable professional expertise and the goodwill of existing inspectors and staff) which would otherwise be lost or significantly delayed.

  CHAI will take over the work of the Commission for Health Improvement (CHI), the Mental Health Act Commission (MHAC), the national NHS value for money work of the Audit Commission and the independent healthcare work of the National Care Standards Commission (NCSC). CSCI will take on the social care services work of NCSC, the work of the Social Services Inspectorate (SSI) and the Joint Review team of the SSI/Audit Commission. SSI is currently a part of the Department of Health. The speedy integration of these constituent bodies will provide a
  14WS
  strengthened inspection and audit function and thus improvements in the commissioning and delivery of health and social services.

  The Contingencies Fund allows for cash advances to departments for expenditure on urgent services in anticipation of parliamentary approval.

  National Care Standards Commission: Annual Report
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. Stephen Ladyman)
  The National Care Standards Commission (NCSC) was established under the Care Standards Act 2000 as part of the Government's reforms to modernise the regulatory system for care services and independent healthcare. Its main aim is to drive up the quality of services and improve the level of protection for vulnerable people by the regulation of social care and independent health care services. It carries out regular inspections of services against national minimum standards set by the Secretary of State and has strong powers of enforcement to ensure that services meet the required standards. The NCSC is an independent, non-departmental public body, with its own chair, chief executive, board and inspection staff.

  The NCSC's management statement sets out that, at the end of each financial year, the Commission shall publish an annual report, together with its audited annual accounts. The reports and accounts should outline the NCSC's main activities and performance during the previous financial year and set out a summary of its forward plans. The management statement also sets out that the report and accounts will be laid before Parliament.

  The NCSC has just come to the end of its first year of operation. This will therefore be its first annual report.

  Copies of the NCSC's annual report for 2002–03 have been placed in the Library.

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

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, before business begins, may I take the opportunity to inform the House that I will be undertaking a ministerial visit to Coventry on Tuesday, 9th September? Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.

House of Lords: Members' Interests
2.37 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannochasked the Leader of the House:
Whether, in the light of current practice concerning declarations of interest, any noble Lord who has been, or is, in receipt of any emolument or pension from the European Union or from any organisation funded by the European Union should declare it when speaking in debate involving the United Kingdom's relationship with the European Union.
The Lord President of the Council (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, Members must declare any interest which is relevant to the matter under discussion. The test of relevance is whether it might reasonably be thought by the public to affect the way in which Members discharge their parliamentary duties. It is for each Member to decide what to declare.
2
The Committee for Privileges is due to set up a review of the code this autumn, and any noble Lord can submit appropriate suggestions to that review.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am grateful for that helpful reply from the noble and learned Lord. But is he aware that EU Commissioners and staff are bound to owe allegiance solely to the EU, ignoring the interests of their country; and that they may lose their pension if they let the side down, even after they have retired? Furthermore, does the noble and learned Lord agree that, if a noble Lord is employed by or gets a pension from, say, an insurance company and we were debating the City of London, he would have to declare that interest? What is the difference between that situation and the one referred to on the Order Paper?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I was not aware of the particular relationship between former employees of the European Union or any of its institutions, because I have never been in that blest capacity. I think the answer to the noble Lord's concerns is to be found in that admirable code which your Lordships approved so recently by an overwhelming majority of three. If the noble Lord is in any doubt at all, he can go and talk to the registrar informally and have guidance. I really do think that that is the best way to proceed rather than laying down overly prescriptive rules.
Lord Richard: My Lords, having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, for some years now, I do not think that I have ever heard such a load of nonsense from his lips as I just did. The idea that there is some residual allegiance in me to the Commission as opposed to doing my job here in this House is, frankly, absolute nonsense. I shall say only one thing in relation to the Question as opposed to the nonsense from the noble Lord. Presumably if this applies to the Commissioners, it will apply to everyone else. Everyone in this House, therefore, will have to declare whether they have a pension and, if so, what is

3
the basis of that pension; and indeed whether they still owe allegiance to the body paying the pension. That would be a very interesting development.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, sometimes the noble Lord does talk a lot of Rannochs.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, I declare an interest as the recipient of an insurance company pension. Does the noble and learned Lord accept that, by definition, by the time one becomes a pensioner, the amount of influence that one can exert on those paying the pension is nil minus?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, speaking as a prudent investor in Equitable Life, I am only too aware of that.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that the Bruges Group pamphlet from which the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, has drawn much of his evidence, describes the European Union as an alien power and those who receive emoluments from it in this country as an intellectual fifth column? Is he aware that the Bruges Group pamphlet identifies the focus for this intellectual fifth column as being partly placed in the London School of Economics and partly in Manchester University?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, so, plainly, it is all true.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I was not sure that I heard an answer from the noble and learned Lord to his noble friend Lord Richard—perhaps because I am not sure that the noble Lord phrased a question. Could I phrase a further question to the noble and learned Lord following on from the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Richard? Would it not be a good idea for the Government and those involved in the declarations of interest in this House to read the staff regulations of the European Union: Title II, Articles 11, 12 and 16; and in Title VI, which refers to disciplinary measures, Article 86.1 and 86.2, and particularly paragraph (g), which confirms exactly what I have said about letting the side down and losing your pension?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am not sure that the noble Lord has asked me a question, but he has certainly illuminated matters satisfactorily.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, as someone who has a pension from the EU, perhaps I may say that the supplementary question was even worse than the original.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, perhaps we have all had too short a holiday.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree with the noble Lord,
4
Lord Richard, that the basic thrust of the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, is that he wishes all Members of this House in receipt of pensions to declare them, no matter where they are from—and there are many Members in receipt of pensions, and many of them are no doubt from Her Majesty's Government? To what purpose? Would the noble and learned Lord see any purpose whatever in that, or any distinction between that situation and the pensions from the European Union?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord has a good point. With the code we were looking to get a proportionate response to perceived malpractices, or to conceivable malpractices. By and large, we achieved that with a light touch. That is not to prevent anyone setting up Aunt Sallies and then knocking them down, but the code of conduct has little to do with whether one supports the Bruges Group on the one hand or such an institution as the London School of Economics on the other.

NHS Dental Treatment
2.44 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkesasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the availability of National Health Service dental treatment satisfies the needs of patients.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner): My Lords, no. That is why, a year ago, the Government published the report of the Options for Change working group, representing all stakeholders, including the British Dental Association and patients' groups. The proposals will be implemented through the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill that we will debate later today. The changes will enable primary care trusts to commission the NHS dental services that their communities need and provide incentives for dentists to offer dentistry to NHS patients.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I wish the Minister a happy birthday. I am sorry that I have to be so nasty on his birthday, but is it not time that the Government stopped talking about dentistry and did something about it? Here is yet another paper and yet another consultation, but I have been asking questions about this matter since we got a Labour government in 1997 and, indeed, long before that. Going back to 1997, we have heard constant promises that dentistry is going to improve, yet we have seen a situation in Wales where 600 people have been queuing because a dentist is prepared to accept national health patients. Really, yet another paper is not good enough or soon enough.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her good wishes. I can think of no better way of spending my birthday than in the company of your Lordships.

5
On the subject of whether things have got better or worse, I should point out to the noble Baroness that the number of dentists working in general dental services increased by 30th September 2002 to 18,400, compared with 16,700 in 1997. The action that we are taking in the Bill will totally reconstruct the remuneration arrangements for dentists, which are fully supported by the British Dental Association. We are taking positive steps by moving the Bill in your Lordships' House today.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I add to the good wishes expressed by the noble Baroness, and hope that the Minister will find time for some celebration today, despite the Second Reading of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill.
Many dentists are concerned about the proposals in the Bill to transfer responsibility for dentistry to primary care trusts, on the basis that the funding of dentistry will be much more uncertain, and there is no duty on primary care trusts to ensure universal access to NHS dentistry. How do the Government therefore propose to prevent a continual movement of dentists into the private sector?
Lord Warner: My Lords, we have already taken some initiatives with personal dental services pilots, which now provide about 2 per cent of NHS dentistry and cover nearly 1,000 dentists, who are providing on a salaried basis to patients. The proposals in the Bill are warmly welcomed by the British Dental Association, and we will transfer to the base budgets of primary care trusts the £1.2 billion of financial resources currently held centrally for primary dental services.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, has there been an increase in hygienists since 1997?
Lord Warner: Yes, my Lords, there has.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, my noble friend has just given the House some interesting information—that there has been a dramatic increase in the number of dentists available since 1997. If that is the case, why is there a crisis in some parts of the country, such as Cumbria?
Lord Warner: My Lords, the answer to my noble friend is that not all dentists are spending all their time on NHS treatment. Part of the problem with the present remuneration system, which as I recall ran pretty well unchanged under the previous Conservative government, is that the money follows the dentists wherever they happen to locate themselves. That is what we are changing in the Bill that we will be debating today.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, is there any plan for dentists to be able to call themselves "doctor", even if they do not have a doctorate, as is the case with general practitioners?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I am not aware of any plans being cooked up in Richmond House.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, given the shortage of dentists working in the NHS and the knowledge that it is the younger dentists who lend to work in the NHS, are the Government taking any measures to avoid penalising those dental schools that find themselves over-supplied with people for the first year as a result of the high level of achievement at A-levels, where all the students have achieved the entry requirements?
Lord Warner: My Lords, a working group is considering the whole issue of workforce planning, and we shall make its report available in the not-too-distant future. That may be one of the issues that the group considers but, if not, I shall check and write to the noble Baroness.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, would the Minister agree that the provision of dental services is very much dependent on those who serve? When is the English workforce review, which was promised and announced by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in 2001, likely to be finalised and reported?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I am advised that it will be published before the end of this year.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, has my noble friend recently tried to find a National Health Service dentist?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I have been so well looked after by dentists in the past that I have actually had no need for dental treatment.
Earl Howe: My Lords, may I add my good wishes to the noble Lord alongside those of other Members of the House? Some four years ago, the Prime Minister, in his party conference speech, said that everyone would be able to see an NHS dentist within two years. Can the Minister say what percentage of adults in England and Wales are now registered with an NHS dentist?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I cannot give an exact figure, but I think that it is worth recalling that the Prime Minister's pledge has led to many of the current reforms which we will be debating further in the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill. However, our report suggests that about 90 per cent of the callers to NHS Direct are being advised of available sources of NHS dentistry within locally agreed standards and that about 16,000 people a month are taking up that advice and getting an NHS dentist.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, can the Minister assure us that as the availability of dentists in the local NHS improves, older people and those who wear dentures will not be excluded? As people get older their

7
jaws change and their need for dentists is just as great as when they were young. However, as they get older it is increasingly difficult to find someone who will look after them.
Lord Warner: My Lords, the changes which are being introduced will enable primary care trusts to organise and fund the dental services that their localities need. So if there is a very large number of elderly people, they will be able to put in place a suitable NHS dental service.

Motorsport
2.51 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest as president of the Motorsport Industry Association.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what support they plan to provide to secure world-class motorsport events in the United Kingdom, including the British Grand Prix and the World Rally in Wales.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey): My Lords, the Government are working with motorsport to secure major international events for the United Kingdom. The East Midlands Development Agency is working with Formula 1 management, Octagon and the British Racing Drivers' Club with a view to guaranteeing the long-term future of the British Grand Prix. The Welsh Assembly and Development Agency have successfully worked with the rallying sector to secure the Wales leg of the World Rally GP for at least the next three years.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that relatively positive response. However, Canada has just lost its Grand Prix. Ours could go the same way, with disastrous consequences for our very successful motorsport industry. Can the Minister assure the House this afternoon that urgent action will be taken to secure the British Grand Prix?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Astor, is asking me about action that will be taken, but action has been taken. As he will know, after his Unstarred Question last October, we set up a motorsport competitiveness panel which has brought together all of those interested in motorsport. The panel reported in July and its report was well received. The Department of Trade and Industry has provided funding for a motorsport development board, and of course the retention of the Grand Prix is one of its objectives.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that as important as motorsport is to those who follow motorsport activities, the Government recognise that the research and development undertaken by the industry, particularly in engine technology, is applicable also to the mass motor car industry, and therefore helps to underpin that vital part of our manufacturing base?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords, that is certainly true—it is, again, one of the conclusions from the motorsport competitiveness panel. The question of favourable tax treatment for research and development in the motorsport industry is one of the matters on which the competitiveness panel reported and about which the development board will be making recommendations to the Treasury.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, can the noble Lord help the House by telling us to what extent this very successful automotive sport contributes to employment and the economy in this country?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I think that every speaker in the dinner-hour debate last October gave the figures: about £3.5 billion and—although it is quite difficult to calculate—50,000 jobs. Although the figures have undoubtedly changed since then, the sport is clearly of great importance to our economy, which is why the Department of Trade and Industry has taken such positive and widely welcomed action.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, just to be clear, are the Government prepared to step in directly with funding to safeguard the 850-acre Silverstone site?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government have stepped in directly with funding. The Government put an extra £8 million into the A43 bypass specifically for that purpose, and of course the total funding for that is £28 million. If the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, is asking about the infrastructure of Silverstone itself, then I would say that certainly there are issues about the quality of the pit stops and spectator and entertainment facilities there. However, the motorsport industry is not poor. I cannot say that it would be right for Sport England nationally to contribute to that.

Business
2.56 p.m.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I have two brief statements about business. First, with the leave of the House, after the three opening speeches in the debate on the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill, my noble friend Lady Ashton of Upholland will repeat a Statement on the children's Green Paper. Secondly, following that, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lady Symons will repeat a Statement on Iraq and Israel/Palestine.

9
May I say a very few words about the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill timings? As the House has already heard, there will be two important Statements today. I am always mindful of the advice which I receive from all quarters of the House on trying to finish at around the advisory time of 10 o'clock. I simply say that should the Back-Bench contributions to that Bill he restricted to about eight minutes, we would finish by 10 o'clock. If they were restricted to around 10 minutes, it would be around 11 o'clock.

Business

  Northern Ireland (Monitoring Commission etc.) Bill [H.L.]
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision in connection with the establishment under international law of an independent commission with monitoring functions in relation to Northern Ireland, to make further provision about exclusion from ministerial office in Northern Ireland, to make provision about reduction of remuneration of Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, to make provision about reduction of financial assistance under the Financial Assistance for Political Parties Act (Northern Ireland) 2000, to make provision about censure resolutions of the Northern Ireland Assembly and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
  On Question, Bill read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

  Civil Contingencies
  The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
  Moved, That the Earl of Shrewsbury be appointed a member of the Joint Committee on the draft Civil Contingencies Bill in the place of the Lord Marlesford.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
  On Question. Motion agreed to.

Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill
2.58 p.m.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
We are today debating a Bill that represents another step along the path of adapting our National Health Service to the needs of the patients of today. For too long our NHS was neglected, but now it is getting the investment it needs and its hardworking staff are receiving the support they require. In 2002–03, NHS spending was about £55 billion—a 7.1 per cent increase in real terms over the previous year. That
10
increased spending is going to be continued because the 2002 Budget provided for the largest-ever sustained increase in NHS funding.
Patients are now beginning to see the results of this investment. More doctors and nurses are being recruited and trained. Compared with 2001, by 2008 there will be 15,000 more consultants and GPs, 35,000 more nurses, midwives and health visitors and 30,000 more therapists and scientists. New equipment and facilities are coming on stream—100 new hospitals by 2010; 7,000 extra beds by 2004; up to 3,000 GP premises improved or replaced; and 500 one-stop centres established by 2004. All this means improved access and quality of services for patients, with better clinical services and care and more choice. Waiting times are falling. Death rates from cancer and heart disease are decreasing. Neglected areas such as mental health are beginning to receive the attention they deserve. For elderly people, support at home and stroke and fall services are improving.
But it is essential for patients that these large increases in investment must be accompanied by reforms which can help the NHS to use its resources more effectively and efficiently and which can improve services for patients. Our NHS must become even more patient-centred with more individualised care and more choice. Decision-making must be devolved from the centre to local areas so that the NHS can respond better to the specific needs of local communities. Pay arrangements must become more responsive to local circumstances so the NHS can recruit and retain the staff it needs. But all of this has to be achieved within a national framework that retains the core values of the NHS, especially the overriding principle of care being provided free at the point of need; and we need robust national standards that are rigorously monitored independently.
The health and social care Bill will provide the reform needed to go with the additional investment. I should now like to outline how the main parts of the Bill will achieve this.
Part 1 of the Bill provides for a new type of NHS organisation suitable for today's needs: the NHS foundation trust, to give it its full and proper name. The philosophy behind these trusts is consistent with the Government's approach to public service reform: high standards and clear accountability; devolution of responsibility; more flexibility for front-line workers and choice and diversity of provision for patients.
In response to some of the concerns expressed, I should like to make five key points about this new type of trust. First, real improvements can be accomplished only if the NHS both increases capacity and increases the choice and diversity offered to patients. Capacity and choice are not alternatives—they are partners. The new trusts will increase the range of provision within the NHS. Working within NHS national standards they will enable local hospitals to be run to meet local needs.
Secondly, NHS foundation trusts will treat patients entirely within the principles which underpin the NHS—that healthcare should be provided equally to

11
those who need it, free at the point of need. They are not a back door to privatisation and they will be legally required to use their assets for the benefit of the NHS and to co-operate fully with other parts of the NHS.
Thirdly, we recognise that the NHS should become a more personal health service where meeting the needs of individual patients is the first priority for clinicians, managers and commissioners alike. The principle of the NHS is defined around the needs of the patients, not the needs of the providers. Staff working in the new trusts will have more flexibility to meet the needs of local people because they will have more operational and financial freedoms.
Fourthly, patients will have for the first time a way to direct and shape the organisations and really to influence how they are run. Together with local management flexibility, this will mean that local decisions can be taken which will be more responsive to the needs of local patients without the need to refer up the management chain for approval. For example, the University Hospital Birmingham NHS Trust will shortly open two new day-case wards. The process of getting approval from various tiers of management took 18 months—well over a year. In contrast, the actual building work will take only a few months. For an NHS foundation trust, the whole process could be much quicker. By the time 18 months were up, the wards would have been operational for several months and patients would have reaped the benefits.
My last point is fairness and equity, which were meant to be enduring qualities of the NHS. But while the NHS has aimed to provide a universal service by removing the barrier of cost to the patient, it does not guarantee true equality of access to healthcare. The more personalised health service we want is related to the simple fact that, for all its benefits, the NHS has not as yet fully succeeded in providing equality of access to healthcare. By empowering individual NHS trusts to run services in response to local demand and need, it becomes possible for all to have high standards of access to services wherever they are. This is critical in tackling the health inequalities which permeate many of our most deprived areas.
Part 1 of the Bill will, therefore, establish NHS foundation trusts as a new type of NHS organisation, based on a new corporate form—the public benefit corporation. This will provide local ownership and greater involvement of local communities in NHS trusts by allowing local people, patients, carers and staff to become members of their local NHS foundation trust.
The new trusts will be different from existing NHS trusts in three important ways. First, they will have new freedom to decide locally how to meet their obligations. Secondly, they will be accountable to local people, who will become members and governors; and, thirdly, they will be authorised and monitored by an independent regulator.
The primary purpose of the new trusts will be to provide NHS services to NHS patients and this will be set out in their terms of authorisation which will be
12
issued by the independent regulator, who will be accountable to Parliament. NHS foundation trusts will be prevented selling off or mortgaging NHS property and resources needed to provide key NHS services.
NHS foundation trusts will remain fully part of the NHS and like other NHS organisations, they will be required to improve quality of healthcare taking account of national standards for NHS services; they will deliver NHS services to NHS patients free at the point of use; they will treat patients according to need, not ability to pay; and they will be under a duty to work in co-operation with other health and social care partners. The myth being fostered by some that this change is all about competition, is just that, a myth.
NHS foundation trust status will open the way to significant new freedoms as the new trusts will have the flexibility to implement new governance structures. These will be tailored to the individual circumstances of each trust so that it is able to respond much better to local needs. They will have the freedom to recruit and employ their own staff, with flexibility to offer new rewards and incentives that will assist recruitment and retention.
The key difference between NHS foundation trusts and other types of trust is that although both will be required to meet national standards, the new trusts will be free to decide how they achieve them. This will enable them to achieve national standards in ways which best suit their particular local circumstances and requirements.
Unlike NHS trusts now, which have access to public capital via the Department of Health and their strategic health authorities, NHS foundation trusts will access their capital requirements through loans which they will be expected to repay. All NHS foundation trust borrowing will be governed by a new prudential borrowing code which will limit the amount each trust can borrow and link it to their ability to service the resulting debt. So the trusts will have the opportunity to access capital both from the public and private sectors and use a wider range of financing options than are currently available to NHS trusts. This access to capital will allow the new trusts to implement capital schemes that will be locally and directly targeted to improving the patient experience.
The public will have true social ownership of their local hospital, with accountability devolved from Whitehall to the local community. They will have a say in how that hospital is run. Local people will have the opportunity to become involved in the running of their NHS foundation trust, with rights to elect or become governors.
NHS commissioners will be represented on NHS foundation trust boards of governors, giving primary care trusts a way to influence the organisation. NHS foundation trusts will be able to extend the benefits of greater freedom and flexibility to others in the local health community. This may include entering into partnerships with primary care trusts to develop specific services, such as promoting the development of local primary care services. Again, the accusation of increasing competition is untrue.

13
Staff will have new opportunities to develop locally based services. They will be free to deliver the healthcare that is most appropriate to their local circumstances without Whitehall interference or bureaucracy. Staff will have rights to be represented and have their say in how the hospital is run, and to elect and stand for election to the board of governors.
The Government have listened carefully to concerns about the change in direction, and have responded to them. We have ensured that all NHS trusts will have the opportunity to become NHS foundation trusts within a reasonable period of time to avoid anxieties about the NHS in England becoming a two-tier service. NHS foundation trusts will be subject to a cap on the income that they receive from private patients, so that NHS patients will always be their principal concern. NHS foundation trust applicants will be among the first to implement the new national pay arrangements for the NHS. The Secretary of State will not support applications from trusts that do not agree to implement Agenda for Change.
After thorough scrutiny of the provisions on NHS foundation trusts in another place, the Government have put forward or accepted amendments to the Bill aimed at strengthening the constitutional and governance arrangements. I believe that we have now struck the right balance between ensuring accountability and genuine local representation, while leaving the new trusts free to tailor arrangements to their own local circumstances. For example, there are now requirements to ensure that the public membership of an NHS foundation trust is representative of the local community, that local authorities are represented on the board of governors, and that foundation trusts make explicit provision to deal with conflicts of interest for directors. The independence and accountability of the regulator have been strengthened to make him or her directly accountable to Parliament.
Further amendments have clarified the position that patients from Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland referred to NHS foundation trusts in England can continue to be treated as now. Particular concern was expressed in another place that patients resident in Wales might be excluded or disadvantaged by English NHS foundation trusts in, for example, border areas. I assure noble Lords that there is no need for further concern on that.
The audit arrangements for NHS trusts were strengthened by introducing a new schedule on audit and giving the independent regulator the power to set standards, techniques and principles with which NHS foundation trust auditors must comply, in order to toughen the arrangements for financial probity and accountability.
I hope that your Lordships agree that those changes substantially improve Part 1, but no doubt we will discuss the NHS foundation trust provisions in more detail at a later stage.
Alongside our devolution of autonomy and resources to a local level, we need a stronger mechanism to ensure that national standards of care
14
are met and maintained across the country. That mechanism has to drive out poor performance, improve further quality of care and continue to raise health and social care standards.
The Government have agreed to take further steps to address Professor Sir Ian Kennedy's concern that there was potential for inconsistency and fragmentation when a number of bodies retained responsibility for inspection, and to reappraise the future role of the Audit Commission's work on clinical effectiveness and assessing the performance of the NHS.
Under Part 2, functions currently performed by the Commission for Health Improvement, the National Care Standards Commission and the Audit Commission will be brought together in a single body, the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection. The new CHAI will consolidate and build or. the NHS review work currently done by the existing Commission for Health Improvement, the private healthcare regulation work carried out by the National Care Standards Commission, and the national healthcare value-for-money work of the Audit Commission. That will reduce the burden of bureaucracy on NHS organisations and remove any doubt whatever about who is the independent judge of performance and value for money in the NHS.
The Bill will also apply the principle of independent inspections against national standards, or statutory guidance in the case of local authority social services, to the public and independent social care fields by creating the Commission for Social Care Inspection. CSCI will represent the rationalisation of the functions of the Social Services Inspectorate, the regulation of independent social care providers currently performed by the National Care Standards Commission, and certain social care audit functions of the Audit Commission.
For the first time, there will be single inspectorates for both health and social care, which will be independent of government and reduce the burdens of inspection on those being inspected. That should generate increased confidence in both the public and the health and social care providers. CHAI and CSCI's independence will be made manifest in the duty that they will each have to lay an annual report directly before Parliament, rather than the Secretary of State.
The independence of the organisations will be further ensured by the delegation of the appointments process for the chair and commissioners to the NHS Appointments Commission. Following recommendations from the commission, shadow appointments have already been made to both inspectorates to enable the transition work between the old and new organisations to be supervised independently.
Both CHAI and CSCI will provide the public with performance ratings to make clear their assessment of individual NHS bodies and local councils. Both will develop their own respective criteria, taking into account the national standards set by the Secretary of State. There was some debate in the other place about whether the Secretary of State's approval of the

15
criteria would compromise CHAI's independence, but it is the Secretary of State's responsibility to ensure that the criteria to be used by CHAI in its inspections are consistent with NHS national standards. It is the Secretary of State's role to set those national standards in his accountability to Parliament for the funding and running of the NHS.
National standards will continue to be issued for social care, and CSCI will use those standards in determining the performance of all providers of social care through reviews and inspections. CSCI will be able to advise the Secretary of State about any changes that it thinks are needed to the standards.
Our intention is to establish both new bodies from April 2004. That may require early commencement of certain provisions, and I will update the House about that in due course. Detailed work is currently in progress on the management structure of the new bodies, the transfer of staff and their accommodation. That is essential for a very large organisation such as CSCI, which will bring together the staff of the National Care Standards Commission and the SSI, with about 2,500 people working in the organisation. CHAI is expected to employ around 600 staff.
To address particular concerns raised in the other place, we made amendments to the CHAI clauses on Report. First, we have made it explicit that CHAI will have a duty to conduct national reviews of particular types of healthcare as may be specified by the Secretary of State. Following a commitment made in Committee, we also made it quite clear that CHAI is to be concerned with all the factors related to the quality of healthcare when it exercises any of its functions in relation to the provision of healthcare, and in relation to reviews and investigations. Finally, we brought forward amendments to make it explicit that both inspectorates and the National Assembly for Wales are always required to produce a report or a summary of recommendations following individual inspections, and we introduced revised, slimmed-down and more straightforward clauses on the new national complaints procedures.
I would like to say a few words about the new complaints procedures, which will replace the current arrangements for complaints about both health and social care. In future, CHAI and CSCI will operate an independent review stage of the complaints procedure when the health body or local authority concerned has been unable to resolve the complaint. That meets a key concern expressed by complainants about the perceived lack of independence in the review part of the current systems. It is also intended that regulations will allow for people unhappy about packages of services provided by health and social care bodies to make only one complaint about both, putting the onus on the organisations themselves to work together and instigate the necessary procedures to resolve all aspects of the complaint. That will make the process easier for complainants to use, and provide bodies dealing with complaints greater flexibility to work together to resolve them.
16
The Bill gives the Assembly equivalent powers to the Secretary of State to define the complaints process in regulation. The Assembly already uses trained lay people to conduct third-stage independent reviews of complaints. That is felt best to reflect the needs of Welsh patients, and complements the process in England.
I turn now to the implications of this part of the Bill for Wales. Although responsibility for healthcare provision is devolved to the National Assembly for Wales, CHAI will be established as an England and Wales body with some functions in Wales.
The Bill acknowledges that the Assembly, working closely with existing standards-setting agencies, is best placed to determine the approach to implementing clinical standards for Wales, given the need to reflect the policy, priorities, structures and circumstances in Wales. The Bill provides for the Assembly to prepare and publish statements of standards in relation to the provisions of healthcare by and for Welsh NHS bodies.
The Bill also provides for the Assembly, in the same way as CHAI, to conduct reviews of, and investigations into, the provision of healthcare by and for Welsh NHS bodies, including that provided by hospitals in England. To guard against duplication of reviews or inspections, the Bill places the Assembly and CHAI under a duty to co-operate. CSCI will not have jurisdiction in Wales and the Bill therefore places the functions of CSCI in England on the Assembly in respect of social care provided by local authorities in Wales.
Part 3 extends the provisions made by the Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Act 1999 to enable the NHS to recover the £150 million or so it currently costs each year to treat injuries to patients to whom personal injury compensation has been paid. This implements a proposal by the Law Commission in 1996. The majority of respondents to the department's own consultation, which ended last November, supported the idea of such a scheme. The Bill is explicit that money received through this charge will be used for the benefit of patients receiving treatment at the hospitals concerned or the benefit of NHS ambulance services.
At the Committee stage in another place, the Bill was amended so that there will be a right to apply for a waiver of the current requirement to settle a payment before lodging an appeal within the system, if exceptional financial hardship could result. At the Report stage, the Government fulfilled a commitment made in Commons Committee and clarified the definition of "injury". Diseases, such as asbestosis, are not included in the definition of injury, but psychological and physical injuries are, together with diseases occurring as a result of the injury in respect of which compensation has been paid.
The Government are conscious that these powers are being taken at a time when the whole issue of employers liability compulsory insurance is being reviewed. We have made a commitment that, while we are taking this legislative opportunity to get the

17
provisions on the statute book, we will not commence the provisions in the Bill until the final outcome of that review has been taken into account.
It is intended that the new scheme will be operated by the Compensation Recovery Unit, in the same way as it currently operates the Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Act scheme. The scheme will operate in England, Wales and Scotland, the Scottish Parliament having approved its extension north of the Border.
The scheme has been designed to meet the concerns of insurers and businesses. It will not apply to the costs of primary care treatment. As with the road traffic scheme, tariffs used to calculate payments due will be set at a fixed rate, irrespective of the actual costs of the treatment, so compensators will not be paying the full costs of the treatment received. There will be an overall cap on the total amount payable in NHS costs in respect of any one claim, so it is not an open-ended liability. Diseases are excluded from the scope of the scheme, unless they occur as a direct result of the injury, specifically in response to concerns voiced by the insurance industry about the added complexities of such cases. Contributory negligence will be taken into account in cases where there is a court finding or court-endorsed agreement between the parties involved. This is a move away from the current road traffic scheme, but was seen by the Government to be a more equitable way forward in this case.
The BMA and the BDA welcome the Government's medical and dental provisions in Part 4. In a recent ballot, nearly 80 per cent of voting general practitioners accepted the new general medical services contract negotiated for them by the General Practitioners Committee of the BMA and the NHS Confederation, which Part 4 implements.
There is little doubt that the general medical and dental service contractual arrangements are in need of modernisation. They have been tinkered with for many years, but the time has come for more fundamental changes that meet today's needs both for patients and practitioners. This Bill addresses four key problem areas.
Primary care organisations need to be able to contract with practices, commission more services where necessary or even provide services themselves. People wishing to access NHS dentistry cannot always find an NHS dentist. We need more NHS dentists in particular places and NHS dentistry needs to be a more attractive proposition. General dental practitioners need a better method of remuneration. GPs want to be able to control their workload in order to provide a better service to patients and for their job to continue to attract new recruits.
The Bill will provide a better deal for patients seeking NHS medical and dental services and for professionals choosing to provide them. The Bill gives primary care organizations—primary care trusts in England and local health boards in Wales—an overarching responsibility to secure or provide primary dental and medical services. They will be able to do so through contracting with practices or by commissioning or providing services themselves. For
18
dentistry, £1.2 billion, currently held centrally, will be directly allocated to PCTs to secure NHS dental services.
For the first time, primary care organisations will contract with individual practices, not individual practitioners, under the general medical services contract and general dental services contract. It is not only GPs and general dental practitioners who make NHS primary care tick—other professionals, such as dental hygienists and practice nurses, are key to providing high standards of patient care.
All practices will be required to provide a specified level of services to their patients under the general medical and general dental services contracts, but the provision of certain services, such as out-of-hours medical cover, will be open for negotiation as to whether it forms part of that contract. This means that professionals will be able to tailor their workload to fit their individual circumstances. The primary care organisations will have the power in this Bill to commission or provide services themselves to plug the gaps where necessary.
The Bill overhauls dental remuneration arid patient charges. Dentists tell us that the current remuneration system, whereby they are paid for each service and treatment they provide, is rather like a treadmill. Patients tell us that it is hard to understand how the charges are calculated. Others tell us that the arrangements lead to a focus only on remedial and not preventive work. To improve this, the Bill provides for remuneration to be part of the contracts negotiated between primary care organisations and particular practices, adhering to national guidelines in regulations. Practices will be paid for their continuing responsibility for their patients as well as for the particular treatment provided.
Part 5 of the Bill reforms the welfare food scheme to provide for pregnant women, mothers and young children, including children in nursery or day care, to have access to a wider range of "health" foods under the scheme. This reflects the conclusions of the scientific review undertaken by the Committee on the Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition Policy. Milk will continue to be an important part of the scheme, but the intention is that beneficiaries will have access to a wider range of health foods such as fruit and vegetables to provide a better balanced diet.
Part 5 also enables the Secretary of State to delegate to a special health authority all or part of his appointment-making function in respect of bodies with functions concerned with health, social care or the regulation of professions associated with health or social care. This will allow for greater independence and transparency. It is our intention that this special health authority would be the NHS Appointments Commission.
Part 5 also modifies the legislation that provides for the protection of vulnerable adults and the protection of vulnerable children lists so that persons holding a permanent NHS contract will not require another check against those lists should they undertake agency work.

19
This is an important Bill which continues essential reform to match this Government's unprecedented financial investment in the NHS. It will provide a new, more autonomous, local delivery system—the NHS foundation trust—alongside a more coherent and independent inspection system and new NHS national standards. It provides for new local contracting for primary medical and dental services which has been welcomed by the BMA and the BDA and which will benefit patients.
There has been a lot of debate about NHS foundation trusts, but their critics should recognise that they preserve long-cherished fundamental NHS values while giving local communities a greater chance of getting a health service more tailored to their needs. This is a Bill that will produce real benefits for patients. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Warner.)
3.30 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Warner, for his very helpful and clear explanation of this important Bill. There is much in it to occupy us over the weeks ahead, but I am sure that he, like me, is greatly looking forward to the debate ahead of us today. It is especially heartening to see the distinguished list of noble Lords who have put their names down to speak, not least—if I may mention one individually—the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. He has brought his wisdom and experience to so many health Bills over the past few years that I have lost count.
In many ways this is a landmark of a Bill. When I first became Opposition health spokesman six years ago, times were very different. We had a health secretary, and indeed a government, who believed passionately in the power of centralised political control. For them the success of the National Health Service required, above all, two things: taxpayers' money and detailed, prescriptive target setting. Any form of competition in the NHS, whether between hospital trusts or between different GP practices, was regarded as having no place at all in publicly funded healthcare. Privately funded healthcare was thought to be such anathema that it was practically banished off the political map.
There followed, as we know, a period of almost obsessive adherence to that centralist mentality: the relentless stream of targets, instructions and guidance issued from Richmond House; the constant harrying and bludgeoning of managers and doctors; the blank looks that appeared on Ministers' faces at the mere utterance of the phrase "patient choice"; and finally, of course, the abolition of those terrible nuisances, those regular thorns in the flesh of Ministers, community health councils. That was the climate of Labour's first term.
So when, shortly after the last election, Mr Milburn started talking about patient choice, of devolving money and power downwards in the NHS and of
20
creating one inspectorate for the NHS and private hospitals—something for which we had been arguing for years—it seemed truly like a Damascene conversion. It was a change of heart that we on this side of the House could only applaud. Talk to anyone senior in the health service, or come to that anyone more junior, and they will tell you that central direction of the kind that we have witnessed over the past few years is a recipe for bureaucracy, stifled morale, thwarted initiative and ultimately ineffectiveness. In the commercial world there is no organisation of the size of the NHS, or even half its size, that can be micro-managed, Soviet-style, from one office. It is an impossible aspiration, because, as the Government have found, any attempt to achieve it proves ultimately to be counter-productive.
The concept of foundation trusts represents one part of the new direction for the health service. It is an idea that has been presented to us in terms with which no sensible person could disagree. Removing the power of direction from Whitehall; devolving resources; giving front-line professionals the freedom to take strategic decisions and to set their own priorities for patient care; making the service more responsive to patients and the needs of local people; giving hospitals control over their own assets; allowing them to borrow from the private sector; giving employees greater flexibility; are all positive ideas that, for us at least, struck exactly the right chord when the former Secretary of State first spoke of them in April last year.
We then waited for the publication of this Bill, and as we waited, we were conscious of other and more reactionary forces at work; not least the combined manoeuvrings of the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We knew almost without being told that with foundation trusts the rhetoric might he one thing but the reality could turn out to be quite another. The proof of the Government's lofty aspirations lies in the Bill. We need to look at it critically.
There are perhaps four principal claims for foundation trusts that the Minister has just articulated: that they will enjoy real and substantive freedoms; that they will be genuinely accountable to their local populations; that their governance structure will be soundly based; and that they will deliver real benefits to patients.
Let us first look at the freedoms. Would we be right in supposing that the influence of the Secretary of State will suddenly be removed from foundation trusts? No, we would not. It is a cardinal feature of the Government's plans that foundation trusts will be made to undergo annual performance reviews in accordance with the star rating system. The star rating system depends on nine key targets and 28 performance indicators; all of which are determined by the Secretary of State. Fall foul of those and you will find the regulator homing in on you; for in every area where the Secretary of State has relinquished his control, the regulator will step into his shoes with powers that are every bit as extensive. The services that the trust provides, the asset sales that it wants to make, the private income that it wants to earn; all those and

21
much more the regulator has to approve; and as Clause 3 tells us, he has to do so in a way that is consistent with the Secretary of State's performance of his duties. If that is someone's idea of devolved decision-making, then it certainly is not mine.
We should also disabuse ourselves of the idea that foundation trusts will have the freedom to configure their services as they see fit. The reality is, as Mr Milburn admitted in another place, that the PCT, as the commissioning body, will hold the power. The local PCT, in Mr Milburn's words,
"will decide where the money goes".—[Official Report, Commons, 7/5/03; col. 712).
That is of course perfectly correct because under the Government's plans for financial flows, patients and GPs will increasingly call the tune about the services that they want. That means that foundation trusts in practice will have very little choice as to how to configure themselves.
But if that is so, one may very well ask what on earth is the point of the elaborate and costly governance structures with which foundation trusts will be saddled? Ministers have sat down at a desk and convinced themselves that what foundation trusts need is local democratic accountability. So they have devised a structure, based on membership and elections, that purports to give local populations the power over the services that their local hospital provides, but it will do no such thing. The expectations created by that system of governance are bogus and, as I shall argue in Committee, are very likely to lead to frustration and disenchantment on the part of those who participate.
The Government have not consulted on the governance model; nobody out there has asked for it; yet it is going to be foisted on all foundation trusts, including the specialised national hospitals, without any evidence at all that patients and the public will thereby be genuinely empowered and still less evidence that it will lead to the one thing that is needed which is good governance. On the contrary, I believe that it will deliver little more than a talking shop for different factional interests and, what is more, factional interests who are legally accountable to no one.
These are half-baked, muddled ideas that carry huge risks. In advance of the Committee stage, I say to the Minister that they are not acceptable to this side of the House. However, if there is one feature of the Government's proposals that for me renders them not simply unacceptable, but actually wrong in principle, it is their effect on the rest of the health service. Foundation trusts will enjoy the advantage of being able to borrow from the private sector in order to enhance and expand their services. But we know from the Chancellor that every pound of foundation trust borrowing is a pound less for the rest of the NHS. There is no extra pot of commercial money for foundation trusts. Their borrowing capacity will be part of a zero-sum game within the health service as a whole.
The Government profess to believe in levelling up the standards of NHS care. I frankly cannot see how that is possible when the very trusts which need capital
22
most—those which are struggling zero, one and two star trusts—will be deprived of it while foundation trusts get it because they are considered by Ministers to have earned it as their privilege. As night follows day, financial growth in foundation trusts will mean cuts in the budgets of other hospitals to the detriment of patients. This is a culture that has been described as "dog eat dog". I say unequivocally to the Minister that it has no place in our National Health Service.
I have deliberately chosen to concentrate my speech on perhaps the most politically contentious part of the Bill. Less prominent in the public debate, but no less important, are the Bill's proposals for the new Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection and its sister body, the Commission for Social Care Inspection. My noble friend Lady Noakes will be devoting the bulk of her speech to the numerous concerns that we have in that quarter. I will only foreshadow what she is going to say by making one point. Public confidence in the existing Audit Commission, of which I believe there to be a great deal, is underpinned by its very obvious independence from government. If we wish to create an equal measure of public confidence in new CHAI and CSCI, then I firmly believe that these bodies must be allowed to operate as independently of politicians as it is possible to engineer. The Bill as it stands does not remotely provide for that. We will reflect that concern with considerable emphasis in Committee.
With any Bill there will be areas of agreement as well as disagreement between the political parties. My overriding feeling about this Bill is one of acute disappointment; disappointment that its most significant proposals—the ones that in the wake of all the Government's rhetoric we would like to have supported enthusiastically—have in the event been botched. The criticisms that we will be voicing at later stages will therefore be more extensive than I would have wished; but as ever they will be as constructive as we can make them. I look forward to those debates as the avenue to creating a better and more coherent Bill.
3.43 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for his lucid exposition and say how much I look forward to the debate today.
The Bill, which I think is the fifth or sixth health reform Bill that has been put forward by this Government, is a characteristic piece of work. The Government always argue that the next reform in the health service will do the trick, but then a few months later another set of reforms is announced, often contradictory to the previous ones, and followed by a new—guess what?—health service reform Bill.
The depressing thing about having been an opposition spokesman for more than a few years is seeing just how little faith one can place on government's statements of confidence in a particular set of reforms at any particular time. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, very ably described the lurches in policy which have taken place already under this

23
Government after only six years. This Government do not just have second thoughts; they have third and fourth thoughts as well.
Sir Andrew Foster, the former chief executive of the Audit Commission, in a valedictory interview with the Financial Times in February, I believe had it right. He said:
"I worry about the sheer mass of structural change there has been…and whether that will really bring the result that is needed…
But one of my experiences of 30 years in public service is that setting up these new institutions and getting them working well always takes two to three years, and longer than people hope.
People become preoccupied with establishing them, and politicians very often then become impatient, and before you know it there are calls for further change. There is a danger of people getting slightly punch drunk about the amount of change".
I think that that is an understatement.
The fact is, however, that this Bill is an orphan. It limped out of the House of Commons. At Third Reading the Government secured their lowest majority—of 35—during their term of office. The Government had to rely on the votes of their Scottish and Welsh MPs to get the Bill through. Some of the biggest names on the Government Benches opposed it. I make a small prediction that this Bill will have an even harder time in this House.
Let us start with foundation hospitals. Adjustments have undoubtedly been made as the Bill progressed through the other place. However, just because we now might have 63 foundation hospitals rather than 25 does not make them a better idea. Our view on these Benches is that the basis for selection is poor; the star ratings are arbitrary; and there is evidence that the assessment process can be manipulated.
Then we turn to the impact on the wider NHS of foundation trusts. It is doubtful whether all NHS trusts can achieve foundation status within four to five years. In any event, in the interim, foundation trusts are likely to affect the viability of other hospitals in their areas. They will be able to vary employment terms and conditions and to draw staff away from non-foundation hospitals. Foundation trusts will compete with other trusts for resources. That will lead to even greater inequalities between hospitals. The Health Select Committee's comprehensive and probing report rightly questioned whether this kind of competition between hospitals would benefit patients.
There is a great deal of uncertainty about the duty to consult before the initial 63 foundation hospitals are established. Being the first 63, will they escape any kind of consultation requirement? Moves to form foundation trusts are afoot, yet no consultation has actually taken place. Furthermore, no consultation with oversight and scrutiny committees appears to have taken place. On top of that, plans to merge, change or close hospitals which plan to become foundation trusts can be changed up to the very last moment without public consultation.
There is the issue of patient and public consultation. Foundation hospitals will have no duty to establish patients forums or to introduce PALS. There is huge
24
disappointment that patients forums are not provided for in the Bill. Simply having a few non-executive directors on boards is no substitute for a properly constituted patients forum.
Critics of foundation trusts will not be mollified by requirements that hospitals will have to prove that all sections of the community are represented. Far from it; the constitution of what are described under the Bill as "public benefit corporations" promises to be a nightmare of bureaucracy. Each trust will have two tiers, a board of governors and a board of directors. A membership—the so-called public constituency—will elect the majority of governors. Non-executive directors must be members. The membership and governance system in each foundation hospital will be locally determined within an overall template. It will be very cumbersome and complex. The membership, for instance, could be 5,000 strong, but it is to be arbitrarily determined. That itself will cause divisions in local communities.
The governance will be massively expensive to administer. This is not cutting red tape but creating more. All this will not lead to better performance or democratic accountability. Public benefit corporations could quite adequately be run as companies limited by guarantee, as many of our major charities are, with trustee directors nominated to represent the communities or stakeholders that they serve.
As a final consequence, the governance provisions could mean that competent non-executive directors, having steered their trust into foundation membership, will actually have to stand down.
What does the financial future hold for foundation hospitals? In fact the Treasury regards them with distaste. Having gone through the hoops to become foundation hospitals, the Treasury will still rule the roost. Ultimately, the NHS budget for acute hospitals will remain unchanged and foundation trusts will be playing a zero-sum game with NHS resources in competition with other parts of the NHS.
Then we come to the extent to which foundation trusts can compete with the independent healthcare sector and the provisions of Clause 15. I am all in favour of strong finances for NHS trusts. But if we genuinely believe in achieving capacity for the NHS and in a mixed economy which allows the private sector to compete to deliver services to the NHS, it is important firmly to restrict the provision of private healthcare by NHS hospitals.
The job of NHS acute hospitals is to deliver for the NHS. The short-term attractions of additional income could skew the system, deter private sector provision of NHS services and fail to make the best use of the capacity of the NHS. There should therefore be explicit limits under Clause 15. I was pleased by what the Minister said today but I believe that that should be enshrined in the primary legislation.
At the end of the day, rather than going down the foundation hospital route, the essence must be to free the providers of healthcare from bureaucracy and central control and to increase democratic

25
accountability where it really matters—with the commissioners of NHS healthcare. They are the ones who hold the budgets. It would be much better to make the commissioning system democratic. On these Benches, we say that the best way to achieve that is via local government. Ultimately, it is very likely that, despite all the rhetoric, foundation hospitals will in fact be no freer than they were before this legislation.
I turn briefly to CHAI and CSCI, as the Minister called it. This is the classic third or fourth thought. But we welcome the very late conversion of the department to the regulation of the private sector by a single body along with NHS bodies. We welcome the Government's conversion to a new and broader role for CHAI, which we urged on the then government Ministers some three or four years ago. Last year, Mr Milburn gave an undertaking that the new commissions would be every bit as independent as the Audit Commission.
However, there is a distinct flavour of a lack of independence under the Bill. CHAI is charged to have regard to government policy. There is also the crucial issue, referred to by the Minister, of who sets the standards to be inspected—CHAI or the Secretary of State? The criteria for star ratings should be set objectively and designed to raise clinical quality and improve patient experience. It should not be the Secretary of State who determines the new standards and the criteria for star ratings. Where is the CHAI/CSCI duty to lay a report before Parliament enshrined in the Bill?
However, we take some confidence from the nature of the appointments and the fact that the NHS appointments commission will appoint members of both regulatory bodies. But why should commissioners of healthcare, such as PCTs, not also be covered within the scope of CHAI? After all, CHAI will be inspecting strategic health authorities as part of its duties. Will private dentistry be covered by CHAI, as per the government commitment on this subject?
Generally, the powers of CHAI could be more defined. There should be an explicit duty to ensure implementation of NICE guidance and the national service frameworks to ensure that, for example, mental health services are provided nation-wide or that particular treatment or medical technologies are introduced.
Furthermore, the General Medical Council is concerned about the issue of patient confidentiality and the possible use of personal confidential information by CHAI and the other regulators in carrying out their duties. They should use aggregated or anonymised data where possible and not breach confidential information contained in patient records.
There are also issues relating to the division of responsibilities between CHAI and CSCI. Although generally Clause 29 is sensible in setting out that division, there is concern that treatment of some long-term conditions, such as that provided by brain injury units, and time-limited treatments, such as in relation to drugs and alcohol, will come under CSCI and not CHAI. It is important that each regulator has the
26
appropriate expertise in the field which it regulates. In the course of his reply, perhaps the Minister will comment on that.
Again, what are the precise lines of demarcation between CHAI and the Audit Commission? What is the intention behind Clause 57? Is it purely a matter of sub-contracting? There is the issue of national standards. They should be determined independently and not by the Secretary of State. Are the national service frameworks and NICE guidelines not already meant to constitute a set of national standards, or do we see yet another confusing change of direction by the Government?
A number of areas of the Bill deserve discussion but time is moving on and I shall not go through the comments that we have on these Benches regarding complaints, the welfare food scheme and dentistry, in particular. But we shall put forward amendments in Committee.
The Minister may believe that I have engaged in harsh criticism of the Bill. However, he can he reassured that, whatever the criticisms raised today from these Benches, they will be a picnic compared with Bournemouth in three weeks' time.
It is unfortunate that great swathes of the Bill received no scrutiny at all in the Commons. Foundation hospitals are, of course, at its core but it has many other flaws as well. On these Benches, our aim is to force the Government to scrap completely this half-baked scheme of reform. Foundation hospitals were nowhere in the Government's manifesto at the last election and there has been no consultation on these proposals, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, pointed out. The Secretary of State who dreamt up these proposals is not even in office. On these Benches, we greatly look forward to the Committee stage and to improving the Bill.

Children
3.56 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills. The Statement is as follows:
"With your permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to present to the House this afternoon the Children's Green Paper, Every Child Matters. It is published alongside a detailed response to the Victoria Climbiéinquiry report and a report by the Social Exclusion Unit into the educational achievement of children in care.
"I want to begin by thanking my colleague, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and the Minister for Children and officials across Whitehall for the excellent work they have done in preparing the Green Paper. The Chief Secretary's personal

27
commitment to the central importance of interdepartmental partnership working was crucial to achieve these proposals.
"The Green Paper sets out reforms covering children and young people from birth to 19 living in England. Our goals are both to protect children and young people and to ensure that each child has the opportunity to fulfil his potential.
"The death of Victoria Climbié exposed shameful failings in our ability to protect our most vulnerable children. On 12 occasions over 10 months, chances to save Victoria's life were not taken. Failings occurred across all services at all levels.
"While no society can entirely eliminate the risk of children being damaged or exploited, our society has a duty to give priority to the protection of children and to tackle the tragic and avoidable failures that occurred in Victoria Climbié's case.
"From past inquires into the deaths of Maria Colwell and Jasmine Beckford to recent cases, such as Lauren Wright and Ainlee Walker, the list of problems is familiar: unwillingness of some of the most senior people in agencies to accept their own accountability; poor co-ordination across agencies; insufficient sharing of information; and frontline workers who are overloaded and under supervised.
"But these issues do not just afflict the 80 children who die each year from abuse. Weak accountability, poor integration and workforce pressures are all critical barriers to improving the lives of all our children. Too many children fall through the net only to reach a crisis that could be avoided. Too many children are passed around the system only to end up in care, in prison or worse.
"Lord Laming makes clear that nothing less than fundamental reform will address these issues. No single change alone is enough. National standards, inspection, information sharing, training, and national and local structures all need to change if we are to achieve real changes in culture and practice. Radical reform is needed to organise our services around the needs and priorities of children.
"I believe that the proposals which I am publishing today do meet the reform challenges identified by Lord Laming. Our task is properly to put them into effect.
"The central theme of the Green Paper is that every service, every professional, every community, every family must take responsibility for the protection of children. Child protection must not be ghettoised and seen to be the responsibility of only one profession, social work. It must be the responsibility of everyone and so must be at the heart of all services.
"Equally, it is vitally important for every organisation to have a positive vision of young people and high expectations for all of them, whoever they are, and wherever they live.
"Every government department is already trying to tackle the reasons why children are held back, whether through poverty, poor schooling, violence
28
in communities, lack of activities for young people or lack of access to health care, and I confirm that we will continue this drive, so shifting the emphasis on to prevention.
"The Green Paper sets out comprehensive reforms to ensure that this approach is carried through. I believe that they extend the principles of our Sure Start programme, which have been widely welcomed, to all areas of childcare in this country.
"There are four main areas of reform. The first is supporting families and carers. We all know the critical influence parents have on children's lives, yet in the past we have paid insufficient attention to the crucial role of families in improving children's lives. By bringing children's policy and family policy together within my department we will start to look at how we can support families more effectively.
"The Green Paper consults on a long-term vision to support families through universal services providing information, advice and support, and through more targeted services.
"As a first step, we have created a parenting fund to build capacity in the voluntary and community sector, and we will bring forward proposals to roll out nationally the current level of home visiting support provided by HomeStart.
"The second area is early intervention. For the majority of children, the combination of support from their families and schools is enough to enable them to thrive. But, for a significant minority, more help is needed.
"Yet for hundreds of thousands of young people, their potential is wasted because help comes too little too late. A child may be known to several services, but nobody shares the warning signs and no action is taken.
"Children can be passed from agency to agency. They can be assessed over and over again. They may be known to lots of professionals, but all are based in different places, working to different bosses and budgets, and with no one in overall charge.
"We need to build a system that ensures children receive help at the first onset of problems. Early intervention requires new forms of integration on the ground: information sharing systems; a common assessment framework; a lead professional coordinating packages of support; professionals working together in multi-disciplinary teams, based in and around the places where children and families spend their time—schools, children's centres and GP surgeries.
"The Green Paper brings forward proposals to develop better early intervention on all these fronts, including legislating to ensure professionals share information more effectively.
"We will always have to strike a balance between individuals' right to privacy, and the need to share information to protect children. I believe that that balance needs to be shifted towards sharing information better so that problems can be identified more rapidly and effectively.

29
"The third area is accountability and integration. Integration in practice is possible only if we integrate our institutions, structures and professions. This is the real focus of the Green Paper—addressing the underlying barriers to improving our services. Lasting change requires new institutional arrangements not initiatives.
"Let me set out the key changes aimed at delivering clear accountability and integration around the needs of children.
"First, we will legislate to create the post of a director of children's services, accountable for local authority education and children's social services. As Lord Laming made clear, we have to have a clearly named person in overall charge of children's wellbeing and protection.
"Secondly, to ensure clear accountability politically, we will create a lead council member for children.
"Thirdly, in the long term our aim is to integrate key services for children and young people under the director of children's services, as part of children's trusts. These will bring together the local education authority, children's social services, health services and potentially others, including Connexions and youth offending teams, into a single organisational structure. We all know the difficulties of joining up across boundaries. Our approach is to seek to break down these boundaries altogether and organise the services around children.
"Fourthly, there will always be some organisations outside the new children's trust, such as the police. We will therefore require the creation of local safeguarding children boards to bring together all agencies to improve child protection. We will also legislate to place a duty on all services to safeguard children—we have to ensure our children's safety is a priority across all services.
"Fifthly, we will support these local changes through national change, including the development of an integrated inspection framework led by Ofsted to ensure all services are judged on how they work together.
"Finally, where national standards are not met, and our inspection system indicates failure, we must be tough on delivering changes. We will therefore create within the department a strong focus on sharing effective practice and intervening in areas that are falling below national standards.
"In addition, I can announce that the Government will legislate at the earliest opportunity to create a children's commissioner to act as an independent champion for children. The commissioner will develop effective ways to draw on children's views, locally and nationally, and to make sure that they are fed into policy-making.
"The fourth area is workforce reform. The workforce reforms set out in the Green Paper have two aims. The first is to tackle the recruitment and retention problems, particularly acute in social work, by making working with children an attractive, high-status career.
30
"The second is to improve the skills and team-working of the workforce—we need to ensure our professionals work together with shared goals, values, language and priorities.
"We intend to bring forward a package of changes to develop: new career pathways to enable staff to acquire new specialist skills, enabling sideways career moves, or enabling them to remain in frontline services; a leadership programme to support the first generation of children's directors and their senior staff; a common core of training for those who work with children; reduced bureaucracy and workload pressures; more flexible and attractive training routes into work with children, including expanding work-based training routes for graduates.
"To deliver this, we will work with employers and staff to create a sector skills council for children and young people.
"I believe the reform programme we are delivering will mark a turning point in child protection. The legislation and institutional change we are proposing will genuinely put children first.
"Reform will take time and will require commitment across government. Perhaps most critically, it will take a process of cultural change—to build a society where protection is embedded across all communities, professionals and services, locally and nationally. Our aim is to build a society where truly every child matters, and in that spirit I commend these proposals to the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.8 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for this Statement. It is welcome though somewhat overdue. One thinks with great sadness of the loss of Victoria Climbié, Lauren Wright, Maria Colwell, Jasmine Beckford and many others. and of how they were failed by the established system and those who should have provided the greatest protection and security of all—their own parents, guardians and carers.
Once again we have a Statement that has been well trailed on TV and radio and outside this House, and, of course, our House is last in line to receive the information. I ask the Minister why the Statement has been delayed. We understand from a leaked Whitehall document that the Statement was ready in July but was delayed to spare the embarrassment of the then Minister, Mrs Hodge. We were told at that time that the Prime Minister was undertaking personally the presentation of a Statement to Parliament but, understandably, he could not at that time due to time pressures on the diary.
The delay is serious. Every week children across the country are failed by the system; therefore, reform of the system is urgent. So why the delay?

31
I have had very little time to absorb the detail of this response from the Government; therefore, an early debate would be welcome to explore the detail in more depth. Are there any plans to give parliamentary time for such a debate?
There is no mention in the Statement of the vexed and current issue of trafficking in young people, many of whom end up as victims of abuse. Does the Government's response cover that issue? If not, will it be included as a distinct part of what happens to children in this country?
The call for more working in multi-disciplinary teams, which was mentioned in the Statement and has been proffered as part of the solution, fills me with dismay, because there is now a plethora of multidisciplinary arrangements at local—and, indeed, regional—level. It is important that we at least know what is different in this case.
On a practical level, the role of schools will be very important. Has there been an assessment of the additional burdens imposed by these proposals, such as their financial impact and burden on teachers' time? Things are far from easy for schools at the moment and I believe that additional calls on their time or resources will prove to be the straw that breaks the camel's back—to coin a phrase.
What protection is there for teachers who are in the position of having to make accusations against parents? I know that many teachers feel vulnerable and it is important for the Government to give some reassurance that, when a child is at risk, there is some protection for the teacher involved. Making accusations is extremely serious and it is important that plenty of advice and support is available.
It is also worth mentioning that all confidential records kept by schools must be made accessible to all parents, which increases the vulnerability of the staff in schools who have to record key information.
Another issue that was not included in the Statement and may not be a part of the response is the call for more research into the distress caused by wrongly accusing parents of abusing their children. Not infrequently, such parents are, if anything, being over-protective. There is also the vexed issue of Munchausen syndrome by proxy, when parents call out for help only to be wrongly accused of being abusive parents. Such instances put social services in a very difficult position, but I have heard some bloodcurdling stories of parents being almost destroyed by the system when, at the end of the day, they are only being over-protective—if it is possible to be an overprotective parent. I make no judgments, but there is a case for urgent research.
How many of the recommendations of the Laming report have already been implemented? How many recommendations is the report intending to implement and what is the timescale involved? I am sure that the Minister will agree that many children who are seriously at risk are not in school at all, either because
32
they are not sent to school by the parent, carer or guardian, or because they are not of statutory school age.
The use of volunteers is also pertinent. There must be very clear guidance about how they are used. For example, it will not be possible for volunteers to have open access to people's homes. Therefore, although the voluntary sector is important, there will need to be clear guidelines as to how that sector is used when such dangerous situations are afoot.
Although they are not solely responsible, because we recognise that the main responsibility rests with parents and guardians, social services are nevertheless on the front line of this work, which is particularly difficult work for them. The annual report of the Chief Inspector of Social Services claims that vacancy rates are running at 11 per cent when they should be only 5 per cent or less. It is also known that more social workers are needed to provide the continuity and stability that are crucial in these cases. I understand that many urban local authorities, especially in London, are using very high numbers of agency workers, which is both expensive and creates instability. What is being done to deal with that state of affairs?
Much will be expected of local government. However, there is a dichotomy: the Government make financial demands on local government concerning educational expenditure or expenditure on other services, but in many local authorities, there is only one place from which the money can come, which increases the pressure on social services. It is important that there will be some respite for local authorities in terms of how they will meet the additional costs implied by this report.
The welcome centrepiece of the Statement is the establishment of a children's commissioner. However, we must heed the words of the Children's Commissioner for Wales today, when he said that the appointment of the commissioner will not in itself make things better. It is important that the change is effected at local level. Will the Minister assure us that the commissioner will be entirely independent in the way he sets about his work?
I do not doubt the Government's intentions in this matter. However, I remain nervous about what appears to be the most complicated web of bodies, lines of accountability and bureaucracy. Also, there is no mention of costs in the Statement whatever, which is a critical aspect.
The very real test will be whether children in this country, especially vulnerable children, will be more secure and better protected as a result of these changes. We can only wait and see. Meanwhile, we wish the proposals well.
4.16 p.m.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in thanking the Minister for repeating the Statement in this House. We on these

33
Benches warmly welcome many of the measures contained in it. I also remind the House of my unremunerated connection with the NSPCC.
We, too, regret the delay in the publication of this paper until the end of the Prime Minister's summer holiday, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to the question asked about that matter by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. However, while we all mourn the children who died, we must move forward.
I have some comments and questions about the generalities at the beginning of this Statement. First, we welcome the commitment to address the problems of weak accountability, poor integration and workforce pressures. However, one solution is more resources and training. Will there be more money for that work?
Secondly, we welcome the commitment to everybody being accountable. The obligation to take responsibility must, of course, be backed by workable management structures and lines of reporting as well as good training. How will that be delivered? Will the performance of the Minister for Children also be assessed, and, if so, by which Select Committee?
Thirdly, we welcome the commitment to shift the emphasis on to prevention. However, one of the main problems in recent years has been disintegration of youth services. How do the Government plan to address that? Will there be more money for an accelerated spread of the Sure Start programme to reach all children in poverty, even if they live in an otherwise affluent area?
The first of the Minister's four detailed areas relates to supporting families and carers. We very much welcome the commitment to creating a parenting fund, support for parents and parenting training, which is very important. There have been nowhere near enough resources for that in the past. Will the Minister explain in more detail how that will be administered?
We very much welcome the commitment to early intervention and the integration of the work of professionals. However, will the multi-disciplinary teams be truly multi-disciplinary, involving not only education and health, but social services, including strong links with the criminal justice system?
On the problem of privacy and striking the balance, how can we be sure that privacy will be dealt with sensitively and that children will not be deterred from speaking out, knowing that information will be shared?
On accountability and integration, we welcome the creation of the post of director of children's services, but how will that person interact at the first stage of the reform with the local delivery of children's health services? The Statement mentions only education and social services. We also think that the establishment of a lead council member is a good idea, but how will such people—and the directors—be appointed? To whom will they be accountable?
The Minister mentioned children's trusts at, I think, the second stage of reform. What will be the timing of that? Will all local authorities have one? Will they be
34
standardised? Will the local safeguarding children boards be statutory, as I understand? If so, what will be the timing of the legislation? It is important that the people on the boards are sufficiently senior to be able to make decisions and allocate resources so that they can make things happen. What happens if a board fails to operate effectively?
The Minister said that monitoring and inspection would be led by Ofsted. Does Ofsted have the skills required? It has only just bedded down into the inspection of nursery settings. We agree that national standards are needed, but who will set them? Will there be a national child safeguarding board? To whom will the standards apply?
I welcome very much the announcement that there will be a children's commissioner for England. It has long been called for by all the children's organisations. This is an example of how the Government have listened to the experts, and they must be congratulated on that. We hope that the commissioner will be the strongest children's commissioner in the UK and that we will learn from experience in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. I echo the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch: will the commissioner be truly independent and act for all children, not just those in care? We would like to know more about his or her powers. For example, will he or she be consulted on all new and proposed legislation? Will he or she have the ability to lead inquiries and investigations? Will he or she have unlimited access to information and organisations? Will there be more than one commissioner, or will there, for example, be a commissioner for each region? To whom will the commissioner report? Those are important questions that must be asked.
There are two gaping holes in the Statement. One is the fact that our attitude to violence against children must change. There should be no protection in the law for someone, whoever they are, who violently assaults a child. Do the Government intend to address that? Also, there was nothing in the Statement about listening to children. That is vital, and I hope that there will be something in the Green Paper about it.
4.22 p.m.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I hope that the House will forgive me if I keep my preamble brief and say to the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Blatch, that I am grateful for their support for the thrust of what the Government are trying to do. I will endeavour to answer all the questions as briefly as I can.
There has been much speculation about the Statement in the press. We have tried hard to make sure that we followed the processes properly, so the speculation has always been precisely that. Noble Lords will forgive me if I make the point that we talk carefully to our partners. There was a lot of discussion before the Statement was issued. There was a delay because—I can vouch for it myself—the Prime Minister wished to be involved in the launch, and noble Lords will know that, this morning, he was. That

35
was the basis on which the timetable was set. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that there should be an early debate. I would welcome it, and I believe that, between us, those of us on the Front Benches can ensure that it happens.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, immediately raised the issue of the trafficking of young people. That is a very important issue. The needs of such young people are considered to be as important as those of any other child in need, and they remain part of the thinking behind the Green Paper.
The description of the multi-disciplinary teams is different from the traditional one. That is partly because we are removing barriers, including those affecting budgets, by means of the children's trusts. That will enable money to flow more freely and remove one of the great institutional barriers, as professionals have told us and, no doubt, other noble Lords. It will also make sure that we bring together the different parts of our society. I trust that, when noble Lords have had the chance to read the Green Paper, they will see that we involve a range of agencies, many more than have traditionally been involved in health, education and social care. In the Statement, I mentioned, for example, the important role that the police would play.
It is important that we do not place extra burdens on teachers, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said. Our purpose is to decrease the burden on teachers. If services are working in schools—providing, for example, speech therapy, social care, educational welfare and so on—several things happen, not the least of which is that children have such services provided at school and need not travel outside school and disrupt their education. Teachers also find that they have other professionals to talk to and that a better plan of action can be taken forward. That is our purpose, and we will ensure that that is what happens.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said, it is important to protect teachers. We issued new guidance in May, entitled What To Do If You're Worried A Child Is Being Abused. It sets out for teachers and other professionals precisely what they should do, covering the points about protecting youth professionals, while ensuring that they know where to go, what to do and who to talk to.
It is important that we recognise the need for confidentiality, and it is of paramount importance that we should be able to share information. Noble Lords who have read the report of the Climbié inquiry and other such reports will know that the sharing of information is critically important. I take the points—they have been made forcefully by the noble Countess, Lady Mar, in correspondence and in your Lordships' House—relating to the particular circumstances surrounding, for example, Munchausen syndrome by proxy. None the less, the thrust of what we are doing is to ensure that children are protected. Sharing information is critical if we are to achieve that.
From the report produced by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, we have started to implement in some form about 83 proposals. It is difficult to go through them
36
in detail now. The responses to the noble Lord's work published alongside the Green Paper show that we have accepted 86 proposals totally and 19 in principle. We have rejected one, accepted one in part and accepted one in principle in part. I know that the noble Lord is pleased with our response in that respect.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, raised the issue of finance. Some £45 billion is spent in this area. Much of our work concerns the reassessment of how we can use the money more effectively, as noble Lords would expect. Discussions on funding are ongoing as part of the spending review.
Training is critical. Noble Lords will see in the document that core training for social workers, in particular, and for all those involved with children will be the same throughout all services. That is very important. The performance of all Ministers is monitored through Parliament. As far as I understand, the relevant Select Committee is the Education and Skills Select Committee, although that may change.
Discussions are continuing about how to use the parenting fund of £25 million to ensure that those resources are used better and more effectively. We also have an ambition to see a children's trust or something similar in each local authority area. That is our preferred model, and we will legislate at the earliest opportunity to ensure that all the issues can be dealt with.
Listening to children was a critical part of the work done in preparing the Green Paper. Noble Lords will see in the information pack that, as part of the overall consultation, we have designed a specific consultation document to allow children and young people to respond.
4.28 p.m.
Baroness Thornton: My Lords, I welcome the Statement made by my noble friend the Minister. To achieve their objectives, the Government must use all the levers at their disposal.
There are three specific issues that I would like to ask about. It seems that the final shape of the corporate performance assessments for local authorities will be crucial. Can the Minister comment on that? Also crucial will be the outcome of the 2004 spending review. That is code for—I echo a question that has already been asked—"Will additional resources be made available?". Thirdly, noble Lords will not be surprised that I wish to raise the issue of the children's voluntary sector, which can be a potent agent for change. In many respects, the proposals require statutory bodies to become more like voluntary ones, with more flexibility and more use of partnerships. Many in the voluntary sector already deliver children's services. My noble friend said relatively little—nothing at all, really—about the role of the voluntary sector, so I would be grateful for her comments on that.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. Performance assessment discussions are under way, but within the Green Paper

37
we flag up the need to work across government and the important roles of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and others to help us deliver. The spending review 2004 is important. However, I reiterate that £45 billion is to be spent on all services to children. There will be scope to be more effective in the use of that money, but it is an unprecedented level of which we should not lose sight, while, as always, we look for more funding.
The voluntary sector is critical. I mentioned Home Start in the Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills. I recognise not only the flexible approach of the voluntary sector and the need for local government and so forth to consider how flexible they could be, but also the critical delivery role of the voluntary sector to enable us to ensure that all children are protected. I know that I do not need to say that to my noble friend because of her involvement in NCH Action for Children, but I am sure that is a critical part of the Green Paper.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister. As she said, every child matters. The protection of children is at the heart of all services. It worries me that in order to ensure that every child matters and that children are protected, a huge edifice of bureaucracy is being built. How are people on the ground in local government services likely to view this? Will they say that it is not their responsibility but that of the children's commissioner or someone in Whitehall? In setting up this huge edifice, will responsibility be pushed up and therefore not be on the ground where it matters?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, on looking carefully at the Laming report, the two key factors are those which the noble Baroness raised—that is, the issues of bureaucracy and "not my responsibility". It is clear that within our legislative framework and the roll-out of the Green Paper, anyone working with children should recognise their responsibility to those children in an effective manner. They should manage that role as well as feeling that they have some responsibility still to children. We want to stop the sense of "it's not down to me" which was prevalent in all at which the noble Lord, Lord Laming, looked.
The bureaucracy occurred because so many different agencies operated in different ways. In the case of Victoria Climbié, if basic procedures had been followed she may not have died in such tragic circumstances. What is underlying that is precisely the opposite to that which the noble Baroness fears. We want to remove bureaucracy enabling people to work more closely, to operate in a way that gives them a framework, to recognise their responsibilities and to be clear about that. We want to give them clear lines, direction, training and support, while making it clear that somewhere in these layers—which inevitably exist in any management structure—because we are creating a director of children's services, in a sense the buck stops there.
38
That will make a big difference. When I chaired the health authority in Hertfordshire, my experience when creating children's schools and families was that people were enabled to think about the framework of children differently. The noble Baroness will know that many professionals have wanted that cultural change for a long time. It is as critical as anything that we can do as regards legislation and resources.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, last week I marked 40 years in social work. I began in children's departments, happening to be the director of social services in Brent when Jasmine Beckford died, and setting up Childline. For the past three days I have been at Windsor running a multi-disciplinary conference for the Sieff Foundation, looking at the new proposals. On that basis, I welcome the Green Paper. We could all look back and say that many of these things have happened before. But this is new and exciting. The message is that local councils, local workers, social workers, teachers, police and doctors are all ahead of the game. There are some extraordinarily exciting multi-disciplinary projects already moving forward that will show the way. The Government representative said that the Government are somehow behind the game, but this is a really good move forward.
However, there are some issues that I should like to mention. First, there is great difficulty in multi-disciplinary working, to which I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, alluded. If the boundaries that professionals have are eroded, the perspective which needs to be taken can be lost. That was clear in the Climbié inquiry. The police lost their investigative edge and thought that social services were conducting the investigation, which, clearly, was a criminal and not a social work investigation. In any training., it must be clear that people understand the nature of the boundaries of the work they undertake. If new breeds of people are to be developed, which I can foresee, they must be clear about when they should take action.
Secondly, I can look back on many inquiries—the noble Lord, Lord Warner, headed one—when the improvement of the lot and status of social workers was discussed. At the Sieff conference it was the belief of all disciplines—including, psychiatrists, police and doctors—who said time and again that social workers are key to caring for children and to promoting their welfare and protection. We should not go again on that roundabout of giving lip service but not actually taking any action. One of the keys is to change the model of practice. Social workers should not move into management and stop practising. They should move up the line. I have practised all my life. It has not always been the right thing to do, but I have always felt it appropriate to maintain skills.
It is terrific that there will be a commissioner for children in England, where it will need to be different. In many parts of the country there will be need to be some regional focus. Again, I should like reassurance

39
on independence. I look forward with great enthusiasm and congratulate the Government on an excellent Green Paper.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her comments and pay tribute to the quality and quantity of work that she has undertaken over a number of years to support children and their families. The noble Baroness raised three points. I shall be brief. I agree that it is important to have the nature of the boundaries of the work that professionals are doing understood and recognised. I hope that with the duty to safeguard children, which will be a requirement on all professionals, that will be explored more fully and is seen as paramount in their work.
In the Green Paper, we talk about the kind of new career pathways available for social workers. As the noble Baroness said, that will enable people to remain on the front line and develop their careers in different ways. That includes moving sideways, which is within the gamut of different things one can do to support children, and should be offered on many more occasions. I did not answer the question earlier, but the commissioner will be entirely independent from government.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement. I shall confine myself to the interest that I have expressed frequently in the House. In talking about support for families and carers, will the Minister bear in mind that many of the mothers with whom I am concerned—mothers of children who have been diagnosed with physical illnesses—who are accused of Munchausen's syndrome by proxy, are vulnerable themselves? They are often single mothers who have not got a mother or granny or aunt around the corner to support them. They need sympathetic handling from social workers.
I am not attacking social workers. I have never attacked social workers. I have huge sympathy for them because I think that society expects too much from them. These mothers are more likely to ask for help. While I accept that there should be early intervention, it should not be too heavy. Over and over again I have been told how these mothers have been presented with a huge panel of people from all disciplines. I am all for multi-disciplinary working, but these mothers have never before encountered authority. They have never had to employ a lawyer or go to court. They are in a very difficult situation.
The noble Baroness did not mention at all the guardian ad litem system, which I understand has more or less collapsed. The guardian ad litem provided wonderful support for children. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, mentioned the need to listen to children. In a guardian ad litem, children have a truly independent guardian rather than one employed by the local authority. The guardian ad litem might be
40
paid by the local authority, but is not employed by it. The system is very necessary and I hope that the noble Baroness will bear it in mind for the future.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I thank the noble Countess for her comments. Munchausen's syndrome by proxy is a difficult matter for us to debate in the short time available. However, it might reassure the noble Countess that, in developing our strategy, we are looking to early intervention in order to prevent crises arising either for the family or for the child. By moving away from a system where many different professionals provide many different interventions to identifying a person with key responsibilities for a child, it will be much easier for the child, the family and the workers to understand the issues and thus deal with them effectively.
I turn to the point made by the noble Countess about the guardian ad litem system. That is something in which I believe the commissioner will be particularly interested and I shall certainly pass on her comments.

Iraq and the Middle East
4.40 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on Iraq and the Middle East being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"I should like to make a Statement on Iraq and the Middle East. Let me begin with Iraq. When I last updated the House on 15th July, we had witnessed the formation of the Iraqi Governing Council and successful military operations against elements of the old regime. Subsequently, in late July, there were the deaths of Saddam's two sons. The reaction to this in Iraq, including in the Sunni towns north of Baghdad, spoke for itself.
"The political process was advancing too. On 14th August, the United Nations Security Council adopted SCR 1500 which welcomed the establishment of the Governing Council and created the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq. But, as the House is well aware, these positive developments have since been overshadowed by a series of atrocities. There was the bombing of the Jordanian Embassy on 7th August which claimed the lives of 17 people. This was followed on 19th August by the attack on the UN headquarters in Baghdad which caused the deaths of UN Special Representative Sergio Vieira de Mello and 21 others. Then, on 29th August, there was the assassination of Ayatollah Hakim in Najaf in a car bomb which killed over 100 other worshippers.
"Altogether nine Britons have lost their lives since the House rose on 17th July. In the south of Iraq, three separate attacks on 14th, 23rd and 27th August have seen the deaths of five British soldiers from the Queen's Lancashire Regiment, the Royal

41
Military Police and the Lowland Regiment of the Territorial Army. And last Thursday, Ian Rimell, a British mines clearance expert, was murdered in northern Iraq. I know that I speak for the whole House when I say that our deepest condolences go to the families of the British victims, and to the loved ones of all those killed by terrorists in Iraq, be they soldiers, international civil servants, Iraqi political leaders, or Iraqi civilians going about their daily lives. I pay particular tribute to Sergio Vieira de Mello, who was an outstanding international diplomat.
"I know the House will wish to join me in offering our deepest sympathy to the family and friends of Fiona Watson, who died in the bombing of the UN headquarters in Baghdad. Many colleagues will recall, as I do, that Fiona was a highly regarded officer of this House who worked as a senior researcher in the international affairs and defence section in the Library of the House between 1992–97. Her subsequent work for the UN Secretariat was recognised as being of the highest quality. She will be greatly missed both by former colleagues here and by her fellow officials at the United Nations.
"Investigations are under way to bring the perpetrators of these and other acts of terrorism to justice. The attacks appear to come both from supporters of the Saddam regime and from terrorist groups from elsewhere in the region. What is clear is that these groups decided to target the United Nations and those, like Ayatollah Hakim, working so constructively and courageously for a new Iraq precisely because they could see the progress which the United Nations, the Coalition Provisional Authority and the Iraqi Governing Council were making. They wished. literally, to blow this process apart. The threat from the terrorists is now not just to the coalition forces, but to the Iraqi people and to their future.
"This is now increasingly recognised by the international community as a whole. Whatever view was held about the military action itself, there is a determination across the civilised world that we all have to ensure that the terrorists fail in their objective. For our part, we will not be deterred from our goal: to hand sovereignty to the Iraqi people as quickly as possible in conditions where they can build a secure and prosperous country, for sovereignty can be fully exercised only in a climate of security. It is for this reason that the continued presence of coalition troops is vital if Iraq is to manage the transition to representative government and to build a society based on tolerance, respect for human rights and the rule of law.
"At present there are 140,000 United States troops and over 10,000 British troops in the country. Another 15,000 troops have been provided by 25 other nations, including 5,500 from five existing EU member states, plus 2,300 from five EU accession countries.
42
"As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence has told the House earlier today, we will be deploying additional troops in the near future to the UK area of operations in south-eastern Iraq. This deployment will give extra capabilities to our commanders in theatre and increase our capacity to help rebuild Iraq's infrastructure.
"Urgent action is also being taken to build up Iraq's own security forces. Police numbers now stand at 37,000, and this figure is planned to rise to some 70,000. The training of the new Iraqi army has begun with a target of three divisions by mid-2004. An Iraqi civil defence corps of 14,000 is being trained and rapidly expanded to take over many guarding and patrolling duties, freeing up coalition forces for more demanding tasks.
"On further evidence relating to Saddam Hussein's illegal weapons programmes, the Iraq Survey Group continues its work, albeit in a difficult security environment. This is a long-term task. The ISG will make a progress report at the appropriate time.
"I do not in any way underestimate the scale of the security and other problems that we face. They are very serious. But we should not lose sight of the effective work of the Coalition Provisional Authority under Ambassador Bremer and coalition forces, and work by the Iraqis' own Governing Council and Ministers. This week, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, our former Ambassador to the United Nations, will be going out to Baghdad as the Government's Special Representative. Last month, Sir Hilary Synnott, our former High Commissioner in Pakistan, took up his post in Basra as the regional co-ordinator for the CPA in southern Iraq. I know that the House will join me in sending them our best wishes.
"The international staff in Iraq, including many Britons, are doing vital work in difficult circumstances. The delivery of essential services is gradually improving. Food distribution systems are restored. All 240 hospitals in Iraq are functioning. With the help of UNICEF, over 22 million doses of vaccine have been provided, enough for over 4 million children. By the end of June most schools in Iraq were open. We have launched an upgrade of school facilities. Some 70 million revised textbooks will be printed by the end of December, and universities have been operating as normal.
"The water sector is obviously one of the top priorities. Projects are in hand in Baghdad and elsewhere to upgrade existing treatment plants and build new ones to serve 11.5 million people. But the network has been badly hit by organised sabotage, exacerbated by shortages of parts and chemicals.
"Electricity and oil supplies have also been targeted by the terrorists. In response, an Iraqi force is being trained and armed to guard Iraq's oil and power facilities as well as its bridges and dams. Iraqis are helping coalition troops to secure the 19,000 kilometres of power lines and 7,000 kilometres of oil pipelines in Iraq.

43
"Our Department for International Development is moving quickly to allocate new funds for an emergency infrastructure programme in southern Iraq.
"One of the immediate consequences of the bombing of the United Nations building in Baghdad on 19th August has been a scaling back of the United Nations' presence in Iraq. We are in close touch with the United Nations about what further security measures can be put in place to help it restore its activity in Iraq.
"Over as short a timescale as possible, our goal is to create the conditions in which the Iraqi people can take responsibility for the governance of their country. Two months after the formation of the Iraqi Governing Council, it is now heavily involved in the key economic and political decisions. On 3rd September the council appointed 25 interim Iraqi Ministers. From now on, Iraq's government ministries will be led by Iraqi politicians, responsible for implementing policy and managing their budgets. Along with the Governing Council and the CPA, these Ministers enjoy full rights to initiate policy. The overall effect of this change has been a significant transfer of responsibility from the CPA to the Iraqis, a process that should accelerate from now on.
"On the international front, I have been working closely over recent weeks with Secretary Powell and my colleagues within the EU and elsewhere to strengthen the UN's mandate in Iraq. A draft resolution is being discussed at the Security Council. Let me set out its central elements.
"The draft reaffirms the UN's support for the work of the Iraqi Governing Council. It calls on the Governing Council to submit a timetable and programme for the drafting of a new constitution for Iraq and for the holding of democratic elections. The aim is for the UN to be heavily involved in preparing the electoral register and other electoral processes.
"The draft proposes a UN-mandated multinational force under existing unified command arrangements. This should facilitate the provision of troops by other countries.
"Finally, the text refers to next month's conference in Madrid, which will be attended by a number of potential donor countries and the international financial institutions, and calls upon UN member states to help the Iraqi people by providing resources for rehabilitation and reconstruction.
"Discussions on the draft resolution will resume in New York later today. I will of course report the outcome to the House and make any public text available to the House.
"Let me now turn to the MEPP. I very much regret the resignation of Abu Mazen over the weekend. We had confidence in him and we supported his efforts to deliver the Palestinians'
44
implementation of their road map commitments in a difficult climate of violence and uncertainty. It was of course Abu Mazen's appointment itself in April which triggered the publication of the road map, which in turn sets out the objective of a secure state of Israel and a viable Palestinian state and how to achieve this.
"But his resignation should not send the peace process back to square one. The Palestinian leadership must unite around a clear commitment to road map implementation. It needs to take firm action to stop the terrorists planning and executing attacks, like the appalling 19th August bus bombing in Jerusalem, from territory under Palestinian Authority control.
"The Speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council, Abu Ala, has now been nominated to take over from Abu Mazen. Abu Ala is a Palestinian leader with a long track record of efforts for peace. If his appointment is confirmed, we will judge him by his commitment to the peace process.
"Similarly, we shall continue to encourage Israel to meet its obligations. Israel must create the climate within which moderate Palestinian leaders can prevail: by freezing settlement activity; by removing outposts, illegal even under Israeli law; by restoring Palestinian freedom of movement and so allowing economic activity to restart; by ending 'targeted assassinations'; and, lastly, by ensuring that the security fence does not encroach on Palestinian land.
"The House will wish to know that I have today spoken to Nabil Shaath, Colin Powell and Silvan Shalom about these issues.
"In turn, the responsibility of the international community is to do everything it can to hold both sides to their commitments under the road map and to isolate the terrorists, and we will continue to play our part. I welcome the fact that the EU is taking a lead here. On Saturday, EU Foreign Ministers unanimously agreed that the Union should freeze the assets of Hamas.
"In respect of both the Middle East peace process and the situation in Iraq, Britain is seeking, in partnership with others, to bring its influence to bear on a region which has suffered unimaginable torment for decades. In recent months, thanks in part to our actions, the people of the area have reason to believe that a peaceful and prosperous future might be within their reach.
"This prospect must be kept alive against those who would plunge the region into chaos. We are determined to work with the international community to establish peace and security across the Middle East. Despite the setbacks of recent days and weeks, this is the course we shall continue to pursue".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.57 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, we are all very grateful, I am sure, to the noble Baroness for repeating this major Statement on events in the Middle East. There have been many events since we last met here, most of them very tragic and very bloody, including the murder of six more British soldiers and other Britons and, particularly tragically, the murder of Fiona Watson. We join with Ministers and the Government in sending our deepest condolences and sympathies to the families of these heroes.
Let me begin with the question of greater troop deployments, as set out in the written Statement of the Secretary of State for Defence. It refers to additional protection being provided by extra troops. What does that mean? Does it mean that such protection will involve expanding existing areas of operation and creating new ones, or does it mean merely replacing or reinforcing troops in existing areas? I gather that some of the troops will be going back for the second time. This is a very hard grind.
Is the Minister convinced that sending extra troops in the form of two more infantry battalions is the answer to the difficult and complex terrorist and security situation that has developed in Iraq? After all, more troops means more targets. Can the Minister assure the House that, in addition to soldiery, the Government are considering and planning for the provision of more policing experts, more electrical and water repair and installation engineers, more anti-terrorist intelligence experts and experts in low-intensity warfare of the kind in which this country is enormously expert thanks to our experience in Northern Ireland, of which I also had experience back in the 1970s?
Large areas of Iraq are peaceful—we must not exaggerate the appalling difficulties, serious though they are—and the security problem is relatively localised in certain danger areas. It is in these areas that the whole anti-terrorist effort should he concentrated using the right personnel and the right equipment. If there are to be more troops in addition to those provided by the existing coalition allies and our own contribution, where are they to come from? In attracting more troop contingents from other countries, how much depends on there being a bigger role for the United Nations?
Everyone, including the Americans, now seems to agree that there should be greater UN involvement in Iraq. How is that to be organised? Can military and political roles be split, as some have suggested, with the proposed UN-led force carrying out a peacekeeping role, when there is peace, and the main military efforts still being borne by the coalition forces? Does the draft UN resolution to which the Foreign Secretary refers go far enough to attract the contribution of more countries which have been hesitating, such as India, Pakistan and Turkey? Can the United Nations handle this big a role? Does it want to after the horrific murders at the UN building in Baghdad, or should it first have the fundamental reassessment, to quote the words of Kofi Annan. about which he has been
46
speaking in recent days? These questions should be examined before one accepts that a vastly greater burden should be placed upon the UN.
We have to ask what France and Germany are playing at. They, too, have said that they want the UN to be completely in charge; however, they have also said that they do not want to participate in or validate any activity which would somehow suggest approval of the invasion which they were against from the start. Do they have the troops, anyway? I am told that the French military are completely committed elsewhere, while the Germans are heavily committed in Afghanistan.
We welcome the setting up of the governing council and the appointment of Ministers in a Cabinet as a step forward. But is not the real answer to the Najaf horror and the horrible hints of disintegration and civil war a much stronger Iraqi police force and a revived Iraqi military? I strongly welcome the suggestion that moves are being made in that direction, but surely the Iraqi army should never have been disbanded in the first place. That was a major United States mistake, and we welcome the efforts indicated in the Statement to repair that error now and bring into being at least the junior and middle ranks of the Iraqi army, ii not the top ranks.
On the Israel/Palestine question. it is hard to find any room for optimism. The road map is clearly in tatters; everyone has been the loser after the horrific events of recent weeks. The truce was shattered by the suicide bomb atrocity of 19th August in Jerusalem. The targeting of civilians and children, with dead children lying in the road, has been met by the inevitable response of more targeting of Hamas leaders. That, in turn, has led the Hamas leaders to say that "every Jew is a target". So the miserable roundabout of violence and hatred spirals on.
Strong words are being said about peace, and we hope the process can be revived, but what other practical moves can we take? Can we be assured that the European Union has ceased completely to support the Hamas killers in any way? That is what the Statement says, and I hope it is so. It seems regrettable that the European Union was doing so until recently—that should have stopped long ago. Let us at least act on that front and be assured that that action is decisive.
Finally, let me turn to the weapons of mass destruction. Have programmes been discovered? Have more weapons been identified? There have been a number of stories during the past few weeks but nothing very definite. There was mention of the Iraq Survey Group report. When exactly will that he produced? I had heard it would be next week but there seem to be doubts about that.
I leave aside, for the moment, the matter that has occupied the media for the past few weeks—the Hutton inquiry into the death of Dr Kelly. No doubt we will deal with that in future debates, but is it not now essential to reassert the important and basic reasons—which we on this side fully support—why we are in Iraq. why we are asking our brave troops to

47
operate there under such tricky conditions and what our goals and objectives really are? It is important for such confident and clear statements to be remade, and very clearly. The sooner that is done, the better.
5.5 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I, too, thank the Government for the Statement. It is very difficult to comment on such a broad Statement about such a very dangerous region in such a serious situation. We on these Benches have argued throughout the last two years that one has to take the conflicts in the Middle East as connected, as the Americans and many Muslim countries always have. The connection between the invasion of Iraq, the problem of terrorism in the region and the Arab/Israeli conflict is one we must all grasp.
We bitterly regret the casualties and the atrocities of the last few weeks. We acknowledge the useful progress made by the Coalition Provisional Authority, although we regret that insufficient troops were provided, for ideological reasons within the Pentagon, and that there was, for similar ideological reasons—and here I follow the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford—an unfortunately slow approach to reconstituting local forces for security. The unease on these Benches throughout this long process has partly been because of what we have seen as a mistaken analysis, particularly within the Pentagon but elsewhere within Washington as well. There has been a deliberate discrediting in Washington of regional experts on the Middle East in favour of an approach to the region which seemed to us fundamentally mistaken. That included the idea, which even Henry Kissinger stated on a number of occasions, that the road to Jerusalem runs through Baghdad, and the invasion of Iraq would thus lead to a successful peace between Israel and Palestine.
The Statement talks about the United Kingdom working in partnership with other states. What is the balance between the partners? Is it UK policy still, in effect, to follow the uncertain trumpet of American policy, or have we returned towards closer cooperation with other EU governments in persuading the United States to modify its position? As the Minister will know, we on these Benches have had some sympathy with the French and German position throughout this conflict. We should be working more closely with our European partners in trying to push the very confused debate in Washington in a more constructive direction.
How strong will the UN engagement be? Can we be assured that the details of the UN resolution will mean not simply a continuation of US command with a supplementary role for the UN but a real role for the UN, including the active engagement of Muslim countries? One of the things that depresses us most in following the debate within Washington is hearing that we are faced with a fourth world war between the West and the Muslim world. The article by Amity Shlaes in the Financial Times last week used exactly that phrase. I hope that Her Majesty's Government in no sense share that perspective.
48
Paragraph 13 states that the international survey group will report at an appropriate time. That is a wonderfully vague phrase. Do the Government think an appropriate time will be in 2003 or possibly 2004 or 2005? I think we are entitled to a rather more definite date than that.
On the Middle East peace process, we have again been hampered by a deeply mistaken analysis in Washington. None of us should underestimate the seriousness of the situation. It looks as if the road map has collapsed; the cycle of violence on both sides may lead towards a more general conflict. In this regard, aspects of the Statement make me uneasy. References to the Palestinian leadership are made in the form of demands that they must unite, whereas, when it comes to Israel, we are to continue to encourage her to meet her obligations. Let us be clear. Neither side has been meeting its obligations. Targeted assassinations and the destruction of Palestinian farms, groves and houses breed further terrorism within the Palestinian world.
Reference is made to the freezing of settlements. Can we please be a little more honest and say that, unless there is a reduction in the number of settlements, there cannot be a viable Palestine, thus there cannot be a two-state solution? Can we be clear—as the Israeli press has argued in the past few days—that the future route of the fence or wall is vital? Unless the future route of the wall goes close to the 1967 boundaries, there will be no prospect of a viable Palestine, and thus no prospect of a viable two-state solution.
We would like Her Majesty's Government to insist that a two-state solution is the only acceptable outcome, and that such a solution can be built only on boundaries close to the 1967 boundaries, allowing for a viable Palestinian state to emerge. Perhaps it would be better now to move from the stage proposals of the road map to the final status negotiations to make that clear.
How many troops will be sent? A figure of 5,000 has been suggested. I think that the House is entitled to a little more clarity. Lastly, paragraph 19 refers to further funds being allowed. There is some concern, as the Minister will know, within the development community that the situation in Iraq will lead to an immense diversion of funds from development in other countries. Can the Minister give us some reassurance that the development budget will not be gradually sucked up in reconstructing Iraq?
5.12 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Howell of Guildford and Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for their reception of the Statement. I will attempt to deal with the points that they have raised.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, said that a great deal had happened since we last met. Indeed it has. I am sure that we all mourn the British losses. I thank the noble Lord for joining Her Majesty's Government in expressing sympathy over those losses.

49
The noble Lord asked about troop deployments and whether the area of operation would be expanded. As I understand it, it is hoped that the troops will be able to deepen their activities rather than expand the area in which they are operating. In answer to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, I understand that the figure is about 1,500 extra troops—the number encompassed in the announcement earlier today by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence. I say to both noble Lords, but particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that this is being undertaken on military advice from commanders in the field. We will continue to receive reports from them and will keep matters under constant review. More peace experts are going in, and there is more training for those who will be charged with protecting water, fuel and power. As I say, the military commanders will be feeding back information all the time to the Ministry of Defence, so that judgments can constantly be made about what is needed on the ground.
The noble Lord raised the question about getting more troops from other countries into Iraq. The UN resolution is under active negotiation now. There is a reference to continuing negotiation today. I understand that the P5 countries are meeting today to go into some detail on the matter. But how precisely the troops would be organised is under discussion. The noble Lord asked whether this will go far enough and whether it will attract countries such as India. These are the exact questions that have to be discussed in the course of the next few days. The Secretary-General has made it clear that he does not foresee a blue helmet force taking over security in Iraq now, hut, on the other hand, there is a desire for greater participation by more UN countries.
The noble Lord questioned the number of police. I understand that there are currently 37,000 Iraqi police. As the Statement makes clear, it is hoped that there will be 70,000 in due course. As for the Iraqi army, we are hoping that three divisions will be trained—I understand that that amounts to some 40,000 Iraqi soldiers—by mid-2004.
The noble Lord made reference to what he termed the de-Ba'athification of the Iraqi army—a point discussed by your Lordships in the past. The fact that so many senior Iraqi officials in all walks of life, whether civilian or military, were members of the Ba'ath party was a function of the old regime. The noble Lord is right: in clearing out anyone who was a member of the Ba'ath party, a great deal of valuable expertise has been lost. I believe that we have now found a better balance on that issue.
I turn to the points raised on the Israel-Palestine question. The asset freezing was agreed last Saturday. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary particularly led the argument for that asset freezing in the EU. In the past there has been a desire for a split in the understanding of Hamas activity as being military on the one hand and humanitarian on the other. I am afraid that that understanding has become
50
less and less clear in recent years; hence the desire to have the assets frozen altogether, as was agreed on Saturday.
We hope that the ISG report will be available soon. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that the Statement stresses that this will be an interim report. I cannot give the noble Lord a date—had been able to do so it would have been in the Foreign Secretary's original Statement—but it is hoped to have it soon. It will be an interim report. Again, as the Statement makes clear, this will be a very lengthy process.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, asked how we justify our continued activity in Iraq. We are rebuilding Iraq for the Iraqis. They are part of that process. As regards the political process and the momentum that we have seen, the formation of the governing council on 13th July, and on 3rd September the appointment by the governing council of the interim Iraqi Ministers, are substantial steps forward. We should not lose sight of the fact that there has been some political progress and that there is now a 25-strong constitutional preparatory committee which will be making recommendations to the governing council later this month.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, asked me about UK policy being to follow the US. I am sure that the noble Lord will not be surprised to learn that I do not accept his premise. Anyone who knows the Prime Minister, special representive John Sawers or special representative Sir Jeremy Greenstock will know that all would be very robust indeed in saying what they had to say to the United States, or indeed to anyone else, about what we believe is important in Iraq. We want a real role of active engagement from Muslim countries. I myself have heard United States officials make exactly that point, particularly in relation to attracting countries that may be able to send Muslim troops.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, was uncharacteristically wrong when he said that the Statement merely encouraged Israel while it said that Palestine had to do certain things. I ask him whether he will be kind enough to read again paragraph 31 of the Statement, which states:
"Similarly we shall continue to encourage Israel to meet her obligations"—
quite rightly—but it goes on to say:
"Israel must create the climate within which moderate Palestinian leaders can prevail".
It goes on to list six things which Israel "must" do. I hope that the noble Lord will give credit for the balance that I believe is in my right honourable friend's Statement on that point.
Lastly, on the funding considerations raised by the noble Lord, there is a great deal of Whitehall conversation between departments at the moment about funding. The Foreign Office needs to see more funds in relation to these points. There are funds, and there is discussion about how these are properly to be allocated over the course of the next few weeks and months.
5.19 p.m.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement and perhaps I may join in sending good wishes to my close friend and former colleague, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, in his extremely difficult task.
I want to make one point on the Arab-Israel situation. I know that there are varying views, most of them pessimistic, about the role of Yasser Arafat, but I must remind the House that it is the elected leader of the Palestinians who has appointed Abu Ala as their Prime Minister and I would caution against any continuing attempt to exclude Yasser Arafat. I ask the Minister to distance the Government from current talk about expelling Yasser Arafat from Palestine. I believe that that would have disastrous consequences and would certainly undermine and bring to a complete end any task that Abu Ala may be able to perform.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, for what he has said about Sir Jeremy Greenstock, who is an extraordinarily experienced and very able diplomat. I am sure that he takes the good wishes of the whole House with him in his huge task.
As to the point that the noble Lord raised about Yasser Arafat, let me put his mind at rest. He has no need to persuade Her Majesty's Government of the importance of the role of Yasser Arafat. As the noble Lord will know, there are a number of voices that raise questions about Mr Arafat's role and some of the things that he has said. However, the fact remains that Yasser Arafat is the elected leader of his people and, while he is in that position, it is of course incumbent on all of us to deal with him as the elected leader of the Palestinian people.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, my noble friend will know that land in the ownership of Palestinians has been confiscated by the Israeli authorities. Would she be prepared to put a detailed reply in the Library as to the whether the seizure of property in the ownership of Mr Abdul Karim at Beit Eksa and Beit Souriq by the Israeli official Mr Mikka Yaven on behalf of the civil administration of Judea and Samaria is in compliance with the terms set out in the road map for peace? If it is not in compliance with the terms of the road map, in so far as we seem determined to implement it, what do we intend to do about the seizure of that land?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, there are probably quite a few Palestinians who have difficulties, given the seizure of land. The settlement activity, including road building, is creating a great deal of difficulty on the ground, and not only for individuals for whom such land seizures are a very terrible personal loss. It also makes for great difficulty in breaking up Palestinian territorial contiguity, particularly on the West Bank. That makes the possibility of a negotiated settlement very much more difficult.
52
If the noble Lord will allow me, I shall take away the names of the individual to whom he referred and see what additional information I can give him. It is very important at the moment that we do everything we can to further peace. There may be some individual instances when over-exposure of what has happened to individuals may not be fully in concert with that overall direction. I hope to be as helpful as possible to him, and to be able to give him more information, if he is kind enough to let me ask the department about that matter.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, the Peel Commission found that dual state partition was a good idea in 1936, the United Nations tried it in 1948 and we are trying it again. The Middle East is the most depressing place that it is possible to think about. I refer to the criminal activities of the Israeli settlers and Government on the basis of Genesis 17, which says that if an elderly man changes his name from Abram to Abraham and his wife from Sarai to Sarah, he can have kiddies and they can nick the best piece of real estate on the eastern Mediterranean littoral. That is not how the authorised version of the Bible version puts it—that is essentially what Genesis 17 says. We must not go on tolerating the fact that because God said to Abraham, "You can have this piece of property—because you believe this and live in Brooklyn—you can go there and dispossess Palestinians". That is quintessentially what is happening; it is a harsh way to say it, but it is quintessentially true.
Until we recognise the basic illegality and immorality of the disposition of one people by another, we are not going to have peace in the Middle East. I accept that we cannot go from the position in which we would have liked to be in 1917, when the Balfour Declaration referred to a situation without prejudice to existing rights, religious or political, of the existing inhabitants. Of course, we cannot go from there, but we must go to the core of the problem and try to settle it. I have not the faintest idea how to do it, but until we recognise that that is the core of the problem, we shall not even be able to begin to try to settle it.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am not quite sure what question the noble Earl is asking me. I have heard his views on Genesis 17 before, and I am relieved that they were less colourfully expressed on this occasion than on many others. Of course the situation is depressing, and what has happened over the past few weeks—and particularly over the past 48 hours or so—is deeply worrying. The noble Lord says that he does not have the faintest idea how we deal with the problem. The fact is that the international community does have a good idea, which is the road map.
The road map may not so far have been met with acclaim on all sides, but I am bound to say to your Lordships that it is the only solution on the table at the moment that commands any degree of international support. It commands support from as diverse a group of opinion as the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia on one

53
hand and the President of the United States of America on the other, together with the President of Russia, the whole of the EU community and the United Nations. It is vital that we do not lose heart because of the activities of those who would derail it. Those terrorists would be delighted to hear what the noble Earl has just said. We must not give them that satisfaction; we must go on setting our hands to the task before us.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, for a number of reasons, some of them apparent, I was against the war, brilliantly as the initial military campaign was conducted. However, I fully recognise now that we must do what we can to finish what the coalition has started. That, as the Minister said, will require more of our own forces. Indeed, reconstruction apart, the coalition seems to have embarked consciously on the vital war against terrorism on a definite strategy, which can only be described as a Dien Bien Phu strategy. Having forced Al'Qaeda rather incongruously into cahoots with Saddam's loyalists, it intends to take on the terrorists head-on, on ground of its own choosing—that is, Iraq—and to destroy them with superior force.
There were other ways, but that can be said to be one coherent strategy, which, although the name that I have given it implies risks, could be successful. I sincerely hope that it will be. Those supporting it—and, judging by his latest press conference, that includes our own Prime Minister—will claim that it will pre-empt later, less manageable terrorist activity, which could then be encountered only over a wider area and in much more inaccessible places. However, successful or not, it will require many troops over a prolonged period at a prodigious cost, and a very steady nerve, not only in government but in the country. Democracies sometimes soon get tired of such demanding adventures.
The question that I put to the Minister is how the Government will reconcile that prospect with the state of our long-time over-stretched and under-funded Armed Forces, whom the last Chief of Defence Staff, my noble and gallant friend Lord Boyce, clearly warned could not undertake another commitment on the scale of the Iraq invasion, to which the impending force levels are rapidly returning, for another one to two years. When will the Government—which, of course, means the Treasury—match resources in manpower, material and money to commitments? Alternatively, when will the Government deal with our far-flung commitments more circumspectly?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble and gallant Lord for at least part of what he said. The details of the deployment are to be found in the Statement made by my right honourable friend the Defence Secretary, and I believe that my noble friend Lord Bach will be answering a Written Question in your Lordships' House tomorrow to give further details.
Even in these very difficult circumstances, where security is such a huge problem—the Statement did not pull any punches; it was very clear about the
54
security position in Iraq—it is important to look at the real progress being made with regard to the political situation in Iraq. The Governing Council was established on 13th July and the constitutional committee is due to report to the Governing Council in September; I also refer to the 25 interim government ministers. On that basis, I say to the noble and gallant Lord that I find the analogy which he has drawn with the early situation in Vietnam a rather difficult one for him to sustain. The Governing Council of the Iraqis is very much on the side of the CPA in the ambition of ensuring a peaceful handover of full sovereignty to Iraqi citizens in the shortest possible timeframe. So while I understand some of the points he has made, I think that his analogy really will not bear a great deal of critical analysis.
The noble and gallant Lord rightly raises the point of the pressures on our Armed Forces, which I am sure that all your Lordships will understand and with which many of your Lordships will sympathise. What my right honourable friend the Defence Secretary has announced today should bring our deployment in Iraq up to something in the region of 11,500 troops—although as I already indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that may well be under review If more suggestions are put forward by commanders in the region, no doubt those will be looked at. In terms of overstretch, however, the noble and gallant Lord will know that the British Armed Forces are currently not as overstretched as they were three or four years ago. Although that may not be a huge comfort to him. I say to him that when I sat where my noble friend Lord Bach now sits, some of the overstretch was a great deal more difficult than it is today.
So I absolutely take the noble and gallant Lord's strictures that we must handle this very carefully and not put unendurable pressures on our Armed Forces. Again, however, I think that we have to see this in the context of the very considerable gains that there are if we are able to sustain the position in Iraq.
Lord Judd: My Lords, will my noble friend accept that there will be strong feeling among many of us in this House that we should send nothing but good will to those involved in the important negotiations at the United Nations at the moment? In the candid speaking to our American friends to which she has referred, will the Government be at pains to point out that what is central to the success of the operation now is the authority of the United Nations and accountability to the United Nations? It would be unfortunate if anything said by our American friends should indicate to the world that somehow the UN is seen as a subcontractor to be brought in to assist in an essentially United States operation. The operation has to be internationalised through the UN if it is to have credibility and the necessary international support.
On the Middle East, will my noble friend simply accept that in speaking as firmly as she has indicated the Government are speaking to the Israelis, it is important to say that in the end peace will be found only when the Israelis speak to those who the Palestinians feel represent them rather than those who

55
the Americans say are acceptable as representatives of the Palestinians? In that context, will she also say that what is totally wrong and unacceptable is action by the Israelis that undermines the credibility of those trying to lead the Palestinians, as distinct from assisting them to make a success of their responsibilities?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Judd for what he said about our colleagues who are dealing with these very difficult issues in the United Nations. I say to him as I have done already to your Lordships that we are keen to see the transfer of responsibility for running Iraq returned to the Iraqis as soon as possible. I believe that that is a united view of all the countries sitting round the negotiating table in the Security Council, trying to find the best means of doing that by the most helpful United Nations Security Council resolution. However, I also say to my noble friend that the CPA has very clear responsibilities. It is responsible under the Geneva and Hague Conventions for ensuring that the security and humanitarian needs in Iraq are met. So I do not want to mislead my noble friend. One cannot simply say, "Let us share it out". There are specific legal responsibilities on the CPA, and those are ours to shoulder until such time as we are able to ensure that transition of power to which I referred a moment or two ago.
Again, I would not wish for my comments to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, about our imperatives in the Statement concerning Israel in any way to undermine the very firm way in which the Government have also been speaking to our friends in Palestine. The Government are speaking firmly to both sides in this hugely difficult situation. The noble Lord spelt out points, which he said are wrong and unacceptable, about the way in which the Israeli Government have conducted some of the business around this matter. However, I am bound to say to him as well that much of what has gone on on the Palestinian side is completely wrong and unacceptable. That terrible bombing in Jerusalem was an outrage that needlessly killed many Israeli citizens and was arguably the major turn of the unfortunate sequence of events that has led us to where we are today.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, for security reasons, the Israeli media are calling for the razing to the ground of a low-cost Abu Dhabi housing development in Gaza. Will that not provoke further attacks? Is there a concern of a Taliban resurgence and a link with what is going on in Iraq? Finally, is there recognition of privatisation as a mechanism to fund a plethora of essential projects in Iraq?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I do not know whether, at the end, the noble Viscount meant privatisation in Iraq or in Palestine.
Viscount Waverley: In Iraq, my Lords.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I should deal first with the first point. Anything that
56
adds to the cycle of violence in Israel and the Palestinian Authority areas are bound to be matters that provoke one side or the other. Given the events of the past few weeks, nothing could be clearer than that violence on one side immediately excites violence on the other. As for the noble Viscount's point on privatisation, many ways are being discussed of how to attract more money into Iraq for the reconstruction. Of course there is a private sector interest in this. My colleagues in the DTI and elsewhere are discussing various means by which that may be done.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, is it the Government's assessment that the threat in Iraq is increased by terrorists from outside the country crossing across unguarded borders? If so, what are the prospects that the borders of Iraq can soon be made real borders which will be more difficult for foreign terrorists to cross and enter the country?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Government's assessment is that there is terrorist activity in Iraq and that not all of it is generated originally in Iraq; much of it may be generated from outside that country. If it were easy to secure the borders, such would be done. However, the fact is that there is currently a great deal of security activity going on in trying to protect the people of Iraq. We have already spoken about services such as power lines, water and the country's infrastructure which those terrorists are attacking. Not only are the forces having to look after the security of the people of that country; they are also currently very much preoccupied in looking after the maintenance of essential services.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree—
Lord Grocott: My Lords, we have had 20 minutes of questions and we have a very important Second Reading debate.

Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill
5.39 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I wish to concentrate my remarks mainly on the question and definition of social healthcare, referring in particular to sexual health, and then to support briefly the principle of foundation hospitals. Before doing so, however, I must declare an interest as the chair of the Independent Advisory Group on Sexual Health and as president of fpa.
Sexual health is an aspect of public health which is almost completely ignored in any of the documentation on the role and responsibilities of the new healthcare inspectorate and the new inspectorate for social care.

57
The Minister said that CHAI and the Commission for Social Care Inspection will have the power to inspect standards, to audit spending and to report on the quality of all aspects of health and social care provision in the public, private and voluntary sectors.
My first question to the Minister, therefore, is, will sexual health be an integral part of public health and priority in the NHS, with CHAI fully inspecting the quality and delivery of sexual health provision? If it is not CHAI's responsibility, will it be the responsibility of the social care commission? Also, will performance indicators be identified by CHAI as incentives to improve sexual health services?
I appreciate that the Government have an action plan for sexual health. These are important steps in a long-term strategy. But improving sexual health has to be given much greater priority if we are to overcome the increase of HIV/AIDS, the explosion of sexually transmitted diseases and ignorance of the consequences of unprotected sex. CHAI has to take on board that the state of sexual health in this country is grim. It cannot be stressed too strongly that STIs and HIV are transmittable infections. Lack of immediate action will create a time bomb for the future, as the rate of infections will grow exponentially.
Latest figures from the Health Protection Agency produced this July so clearly illustrate this growth. Genital chlamydial infection is now the most commonly diagnosed STI seen in GUM clinics. Some 81,000 cases were diagnosed in 2002—an increase of 14 per cent on 2001. Syphilis—a disease which most people assume was a disease of the past—increased substantially between 2001 and 2002 by 67 per cent in men and 33 per cent in women—the highest outbreak since 1984. Approximately 41,000 people are living with HIV, with 6,000 new infections recorded in 2002. So we have a rapid growth of infection but a lack of parallel investment.
I refer to an example from the Commons Health Select Committee report, which highlighted the many clinic premises that are of "an unacceptable standard"—a view I can endorse, having taken the opportunity to visit some of these premises and seen some appalling conditions. Surely that is something that a new inspectorate should take on board. Premises established for seeing 400 clients are having to attempt to cope with 1,000 clients, with open door policies having to be stopped and appointment systems established. The Health Protection Agency identified 1½ million attendances at such clinics in 2002—an increase of 15 per cent on 2001.
The problem for sexual health is also exacerbated by the lack of consultants and adequately trained nursing and support staff. Will CHAI have the responsibility for conducting a multidisciplinary review to assess service capacity, staffing, premises and supporting infrastructure? What guidance will CHAI give to provide a more co-ordinated, holistic approach to the public and sexual health agenda? I refer particularly to co-ordination as it seems to me that it is crucial. I cite as evidence the fact that NICE recently recommended free IVF treatment on the NHS, but that has not been
58
accompanied by any reference to the rising rates of chlamydia, yet there is an identified causal link between chlamydia and infertility. Screening for chlamydia decreases cases of pelvic inflammatory disease—a significant cause of infertility—by 64 per cent. Investment now could help to forestall a huge rise in the costs of infertility treatment in the future.
I am sure that my noble friend Lord Warner will refer to the roll-out of the chlamydia screening programme, but it is clear that a 10-year programme is too long. Surely early treatment and prevention is an evident truth. Particularly as many of the infrastructures required for central co-ordination are now in place, every effort should be made to expedite roll-out across the country.
Fpa, Brook and the Terrence Higgins Trust have recently undertaken a review of local delivery plans published by strategic health authorities. The review showed that sexual health is mentioned in just 10 plans, HIV in seven and contraception and abortion services in none. The Government have to give a lead. That is clearly shown by teenage pregnancy being mentioned, quite rightly, in nearly 60 per cent of all local plans, with respondents citing that that is clue to its being a government priority.
Sir Ian Kennedy has indicated that marginalised communities will be a priority for the new work of CHAI. STIs and HIV are preventable diseases that increasingly affect disadvantaged communities and those on the margins of society. To achieve Sir Ian's aim as part of CHAI's evaluation work there will surely need to be the establishment of cross-cutting targets for sexual health and HIV services for PCTs and NHS trusts.
I wish to refer to foundation hospitals but, before doing so, I shall say a few brief words on Part 4 of the Bill. The new GMS contract fragments sexual health services in a way that is at variance with the levels of the Government's agreed national strategy for sexual health—a concern expressed by the Royal College of General Practitioners' task group for sex, drugs and HIV. The consequence is that sexual health will be reduced to various clinical tasks and procedures which GPs may decide to opt out of, not least because in some areas there is a crisis in GP recruitment and retention—a particular problem in London where there is a shortfall of some 350 GPs. The approach taken under the GMS contract is not practical, sensible or holistic. For many general practitioners sexual health will disappear off the agenda. I hope that the Minister will indicate that that will not be the case.
Finally, I turn to NHS foundation trusts. I originally had many problems in accepting the proposals for NHS foundation trusts, but the amendments introduced in the other place and discussions I have had with practitioners locally who support the proposals have helped me to change my position. I support the injection of a new element of local democratic involvement in the proposed trusts and hopefully their ability to give the NHS greater freedom to provide the best service to meet local needs, but there need to be guarantees that they will work to

59
national standards. The role of the independent regulator has also been improved by having to be accountable to Parliament and not to the Secretary of State and by being inspected on performance ratings by CHAI.
The Constitution Select Committee, of which I am a member, considered the constitutional implications of the Bill. In particular, it looked at how the local membership of the board of governors is to be elected. I ask my noble friend how the boundaries will be defined, by patient or by geography? How will nominations be sought so that the membership, as the Minister said, will cover all elements of society? What will be the role of local authorities? What will be the composition of the electorate and the process of elections? Who will oversee the elections to ensure that they are fairly run? These are important details—they are not trivia—if there is to be confidence in the election process.
I still have some concerns over staffing and the means by which poaching of staff is to be prevented. While I am not as pessimistic as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that other NHS trusts will lose out financially, there need to be guarantees that that will not happen.
I agree with those who argue that the universality of service does not always provide fairness and equity. I sincerely hope, in supporting the introduction of foundation hospitals, that there will be greater consistency of service, greater co-operation with other NHS and community organisations and that the current inequalities in health provision will be overcome.
5.49 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I start by declaring some interests, in that I am a senior associate of the King's Fund, a vice-president of the Royal College of Nursing and the Royal College of Midwives, and chair of St George's Hospital Medical School. I am involved with other charities, and work for the NHS, sometimes in a paid capacity and sometimes unpaid.
I believe that the Bill is the first major piece of government legislation that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, will have taken through this House. It would perhaps be reckless of me to wish him every success, in that noble Lords, myself included, will of course try to amend the Bill. It is a colossal Bill. I wish him well and, above all, I wish him stamina.
I hope that the Minister will recognise our concerns. Some noble Lords here today, and others not in the Chamber, will actually applaud the Government's intention to devolve. Some of us even admire the rhetoric. However, as my noble friend Lord Howe said, it is the detail and the lack of coherence that is deeply troubling. The Government, in moving from the days of spin to counter-revolution, are in danger of gearing the engine so fast from one direction to the opposite direction that it is in danger of blowing up, I fear. There are major changes in the Bill, and I hope that our constructive amendments will help to ensure that we move smoothly into the change of gear.
60
I speak in this debate in the spirit of a Second Reading, and I shall leave the detailed points that I want to make to Committee and Report, but I would like to thank those who have sent me briefings and say that I hope to do justice to their concerns later.
My first point is a constitutional one, but it perhaps goes wider than that made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton. I have a considerable worry that, in future, Bills taken through another place by a majority that relies on votes of Members of Parliament from Scotland and assemblies in Wales and Northern Ireland will be challenged in the court of human rights and, if found to be unconstitutional, will become void. As a revising, advisory and perhaps warning Chamber, should we not find some method to test the validity of the votes before we start to plough through eight days or so on the minutiae of the Bill? I am concerned, and I seek the advice of those noble Lords expert in constitutional law and perhaps of the committee to which the noble Baroness referred. Perhaps the Minister will also seek advice to ensure that our work, and his, is not wasted.
Although I acknowledge that the Bill, in the creation of foundation hospitals—whatever they will be called in future—marks a change, it is in reality not much more than a natural progression for the whole system of NHS acute trusts, which was the work of a previous administration. As my noble friend Lord Howe said, the 1997 Labour revolution was the seizure of power away from trusts back to a highly centralised system, to the point where, in effect, the Secretary of State was appointing, disappointing and firing chief executives, bypassing local trust boards.
The purpose of the Bill is to effect a counterrevolution. The difficulties, as voiced by those in opposition to the Bill—Labour Members of Parliament, academics, trade unions, professional organisations and others—is that local autonomy works against the Labour philosophy of equity. While we have a national health service, which of course I strongly support, we shall always struggle with devolving to local management a national health service, because the two are opposites. Anyone with experience of any organisation will know that excellence attracts excellence. Excellence in medical and nursing services produces better outcomes. It is right that foundation hospitals should aspire to attract the best staff, as any hospital should, but with a strong desire for equity, how will the Government reconcile unequal freedoms with equity?
As a district and regional chairman, and later as a Minister, I have spent more than 20 years visiting wards and hospitals. The variations in performance and outcomes are as variable as the numbers of people employed. Two people can clean the same ward and the result will be different. Two people can treat the same patient and the result will be different. Of course we have to insist on the highest standards, but to expect a management system to,
"guarantee a greater equality in outcomes"—

61
I quote from the Government's brief—is actually naïve. It is no more likely that every school with a set curriculum can obtain the same pass rate in examinations. We know that the variations are vast.
Although I have every sympathy with the Bill's acknowledgement and reward of excellence, there is no doubt that it will not further the cause of equality in health outcomes. That must be a huge dilemma for the Government. As elections draw near, there is a great danger that Ministers will believe that by assuming more central control the service will become more equal. In fact, probably the best that can be achieved is to cover up variations within national statistics.
In reality, the all-important measure is whether patients have faith in their treatment, their doctor, their nurse. Patients are forgiving where the staff have done their utmost. What is inexcusable is neglect of duty. The system of removing incompetent members of staff, whoever they may be, is so difficult, time-consuming and expensive that bad practice and therefore bad outcomes are often condoned. If every hospital could more easily dismiss non-performing staff, the NHS could be improved quicker and by a far greater extent than by the hugely expensive bureaucracy of regulation and inspection proposed in the Bill.
It is not easy to see any consistent principle running through even the major part of the Bill. There is freedom for the best, almost totally constrained by regulation and targets. There is scope enough for politicians to step in and strangle freedom. I believe that the moment has arrived when we must admit that politicians are not good managers, and that the management of the NHS should be removed from politicians. We should also be honest and accept that variations are inevitable, although of course every effort should be made to improve standards. What we should no longer tolerate is the NHS being messed about by politicians for political advantage. It is time we thought more about keeping people well and caring for the sick, and about putting their interests first.
I congratulate the Government on some of their initiatives. not least the national service frameworks. However, they have also wasted billions of pounds taking the NHS for a huge circular tour of management systems. I have to say that it is a temptation that every administration cannot resist. If this Government had developed the NHS from where it was in 1997 to where it might be in two or three years' time, the political management would have been credible. Politicians must now swallow their pride and admit that they must step down, with management placed in the hands of a responsible agency—a model much favoured by the Government in other spheres. I know, too, that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, would feel very denied if not given yet another opportunity to discuss that issue.
There are huge concerns with many aspects of the Bill, not least the role of the independent or not-so independent regulator, the fanciful governance arrangements, the possibility of eroding the enormous amount of work that has been invested in cross-agency
62
partnerships and the patient's journey, financial systems and the risk of jeopardising vulnerable local health communities with the erosion of strategic health authority powers, the new regulatory bodies, and the loss of opportunities for primary care organisations. My amendments, if carried, will resolve all those concerns at a stroke, so I live in hope.
5.59 p.m.
Lord Alderdice: My Lords, I declare an interest as a consultant psychiatrist working part-time in the National Health Service.
I listened with interest to the Minister's description of more money, more doctors, more nurses and more procedures, and I do not doubt that what he says is accurate. However, is it not striking that it has not led to higher morale among staff in the health service? I have to say that I do not think that I have known it any worse. To some extent that is not despite there being more money, staff and procedures, but because of it. When there is inadequate funding, a clear paucity of staff and poor figures, there is always the hope that if one can persuade the Government to put in more resources things will improve. So why is it that after the Government have put in more resources and volunteered another major reform of the health service, there has been no improvement in morale or a great resounding welcome for the Government's proposal?
There are a number of reasons for that. One is that while the principles which the Government lay out seem to be reasonable, their proposals for implementing them seem unclear and self-contradictory. That was mentioned most notably by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. The current fashion for making two or three contradictory statements in one sentence and proclaiming that by doing so one has made great philosophical and practical progress is seen through by the vast majority of the population.
Nor is it the case that the population and health service staff are unhappy and dispirited because they have not heard what the Government are saying about their proposals. In fact, the Government's proposals are self-contradictory. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Warner, in his letter to Peers, pointed out that the NHS should become more personal and that there should be greater freedom on locally run services. He stated that local staff and local people have clearer knowledge than Whitehall and that central control should be replaced with local freedoms. I agree with that. But there is an inevitable consequence of devolution; that is, diversity, which the Government say they want to see. They say they want more choice, more opportunities and more capacity for adventuring and experimentation.
However, that means more differences. It means that circumstances will not be the same in every area and that equality of access is impossible. If in a local area it is possible to decide to put more resources into a particular form of treatment, there will he fewer resources for other kinds of treatment. That may be a

63
perfectly legitimate decision, but it will ensure that the access to particular forms of care in that area will be different from the access in another area where different but totally reasonable choices have been made. When we say to the citizens of this country that we will have diversity and choice, that everyone can have what they want and that it will be available equally to everyone, the citizens look at us askance and say, "You're not being very honest, because that is just not possible".
The Government also say that decisions will be made locally. They say, "We will put in place many people who can take responsible decisions". However, at the same time we are being told that the standards and regulation will be national. What is more, we are told that they will not be lowest-common-denominator standards; they will be high. Indeed, they will be so high that many people will not reach them. Well, as all the decisions will be made centrally, how will decisions be made at a lower level? The citizens see that, as do health service staff.
Those members of staff know all about such standards because every time there is a problem an inquiry is set up. If it is any good at all, it produces a whole set of proposals. As the politician who asked for the inquiry is in no professional position to say that although some of the proposals are interesting they will not work, he or she must say, "I accept in total what the inquiry says and we will put all of it into operation". That ensures that there are so many standards, monitoring exercises and committees and so much accountability that no one has much time to see patients. In addition, it is almost inevitable that the standards will be breached because there are so many that it is impossible to fulfil them all. People therefore lose heart, and self-esteem and performance decline. And so does any sense of belief that what is proposed by the Government is likely to be successful.
That is why I have enormous sympathy—indeed more than that. It is why I support the proposition aired by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. I believe that it is time for the political masters to step back to a position of determining strategy. They should take high-level decisions, of course, but they should not be involved in the professional micro-management of the NHS. The population does not regard the NHS as the prerogative of any particular party or Government, but as being part of the strength and richness of our whole community in the United Kingdom.
There is another inconsistency. It is proposed that the best performing trusts are ideal to become foundation trusts. If foundation trusts represent such a wonderful mechanism for improving performance, surely it would be better to make the lowest performers into such trusts. If the scheme were successful, presumably they would raise their standards.
We in my profession have become familiar with being tutored by the Government in evidence-based medicine; that if we are to prescribe something we need to know that the outcome justifiably can be seen to be possible. Most professionals in the health service
64
would like to see some evidence-based politics; for example, a monitored pilot scheme with an assessed outcome. On the basis of that, the treatment could be made more widely available.
Why take a particular group of hospitals or trusts, insist that the best performers become foundation trusts and say that everyone else will become so good—so good because they were not foundation trusts—that they will measure up in two or three years' time? That would not pass many research ethics committees; it would not pass many statistics tests; and it would not pass many peer reviews in professional journals.
What I believe would pass muster is a proposal that all the trusts in a particular area of the country should be able to become foundation trusts. If after four or five years careful monitoring and assessment showed that the poorer trusts had risen to the level of the better trusts and that the better trusts were even better as compared with the "placebo" of the rest remaining under present government policy, the evidence-based politics would persuade those of us who make our judgments on evidence-based medicine that the proposal was worth while.
Finally, I turn to the issue of money. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, earlier pointed to the inconsistency of maintaining the departmental expenditure limit while insisting that money coming in from the private sector will enrich the health service as a whole. That inconsistency may not be obvious to the citizenry as a whole, which may not be as familiar with departmental expenditure limits as Members of your Lordships' House, but that gaping inconsistency is obvious to those of us here.
As we try to do the best we can with the Bill, perhaps we can try to encourage the Government to work towards an old-fashioned notion of consistency in thinking and to provide rationality in approach and evidence for what they are doing. Perhaps we can also encourage them to pull back a little and allow the professionals and the patients to get on with the health service and to keep the politics to the strategic decisions at another level.
6.10 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, many organisations have sent out briefing papers and professional bodies are taking a great interest in this Bill, as I do. But one always wonders what an untried idea will produce. I take this opportunity to ask a few questions as some parts of the Bill seem to leave important matters to regulations.
I declare an interest as founder and life president of the Spinal Injuries Association. I have a great interest in specialist centres of excellence, which are the lifeline of many people with long-term medical conditions.
In Chapter 2 of the Bill, Clause 44, dealing with quality in healthcare, seems to me to be one of the most important issues that we should discuss. The quality of

65
healthcare should be paramount, be it in a National Health Service body, in a private hospital or in a nursing home. Clause 44 states:
"It is the duty of each NHS body to put and keep in place arrangements for the purpose of monitoring and improving the quality of health care provided by and for that body.
(2) In this Part 'health care' means—

(a) services provided to individuals for or in connection with the prevention, diagnosis or treatment of illness; and

(b) the promotion and protection of public health".

Over the years I have served on a variety of health bodies: a community health council, a health region and a family health service authority. All governments seem to like changing the National Health Service, but with so many changes over the past 20 years a great deal of confusion and insecurity has been caused. Trying to remember the different names of the different bodies and what they do is becoming a nightmare. For example, Clause 43 states:
"(1) The Commission for Health Improvement is abolished.
(2) The National Care Standards Commission is abolished".
No sooner is one body set up than it is closed down.
For various reasons in the past year I have met several consultants and district nurses who all say, "We just want to be able to get on with the jobs we are paid to do rather than being diverted into yet more reorganisation".
The Royal College of Nursing supports the general intention to improve both the transparency of decision making and the involvement of staff, patients and the public through stakeholder councils. I ask the Minister what is and who will run a stakeholder council? Is it to be yet another body?
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, will be one who remembers the debates that your Lordships have had on community health councils. We were given assurances that their place would be taken by patient forums, but it seems that foundation hospitals are to be excluded. Can the Minister say whether that is true and, if so, why? If there are not to be patient forums in foundation hospitals, but there are to be in other hospitals, will that not add to the confusion? I hope that there will be patient input in all hospitals. The public need a point of contact for advice and support.
It would be interesting to hear about the potential liability that falls on an injured person treated by a foundation trust to pay for any treatment given. That could affect many of our future members of the Spinal Injuries Association who may break their backs or necks in road traffic accidents or racing accidents and who remain paralysed. What happens if such a person is not insured?
There is national concern about the dangerous problem of infections in hospitals. Patients who go into hospital for an operation are at risk of being infected by MRSA and thousands of people die each year from that dangerous contamination. I ask the Minister whether the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection (CHAI) covers the inspection of infection control in hospitals and other healthcare facilities? The problem is now so serious that there needs to he an overview and standards should be put
66
in place to make healthcare safer, especially for vulnerable patients. I feel strongly that there should be a national service framework to incorporate all infectious conditions and to bring hospital cleaning standards up to a high level. If that was done the public might think that the Government were trying to tackle that worrying situation. Nurses, doctors and patients move from hospital to hospital. Infections do not mind if a hospital is called "foundation" or otherwise. Our standards should be national.
I should be grateful, as I am sure the House would be, if the Minister would give your Lordships an update on specialised commissioning. What is happening about organising, planning and paying for specialised services for conditions such as HIV/AIDS, spinal injuries, complex neurological conditions, neonatal intensive care and many other vital conditions? The resulting delay in the reorganisation of neonatal care is causing desperate problems for mothers and babies transferred long distances because of a lack of cots. The delay in sending someone who is paralysed to a spinal unit can cause all kinds of complications with the risk of serious pressure sores, bowel problems and urinary tract infections which delay rehabilitation and cost extra money.
Will the Minister tell the House which Bill or Act of Parliament embraces specialised commissioning? Is it this Bill? We need the correct treatments and the highest standards for all patients wherever they are treated. I look forward to the Minister's reply and I wish him a happy birthday.
6.18 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I declare an interest in a number of NHS and NHS-related organisations that I advise listed in the register of interests, including KPMG, Beachcroft Wansbroughs, the Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health and the King's Fund. I am also a member of the advisory board of the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection.
I welcome the Bill before us and thank my noble friend for the careful way in which he developed the argument in favour of the Bill. There are many important issues, and I particularly welcome the provisions for the dental service. I support the aim of embracing the profession much more into partnership with the NHS and ensuring that dentists feel that working for the NHS is no longer, as they describe it, part of a treadmill but something that they want to do. It is significant that the BDA supports the general thrust of the provisions in the Bill.
I want to concentrate on what I believe goes to the heart of our debate: foundation trusts. Many fears are being expressed about foundation trusts. It has been said that they will lead to a two-tier service; that this is the slippery road towards privatisation; and it is claimed that foundation trusts may damage the ethos of the National Health Service. If I believed that I would not be standing here today supporting the concept of foundation trusts. I think that foundation trusts are an essential part of the ingredients needed to ensure that the NHS thrives and prospers over the next 10 to 20 years.

67
There is no question that the NHS faces a daunting challenge. We all know of the problems that it has faced over many years—the lack of investment and the lack of capacity—and we are starting to see those problems being addressed. The five-year financial investment—the 7.4 per cent per year over a five-year period—is a fantastic investment. By 2008 we will be spending 9.4 per cent of our GDP on health, which is equal to that of the French. That is an extraordinary thing. No one in the health service ever believed that we would receive that kind of investment.
However, that kind of investment comes with a risk. The risk to the NHS is that it will fail to deliver the kind of first-class quality services that people expect. By the end of that period we would probably be the fourth biggest spender on health per GDP of any country in the world. At last the NHS is receiving the kind of resources that one would expect. The public have had to pay increased taxes through national insurance to pay for it. It is an awesome responsibility on all those in the NHS and in the Department of Health to ensure that people feel that that investment is worthwhile.
If at the end of that period the public do not feel that that investment has been made wisely we know that many people will start to walk away from the NHS. Therefore, I am convinced that the test facing the service in the next few years is as hard a test as was faced when the NHS first started in 1948.
Of course part of the test concerns targets. Targets are much maligned in your Lordships' House. There is no question that we have too many targets. However, when one boils the issue down to key targets, such as waiting, I am confident that the health service will achieve the target of a maximum three-month inpatient wait by 2008. But the issue is not just a question of targets, it is really a question of the quality of the service that people receive. Will people receive the choice in the health service that they rightly wish to see? Will they receive an integrated service, so that all parts of it work together? Will people feel that they are at the centre of the treatment programme?
There must be a question mark about that. The reason for that question mark is that the NHS cannot begin to compare itself with the best healthcare systems in the world or with the best consumer services in this country if it continues to be managed in the way that it has been managed, not since 1997, but actually since 1948. By that I mean the model of a service where Ministers are accountable to Parliament for everything that happens within it. It is that model of accountability that has led us into this problem of micro-management of too many targets and of an NHS at local level that feels put upon rather than feeling it has room to change, to innovate and to improve its services.
I listened with great care to the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, about my own legislative tendency. He is right. I cannot remember how many Bills I was responsible for taking through this House which changed the structure of the health service. The House of Commons Select Committee reckons that this Bill is
68
the 18th restructuring of the health service since 1982. That date is very significant because although the noble Earl, Lord Howe, frequently likes to present himself as a decentraliser, the fact is that his own party when in government was as fond of tinkering and changing the structure as any government have been.
The point is that so long as Ministers are accountable for everything that happens in every part of the NHS, I believe that governments of whatever shade will continue to tinker and to restructure and reform.
So we have to move to a situation where the temptation and the pressure are not there. I do not go down the route of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, because I do not think that one can completely divorce the NHS from politics. Politicians do have to make judgments about national standards. They do have to make judgments about resources. But I think that when they have done that—and now we have an independent inspector to make sure that what Government have set out in those national standards is delivered—one has much more freedom then to allow local NHS organisations to work within those national standards.
Furthermore, I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, on that issue. I think that within those national standards there is considerable room for discretion. But, having set those national standards, I think that it is possible to give much greater organisational freedom to those organisations which work at local level in the NHS.
That is why I strongly support the concept of foundation trusts. The membership base they are given through an elected board of governors is the means by which accountability can be transferred from national politicians to local people. I very much hope that this House will support these very important principles.
We shall be debating a number of the issues and details around foundation trusts. There are issues in relation to governance that need to be teased out. First, it is very important not to think that only acute trusts will become foundation trusts. There is every reason for other trusts—mental health trusts in particular—to be considered in the front rank of NHS organisations. I am disappointed that much of the debate has been around acute trusts.
Secondly, I believe that there should be continuity of leadership. I know that the guidance states that the chairman and chief executives of a potential foundation trust can follow through into a position in a new foundation trust, but there is nothing in the Bill that says that that may happen. My reading of it is that on 31st March the NHS trust will be wound up; on 1st April the foundation trust will come into being. It is up to the governing body to decide who should be the chairman and the non-executives and that it is for them then to appoint the chief executive and the executive directors.
I am very keen that the governing body has power in this new structure. But, surely, given that the whole basis of foundation trusts in the first wave is that they are the strongest organisations, it would be folly for

69
the current leadership of those organisations not to be automatically transferred lock, stock and barrel to become the board of directors. I hope that we can have some assurance from my noble friend that that can happen and that if necessary he will table government amendments to make sure it does.
I have two other points on governance. One is that it also ought to be consistent with the Higgs report on the role of boards and non-executive directors. There are many chairmen of NHS trusts who are concerned that the guidance issued by the department is inconsistent with the Higgs report. If so, I think that would be a great pity.
I end with one key question for my noble friend. Will he ensure that he and his colleagues in the Department of Health will make these arrangements work? When a problem hits a new foundation trust—a problem which perhaps attracts national attention—it would be too easy for Ministers to rush in and insist that the trust takes certain action, through strategic health authorities and primary care trusts.
The health service will be watching. If it sees very early intervention in the affairs of a foundation trust, it will conclude that this is not for real. I say to my noble friend that an early test of these new arrangements will come into play.
I hope that the ministerial team will pass that test because if the NHS concludes that this is not for real, then we shall lose the great potential that we have for changing these arrangements and for giving people at local level far more power over their own destiny in the NHS. In addition, in a year or two we shall be sitting here debating another NHS Bill—the 19th restructuring since 1982—and it will have been a waste. Ultimately, this is a very well-intentioned Bill and it is essential that the principles are allowed to happen in practice.
6.30 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I must first offer my apologies to your Lordships, and to the Minister in particular, for not being present in the Chamber today for the first two speeches and part of the third. My car was incapacitated on the motorway for an hour and a quarter. I am aware that the conventions of this House, strictly interpreted, suggest that speakers in my position should withdraw. I am on this occasion asking for your Lordships' indulgence if I make a speech which will be more brief than I had originally intended.
Perhaps I may also say what a privilege it is to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. I am sure that I speak for many of your Lordships when I say how greatly his vast experience in health matters, both in government and elsewhere, is valued, as it was in the admirable and thoughtful discourse on the broad picture of the health service which he has just given us.
I declare an interest as chairman of an independent hospital in central London, which has a closer relationship with the NHS than many of its peers in the independent sector through our hospice, which is part of the hospital, and through a number of NHS surgical
70
lists which we are undertaking under the terms of the concordat to the mutual benefit, I hope, of both bodies.
We in the independent sector welcome the bringing together of the regulation of the independent and NHS sectors. At the time of the inception of the old CHI and the NCSC, regulating the independent and private sectors respectively, I, like many others, was at a loss to understand why two separate regulating bodies were required. I can only suggest that it was down to the very different political approach to the interplay of the public and independent sectors by the then Secretary of State, to which the present Secretary of State and his immediate predecessor provide, in my view, a very welcome contrast in their approach.
But that was the system and it threw up a number of anomalies which, I suggest, on the whole discriminated against the private sector hospitals. Perhaps I may give two examples. To date, it has been a requirement for all staff in independent hospitals to have full Criminal Records Bureau disclosure. The vast majority of NHS staff do not have that requirement. Another example is that the NCSC has laid down stringent minimum quality standards for the private sector, while CHI stipulates only broad principles of clinical governance. There is a big difference there.
So, to bring the regulation under one body is to be welcomed so far as it goes. But the Bill does not provide a timescale for the inception of the new CHAI. Therefore, we wish to see CHAI announce the date for implementation of a common set of standards. I should like to suggest to the Minister that a suitable opportunity might present itself in that those standards could be trialled in the new diagnostic treatment centres ahead of being rolled out nation-wide.
I have another serious concern. I have already referred to the absence of a timescale. Indeed, there are indications that for the time being CHAI intends to keep the two sectors apart. I should welcome an assurance from the Minister that either in the Bill or by statutory instrument there will be a fixed time for the total amalgamation of CHAI taking over the regulatory role for both sectors.
There is an additional reason for that. Independent hospitals are caring for an increasing number of NHS patients under the concordat, and consultants frequently work in both sectors. A common approach to inspection would be sensible, leading to greater simplicity for the patient and clarity for both NHS trusts and independent hospitals.
Perhaps I may make a further point concerning the division of the functions of CSCI and CHAI. With such reservations as I have mentioned, I welcome the creation of those two bodies but it is vitally important that the division of responsibility between the two is sensibly and practically worked out. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for whose speech I arrived in time, made that point.
The division of responsibility is set out in Clause 100 of the Bill, but there is one anomaly in particular to which I want to draw the Minister's attention. I

71
understand that long-term conditions—for example, acquired brain injuries—and time-limited (that is, up to six weeks) substance and addictive behaviour treatment in respect of, for example, drug and alcohol addictions will be regulated by CSCI and not by CHAI. The reason is, I understand, largely one of precedent in that in many cases those treatments are provided by units currently registered under NCSC.
Therefore, now that the Bill has arrived in your Lordships' House, I urge the Minster to reconsider that distinction. Brain injury and drug treatment centres have much more in common with "mainstream" healthcare than with "mainstream" social care. They need to be regulated by people who understand doctors and nurses and not by people whose main expertise lies in regulating social and community care.
I shall want to return to that matter in Committee but, in the mean time, perhaps I may suggest to the Minister that this problem could be addressed by simply reclassifying those units as "clinics", thus bringing them within the responsibilities of CHAI under Clause 100(2)(b) of the Bill.
To sum up, we, like many hospitals in the private sector, welcome the creation of the two bodies but this bold move should not be impaired because the borderline between the two has between insufficiently thought through. I have no doubt that we shall return to this point in Committee.
6.36 p.m.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his forceful introduction and look forward to working with him and other colleagues in your Lordships' House on the content of this major and significant Bill.
Your Lordships will know that in the many debates we have had in this House on these important issues my two main concerns have been the relationship between health and social care and the issue of patient representation and involvement. It is on those two aspects that I want to concentrate in my brief speech today.
It is precisely because of my interest in these two aspects that I have followed with some resentment what I might call the "hi-jacking" of the Bill by the foundation hospitals issue. I resent that for two reasons. The first is that it has allowed too many people to think that the NHS and NHS reform are all about hospitals. They are not, and I am especially resentful that this has happened at a time when we have made so much progress through the establishment of primary care trusts, and so on, in understanding that, for most people, healthcare begins and ends at their GP and at the primary care level. The Government have shown their commitment to that by ensuring that in future 75 per cent of the funding will be decided at that level.
The second reason that I feel this resentment is because the publicity about foundation hospitals has drawn attention away from the other important
72
aspects of the Bill—the patient and public involvement arrangements and the setting and regulating of standards in social care.
I shall say only one more thing about foundation hospitals and that is that they are linked with the Government's undoubtedly strong commitment to patient and public involvement. As I understand it, there is currently no provision for patients forums in foundation hospitals. This is a serious omission, even taking into account that patients and their representatives will be in the majority on the boards of the foundation trusts. I hope that we can make appropriate changes as the Bill proceeds through your Lordships' House to ensure that patient participation and involvement is given the importance to which I know the Government are committed. It may well be possible, for example, to ensure that foundation trusts involve patients through primary care trusts or in some other way. But we must be assured that that commitment to patient and public involvement, which has been so hard won, is not compromised.
I turn now to the social care aspects of the Bill, and I am especially concerned with the parts where health and social care aspects overlap. As we know, the Bill establishes a new Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection to inspect and raise standards in healthcare. I particularly welcome the fact that it will establish standards of care for every private sector hospital also. The new inspectorate will merge into a single organisation the health functions of CHI, the National Care Standards Commission and the Audit Commission. Leaving aside the unfortunate matter of the creation, and then the almost immediate amalgamation of the National Care Standards Commission, the creation of new CHAI is sensible. I pay tribute to the staff and board of the NCSC, under the peerless leadership of Anne Parker, for the farsighted and flexible way in which they have approached what could have been an extremely difficult situation.
I believe that CHAI will encourage improvement in the quality and effectiveness of care. I would welcome confirmation from the Minister as to whether its remit, as well as including private care sector provision, will extend to regulation of the newly developing diagnostic and treatment centres. I declare an interest as a member of the Clinical Advisory Board of Inventures, which is making great progress in setting up such centres.
The Bill makes another very important change so far as concerns social care: it establishes a sister organisation, the Commission for Social Care Inspection, to do a similar job in social services, or rather social care, to guarantee standards of care for some of the most vulnerable people in our society—we have been forcefully reminded of that today by the publication of the Green Paper—who, for far too long, have been at the bottom of the pecking order for these services. It will be for both commissions to work together to bridge that divide, which has beleaguered our services for so long. They must ensure that health and social care do not compete with each other but work together. I am sure that this will be a priority for

73
the most able new chair of the commission. Patients and carers constantly remind us that they do not understand the divisions between health and social care—why on earth should they? We must ensure that the arrangements are inclusive, not divisive.
I wonder about the position of the General Social Care Council with regard to the new arrangements. Noble Lords will not be surprised to hear my concern, as I chaired the group that advised on its establishment and was its interim chair for six months when it was first set up. The GSCC is doing excellent work on the regulation of all workers in the social care field, as well as their training, and is to be congratulated on publishing its codes of conduct and on beginning successfully the huge task of registering the million-strong social care workforce.
However, both the GSCC and the Social Care Institute for Excellence were established in different circumstances from those that now exist. It would not be surprising if there were some confusion about what is expected of the GSCC now in relation to the new commissions. The GSCC has enjoyed a direct and always productive relationship with the Department of Health. I hope that the Minister will make it clear that that is expected to continue.
It is my earnest hope, in relation not only to the GSCC but to the whole issue of social care, that the transfer of so many expert staff from the Department of Health to the commission, and indeed the loss of so many staff from the Department of Health itself, does not represent any downgrading of social care from the political agenda after so many of us have fought so hard and for so long to give it its proper and much-needed level of importance.
I remember very well how it was good relationships between the carers' organisations, civil servants and Ministers that played such an important role in enabling the huge progress that has been made in the recognition and support of carers to take place. We all worked together, not to oppose or outwit each other, but in a spirit of genuine co-operation and commitment to the client group. It is vital that the professional skill and expertise in social care that exists is not only maintained but allowed to develop. I hope that the Minister will reaffirm his own commitment to making social care just as important in his brief as healthcare. We are fortunate to have a Minister such as my noble friend, who is so experienced in this field, and we must ensure that recipients of social care and their carers benefit from his knowledge not only of needs but of delivery.
I look forward to working with noble Lords on ensuring the best possible outcomes for patients, carers and their families across the broad range of issues covered in the Bill.
6.44 p.m.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I welcome much of the Bill and the intentions that have led to its introduction. I am grateful to the Minister for outlining the wide impact that it will have. I declare an interest as the vice-president of Age Concern England and a patron of the Local Government association,
74
Action on Elder Abuse and the Family Planning Association. I am also involved with many other bodies that have sent us helpful briefings. I wish to make some brief comments but mostly to ask questions on several aspects of the Bill. I shall be brief.
I am certainly not against trying new types of NHS organisation. With regard to foundation hospitals, the obvious good news about local accountability must be tempered by the need to sort out that accountability. If we are not careful, there may be accountability to everyone in principle but no one in reality. There is certainly a conflict between the principle of earned autonomy and local accountability, which is inherent in the idea of foundation hospitals.
I have a question about the impact on the National Service Framework, which is very important—for example, the framework on older people and that on mental health. Can we he certain that the standards and service models will rigorously be applied by foundation hospitals?
With regard to flexibility, which is very important in foundation hospitals, there is a question about those patients who might be more expensive than average. Such patients are quite likely to be older people because they take longer to recover and therefore might cost the hospital more than the original budget. To overcome that, should the duties in Clause 38, which are about effectively, efficiently and economically working, include "equitably" or "fairly"? Would that he a way of ensuring that this could happen?
We also need to look closely at the impact on mental health trusts and mental health in general—they must not be second-rate aspects of foundation hospital practice.
On care standards, I am an enthusiast for clearer regulation and inspection. It is long overdue to raise standards across the sector. As has been said, the work of the National Care Standards Commission shows what can be done despite the challenges. I received an excellent annual report from the commission today. I congratulate Anne Parker and my noble friend Lady Howarth, who has carried out fantastic work in that respect.
Health and social care regulations and inspection must be brought much closer together so I welcome the introduction of CHAI and CSCI. But I have some concerns and questions. I agree with Help the Aged that CSCI should conduct research, as recommended by the Royal Commission on Long-Term Care of the Elderly, because we need to ensure that demographic changes are taken into account, as highlighted by the International Longevity Centre UK, which I am privileged to chair. We must ensure that new services are developed, for example, to meet capacity and provision needs.
I hope that CSCI will also protect older people who are self-funding in care homes. In effect, they often subsidise the local authorities, which should not continue. Above all, CHAT and CSCI must promote the rights of all users—both rights to services and their

75
human rights. That applies particularly to older people, especially as two thirds of hospital in-patients and 50 per cent of social service users are older people.
The statutory rights of children are now more detailed and clear, as evidenced by today's Statement on children. Of course I welcome that, but we need some similar joined-up thinking about older people and those who are particularly vulnerable—for example, those in need of mental health services. That aspect needs to be balanced.
I welcome the inclusion in Part 4 of the Bill work on dental and GP services. Dentistry is a very important and long-neglected part of the NHS. For example, I was here in the Palace early one morning talking to two female members of staff, one of whom was going to have all her teeth extracted because she had no hope of gaining access to NHS dental care in the part of London where she lived, which was not far from here. The other one had given up as well. That is absolutely terrible and something that needs our attention.
It is sensible to commission services locally. I hope it works but I am concerned about how we will improve the provision of dental treatment if we do not define in Clause 166 what "reasonable" means. I assume that we will do so in the course of our proceedings.
I also welcome the regulation of private dentistry by CHAI, and the agreement with GPs over their contracts in Clause 171. However, I am worried about one thing: how can GPs' practices meet needs that seem to conflict? How will the need to have advance appointments—which disabled and old people need because any transport arrangements must be fixed—tie in with surgeries being available on a walk-in basis, allowing for quick access to GPs whoever we are? Overall, however, I support the Bill and I look forward to the Committee stage.
6.51 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I have no interest to declare because I have never been involved in any part of of the NHS, except as a patient. By the time I have finished, people may say that it is a good thing that I am not involved. I welcome the Bill, but I would have preferred the original version that was introduced in the other place. However, even that did not quite answer the problems of the NHS.
My noble friend Lord Hunt made a very radical speech. To have been a Minister is a healthy thing. Ex-ministers are very radical people and the more ex-ministers that there are in the world the better the world will be. I agree with part of his analysis. Any system in which the Secretary of State in charge is said to be responsible for everything that happens in the health service—such as in the great bed pan debate of Nye Bevan—is bound to depress everybody who is not thought to be responsible for the health service. We must drastically de-politicise the health service.
Had this debate taken place three months ago, I would have said that the NHS ought to be autonomous, like the BBC, but that issue has become
76
a no-go area so I will not say that. However, if the Secretary of State runs the health service, in response to every headline in a red top newspaper, we are bound to have the announcement of an initiative or another monitoring group. Every time there is a sudden death, it is a political problem that must be dealt with by the Secretary of State.
We are all very proud of the National Health Service, but we always say, as the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, said, that morale has never been lower. For the past 38 years that I have lived in this country, morale in the NHS has never been lower. I do not know how low it will get, but no matter what we do, morale has never been lower. It is because the people involved are not in control of their workplace. They are not in control of what they do. Morale will be low, especially when dedicated professionals who spend much of their lives acquiring their skills are not in control of what they produce.
There is a great problem associated with this. There is a confusion in political philosophy that haunts education as well as health—people think that universality and equality means uniformity. Everybody thinks that if it is not uniform it is two-tier and unequal. That is such a deep fallacy and I do not have time in the next three or four minutes to deal with it. However, if society is unequal, for various reasons, we need unequal access to overcome inequalities. However, if we have a rationed system—and it is a rationed system, let us not beat about the bush: it has to be—it cannot deal with people's unequal endowment, needs and health problems. It will deal with them equally. Therefore, the outcomes will be unequal because we are not dealing with equal needs in an equal fashion.
It is no surprise that, after 48 years—no, more than that, for 55 years—we still have inequality in health outcomes. We do not allocate food in such a way, nor water, nor transport, but we allocate health in that way and we are stuck. No political party dares tackle the problem. We must de-politicise and decentralise the problem.
I welcome the Bill because it makes another attempt to decentralise health. I say another attempt, because there was an internal market and we now have the de-politicisation. As some noble Lords may know, I am associated with the Health Policy Reform Group. Nobody ever takes the slightest notice of what we say, but it is still worth saying. I prefer a much more radical proposal. Hospitals should be owned by the people who work in them and the local community. A lock is put on their assets—so that assets cannot be used for anything other than healthcare. We could even say that the assets are owned by the state but could be leased to the local community which could then manage them. I see no problem in allowing them to borrow from wherever they want. I fail to see why the Treasury stepped in. It is remarkable how it has always stepped in over the past 100 years and messed up a perfectly straightforward arrangement, in the interests, it would say, of equity.
If borrowing is only on public account we cannot help but create anomalies. My only hope is that, as many people have said, there will be other Bills

77
because this Bill will not solve everything. In future Bills, we may realise that all hospitals, not only foundation trust hospitals, should be locally owned and run with full freedom to borrow from wherever they want. After all, the people who will lend them money are not stupid. They will see that hospitals will be given money only in a rational way. Nobody will let a hospital run away with a big debt, because we know that hospitals are not a money-making enterprise. Several not-for-profit organisations can borrow and there is no reason why hospitals should not do the same.
By clinging to a certain notion of equality, which has not created equality for the past 55 years, we are preventing a very good set of professionals from achieving the best that they could. It is not their problem that they are depressed. It is because we politicians have not agreed to give up our power. Whenever it comes to giving up powers, people say, "My God!, We are betraying Clem Atlee and Nye Bevan", or whatever. Those ghosts still haunt us. We are not willing to admit that if the service is not achieving what it ought, there must be something wrong with the way in which it is organised. We should de-politicise, de-centralise and give lots of freedom to people to do what they are dying to do, which is to provide good healthcare. I hope that we will pass the Bill. In it and in future Bills, we should remove more of the constraints on good professionals, and we may yet achieve a modicum of the equality in access and outcome that we have waited for for 55 years.
7 p.m.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I start by declaring an interest as chairman of a three-star National Health Service trust that is on the verge of considering the implications of assuming or applying for foundation status.
If we decide to go ahead, we will be applying as a second-wave trust, following those who currently have to make applications against the uncertain background of a situation in which the legislation has not completed its parliamentary progress. Had the original concept put forward by Alan Milburn—my noble friend Lord Howe referred to it—amid proud declarations about foundation hospitals, independent of the National Health Service, free to run their affairs in their own way and free to borrow capital and make full use of their assets been pursued, there would have been a great deal of enthusiasm among NHS trusts to go forward quickly and energetically. However, the proposals in the Bill are the timorous offspring of aggressive parents and have paled, over time, into more mundane reality. We have heard much about that today, and I do not propose to take the matter much further, except to say that here is an opportunity to galvanise the health service. One wonders whether the upheavals that will come about because of the Bill, if it is passed in this form, will ever be considered to have been justified.
I make no apology for the fact that I want to talk about the new governance arrangements of foundation hospitals. I will mainly direct my remarks to that issue.
78
In particular, I want to talk about the board of governors that will sit above the trust hoard or management group. Its task will be, apparently, to develop the vision for the foundation trust, represent it to the community and the outside world and appoint and tire the chairman and chief executive, as appropriate, of the management board.
The management board is to he constituted along the lines of the current trust board, we believe, and is to have the responsibility of running the hospital. It is not clear whether it is expected that the currently constituted boards will survive to run the National Health Service while those changes take place. I speak now with less confidence, having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, but I assume that it makes sense that that will be so and that they will translate through the reorganisation. I assume that non-executive members will be kept in place for at least the duration of their appointed term. That is the first question that we must address to the Minister: will they?
The second question is, "What, apart from that which I have already outlined, is the board of governors going to do, and how will it relate to the management board and the decisions that the board must make on a day-to-day and strategic basis?". The composition set out in Schedule 1 does not suggest that either the chief executive of the trust board or its chairman is to be one of the number of the board of governors. What will he the links between those two bodies? Will the hoard of governors have the right to intervene and/or override decisions and policies being developed by the management board? Who will service the board of governors? Will there be extra resources to set up a separate office and administrative structures, even if, as I imagine, the board will be able to ask for information from the executive team of the trust? What happens if there is a disagreement between the two boards? Which has the final voice?
The size of the board of governors is to be decided initially by the putative foundation trust. Aside from some appointed members, there will be a representative of the local PCT. Which PCT? Particularly in metropolitan areas, there will be a number of PCTs that would be entitled to sit on the board. My trust alone has 48 commissioning PCTs, and others will have far more. There will be members of the local authority. Which local authority? A number of foundation trusts will straddle more than one local authority area. The board will have to include two elements of elected representatives—the public and the staff. The constituencies for their elections will be their "stakeholders", who will, respectively, be those who live in the local community—how will that he defined?—and/or have been patients or carers in the hospital and the hospital staff. In each case, it will be only those who have paid £1 to the trust to be registered who will be part of the corporate body and thus able to vote.
Here is where the fun begins. Who will run the elections? Who will collect the £1 postal orders and coins? Who will keep up a rolling register? I know the answer: it will be the foundation trust. However, it will require staff to administer it properly and fairly—more resources. Also, who will run the elections? No

79
doubt, it will be the foundation trust. It has no experience of being an electoral reform society. In any event, should it not be using its resources to look after the patients? Can the Minister give us a few thoughts on the administration and organisation of such things?
I will turn for a moment to the public constituency. For what will aspiring candidates stand? Will it be as representatives of the community in general or as representatives of particular aspects of the service—kidney, heart, diabetes, children, cancer or the elderly? What knowledge or experience will they have to have? Will anybody be allowed to put themselves forward, without scrutiny by any independent body? Does not the Minister see a danger that the only people who will be elected will be those who are members of an active organisation—perhaps a lobby or special interest group—that has the muscle and organisation to give its candidates support in the election? Just with reference to that, what role, if any, will be allotted to the National Health Service Appointments Commission, both in respect of the members of the board of governors, its chairman—the guidance, at present, says that anyone from the public constituency can put themselves forward for chair—and the chairman and non-executive directors of the foundation trust, who are, apparently, to be appointed by the board of governors? That is an extremely cumbersome way of trying to ensure that the locality is involved in the trust. It follows on the arrangements that are well in hand now for patient representatives in specialist service areas, for co-ordination with the PCTs in the development of local plans and the strategic part to be played by the strategic health authorities, which will still have a role to play in ensuring that foundation trusts perform for their local communities and that there is a spread of services suitable to their needs.
Under these arrangements, the governors of the National Health Service will encompass the Secretary of State, the regulator, strategic health authorities, boards of governors, management groups, National Health Service bodies, primary care trusts and patients forums. That structure is to administer the National Health Service for patients. That is folly upon folly.
The National Health Service is still grappling with the seismic reorganisation of the creation of the strategic health authority and PCT structure. PCTs are still labouring with the problems of balancing their budgets between responsibilities for maintaining the acute and tertiary hospital services in their areas and developing the requirements of care in their community. Those decisions will, depending on resources, potentially leave one or other or both aspects unsatisfied and poorly developed. Soon they will begin the task of working within national tariffs and the competitive edge which surely they will bring to service provision.
Briefly, I shall touch on the power to borrow which the foundation trusts will have. If ever there was a missed opportunity this is it. As set out now, borrowing arrangements will be severely constrained both by the regulator and the financial repayment
80
arrangements. It is abundantly clear that there will be no extra resources for any foundation trust which has to repay capital and interest. That will have to come from the PCT's budget in its local community because it will have to come as part of the support service and support resource. It is a missed opportunity to allow foundation trusts to have the freedom of flexibilities which had been promised.
This is a maelstrom into which the Government are bouncing foundation trusts. I look forward to taking part to resolve, if nothing else, sensible governance arrangements which will do what we all want; namely, to involve and ensure that patients have a role in their care but which do not lumber the health service with a situation and an administration which it is impossible to manage.
7.11 p.m.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, this complex Bill deals with many diverse and yet interrelated changes straddling both England and Wales. The NHS seems to be about change. No sooner does one system come in and bed down than it goes out again and another system is introduced. With my declared interest as a practising NHS clinician, I think "here we go again". In the Explanatory Notes, the differences between England and the devolved health service in Wales are highlighted. I should like to thank the Government for the helpful table that summarises the application of the Bill to Wales.
In a world where evidence-based medicine is increasingly called for and the National Institute for Clinical Effectiveness is driving decision making, why do we not have evidence-based management changes? In England, the governing of hospitals, as they become foundation trusts, entails huge changes. The debates and amendments to this Bill will be complex. But at this stage I simply question: why has there been no pilot? Why have these governing arrangements not been evaluated'? Why are the regulator's roles not clearly defined? How will the regulator function in relation to strategic health authorities and others? If a change in care delivery is to be introduced, should it not be evaluated? Can the service management cope with another upheaval or would stability be better maintained by a phased introduction of new structures?
A natural experiment will occur as foundation trusts are not being introduced in Wales. I appreciate the Minister's reassurance that Welsh patients will not be disadvantaged when needing treatment in England. It was a pleasure to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, outline the clear reasons to distance the service of clinical care from the management hand of Whitehall and the over-involvement of Ministers in the minutiae of the service.
Yet the introduction of foundation trusts appears to provide a something and nothing approach. The professionals want to get on with looking after patients and do not see their fears allayed. Their reservations will not be answered by theory because

81
they are people used to evidence, who want to see evidence-based management changes. Part 2 deals with standards and the implementation of evidence-based therapies. I seek assurance from the Minister that systems will be in place to track all NICE guidance on medical devices, as well as on pharmaceutical interventions, particularly as new devices may be cost saving in the long term with increased efficacy resulting in decreased on-going prescribing for specific groups of patients.
The ability of the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection to work across all areas of healthcare is a welcome safeguard for patients. It is long overdue. Consistency is needed in the way in which anonymised data are recorded and handled so that meaningful comparisons can be made and disease outcomes accurately classified and monitored. Unfortunately, the commission's name does not help the organisation to be viewed by clinicians as one that gives constructive feedback to encourage standards to rise and encourage managers and clinicians to be open.
The proposal to link complaints and compensation is fraught with dangers. The Kennedy report on Bristol clearly recommended a move from a blame culture to a spirit of openness, learning from near-miss episodes. The proposals will deter openness and encourage the vexatious complainant within an increasingly litigious culture. Linking complaints to compensation is divisive as blame is apportioned. Yet, when things go wrong. it is often a system failure and not an individual. The motive for a complaint is usually to get information, to receive an apology and to prevent the same thing happening to someone else.
Healthcare is not risk free. Negligence must be differentiated from inconvenience and complications of the clinical disorder from avoidable harm. When someone has been harmed they need a proper independent assessment by a professional with appropriate skills and to then receive appropriate just compensation from the NHS pot. However, the current proposals may mean that if a person is vexatious and has the wit to remain unhappy, he or she could get richer. The complainant who receives money feels vindicated and a precedent is set, resulting in spiraling amounts paid.
For all the proposed changes, it is worth remembering that patients want to emerge from the service feeling better. Professional staff want to add years to life and life to years. Patients are vulnerable when ill. Choices are difficult. Often patients have no choice because they are so vulnerable. They want to know that they are diagnosed accurately wherever they are and are offered the best and most appropriate care and treatment for them. Common things occur commonly, but people die because no one thought of the unusual. All change, whatever it is, must ensure that patients and best evidence are brought together in treatment and care strategies. Management structures must support the process to detect the unusual, to research improvements and to ensure that the lessons learnt are disseminated by education and training. Without the fundamentals of research, education and
82
training, clinical care can never improve. Whatever management changes there are, they must not detract and distract us from that.
7.18 p.m.
Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, in general I welcome the Bill. In doing so, I declare an interest as a non-executive director of the London Ambulance Service NHS Trust and as yet another senior associate of the King's Fund to speak today.
Parts 3 and 4 have not attracted much controversy. They are sensible and long overdue. NHS costs should be recovered when personal injury compensation is paid. It is an anomaly that this has not been the case, except in road traffic accidents. The changes to GPs' contracts, now widely supported by GPs themselves, and parallel changes for dentists enable and encourage a variety of work patterns, but also focus on the range of services delivered by a particular practice rather than an individual practitioner. That, too, is very sensible.
Likewise, Part 2 is based on good and proper principles. In this case, the audit and inspection regimes covering health and social care should be rationalised and made more coherent. This has meant that in a number of cases institutions that started operating only last year are now being reorganised and merged. It is perhaps unfortunate that the desire to be cohesive could not have been acted on when they were established.
It makes no sense for the NHS and private health care to be regulated separately, as is the case at present. That leads to confusion, complexity and irregularities. Potentially, it is a significant barrier to increasing patient choice. There is little logic in saying. as is the case under the current regime, that the private wings of NHS hospitals are to be regulated by CHI and not the NCSC, despite treating the same patients as any other private hospital, and for independently run diagnostic and treatment centres to be regulated by a e NCSC and not CHI, despite treating NHS patients.
At the moment, the NCSC lays down minimum quality standards for the private sector while CHI stipulates only the broad principles of clinical governance for the NHS. Presumably the intention behind the Bill is for new CHAI to take us towards a level playing field with a read-across between standards set in the NHS and those in the independent sector. Having said that, it is not made clear in the Bill when it is expected that both sectors will operate from a common set of standards and how those standards will be drawn up. I hope that, when he winds up the debate, my noble friend on the Front Bench will be able to clarify that point.
I should like to devote the remainder of my remarks to Part 1. The issue of foundation hospitals has generated the most vigorous and lively debate in another place. Two major concerns have been voiced. The first is that foundation hospitals will lead inexorably to a two-tier service and the second is that foundation hospitals are privatisation by another name. Certainly the first of those concerns might have

83
been valid for the proposals as they were originally framed, but it is difficult to see how either concern can be justified given what is before noble Lords today.
All NHS trusts will now have the opportunity—indeed, they will be encouraged—to become NHS foundation trusts. What is more, they will have a legal duty to work in co-operation with other NHS organisations. They will be policed by the regulator and inspected by the new CHAI. If, in due course, all trusts are to become foundation trusts, it is difficult to see how the two-tier argument can be sustained, and it must make sense to allow the trusts that are in the best state organisationally and clinically to make the transition first. This may not have been the concept originally floated, but it is certainly what is before us today.
Similarly, the privatisation argument seems rather weak. Foundation trusts will be required to use their assets to promote their primary purpose of providing NHS services to NHS patients. Clause 15 provides a lock on the ability of a foundation trust to raise a higher proportion of its revenue from private charges than it would have done as an old-style NHS trust. Indeed, it might be argued that the restrictions are almost too much of a straitjacket in terms of enabling managers to find innovative ways of raising resources to improve the generality of their services.
If, as I would argue, fears about foundation hospitals are not likely to be realised, what are the benefits for patients of yet another NHS reorganisation? The Minister has in effect advanced two benefits. First, the new foundation trusts will be better able to innovate and to deliver services more in tune with local needs. Secondly, the Government's arrangements will enhance local accountability and service responsiveness to patients. My noble friend said that foundation trusts will have the freedom to gear their services more closely to the needs of their local communities and that this—in what I have to say is a rather unspecified way—will improve services in poorer areas and tackle health inequalities. Further, foundation trusts will be at the cutting edge of the Government's commitment to the devolution and decentralisation of public services, with local staff and managers having more freedom to innovate for the benefit of local communities.
I am all for this freedom, and if that is genuinely going to be the case, that alone merits the costs and dislocation of this latest change in the structure of the NHS. However, I am sure it would assist noble Lords if my noble friend was more explicit about how this is to happen. What will be devolved and in what areas will Ministers now resist the terrible tendency of Richmond House to micro-manage? How exactly will this reduce health inequalities and improve services in poorer areas? The best way to do that is normally to target additional resources at the areas most in need—and I am conscious that this Government have injected more money into the NHS than any of their predecessors. But is it going to be targeted? If that is implicit in Part 1, then I am sure that I would welcome it.
84
I say to my noble friend that this is an important issue. I understand that many NHS managers are excited at the prospect of being able to deliver services more flexibly and innovatively under foundation status, yet what are the extra areas of freedom, aside from the ability to access capital, which of course will mean that they must find additional revenues without falling foul of Clause 15? This is not immediately apparent on the face of the Bill and if those flexibilities could he delivered without legislation, I must ask why we do not do it tomorrow for all trusts, and let a thousand flowers bloom.
I conclude with a few words on governance. I have long believed in enhancing local accountability and democratic control within the NHS. However. I wonder whether the proposals in this Bill have got it quite right. I would rather more time were spent on getting the governance arrangements right, and if it were possible to proceed with the rest of' the Bill but to allow a few more months to work out the precise mechanisms by which NHS bodies would be much more directly accountable to the communities they serve, I am sure that would be desirable.
Indeed, I believe that a fundamental question must be answered first: why is the emphasis on membership and boards of governors applied to provider trusts—in particular hospitals—rather than to the bodies charged with commissioning, in particular the PCTs? Is there not a serious danger that the new governance arrangements will reinforce, if not fossilise, the traditional provider domination of the NHS, when what we should be encouraging in a modern health service is a more flexible approach to how services are delivered, led by local needs determined by commissioning bodies devoted to improving public health and reducing inequalities in outcomes?
Schedule 1 defines membership of a "public benefit corporation", but it begs more questions than it answers. The members are to be people living in the area specified in the trust's constitution, but how big is that area? At one meeting I attended. the former Secretary of State suggested that perhaps it should encompass the local authority area in which the trust is situated. I declare an interest in that I live in a London borough in which there is no general hospital, so the questions raised by my noble friend Lady Gould of Potternewton, now sitting on the Woolsack, are absolutely pertinent. How are the areas to be determined? How large or small can they be? I presume that they could not be so small as to create NHS rotten boroughs reminiscent of the other place before the Great Reform Act 1832. Will the regulators seek to ensure that every citizen is covered in some way? Further, the cost of maintaining such a register will not be insubstantial. In many parts of London the electoral register turns over at a rate of 30 per cent per annum. Then there is the problem of the distortions created by people reluctant to subscribe a pound, or erroneously fearful that such a subscription will bring with it potentially heavy liabilities.
I turn now to the patients' constituency. What constitutes a patient? Again, I declare an interest in that I was born—admittedly almost 50 years ago—in

85
University College Hospital in London. Why should I not be a member of that foundation trust if and when it is set up? Or why not a member of the hospital in which I had my hernia operation some two-and-a-half years ago? I had never been to that hospital before and do not intend to return to it in the future. Or why not the hospital where I spent a few happy hours in A&E with my son? What exactly are the boundaries? No doubt there will be variations. Will they induce confidence in the governance structure?
A trust's constitution can set other restrictions on who can or cannot be a member. Are there limits to those? Could a trust specify that only people of a certain religion could be members, or only those who are freemasons, or members of a particular political party? It is left to the whim of the regulator as to whether that would be possible.
The members, however defined, then elect the board of governors. That would seem straightforward enough, but why does the board of governors have such limited powers? Would it not make more sense to combine the board of directors and the board of governors? Indeed, as set out on the face of the Bill, the powers of the board of governors are minute. Boards will have the doomsday power of sacking members of the board of directors. They must be called together to endorse appointments made by the chief executive of the director of finance or other executive directors. That is a strange process when one considers how it would operate. Aside from a public meeting to set the pay and conditions of the non-executive directors, that is about it. Why does not the schedule specify—as suggested in another context in the Higgs report—that there should be a majority of non-executives on the board of directors? Further, why is there no proposal to require any clinical input into the board? All this requires a major rethink.
This is not put forward with any negative intent, but because I believe that it is important to get it right. New forms of democratic governance are important for the NHS and vital to its future, as are new forms of patient involvement, participation and empowerment. The new trusts will have none of the patients' forums and so forth that were approved in this House only a few months ago, and which are still some way from being established. As I remarked earlier, a little more time spent on the consideration and development of these proposals might make the noble intentions of the Bill a reality. Without it, the achievement of a workable, effective and, above all, meaningful new system of governance for the NHS, genuinely involved with the public it serves, is likely to be lost.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, although the contentious issue of foundation hospitals may dominate the Bill—I agree with much of what the previous speaker said—there is also a significant dental aspect which I wish to address today. I declare an interest as a practising dental surgeon—I do a little less work now than I used to—who worked in the National Health Service for 20 years.
86
The changes outlined in the proposed legislation will be some of the biggest ever to NHS dentistry since the system was set up in 1948. We have heard already today, in the debate on the second Starred Question, about the scenes in Carmarthen, where more than 600 people queued outside a local dental surgery. I shall not repeat the details but it shows that the demand for NHS dentistry is high and yet there is a serious shortage of dentists prepared to work on the NHS. What has been a problem in many parts of the country has now become a crisis.
The Government have seemingly spent vast amounts of money on the NHS but very little is finding its way into dentistry. The proportion of the NHS budget spent on dentistry has fallen from 5 per cent to 3 per cent. Dental schools have closed, leaving places for only 800 new dentists each year. The system for payment has remained unchanged and incomes still depend on how many patients can be put through the system each day. This has been described by both the profession and by the Audit Commission as a "treadmill". In fact, the Minister himself used that description today. The number of patients registered with NHS dentists has fallen by 5 million over the past five years, in many cases because they simply cannot find anyone to take them on.
The way in which dentists are paid, the "fee per item of service" system, means that they are constantly under pressure to see as many patients as they can in order to pay their staff and to keep their practices running. A BDA survey last year found that the main reason why dentists reduced their NHS commitment was to spend more time with their patients.
The Government have consistently assured the public that there would be countrywide access to NHS dental treatment. It was promised for September 2001 by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State at the Labour Party conference in 1999 and confirmed by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for whom I and the dental profession have a great deal of respect. The publication of Options for Change in August last year suggested that there should be a gradual process of change in primary dental care guided by work on field sites. There would be a local commissioning by primary care trusts but no new way of remunerating GDPs.
But there is a glimmer of hope. The Chief Dental Officer, Professor Raman Bedi, has informed the profession that the Bill before us,
"proposes to legislate for far-reaching reform of NHS dental services",
in both England and Wales and to deliver the Options for Change objectives. The new system will replace the old item of service payments and finally rid the profession of the treadmill effect. When the PCTs take responsibility for local commissioning of dental services they will have to assess the needs of people in their areas, not only those living there but those who commute into them and those who are visiting. They will have to provide services within centrally set guidelines and Ministers have made clear that PCTs could not restrict provision to an emergency service or exclude other specialities.

87
In view of the agreement in another place that PCTs and local health boards had to meet only the undefined criteria of "reasonableness", it is of great importance to the profession and to the public who use the service that the Minister should define what is "reasonable" and what treatment will be included.
Access to services, as is shown by the Carmarthen example, remains an acute problem across every part of the country and the changes in the Bill will, in part, address this. However, in properly dealing with the treadmill effect, front-line public dental health prevention is paramount. While I recommend the additional funding promised to PCTs further to address the long-term inequalities, the Government have still not committed themselves on the precise detail of what public dental health should be provided. This is a real problem.
The local health authorities are in an excellent position to ensure that there is a proper joined-up, proactive and preventive dental public health system in their areas—this should include screening in schools—and yet the detail in the Bill addressing this issue is uncertain. Can the Minister confirm that there will be a dental position on the executive committee of all PCTs and that the Dental Public Health Adviser will be dentally qualified and will be someone who fully understands the issues of dental and oral health?
The proposed change from a national to local contract, which must be in place by 2005, is of great concern to general dental practitioners. These PCT contracts will look like existing GDS contracts, with the same safeguards but with no necessity to claim for items of service. It would guarantee continuation of existing funding to a practice, adjusted for inflation, in return for the same level of commitment. The contract would be nationally consulted and available to all PCTs and dentists, who could be in individual practices, groups of practices or individuals, will be offered contracts or, if they have not negotiated an individual contract with their PCTs by April 2005, default contracts.
I know that the new kinds of contracts are being tested in field sites before implementation but, given the very ambitious timescale of 2005, it is extremely unlikely that they will have been fully tested and evaluated. Therefore, can the Minister confirm that the Government will consult and work closely with the dental profession, via the local dental committees and the British Dental Association, on the kind of contract that will emerge to ensure that the best possible outcome is agreed to?
Could the Minister further reassure me that the Government have considered the position of associate dentists? I am not clear whether the Bill provides for them to have their own individual contracts with the PCTs or whether they have to be a part of a group of individuals. What will happen to practices that are expanding, where the previous year's turnover could be totally inappropriate as a base line? I trust that the department and the profession's negotiators will be discussing these kinds of details as a priority.
88
The new arrangements must be made known as soon as possible in order that practices may plan their finances. The money that is promised for dentistry must be ring-fenced and used only for dental services. Many dentists are making plans to increase the private element of their practices because of the uncertainty created by the Government's lack of clarity on the transitional phase of this radical reform.
With the abolition of item of service payments, patients' charges can no longer be calculated in relation to dentists' fees. A review group will advise on this. Dentists and patients will of course welcome a simpler system. In future, dentists will be able to adopt a more preventive approach without reducing turnover and consider spending longer on more complex work. The dental profession expects the Department of Health to work with it on the planned review into the future structure of patients' charges. I hope that the Minister will agree to this co-operation.
The Bill will change the measurement of dental workload. For 50 years it has been calculated with reference to the number of fillings, extractions, crowns and dentures provided. That is not the way output is measured in the remainder of the NHS. This problem is being assessed in the field sites, with much more emphasis on the patients' perspective. The dentist will no longer be asked how many fillings or crowns were undertaken. It will be more important to know how many patients were seen; how long they had to wait for an appointment; what arrangements were made for patients with chronic gum disease—with a high risk of caries development—with susceptibility to oral cancer. Can the Minister confirm that the current system of patient registration will end with no differentiation between those patients who attend regularly and those who do not?
Finally, with the majority of my dental colleagues I am pleased with many of the changes that the Bill will bring to the profession. But much of the good work in the profession is undermined by the rhetoric from the Minister's colleagues in another place, who continually trot out the "free at point of delivery" soundbite while totally ignoring the basic facts in NHS dentistry today that, unless patients are exempt, NHS patients pay 80 per cent—yes, 80 per cent—of their treatment costs. That is the reality of the treadmill in our dental system today. I am delighted that the Government are doing something about it.
7.39 p.m.
Lord Adebowale: My Lords, I declare interests as an unpaid associate member of the Centre for Health Service Management and as a paid chief executive of a social care charity.
The Bill seeks to make some significant changes to the NHS and I see it as an opportunity to add a finer focus, to add value to NHS customers, to increase choice and to improve quality. There is of course the key issue of foundation trusts. This House will have plenty of opportunity to debate this critical matter, which has generated so much public and media interest.

89
Many have rejected the foundation trust concept out of hand as an attack on fundamental NHS values, or because it is change, and change is difficult and challenging at the best of times. I have yet to be persuaded, and look forward to the forthcoming detailed debate with interest. Right now, I am more concerned with some of the fundamental principles that I think are missing from the Bill and, sadly, from much of the debate so far. It is not just principles that are missing from the Bill but some key organisations and sectors that need to be part of our consideration of the future of health, social care and the NHS as a whole.
With the exception of the contributions of the noble Baronesses, Lady Pitkeathley and Lady Greengross, the debate so far has not thought through the issues of the NHS and its relationship with social care and mental health. It is worrying that a Bill that seeks to increase choice and develop greater partnership working between the NHS and other bodies across health and social care sectors misses out key references to mental health trusts and social care trusts. I would be interested in the Minister's thoughts on how the Bill will affect those important bodies.
To my mind, the Bill omits a clear role for the voluntary sector and provides little in the way of a framework for how the NHS intends to work with these organisations and the sector in a way that can add value and provide choice. In a recent speech to the NHS Confederation, Health Minister John Reid quite rightly set out his view that choice was a prerequisite of a fair, high quality, value-driven NHS: choice for all, not just choice for those who can afford the private sector or who have the means to employ those who can navigate the miasma of options created by so much change on their behalf. How is it possible to have choice if crucial areas of service provision are absent from the Bill—a Bill which seeks to make fundamental change to the way the NHS operates?
Let me address the principle that I believe is missing from the Bill. It sets up foundation trusts as independent public benefit corporations, with the primary purpose of providing health care to the NHS. In thinking through what I was going to say, I thought about Turning Point. I am mindful of the fact that Turning Point might already be a foundation trust, given what we have been set up to do. We are an independent body contributing to the public good in the area of social care. We may well be a foundation trust, along with many other organisations that are commonly known by many Members of this House, such as Rethink, Mencap and United Response. It could be argued that they have all been established as trusts and charities—organisations that are independent but operating for the public benefit with the primary purpose of providing health and social care to the public, often directly through contracting with the NHS.
While many in this House may applaud the fact that the Bill provides the NHS with greater freedom from the Department of Health and politicians, I am interested in how such freedom will operate in
90
partnership with other bodies which are intricately involved in the delivery of critical social care health services to the British public.
Much of the Bill refers to the NHS framework and operations within this framework. It gives greater freedom to NHS trusts to operate within an independent framework for the public benefit but does not define the NHS's role in the mixed economy of care.
Is the House aware that according to the recent report by Compass Consultancy, 13 of the largest voluntary sector mental health organisations contribute some 10 per cent of spending or mental health? The combined income of these 13 mental health providers was £320 million last year, of which £154 million was spent specifically on delivering mental health services. The range of mental health services alone covered by these organisations critical to the mental health and social care of over 300,000 people every year.
Those figures refer to just one aspect of the contribution that the voluntary sector makes to this debate in relation to mental health. I could also mention learning disabilities and substance misuse as other areas where the voluntary sector is delivering critical services in partnership with the NHS.
My main concern relates to the fact that many of these organisations struggle to establish a level playing field on which partnership can be seen as adding value and sharing risk with the NHS. It is my view that in the delivery of health and social care there is a third way, which the Bill does not go far enough to define and include. That way involves voluntary sector organisations delivering critical social care services and working with the NHS in a framework yet to be defined by the Bill in a way that ensures that they continue not only to add value but make the necessary moves to reverse a law which I have often referred to in speaking to this House—the inverse care law, under which those who need services most tend to get them least.
For this level playing field to be created, the Bill needs to say more about how it expects the NHS, in whatever form, to relate directly to the voluntary sector. In my view, this should be through better contracting and better management of the markets in which the healthcare trusts operate. The Bill could do much more to define or, indeed, create that.
Secondly, I wish to turn from principle to practice. I am surprised that there is scant mention in the Bill of mental health and social care trusts. It is as though the Bill is focused only on acute problems, yet we know through the Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health that 50 per cent of people with acute needs have mental health and other social care problems.
Why does the Bill not take the opportunity to focus on where the NHS is spending large amounts of money in what is often a disorganised and unstructured way and provide a framework within which mental health and social care trusts can operate at the same level of consultation and respect for their contribution? This will of course require some reallocation of resources in

91
order to allow mental health and social care trusts to catch up with those organisations that the Bill focuses on to the detriment, in my view, of social care and mental health. Why is this the case? Can the Government see the Bill as an opportunity genuinely to increase the ability of the NHS to deliver social care and mental health in partnership with not only those organisations contained within its own structure but those currently working as unequal partners but who wish to be equal partners in the delivery of health and social care for all?
7.47 p.m.
Lord Blackwell: My Lords, I declare an interest as a director of a mutual that provides health insurance policies.
Like other noble Lords who have spoken, I welcome the Bill so far as it goes and the direction of the policy it sets for the future. But I am, as others have been, critical that the Bill does not go far enough. Not only does it not go far enough in the provisions for foundation hospitals, but it does not tackle the other side of the equation—the freeing up of the commissioning side of the health service, to which the noble Lord, Lord Harris, referred. I, among others, will want to press the Government as we go through the Bill on whether they are prepared to follow through the logic of what they are setting out in both the Bill and what follows it.
The problem with the NHS, as many noble Lords have mentioned—I was particularly struck by the descriptions of the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Desai—is that the structure is run as a large nationalised industry. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, it is the same structure that was introduced in 1948. The NHS is a sad example of the problems that result from a nationalised industry structure with which we have been sadly too familiar in many other parts of the economy in the past. Local management loses control, loses incentives and manages upwards, creating demoralisation and a need for incentives to intervene with initiatives that further compounds the problem and creates a spiral of inefficiency in which the patient is the loser.
Within that structure, according to figures released earlier this year, the 20 per cent additional resources that have been put into the NHS since 2000 achieved only a 2 per cent rise in activity. We can have little confidence that further money put into the same structure will achieve any better outcomes.
I believe that it is time to accept a new reality—the reality that centralised states running nationalised industries simply does not work. We should finally give up the search for ways in which the state could run such structures better and accept that the only solution is for the state not to run them at all. That requires a commitment to a radical vision of a denationalised health service—not a tinkering around the edges but a fundamental shift. We need to ask not only whether the Bill's suggestions are necessary, given the history of
92
health service reforms, but also, if this is the one occasion to get it right, whether the Bill goes far enough. Alas, I believe that it does not.
Two parts are required to create and complete the vision of a denationalised health service. First, as the Bill starts to do, we must break all hospitals and all other facilities out of state control and make them truly independent local entities, whether voluntary, charitable or private companies, which are able to manage their own delivery for the patients whom they serve. That is much as they were before the state stepped in and nationalised them half a century ago.
Such reforms, however, even if they were completed, would be inadequate on their own. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, pointed out, the real power in a health structure really rests with the purchasers—those who are commissioning. If we complete the dismantling of state control and allow innovation to take root, we also have to take the government out of being the monopsony purchaser. Monopsonies can be as damaging to industries and sectors as monopolies, and in the health sector we have had both. It is damaging because, with all the spend controlled against Whitehall priorities, it still leaves all the control levers in the hands of a centralised bureaucracy. Unless we deal with both sides—the commissioning as well as the provision—we shall not get the change that the Government and the Minister say that they are seeking.
Elsewhere I put forward proposals to create more diverse commissioning structure by enabling patients to take their share of NHS funding and to transfer it to independent healthcare managers who would contract healthcare services on their behalf. That would cover both primary and secondary care, so as to optimise the overall healthcare quality and costs. This is not the time or occasion to repeat those proposals or to go into detail, but it is possible to envisage structures where that can be achieved.
As long as taxation provides the funding for a service that is free at the point of delivery—and I for one fully accept that taxation should remain the core component of health funding in this country—the state needs to set bounds around the core package of care, saying what it should deliver and its costs. However, that should be a minimum and not a maximum or a constraint, and patients should have the option that only the rich in this country currently have to exercise their choice, rather than having to put up with what is delivered to them.
I agree with noble Lords who said that the criticism that foundation hospitals are creating a two-tier structure is not a proper one. At the moment, we have a multi-tier system of inadequate service whereby how inadequate it is depends on where one lives and how well one is able to manage one's way through the rationing gateways. The fact is that it is generally the poorest and those least able to manage their way through those gateways who are treated the worst. The only way in which to improve that is to allow some areas to create standards of excellence and to encourage all hospitals and other health providers to

93
catch up. We need the power of patient choice and free commissioning to drive that, and the problem with the Bill is that it goes only a small part of the way towards that vision of the patient-focused, decentralised and denationalised health service that we need.
First, the objective of fund-holding is not really carried through in the Bill, because in reality the fund-holding hospitals will have to meet the same central targets and initiatives. That will happen through the actions of the regulator and of CHI, with its attempts to make compliance and annual reviews around star-rating systems, and by the fact that the hospitals cannot change their range of services and will be hemmed in by centralised union agreements.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, made clear, hospitals will be over-burdened by government structures, interest groups and appointees, as well as all the other government structures around the NHS. As the Treasury has recognised, under that set of controls, they are not truly denationalised, so according to the Treasury formula they cannot be allowed to raise significant funds. As my noble friend Lord Howe pointed out, we will have a zero-sum game whereby the funds that hospitals are able to raise will come off the amount to be spent by other hospitals. That is a poor approximation to the kind of independent decentralised fund-holding that we should aim for if we want innovation and service delivery.
Secondly, the Bill does nothing to create more competition and choice in purchasing. The primary care trusts that control 75 per cent of the funds have very little freedom in reality to deviate from centralised priorities. We shall not get innovation or freedom unless that situation is changed.
One immediate step that the Government could take would be to announce that they will create foundation primary care trusts, which would have real freedom to spend their per capita allocation. If they took that step, it would be a simple step beyond that to allow people to move from one PCT to another, creating a basis for the kind of vision that I have proposed. As we go through the Bill, I should like to ask the Minister whether the creation of foundation primary care trusts is any part of the Government's current proposals or of what they would consider putting forward. It is an essential reform that must go hand in hand with a proper system of foundation hospitals.
Even if the Government are not prepared to commit to that, I hope that the Bill as the House may amend it may at least provide some of the basis from which a subsequent and bolder Government may proceed more rapidly to complete the transformation to a decentralised and denationalised structure that is free to deliver the quality of healthcare that the nation deserves. I welcome the Bill as making at least a step in that direction, and I congratulate the Minister on taking that step tonight.
7 57 p.m.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, before I begin my formal speech, I express a hope that the Minister has more success in this complex Bill than
94
some of us have had this evening in trying to do something about the cold in the Chamber. Before we get this health Bill through, some of us may die of hypothermia.
In welcoming the Bill, I declare an interest as the vice-chair of the National Care Standards Commission. However, I shall not be part of the new Commission for Social Care Inspection, so I feel pretty free to comment on the new arrangements as the Bill passes through Parliament.
I recognise that the debate in another place—and the debate today—has largely been about foundation hospitals. However, whatever happens about that issue in the debate, Parliament must retain a clear focus on carrying through the proposed changes to regulation of services for children and adult users of services. Indeed, the National Care Standards Commission has worked hard to ensure that preparation is in hand and that there is readiness for that change.
The size and scope of the social care sector must not be overlooked. The National Care Standards Commission alone regulates 40,000 services which provides just under half a million care homes and supports hundreds of thousands more people so that they can keep on living in their own homes. Add to that the services for children, the relatives of all those folk and the social care aspects of the Bill touch the lives of most of us.
The role of the regulator is essential to both health and social care sectors. Having a single social care regulator with a single set of standards should give individuals the confidence to know that they will receive appropriate care, no matter who provides it or where it is. That is essential if a mixed and diverse economy of health and social care is to flourish. After all, it is a sign of a civilised society that it protects people and helps them to improve the quality of their lives, particularly those with less capacity to do so for themselves. It is important that we all ensure that the Bill has that philosophy at its heart. I ask the Minister to give reassurance on that.
We have thankfully moved away from the era when society took the view, "Out of sight, out of mind", particularly, for example, in relation to frail older people, with care homes regarded as institutions. However, there is still a lot of work to be done. Only last October, National Care Standards Commission inspectors discovered a home where the staff thought it was appropriate to tie an old lady to a chair with a dog lead to restrain her movement. It is that kind of abuse of trust and denial of dignity that we still need to stamp out. Private hospitals, indeed, have not been without their difficulties. More examples of our work can be found in our annual report—which, as background, I think it would be very useful for Members to look at as we go through this debate.
It is, however, also vital that we listen to the voices of those who use our services. Can the Minister assure me that the new commission and the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection will build on the foundation work to develop extensive consultation with

95
service users and their representatives, particularly with children? It is vital that those children's voices are heard and taken account of. No one knows more about the services than those who use them. If we ignore those voices, saying that adults and professionals know best—and I say that as a professional—we do so at our peril.
England's Children's Rights Director, working out of the National Care Standards Commission, has developed a range of consultations with children in public care. We hope that that valuable experience will be carried into the new commission. This Bill, as we have heard today, has its Second Reading on the day of the publication of the children's Green Paper. We welcome the wide range of that paper and in particular the announcement of the office of the Children's Commissioner. It will be essential that the new commissioner, the Children's Rights Director and the new Children and Families Directorate in the Department for Education and Skills work together to listen to the voices of children and to sustain and improve services for them, particularly in the area of health.
Last week, a colleague told me that when he visited a hospital to try to get more focus on children's services, the manager told him, "You don't lose your job for failing children's services, mate". Will the Minister give assurance that all our services working together will ensure that no manager can make such a comment in the future? Perhaps one of the tests for foundation hospitals should be just how child friendly they are, because child friendly places are usually also friendly to adults.
For the foundation hospital debate links to the debate on regulation in that all of these services must work in partnership to achieve best results for all who use them, especially vulnerable users. We must begin to see services as whole systems, not departmental silos, where people can move effortlessly between providers with the same certainty of good service whether in health or social care provision. The boundaries need to be clear, but the provision must be excellent. So it is essential that within this framework proper regulation is much more than inspection or performance management. For example, by conducting a tight control on registration, through rigorous checks and controls, the National Care Standards Commission is able to stop poor services from entering the market, which seems to me far better than picking up the pieces after things have gone wrong.
The NCSC is a watchdog that can bite, and the new commissions, CHIA and CSCI, will have powers contained in the Bill to assume a similar responsibility. That is particularly important, as I said, as a mixed economy of provision develops. However, if I had one complaint about the time I have spent building up the new commission, it would be the problems faced through a lack of independence in implementing the national minimum standards. Such standards are of course vital as a framework to ensure the confidence of users and in setting their expectations of a decent service, but they must not stifle innovation and
96
positive change. To ensure that, the new commissions must have enough freedom and flexibility to resist political expediencies and to focus on sustained improvement in services.
I am vice chair of the John Grooms Association for Disabled People. Although we want to give young disabled people their own larger space, if we did so, we would lose communal space. That would not meet the standards. We have to be flexible enough to give really good services to people such as those young disabled people.
I conclude by again making the plea that, in the important deliberations about foundation hospitals, this House should not lose sight of the importance of those parts of the Bill bringing in a new phase in regulation and inspection. As we move forward, it is important to build on the work of the past two years, when we have seen England's first social care regulator set up and its 2,500 staff develop a substantial knowledge of how to make this work in practice. Most of all, in the debates, let us keep in mind those who will use the services, and build on the work of consultation not only with providers and those who work with users but with the users themselves—whatever the structure the Government put in place to achieve that.
8.6 p.m.
Lord Sawyer: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to speak in this debate. I should like to declare a couple of interests. I am the chairman of Reed health group, and I am also a member of UNISON. Like most noble Lords, I suspect, I enjoy these debates more on some occasions than on others. However, I think that this debate has been particularly informative. It has made me think a lot about the issues before us. I was particularly impressed by the contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, in which she grappled with the issue and heavy responsibility of the need to perform tasks on a daily and real-time basis. She outlined some concepts and ideas which the Bill has given her and tried to work out how the new initiatives and ideas can help in the real world in which patient care must be provided.
In one way, the Bill is very simple. It contains a simple but very big idea—locally owned hospitals. It is a wild thing to say. If we really believe that one day we will have locally owned hospitals funded by the owners—the taxpayers—free from much government interference and perhaps responding to purchasers as mutuals rather than as plcs, then it is a very big idea. I do not believe that it will be achieved by this Bill alone. I do not think that anyone should believe that. I thought that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, explained very adequately how it is impossible to make such a big leap in one Bill. But the Bill is one step along the road that must be followed if we are to move from this huge bureaucratic, monolithic nationalised industry that, by force of circumstances, Nye Bevan had to create, to locally owned hospitals. It will be one important step.
I share the view of my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley. I am sorry that this great, big idea has been damaged to some extent by political divisions. If the big ideas in the

97
Bill had been properly discussed outside Parliament in the wider community and people had been given an opportunity to express a view before we were saddled with the Bill, as it were, those divisions would not have arisen. That is a great pity. I hope that my party leadership will learn the lesson in what we might call the post-Campbell era and understand the importance, which is enshrined in this piece of legislation, of including and involving people and listening to their opinions before we make decisions. I hope that we can learn that lesson in the future.
The Bill was introduced to Parliament by the former Secretary of State, Alan Milburn—a man whom I hold in the highest regard. In my view he was one of the most radical and innovative Secretaries of State in the history of the health service. As I said, his vision of a democratic and accountable health service is at the heart of the Bill. My instincts follow his on that matter. In some ways I do not see this as a complicated matter. If I were to strip it down in terms of how I would run a hospital, I would do so in very much the same way that I would run anything else. I have run trade unions, businesses and charities. In all circumstances the most important people are the customers. In the case we are discussing they are the patients.
The second most important people are the staff. If we do the right thing by the patients and the staff, we shall not go far wrong. I refer in particular to the front line staff and to the cleaners, the cooks and the blue collar workers, as it were, who are often forgotten. Managers, politicians and civil servants should be the servants of the front line staff. I do not think that that has ever happened in the National Health Service. You turn the pyramid on its head and you make the bosses and the politicians the servants of the people who serve the patients. That is the kind of vision I should like to see enacted. That is how I envisage a publicly owned local hospital working.
I believe that Alan Milburn understood that. In Agenda for Change—this is slightly different from the main matter we are discussing tonight but it is still relevant—he hammered that agreement out with the trade unions. I spent 20 years as a union official linked to the National Health Service and I never dreamt of such a good agreement. Agenda for Change offers marvellous opportunities for staff and most of the unions have endorsed it resoundingly. I was very pleased to hear the Minister say tonight that foundation trusts would be required to implement Agenda for Change. That is a wise decision.
My instincts also follow the central aim of the Bill which is democracy and local ownership and giving employees, patients and others in local communities real power over how the service is run. As noble Lords have said, after 50 years of National Health Service provision inequalities of health between the richest and the poorest in our communities have widened. But the issue of inequalities goes well beyond the provision of healthcare and includes much wider issues of class, opportunities, housing, lifestyles and so on. The question is whether a new and more democratic form
98
of governance at local level will make even a small contribution to dealing with those inequalities. I think that it will.
All my experience in all walks of life reinforces my view that if you bring customers and staff together with other interests at local level, whatever they may be, and give them real ownership—I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Desai—you get a very different set of circumstances. You get different priorities and different solutions from those you would have achieved through a Minister, a hierarchy, a chain of command or a management structure. Things start to change when bureaucracy is removed and people start to think about new ideas or providing a different service. That will demand a very different kind of response from the Minister or the regulator or whoever might be involved. That is why I say this is a very big idea. The implications are very far-reaching if we are to respond to people taking local ownership in the way that I have discussed.
That matter is relevant to many parts of the Bill, not least to the regulator who must be accountable arid in some ways appears to take over the role of the Minister. The regulator will need to display much wisdom and courage in responding to what could be very different and challenging situations that arise in locally owned hospitals.
Standing far back and enjoying the vision of the big idea, if I have not been misled in my enthusiasm for it—I do not believe that I have been, but I fully appreciate why people might not want to gel so far back and involved with the practicalities—I think that support will come from communities, managers, staff and patients for a new kind of hospital that belongs to them. I really like the feel of that.
I would like to see people joining hospitals. I do not know very much about what the panel really means, but I am a member of a mutual building society and am really glad that I am in it. It is different from being in a bank, and I am proud of being a member of it as I get different things from it. If I could join my local hospital in something like the same way, I would be very interested in what that might mean for me, my family and my community. If that is the path down which we are travelling, I would be very interested to go down it.
Finally, there is a question about who can run a foundation hospital. The Secretary of State has said that the foundations will not be able to make a profit or pay a dividend, so I presume that that precludes plcs from becoming involved, because it would be against the law. Therefore, I guess that we are looking—if the current people are not running them; I do not see why they should not be—for people with new ideas and new offerings perhaps to come from mutuals or combinations of mutuals, or something like that. We should knock on the head the idea of privatisation, because it does a lot of damage to people who are supportive. If that idea could be killed off, it would be good.
Had the Bill been properly discussed through a Green Paper, some seminars and some debates, it would be the toast of Bournemouth in two weeks

99
instead of the curse that it is going to be. That aside, in this House let us take the challenge as we normally do, bring the reasoned argument to bear and see if we can make the legislation better as it goes through Parliament.
8.16 p.m.
Lord Turnberg: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Sawyer and his very perceptive speech, which I enjoyed. I would like to comment on foundation hospitals and the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection. I should first express some of my interests. I am an ex—well, I am an ex-several things, but I am an ex-academic physician, and am now vice-president of the Academy of Medical Sciences, adviser to the Association of Medical Research Charities, and a member of the medical advisory boards for inventures and nations healthcare. Those two bodies were set up in response to government initiatives, to provide support services for the NHS.
Along with almost everyone I know, I am strongly in favour of the principle of devolving responsibility for running health services to more local levels. Anything that can loosen the tight reins of central control is to be welcomed. I resonate very strongly the erudite comments of my noble friend Lord Hunt. I view foundation hospitals as a step in the right direction, and it seems not unreasonable—to me at least—that those who have shown that they can manage their affairs reasonably well should be given the chance to do so soon.
Of course there are anxieties, which many have expressed, about whether the new status will give hospitals unfair advantages over other hospitals, and will drain resources from one to the other. I do not really believe that, but clearly that is not what a national health service should be about. It is for that reason that the Government should ensure that the first wave of foundation hospitals is very closely followed by second and third waves, so that all hospitals should very quickly share in the potential benefits of devolution. If talk that I have heard of 50 per cent of trusts becoming foundation trusts in five years is true, that seems far too slow. We must be quicker in spreading the benefits.
There is another reason for spreading devolution to all, which is the current method of selection—the star system—which may not be entirely without its faults. It may well select for managerial skills and financial control, but I am not convinced that it selects for patient care. If noble Lords will bear with me, I would like to tell them that I spent my summer vacation in Manchester, going from hospital to hospital with sick and ageing relatives. We were all very impressed with the standards of care and service that they and I received. The kindness and attentiveness of staff, the cleanliness, and even the food were hard to fault.
When I spoke to the medical and nursing staff later, they told me that the number of consultants and nurses had risen remarkably in the past few years and that their
100
morale had risen. Pace the noble Lord. Lord Alderdice, I detect a faint breeze of change in the morale stakes. What a change from a few years ago. It made me quite proud of an NHS that seemed different from what we read about in the press, and I believe that that is a credit to this Government.
My point in telling you that is that neither Hope nor Withenshaw hospitals—those in question—have accumulated the stars necessary for foundation status. But if you ask the patients, you will get quite a different story. They believe that they are marvellous. My mother-in-law gave Withenshaw hospital five stars—and she is no push-over. The stars and the views of the patients are not coinciding—there is a discrepancy—so it will be important to avoid delay in the transition to the next phase of those deserving trusts.
I turn now to an important function of foundation hospitals which deserves greater prominence in the legislation; that is, their role in teaching and research. Virtually all hospitals carry out some teaching and research, but those in university centres with medical schools play a vital role in teaching the doctors and nurses of the future and in pursuing the kind of research that is so fundamental for future healthcare. We in the UK have considerable strength in the basic biological sciences. We have excellence in depth in molecular biology, genetics, immunology and so forth and we have a remarkably successful and innovative pharmaceutical industry. However, we lack the facilities and researchers who can translate the fruits of that marvellous basic science into the care of patients. Nor do we have the facility to take full advantage of the potential in the pharmaceutical industry's inventiveness.
The clinical trials in hospitals and primary care, and with patients, are so essential, but the infrastructure for that does not exist. What does exist is being squeezed out by the ever-increasing pressures on the NHS to deliver today's clinical service. I would therefore like to see in the Bill a much greater recognition of the need for the new trusts to take responsibility for ensuring that research and teaching are a fundamental part of the work of university teaching hospitals both in the ways they are governed and in the ways they function.
I want to say a few words about CHAI, the Commission for Health Audit and Inspection. One of the difficulties which besets clinical practice—it was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice—is the need to respond to ever-tighter and more detailed regulation. Quite apart from the need for doctors to keep GMS guidelines in mind and to meet the requirements of the medical royal colleges for standards and training, they are increasingly hide bound by government initiatives, guidelines, protocols and regulations which cover every aspect of their clinical practice.
We have now accumulated a long list of requirements. While each of them in themselves may seem entirely rational, when they are seen in their entirety they pose an enormous burden which distracts clinicians from their primary role of caring for

101
patients. What is needed now is a close examination of the multiplicity of regulatory bodies and requirements. I am delighted therefore to see the first steps being taken with CHAI, which seems to subsume three previous bodies. That should undoubtedly help, but I hope that that is just the beginning.
We must take a close look at the effects of current controls. Are they in fact improving healthcare and making it safer, or are they simply a distracting burden, inhibiting good clinical practice? I hope that the Government will build on their commendable efforts on CHAI and look at what more needs to be done to rationalise and reduce this morass of regulation.
8.24 p.m.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, having never been a Minister, I have my usual solitary declaration of interest to make. I am an employee of Age Concern England. I am delighted to be able to sum up a wide-ranging debate which has done the Bill a greater service than was done in another place, where vast sections of it went unremarked. In our debate we have focused on three important matters: evidence-based commissioning; evidence-based planning and evidence-based supply.
In another place and in the press some have sought to characterise the debate around the Bill as concerning those who wish to modernise the NHS to set it free from restrictive and centralised micro-management versus those who want to preserve a monolith. I believe that such a characterisation is unfair. Last year we on the Liberal Democrat Benches put on record our policy paper in which we expressed a commitment to local management of public services, including health. We are in agreement with the stated aim of devolving decision making to local communities. The problem is that we have a great many reservations about the precise proposals in the Bill because we see limited decentralisation, inadequate democratisation and piecemeal reorganisation. Like the noble Baronesses, Lady Gould and Lady Masham, we have considerable reservations about the commissioning of specialist services in particular.
This is a curiously disjointed Bill that has prompted some very unlikely reactions. Many people have focused on foundation trusts as the break up of the NHS, while at the same time they have completely ignored the import into the NHS of private provision of diagnostic and treatment centres. While many organisations have expressed concern about the fairness of access to health services, very few have noticed the potential disincentive inherent in the tariff system for trusts to treat those patients who are more costly than younger people who recover more quickly.
We welcome parts of the Bill, inasmuch as it is possible to discern exactly what effect the regulatory powers will have. It has taken the Government 18 months to accept the argument put most strongly by my noble friends Lord Clement-Jones and Lady Nicholson that private healthcare and NHS healthcare should be subject to the same standards of audit and inspection. One is almost
102
tempted to say better late than never. But on closer examination of the Bill it becomes apparent that the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection and CSCI will enjoy considerably less independence than their forerunners, so our delight is somewhat tempered.
We also give a partial welcome to the proposals to give PCTs and local health boards responsibility for commissioning NHS dentistry, including general dental services. The arguments on that were most eloquently put by the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, and I do not wish to repeat them. I simply say that the case of two weeks ago in which a PCT could not release the name of a new NHS dentist in an area should be evidence enough to us all that the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, did not overstate the crisis at all.
We on these Benches have two major concerns about the Bill. First, the Bill as a whole does not concentrate sufficiently on primary care, prevention and health promotion; and, secondly, the proposals for governance, performance management and accountability are so inconsistent that they give very real cause for concern about the extent to which strategic planning and fair access can be assured across the NHS.
The noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, was absolutely right. So far the discussion has focused almost exclusively on foundation hospitals. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Sawyer, that the Bill is the Government's response principally to the Wanless report. The response was outlined 18 months ago in the NHS Plan and in Delivering the NHS Plan. At that time we debated those documents in your Lordships' House. All the way through we have noted one particular recommendation which is absolutely fundamental. The Wanless commission looked at the future demand on healthcare services over the next 20 years and one of the key recommendations was that there should be a similar investigation into social care because health and social care are two sides of the same coin. Since then the Government have studiously ignored that recommendation. Until that advice is heeded, I am afraid that all Bills which come before this House will be about tinkering with the NHS rather than dealing with fundamental planning.
I share some of the more interesting points made by the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale. As the Bill passes through your Lordships' House we need to be thinking not only about elective surgery but also about the management of chronic conditions. I think that much that is in the Bill is based on predictable healthcare conditions and not on the management of long-term conditions.
There is a key flaw in the Bill, which was pointed out by the former Minister for Health, John Denham, during the debate at Second Reading in another place. He said that,
"we need to do more on strategic planning. At the moment, no one is entirely responsible when things go wrong. It is not quite the hospital management, the trust board, the PCT, the strategic health authority or the Secretary of State. If we are not careful, we will still have a system in which PCTs plan from the bottom up. and strategic health authorities sort out problems from the top down".—[Official Report, Commons, 7/5/03; col. 746.]

103
I have spent the summer watching the preparations for the implementation of the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc) Bill. I think that this Bill threatens something much worse. PCTs will commission services on the basis of targets set by the Secretary of State, which are arbitrary and unrelated to health outcomes, while acute trusts will work to a weakened system of accountability.
I was very interested in what the noble Lord. Lord Turnberg, had to say. I think that he was almost the first person to use the words "clinical governance" in the debate. As the noble Lord said, the star rating system that has been used so far has been seriously inadequate in the way in which it relates performance to health outcomes.
I should also make the observation that many people have talked about the star rating system as being a limiting factor in that if one has only one star one is not in a position to come forward for further resources and status. I have to say that, certainly in the field of social care, the three-star status has become a significant problem. Those of us who work not in the statutory sector but in the voluntary sector have considerable problems in going to, in particular, social services departments where we can see serious inadequacies of services for individuals only to be told, "We are a three-star service". It has become a barrier to improvement that we cannot get through. That is dangerous.
A number of noble Lords have mentioned the governance arrangements in the Bill. I want to say that I am simply not convinced by the argument put forward by the Minister in another place that the specific format for incorporation is necessary because it makes dissolution in cases of insolvency less difficult if one does not use the standard charitable legal framework. I think that that calls into question the extent to which foundation trusts will be independent and accountable in practice to the people whom they seek to serve.
I have a further concern about accountability. It is possible to see how a general hospital within a defined locality—for example, a county or a major conurbation—could draw upon the population of a defined geographical area to develop an electoral constituency, which not only has an obvious relevance to the life of the people within the locality but is of a sufficient size and diversity to ensure that there is strategic governance. However, it is far from obvious how specialist providers such as Moorfields, Great Ormond Street or Addenbrooke's will be able to develop such a robust system of membership. Furthermore, the issue of the governance of tertiary units within acute hospitals is simply not addressed within the Bill.
I would go further and echo the concerns of one or two of the speakers in today's debate about what happens under that system of governance to the needs of minority populations and people with minority conditions. That leads me to one further point—that of strategic planning of commissioning and provision of specialist services within the NHS. Noble Lords will know that over the
104
past couple of years in this House we have considered, in particular, neurological conditions and the lack of compatibility between centres of excellence in acute trusts for the diagnosis and immediate treatment of those conditions and community practitioners in the long-term management of neurological conditions. One suspects that that is likely to be subject to further fragmentation under the new system.
I believe we shall have to consider one or two other measures in the Bill particularly closely in order to decide whether or not we wish to pursue them. The proposal to extend the powers to recover costs in road traffic accidents seems to be a measure that we should support only in so far as it will act to prevent and discourage the increasing recourse to the compensation culture making its way into the NHS. If it does that, we should support it; if it does not, we should stamp on it heavily.
The proposals to reform welfare foods are, on the face of it, a welcome modernisation. However, I want to ask the Minister whether the overall level of provision is likely to rise or fall and who will monitor the effectiveness of the new system.
As I said, the Bill has within it an inconsistency and an incoherence which are of concern to those who want to see the decentralisation and democratisation of excellence and not the shifting of blame within the NHS.
8.36 p.m.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, this has been an interesting debate with extraordinarily high-quality contributions. My noble friend Lord Howe set the scene for the debate on foundation trusts with his devastating critique of the part of the Bill that deals with foundation trusts. My noble friend Lady Hanham raised powerful concerns about the governance arrangements, as echoed by many other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey. My noble friend Lord Blackwell set out a more radical vision, removing both monopoly and monopsony. He, too, offered significant challenges to the Government's policies on foundation trusts.
I listened very carefully to the contributions from the Benches opposite on this subject and I do not believe that I heard overwhelming support for foundation trusts from the Minister's noble friends. Even the loyal support from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, was hedged about. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, finished by asking whether Ministers will refrain from interference. Perhaps I may offer my answer to that question: no, they will not because too many strings have been left in place to be pulled and tweaked by Ministers.
Perhaps I may restate our position on foundation trusts. We believe in real freedoms for hospitals and we do not support intrusive, government-dominated interference by a so-called independent regulator. We do not support the chaos and expense of the pseudo-democracy of the governance structures. We oppose Gordon Brown's zero-sum game whereby the borrowing of foundation hospitals will displace

105
investment in the rest of the NHS. What unites these Benches with the Liberal Democrat Benches is wide and deep opposition to Part 1 of the Bill, which I am sure we shall explore in Committee.
Moving on from the subject of foundation trusts, my noble friend Lady Cumberlege made a thoughtful speech. She highlighted the incompatibility between local decision-making and Labour's notion of equity, and she pressed again the desirability of taking politicians out of the NHS. Those thoughts were supported by many on all sides of the House. Separating politics from the NHS is now an urgent matter. It is not dealt with properly in the Bill and, again, that is something that we shall need to explore further in Committee.
I am very glad that my noble friend Lord Colwyn reminded us of the importance of the dental aspects of Part 4 of the Bill. He raised serious questions which deserve comprehensive answers from the Minister. Several noble Lords made important points about the operation of CHAI and CSCI. My noble friend Lord Bridgeman raised questions about timescale and division of responsibilities. I hope that the Minister will reply to them.
My noble friend Lord Howe outlined our determination that CHAI and CSCI shall be properly independent bodies. But before discussing independence, let me first signal our opposition to the limitless powers of CHAI to gather and use personal data. Anybody who heard the representative from CHI on the "Today" programme this morning will have been chilled at the apparent disregard for the principles of patients' anonymity and informed consent. Clause 66 is not acceptable in its current form.
Perhaps the most interesting insight into the Government's thinking on independence for CHAI and CSCI is the language that they use. The regulator being created for foundation trusts is called an independent regulator. Of course, the regulator is not independent, but that is how he is described. When we come to the creation of CHAI and CSCI, the word "independent" is nowhere to be found. In another place the Government rejected amendments tabled by Conservative Members to include the word "independent".
The reason is simple: the Government do not intend to allow those bodies to be independent. The mantra that they use is "more independent". We do not see independence as a relative concept but as an absolute one. If a body is beholden to the Secretary of State in any way it is not independent.
The Bill is full of ways in which the independence of CHAI and CSCI are compromised. The chairmen and members are appointed by the Secretary of State. The Minister can say what he likes about the Government's intention to use the NHS Appointments Commission, but the fact remains that the Government have kept the power to appoint in the Bill.
The Secretary of State can remove the chairmen and members. He just has to satisfy himself that they are not carrying out their duties. There are no rights of
106
appeal or preliminary processes. The Secretary of State will hold a loaded gun at all times. Who can remain independent in those circumstances?
For good measure, the Secretary of State will determine pay and pensions. Modern corporate governance involves remuneration committees for pay and conditions, but the Secretary of State is a control freak and will not relinquish any powers.
There are three aspects to independence: appointment independence, operational independence and financial independence. The Bill fails the appointment independence test. It also fails the other two tests.
There is no operational independence because the Government have retained the right to direct CHAI and CSCI. Even though the power to direct CHAI to follow government policy is limited, there are the sinister Clauses 130 and 131, which allow the Secretary of State to issue any direction whenever he considers that either body is failing to discharge its functions "to a significant extent".
Do not believe any assurances that those are necessary back-up powers to deal with extreme circumstances. Powers of direction do not have to be used in practice to have a profound impact on how a body behaves. When everyone knows that the Secretary of State can ultimately get his own way., it is entirely rational for people who work in that environment to behave just as the Secretary of State wishes. Civil servants are trained to ensure that their political master's wishes are well understood.
Lastly, the bodies do not have financial independence—that means being able to decide what resources you need to carry out your functions and then being able to raise the income to cover that. Neither CHAI nor CSCI is in that position. The Secretary of State may let them raise income by charging fees, but there is no guarantee that the fees received will cover their expenses. There is no obligation on the Secretary of State to meet any net expenses of CHAI or CSCI and the bodies have no power to borrow money. To use a wrestling analogy, that amounts to a financial full nelson, with CHAI and CSCI helpless on the mat while the Secretary of State extracts his submission.
We believe that the new bodies must be properly independent of the Government which is why we shall be bringing forward amendments in Committee to ensure that that the hand of the Secretary of State is removed as far as possible from the affairs of CHAI and CSCI.
I turn to the rest of this Bill. Despite its length, the Bill can be properly understood only when the various regulations are published. It will doubtless come as no surprise to noble Lords to find that not a single one of the regulation-making powers that litter this Bill will be subject to the affirmative procedure. I give just two problem areas: the new system for the recovery of NHS charges under Part 3 and the welfare foods scheme in Part 5 could both be introduced without adequate parliamentary scrutiny. That is not satisfactory.

107
I hope that we will not be asked to approve these extensive regulation-making powers without quite detailed knowledge of the likely content of the regulations and their timing. I invite the Minister to outline the Government's plans for draft regulations and to commit to having drafts available before the start of the Committee stage of the Bill.
Much of the Bill received little scrutiny in another place. The important clauses in Part 4 dealing with the new contract for GPs were introduced on Report with only a few minutes of debate. The welfare foods scheme in Part 5 was not debated at all. The Committee proceedings in another place were guillotined before the Committee had considered the provisions relating to the CSCI. We on these Benches are committed to every part of this Bill receiving the most thorough scrutiny, however long that takes us in Committee.
The Government have a relentless desire to re-shape the NHS. As one policy fails, they invent a new one. They fail, however, to see that what is wrong with their policies is their inability to trust the NHS and the consequent desire to hang on to every power possible over every corner of the NHS. We can see that particularly in their policies towards foundation trusts and CHAI and CSCI. As my noble friend Lady Cumberlege reminded us, what the NHS needs is less Government, not more. That is what will drive our contribution to this Bill as it proceeds through your Lordships' House.
8.48 p.m.
Lord Warner: My Lords, we have had an extremely thoughtful debate, although perhaps we went a little downhill towards the end. I do not necessarily agree with all the points raised and I cannot cover all of them. If I cannot do them justice, I will write to noble Lords after studying Hansard.
I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that I did not feel too devastated by the analysis offered by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. I recognise that there is deep opposition to Part 1 of the Bill on the Benches opposite. I wonder whether that is because we on these Benches do not favour the type of market solutions implicit in some of the remarks made from Benches opposite. In his contribution, the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, occasionally let the cat out of the bag.
It is a bit strong to make remarks about the Secretary of State as though he were some kind of WWF participant. That was a bit fanciful, given that the provisions on powers of direction and to allow the removal of people from office are fairly standard among bodies in the public sector, as we will find when we consider the provisions relating to the Audit Commission. They are the kind of provisions that the party opposite put into many Bills passed by the House when it was in office.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, said that he welcomed our conversion to devolution, but then went on, I thought, to quibble about the speed at which we were doing it. There has been widespread debate and
108
consultation, given that it is over a year since the proposal on foundation trusts was published. If we are going in the direction that the noble Earl favours, I hope that we will be able to produce solutions that help to get local freedoms to as many NHS trusts as possible as quickly as possible. That seemed to be the thrust of many of the contributions.
Some of the arguments about a financial zero-sum game were a bit unconvincing. As I said, we are engaged, unlike previous administrations, in a 7.5 per cent year-on-year real terms increase in the NHS, which will be sustained for some time, with an increase of give or take approximately 25 per cent in public capital. The context in which we are introducing the changes is rather different from that of the past. In addition, all trusts will be paid on a fair basis under a nationally set tariff that will encourage efficiency gains under the same clinical standards. There will be a good deal more financial provision in the system while it undertakes the changes.
I do not believe that the independent regulator can be bossed around by the Secretary of State, as was suggested. He is not subject to direction by the Secretary of State, and Clause 3 ensures that he or she acts in the best interests of the NHS. It is just not true that foundation trusts will exacerbate health inequalities. They will have the freedom to reshape services to fit their population's needs. Amendments made on Report in the other place provide protection against entryism, but if noble Lords have ideas for improving protection, we will be happy to discuss them.
I was puzzled by the approach taken by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, to the governance provisions in the Bill. He seemed to want effective governance but was a bit reluctant to meet the cost. We recognise that good governance costs money, which is why we are providing resources for consultation and for the transition to foundation trust status, so that they do not come out of clinical care budgets. We do not think that the costs will break the NHS bank. First-wave applicants have been issued with guidance setting out the things that consultation should cover. After the passage of the Bill, all applicants will be required to carry out a full standard public consultation.
The Bill reflects what has always been clear: trust status is for providers of NHS services. It does not provide for commissioners to make that transition. PCTs are new organisations, and we do not think that the time is right to propose further change.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, expressed concern about a private patient cap. It is provided for in Clause 15(2), which requires the independent regulator to cap private patient income. I assure Members that star ratings are not the sole basis for giving NHS foundation trust status; it will depend on wider considerations.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Gould of Potternewton for her contribution and for her support in fighting the problem of sexually transmitted diseases. Such diseases are a serious problem, which is

109
why the Government's sexual health and HIV strategy is in place and more money is being put into that area. It is not for us to instruct CHAI on how it does its job. I am sure that it will have heard my noble friend's concerns and will review how the NHS tackles this important area and acts on NICE guidance. That will be an important part of CHAI's review functions.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, for her good wishes. I shall try to stay upright throughout most of the proceedings of this House. Just to reassure her, as we understand it, under the European Convention on Human Rights, there is no basis for challenging the validity of votes in Parliament. Coming from her contribution, there seems to be a wish to remove the NHS from the grasp of politicians. We must bear in mind that taxpayers put huge sums of money into the NHS. I think that they expect elected politicians to account for that money to Parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, seemed depressed about staff morale. I was pleased to hear the more reassuring experiences of my noble friend Lord Turnberg. His picture of staff morale seems to accord more with mine on visits to NHS facilities. Certainly, we are not involving ourselves in micromanagement—quite the reverse. I hope that the noble Lord will accept our reassurances on that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, was concerned about a number of issues. It is worth bearing in mind that CHAI will be concerned—as are star ratings at present—with cleanliness in hospitals and hospital-spread infections. I am sure that CHAI will include those kinds of issues in future performance assessments. As regards the noble Baroness's question on specialised commissioning, the powers for that are set out under the NHS Act 1977. I shall write to her in more detail.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hunt for his perceptive and thoughtful speech. I want to compliment him on his work as a Minister when starting the work of changing NHS dentistry. I commend the Opposition Front Bench to study it carefully. I do not think that it always brought out the kind of points suggested. The noble Lord may have said that we overdosed on targets, but it is worth bearing in mind that it is these targets on access which give people what they want. Survey after survey of the public shows that they want shorter waiting times for access to services. Targets have played an important part in delivering that particular change.
I reassure hint and other noble Lords who raised the issue that there is no bar in this legislation to mental health trusts obtaining foundation trust status. Discussions are in hand with approximately 70 trusts in that particular area. It was just that acute and specialist trusts were further down the track in terms of first-wave applicants. A number of noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Hunt, raised concerns about continuity. That is a concern and we are looking at how best to ensure that organisational stability during transition is maintained. We shall welcome the views of Members on strengthening those provisions if they have ideas in this area.
110
A number of noble Lords, including my noble friend, spoke about Ministers keeping their sticky hands off and not interfering when matters start to go a little awry. I can reassure them that it is not my style to rush in to recalibrate the system when there is a little twitching at local level or in the media.
The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, raised a number of issues. I assure him that CHAI will inspect all diagnostic and treatment centres. My noble friend Lady Pitkeathley raised concerns about whether enough is being done on social care and the bridge with health care. As she said, the primary care features of the Bill are very important: 75 per cent of NHS budgets are now in the hands of PCTs.
I understand too the concerns expressed by my noble friend and other noble Lords about patients' forums. We shall come back to this matter at a later stage. It is for foundation trusts to judge for themselves how best to involve public and patient interests, but no doubt many of them will consider building on some of the experiences of patients' forums.
I welcome the contribution made by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, which will help us in the further work that we shall be undertaking. I can assure her that clinical governance and other areas of the kind she mentioned will be reviewed by CHAI in its inspection work.
I shall not rush to secure my noble friend Lord Desai's vote for radical changes in the NHS, or I shall find myself quickly joining the club of former Ministers about which he seemed rather enthusiastic.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, for sharing with the House her experience as someone working at the local level and wrestling with the changes. These practical issues will help to inform some of our more detailed consideration.
I listened attentively to the contribution of my noble friend Lord Harris. I am pleased that he said that he supports the Government and does not disagree with us too strongly.
I can reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, that all NICE guidance will come within the ambit of CHAI. I should also like to assure her that this Bill is all about improving the lot of patients rather than providing a management distraction.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, for his contribution and for his support for the changes to dental services. He has huge knowledge of this area and I shall write to him on some of the detailed points that he raised.
The noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, has great experience of drug treatment and mental health. As pointed out earlier, there will be no bar in the legislation on either mental health trusts or care trusts to achieving NHS foundation trust status. I think that it is simply a little further down the road.
I have mentioned the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell. I do not think that we are seeking to go down the path he thinks we ought to follow, rather we seek measured change and a loosening up of the NHS. I am extremely conscious of

111
the effects of radicalism in some privatisation measures—transport comes to mind—where a little caution might have done us all good.
Along with her colleague, Ann Parker, the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth of Breckland, has made a major contribution in setting up the National Care Standards Commission. We are all grateful for their work. I can assure her that none of that work will be lost, rather it will be built on. I should also like to assure her that the Bill retains the position of children's rights directors set up by the commission.
I too enjoyed the perceptive contribution of my noble friend Lord Sawyer. I am glad that he is joining with us in breaking up the monolith. I thought that he was the only Member of the House to make the link with mutualism that runs through the ideas behind this Bill.
My noble friend Lord Turnberg wants us to move swiftly on extending foundation trust status to as many trusts as possible. I hope that he can convince Members on the Benches opposite to help us in that regard, because it is what we want to do. I am sure that CHAI will take note of his thoughtful remarks on performance ratings. I can reassure him on teaching and research. Under Clause 14 an NHS foundation trust authorisation must authorise it and may require the trust to provide education and training and to carry out health-related research. I shall study his remarks in more detail and perhaps discuss them further.
I am grateful for the helpful contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker. I understand her concerns and I shall deal with them in more detail at a later stage. Following a thoughtful debate, I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Supreme Court
9.5 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hillrose to ask Her Majesty's Government how their proposals to create a supreme court of the United Kingdom and a judicial appointments commission will secure the independence of the judiciary.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the debate enables the House to discuss how the administration of justice may be enhanced in the light of the Government's proposals for reform. Judicial independence is. of course, not the only requirement for a proper system of justice but it is essential to the rule of law. I am grateful to the many eminent and learned noble Lords who have stayed to take part in this debate on a matter of great importance, not only to judges and lawyers but to everyone.
We are fortunate to live in a democratic society governed under the rule of law, but changing social needs require changes to our governing system, including the judiciary. Reforms must not only be well
112
designed, they must also be carefully implemented in a way that nurtures and sustains a judicial process that commands public confidence. It is especially difficult to accomplish this when judicial independence is undermined by senior Ministers, as has happened with the attacks by the Home Secretary on the judiciary, or when proposals are announced hurriedly without any prior discussion with the judges themselves.
The sudden departure of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, from the Government leaves a worryingly unbalanced Cabinet. He was a powerful counterweight to a populist Home Secretary whose defining characteristics include a marked dislike of the judiciary when it curbs the misuse of his public powers. We regretted the stubborn refusal of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, to recognise the need to make the reforms now proposed, but that does not diminish his achievements as Lord Chancellor, most notably the Human Rights Act.
The departure of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, leaves behind a Government with no one of his stature, authority and sometimes awkward independence to act as an effective counterweight to the combined weight of the Prime Minister's Office, the Cabinet Office and the Home Office. It is a vacuum that cannot be filled merely by imposing a statutory duty on a Minister to promote judicial independence, a duty that should surely apply to the entire Government. In any event, it is essential for the judges to speak for themselves when it becomes necessary to protect the administration of justice.
What matters more than any formal and unenforceable statutory duty is the culture of mutual confidence, trust and respect between the judiciary and the executive and between each branch of government and the public. However sensible the proposals for institutional reform may be, what matters at least as much are those chosen to make them work. The botched way in which the Government initially mishandled their proposed reforms has undoubtedly undermined public and judicial confidence in the reform proposals. It is therefore welcome news that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, has decided to continue to serve as Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales to seek to ensure that judicial independence will he secured and that the quality of our judicial system will be preserved and improved.
The consultation papers do not refer to the role of the Attorney-General. To strengthen the rule of law, he should be entitled as of right to attend all meetings of the Cabinet and Cabinet Committees to advise authoritatively on matters of law and legal public policy. The Prime Minister might do well to follow Australia's example and end the convention excluding the Attorney-General from membership of the Cabinet. The Attorney-General is surely the appropriate Minister to be consulted about judicial appointments for England and Wales.
We support the Government's proposals to create a judicial appointments commission; to replace the Law Lords with a supreme court of the entire United Kingdom; to create a more diverse judiciary; and to end government patronage in the appointment of

113
senior counsel. We have campaigned for these reforms for many years, and we welcome the Government's recent conversion. It is surely right that a Cabinet Minister should not appoint judges and sit as a judge in the final court. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham of Cornhill, said:
"The Law Lords are judges not legislators and do not belong to a House to whose business they can make only a slight contribution".
We shall miss the Law Lords' contribution to our Committee work and to debates, but their role has become increasingly constrained by the need to avoid possible conflicts of interest. Their proper province is surely judicial rather than political. The judges must be consulted about issues of legal public policy, but they should not be legislators.
Moving the supreme court to a suitable home will overcome the acute shortage of space that now prevents the Law Lords having sufficient support staff and the public having proper facilities. The needs of the senior judiciary and the public should no longer be cramped by the shortage of proper accommodation in this building.
It is also surely right that the senior judiciary should be drawn from a more diverse pool of well qualified candidates than at present in terms of gender, ethnic spread and range of experience and practice. By "well qualified" I mean not only intellectually well qualified but well qualified by experience and personality to act independently and impartially.
The quality of independence is well provided by judges drawn from the independent Bar, for the Bar is a profession of self-governing and inner-directed individuals, trained to be robustly independent. But the Bar still lacks diversity and it has no monopoly for providing potential judges with such qualities. Judges and barristers need to recognise that experience of advocacy is not a necessary condition for a good judge. The qualities needed can be well provided on the basis of wider professional experience beyond the Bar, including solicitors, those who have chaired tribunals or who have been distinguished academics and civil servants.
Judicial independence involves the individual independence of a judge, reflected in security of tenure. and the institutional independence of the court over which the judge presides, embodied in the institutional relationships between the executive and legislative branches of government. This does not mean that a judge should be unaccountable, or that there should be no independent informed evaluation of the judge's performance. But it does mean that the institutional architecture must be well designed to appoint judges of proven experience, ability and independence, and to promote the culture of mutual confidence, trust and respect to which I have referred.
I share the concern of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, that the proposed judicial appointments commission might be unduly influenced by politicians. As he has said:
"If the Executive can influence who is on the appointments commission and who the commission appoints that is interfering with the judiciary".
114
It may be desirable, for reasons of political legitimacy and parliamentary accountability, for a parliamentary Select Committee to be involved in some way and for the Prime Minister to recommend to the Sovereign appointments to the senior judiciary, but this must not mean that Ministers should be able to influence the process other than by accepting or rejecting the proposals of a genuinely independent commission. Ministers' discretionary powers should be strictly confined to ratification or rejection of nominations. We certainly would oppose politically partisan arid oppressive confirmation proceedings of the kind operated in the United States.
An independent judicial appointments commission should be responsible for making direct appointments at junior level and making recommendations at the more senior level.
The way in which members of the commission are appointed is crucial. The commission need not be chaired by a judge and it must not be dominated by judges since that would lead to a form of judicial corporatism, but it needs to include a significant proportion of senior judges, and to consult the judiciary in its work. It must also be seen to he manifestly independent, and the criteria of procedures for appointment must be well designed and transparent.
I would strongly oppose the suggestion in the consultation paper that the recommending body for appointing commission members should be chaired by the permanent secretary of the Department for Constitutional Affairs rather than someone wholly independent of the Government. The issue of budgetary and staffing control is important. In my view, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, like the High Court of Australia and the American federal judiciary, should control its own budget and be responsible for court staffing and services. There is a strong case for that to be done more generally That is a controversial issue not explored in the consultation paper, but first raised many years ago by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson.
I look forward to the contributions to be made in the debate and to the Minister's reply.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, I confine myself to three points. The first is that the case for changing our system of judicial appointments was much stronger in the early part of the last century than it is now. Lord Chancellor Halsbury, who served in that office for a total of 16 years, made some disgraceful appointments, particularly MPs of doubtful quality, to be judges. Then there was the apparent convention in the early part of the last century that, when the office of Lord Chief Justice fell vacant, the current Attorney-General should be entitled to succeed. In 1922, the former Attorney-General Gordon Hewart was appointed Lord Chief Justice. He was to remain in that post for 18 years and was described by the reputable legal historian Professor Heuston as,
"perhaps the worst Lord Chief Justice of England since the 17th century".

115
Political appointments were common in England over a long period, and it is to the credit of more recent Lord Chancellors, including the last two—the noble and learned Lords, Lord Mackay of Clashfern and Lord Irvine of Lairg—that their appointments were impeccable and based solely on merit and high quality.
My second point is that there remains a case today for change along the lines that the Government have proposed. The present system, in which the whole process of appointment is in the hands of a government Minister, has been abused in the past, is anomalous, and is increasingly inappropriate when judges have to adjudicate more and more on the lawfulness of the actions of the executive. Appointment by, or on the recommendation—perhaps depending on the grade of judge—of an independent, well-balanced judicial appointments commission of the kind proposed, with the commission itself appointed by patently independent persons, is surely the right way forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, with whose remarks I largely agreed in their detail, is surely right to ask how that system will secure the independence of the judiciary. To my mind, appointment to the judiciary by, or on the recommendation of, such a commission, combined with a continuation of the very substantial security of tenure that High Court judges and, to a lesser extent, circuit judges enjoy, will be the key factors in ensuring judicial independence.
My third point is that I welcome the Government's decision and desire to open up the possibility of appointment to candidates from a wider range of social background. However, the reassurance in paragraph 28 of the White Paper that the fundamental principle must be selection on merit is absolutely vital. At the moment, we have a situation in which about half the numbers of young people who become barristers or solicitors are women. Quite a reasonable proportion of minority ethnic groups has been joining the legal profession but, unfortunately, too many women and too many from those groups fall by the wayside before they have acquired the experience needed for appointment to the Bench.
I feel sure that both the professions could do a great deal more to ensure that work arrangements are more flexible and family friendly, so that there will be a wider and diverse pool from which judges of the future can be selected. I am not sure that I fully understand the rather complex paragraphs 93 to 97 of the White Paper, which deal with how diversity can be achieved. My route, which I have suggested depends a great deal on the profession, will result in a more diverse judiciary than the appointment of younger people with limited experience of the law and of life, which seems to be suggested by the Government.
9.20 p.m.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, time is short. So I will say nothing by way of amplification and the reasons of Justice, the all-party law reform group
116
which I chair, for believing that the time has come to create a supreme court of the United Kingdom separate from the House of Lords. Our reasons were in the evidence which several of us here, supported notably too by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, gave to the Royal Commission on House of Lords Reform three years ago.
I want to focus essentially on the critical issue which the noble Lord, Lord Lester, highlighted, of the independence of the judiciary. I find myself in a quandary here. For 30 years, Justice has argued for an independent judicial advisory committee. Now—this is welcome—the Government say in their consultation paper:
"The appointments system must be, and must be seen to be, independent of government. It must be transparent. It must be accountable. And also it must inspire public confidence".
Amen to that. However, to this end I have two suggestions to the Government. First, like the noble Lord, Lord Lester, I do not think it right that a civil servant, however eminent, should chair the small group which makes recommendations for appointment to the commission. I think that it should be better if a judge chaired that group, or at any rate someone else of stature wholly independent of government.
Secondly, and more importantly, I regard it as going fundamentally against the aim of independence to transfer the responsibility of the ultimate appointment from a Lord Chancellor who is by tradition a senior lawyer, acting independently of party, to a Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs who may not be a lawyer, who may be ranked as the lowest member of the Cabinet, who may have further ambitions and see the role as a ministerial stepping stone, and who may not regard the separation of powers and the integrity of the judiciary as critical to a healthy democracy. I believe that there should be an advisory committee, but advisory to a Lord Chancellor who has the detachment and avoids putting the appointments near the cockpit of party politics.
So I would like to see the post of Lord Chancellor retained, without his being a Minister, responsible for the most important appointments and accountable to this House and to the House of Commons Select Committee on the Lord Chancellor's Department. In this way the aim of securing independence, quality and accountability and appropriate diversity would continue to be achieved.
I would not find a trade-off acceptable between the present arrangements and an independent commission which ultimately led to appointments being made by a very political Minister. We must remember that this is different from any other department of state. All other departments of state are ultimately accountable to the Government. The law is separate. It is a separate branch of the constitution, accountable to the people. I believe that that tradition should be preserved, and the mechanism of adapting the Lord Chancellor's role is a simple one. I have written to the current Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs about it. I know that the Minister has seen the

117
letter. I would urge that the Government give it the strongest consideration—in which case I would rejoice to see an independent appointments commission.
9.24 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, 10 years ago in an Unstarred Question Nancy Seear remarked, "If my party should abandon the independence of the judiciary, I would promptly abandon my party". At the time of speaking she had been a member of the party for 60 years. It made the mind boggle. But if she had done so, she would have gone out for the principle for which she came in. She joined the party in the week in which Hitler dissolved the Reichstag and took the power to legislate by decree. So the principle that the law should not be under the control of the executive is constant.
But when we think about a great philosophical principle, I think we miss the sheer raw emotion that there is usually in a confrontation about judicial independence. I was looking this afternoon at Shakespeare's unfortunately apocryphal description of the alleged confrontation between the newly minted King Henry V and the Lord Chief Justice. The raw hurt of the executive comes over from that:
"How might a prince of my great hopes forget
So great indignities you laid upon me?
What! rate, rebuke, and roughly send to prison
The immediate heir of England! Was this easy?
May this be wash'd in Lethe, and forgotten?"
That scene shows a need for courage on one side and magnanimity on the other which is rarely met outside fiction. It is a lot more difficult in the real world. So we need some sort of handrail, a banister, for people to clutch hold of because we have been reminded recently that, when in disgrace with fortune in men's eyes, one is intensely lonely. There must be someone to whom one can turn. Clearly it cannot be a traditional Lord Chancellor. I agree with my noble friend Lord Lester that we cannot go hack. But equally clearly it cannot be someone who is simply an ordinary political Minister of the Crown. I think that there are a lot of places we can turn.
One of the things we need to think about in all this is the position of Parliament. People constantly remark—as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, did tonight—that judges are becoming involved in more and more issues of control of the executive. That, frankly, is because we are failing to do it ourselves. The place where there ought to be a real rousing reception to any attempt to interfere with the independence of a judge is Parliament. It is in Parliament that failure is happening.
I make a few small points. I do not think that all the members of the judicial appointments commission should be Crown appointments. The legal profession has many people capable of doing that sort of thing and their talent should be used. I hope that the responsibility for the care of our public records will remain in judicial hands. I am interested in the remarks of my noble friend Lord Lester about the Attorney-General which I think have potential. But he cannot do
118
it on his own. In the end this responsibility must fall on us, but are we up to it, and have we the bottle to take it? I am afraid that I have my doubts, but we must try.
9.28 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, four minutes provide no time for introductory averments. I take but one point—a preliminary point. Has the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, or any other Minister, sufficient stature to ensure the continued independence of the judiciary?
Much reliance was placed on the support of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham of Cornhill, on the need for a supreme court quite independent from the House of Lords. Giving evidence as Lord Chief Justice on 13th May 1999 to the Royal Commission, he said:
"We have no doubt that this dual role [that of the Lord Chancellor as head of the judiciary and as Cabinet Minister responsible for the administration of justice] has proved invaluable in maintaining the independence of the judiciary in England and Wales and we have considerable anxiety that any other arrangements would result, in time, in the encroachment of the Executive Government into the proper sphere of judicial independence essential in a democratic society".
I interpose there to say that that encroachment has already happened. See, for example, the sentencing provisions of the Criminal Justice Bill, supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, when a Minister in the Home Office and now no doubt in his dual capacity. Those provisions will of course be debated by your Lordships next month.
Lord Hailsham, a pre-eminent Lord Chancellor of post-war years, in a lecture given in 1989 observed that the Lord Chancellor's essential function was being,
"in the business of defending and preserving the independence and the integrity of the judiciary. If he does it well, then he is a good Lord Chancellor whatever his other defects. If he does it ill. whatever his other qualities, he is not".
Noble Lords may say that everyone supports judicial independence. It is, after all, the judges and the judges alone who stand between the power of the state and the freedom of the individual under the law, so what is all the fuss about? But does everyone support judicial independence? That very question was answered by Lord Hailsham in the selfsame lecture in these terms:
"Certainly not the public or the back-benchers in the House of Commons, who constantly revile, frequently from inconsistent stand points, individual judges on particular decisions, or what they imagine to be judicial qualities, and daily demand that individual judges be directed or rebuked (presumably by the Executive Government) to move in this direction or that or even that they should be removed from office. Certainly not"—
this part I emphasise—
"the Opposition, whatever party happens to he on the Speaker's left. Certainly not Party conferences of any hue. And least of all, I assure you, individual Members of the Cabinet whose Departmental interests from time to time basically conflict, not only with the view of the judiciary, where they are entitled to differ, but in the provision of the means necessary to enable the courts to discharge their functions".

119
It has not so far been suggested that the chief or essential function of the Secretary of State is to preserve or defend the judiciary. Until that is stipulated for in statute, the answer to the preliminary question that I have raised must certainly be no.
9.33 p.m.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, the Question before your Lordships relates not only to a judicial appointments commission, but also to the creation of a supreme court of the United Kingdom. That appears to me inevitably to raise a very important issue: whether the time has come to hive off the judicial functions of this House, and presumably bring to an end the convention of making Law Lords ex officio life Members of this House. I declare an interest as a long-retired Law Lord.
There are two preliminary questions to be asked. The first is whether the integrity of the judiciary is compromised by the presence of Law Lords on these Benches. The second is, if not, whether a sufficient contribution is made by active and retired Law Lords to justify their being accepted as ex officio Members of this House. I have nothing to say on the first question, except that I should be horrified if my own integrity as a judge had been at any time at risk because I joined in the legislative and other non-judicial work of your Lordships.
On the second question, the contribution made by Law Lords to the non-judicial work of this House, I suggest that there are four pieces of information which it would be useful to have if they can be extracted with the aid of a computer. First, how many amendments to a Bill of a substantial nature have been tabled by Law Lords over, say, the past 10 years and accepted by the Government without a Division? Secondly, how many drafting amendments have been tabled by Law Lords over a similar period and accepted without a Division? Thirdly, how many places on committees have been filled by Law Lords over a similar period? Fourthly, how many committees have been chaired by Law Lords over a similar period?
I have endeavoured to do a little research on my own. There is now a useful publication issued by the Information Office, rather nicely entitled Who does what in The Lords. This tells me that as at 5th March this year, 12 places on committees were occupied by Law Lords. I have also ascertained, by consulting DOD, that one particular Law Lord in his time acted as chairman of no fewer than nine Select Committees. I have no doubt that research will throw up similar examples.
If the information I have outlined is obtainable, I think that we should have a fair idea of whether the presence of active and retired Law Lords in this House is justified. Government would be able to see what price would have to be paid for dismissing Law Lords as ex officio Members of this House and decide whether that price is acceptable. If the present
120
association of the legislature and judiciary is to be maintained, as I sincerely hope it will be, I think that it must be proved not only that judicial integrity is not endangered, but also that a worthwhile contribution is made by the Law Lords to justify their having the privilege of sitting here ex officio.
9.37 p.m.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, like the noble Lords, Lord Lester and Lord Alexander, I was one of the lawyers who gave evidence to the Wakeham commission that the time had come to reform the role of the Lord Chancellor. Although the press have suggested that this constitutional reform has come from left field, in legal circles it has generally been accepted for a very long time that the traditional role of the Lord Chancellor had become untenable and that the time had come to create a supreme court.
I was most forcefully struck by the anomaly when the president of the supreme court of Russia came to London to visit our courts and to meet our senior judiciary. As chair of the British Council, I was given the role of accompanying him on that visit. The British Council had been engaged in assisting a programme of law reform in Russia, including the drafting of legislation to underpin the independence of the judiciary from the state.
As chair of the British Council, I went with Justice Lebedev to meet the Lord Chancellor. On the way, he and I had a lively discussion about the importance of an independent judiciary and how crucial it was to a vibrant democracy. We discussed the role that the judges play in a contemporary legal system, protecting the rights of citizens and providing a control function by determining the lawfulness of government actions. He explained how hard it was to persuade the Russian public, after years of political control, that the judges really were independent and that they could be trusted. But he then with a twinkle asked me to explain how our system worked, with our Lord Chancellor wearing three hats. I have to say that I rather wickedly in return suggested that he ask the Lord Chancellor.
When we went in to see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, there was the giving of a gift of a delightful samovar, which I am sure appears on his gift list in official bulletins. He asked how it came about that the Lord Chancellor could fulfil all those conflicting roles. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, gave a very convoluted reply which did not help given that it had to be translated. The explanation was all about tradition and Chinese walls, all of which sounded half-baked to a reform-minded Russian, who would be meeting senior judges from Czechoslovakia and other countries that wanted to apply to belong to the Council of Europe, all of whom were seeking to make their judiciary independent.
The time had undoubtedly come for reform. Indeed, many of us had tried to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, that he should reform himself but our advocacy was not good enough. All that was needed was a decision by him not to sit again as a judge and the creation of an independent judicial appointments

121
commission. Of course, if he had been really reform-minded he could have persuaded this House to appoint its own speaker. If the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, had made those reforms the role of Lord Chancellor could have remained. It is important to have someone in the Cabinet who speaks for justice, for law and for the judges as a crucial counterweight to the purely political considerations that can press upon other Ministers.
I want to echo the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, about having a Secretary of State who may not take the long view. The Lord Chancellor's role has always transcended the political. It has a constitutional function. The Lord Chancellor is a guardian of the unwritten constitution; he became the guardian of human rights; and he protects the judges. I am anxious, in changing the role, that we ensure that the function does not become one that is purely political with the risk of neglecting those precious checks on the executive.
Like many others here, I am pleased with the general thrust of these reforms. I think that an appointments commission will help to create a much more diverse judiciary. I think that the creation of a supreme court will be a great moment in our constitutional history. Unlike the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, I do not think that an active judge should participate in the legislature. I think that we benefit from having many retired judges in the House and I hope that that may continue.
My lingering concern is that the empire-building impulses of the Home Office machine and the short-term instincts of some politicians will mean that the long constitutional view will not be taken. A judicial appointments commission should not have any political interference. It should be independent; independent of the Prime Minister and independent of the Secretary of State. I echo what has been said by others about the importance of that independence. When we have all given our voice to the reforms, we did not imagine that it would mean the passing of appointments from the Lord Chancellor to the Prime Minister. I think in our modern world that that is unacceptable. Otherwise, I congratulate the Government on their boldness, but I ask them to consider the importance of our constitutional arrangements.
9.43 p.m.
Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, on raising this important question this evening.
I have a simple point to make. We need far greater clarity as to what it is that we are discussing. The consultation papers make it clear that the most substantial argument advanced by the Government in support of their proposals is that of ensuring the independence of the judiciary. I quote from the foreword written by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, to the consultation paper entitled Constitutional reform: A Supreme Court for the United Kingdom, in which he refers to calls for the
122
creation of a Supreme Court which separates the highest court of appeal from the second House of Parliament. He states:
"The Government believes that in so doing they will reflect and enhance the independence of the judiciary from both the legislature and the executive".
In the very next paragraph the noble and learned Lord declares:
"The decision does not imply any dissatisfaction with the performance of the House of Lords as the highest Court of Law. On the contrary its judges have conducted themselves with the utmost integrity and independence".
So we have Law Lords who are independent but who have to be removed from the second Chamber in order to demonstrate their independence. Why? The argument is one of perception. I can see the argument involved, but there is a confusion as to the very concept of independence. The first reference by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, is to independence in the sense of physical detachment. The second reference is to the capacity to exercise a judgment free of influence by others; in this case, other Peers and members of the executive.
If the existing Law Lords can exercise judgment without being swayed by others, what is the point of removing them from the second Chamber? Separation will not, as the Government claim, enhance the capacity of judges to exercise judgments independent of others; it can only do that if there is some lack of detached judgment, and the noble and learned Lord clearly does not believe that there is. We are not in fact talking about independence but how people see independence. If there is a perception that does not accord with the reality—a misperception conceded in effect by the noble and learned Lord—one has two options. One can accept the misperception and undertake change in order to ensure that there is a better fit between practice and perception, or one can seek to correct the misperception.
The Government are pursuing the first option. I think they have to make the case for doing so. They have asserted the case—and there are external pressures—but, given that there is an alternative, they have to argue it more convincingly. The same applies to all those who argue the case for a supreme court.
Given that the focus of the Government is on perceptions, it is all the more surprising that they argue for the involvement of Ministers in the future appointment of judges. The case is based on existing practice and constitutional principles. To date, much has rested on the Lord Chancellor, who because of his judicial capacity is a somewhat detached member of the Government. In future—as my noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon has said—the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, like the Prime Minister, need not be a lawyer or anyone with any great knowledge of the judicial process. How, then, does one avoid the perception of possible political interference?
The Government's proposals enter far more complex territory than is acknowledged in the consultation papers, perhaps reflecting the haste in which the proposals were generated. The consultation

123
paper also raises a major point of principle affecting your Lordships' House in proposing, in the name of independence, that existing Law Lords—Members of this House—be barred from membership of the House for the duration of their tenure of the Supreme Court. We need to consider that novel constitutional proposal separately and urgently.
9.47 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, I am more than glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Norton, because I find myself in complete agreement with every single word which he has said.
Two main themes run through these papers. The first is the Government's belief that the presence of the Law Lords as Members of this House in some way breaches the so-called separation of powers. Secondly, there is the emphasis placed by the Government—and rightly placed—on judicial independence. Thus, in the supreme court paper it is said that the removal of the Law Lords from the House of Lords would "emphasise and enhance" their independence. In the judicial appointments paper it is said that the new commission will "bolster and guarantee" judicial independence.
The present debate is concerned entirely with the second of those themes—the independence theme. In passing, I should like to say that the first theme is based in my opinion on a complete misunderstanding of the separation of powers as it applies in the context of an unwritten constitution. But that is a debate for another day.
I turn to judicial independence. The supreme court paper applies only of course to the 12 existing Law Lords and their successors. It does not affect the rest of the higher judiciary in any way. Yet it is accepted in the paper, and accepted so far as I know everywhere, that the Law Lords have conducted themselves—and here is the quotation to which the noble Lord, Lord Norton, drew attention,
"with the utmost integrity and independence",
and that they are,
"wisely and rightly admired, both nationally and internationally".
That being so, I am at a loss to understand what the Law Lords have to gain in the way of independence—this is the very point of the noble Lord, Lord Norton—by being moved at great and at continuing expense to some new premises.
I accept that it may look untidy for the highest court of the land to sit as an appellate committee in this House. The reason, of course, lies far back in our history. I accept also that appearances matter, but appearances are not everything—not even in this Administration. To me, it does not make sense—indeed, it is the merest pedantry—to argue that the Law Lords should be moved to some other building. That would deprive this House and the country of the views of the Lord Chief Justice, and of judges of the eminence of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Wilberforce and Lord Scarman, and many
124
others whom I could mention, just because it would make the Law Lords seem—I emphasise the word "seem"—to be more independent.
I turn to the other paper, where it is said in paragraph 22 that the selection of the judges by the Lord Chancellor as a member of the Cabinet is a potential source of patronage over the judiciary and is quite out of place in a modern democratic society. Those are fine words, but let us read on a few paragraphs. What do the Government suggest should be put in the Lord Chancellor's place? Who, in the Government's view, is to have the final say on making recommendations for judicial appointments? Who is to determine—sinister words—overall policy in relation to judicial appointments? None other than the Secretary of State—another member of the Government.
It is said that that is necessary because of the constitutional convention that the Queen always acts on the advice of Ministers. Quite right, but so she does when she acts on the advice of her Lord Chancellor. The Government cannot have it both ways. If it is a constitutional affront for the Lord Chancellor to select the judges, so also it is a constitutional affront for the Secretary of State to select the judges. Here I agree entirely with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, and the noble Baroness. Indeed, it might be said to be a greater affront because whereas the Lord Chancellor—and not least the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg—by virtue of his higher office and experience of the law has traditionally protected the independence of judges, the Secretary of State might be—well—anybody.
As for the new judicial appointments commission, it is pure window-dressing since the Secretary of State has the final say and can reject the recommendations if he does not like them. In any event, we already have a Commission for Judicial Appointments, as recommended by Sir Leonard Peach. Why do we need two? These papers are full of holes, and the only, and most charitable, explanation is that given by the noble Lord, Lord Norton—they were prepared in too much of a hurry.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I may have misunderstood what he was saying. The Question, as tabled, relates to two proposals—in the plural—to create a supreme court of the United Kingdom and a judicial appointments commission. Therefore, if there was any thought among your Lordships that I was speaking out of turn when I referred to the dismissal of the Law Lords from the House of Lords, I respectfully suggest to your Lordships that I was absolutely within the terms of the Question.
9.53 p.m.
Lord Brennan: My Lords, in 1867 Bagehot declared that the supreme court of English people ought to be a great conspicuous tribunal, it ought to bring our law into unity and it ought not to be hidden beneath the robes of a legislative assembly. I agree with those words. The time has come at the beginning of this century for a supreme court in this country. I believe

125
we shall debate the reasons for that at length when the necessary legislation comes before us, but I highlight two factors.
The growth of public law, European law and human rights law creates a role for a supreme court much more in the public eye and much more sensitive than it has been in times past. A court of that kind should be seen to be independent.
Secondly, the fact is—I regret to have to say this; it is a personal view—in times of a strong government and a weak Parliament that has not effective committee control of the executive, a supreme court has a special symbolic role in the community as the defender of citizens.
To preserve that role, Bagehot's words embrace three concepts. The first is independence. I agree entirely with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Alexander. There should be a Minister with the specific responsibility to preserve the independence of the judiciary, perhaps even written into the statute that creates the supreme court. With that responsibility, it is difficult to see how even the most base of politicians could determine to appoint people who lacked merit. The statutory responsibility should prevent it.
So, first, there must be independence and a Minister to protect the judiciary from attack where necessary. Secondly, the court must have stature. What I am about to say may be controversial. It should consist of 12, 15 or whatever number best represents England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland as constituent parts of the nation. It should be divided into panels; I am not suggesting 12 to 15 as the sitting panel.
The age should be kept to the present limit. If my noble friends on this side of the House and noble Lords on the Cross Benches will forgive me, I am entirely against the supreme court of our nation being staffed by retired judges—not because I do not respect their abilities, but I think that it is a simple technique of saving money by the Treasury. I cannot imagine any other reason for suggesting age 80 as the age to sit.
Thirdly, the composition must be correct—not prescribed but at least sought. Is there a public lawyer by experience on the present panel? Is there an expert in European law? Is there anybody with profound understanding of the criminal law? The composition of the court should reflect those specialities.
Lastly, the judges should not be used to conduct major public inquiries. They are servants of the nation in the supreme court. There must be separation of powers. Judges are not legislators. That simple constitutional proposition cannot be gainsaid. We can have the advantage of the Lord Chief Justice and others making public speeches as required. Supreme court judges should be given peerages and attend this House after their retirement to contribute to it. But, for the community in which we live, the time has come for a supreme court to be seen to represent the legal interests of the people in the nation, to provide the protective balance between them and Parliament, where necessary, and certainly between them and the executive.
9.58 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Warwick: My Lords, in 1972 the popular Jamaican singer Johnny Nash had a hit record with a song called, "There Are More Questions Than Answers". I am not aware that, when he wrote the song, he had in mind the creation of a supreme court and a judicial appointments commission. But the song's title fairly sums up how I feel about the Government's consultation papers, which contain no fewer than 72 questions.
Noble Lords have mentioned some very pertinent questions, which I shall not repeat now. Because of time limits, I will focus on a particular aspect of the proposals: the desire to make the judiciary more diverse. But the question is how diversity will be achieved. I fully support the comments made by the noble Lords, Lord Lester of Herne Hill and Lord Borrie.
Sadly, a woman has never been appointed to our final Court of Appeal. There has never been a black or ethnic minority judge appointed to the High Court in England and Wales. We are familiar with the expression "glass ceiling" when describing the obstacles often faced by professional women. The phrase "concrete ceiling" is one that is commonly used by the black community to describe its barriers to progress. Clearly, the judiciary must become more diverse in order to carry the confidence of the wider community.
The business sector in Britain has been enriched by diversity, so it is not inevitable that a more diverse judiciary would result in lower standards. It will, however, if tokenism is used to enforce diversity. The answer is to create more equality of opportunity. The legal profession itself must, for example, look at whether the terms and conditions of judicial office are "family friendly" and whether it allows sufficiently for the needs of lawyers who need a career break after having children. Black and minority ethnic law students with the same qualifications as their white counterparts still find it more difficult to obtain pupilages and articles.
I support the rationale behind these proposals, but the devil is in the detail. There are more questions than answers. Johnny Nash ends his hit song with the line, "The more I find out, the less I know". I hope that is not an omen for these reforms.
The public needs a modern legal system that builds on its current independence and quality. These proposals bring many questions. I just hope they provide the right answers.
10.1 p.m.
Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough: My Lords, I am most grateful for the opportunity and justification to make some very brief observations upon the important topic of independence. At the outset, I would like to say that I do not wish to detract from anything that the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, has just said, with most of which I agreed. The views that I will express are my own. I do not speak on behalf of my colleagues.

127
The remarkable feature of both these papers and the ministerial statements which accompanied them is that they unstintingly acknowledge the merits and success of the current systems, the role of the Lord Chancellor and the dedicated staff of the Lord Chancellor's Department. The proposals for change are sought to be justified on doctrinal grounds, which I suggest are fundamentally flawed.
For the supreme court, the Minister tells us that:
"The time has come to take the final court of appeal out of the Legislature",
and that,
"the time has come to establish a new court as a body separate from Parliament."
As regards judicial appointments, we are told that it is no longer acceptable that they be solely in the hands of "a Government Minister"—an expression repetitively used whenever it is wished to refer to the office of Lord Chancellor—and the paper calls for a judiciary which is more "reflective" or "representative" of society. This is an aspiration which would run directly counter to the current admirable and non-discriminatory, merit-based criteria set out at Paragraphs 7 to 9 of the paper.
Neither the separation of powers, as opposed to the principle of judicial independence, nor the concept of a "representative" judiciary, are part of our constitution nor have they ever been. Nor is it right to describe the office of Lord Chancellor merely as that of a "Government Minister". The theory of the separation of powers was a primarily French invention. It has never been part of the British constitution or the "Westminster model". If it were, the executive, including the Prime Minister, would have to be removed from the House of Commons. In contrast, the principle of judicial independence from the executive stems from the Glorious Revolution. The theory of the separation of powers should, at most, be seen as one possible means to that end.
The independence from the executive of the Appellate Committee is, in fact, enhanced by its being sheltered under the wing of your Lordships' House. Neither the serving Law Lords nor, I suspect, your Lordships feel threatened in any way by their presence within these walls. There are strong practical arguments in favour of our moving out and having our own home, but the paper does not face up to the implications of providing complete and real independence for the new court. There will be considerable additional costs initially and year-on-year. Your Lordships should be vigilant to see that, when the actual proposals are published, they do not put the truly independent operation of the new court in jeopardy or undermine its standing.
Finally and briefly, I turn to the appointment of judges. In the long run, the risks here are potentially more serious. I will simplify. The key to success at present has been the office of Lord Chancellor and the independence and expertise of the Lord Chancellor's Department, separate from the rest of Whitehall. The Lord Chancellor is not just a Minister; he sits in the House of Lords. He has nowadays no further political
128
ambitions. He has taken the judicial oath and accepted the role as head of an independent judiciary. It is not necessary or appropriate that he ever sit as a judge, but he understands well that judicial appointments are part of his judicial functions. The criteria that he has published are wholly admirable. Who better to be the defender of judicial independence than the Lord Chancellor? The present proposals include abolishing the independent post and department, introducing contradictory criteria of social engineering and even suggest that some Minister should be accountable to the House of Commons for individual appointments.
I conclude by saying that I have no personal interest in the subject matter of the debate, as I am not looking for further judicial preferment and expect to retire long before any supreme court comes into existence.
10.7 p.m.
Lord Cooke of Thorndon: My Lords, I quote:
"Our judiciary enjoy the highest international standing. The Government wants to ensure that the way in which they are selected is as well regarded".
So runs the consultation paper. There is an implicit dichotomy in that. The suggestion appears to be that the rest of the world admires the quality, integrity and independence of the judges of England and Wales, but questions the administrative arrangements that produced such a judiciary. I do not believe that the world as a whole draws any such distinction. It is the product, not the process, that matters in the world's eyes.
That the judiciary here is, at the present day, independent of political influence is axiomatic. In the interests of time, I will not labour the point, beyond mentioning one current example. When the government of the day recognised that a truly impartial inquiry was required into a tragedy of intense public concern, to whom did they naturally turn? A Law Lord.
A change to a judicial appointments commission will add nothing to the practical independence of the judiciary. On the contrary, it may result in quotas, trade-offs and uninspired appointments. It is linked with an unconsulted proposal to destroy the office of Lord Chancellor; yet I believe that the rest of the world sees a non-Gilbertian truth in Gilbert's line:
"And I, my Lords, embody the Law".
Certainly, in my years as a barrister and judge in New Zealand, we deeply appreciated the visits of such Lord Chancellors as Jowitt, Kilmuir, Gardiner, Hailsham, Mackay. We envied, and realised how significant for the rule of law it was that they had the ability to speak for the judiciary in Cabinet. Diversity in judicial appointments is good, but it increases naturally. It will not best come as part of a tearing up of a unique history.
A convention had been developing that the Lord Chancellor would no longer sit as a judge. Nothing more was required to modernise the United Kingdom system without sacrificing its distinctive merits. To remove the Law Lords from the House would add not a whit to their independence, while somewhat downgrading them and sacrificing the reciprocal

129
advantages of their ability to take an appropriate part in the work of this place. Thus, two current and three former Lords of Appeal have contributed to the debate. Their right to contribute should not be thrown away.
10.11 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill for introducing the debate. Although the time for individual speeches has been short, the quality of the speeches has made this something of an advertisement for short time limits. We are discussing two changes of immense constitutional importance proposed by the Government, which have been advocated by these Benches for years. Naturally, we support them in principle. The first change is the creation of a new supreme court and the transfer to it of the present jurisdiction and membership of the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House.
Outside your Lordships' House I believe that this change will be relatively non-controversial. It will not alter the nature of the work done by the highest court in the United Kingdom, nor will it alter the identity of the people who do it. It is nearly 200 years since it was finally accepted that Members of your Lordships' House could not exercise judicial functions unless they were also, or had been, holders of high judicial office. We are now moving towards a convention that serving Lords of Appeal in Ordinary do not speak in debates in your Lordships' House, with limited exceptions: for example, the role of the Law Lord—in this case, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote—who chairs Sub-Committee E of the European Union Committee, in introducing debates on reports of that sub-committee.
The creation of a new supreme court separate from your Lordships' House would therefore do no more than put an end to what is now an historic anomaly. In addition, it would give the Supreme Court the opportunity for the proper housing and facilities which it has obviously required for many years. I accept that there is a strong case for having as a Member of your Lordships' House someone who can speak for the judiciary. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, has done that powerfully on two recent occasions, but it does not mean that serving members of the Supreme Court should also be simultaneously Members of your Lordships' House. That role is better played by the Lord Chief Justice and the holders of the corresponding offices in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
The more controversial issue has been the transfer of power to recommend judges for appointment from the Lord Chancellor to the proposed judicial appointments commission. We are, of course, fortunate in our present judiciary. Appointments made by recent Lord Chancellors have been of very high quality. As the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, pointed out, in the past political support for the government of the day has been a good way of getting on the Bench. Indeed, Lord Halsbury was explicit about it. If the office is retained, we cannot guarantee that future Lord Chancellors would always be as impartial as recent ones have been. This is particularly
130
so given the increasing constitutional role of the judiciary through the development of judicial review and through the Human Rights Act. The temptation to appoint judges who are not potential troublemakers might become irresistible to some future Lord Chancellor.
There are criticisms of the way in which the process operates now. While undoubtedly it selects judges of real merit, it may also overlook other people of at least equal merit. So we welcome the transfer of the power to make those appointments to the judicial appointments commission. If the Government, through the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, retains any role in the appointment of the higher judiciary—we think there are strong arguments for why they should not do so—that role should be limited to approving or rejecting a single name proposed by the judicial appointments commission and, indeed, giving reasons to the commission in case of rejection of that name.
When legislation is introduced to give effect to the Government's proposals, as we assume will happen in the next Session of Parliament, it will need to be watched very carefully to ensure that the independence of the judiciary is not only preserved but strengthened. That will mean that the high reputation of British justice will be maintained for the future.
10.16 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I should like to speculate briefly on the motives of the Government in introducing these proposals.
Their introduction has been rather sudden. Indeed, throughout his time as Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, repeatedly opposed either the creation of an independent supreme court or the establishment of a judicial appointments commission.
Can it be that overnight there is evidence that judges have become corrupt, or susceptible to political interference, or have in some way fallen below the intellectual standard that we rightly expect of them? It seems not, because in his speech to your Lordships' House on 14th July, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that:
"We currently have judges of complete independence, probity, and very high ability. They are admired the world over".—[Official Report, 14/7/03; col. 630.]
Could it be that the inspired and sustained campaign fought over many years by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has led to the Damascene conversion of the Government to these two new policy proposals, some 50 years after the Government ratified the European Convention on Human Rights? I have the highest admiration for the quality of the advocacy of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, but I have to say that I think not.
I want to suggest that the real reason why the Government want to make these changes is because the decisions made by the judiciary in the realm of public law are increasingly inconvenient to them. The judges are becoming a nuisance, and especially an impediment to the populist programme of the Home

131
Office. Yet all the judges are doing is implementing a law which the Government introduced in 1998; that is, the Human Rights Act.
As—dare I say—many of us pointed out during the passage of that Bill, there was a real danger that the consequences of it would be the political overexposure of the judges. So I suggest that the motive that lies behind these changes is to weaken the judges' role in our constitutional arrangements in other respects: by removing the Lord Chancellor from the Cabinet and the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary from the legislature.
Your Lordships' House suffers in a further way because, by removing the Lord Chancellor from the Cabinet, your Lordships' representation in the Cabinet is reduced from two to one.
Moreover, the Minister who will succeed the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in his judicial responsibilities will be a Secretary of State sitting in another place who, more likely than not, will not be a lawyer. So what price the separation of powers if that Minister has the final word over judicial appointments?
We are told by the Government that they seek a more representative judiciary. I do hope that what the more representative judiciary will represent will not be the political mood of the day.
10.20 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Lord Filkin): My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for introducing the debate. This is an issue of great importance to our constitution and to the House and it is good that we should have an early opportunity to debate it even before consultations are completed and before any draft legislation is brought before the House. I also thank all noble and noble and learned Lords who have spoken on these issues of considerable importance.
At the risk of slightly over-emphasising a dichotomy, it seems to me that the debate was split between those who believe that changes are necessary in terms of both the supreme court and the judicial appointments commission but that the proposals are not yet quite perfect, and those who argued for the status quo. I shall not put everyone into exact categories.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, started by signalling that he supported the main element of the proposals. He spoke also, as did many others, about the importance of diversity as an element of these proposals. I thank him for that.
He started an argumentation, which was picked up by a number of other speakers, that there is a worry that the fact that the Lord Chancellor will be replaced by a Secretary of State in itself risked weakening judicial independence in some way. It is an important issue to ventilate and the debate has started that process. My initial response is that we will undoubtedly come back to these matters.
132
Along with the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, and my noble friend Lord Brennan, the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, essentially affirmed the case for change on both counts. While there has been a wonderful historical evolution of our constitution, no one would dream of designing a supreme court as part of the legislature. Why should we therefore continue with such a system when it is quite clear that it involves some risks in terms of JR and ECHR?
More importantly, it does not help to establish the importance and independence of the judiciary. If one were to ask average members of the public what is the supreme court in the land, they would say it was the House of Lords. If you asked them to describe how it operated, they would probably say that most of us were involved in the process in some way. They see us as politicians and they do not hold us in very great respect.
You may say that members of the public are foolish and ignorant to be confused in that way. On the other hand, if we had a supreme court that was quite clearly independent of the legislature, the authority of that court would be enhanced. Its visibility would be apparent and clear and the public would increasingly see it as a bulwark of their freedoms, their rights and their independence. That, of course, is how it has operated, but that clarity, that separation and that independence would be to the public good. I believe that it would be celebrated by the public, who would understand it more clearly.
We will of course lose the experience and contributions of our Law Lord colleagues. I feel that with some sadness. For example, one has seen how powerfully the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, has led the European scrutiny process. It is a sadness, but it is not a point of principle that would justify its continuation in the future.
Under the current proposals set out in the White Paper, we will rejoice to receive the contribution of the existing members of the supreme court when they have completed their term of office and come back into our Chamber. It may well be that future members of the supreme court who are not appointed as Lords will nevertheless find that they are invited to become independent members of the House. I cannot forecast or foresay that. I do not believe that we will lose the great contributions that former members of the Appellate Committee or the Supreme Court can make, but we will get their contributions only when they are no longer acting as judges and are free to join us as legislators. That must be right in principle even though we will be sorry to see them go.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, for rejoicing at an independent appointments commission. However, he made very clear his concern that if the Lord Chancellor went, we would be weakened, as he is the voice in government for the independence of the judiciary. That is an important issue, which has been raised by many speakers today.

133
My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer is the Lord Chancellor at present; I believe he will be a distinguished Lord Chancellor and a distinguished Secretary of State when he is no longer Lord Chancellor. Merely giving a politician—because all Lord Chancellors are political appointments—the title of Lord Chancellor does not, I am afraid, defend the independence of the judiciary. That is self-evidently not automatically the case. Rather, I suggest that what we propose goes considerably further than anything proposed by any government before to preserve the independence of the judiciary. Let me enumerate that briefly.
We propose that the ministerial role in the appointment of judges will be brought to an absolute minimum. We have put three options up for consultation. One, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Norton, and others, is that Ministers should have no involvement whatever. That would require a change to our constitutional conventions, as the Queen normally acts only on receipt of advice from her Ministers. However, it is in the consultation paper as an option, and if people think that is the right way forward, they should signal it clearly in their responses to us. It is an option; it is a perfectly possible and legitimate option, and we would pleased to hear from people who support it.
It is not the option we recommend because we think that the Queen being advised by Ministers, who are thereby accountable to Parliament, can be preserved. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, is absolutely right that accountability to Parliament is one of the elements in defending the independence of the judiciary. Such a mechanism preserves the accountability to Parliament and we therefore think that that' option has considerable merit.
If that is the option being considered—and our minds are open to views and opinions—what should be the extent, if any, of ministerial discretion in the circumstances when the commission is making recommendations? Those are very important points of detail and principle, and we think it important to listen carefully to views and opinions on them.
We have given a number of ideas in the paper so far; we very much hope that Members of this House and those outside will give further thoughts on the specifics as well. The devil is in the detail, and getting the detail right could lead to a model that contained accountability to Parliament as well as enshrining strong independence.
Let me go further in terms of the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs. There is a very strong argument for giving a statutory responsibility and putting it beyond doubt that the Secretary of State has a responsibility—nay, a duty—to preserve the independence of the judiciary. Nothing would be lost by having such a responsibility and, in fact, the gain would be considerable. They would always have to have that in the forefront of their mind when they were acting. That, in a sense, has been the central thrust of
134
the argumentation. The Lord Chancellor, in the historical embodiment, has had that role. How do we preserve that in the future? Some have said we should keep the Lord Chancellor. I must admit that l am not persuaded by the argument that we need to keep that particular historical figure or role, but I am interested in the argument that we need to entrench the responsibility within government for supporting and upholding the independence of the judiciary, because that is an important part of our constitution.
Let me also signal why I think some of the concerns expressed are misplaced. The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs has a responsibility within government for looking across the constitution. He will shortly set out some of his thinking in this respect, and I hope it commands some public interest. He also has the leadership role on human rights, freedom of information and data protection. Much of the legislation emanating from the department is about the rights of minorities in our society. So there is a very strong coalition of interests and responsibilities in the current role of Lord Chancellor—the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs in the future—regarding the defence of rights of the independence of the judiciary and of our judicial system. That does not mean to say that our judicial system is perfect and should be preserved in aspic, as it currently is.
A number of noble Lords touched on the importance of recognising that diversity, and the confidence that the public hold in the judiciary, need to he considered as part of the reforms. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, made that point most strongly, but the noble Earl, Lord Russell, also made mention of those issues. They matter on three grounds. First, if one does not manage to attract more people as candidates to be selected only on merit, one is at risk of wasting talent. That is the classic business case for treating diversity seriously—otherwise, one misses out on talent.
Secondly, there is straightforward human fairness. If one does not treat seriously people who have ability and talent, they are deprived of opportunity.
Thirdly, confidence is a factor. Most of us will remember a time when newscasters on the BBC were only ever white males. That said something about our society. We have moved on from that time; for example, 15 per cent of medical consultants in Britain are from black and ethnic minority backgrounds, 1.2 per cent of judges are.
In the legal profession, there have been a good proportion of women have come in as solicitors and barristers—about a third of each profession. I shall not give the figures for the higher levels of the judiciary. No one is saying is saying that we should move to any form of mad world of political correctness, but it is right that the system is asked to inspect itself and to consider why we have not succeeded in bringing forward into our system the talent that must exist in women or black and ethnic minority lawyers. That is one of the proposals before us as part of the consultation process.

135
I am out of time, so I shall end by thanking again all who have contributed to the debate. Some very important issues have been raised about how we entrench in the constitution the duty to uphold the independence of the judiciary. However, I have not been changed in my view that there is a need for change, nor do I believe that many Members have
136
argued against the need for change. The issue is how to get that detail right: to uphold the independence of the judiciary while making the judiciary one that the public increasingly respect and see as their defenders, because that respect is not at the level that we would wish at present.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes before eleven o'clock.

  Lords of Appeal in Ordinary and Judges: Appointments
  Lords of Appeal in Ordinary and Judges: Appointments
  The Judiciary
  The Judiciary
  Personal Injury Claims
  Personal Injury Claims
  Civil Partnerships
  Civil Partnerships
  Northern Ireland: New TSN Status
  Northern Ireland: New TSN Status
  Northern Ireland Civil Service: Hidden Disabilities
  Northern Ireland Civil Service: Hidden Disabilities
  Northern Ireland: Tourism
  Northern Ireland: Tourism
  Language Implementation Body
  Language Implementation Body
  North/South Implementation Bodies: Budgets
  North/South Implementation Bodies: Budgets
  North/South Implementation Bodies: Funding
  North/South Implementation Bodies: Funding
  North/South Implementation Bodies: Final Accounts
  North/South Implementation Bodies: Final Accounts
  MoTs: Waiting Times in Belfast
  MoTs: Waiting Times in Belfast
  North/South Ministerial Council
  North/South Ministerial Council
  Special European Union Programmes Body
  Special European Union Programmes Body
  Code of Practice on Access to Government Information
  Code of Practice on Access to Government Information
  Parliamentary Commissioner: Right of Public Access
  Parliamentary Commissioner: Right of Public Access
  Draft Civil Contingencies Bill: Clause 25
  Draft Civil Contingencies Bill: Clause 25
  Ministers' Interests: Disclosure
  Ministers' Interests: Disclosure
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission: Pay Scheme
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission: Pay Scheme
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission: Bill of Rights
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission: Bill of Rights
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission: Funding of Individual Applicants
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission: Funding of Individual Applicants
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission: Gender Balance of Employees
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission: Gender Balance of Employees
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission: Attendance Record of Members
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission: Attendance Record of Members
  Strangford Lough: Residential Development
  Strangford Lough: Residential Development
  Royal Prerogative
  Royal Prerogative
  Northern Ireland: Single Equality Bill
  Northern Ireland: Single Equality Bill
  Northern Ireland Parades Commission: Cost
  Northern Ireland Parades Commission: Cost
  List of Ministerial Responsibilities
  List of Ministerial Responsibilities
  Astoria Club Shooting
  Astoria Club Shooting
  Montserrat
  Montserrat
  Malaria
  Malaria
  Liberia
  Liberia
  Russia: Media Independence
  Russia: Media Independence
  Hong Kong: Security Legislation
  Hong Kong: Security Legislation
  Guantanamo Bay: British Detainees
  Guantanamo Bay: British Detainees
  Chechnya: Human Rights
  Chechnya: Human Rights
  Togo: EU Relations
  Togo: EU Relations
  US Senate and House of Representatives: Members' Passports
  US Senate and House of Representatives: Members' Passports
  Iraq: Political and Physical Reconstruction
  Iraq: Political and Physical Reconstruction
  Small Retailers
  Small Retailers
  Prison Population
  Prison Population
  Religious Discrimination
  Religious Discrimination
  Race Relation(Amendment)Act 2000: Implementation by Public Bodies
  Race Relation(Amendment)Act 2000: Implementation by Public Bodies
  Abortion
  Abortion
  Identity Cards: Biometric Data
  Identity Cards: Biometric Data
  Criminal Records Bureau: Capita Contract
  Criminal Records Bureau: Capita Contract
  Prisons: Racist Incidents
  Prisons: Racist Incidents
  Afghan Refugees: Resettlement
  Afghan Refugees: Resettlement
  Licensed Premises: Criminal Offences in Vicinity
  Licensed Premises: Criminal Offences in Vicinity
  Equinox Club, Leicester Square: Alleged Serious Criminal Offences
  Equinox Club, Leicester Square: Alleged Serious Criminal Offences
  Criminal Offences: Motivation
  Criminal Offences: Motivation
  Convention on the Future of Europe: Protocols and Proposed Constitutional Treaty
  Convention on the Future of Europe: Protocols and Proposed Constitutional Treaty
  Home Office: Accommodation
  Home Office: Accommodation
  Racial Discrimination: EC Legislation
  Racial Discrimination: EC Legislation
  UK-US Extradition
  UK-US Extradition
  Prisoners: Heroin Users
  Prisoners: Heroin Users
  Heroin Prescribing Guidance
  Heroin Prescribing Guidance
  Offenders aged 18 to 20: Reducing Recidivism
  Offenders aged 18 to 20: Reducing Recidivism
  Coroners
  Coroners
  Forensic Science Service: Annual Report and Accounts 2002–03
  Forensic Science Service: Annual Report and Accounts 2002–03
  Iraqi Military Casualties
  Iraqi Military Casualties
  Iraq: Civilian Casualties
  Iraq: Civilian Casualties
  Iraq: UK Personnel Costs of WMD Searches
  Iraq: UK Personnel Costs of WMD Searches
  Army Training and Recruiting Agency
  Army Training and Recruiting Agency
  Armed Services Ammunition: Propellant
  Armed Services Ammunition: Propellant
  Service Personnel: Medical Care
  Service Personnel: Medical Care
  Iraq War: Costs
  Iraq War: Costs
  Iraq: Cluster Bombs
  Iraq: Cluster Bombs
  Iraq: WMD Investigations
  Iraq: WMD Investigations
  Iraq: People Captured by British Forces
  Iraq: People Captured by British Forces
  Gulf War Veterans: Case of Shaun Rusling
  Gulf War Veterans: Case of Shaun Rusling
  Iraq: Withdrawal of British Military Forces
  Iraq: Withdrawal of British Military Forces
  Afghanistan: Provincial Reconstruction Team
  Afghanistan: Provincial Reconstruction Team
  RAF Lakenheath and RAF Mildenhall: Rights of Way
  RAF Lakenheath and RAF Mildenhall: Rights of Way
  Iraq
  Iraq
  Regional Assemblies
  Regional Assemblies
  Rough Sleepers: Westminster Cathedral Piazza
  Rough Sleepers: Westminster Cathedral Piazza
  South Somerset District Council Local Plan
  South Somerset District Council Local Plan
  Child Abuse
  Child Abuse
  A-Level Statistics
  A-Level Statistics
  History Teaching
  History Teaching
  Science Teaching: Fieldwork
  Science Teaching: Fieldwork
  Examination Standards
  Examination Standards
  Universities
  Universities
  Laming Inquiry Report: Implementation of Recommendations
  Laming Inquiry Report: Implementation of Recommendations
  School Admissions Project
  School Admissions Project
  Prescriptions: Electronic Transmission
  Prescriptions: Electronic Transmission
  Maternity Services
  Maternity Services
  NHS Delayed Discharges: Catheter-associated Urinary Tract Infection
  NHS Delayed Discharges: Catheter-associated Urinary Tract Infection
  Hospital Infections
  Hospital Infections
  Devizes: Community Healthcare
  Devizes: Community Healthcare
  Food Supplements
  Food Supplements
  Warrington: Pensioners and NHS Sight Tests
  Warrington: Pensioners and NHS Sight Tests
  Haemophilia Patients: vCJD Blood Donors
  Haemophilia Patients: vCJD Blood Donors
  Sickle Cell Anaemia
  Sickle Cell Anaemia
  NHS Redress Scheme
  NHS Redress Scheme
  Fresh Frozen Plasma
  Fresh Frozen Plasma
  National Care Standards Commission: Annual Report 2002–03
  National Care Standards Commission: Annual Report 2002–03
  Health and Social Care: New Audit and Inspectorate Bodies
  Health and Social Care: New Audit and Inspectorate Bodies
  HSE Prosecution of Metropolitan Police Service
  HSE Prosecution of Metropolitan Police Service
  Benefit Sanctions
  Benefit Sanctions
  Warrington: Pensioners
  Warrington: Pensioners
  Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002
  Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002
  Ethnic Minority Employment Task Force: Appointment of Head of Secretariat
  Ethnic Minority Employment Task Force: Appointment of Head of Secretariat
  Referendums
  Referendums
  ECHR Incorporation: Special Advisers
  ECHR Incorporation: Special Advisers
  Divorce (Religious Marriages) Act 2002
  Divorce (Religious Marriages) Act 2002
  Northern Ireland: Legal Aid
  Northern Ireland: Legal Aid
  Civil Partnerships
  Civil Partnerships
  Post Offices: Urban/Rural Classification
  Post Offices: Urban/Rural Classification
  Microchips
  Microchips
  Post Office Card Accounts
  Post Office Card Accounts
  WEEE Directive: Printer Cartridges
  WEEE Directive: Printer Cartridges
  Wind Turbines: Environmental Assessments
  Wind Turbines: Environmental Assessments
  Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey: Pipeline
  Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey: Pipeline
  Tuberculosis: Wild Animals
  Tuberculosis: Wild Animals
  Genetically Modified Crops: Unauthorised Cultivation
  Genetically Modified Crops: Unauthorised Cultivation
  Cetacean Bycatch
  Cetacean Bycatch
  Local food
  Local food
  Agriculture: Sectors of Interest
  Agriculture: Sectors of Interest
  Dichlorvos
  Dichlorvos
  Cattle Herds with Reactors
  Cattle Herds with Reactors
  Shellfish Sampling: Weymouth Laboratory
  Shellfish Sampling: Weymouth Laboratory
  BSE
  BSE
  Farmland Birds
  Farmland Birds
  Slug Pellets
  Slug Pellets
  Genetically Modified Crops: Public Debate
  Genetically Modified Crops: Public Debate
  Agricultural and Flower Shows: Defra Expenditure
  Agricultural and Flower Shows: Defra Expenditure
  Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Permits
  Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Permits
  Foot and Mouth Disease
  Foot and Mouth Disease
  Armillatox
  Armillatox
  CAP: Single Farm Payment
  CAP: Single Farm Payment
  "Pyramid" Schemes
  "Pyramid" Schemes
  Climate Change Levy: Heat Treatment Sector
  Climate Change Levy: Heat Treatment Sector
  Football Transfer Deals
  Football Transfer Deals
  Tobacco Products: Duty
  Tobacco Products: Duty
  World War Debts to US
  World War Debts to US